February 23, 2012

Eric Alterman and Sheldon Adelson: "A shande far di goyim"

Not long ago, Mr. and Mrs. Sheldon Adelson's $5 million apiece donations to Newt Gingrich's Presidential campaign were trumpeted in the press as world-historical events, but perhaps the most interesting thing to come out of that flurry was this column in The Nation:
Sheldon Adelson and the End of American Anti-Semitism 
Eric Alterman February 8, 2012

If a Jew-hater somewhere, inspired perhaps by The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, sought to invent an individual who symbolizes almost all the anti-Semitic clichés that have dogged the Jewish people throughout history, he could hardly come up with a character more perfect than Sheldon Adelson.

Think about it. Adelson, who likes to brag, “You know, I am the richest Jew in the world,” is a gambling magnate who is reported to be under criminal investigation for official bribery and has been accused of having widespread ties to organized crime, including the use of prostitution for his business interests. He is openly deploying his $22 billion fortune to pervert our democracy on behalf of what he believes to be the best interests of Israel, which he defines as an endless war by the Jewish state against its adversaries, with America offering its unquestioning support. ... 
It’s not as if the Adelson/Gingrich relationship has escaped scrutiny in the media or even editorial condemnation. But virtually all the attention has focused on the ability of any wealthy individual to exploit the post–Citizens United landscape for his own agenda. Nobody has noted—at least not in public—that the agenda in question happens to be the one to which Jews accused of “dual loyalty” or of being “Israel-firsters” are alleged to have dedicated themselves. How can it be that the self-proclaimed “richest Jew in the world” can buy the foreign policy of a major party’s potential presidential candidate on behalf of a vision of endless Israeli aggression—up to and including US support for yet another potentially disastrous pre-emptive attack—and the historically abused entity of “the Jews” has somehow escaped the blame? 
Don’t get me wrong. While I lack sympathy for pretty much everything Adelson and Gingrich seek to accomplish, I am unabashedly thrilled that the bugaboo of anti-Semitic accusation is almost nowhere to be found. But given the near-complete disappearance of this once wholly respectable American prejudice, one must ask why so many organizations in the American Jewish community—along with their neoconservative allies in the media and policy world—remain so intently focused on this problem. Is it that the past has left them so psychologically invested in a now-discredited discourse that they lack the ability to see reality for what it is and devote themselves to more worthy causes? Or do at least some of them, as I implied in my last column, find the accusation so politically useful against Israel’s critics that they prefer to level this nefarious accusation rather than argue the merits of their position? 
Yes.

Obviously, Alterman is being unfairly partisan. I don't see similar criticism of Haim Saban, Adelson's Democratic counterpart, in Alterman's 2004 Atlantic article on big Hollywood donors.

To add to Alterman's picture of Adelson, Michael Isikoff of NBC reports that Adelson orated:
“I am not Israeli. The uniform that I wore in the military, unfortunately, was not an Israeli uniform.  It was an American uniform, although my wife was in the IDF and one of my daughters was in the IDF ... our two little boys, one of whom will be bar mitzvahed tomorrow, hopefully he’ll come back-- his hobby is shooting -- and he’ll come back and be a sniper for the IDF ...”

So, you'd better not accuse Sheldon of dual loyalty!

More generally, I have this assumption about human nature that criticism, on the whole, makes you behave better than being exempt from criticism, as does worrying about being criticized. Medieval rabbis advised against "A shande far di goyim" -- Don't do something shameful in front of the gentiles. For an Adelson or Saban, that concept would have put their ethnocentrism in conflict with their ethnocentrism: Is it good for the Jews for me to act in a manner flagrantly interested only in being good for the Jews? That's a good kind of question for powerful people to ask themselves. 

But, as Alterman implies, that concept of being wary of committing a shande far di goyim seems to have faded out over the last couple of decades. Apparently, we now know that those Yiddish-speaking rabbis were anti-Semitic.

Personally, I like Sheldon. He's an old coot having a blast making his younger wife happy by getting wrapped up in her country's doings. It wouldn't be much of a problem if we could greet his machinations with a chuckle and an amused roll of the eyes. But that's now allowed anymore. It's the gentiles who are to be ashamed for noticing.

94 comments:

Anonymous said...

Is he richer than Soros or one of the Russian oligarchs? How about Larry Ellison?

Tanner said...

Sure, he should stop acting like such a dick. But what about this line: "He is openly deploying his $22 billion fortune to pervert our democracy on behalf of..."

I always thought donors gave money to the person they think is already going to act a certain way.

Hunsdon said...

Steve said: It wouldn't be much of a problem if we could greet his machinations with a chuckle and an amused roll of the eyes.

Hunsdon replied: It also wouldn't be much of a problem if we could debate, on the merits, the policies he is advocating, while he's having a blast.

David said...

Whiskey bait.

John Mansfield said...

Mrs. Adelson is 66 years old, and has been married to Mr. Adelson, who is twelve years older, since 1991. Her big interest seems to be treating drug addiction.

http://www.haaretz.com/the-adelson-method-1.240773

IHTG said...

Well, FWIW, Saban is an actual Israeli, so his dual loyalty is kind of a given.

Anonymous said...

It's not so much the end of 'antisemitism' as beginning of Jewish worshipism and Jewish fearism. End of antisemitism end of blaming Jews for everything. That is not the case. We have a case where even people most abused by Jews, namely white conservatives, do nothing but sing praises to Jews and Israel. This is worship of a people.
When Santorum joined a Jewish club and when Bachmann went over to work in a kibbutz, you know this isn't merely end of a prejudice but a kind of new prejudice? Jews uber alles.

And it is mixed with fear of Jewish power. Even if a GOP candidates privately loathed Jews, they know any pip about Jewish power/influence is gonna lead to their ruin.

Anonymous said...

Btw, the Nation wouldn't be so critical of Zionism if it felt Israel faced any real danger. The Nation gets to eat the cake and eat it too. Supported/written mostly by Jews, it knows Israel is the #1 ally of US and the great power in the Middle East. That makes them happy as Jews. Since Israeli power is so secure, they can afford to seem conscientious. Why not since even white goy conservatives are saying US should bend over backwards for Israel.

Suppose blacks were all so eager to be bow down before whites and praise whites at every turn and never ever criticize whitey or white power. A white person could then not only enjoy black subservience but also be magnanimous in being a bit self-critical. "Oh, come on, Negro, I'm not THAT great."

The fact is Obama has been as pro-Israel and Zionist as any GOP candidate, albeit with more finesse, which is pleasing to Jews. Jews don't like total running dogs like Bush II and McCain whose behavior sends the message, "by golly, Jews DO own America." Bush II's flagrant support for Israel at every turn embarrassed Jews. When Israel attacked Lebanon, Bush II was saying 'Yeah, yeah, kill some more!!' When Israel attacked Gaza, Obama didn't condemn it but neither did he endorse it. He allowed Jews to operate in relative silence. Better for Jews.

Obama is the biggest Jewish tool ever, but he plays it cool and 'even-handed', and so people get fooled. The cool tool.

Anonymous said...

Most politicians are porn actors in a Jewish directed movie.

cherub's revenge said...

Brooklyn Bullhorns LLC: "Shut up, shut up, shut up!"

American Bullhorn Trust Co.: "Look how quiet everyone is."

Anonymous said...

Bio-genetically engineering people to be smarter, healthier, more beautiful, and weeding out all the 'shitty behavior' genes... this could be the wave of the future, in which case all our discussion about race will be moot. Suppose everyone could be bio-engineered to have IQs of 180 within the womb?

W Baker said...

Jesus Christ, Steve, have you lost it?

"He's an old coot having a blast making his younger wife happy by getting wrapped up in her country's doings."

'Yea, let's buy ol' Gingrich. He's a whore, and if he can't pull the trigger, at least he can fan the flames for war with Iran.'

This ain't college football (Pickens), or curing African diseases (Gates). "Her country's doings" means endangering and, in all probability killing, real, live American boys (and girls) solely for some crazy ethno/religious freaks who have, and have had for centuries, a hard on for their freakin' cousins (Arabs) or their co-religionists.

And we won't even mention the effects of yet another neo-con/Israeli inspired war on this shitty economy. Checked the price of fuel or fuel-related products (just about everything) lately? Or is fuel just manna for the chosen?

Anonymous said...

"Where Moreno’s book really shines is his analysis of the intellectual sources of neoconservative opposition to biotechnological progress. He notes that Irving Kristol and the other founders of the ideology that has come to be known as neoconservatism were disillusioned Marxists. 'Neoconservative worries that alienation and commodification are caused by technology stem from a worldview that mixes Marxism with the philosophy of Martin Heidegger,' Moreno argues. Indeed, neoconservative bioethical musings are filled with despairing references to commodified embryos and wombs yielding children to alienated parents."

NO, NO, NO. The above line of reasoning is just neoconservative or Judeoconservative obfuscation to fool people. The real reason why neocons and many other Jews oppose widespread bioengineering is it could make non-Jews just as smart as Jews. Suppose Syrians and Iranians take up bio-engineering and create millions of people with IQ in the 180s. Israel would no longer be the only superpower in the Middle East. And suppose China and India uses bio-engineering to produce millions of Einsteins. Then, they could catch up with the US, the global center of Jewish power, much faster.
And suppose average white IQ was raised to 130. Jews would have no advantage over us.

Anonymous said...

And blacks wouldn't like it if bioengineering made whites, asians, and Mexicans just as fast and tough as they. And with blacks no longer being able to push around people, they might not feel so special no more. But then, blacks can gain greatly in IQ through bioengineering.
Kubrick was right. Social policy can only go so far. For real change, the revolution has to happen at the genetic core, as in 2001. If civilization doesn't collapse and bio-science progresses, it's gonna change everything.
Just as Malthus predictions didn't come true with rise of agricultural technology and industrial production, our demographic doom and gloom may chance with the rise/spread of bio-engineering. If we could raise Mexican IQ to 150, people in Mexico would work there to build up a great nation instead of flooding over here to pick lettuce and take welfare.

anony-mouse said...

Doesn't the fact that Santorum and Romney are expressing vigorous support for Israel w/o $10 million from Adelson disprove your (and Alterman's) comments about the importance of Adelson?

And with Gingrich not becoming the candidate, isn't it a positive thing for America that Adelson's $10 million will not bring a nomination?

Anonymous said...

Jews want politicians to do their bidding but not seem beholden to Jewish power/interests. Obama has been trained perfectly for this. He fetches but don't roll over and wag his tail(at least not in public).

Neocons, in contrast, trained the likes of Bush and McCain to do every trick in the book for their masters in full public view. This just got embarrassing for Jews both in America and around the world.

The liberal Zionist Obedience School is smarter.

Anonymous said...

If a Jew-hater somewhere, inspired perhaps by The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, sought to invent an individual who symbolizes almost all the anti-Semitic clichés that have dogged the Jewish people throughout history, he could hardly come up with a character more perfect than Sheldon Adelson.
So acknowledging reality is anti-semitic??

Anonymous said...

its becomnig more and more obvious that wealthy jews have enormous, perhaps dominate, influence on american politics and media.

its also becoming more and more obvious that they don't seem to care or be concerned about the interest of white americans, and in fact, seem dead set against them.

How long can this last??

Anonymous said...

"Dual loyalty! I wish it were dual!" Who was it who said that?

Justin said...

Sailer does the J.Q.

Is it possible to look honestly at the world situation and not be an anti-Semite?

Anonymous said...

"The scholarly community was near-unanimous in finding Herrnstein and Murray’s evidence on this point unpersuasive and their conclusion repugnant."

That's PC liberal logic for ya. Something must be untrue because the 'scholarly community'--made up of people like Noah of course--found the evidence 'unpersuasive' and 'repugnant'. Why? Never mind why. In fact, never mind the evidence itself. What really matters is how the 'scholarly community' feels about it. So, even if it's true, as long as the 'community' is not persuaded, it's not true. This kind of truth as determined by those in the Castle is downright Kafkaesque.

I believe there was a time when the 'scholarly community' thought the universe was filled with ether. It must have been true since the 'scholarly community' thought so. So, the new truth isn't about what is true or not true but what a certain 'scholarly community'--without any bias or hidden agendas of course!!--feels about it.

Furthermore, the logic goes "WE found it repugnant, so it really must be repugnant. And since it is repugnant, it mustn't be true."

And that raises another question. Is something untrue because it's repugnant(to a certain community)? The news about anti-white violence in South Africa is repugnant. So... it must not be true. (Gee, maybe that accounts for why US media refuses to cover any of it, as with the Knoxville Massacre. Such repugnant news of blacks committing terrible crime just can't be true. I mean it's repugnant!)
And maybe Jews should calm down about Iran. After all, the idea of the foul regime in Iran gaining access to nukes is so repugnant. So, it can't be true. You see, all truth must be happy and feely good. If it upsets us, it's repugnant, and nothing repugnant can be true... except when one says white folks are inherently evil and guilty of everything wrong in the world.

Anonymous said...

Adjectology in action. Something isn't true because WE find it REPUGNANT. End of argument. So much for liberal rationalism. More like liberal taboo-ism and emotionalism.

I wonder... if our society is becoming more PC with the rise of gay power. Gays are awful bitchy and whiny, and the whole culture seems to becoming queer that way.

Timothy Noah, gay or not, sure acts like gay. So does Peter Beinart, who is gay.

beowulf said...

our two little boys, one of whom will be bar mitzvahed tomorrow, hopefully he’ll come back-- his hobby is shooting -- and he’ll come back and be a sniper for the IDF.

Those are some hardcore bar mitzvah lessons.

Dutch Boy said...

"with a chuckle and an amused roll of the eyes" eh?
I don't find getting the USA involved in Middle East wars for the benefit of a foreign power all that amusing. Perhaps you can explain the humor to the parents who have had sons or daughters killed or crippled in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Dutch Boy said...

"with a chuckle and an amused roll of the eyes" eh?
I don't find getting the USA involved in Middle East wars for the benefit of a foreign power all that amusing. Perhaps you can explain the humor to the parents who have had sons or daughters killed or crippled in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Worked in PR and Cautiously Optimistic said...

Sheldon doesn't have dual loyalty. He has a single loyalty: Israel.

Oh wait, he does have a dual loyalty: Israel and money. Whatever.

Off topic, but I wish someone would take a look at an overlooked element in Linsanity: Steve Novak. Lin and Novak play well together. The loss to the Nets happened when Melo and Stoudemire were playing.

Interesting to see how this shakes out.

Fred said...

"How can it be that the self-proclaimed “richest Jew in the world” can buy the foreign policy of a major party’s potential presidential candidate..."

That isn't the way political donations work though. You make donations to support candidates who already share your views. If the reality were otherwise, Adelson would be throwing money at Ron Paul to get him to change his foreign policy views, but he knows that's impossible. For that matter, other lobbies would do the same thing, but you don't see it -- you don't see the NRA throwing money at liberal Democrats to get them to change their policy on gun laws.

Fred said...

"Is it good for the Jews for me to act in a manner flagrantly interested only in being good for the Jews?"

Clearly, that is the case with Adelson's pro-Israel policy, but it's not true that Israel is Adelson's only issue. He elaborated on this in a recent Forbes article:

"What scares me is the continuation of the socialist-style economy we’ve been experiencing for almost four years. That scares me because the redistribution of wealth is the path to more socialism, and to more of the government controlling people’s lives. What scares me is the lack of accountability that people would prefer to experience, just let the government take care of everything and I’ll go fish or I won’t work, etc.”

“U.S. domestic politics is very important to me because I see that the things that made this country great are now being relegated into duplicating that which is making other countries less great. … I’m afraid of the trend where more and more people have the tendency to want to be given instead of wanting to give. People are less willing to share. There are fewer philanthropists being grown and there are greater expectations of the government. I believe that people will come to their senses and not extend the current Administration’s quest to socialize this country. It won’t be a socialist democracy because it won’t be a democracy."

Sheila said...

Excellent post, Steve. You've really stepped in it now, though. The Jewish contingent will be out in force, as they duly appear whenever anyone hints of even mentioning that Jews' interests and Americans' interests do not always converge. You've dealt with this topic before, of course, but each time you become more open and honest about the motivations and loyalties involved. Kudos. Keep up the good work.

some one said...

There is nothing more shameful than to be a white person from European stock... According to the media.

NLF said...

The biggest flaw in Alterman's logic is "'antisemitism' is false and wrong; therefore anyone who gives credence to 'antisemitism' must be false and wrong."
This isn't reason based on facts but 'truth' based on apriori notions. Its view of Jews isn't based on evidence but on the assumption that JEWS ARE GOOD AND HAVE ALWAYS BEEN.
If indeed many Jews act like Adelson(not to mention Saban and Soros), might it not be partially true that some 'antisemites' had been right all along?
Shouldn't Jews be judged on evidence than on apriori notions?

Alterman's logic is like the logic of 'anti-racism'. It assumes "'Racism' is wrong, therefore, if blacks act in way that confirms what 'racists' believe, then blacks are acting wrong because it confirms 'false racist' beliefs."
But this kind of logic only works on the apriori notion that blacks are good and 'racists' are all wrong.
Might not one argue that since too many blacks act the way they do, some 'racists' may be right.

Now, this isn't to say every facet of 'antisemitism' or 'racism' is correct. Nazis were batshit crazy and KKK are morons. But were critics of Jewish power always wrong? And is it wrong to point to racial explanations as to why blacks are the most problematic people?

While blaming Jews for everything is a form of canard, so is the notion that 'antisemites' and 'racists' have always been wrong. On some things, maybe they were right BASED ON EVIDENCE.

But, Alterman isn't facing up to how a lot of Jews really are: Marc Rich, Goldman Sachs, Mark Zuckerberg's sleazy rise to power, Alan Dershowitz, Jewish use of Clinton, Bush, and Obama, the bailouts, etc.
Based on that evidence, maybe 'antisemites' have a point.
But, Alterman starts with the assumption, 'Antisemitism is wrong, wrong, and wrong. Therefore, when Jews validate certain 'antisemitic' arguments, it's wrong not because it gives credence to what must be wrong.'
But did it ever occur to him that since so many Jews act this way, 'antisemites' had a point all along, that they may be partially right?

Suppose we use the same argument for Germans. Suppose we say Germans are all good, and anti-Germanism is wrong, wrong, wrong. Criticizing or condemning German people, culture, history and power would be a form of evil canard against a great and innocent people.
So, what about Hitler and Nazis? Oh, they were wrong not so much because they did horrible things but because undermined the total truth of Germanopilia and gave credence to anti-Germanism, which is wrong, wrong, wrong.
So, Hitler and Nazis aren't evidence that there is really a dark side to German culture and history but merely an affront to the shining truth that Germans are all good. Thus, even when Germans do wrong to non-Germans, their main crime is smearing the bright shining truth to Germanophilia. How dare they lend credence to anti-Germanites who, of course, are wrong, wrong, and wrong?

Alterman's argument is no different. When Jews use power to hurt non-Jews all over the world, his main concern is not "there is a dark side to Jewish power and it causes so much harm" but "Jews like Adelson are bad because they are a stain on the absolute truth that Jews are good and that 'antisemitism' is just the fantasy of lunatics."

Same with blacks. If blacks go looting and robbing, the moral issue is never 'too many blacks act crazy and hurt non-blacks' but 'what they did is terrible because it gives credence to the absolute lies of 'racists'.'
But if blacks too often act like that, might not 'racists' have a point? But THAT, we are not allowed to entertain.

RKU said...

Two words: "No Brakes"...

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the thoughtful and well-argued piece. Please do not get too wrapped up in fighting the AIPAC etc. forces they are extremely strong and ruthlessly efficient in wiping out those who put their heads above the parapet. We need you for your work on HBD and cannot have you squashed out.

Anonymous said...

"Personally, I like Sheldon. He's an old coot having a blast making his younger wife happy by getting wrapped up in her country's doings. It wouldn't be much of a problem if we could greet his machinations with a chuckle and an amused roll of the eyes. But that's now allowed anymore. It's the gentile who are to be ashamed for noticing."

Is this last sentence supposed to, ironically, be a cover from anti-Semitism?

Whether it can be stated or not, there's nothing particularly amusing about Adelson or his ilk -- which, while being touted as a minority, seem exponential and nearly-innumerate in their numbers relative to the halls of power.

But that's exactly the point: if we were allowed to talk about this, it very well might not be happening at all.

And thus, politburo media conglomerates are the real story, owned by Jews and pushing their perceived interests. Which is also why they're so afraid of the internet, and will try one Trojan Horse after another to undo its growth or nature.

The idea that any of this is amusing is either a cowardly feint on your part, or an example of the inherently self-satisfied, bemused persona you confuse with an ethos.

I would further posit that this thinking largely stems from your obsession with HBD and the religious corollary of dedicated atheism.

With people like you, Sailer, and other HBD nihilists as the opposition, its no wonder this game is an ongoing rout for Trostkyite/Neocon Forever Revolution; not to mention a loss of national identity through the parallel regime of PC Newspeak.

Keep up the great work.

Porter said...

Personally, I like Sheldon. He's an old coot having a blast making his younger wife happy by getting wrapped up in her country's doings.

Yes, good ole Shel, what a dandy rake. Just another fun-lovin jewish supremacist billionaire trying to purchase his own neocon puppet to complete America’s transition into a shuffling myrmidon for Israel. What's not to like?

By the way, nature has an analogy for this type of relationship.

Matthew said...

But given the near-complete disappearance of this once wholly respectable American prejudice

I struggle to think of even one anti-Semitic policy or one serious anti-Semitic incident in all of American history. I can't think of any. Immigration policies don't count (unless we want to discuss Israel's immigration policies). Also exempt are the admissions policies of private universities and colleges founded by "di goyim."

Jews are 35% of the Forbes 400, 12% of the US Senate, 33% of the Supreme Court, and something like half of the Federal Reserve Board. Can I have that kind of oppression, please?

By the way, if you're measuring richest Jews in terms ethnicity, Larry Ellison of Oracle has Adelson beat by about $15 billion.

Anonymous said...

American anti-semite here, you just didn't see me because I don't own any media outlets.

Anonymous said...

Gingrich was soundly rejected by the voters, though it should have happened much sooner.

International Jew said...

Alterman hates Israel because it retains that healthy self-preservation instinct which he and his friends have been wringing out of America and Europe.

No one's asking America to go to war for Israel. But it used to be nice when America seemed to care more about nuclear proliferation.

Anonymous said...

Alterman's piece in one line: "We won!!! Now we can do just about anything and fear not repercussions no matter what".

Truth said...

Hey, the subtitled the English teacher!

http://espn.go.com/new-york/nba/story/_/id/7606950/new-york-knicks-jeremy-lin-leaves-couch-fancy-apartment

Jacob Roberson said...

You're the only place I read regularly where Yiddish and Hebrew show up regularly. That's hilariously strange. You're doing that intentionally right?

Anonymous said...

Clean up type in penultimate sentence.

It harshes my mellow.

Geoff Matthews said...

"Obviously, Alterman is being unfairly partisan. "

You don't say.

Anonymous said...

Look. Affluent liberals pushed Hispanic immigration not to serve the Hispanics but to make Hispanics serve the interests--economic and political--of affluent liberals. White affluent liberals are served well while white working classes are not. But how can GOP pull over the white working class when it's for lower taxes for superrich liberals? Also, lower income whites are less likely to vote than upper income whites. So, it might not work either.

Conatus said...

Here is a canard for you, this is from 2003 but I doubt things have changed much.

"Only some 3,000 out of 1.4 million active duty servicemen and women are Jewish, about two-tenths of one percent. When it comes to Marines, the numbers are even more startling. It's one out of 1,000. One-tenth of one percent. That gives new meaning to the term "minority."

http://www.jewishjournal.com/community_briefs/article/the_very_few_the_proud_20031114/


All this IDF talk kinda makes you wonder "Whats a country for?"
I guess to provide troops for another country.

Anonymous said...

Henry Kissinger was the master of triangulation, and it seems like American Jews are up to the same trick with blacks and Hispanics. Kissinger mainly played with Red China and Soviet Union, playing with and against both of them in relation to one another.
Jews are playing with blacks and Hispanics.

We speak of 'electing a new majority', but the big demographic event of the 90s was electing the new minority. Hispanics overtook blacks. Now, many blacks were silently bitter about this. After all, they had been, since the beginning of the Republic, the biggest minority. Their loss of this historic position was of huge significance. Black power/position as the primary minority was overturned in the 90s by rise of Hispanic immigration. Blacks were bitter but remained in the Democratic Party cuz of freebies. Even so, it led to much repressed tension between blacks and browns and between blacks and white/Jewish liberals who allowed in the brown tide. With low wage brown workers, affluent liberal whites no longer relied on black labor--even white businessmen in the South, traditionally dependent on black workers, could just hire brown ones.
Also,blacks had to compete with browns in all sorts of jobs, in government jobs too, as browns demanded their share of postal, government, bus driver, and etc jobs. In a way, rise if brown power meant more power to Democrats, but what is the sense of Democratic victory if browns take much from blacks, as happened in CA? Blacks end up with less.

Since blacks were grumbling, Jews needed someone like Obama to be made president. Thus, even as browns drown out the blacks, the blacks think they are in power cuz a black guy is president. Thus feeling empowered by puppet symbol Obama, blacks go along with Democratic program and become blind to the fact that they're actually losing the larger struggle in demographic politics and economics. Dummies.

Beecher Asbury said...

Matthew said, "I struggle to think of even one anti-Semitic policy or one serious anti-Semitic incident in all of American history."

How about General Grant's Infamy?

Anonymous said...

"Sheldon doesn't have dual loyalty. He has a single loyalty: Israel."

No, it's to Jewish Power, of which Israel is but a part.

Hunsdon said...

Anonydroid said: "Dual loyalty! I wish it were dual!" Who was it who said that?

Hunsdon replied: It sounds like Joe Sobran's observation that dual loyalty would be an improvement.

Hunsdon said...

International Jew said: No one's asking America to go to war for Israel. But it used to be nice when America seemed to care more about nuclear proliferation.

Hunsdon replied: No one? Sir, you strain my credulity. (Page through the Weekly Standard, some time.) As regards nuclear proliferation, I'd be willing to take a hard line. Shall we talk about Dimona?

Baloo said...

The funny thing about unfair stereotypes is that they manifest all over the place. This is a great find. Linked and commented by the old curmudgeon, Ex-Army, HERE

Anonymous said...

Timothy Noah, gay or not, sure acts like gay. So does Peter Beinart, who is gay.

Huh? Noah is a widower with grown children. Beinart lives with his wife and has two kids.

Anonymous said...

"Sheldon doesn't have dual loyalty. He has a single loyalty: Israel."

No, it's to Jewish Power, of which Israel is but a part.


Jewish Power is great. You should worship it too.

Anonymous said...

"Jewish Power is great. You should worship it too."

We do. But we made many offerings to the god of Jewish power, but it he don't do us no favors.

Anonymous said...

"A shande far di goyim"

I don't know what a shande is, but Brother Jew, can you spare a shekel?

Svigor said...

No one's asking America to go to war for Israel. But it used to be nice when America seemed to care more about nuclear proliferation.

Agreed. We should invade Israel, destroy their nukes, and afterward, bomb any nuclear facilities they try to build. Then we can worry about Iran!

Silver said...

Steve, you don't know anything. Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban are Liberal White Women!

anony-mouse,

Doesn't the fact that Santorum and Romney are expressing vigorous support for Israel w/o $10 million from Adelson disprove your (and Alterman's) comments about the importance of Adelson?

No. That support simply explains why they haven't been given the Ron Paul treatment by the establishment media. It doesn't mean that a Jewish billionaire can't try to buy something a little extra special.

Anyway, even if it's not as I've outlined, some people have this quaint notion that Adelson-like machinations should be investigated, and frowned upon. You, I take it, disagree?

IHTG said...

To the antisemites raging at Steve's whimsical attitude towards Sheldon:
You idiots. You just don't get it, do you?

When the Emperor wore his "new clothes", the little boy didn't blow him away with an AK-47. He just cried out that the Emperor had no clothes.

Anonymous said...

This is almost funny. Disparate impact in the media is now so total the entire debate has been reduced to two Jewish factions being anti-semitic about each other.

lol

I'm actually looking forward to it all collapsing as fighting for survival against machete-wielding mobs will be a major improvement on living in this Kafkaesque sitcom.

.
Fred
"That isn't the way political donations work though. You make donations to support candidates who already share your views."

Not entirely. The key issues of the biggest donor blocs e.g.
- Israel first
- Banksta first
- Unlimited immigration
determines the deeply held views of the sociopath element in both parties which in America is a huge percentage (because the donor's issues have been bad or semi-bad for most of those politician's voters for decades hence the donors have been selecting for sociopaths or idiot actors for decades).

.
RKU
"Two words: "No Brakes"..."

Quite.

Hunsdon said...

IHTG said: To the antisemites raging at Steve's whimsical attitude towards Sheldon:
You idiots. You just don't get it, do you?

Hunsdon replied: Sir, could you provide us with your definition of antisemitism?

Nanonymous said...

Only some 3,000 out of 1.4 million active duty servicemen and women are Jewish, about two-tenths of one percent.

Wow. Let's compare. A quote from
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=13681 :

"One hundred fifty American Jews between the ages of 18 and 23 will arrive in Israel this month to participate in the draft, and all have requested that the army enlist them in combat units."

It is reasonable to assume then that that at least another 300 are already serving. Active IDF is 190,000. Which means that, proportionally, slightly more American Jews serve in Israeli military than in the US military.

Anonymous said...

To the antisemites raging at Steve's whimsical attitude towards Sheldon:
You idiots. You just don't get it, do you?


No, we actually do get it, thanks.

We just don't think it's the right attitude. Steve is way too kind. He's a nice guy in general, and has a tendency to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. We don't think it's warranted here.

Maimonides, Yourmonides, Whateverides said...

Medieval rabbis advised "A shande far di goyim"

No, you've misunderstood the phrase. They advised against committing such a thing.

Basically, this is a just a reconversion to Roman letters of the Hebrew spelling of a Yiddish expression, which is itself just a dialectal pronunciation of German. The phrase is "eine Schande vor den Goyim" or "a disgrace in front of the goyim". There's no negative in it, it's just a characterization of the act of doing something shameful in front of the gentiles (or so the link you have explains it). So, "a shande far di goyim" is something that that the rabbis apparently told Jews they shouldn't do (because acting that way in the gentile world at large would simply cause greater problems for the Jewish community).

So they castigated or censured "a shande far di goyim". They certainly didn't advise it.

Anonymous said...

No one's asking America to go to war for Israel. But it used to be nice when America seemed to care more about nuclear proliferation
well, if the US were to really enforce its nuke proliferation treaty it would have to sever ties and cut off funding to israel, and you wouldn't want that, would you sweetheart?

The hypocrisy is mind numbing.

Anonymous said...

If a Jew-hater somewhere, inspired perhaps by The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, sought to invent an individual who symbolizes almost all the anti-Semitic clichés that have dogged the Jewish people throughout history, he could hardly come up with a character more perfect than Sheldon Adelson
yeah it's kind of funny how those individuals keep popping up.

Steve Sailer said...

"They advised against committing such a thing."

Right, thanks, that's what I meant, but I left out a word when typing. I'll fix it.

anony-mouse said...

Silver said,

'No that support simply explains why they haven't been given the Ron Paul treatment by the media'

Rick Santorum has been treated well by the media? Name one.

Anonymous said...

You idiots. You just don't get it, do you?

You just don't seem to get it.

We want self-determination.

Silver said...

anony-mouse,

Rick Santorum has been treated well by the media? Name one.

He's been given the Ron Paul treatment, has he? lol.

Hundson,

Hunsdon replied: Sir, could you provide us with your definition of antisemitism?

Oh, very funny. Come on, stop playing games. We know what an antisemite is: someone that Jews hate.

Anonymous said...

Sheila must be disappointed by this thread. No one here in her hated faction of co-ethnics has a problem with what Steve says about Adelson.

Anonymous said...

Dear antisemites, you don't get to decide what is shameful in this society. Cheerleading for Israel is currently not shameful. On the other hand, being an antisemite is.

Anonymous said...

Both Jews and gentiles get to claim Larry Ellison. He was raised by Reform Jews, but his birth parents were an Italian American soldier and an Irish girl. Which explains why his kids are a hot blonde and Jake Busey's handsome brother.

Anonymous said...

"Both Jews and gentiles get to claim Larry Ellison. He was raised by Reform Jews, but his birth parents were an Italian American soldier and an Irish girl."

He was adopted like Steve Jobs? WTF.
But he looks Jewish. And he must be supersmart. Maybe his mother was Irish-Jewish and the father was Italian-Jewish.

Anonymous said...

American conservative logic in a nutshell:

"Jews hate me, and so I love Israel."

Anonymous said...

Snippers I have seen at bar mitzvahs, but snipers...?

Gilbert Pinfold.

Anonymous said...

Christian Conservatism has just jumped the shark. My head hurts. Jews hate me, so I'll hate Iran and call for total annihilation of the country. Can they spare the film industry there at least. They seem to make better movies than Hollywood.

Tucker Carlson reminds me of the Crow Indian in LITTLE BIG MAN(who apologizes for attacking Dustin Hoffman), a toady of the white man who thinks whites will love him if he kills and scalps a Cheyenne Indian real good.

Delbaran is a remarkable movie.

Porter said...

When the Emperor wore his "new clothes", the little boy didn't blow him away with an AK-47. He just cried out that the Emperor had no clothes.

The boy also didn’t launch a Tomahawk cruise missile at the emperor. Perhaps because he had neither weapon at his disposal? Or perhaps because the moral of the story, which I’m glad you mentioned, was that merely stating what his eyes observed was a courageous act when all about him maintained a lie.

And whether our eyes be lying or not, that’s what jews object to: Not, the “anti-semitism.” They care no more about who we hate than who we love. But rather they object to the noticing, the observing, the pointing out, and the discussing.

No, as long as we keep our heads down and continue mumbling about what a fine suit the emperor is wearing, anti-semitism is no problem at all.

tommy said...

Maimonides (or Rambam, if you prefer):

So they castigated or censured "a shande far di goyim". They certainly didn't advise it.

Yes, good correction, but that's the problem with the Jews and their morality: there is a tremendous emphasis on avoiding shame and not much emphasis on avoiding guilt. Traditional Judaism (and Orthodox Judaism today) constantly emphasized avoiding chilul Hashem* as the primary reason to deal fairly with non-Jews. In Judaism it isn't a given that non-Jews shouldn't be libeled, robbed, ripped off, or murdered as it is for Jews. There has to be an "Is it good for the Jews?" justification for it.

Even the definitive compilation of halacha among Orthodox Jews, the Shulchan Aruch, forbids a Jew from correcting a non-Jew's mistake--such as giving too much money back on a purchase--when it benefits a Jew unless the Jew intends to make a kiddush Hashem by correcting the error.

I suspect this low empathy, intellectualized morality that revolves around "Is it good for the Jews?" has a biological basis. The religion is just a cultural expression of innate Jewish psychological proclivities.

* Chilul Hashem is literally "desecration of God's name" but is in effect avoiding bad PR for the tribe. The idea being that you shouldn't commit certain acts because the goy might then curse the Jewish God or his Chosen People. Kiddush Hashem, sanctification of God's name, is just the opposite. It's good PR for the religion or for The Tribe.

King of Hollywood said...


Rick Santorum has been treated well by the media? Name one.


Its a given that any Republican will not be treated well by the major networks and newspaper outlets. However, Ron Paul has been smeared and slimed like none other in the so-called conservative media. Levin and Medved spends their day attacking Paul. Ron Paul also gets hate from Hannity, Rush, Savage and many others. When's the last time National Review, The American Spectator or The Weekly Standard had a positive article about Ron Paul...as opposed to Christopher Hitchens or Joe Lieberman?

Oh...just happened to watch Fox News tonight to see Ed Rollins giving political commentary. He remarked about the "three smart men" that were at the debate last night arguing..oh and that..."although smart" Ron Paul essentially did not belong up there.

Fred said...

Anon,

"Not entirely. The key issues of the biggest donor blocs e.g.
- Israel first
- Banksta first
- Unlimited immigration
determines the deeply held views of the sociopath element in both parties which in America is a huge percentage (because the donor's issues have been bad or semi-bad for most of those politician's voters for decades hence the donors have been selecting for sociopaths or idiot actors for decades)."


Can you give one example of a politician who changed his or her position on any of those subjects as a result of a large campaign donation? It doesn't happen. Sheldon Adelson can't make Ron Paul an Israel-firster, and the King of Saudi Arabia can't make Newt Gingrich anti-Israel.

Silver said...

Fred,

Can you give one example of a politician who changed his or her position on any of those subjects as a result of a large campaign donation? It doesn't happen. Sheldon Adelson can't make Ron Paul an Israel-firster,

They don't have to "change" their positions. Being politicians, they assume those positions in no small part because they expect that Jewish money will thereby materialize. (And lo and behold, appear it does.)

If they can't make Israel-firster out of the Ron Pauls it's because some politicians (pathetically few) still figure on political returns from America-firsterism.

synchronicity said...

Was amused to see that link the other week in Best of the Web (Alterman's written somewhat similar things about his main nemesis, Hahvahd gigolo Martin Peretz) the 1st thing I thought of was this:
http://www.tmz.com/2012/01/10/david-cross-alvin-and-the-chipmunks-chipwrecked-producer-jew-conan/

morleysafer said...

NBC's analogy of a Jewish gambling boss to Joe Kennedy, Sr. is a weirdly funny news slug in itself, but still funnier is the implication that Gingrich is his JFK.

ben tillman said...

They don't have to "change" their positions. Being politicians, they assume those positions in no small part because they expect that Jewish money will thereby materialize. (And lo and behold, appear it does.)

Thanks for saving me the trouble.

David said...

>even people most abused by Jews, namely white conservatives, do nothing but sing praises to Jews and Israel. This is worship of a people.<

It is literally worship. "The Jewish People" has replaced Christ in Christian Zionism. One of this new religion's chief figures is the Rev. Hagee, if anyone wants to Google around in this dreck. You know you are in the presence of a buh-liever when you encounter their mantra: "God punishes those who go against the Jews/Israel."

Anonymous said...

You should have your fucking throat slit for that Sailer.

Svigor said...

To the antisemites raging at Steve's whimsical attitude towards Sheldon:
You idiots. You just don't get it, do you?

When the Emperor wore his "new clothes", the little boy didn't blow him away with an AK-47. He just cried out that the Emperor had no clothes.


Indeed. This ANTI-SEMITE!!! loved the imagery, by the way.

Hunsdon replied: Sir, could you provide us with your definition of antisemitism?

Me!

No, we actually do get it, thanks.

We just don't think it's the right attitude. Steve is way too kind. He's a nice guy in general, and has a tendency to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. We don't think it's warranted here.


I'm fine with it. Steve "giggle and point" Sailer and Svyatoslav "give the emperor a lead salad" Igorevich are both ANTI-SEMITIES!!! Debasing your enemy's currency is a good thing.

Besides, that's what comments sections are for.

Oh, very funny. Come on, stop playing games. We know what an antisemite is: someone that Jews hate.

If that's true, it just means "gentile," and it's more about degree than a yes or no distinction.

Dear antisemites, you don't get to decide what is shameful in this society. Cheerleading for Israel is currently not shameful. On the other hand, being an antisemite is.

Hey, I'll open this can of worms anytime, anywhere. In fact, opening this can of worms = win.

Svigor said...

If they can't make Israel-firster out of the Ron Pauls it's because some politicians (pathetically few) still figure on political returns from America-firsterism.

I share Silver's view of politics here. The players are the money-men and media first, and the voters a distant second. People who pray for a Great Leader are missing how the game is played. If you want to identify a "leader," look to the money-men. Political leaders emerge to represent constituencies and capital. Leaders with no one to lead and no money to spend are not leaders; they do not "emerge" without one, or both. If you want a leader to "emerge," you must first create a constituency and a war chest.

Anonymous said...

"Both Jews and gentiles get to claim Larry Ellison. He was raised by Reform Jews, but his birth parents were an Italian American soldier and an Irish girl."

Per wiki, Ellison's birth mother was Jewish and his birth father was Italian-American. His adopstive parents were his mother's aunt and uncle.

Anonymous said...

Fred
"Can you give one example of a politician who changed his or her position on any of those subjects as a result of a large campaign donation?"

They don't have to. It happened decades earlier when the politician was just starting out at some small local election and a guy from AIPAC or some other lobby has a litle chat with the contenders and gives a few thousand to the one who has the correct opinions on the critical issues:
- Israel first
- Banksta rule
- unlimited immigration

As those policies are bad or semi-bad for the majority of the politician's voters this process of early filtering has been effectively selecting for sociopaths for decades.

dogzma said...

"You know you are in the presence of a buh-liever when you encounter their mantra: "God punishes those who go against the Jews/Israel.""

Using the expanded definition of "God", most Sailer readers would strongly agree with this assertion. ;0)

Anonymous said...

Can you give one example of a politician who changed his or her position on any of those subjects as a result of a large campaign donation? It doesn't happen. Sheldon Adelson can't make Ron Paul an Israel-firster, and the King of Saudi Arabia can't make Newt Gingrich anti-Israel.

Jesse Helms made the switch to pro-Israel after a close race and large campaign donations made to his opponent in that election.

http://www.wrmea.com/archives/march2002/0203034.html
(...)
After years of vicious innuendo, perhaps some of his earlier unpleasantries have been forgotten by younger readers. In 1984, however, Senator Helms made the most astonishing turnaround in American politics. The occasion was the closest election in Jesse Helms’ already long career.

Prior to his run for re-election Jesse Helms had been described by the Israel lobby as the most dangerous opponent of Israel in the United States. In fact, his record on Israel was the most negative of any member of the Senate, he had the lowest rating of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) of any senator.

As a result, the Israel lobby invested perhaps one of the country’s biggest campaign contributions per capita in an attempt to unseat Jesse Helms. Pro-Israel political action committees poured an astonishing $222,342 into the campaign of Helms’ opponent, North Carolina Governor James Hunt. Hunt’s campaign secretary proclaimed that “Senator Helms has the worst anti-Israel record in the United States Senate and supporters of Israel throughout the country know it.”

After squeaking by with the narrowest of margins, Jesse Helms promptly “saw the light.” The senator gathered together as many of his North Carolina Jewish constituents as he could, and together they set out on a pilgrimage to Israel. There he had himself photographed wearing a yarmulke and kissing the Western Wall. Upon his return, the reborn Jesse Helms bombarded the media with a series of pro-Israel statements.

(...)

Anonymous said...

Steve or whoever is moderating, you SERIOUSLY NEED TO STOP ALLOWING ANONYMOUS POSTING (THAT INCLUDES ME). Your posts are full of anonymous anti-Semitic loonies, who wouldn't dare post such racist drivel if they had to reveal their email address (and possibly get booted off).