Mondoweiss reports in 2011: “I admire Ron Kampeas of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency for telling readers that he is a settler in East Jerusalem. Well Kampeas has also been more honest than other reporters about the role of Jewish money in the American political process. Here he says that the battle for Jewish money motivated the Democratic Party to name Deborah Wasserman Schultz as head of the DNC, and that Obama’s recent mild resistance to the Netanyahu government has encouraged Republicans to compete with Dems for big Jewish donors. But Obama and the Dems feel that they can drive a wedge on this issue, in the right-center, and keep Jewish support. When I say right-center, it is because Obama’s shills on this issue include Anthony Weiner, who doesn’t believe there’s an occupation, and because Wasserman Schultz has herself met with rightwing nut Sheldon Adelson. So the issue isn’t really politicized, everyone’s for settlements forever, and this is a backroom money fight. It shouldn’t be in the backroom. You’d think that other journalists would jump in now and explain how rightwing Jewish money has corrupted policy on this issue. By the way the percentage in my headline has been estimated at 60 percent by the Washington Post and, privately to me recently by someone claiming to know, 80 percent. Go figure.”
Comments at Steve Sailer:
* 2/3 of Democratic money comes from Jewish donors. Not to mention that most Democratic policies, talking points, and media and PR are crafted by Jewish intellectuals, policymakers, and journalists. The Democratic Party as present constituted would effectively cease to exist without Jews.
* I never heard of McCartney’s performing at a fund raiser for a specific politician before. This election seems to be bringing out of the woodwork a lot of celebrities that one could have assumed were liberal but who had mostly avoided explicit partisanship – McCartney, Paul Simon, Meryl Streep, Sigourney Weaver, Morgan Freeman.
* I see, so the story is that she’s really the picture of vibrant good health in these small personal meetings, impressing them with her wit and intellectual sharpness. This is why she chooses not to make public appearances that aren’t carefully stage-managed. Good cover story.
* The takeaway messages from this article are that Hillary is only comfortable when: 1) she’s liquored-up, and 2) she’s in an elite bubble far away from lumpenproletariat scum.
* Lady de Rothschild is in urgent need of reading The Bell Curve. As are, frankly, most politicians. Unfortunately the skills for gaining office are not exactly aligned with governing effectively.
There needs to be some sort of quick, dumbed down to the max, HBD video primer. It would cover IQ, criminality, GDP/ capita relations, and probably something regarding East Asian negatives (corruption, altruism) so IQ fetishists don’t import an East Asian ruling class by the shipload.
* Rather interesting to juxtapose this:
(Mr. Trump feels more at home at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Fla., than in the Hamptons, where the exclusive Maidstone Club once denied him a full-time membership, according to The New York Post.)
With That:
To the Trumpettes, the candidate’s lack of governing experience is irrelevant. The proof of his ability to make America great again is in his business empire and the properties contained within it, places Trumpettes know well.
“The reason I love his club and Trump International is because it’s perfection,” Kramer said of Mar-a-Lago, his private Palm Beach club, and Trump’s nearby golf course. “That’s the way he’ll run the country.”
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/donald-trump-2016-trumpettes-bel-air-214206
Perhaps taste in country clubs is the true cultural fault-line of the 21st century?
*
Are the big democrat donors mostly Jewish? Are there any more rich Gentiles in the Hamptons?
Well, let’s use the article as a test-case:
“I stand between you and the apocalypse,” a confident Mrs. Clinton declared to laughs, exhibiting a flash of self-awareness and humor to a crowd that included Calvin Klein and Harvey Weinstein
“It’s the old adage, you go to where the money is,” said Jay S. Jacobs, a prominent New York Democrat.
Jacobs is not always a Jewish name, but…
“It’s like going to a wedding or a bar mitzvah — you catch up,” explained Mitchell Berger, a Democratic donor in Florida, about the familial nature of the events. …
That’s some pretty bold signalling on the J-Dar….
Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a backer of Democrats and a friend of the Clintons’, made sure attendees did not grill Mrs. Clinton at the $100,000-per-couple lamb dinner Mrs. Forester de Rothschild hosted under a tent on the lawn of her oceanfront Martha’s Vineyard mansion.
Are the de Rothschilds still Jewish? Did Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild convert? Exercises for the student.
This year, the former first couple stayed in the guesthouse of Steven Spielberg’s East Hampton compound built on nine acres overlooking Georgica and Lily Ponds.
* (((Rothschild)))
(((Klein)))
(((Weinstein)))
I wonder what all three have in common. What could be the common factor that makes them dislike Trump?
* The contrast could not be more obvious:
Here too, across the sound from Long Island, Clintons and Obamas have repeatedly lunched and dined for donations at the beachfront homes of Weinstein and others. We’ve seen Marine One and the Secret Service come and go since Bill was president. It’s always been for a party of rich donors at some local mogul’s home.
Donald Trump, on the other hand, recently helicoptered into my neighborhood on his own dime and spoke in a sweaty gymnasium to a packed house of ordinary citizens. Even if a cynic might claim it’s all for show, it’s a show of respect and it matters a great deal.
Which candidate, and which party, do you really think has any chance of representing the American people?
I’ve said before that leaders on the Right tend to be a lot nicer and accessible than those on the Left, and it’s true. The Left’s show of care for common citizens has always been a charade.
* “A Trump presidency would be “dire” for Calvin Klein and Harvey Weinstein? What is their fear exactly?”
Haha, yeah I had the same question when I read that part. I think the answer may be that once a certain level of comfort and affluence is attained and one is freed of the constraints of material wants, one’s mind tends to wander into idiosyncratic directions. The top of Maslow’s pyramid of needs is a remarkably flexible and peculiar place compared to the more rigid and objective requirements at the bottom.
There also seems to be a strange and unconscious human desire to feel persecuted. Maybe it is a form of egotism, like “I’m so important that others seek my undoing”. I don’t feel it myself, perhaps because I’m just not important enough, but I see it all the time among others, especially, I have to admit, among a certain ethnic group well represented at Hillary’s fundraisers.
So, you have the freedom bestowed by affluence to explore the upper reaches of Maslow’s pyramid combined with the common if unhealthy propensity to feel persecuted, and voila: billionaires worried about the wrong billionaire getting into office.
Then there’s 5371′s explanation. Maybe they are all criminals and should be worried. Hillary clearly is a criminal. Birds of a feather and all that.
* One of the untold stories of this election is that Trump and Clinton are both perfect examples of unrestrained male and female behavior. In corner #1 you have Hillary who is the proverbial one-and-done mom who milked her husband for everything she could. There is no question who got the better of that deal. We are supposed to pity her but the reason Bill Clinton was flying from flower to flower is that he was chewing ice his entire marriage. He was the most alpha guy imaginable with a hyper sex drive and all he has to show for it are two grand kids that materialized very late in the game.
In corner #2 you have a guy who is a serial monogamist. He has lots of money. He builds things. He dates beautiful women and always on his terms. All of his wives have signed pre-nups. He can have a dozen gorgeous women wrapped around his arm and yet he is the one who sucks the oxygen out of the room.
There is a reason every short haired post menopausal shrew wants Hillary elected.
* Schools for journalism ought to use this article as a model for aesopean speech: walking the fine line between ultra-naivety and blunt sarcasm. I mean: if Cozick is questioned by her superiors she can always pose as a true admirer of the ultra-rich, Lin-Miranda-style. But in this case, would she really have used the epithet “gilded”, reminding the educated reader to Twain and Mencken?
* This afternoon I wrote about a German novel by Hermann Peter Piwitt – called: “Rothschilds” (Hamburg, 1972). – From the dust-jacket: Rothschilds is about: “…Paul Ankas ‘Dina’, Baldus’ bicycle, Rebeccas fragrance … and Philosemitism as a form, that enables the public to keep quiet about (…) fascism — and about idividual destiny. If three banks are united, that’s lots of individual destiny.” Tivoli-Kunst (= Theodor W. Adorno) is the big seducer.
Piwitt was a little bit early – but anyhow – his book is a great short novel and highly recomended to any german speaking readers.
* If you specialise in philosemitism, you can evade discussing questions like these: How fascism came into power – what this had to do with the Weimar-Republic elites – and their tendency to rather support the big money and Hitler than the republican forces.
He had a point in this Novel – even tough he drank a lot when he wrote it. It’s a fantastic read though for those happy few who dig it…
Somehting that comes only very very slowly into the realm, where discussions take place: That lots of jews were part of the weimar elite – and made lots of mistakes – just like anybody else – and one thing especially that was a very impotant fact, as far as envy is concerend: Many of the bourgeois jews prospered way above average.
Now, this is important: You have to make a decent description of a society in order to come to reasonable conclusions. – Those are desriptive attempts – to remark such things means n o t to state, that the jews in Germany caused there destiny in the Gas-Cahmbers or something like this, because they were successful.
The first, who in Germny wrote in a decent way about these things, was an essayist, Siegfried Kohlhammer, who was for a while visible, because he published in the decent monthly Merkur. He doesn’t publish anymore and lives in Japan now, as far as i know.
Kohlhammer, by the way, broke the ice on the Islamistic-taboo in Germany – together with Hans Magnus Enzensberger.
Enzensberger was prudent and clear-sighted enough to escape being silenced. Kohlhammer could have gone on on a small scale with his work (Merkur sells less than 10 000 copies), his books sold in the 4 digits realm – but he stopped publishing.
Then came Sarrazin.
Sarrazin and Enzensberger respect one another. Kohlhammer and Piwitt are the lone dogs in the field.
