January 19, 2012

How it works

From the Washington Post, a news story (i.e., not an opinion piece) by reporter Peter Wallsten:
Obama-linked group accused of anti-Semitism 
The Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank closely aligned with the White House, is embroiled in a dispute with several major Jewish organizations over statements on Israel and charges that some center staffers have used anti-Semitic language to attack pro-Israel Americans. 
The controversy reflects growing divisions among important allies of President Obama over Middle East policy that could complicate the president’s reelection outreach to some Jewish voters, just as he is seeking to assure them of his commitment to Israel’s security amid fears of an Iran nuclear threat. 
Among the points of contention are several Twitter posts by one CAP writer on his personal account referring to “Israel-firsters.” Some experts say the phrase has its roots in the anti-Semitic charge that American Jews are more loyal to a foreign country. In another case, a second staffer described a U.S. senator as showing more fealty to the prime U.S. pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, than to his own constituents, replacing a standard identifier of party affiliation and state with “R-AIPAC” on his personal Twitter account. The first writer has since left the staff. 
Critics are also pointing to writings on the CAP Web site, where staffers have suggested the pro-Israel lobby is pushing the U.S. toward war with Iran and likened Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in Gaza to the policies of the segregated American South. 
Those statements, among others, have gained notice largely because of CAP’s influential role in Obama’s Washington. Founded and chaired by John Podesta, a onetime chief of staff in the Clinton White House, the center is an idea generator for the administration and a source for many of its top officials.

So, CAP is a totally mainstream group run by veteran Democratic insiders. Here's Glenn Greenwald of Salon [link fixed] on how the tarring and feathering is organized. 

Being Democratic Establishment Central, CAP will survive, no doubt, but the "chilling effect" of being accused of anti-Semitism in the news columns of the Washington Post will remain as a reminder. If you are a Democratic underling, don't even think amusing thoughts about Republican senators who have sold out to AIPAC. In a moment of weakness, you might put them on Twitter. You can't be too careful.

At present, the Israel Lobby is likely to run into more resistance to this kind of smear than at other times. Right now, Israel has a right of center government that Republicans tend to feel more affectionate toward, whereas most American Jews are Democrats. This kind of disalignment tends to generate some healthy debate among Jews.  

Years ago, I proposed that the Israel Lobby should be treated like the anti-Castro Lobby: as a big, powerful interest group that normally gets much of its way on the foreign policy questions it's interested in precisely because it's a big, powerful lobby. That's politics, and both the anti-Castro Lobby and the Israel Lobby play politics well.

In the abstract, I'd probably want the U.S. to explore a deal with the Cuban government to lift sanctions in return for major Cuban concessions (Cuba is so needlessly poor after 50 years of Communism that there's a big win-win deal possible to de-Communize Cuba that would make a lot of money for Americans and for Cubans: here are some details of how to get the ball rolling to a de-Communized Cuba), but I recognize the power of the Cuba Libre lobby and I understand their motivations, so it's not a big deal for me. I'm likely more sympathetic to Israel in its dispute with the Palestinians than I am to the Cuba Libre lobby and I understand the Israel Lobby's power, so I don't care much at all about Israel pushing the Palestinians around.

What I do care about is the liberty and quality of debate in the U.S.

The difference between the Israel and the Cuba lobby is that the Cuba Libre Lobby is happy when you mention out loud how powerful they are, because that makes them seem even more powerful. 

In contrast, the Israel Lobby, although it boasts itself about its own power (just check out the annual AIPAC conference in D.C.) tries to destroy people who mention its power, or who might even someday get around to mentioning it, as long as the Israel Lobby isn't comfortable with them. "Pay no attention to that lobby behind the curtain!" The latter has a severely chilling effect on thought in the more careerist parts of America.

If we think of the Free Cuba lobby as a normal lobby, like the NRA or the NEA or the Armenians or the Turks or Big Pharma or whatever, lobbies that are often successful but are subject to the give and take of debate, then the goal should be for the Israel Lobby to be a normal lobby that wants everybody to talk about how powerful it is, instead of this force that tries, with some success, to control who can mention its very existence.

120 comments:

Likudnik said...

so what's your solution Mr. Sailer? you never say anything on the Israeli-Palestinian issue besides throwing a bone to HBDers who view Jews as the source of all evil and a Ronulan generic non-interventionist sentiment.

so there's a powerful Israeli lobby. shocker. how does this have any bearing on the rationality of Hamas/Palestinian willingness to go along with a settlement.

Anonymous said...

Again, if only Jews would die quietly so Steve Sailer didn't have his assumptions challenged constantly.

Rude, is what it is.

Anonymous said...

I don't think the anti-Castro is comparable.

Anonymous said...

Ok, let's make this clear. If you are upset by someone saying that Jews have dual loyalty, manipulate US foreign policy, etc., it automatically makes you a member of the Israeli lobby? And if you protest someone else saying that Catholic American are more loyal to the Pope than to America, I suppose this makes you a member of the Vatican Lobby?

anony-mouse said...

Unfortunately for your theory your timing is off. John Mearsheimer (who no one heard of 5 years ago) just got a literary b.j. in the latest issue of The Atlantic.

(His current bugaboo, stop me if you're overwhelmed by the originality, is China. Apparently that country, which is following unstoppable 1970's Japan into the geriatric ward is a big threat to the US.)

And his co-author, Stephen Walt has suffered the ignominy of getting his own blog at Foreign Policy.

Chuck Rudd said...

good point about the pro-Israel lobby feigning weakness in order to further their agenda. it was the same with the Zionist movement, the sympathy coming out of the Holocaust, and their comedy routines (Jerry Seinfeld, Woody Allen, Richard Lewis, etc.). "we are so powerless and weak and fey, but we have a disproportionate amount of resources and political and cultural access."

slightly miffed black woman said...

From the ourside looking in...

It's patently obvious to me that Mr. Greenwald and honest progressives have an army of sock puppets to contend with. Especially watch out for the "black" people that nobody has ever met in person.

The other day Juan Williams directed a question to Ron Paul about the justice system, presumably to "educate" the conservatives because everyone knew Paul's answer. He did this for the same reasons Greenwald highlights Paul's views when they agree with his progressive politics: it's a good political tactic to highlight when someone from the other side agrees with you. Politics 101.

And yet, we have "bloggers" for whom this entirely escapes. And these "blacks" so often have a penchant for mixing hipsterism and the profane with politics, LOL!

Here is just one who does not pass the smell test (NSFW due to upper pic banner):
http://www.angryblacklady.com/the-people-who-are-not-angry-black-lady/

You'll be forgiven if you think these bloggers sound exactly like the people who are in perpetual rage against people like:
The Duggars
Michelle Bachman
Sarah Palin
Rick Santorum
Mel Gibson etc.

Chuck Rudd said...

This is also a response to Democrats' poor showing among Jews in the New York runoff last year. This is a case of Obama trying to shore up the Jewish vote by throwing a few greenhorn CAP bloggers under the bus.

Anonymous said...

So what you're saying is that the Jews (aside for your perfidious birth parents) all work together on behalf of each other.

Good thing none of these CAP staffers who knock "Israel Firsters" are Jewish. That just wouldn't make any sense.

Oh, and the Washington Post that reported on this is wholly goyish too.

And Glenn Greenwald...

Yeah, those Jews are a sneaky bunch!

anony-mouse said...

PS Your link to the Salon story links to the WaPo story.

Anonymous said...

the anti-Semitic charge that American Jews are more loyal to a foreign country.


It is still anti-Semitic if the people in question really are more loyal to Israel than to America? Or does the issue of their loyalty not factor at all into the whole "anti-Semitic" business?

Anonymous said...

The Israel lobby are going to find they have no real allies outside of the Dispensationalists, what a classy bunch of friends to have, btw.


Already, neocons like Jeffrey Lord are willing to write off centrist, Midwestern places like Iowa; after all, nobody's truly conservative unless they are a Down South fire-eater.

It's easy to imagine the degree of internal disgust and squirming felt by these folks as they are increasingly limited to hobnobbing with John Hagee and his ilk.

The internal monologue for a working neocon writer, working a hypothetical Evangelical meet and greet might go something like this... "wake up early tomorrow to work on that piece on Lincoln. Think about a universalizing angle, got to divorce him from his cultural past, look into possible gay angle... Ugh, they are so atrocious, why do they have to eat with their mouths open. Why won't they shut up about their new truck, I can't remember this firearm stuff... he just said matte stainless finish and black laminate... is that his truck or the gun... I need a glass of Shiraz, a Grange Hermitage... d&mn these teetotalers... that cow slurps her diet coke like it was mud... she has to drink diet because of the 'sugar', no surprise there... oh a glass of Shiraz; couldn't talk about that with these people... they'd think a tannin is something their baby girl always needs money for..."




This development in politics is so darkly humorous as to be worthy of a Tom Wolfe novel.

RandyB said...

I suggest that the way it should work, is that all us politically incorrectites just allow the competing diversitarian factions to go on airing out their differences, and end the ridiculous charade that the defining characteristic of America is everyone else against the Gentile white heterosexual male power structure. Nothing is going to break it apart faster than feminist, gays, blacks and Jews confronting pro-Islam.

Gilbert Ratchet said...

"Palestinian willingness to go along with a settlement"

I don't think that Palestinians like settlements, especially those in the West Bank.

Spread Eagle said...

Beyond the "Israel Lobby" per se there is also the fact that most support for Israel in this country comes not so much from American Jews but from American Christians.

Steve Sailer said...

Dear anony-mouse:

Thanks. I'll fix the link.

Steve

We Are All Palestinians. said...

"I'm likely more sympathetic to Israel in its dispute with the Palestinians than I am to the Cuba Libre lobby and I understand the Israel Lobby's power, so I don't care much at all about Israel pushing the Palestinians around."

I don't understand this. Cuban-Americans have been staunchly pro-American, Republican, and anti-communist. They were loyal to America during the Cold War. Meanwhile, communist Cuba tried to export communism all over Latin America. At one time, it was led by both Castro and Che, and they allowed Soviet nukes on the island. Che even wanted to escalate the Missile Crisis into WWIII in the name of 'revolutionary sacrifice'. (He was crazier than Hitler and Mao.) But many American Jewish liberals gave moral support to the Castro government. Jewish controlled PBS and NPR have run one sympathetic portrait of Cuba after another, and this was true even during the Cold War. American Jews were also responsible for using the media, activist groups, and think tanks to undermine America's war efforts in Vietnam.

American Jews have been the most disloyal Americans. Rosenbergs gave Stalin the bomb--they didn't do it alone as there was a vast Jewish network that conspired along. No group in America--not even blacks--produced as many radical leftists as American Jews did. No group did as much to open the gates of American immigration. No group did as much to give support to black power movement against whites. No group controlled as much media power to smear and attack whites(while suppressing stories of black violence against whites). No people did as much to harm whites in South Africa.

Palestinians did NOTHING to the Jews before Jews arrived and took their land. Germans carried out the Holocaust in Europe while Communist Jews in Russia killed millions of Christian Slavs. So, why did Palestinians have to pay for the sins of Jewish communists and Nazi Germans whose evil deeds brought so much tragedy to Europe?

Yet, Sailer is sympathetic to Zionists? What the Jews are doing to white Americans isn't any different than what they did to Palestinians.

My head hurts.

Chief Seattle said...

Let these Israeli first organizations scream anti semitism all they want. Apparently they not only can't remember who their allies are, but haven't even heard of what happened to the boy who cried wolf.

Don't dare mention who killed Jesus, but of course they're still justified in their anger at the Romans for destroying their temple 40 years later. Don't mention Christmas but of course a thousand happy haunekahs for the office Jew. Don't dare join a race based campus club - unless it happens to be a hillel. Part and parcel of the double standard for the chosen people.

Hunsdon said...

I never really got the import of the whole "they killed Jesus" thing. I mean, of course they did, if you read the Bible, or grew up watching Jesus Christ Superstar. But that was kind of the whole point, it seemed to me.

I mean, to me, "killing Jesus" would be a knock against the Jews if I wasn't a Christian. If I just thought Jesus was a great moral philosopher---hell, THE great moral philosopher, I could see getting all het up about it.

But for a Christian, the whole point of Jesus was to die, to die for our sins, to be the pure sacrifice that could redeem all of mankind, to wash us in the blood of the Lamb.

Anonymous said...

"I'm likely more sympathetic to Israel in its dispute with the Palestinians than I am to the Cuba Libre lobby and I understand the Israel Lobby's power, so I don't care much at all about Israel pushing the Palestinians around."

I am trying to decide whether this statement is borderline autistic or sociopathic. Probably both. Nah...Sailer is just an opportunistic nationalist who only cares about what is good for his
country. Since Jews are very powerful, Sailer thinks, I need to win them for my side. The fact that Jews are oppressors who invaded the land of poor Palestianians and butchered them by the tens of thousands doesen't matter. "Hey, the Jews are really powerful in America, so I better get on their side and turn a blind eye on what they do to the Palestianians", thinks Sailer. Sailer is a weak man, a coward and a morally failed one at that. A man puts ethics above his personal well-being and what benefits him personally the most. I would never allign myself with butchers no matter how much I could gain from it personally.

What the Jews do to the Palestinians in the Middle East is the exactly the same things gthe Nazis did to the Jews, and yet Sailer condems the Nazis but celebrates Israel and what they do to the Palestianians, such as putting them in ghettos and treating them like third-class citizens in Israel even though they were living in that land before the Jews and have been born in Israel.

This commend from Sailer was the straw that broke the camel's back. It is so callous and disgusting that I will never read this blog again. I hope some day Sailer wakes up from his autistic/pseudo-sociopathic mindset and realize that those who don't hold American citizenship or aren't powerful Jews who can benefit those with American citizenship are human being too, who can experience pain, humiliation and sorrow just like Americans can.

Whiskey said...

No Steve, the Cuban and Israeli lobby are different in that, Blacks don't like Jews. Which is driving Obama's stupid remarks, along with CAP. Why stir up trouble, when you can make nice words and do what you want? Obama's policies are anti-Israel (and Anti-American), the guy WANTS Iran to nuke Israel out of existence and push the US out of the Gulf, because he's been raised like most Blacks on "Hate America" stuff from infancy.

There's nothing in it for us in recognizing the Castro family dynasty, which is what has made their Cuban estate poor. What, side with a failing, ailing hereditary dynasty as it collapses? For What, really?

Anonymous said...

Neoconservative writer internal monologue from an Evangelical meet and greet continued...


"...right, troll comments section; hope someone mentions Jews killing Jesus... bingo, good, don't have to make it up; people are doing my work for me... just make sure I don't use the same quote the SPL uses... oh, who cares, these people don't read that much... OMG, are they already blowing the shofar... yes, the yokels are already heaving their bulks up to dance and wave their arms... arms shouldn't continue to shake like that... the horror, the horror... a constant swirl of flabby flesh and pastel colored blazers... is that the Duggar woman... it has to be, the glassy eyes are unmistakable...

Whiskey said...

Catholics don't like Jews much, because the Church feeds them "the Jews murdered Jesus" and they don't read the Bible, being a pre-literate Church. Protestant Evangelicals read the Bible, identify with Jews, and think themselves "New Jews" so like them and hold both the old and new covenants eternal.

As far as Palestinians go, Zionism got its start by Frenchmen (the most liberated and least Catholic bound) Europeans charging Dreyfuss with espionage (a trumped up phony charge) to explain their poor showing against the Prussians in 1870. Palestinians reacted by the usual ethnic cleansing/terror Jihads which characterizes Muslim rule over non-Muslims, and outsider sect Muslims. Including various anti-Jewish Jihads in North Africa, Egypt, Turkey, and present-day Iraq.

Palestinians well before WWII were organizing death squads against Jews, the Mufti of Jerusalem was part of the Waffen SS, and raised an entire division of Palestinian Muslims devoted to wiping out Jews for the SS. Hitler and the Muslims were close -- both agreed broadly upon the "Final Solution."

Palestinians could have had a state at any time, Clinton most recently leaned on Israel to give them 98% of territorial demands, and Arafat launched the Second Intifada. Palestinian society is incapable of agreeing to peace because they are entirely oriented for War. What will all the gunmen do? What will Palestinians DO?

No group of people has been a more miserable failure than Palestinians, in achieving anything significant. Even the North Koreans did "something" if nothing positive, at least nukes can be pointed to with pride under the Kim family inept dynasty. Israelis have produced world class research and companies in software, bio-medical, and avionics. With barely 5 million people. While being rocketed and under constant threat of annihilation. Palestinians have squalid refugee camps, gunmen, and brutal internecine feuds.

t said...

I am more surprised that the Atlantic can hold both Jeffrey Goldberg and (recently) Robert Wright. Wright hasn't been talking about dual loyalties but has done almost nothing but oppose current US policies on Israel and Iran and Israeli policies tothe US.

http://www.theatlantic.com/robert-wright/

Hunsdon said...

About the "dual loyalty" thing. Sure, it's an old trope, but as Steve has written in other contexts, "I don't care if it's racist, I want to know if it's true."

For me, to assume that Jews, or Jewish Americans, or Americans who happen to be Jewish, don't feel a very strong attachment to Israel is tantamount to an insult. Whether Jews are a race, a nation, or a religion---or a bit of all three---it would boggle my mind to think that they don't feel a very strong attachment to their "all things old are new again" homeland.

Let's take me, for instance. I am your basic East Texas mixed-Celtic mutt. (To adapt an old saying, there's probably a Sassenach in the woodpile somewhere.) I care more about England, Scotland, and Ireland than I do about France and Germany, because . . . my forefathers came from England and Scotland and Ireland.

To carry the issue further, would it be anti-Semitic to point out that Mark Helprin and Jeffrey Goldberg served in the Israeli Defense Forces? Is that (ahem) beyond the pale?

Whiskey said...

One final add -- the difference between Palestinian and Israeli society is that the former has no there there. In other words, no nuclear family (as we understand it), no civil society, no basic structure of social organization to provide any stability. OF COURSE Palestinian (and Egyptian and Lebanese and Saudi and Iraqi and Turkish and Iranian) society resembles a group of scorpions in a bottle, all shook together and fighting. They don't have the fundamental accomodations towards modernity that Jews, Japanese, and Koreans have -- a nuclear family, some sort of civil society, the social norms of not taking an AK-47 and shooting your neighbor because his goat ate your figs. Or he did not pay you off.

Cooperation for anything becomes impossible. Again it is a tribal society, optimized soley for tribal warfare (and VERY good at that), and useless for anything else. I mean anything.

Are those people you'd bet on? Really?

DCThrowback said...

"Catholics don't like Jews much..."

Oh, I am sure this statement is quantifiable/provable. Ye gods man, do you get the shovel out before you start typing this stuff or while you're actually doing it?

Likudnik said...

"I don't think that Palestinians like settlements, especially those in the West Bank."

omg you paleocons are so good at zings! they're like your way of avoiding the fact that your Israeli "policy" consists solely of generic anti-neocon disgruntlement.

Hunsdon said...

Whiskey said: Obama's policies are anti-Israel (and Anti-American), the guy WANTS Iran to nuke Israel out of existence and push the US out of the Gulf, . . . .

Hunsdon replied: Whiskey, this is the single dumbest thing I have ever heard you say. It may be the single dumbest thing I have ever heard, read, heard of or read of. You have no evidence, and you have no persuasive line of reasoning to serve in lieu of evidence.

You have made a statement of staggering stupidity, even by your own standards.

Likudnik said...

paleocons/HBDers talk a good game about race mattering, about America needing to preserve its national and cultural identity, but suddenly when it comes to Israel they turn into leftists rambling about Islamophobia. don't call 'em anti-Semitic though. even the ones who think all Jews are genetically predetermined to attack Western society. not comparable to Nazi anti-Semitic racial Darwinism at all, no sir.

Anonymous said...

because he's been raised like most Blacks on "Hate America" stuff from infancy.

Wasn't he, quite unlike most blacks, raised by whites in exotic locales like Hawaii and Indonesia?

RKU said...

Well, as further indicated by some of the items in this comment-thread, there's never a dull moment in our lives when an enormous fraction of our political and media power is held by "excitable" people, with "excitable" often being an obvious euphemism for "psychotic."

By contrast, life in China these days is quite stable and everyone is growing richer at about 10% per year, while ordinary Americans are becoming totally impoverished. But back a few decades ago, China was similarly run by "excitable" people, a situation which caused them much misfortune at the time, so I suppose it's only fair for it to be our turn now...

jewamongyou said...

"the anti-Semitic charge that American Jews are more loyal to a foreign country".

Can't it be an accurate charge even if it comes from anti-semites? I don't see the point of defining the charge as "anti-semitic" unless the intent is to discredit it through an ad hominem attack.

Anonymous said...

Whiskey with the debate-ender- Palestinian barbarism, Catholic anti-Semitism, and Israeli tech innovations prove we need to support Israel blindly.

As if we needed any other reason than making sure we all score the much coveted Rapture tickets.

When confronted with Whiskey's arguments, I have to ask, why do we limit our donations to 3 bill? Can't we sell some stuff and raise some more cash? I hear the Greeks are renting out the acropolis for parties, are we really using all those buildings in DC, can't we start having government meet in old FEMA trailers?

Anonymous said...

"This development in politics is so darkly humorous as to be worthy of a Tom Wolfe novel."

Agreed.

Defeated said...

Steve,
Oops, I think you just committed the one act that is hard to justify by evolution, martyrdom. What are you thinking?!

I think I can help salvage your career.
1. You can keep your first name. Never spell it with a "ph".
2. Change your last to Sailerwitz.
3. Move to Tel Aviv, where addressing such issues might not lead to such unfathomable retribution.

I expect that you will never be seen on MSM and I bet that you will never again be referenced in the NYT.

It's worse than a crime, it's a mistake.

I hope I get a chance to read this post, before your blog is hacked to pieces.

Noah172 said...

Zionist Jews, on the left, center, and right, get their agenda advanced, no matter who wins an election, by having a stake in both parties. This story in Steve's post, as well as the push by some neocons to banish Ron Paul from the GOP, are part and parcel of a long-running effort to smother dissent before it has the chance to spread. Jews are crafty, as everyone knowns, and they know how to play politics well; this is in sharp contrast to blacks, on the one hand, and white evangelicals, on the other, who are the most loyal sheep for their respective parties, and get thus get played for fools time and time again.

The Israel Lobby is not merely powerful. It is fanatical to a degree no other faction is. The Cuba Lobby distorts our foreign policy, no question about it, but not even the most rabid Cubano exile is screaming for a military invasion of Cuba in order to depose Castro. There is (or at least was) an Irish lobby, but not even the most hot-headed Paddy nationalist calls his Congressman demanding a military intervention in Ulster to liberate the former's Catholic brethren from limey oppression. The Armenian lobby, AFAICT, wants mainly a non-binding resolution condemning Turkey for the Armenian Genocide -- not, e.g., US troops in Nagorno-Karabakh to protect Armenians from the Azeri hordes.

Israel's minions aren't satisfied with symbolic gestures, trade embargoes, or even piles of money and arsenals of sophisticated weaponry. They are out for blood -- ours.

NOTA said...

The interesting information here isn't about the Jews or even about AIPAC. It's about how opinions are shaped, how media coverage is controlled in a world where nobody can formally shut down your newspaper or arrest you for saying the wrong things. It's easy enough to observe that media coverage is controlled to some extent. Some ideas and facts are almost never mentioned, others are repeated constantly even when nobody really believes them anymore. This, and the previous story where a computer security company was offering to try to silence Greenwald and other pro-Wikileaks bloggers by threatening to wreck his career, smearing him, etc., are opportunities for us to learn something about how a usually-hidden part of the world works.

Turning it into yet another rant abut the evils of the Jews (or the evils of anti-Semitism) is missing both the point and the opportunity.

It would be truly remarkable if only AIPAC and Bank of America had ever thought to do these things, wouldn't it? Presumably, there are dozens or hundreds of such campaigns of silencing and smearing and intimidation run for every one where the lid is ripped off and we see the gears. And presumably for every actual campaign, there are ten or twenty journailsts, academics, bloggers, think tank employees, politicians, etc., intimidated into changing what they say just a bit, softening some of their points, etc.

Defeated said...

"Unfortunately for your theory your timing is off. John Mearsheimer (who no one heard of 5 years ago) just got a literary b.j. in the latest issue of The Atlantic"

Sure, that's the way things always turn out, and some people survive rabies.

Being labeled an anti-Semite is good for the ego; when you think you are too insignificant to be noticed, a lot of people start hanging on your every word.

Anonymous said...

"Nah...Sailer is just an opportunistic nationalist who only cares about what is good for his
country. Since Jews are very powerful, Sailer thinks, I need to win them for my side. The fact that Jews are oppressors who invaded the land of poor Palestianians and butchered them by the tens of thousands doesen't matter. 'Hey, the Jews are really powerful in America, so I better get on their side and turn a blind eye on what they do to the Palestianians', thinks Sailer. Sailer is a weak man, a coward and a morally failed one at that."

I don't like what Sailer wrote either, but I read it differently, and there are many ways to interpret the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. One can see Israel as the outpost for Western civilization; some on the right defended Afrikaner rule in South Africa for the same reason. While one could argue that Zionists acted like Nazis, one could also say what Jews did to the Palestinians was no worse than what Anglos did in Australia, what whites did in America(taking land from Indians), what Turks did(and still do)with Kurds, what Chinese do with Uighurs and Tibetans, what Russians do in Chechnya, etc. (The Israeli-Palestinian conflict sticks out because much of the Third World sees Zionists as European invaders, because it's more newsworthy to stick to a powerful nation than a weak one, and because Jews act so high and mighty about morality, which rightfully opens them to accusations of hypocrisy. It kills me how the New Republic bashes China over Tibet but then defends Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories.)
I think the Zionist-Nazi comparison is too extreme. Jews don't see Palestinians as subhumans who should be killed. Jewish violence is more about security, survival, and political dominance than racial supremacism.
Also, the creation of Israel was, in a way, a great victory of the Christian West over the Muslim world. Islam came AFTER Judaism and Christianity, and one could argue that the holy land was stolen from rightful owners, which is why there were so many Crusades. The creation of Israel was kind of a Crusade. And though what's done is done, Jews do have a cultural and historical claim on the Holy Land(in a way that other European imperialists did not in Africa, Asia, Middle East, etc). It is from Judaism that Christianity and Islam sprang, so there is a certain historical justice to the Holy Land being a Jewish state. (This isn't to minimize the tragedy of the Palestinians.) And given the hellfire of WWII and the Holocaust--and given that Americans and Europeans at the time would rather Jews settle in a Jewish state than emigrate to US or remain in Europe, the creation of Israel cannot be blamed solely on Jews. Even the USSR initially gave full support to it, even funneling Soviet rifles via Czechoslovakia.

Anonymous said...

There is no doubt that Palestinians got a raw deal, but Arabs who remained in Israel have, for the most part, been treated better than most Arabs under Arab regimes. I don't think Palestinians in Israel ever wanted to go settle in Hussein's Iraq or Gaddafi's Libya.

I think Jared Taylor's support of Israel tends to be opportunistic, but Sailer's could be along the line of mainstream Americanism. Most Americans, liberal or conservative, believe in the 'right of Israel to exist'. Also, despite all the headache Jews caused to white folks, there has long been a closer and richer cultural relation between Christians and Jews than between Christians and Muslims. Jewish contribution to the West in arts, sciences, medicine, philosophy, literature, culture, cinema, etc is immeasurable. So, there's bound to be greater identification between whites and Jews than between whites and Palestinians/Muslims/Arabs.
Even in the HBD community, there are more Jews than Muslims involved with ideas and the movement.

It's also true that much of white right sympathy for Palestinians is no less cynical than support for Israel from certain quarters of the American Right. Though I do feel for Palestinians, I don't lose sleep over their plight. I just wanna support them to stick it to Jews just because Jews stick it to us. In all honesty, if American Jews were on our side, I could look the other way on the Israel-Palestinian issue. But even that wouldn't purely be cynicism. However one may read the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the fact remains that what Jews accomplished there is stunning and puts all Arabs to shame. Even people who aren't too keen about Jews would have to admit, if they were honest, the rise of modern Israel was a great feat, especially for a people who made it out of the hellfire of WWII.
I'm so pissed with Jews today that I side with Palestinians(not that it makes any difference since I got no power), but I can understand why some people have a certain admiration and respect for the Jews. They are a great people, and I can't help, on some level, loving them as well as hating them.

Chief Seattle said...

Likudnik, maybe our Israeli policy should consist of boycott, public demonstrations, and media outrage. It worked with South Africa, now they've traded a racist regime for a free and prosperous democracy.

Anonymous said...

The real story here is that a mainstream political organization, which is very close to the White House -- a source of their policy ideas and top officials -- is quite hostile to Israel. Somehow, the mighty Israeli lobby did not prevent this.

And what chilling effect are you talking about? I don't see anyone whose career suffered over this. In fact, within the liberal establishment saying nasty things about Israel advances your career; especially if you are Jewish yourself.

TGGP said...

The dispute between Israelis & Palestinians may be boring, but one between Josh Block & some CAP staffers is even more boring.

Just cause it's fun to mock Whiskey, did he read Mangan's post on Israel and "national suicide"? There certainly are liberals/leftists over there, but they don't seem to win as often. To take a Hansonian angle, perhaps because the issue is "near" rather than "far".

TGGP said...

Mearsheimer was a pretty big name in I.R before he wrote "the Israel lobby". He had written 10 op-eds in the NYT before his last one in 2003 against war in Iraq. No more after that.

TomV said...

Jewamongyou: Still a rare exception that proves the rule. A backhanded compliment, sadly.

Anony-mouse: That Walt and Mearsheimer survive the onslaught doesn't gainsay the "theory" that the Lobby doesn't like their book and tries to silence them. Or are you trying to argue that the Lobby is not as powerful as Steve suggests?

Member(s) of the Lobby-Defense League: Do you guys even try to be persuasive? Like leftists talking about The Bell Curve, your hysterical reactions alone raise red flags in anyone with half a critical mind (and in this case prove the point about the intolerance of the Lobby and its sympathizers). I would almost suspect false-flag sock-puppetry if the passion weren't so real.

Likudnik said...

i said: "paleocons/HBDers talk a good game about race mattering, about America needing to preserve its national and cultural identity, but suddenly when it comes to Israel they turn into leftists rambling about Islamophobia."

Chief Seattle: "It worked with South Africa, now they've traded a racist regime for a free and prosperous democracy."

i'm a prophet

eh said...

There seems to be an anti-semite behind every tree. So for those keeping track -- e.g. most of the media, which is heavily influenced, if not controlled by, Jews -- it might be easier to begin letting us know who isn't an anti-semite. We'll take it from there.

Likudnik said...

well when the HBDsphere sees theories continually popping up (and treated seriously) about Jews being genetically predetermined to undermine Western society for their own interest, that might, weirdly enough, strike some as anti-Semitic. if the idea's true than wouldn't the solution be to, i don't know, "get rid of" the Jews somehow?

really though, i don't so much care about who and who doesn't fit whatever definition of anti-Semitism, so much as just pointing out the obvious that the paleocon animosity toward Israel isn't driven by any alternative plan, but neverending grudges directed against neoconservatives, and "enemy of my enemy" nihilism.

Steve Sailer said...

Likudnik says:

"so what's your solution Mr. Sailer? you never say anything on the Israeli-Palestinian issue"

Like I said: let the Israelis push the Palestinians around, just like the Miami Cubans get their way on Cuba. What I care about most is what goes on in my country, especially the liberty and quality of public debate.

Anonymous said...

For Whisky

France who always gets bashed for anti-semitism for not supporting the Iraq War had FIVE jewish Prime-Ministers: Leon Blum, Rene Mayer, Pierre Mendes-France, Michel Debre and Laurent Fabius, Strauss-Kahn would be the next President of France if as not for the NYC fiasco. Most Them Socialist pro Third-World Immigration.

1968 social Revolution as instigated by jews both in Europe (Daniel Cohn-Bendit) and in the USA.

sabril said...

"Palestinians did NOTHING to the Jews before Jews arrived and took their land."

(1) Jews have been continuously living in the area since long before there were any Arabs.

(2) The Arabs living there mistreated Jews long before the State of Israel was founded, for example the Hebron massacre of 1930.

(3) There was no group of Arabs known as "Palestinians" before 1948; that term was invented for political purposes, i.e. to undermine Israel.

(4) What is now Israel, was under British Control before 1948. Before that it was under Turkish control.

(5) The area has been conquered by many different groups over the last few thousand years.

Let me ask you this: If the Arabs conquer and settle an area, does it become Arab land forever?

Conatus said...

The point is Free speech, yeah we now can say anything we want now as long as we do not mind being fired or never ever promoted. Back in 1820 when 80% of us were yeoman farmers living subsistence lives and saying anything we damned well pleased that was fine with no consequences. We all worked for our selves. Now 90% of us work for someone else, and they have a Human Resources Department and so we cannot commit careerist hari-kari on the sword of their prickly perceptions of anti-semitism.


Is Free Speech Really a Jewish Tradition? is the title of Paul Gottfried's dissecting piece over at V-dare.

http://www.vdare.com/articles/a-jewish-conservative-wonders-is-free-speech-really-a-jewish-tradition

The central issue which multiplies all the Jewish criticism is 'why can't we talk about our New Elite now'(see How the Intellectuals took Over by Gerlernter) without committing careerist hari-kari?
If Free Speech was good for Mario Savio in 1965 at Berkeley, which criticized and analyzed the then dying Wasp elite and culture, why can't we talk about our New Elite now? Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, or is that whats good for the Goy is good for the Joos?

RKU said...

Well, as I've said before, the psychological factors behind the extermination of twenty or thirty million Slavic Christians and the destruction of all of Russia's churches grow less and less mysterious every day...

Anonymous said...

William Kristol was on C-SPAN recently trying to run Ron Paul out of the GOP. He claimed Paul supporters were just like Buchanan supporters and the eventual nominee who obviously won't be Paul shouldn't pander to him. Just put together those lapses in reason shall we? Paul supporters are just like Buchanan supporters in 1992. Really? because I know quite a few Democrats and independents and none of them even considered Pat Buchanan a serious contender for the Presidency and none of them would have consider voting for him even if they did. Paul by contrast gets Democrats and independent voters in droves, clearly a problem. Even if Romney pandered to Paul at the convention so what? It's not as if Romney would actually do any of those radical changes if he won anyway. Pat Buchanan is the reason Bush Sr. lost to Clinton? No, not really, he lost because a recession had begun that was still hurting people in November of 1992 when the election was held. No one but NYT readers think Pat Buchanan had anything to do with Bush Sr. losing anymore than Jesse Jackson had anything to do with Mondale and Dukakis losing in 1984 and 1988. He even claimed to want to debate Ron Paul, I'll bet he does!

NOTA said...

There are many conflicts around the world I hope are resolved in some humane, workable way: Israel vs Palistine, Turkey vs Kurds/Iraqi Kurdistan, China vs Tibet, China vs Taiwan, etc. But all those conflicts are taking place in or between foreign countries, so it seems like they're not really mine or America's to resolve. I dont want to finance a blockade in Gaza or an apartheid state, but then, I don't really want to finance a peaceful Palestine and Israel living side by side in harmony, either--I want the US out of the buisness of sending money to any foreign countries except in really exceptional circumstances.

In general, Americans are shockingly ignorant of the rest of the world. There is no reason to think we're going to go off and solve problems in foreign countries most voters couldn't find on a map or tell you the first thing about. More likely, voters will be easily bullshitted about stuff in those countries by politicians who know just a little more than they do, and we'll end up doing more harm than good.

bjdubbs said...

It's all very stimulating, the counterattacks and counter-counterattacks, deviations and splits and excommunications. Who can keep all the players straight? And do you think they have a beer after work and say "see you in the salt mines tomorrow?"

We Are All Confused said...

"Like I said: let the Israelis push the Palestinians around, just like the Miami Cubans get their way on Cuba."

The problem is not Israelis pushing Palestinians around. It's Zionists in Israel and in America pushing us around and messing up American foreign policy and interests in the whole region(and even around the world). We were pushed into war with Iraq by Zionists and now maybe one with Iran. Of course, Jews also push us around on issues of gay agenda, illegal immigration, anti-white affirmative action, MLK worship, etc.
So, there is a connection between Jews pushing Palestinians around and them pushing us around. It's not enough for Jews in Israel to push Palestinians around but to push us around to support their pushing Palestinians around(and even their pushing other Arabs around).
Also, there is pushing around and there is pushing around. Though I accept Israel as a done deal that has the 'right to exist', it's time something was done for Palestinians in the West Bank. If Jews wanna take some more land, do so, but let the Palestinians have a nation of their own. I mean it can't go on forever.

Mr. Anon said...

"Likudnik said...

really though, i don't so much care about who and who doesn't fit whatever definition of anti-Semitism, so much as just pointing out the obvious that the paleocon animosity toward Israel isn't driven by any alternative plan, but neverending grudges directed against neoconservatives, and "enemy of my enemy" nihilism."

A lot of paleocons resent Israel because that nation and it's supporters have a highly distorting influence on this nation's politics. You complain that we don't have an "Israel policy". Why do we have to have one? At least anymore so than we should have a "Portugal policy". It is this very presumption - that Israel is so all important that we have to drop whatever it is that we care about in order to worry and fret about some other country, not our own - that we reject.

Israel is a foreign country. It is not my country. I don't particularly care about it. And I am repulsed by the spectacle of my elected officials obsequiously bowing and scraping to that other country an it's agents.

And I will accept the notion that the Israel lobby is comparable to the Cuban lobby when, and only when, EVERY single major candidate for President feels compelled to speak at the ACPAC annual convention. When every Republican candidate (save one notable exception) feels absolutely compelled to attend a debate sponsored by the Republican Cuban Coalition.

Anonymous said...

The problem with the accusation of 'antisemitism' in this case it assumes that anyone opposed to or is critical of the Jewish agenda/nation is a Jew-hater.
While one could oppose the Jewish agenda/nation for antisemitic reasons, it doesn't follow that every criticism of Jewish agenda/nation is motivated by hatred of Jews. This group, good or bad, seems to be motivated by 'social justice'. It doesn't criticize Israel because it hates Israel per se but because it doesn't like what Israel is DOING.

The meaning of 'antisemitism' has been much abused. Intent is crucial as to someone or something is antisemitic or not. If any criticism of Israel or Jews is 'antisemitic', then any criticism of the Catholic Church--such as child molestation scandal--is anti-Catholic.

I don't even think this organization is anti-Zionist as it seems to believe in the right of Israel to exist. What it opposes is Israel's policies in the Occupied Territories which is making both Israel and its ally US look really bad.

Mr. Anon said...

"Whiskey said...

Catholics don't like Jews much, because the Church feeds them "the Jews murdered Jesus" and they don't read the Bible, being a pre-literate Church. Protestant Evangelicals read the Bible, identify with Jews, and think themselves "New Jews" so like them and hold both the old and new covenants eternal."

Yeah, right, Whiskey. Your analysis is very up-to-date, for the year 1600 or so. Do you even know any catholics? And sure, protestants like jews more than do catholics - that's why Germany, which is half lutheran, tried to kill all of them, whereas France, Poland, and Czechoslovakia, all catholic, did not.

As to the rest of your post: Why is it, Mr. Scots-Irish Hillbilly, that you can casually churn out five paragraphs on Palestine? I don't think you've ever written so much as a single sentence on - for example - Scottish home-rule, or states rights.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

Again, if only Jews would die quietly so Steve Sailer didn't have his assumptions challenged constantly."

Yeah, and if only us goyim would shut up and not make a fuss when some jews attempt to play us like a bass-fiddle, things would be so much better..............for you.

Dare to question jewish influence, and you are - self-evidently - a nazi. People like you have created far more anti-semites than David Duke ever has.

David said...

The case for Israel is illegitimate, and must be shored up with a lot of sneaky deals - this is the source of their touchiness. The Cuban Lobby case, by contrast, is pretty straightforwardly fine (whether you agree or disagree). These are not just my views: they are the apparent views of the respective lobbyists themselves.

David said...

>how does this have any bearing on the rationality of Hamas/Palestinian willingness to go along with a settlement.<

Who cares? This is America. You are buried in that Israel stuff... might you be called an Israel-Firster, rationally speaking, that is?

Anonymous said...

Like I said: let the Israelis push the Palestinians around.

This makes you more pro-Israel than the US government. US government doesn't let Israelis push the Palestinians around.

Mr. Sailer, are you sure you are not a member of the Israeli lobby?

David said...

> "Catholics don't like Jews much..."

> Oh, I am sure this statement is quantifiable/provable. Ye gods man, do you get the shovel out before you start typing this stuff or while you're actually doing it? <

He has it in reverse. It's Jews who don't like Catholics, or at least dislike that minor figure, the Pope, and that minor aspect, all of Church history.

Anonymous said...

"Again, if only Jews would die quietly so Steve Sailer didn't have his assumptions challenged constantly."

Inbreeding eventually leads to a moral balance where a stubbed toe on one side equals 1000 dead on the other.

Anonymous said...

"so there's a powerful Israeli lobby. shocker."

The important bit isn't the existence - i don't think there's anything wrong with an Israel lobby - it's the assault on anyone who mentions it exists.

.
"And if you protest someone else saying that Catholic American are more loyal to the Pope than to America, I suppose this makes you a member of the Vatican Lobby?"

Say it. Who cares. People can judge for themselves how true it is.

.
"Unfortunately for your theory your timing is off. John Mearsheimer"

Journalists don't have tenure.

.
"if the idea's true than wouldn't the solution be to, i don't know, "get rid of" the Jews somehow?"

Perhaps they could intermarry with African-Americans for multiple generations until they cease to exist as a unique people? Or would that count as promoting genocide?

Anonymous said...

Steve says:

"Like I said: let the Israelis push the Palestinians around, just like the Miami Cubans get their way on Cuba. What I care about most is what goes on in my country, especially the liberty and quality of public debate."

But what about when Israel and its friends here lobby for the US to go to war against Israel's enemies? Do we have to let Israel have it's way then too?

Anonymous said...

"Like I said: let the Israelis push the Palestinians around, just like the Miami Cubans get their way on Cuba. What I care about most is what goes on in my country, especially the liberty and quality of public debate."

And the weak, morally cowardly man says it again!

Yes, you don't care because the Jews are doing it the Palestinians. If they were doing it to your wife and kids, you would care.

Bottom line: you are weak, callous, cowardly and selfish. Truly someone vile. I truly hope that all your efforts fail, Sailer, and that that some illegal alien from Mexico do to your wife and kids what the Jews do to the Palestinians.

Anonymous said...

This is a case of Obama trying to shore up the Jewish vote by throwing a few greenhorn CAP bloggers under the bus.

"The Jewish vote" has got to be one of my favorite euphemisms.

So what you're saying is that the Jews (aside for your perfidious birth parents) all work together on behalf of each other.

Good thing none of these CAP staffers who knock "Israel Firsters" are Jewish. That just wouldn't make any sense.


So what you're saying is that relatives never work on one another's behalf, because relatives have been known to compete. Gotcha.

I guess I've finally gotten to the point where I can skip past Rotgut's posts without any pang of regret. They're always so full of the same stupid lies.

Or maybe I'm just not in the mood.

Svigor

Victor said...

Sailer sez: "I don't care much at all about Israel pushing the Palestinians around."

Neither do I. I do, however, care about Israel pushing America around.

Likudnik said...

someone asked why we should have an Israeli policy anymore than a Portugal policy. the difference is obvious -- Portugal isn't constantly under attack. i don't think Israel has to worry about being destroyed right now but neither does that mean they should just brush off continual attacks, minor or major, as "nuisances."

i'd think the U.S. would identify with the Israel at least somewhat, as it's essentially comparable to a strong Western nation surrounded by nations that, well, aren't. this doesn't mean uncritical support, but obviously we'd prefer it to continue as opposed to transforming into yet another middling Arab state. all paleocons have to offer as to why we should give the finger to Israel is reductionism regarding why Islamic terrorists don't like us, another case of them turning from The Last True Conservatives into the Sensitive PC Left whenever The Jews (tm) are somehow related.

Simon in London said...

"If we think of the Free Cuba lobby as a normal lobby, like the NRA or the NEA or the Armenians or the Turks or Big Pharma or whatever, lobbies that are often successful but are subject to the give and take of debate, then the goal should be for the Israel Lobby to be a normal lobby that wants everybody to talk about how powerful it is, instead of this force that tries, with some success, to control who can mention its very existence."

But this would require greatly reducing its power.

rob said...

So Likudnik, on the off chance that you're American, which is not very likely. There is no American Likud party in which you could be a 'nik'. An American identifying himself as a member of a more or less ethnonationalist political party in a foreign country would indicate self-identification with that country. Even some sort of loyalty. If a Palestinian-American identified himself as a Fatah supporter, one might think he supported Fatah, and then wonder if he ever felt torn between his loyalties to the US and and his co-ethnics abroad.

Let's play a little pretend. What if Whiskey were right? I lied, it's a hella lot of pretend. Whiskey's crazy, so the hypothetical is cray-zay too: Obama wants his Iranian puppet state to smash Israel, making the world safe for his fellow Muslims in 'Palestine'.

Whiskey thinks it makes sense, the US electorate is largely anti-Semitic. White women, who HATE^3 beta white guys must particularly hate Jewish guys: the whitest of white guys in Whiskey's crazybrain. Add all those evil WHITE WOMEN to blacks and Catholics, who are top-tier Jew Hatahs, Whiskey tells us, and Obama has a mandate to smash Israel. He doesn't need Iran to go in: the US military, it's his to deploy. Unlike Iran NUKING Israel, a conventional war doesn't entail automatically massacring the Palestinians as collateral damage. An evil genius like Obama wouldn't go full monty right away: we'd wage conventional war first.

Would you feel such strong American patriotism that you'd sign up and fight against Israel? I'll grant that in peacetime opposition to Obamhitler would be fine and dandy, totes 100% American. This ain't a peacetime scenario, and the war has started. Would you lend your considerable talents to your country's war effort? Might you support Israel like most other Likudniks?

Backing out from Whiskeyland, what is your solution to the displacement and dilution of white American gentiles by an endless flood of non-white illegal and legal aliens? What is Israel, our staunchest ally, the only nation whose national interests are identical to our own, doing to ensure that America stays American? You don't want Israel's founding population outnumbered by Arabs living there, and you wouldn't be much happier if a few million assorted Africans, Central Americans, and whatnots moved to your nation of immigrants. ertainly don't want Arabs to be the majority of "Israeli" citizens. Can we have some reciprocity cha?

Simon in London said...

I know an American who took British citizenship. I was there when she swore an oath of loyalty to the Queen. Yet I strongly suspect she is more loyal to America than to Britain.

Am I anti-American?

Otis McWrong said...

@ anonymous 1/19 @ 645pm: "Sailer is a weak man, a coward and a morally failed one at that."

Coward is a strong word coming from somebody posting as "anonymous". Yet another internet tough guy...

@ Sabril: "Let me ask you this: If the Arabs conquer and settle an area, does it become Arab land forever?"

In their minds, yes. Once a mosque has been built someplace, that place is forever Dar es Islam. OBL referred to the "tragedy of Andalusia" from which moslems were expelled in 1492. This is one reason its probably not a great idea to let them move here and well, set up their mosques.

@ anonymous 1/20 10:48am "you are weak, callous, cowardly and selfish"

I'm assuming you're the same internet tough guy as above, but I'm not sure because YOU KEEP POSTING AS ANONYMOUS. Your "coward" accusations would carry more weight if, oh I don't know, you didn't cowardly hide behind an anonymous tag.

Bourbon said...

Sailer: I don't care much at all about Israel pushing the Palestinians around.

Crazy People: So you want Jews to die, right?

Sailer: No, I said let the Israelis push the Palestinians around.

Crazy People: You really want the Jews to die, don't you Steve?

Sailer: No, seriously, I don't care what you do to the Arabs. I'm fine with anything, really, just go to town on them.

Anonymous Crazies: Your insatiable lust for the death of Jews simply has no limits, Steve.

Whiskey: Catholics are to blame for this because they are illiterate and hate, hate, hate, HATE Jews. Also they are betas.

Me: WTF?

Kevin Michael Grace said...

Over the years I have often found Whiskey's comments interesting or at least amusing. After reading his latest, however, there is no reason for me to waste another minute on his Scotch-Irish digressions.

Catholicism is preliterate, eh? Who do you think gave us the Bible, you clown? Ever hear of St Jerome? No, of course, you haven't. Do you know that Luther's belief the Church was too intellectual was one of the main reasons he broke with Rome? No, of course, you don't. And, of course, it would be too much to expect Whiskey to have any knowledge of the forthright philo-Semitism demonstrated by every Pope since Pius XI.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, with friends like these, Zionists don't need enemies.

California kid said...

The solution is simple. Anyone lobbying for a foreign country has thereby made a statement that they care more about the foreign country than the USA. Deport them to the foreign country. Permanently.

megan sparkles said...

[Bush I] lost because a recession had begun that was still hurting people in November of 1992 when the election was held.

If Obama doesn't lose this time, will it invalidate your reasoning about 1992?

Anonymous said...

The situation in Palestine should not be my business, but the Jewish community has made it so. Since that's the case, I have no problem saying that what is being done in Palestine is evil, and that no decent American should support Israel. I've been to Israel, and I have seen how ugly the situation is, and I didn't even see the worst of what is happening.

The Jewish elites in America are illegitimate. I see nothing American in them...they might as well be Laotians.

And the historical pretext for the modern state of Israel is flimsy at best. If the truth were known, I would bet that the average Palestinian is more likely the descendant of Biblical inhabitants of Palestine than is the average European or Sephardi Jew. What a scam!

MQ said...

News flash: you're not anti-semitic if you believe the Israel lobby has way too much influence and is on balance harmful to American security. Plenty of Jews believe that too. You are anti-semitic if you believe the Jews are a cancer on Western civilization, the mortal enemy of the white race, and should be exterminated. There are a whole lot of genuine anti-semites who post here.


American Jews have been the most disloyal Americans. Rosenbergs gave Stalin the bomb--they didn't do it alone as there was a vast Jewish network that conspired along.

Actually Klaus Fuchs (Lutheran) has long since been revealed as the guy who gave Stalin the bomb, to the extent the Russians actually needed any help (doubtful). J. Robert Oppenheimer, Leo Szilard, and Einstein are some of the Jews who helped give America the bomb.

No group did as much to open the gates of American immigration.

Wrong again. Catholics were more important. JFK and then Teddy Kennedy were the key drivers of immigration reform, and Senator Hart (Catholic again) sponsored the '65 Act. Speaking of which, the '65 immigration act passed with something like 90 percent majorities in both houses, so there must have been a lot of Jews up there.

No group did as much to give support to black power movement against whites. No group controlled as much media power to smear and attack whites(while suppressing stories of black violence against whites).

Now we're getting into the unified white victimization fantasy...Jews were big supporters of the civil rights movement (for good reasons too) but there was famously a big falling out with the advent of the more radical black power movement.

Like a lot of posts here this bears all the characteristics of pathological anti-semitism...take everything I hate about the world and every way my country is screwed up, wrap it up together, blame it all on the Jews.

Londoner said...

Wow, this place is like Hasbara central at the moment.

They despise you, Steve - be in no doubt about that - so no point trying to throw them a bone by affecting indifference to the Israelis' treatment of the Palestinians. For which I struggle to find an appropriate simile - "treated like dirt" is a common enough one but the reality is that most people treat dirt a good deal better than the chosen people do their caged victims.

BrokenSymmetry said...

"What the Jews do to the Palestinians in the Middle East is the exactly the same things gthe Nazis did to the Jews"

It's a funny sort of genocide when the victims are threatening to demographically swamp the oppressors!

BrokenSymmetry said...

Anon at 10:48

"Bottom line: you are weak, callous, cowardly and selfish. Truly someone vile. I truly hope that all your efforts fail, Sailer, and that that some illegal alien from Mexico do to your wife and kids what the Jews do to the Palestinians."

So much for all the moral grandstanding.

Londoner said...

eh - "There seems to be an anti-semite behind every tree. So for those keeping track -- e.g. most of the media, which is heavily influenced, if not controlled by, Jews -- it might be easier to begin letting us know who isn't an anti-semite. We'll take it from there."

I remember reading about a weighty book about historical anti-Semitism which strangely - bizarrely - didn't feature an index. The reason, obvious when one thinks about it, is that it would have read like a who's who of important historical figures, and that might have led to readers "going there", quite contrary to the wishes of the authors.

RKU said...

Victor: Neither do I. I do, however, care about Israel pushing America around.

This is a very good point, and leads to a natural implication for the sensible programming of biological-robots, notably including people.

From a naively logical perspective, if you happen to be walking down the street and you see a wild-eyed lunatic take out a machete and chop up a random woman twenty feet away, you shouldn't care one bit. After all, it was someone else who got chopped up, not you. Just be careful not to get your shoes stained by all the flowing blood and you'll be fine.

But actually your genes are a bit smarter than that, and over millions of years of evolution, they've gradually figured out that wild-eyed lunatics who chop up other people in your general vicinity may have a reasonable chance of chopping you up as well. Therefore, they say "Be Afraid!" and you run away and call the police or something. That's also the reason we actually have police forces, since the chopped-up people wouldn't be in a position to hire them and without a bit of forethought nobody else would either.

Similarly, groups which tend to egregiously misbehave towards other people are probably much more likely to misbehave towards us as well, which should make all of us a bit nervous. And considering the tone of quite a few of the comments here, actually very, very nervous...

Anonymous said...

"It doesn't criticize Israel because it hates Israel per se but because it doesn't like what Israel is DOING."


Impossible.

Self anointed victim groups are always attacked by racist haters because of who they are, not what they do.

JSM said...

"You are anti-semitic if you believe the Jews are a cancer on Western civilization, the mortal enemy of the white race, and should be exterminated. There are a whole lot of genuine anti-semites who post here."

I learned a trick arguing with a Jew.

So, I'm going to try it out. Here goes:

MQ: I'm skeptical. Kindly post 3 specific examples, with links, please, of iSteve posters saying Jews should be exterminated.

JSM said...

"Wrong again. Catholics were more important. JFK and then Teddy Kennedy were the key drivers of immigration reform, and Senator Hart (Catholic again) sponsored the '65 Act"

Lying by omission.

Cellar (of the 1965 Hart-Cellar Act) was a Jew who had been, for over 40 years, unceasingly pushing to get the 1924 nations-of-origin limits overturned and the immigration doors flung open.

Cellar's 40 years in Congress, all the while relentlessly pushing and striving for unlimited immigration outweighs Kennedys' 7 years (from JFK's book in 1958 til the Hart Cellar Act passed in 1965).

Likudnik said...

"So Likudnik, on the off chance that you're American, which is not very likely."

lol@irony/hyperbole fail. i suppose i should go to every exaggerated conservative blog titled "Grumpy Republican" or some variation and tell 'em i just can't trust someone who's grumpy.

MQ sums it up better than me. this idea that the only way someone can be anti-Semitic is if they are of the exterminationist neo-Nazi variety is idiotic and obviously not a standard the racialist Right follows when it comes to lefty critiques of how uncool whitey is. still, MacDonald's "work" is about one degree away from such exterminationist philosophy, if that, as evidenced by the type of people in the fringes of the far Right sphere who cite him in an attempt to give intellectual credibility to their anti-Semitism.

ben tillman said...

well when the HBDsphere sees theories continually popping up (and treated seriously) about Jews being genetically predetermined to undermine Western society for their own interest, that might, weirdly enough, strike some as anti-Semitic.

That theory does not exist except in the imagination of people like you.

Likudnik said...

i've cited an author who is taken seriously by a not insignificant amount of commenters on these types of blogs who argues essentially that, unless there is a fine point separating "group evolutionary strategy" from my description that i am not aware of. in any case the level of anti-Semitic paranoia and reductionism regarding every policy people don't like, extending far beyond U.S.-Israeli relations, is obvious to anyone from the outside looking in.

ben tillman said...

Wrong again. Catholics were more important. JFK and then Teddy Kennedy were the key drivers of immigration reform....

That is outrageously mendacious.

angry black woman, Trekie friend said...

"is that the Duggar woman... it has to be, the glassy eyes are unmistakable..."

Don't laugh. Mrs. Duggar had (has?) a psychotic woman, whom she let into her home years before to interview her, haunting the comments sections of newspaper articles about the family. She happened to be Jewish which was easy to find out because she posted this trash with her picture, full name, and facebook link!
She was utterly depraved, worse than Dan Savage to Santorum. She wrote so much, slinging it out with people... and she did this on many Duggar articles (I became more curious about her than the Duggars!) I remember one icy comment where she pulled out a quote and responded something like, "Oh those sweet, sweet Duggar children, they're just so precious with their sweet little precious cheeks and I just want kiss them and squeeze every single precious pair!" This was after repeatedly calling them disgusting, accusing them of dirty laundry habits, etc. She would also adopt the voice of a young child constantly and begin some nasty rhetorical question, "Momma, why..."

This tormentor had been in their home, presented herself as nice and wrote a slightly negative newspaper article.

I am not anti-Semitic, but a not insignificant number are psychotic.

Canadian Observer said...

Steve... you really want to Americanize and de-Castroize Cuba? Turn that unique gem of an island into just another Caribbean sell-out tourist hot-spot rife with American strip malls and ESPN blaring from every single neighbourhood bar? Do we really have to change every single place on earth so that it satisfies the pedantic tastes of the gringo?

Cuba is unique in that it is the only civilized place on earth where the pervading force of Americanization and Walmartization is almost non-existent.

Leave it alone, I say. People forget that behind the ideology, Castro became popular with the educated and lower classes because he kicked out the American interests which had been turning Cuba throughout the 1920's, 1930's and 1940's into a nation of dancers, entertainers and hookers.

Black Woman wonders WWJossWhedonD? said...

I want to amend my last comment. I feel that "psychotic" is too strong to describe this subset (but applies to some). There are many Jews I admire like Samuelson at the WaPo, Matt Drudge, Ron Unz, and of course, Lawrence Auster, to name just a few. My feeling towards them is not all that different from the view articulated by Auster about blacks. I don't share a Darwinian view that holds them all, or even most, suspect.

Angry black woman, bad actress said...

I swear I did not go looking for this.

Googled pics for "Santorum Children" because I think their mother is so beautiful and am bored, frankly, and found this beaut from page 7.

http://www.estergoldberg.com/views_from_a_broad/2012/01/the-clown-car-vagina-duggar-family-campaigns-for-rick-santorum-in-iowa.html

Touches on so many Steve Sailer themes that it challenges the laws of physics.

I think I've made my case that there are some deranged ones out there.

Anonymous said...

"It's a funny sort of genocide when the victims are threatening to demographically swamp the oppressors!"

They are not threatening to demographically "swamp" anyone. They have always had larger number than the Jews there because they were there first.

The issue here is not demographic, but of political sovereignity of a people and that of political rights of a people under a state. The Jews destroyed any hope of sovereignity for the Palestinian people by taking their lands to found the Israeli state and then added insult to injury by, after taking their land, making them third-class citizens in their former land. The treatment the Jews give the Palestinians is APPALLING.

Mr. Anon said...

"MQ said...

Actually Klaus Fuchs (Lutheran) has long since been revealed as the guy who gave Stalin the bomb, to the extent the Russians actually needed any help (doubtful). J. Robert Oppenheimer, Leo Szilard, and Einstein are some of the Jews who helped give America the bomb."

You seem to be forgetting a few people who did indeed help the Russians get the bomb. The Rosenbergs, David Greenglass, Harry Gold. And Klaus Fuchs didn't just visit the Soviet Embassy every Sunday for tea and microfilm. He had a contact - a courier (perhaps Gold, although I'm not sure if anyone knows who it was).

"Wrong again. Catholics were more important. JFK and then Teddy Kennedy were the key drivers of immigration reform, and Senator Hart (Catholic again) sponsored the '65 Act."

The " '65 Act". You mean the Hart-Celler act? Jointly named after Phillip Hart and Emanuel Celler?

Your post was disingenuous to the point of deceitful.

Mr. Anon said...

"Likudnik said...

someone asked why we should have an Israeli policy anymore than a Portugal policy. the difference is obvious -- Portugal isn't constantly under attack."

It was I who mentioned it. And if Israel is constantly under attack, that's your problem. Not mine. The American people never volunteered to guarantee your poor choice in real-estate in perpetuity. It's your country, your problem. Leave us out of it.

Anonymous said...

Wrong again. Catholics were more important. JFK and then Teddy Kennedy were the key drivers of immigration reform, and Senator Hart (Catholic again) sponsored the '65 Act. Speaking of which, the '65 immigration act passed with something like 90 percent majorities in both houses, so there must have been a lot of Jews up there.

Hart and Kennedy were Senators. How did the 65 Immigration Act get introduced and passed in the House? You omitted the brains behind the act. The man who wrote it and introduced it into the House was Representative Emanuel Celler.

Anonymous said...

Actually Klaus Fuchs (Lutheran) has long since been revealed as the guy who gave Stalin the bomb, to the extent the Russians actually needed any help (doubtful). J. Robert Oppenheimer, Leo Szilard, and Einstein are some of the Jews who helped give America the bomb.

One you left out is Ted Hall. What is interesting is that he gave up the secrets to the Soviets because he felt strongly that "an American monopoly" on nuclear weapons "was dangerous and should be avoided"

Some people today believe that no middle eastern nation should have a local monopoly on nuclear weapons either. But that opinion is not tolerated as much as the one concerning an American monopoly.

For what it's worth here is a who's who of atomic spies.

TomV said...

I've been reading comments on this blog from the very inception (prompted by Malcolm Gladwell), and the only talk of "extermination" has come from those who purportedly oppose it. There's a good reason for that.

Answer me this, anti-exterminationistas.

If Person A thinks Group B is the source of all evil and a mortal enemy of his race, does that make Person A "exterminationist"?

Okay, Person A is Larry Auster. And Group B is Muslim Arabs. Mind you that Auster's views are far more dogmatic and unadulterated than any ever expressed here.

Closer to home, once Person C has identified Group D as an "exterminationist" enemy of his race, what is he supposed to do to them?

Gentlemen, you are anti-extermination the way the SPLC is anti-hate.

BrokenSymmetry said...

Anon@9:56

I actually support a Palestinian state in pre-1967 borders. However hyperbolic language isn't going to resolve anything, how are the Israelis gong to be persuaded to a final peaceful resolution if people keep equating them to the Nazis?

Anonymous said...

The term antisemitism is probably the most misused word of modern times. The overwhelming majority of Semites living on this planet are not Jewish. The word was invented during the beginning of the German revolution when the question arose who was German and who wasn't. It did make sense in Germany because Jews were the only Semites around.
Today it just highlights the stupidity of its user. On a side note: the supposed inventor of the word,Wilhelm Marr,was married to Jewish women twice.

Anonymous said...

"One you left out is Ted Hall. What is interesting is that he gave up the secrets to the Soviets because he felt strongly that "an American monopoly" on nuclear weapons "was dangerous and should be avoided""

You know that was just bullshit. Had Nazis won in Europe, do you think Hall should have sent secrets to Nazis for sake of balance of power?

Anonymous said...

The Kahneman post was about irrationalism, and I think there is an 'irrational' support for Israel due to admiration of Jews in America. Many great/famous Americans are Jewish(who are Zionist), and our admiration of them makes us want to agree with them regardless of whether their moral positions are right or wrong. And if you grew up with Jewish friends, many of whom were nice people, you're gonna naturally side with Jews against people Jews don't like. That's how friendship and loyalties work--it's like if you grew up in NY, you just root for NY team, and if you live in Miami, you find yourself rooting for Miami teams. Much of morality is really a form of knee-jerk tribalism.

But it goes for blacks too. Recently, Etta James died and the posts on facebook by so many white people go like this: "RIP Etta... A voice that will always be in my soul. What a woman."
She could sing, and so her voice left a deep impression on many white listeners. So, their views of black issues is no longer right or wrong based on any rationality but a matter of FEELING for and with the Negro because, based on the power of the Negro voice, the Negro must be TRUE. I mean how can anyone with such soulful voice be wrong? Or such person would be right even if he/she is wrong because he/she sounds true. So goes for MLK. Vocal fascism rules the day.

Anonymous said...

If something is true but sounds wrong, and if another thing is false but sounds right, many people will go with the latter. They care more about something sounding right than being right. And liberals, with their control of razzle dazzle media, know how to make false things sound/look right and make true things sound/look wrong. It's the advertising of truth.

Anonymous said...

megan sparkles said...

[Bush I] lost because a recession had begun that was still hurting people in November of 1992 when the election was held.

If Obama doesn't lose this time, will it invalidate your reasoning about 1992?


No it would show that Americans are racist.

Anonymous said...

"You are anti-semitic if you believe the Jews are a cancer on Western civilization, the mortal enemy of the white race, and should be exterminated. There are a whole lot of genuine anti-semites who post here."

Does saying Jews should intermarry with African-Americans for as long as neccessary to disappear as a unique people count as extermination or diversity?

Anonymous said...

The controversy reflects growing divisions among important allies of President Obama over Middle East policy that could complicate the president’s reelection outreach to some Jewish voters, just as he is seeking to assure them of his commitment to Israel’s security amid fears of an Iran nuclear threat.

Ah yes, the all important Jewish "vote." Elections turn on the direction of this behemoth of a block vote. Lolz.

Does saying Jews should intermarry with African-Americans for as long as neccessary to disappear as a unique people count as extermination or diversity?

That's probably the ultimate double-standard. I don't know why "antisemites" waste so much time on peripheral issues when they can just go straight for the jugular. Personally, I find this double-standard so aggravating that it's pushed me into bedfellowship with the likes of a Svigor -- something I never would have considered possible even in my wildest dreams.

Breeding whites out of existence is the ultimate good, for whites and for everyone -- especially if they do it with blacks. (But, don't worry, anyone will do. The point is to just breed whites out.)

Even intimating that a Jew may breed out of the tribe is, at best, "controversial." That's how Herbert Marcuse's grandson, Harold, describes a Valentine's Day 1993 New Yorker cover depicting a Jew kissing a black woman. And that's how it was described in an interview with the cover's artist in The Boston Book Review.

Jew and black woman is "controversial" because it suggests Jews might wish to copulate with blacks, and we're all to accept that Jews are within their rights to be concerned.

Black man, white woman is "controversial" because it suggests white women may wish to copulate with blacks, and we're all to accept that whites have no possible grounds on which to object.

That's "mainstream American opinion," for which a commenter at a "controversial" blog recently defined as:


"A Jew or Jews debating with another Jew or other Jews on or in a Jew-produced show or article on or in a Jew-owned-and/or-run network or publication, about something some other Jew or other Jews said about another Jew or other Jews on or in another Jew-produced show or article on or in a Jew-owned-and/or-run network or publication in relation to the activities of another Jew or other Jews.* [Plus the active and/or passive collaboration of those who serve, assist, enable, deny and/or defend Jewish domination of public discourse and non-organic culture.]"

Likudnik,

You're entitled to your opinion, as are all Jews. On the off chance that you grant I'm also entitled to mine, I'll state it thus: Jewish anti-whitism is a far graver problem than white antisemitism. Fair enough?


Silver

Anonymous said...

I'm assuming you're the same internet tough guy as above, but I'm not sure because YOU KEEP POSTING AS ANONYMOUS. Your "coward" accusations would carry more weight if, oh I don't know, you didn't cowardly hide behind an anonymous tag.

One anonymous loser can give the impression that he's 10 anonymous losers.

Svigor

Anonymous said...

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, with friends like these, Zionists don't need enemies.

The Jews don't deserve Whiskey. He's the local patient zero of anti-Semitism.

Svigor

Likudnik said...

the idea that Muslims are all our enemies, overblown as it may be, is based on their religion. so it's conceivable that individual reformist Muslims who reject parts of the dogma or Muslims-in-name-only wouldn't be problematic. that's very different from a scientific attempt to classify an entire ethnicity as essentially biological enemies.

honestly all that's being argued here seems to not be whether people're anti-Semitic or not, but whether anti-Semitism is good. if you're anti-Semitic cuz you really do believe Jews as whole are the primary enemy of Western society, OK then, why not just accept the label. you could even call it "rational anti-Semitism" or some BS if you want.

sabril said...

@Otis McWrong

"In their minds, yes."

I agree. And also in the minds of their Leftist apologists -- for example so-called "Arab East Jerusalem" which was ethnically cleansed of Jews in 1948.

Jews started returning in 1967, less than 20 years later and yet they are accused of "stealing Palestinian lands."

NOTA said...

Likudnik:

Whether some claim of fact or morality is anti-Semetic (racist, sexist, homophobic, communist, facist) is utterly uninteresting--the only point of that question is to decide who has to shut up and what ideas can't be expressed, or can only be expressed in super careful ways. And that kind of label is used to shut some points of view up and keep some on top, regardless of evidence or strentgh of arguments.

The specific stuff referenced in the article involved claims of some people being Israel-firsters and others having dual-loyalties split between Israel ad the US. Clearly both of these happen from time to time (there are US citizens who are paid lobbyists of the Israeli government, and some US citizens who have been caught spying for Israel--it seems fair to say they're putting Israeli interests anyead of American interests.) Using the accusation on politicians and pundits who are absolutely reliable votes / advocates for anything pro-Israel might br unfair (stuff like aid to Israel is not going to have any big effect on the well being of the US, so voting reliably for it doesn't really tell anyone if you'd put Israel ahead of America), but probably no more so than the average bit of political name-calling. Certainly it is no more unfair than "blame America first liberal," which was used pretty extensively back when it was a Republican president getting us into wars instead of a Democratic president doing so. (Antiwar Republicans are, of course, isolationists instead of being blame-America-first liberals. Both terms are intended to stop people doing any of that yucky thinking stuff that might lead them to the wrong conclusions.)

Dual loyalties are really common among immigrants, notably among Cubans, where even the second and third generation of Cubans probably weigh beating up on the Castro government as being worth the US taking something of a hit in terms of popularity in Latin America. During the second world war, FDR was very concerned that harsh treatment of Italy would backfire on him politically, due to the large number of Italians here in the US. Surely, our policies toward Mexico are affected in the same way--plenty of citizens have grandparents from Mexico, and they still feel some attachment to Mexico even though it isn't their country. And so on. My sense is that a lot of Jews and a much smaller fraction of evangelical Christians have a secondary loyalty to Israel, much less than their loyalty to the US, but strong enough that they generally support Israel. The GOP candidates (all except Paul) express a view that fits the "dual-loyalty" label pretty well. But then, they are all (except perhaps Paul) amoral con-men, so what they say they believe has no necessary connection to what they really believe.

Now, questioning someone's motives is a way of poisoning the well in a political discussion, and it turns us away from the impirtant questions (does America benefit from sending aid to Israel every year, or supporting Israel against UN resolutions condemning their rather shitty treatment of Palestinians?). This is just as true of calling people anti-Semetic for taking the anti-Israel side of those arguments as for calling them Israel-firsters for taking the pro-Israel side.

ben tillman said...

i've cited an author who is taken seriously by a not insignificant amount of commenters on these types of blogs who argues essentially that, unless there is a fine point separating "group evolutionary strategy" from my description that i am not aware of

Since you've never read the author you cited, you shouldn't be surprised that you've wildly mischaracterized what he wrote.

It's hardly a "fine point" to distinguish MacDonald's claim that Jews coalesced into a group that competes as such from your interpretation that the group is genetically predetermined to attack Western society.

Anonymous said...

It sure is JIDF in Steve's comments sections lately.