From Slate, a representative response to another thing that was the Biggest Story in the History of the World for about six hours earlier this week:
Breitbart Calls Trump Foe “Renegade Jew.” This Is How Anti-Semitism Goes Mainstream.
By Michelle Goldberg
MAY 16 2016 11:22 AM
In March, several staffers at the right-wing website Breitbart resigned over the site’s treatment of reporter Michelle Fields, who had accused Donald Trump’s campaign manager Corey Lewandowski of assault. The site, they felt, had become Trump’s Pravda. “I believe Breitbart News is becoming less of a news site and more of a propaganda organization dedicated to the Trump campaign,” associate editor Jarrett Stepman said in a statement. Even before the Fields incident, Breitbart was so in the tank for Trump that, according to Buzzfeed, many who worked there believed its leadership had been paid off.
That’s why Sunday night’s Breitbart headline calling Bill Kristol, a leading voice in the #NeverTrump movement, a “Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew,” feels significant. No other news site has been so closely associated with the Trump campaign. And the Trump campaign has been associated with white nationalism and a resurgence of raw, violently threatening anti-Semitism. Breitbart’s headline suggests that the Jew baiting popular on pro-Trump social media feeds is creeping toward the mainstream.
So … who exactly wrote this horribly anti-Semitic article and headline?
And yes, I realize that a Jew, David Horowitz, Black Panther groupie turned pro-white race hustler, wrote the piece. In it, the famously conspiracy-minded Horowitz rails against Kristol and “a small but well-heeled group of Washington insiders” who are hoping to arrange a conservative third-party candidacy. A paragraph seemingly tacked on at the end accuses Kristol of putting world Jewry in danger by potentially splitting the Republican vote and empowering Democrats who are soft on radical Islam. It’s enough, perhaps, to give Breitbart plausible deniability; the site can claim it’s calling out Kristol on behalf of Jews, rather than calling him out as a Jew.
Uh, I know David Horowitz (to the extent of sitting in a dozen or so conferences with him). Horowitz is intense. He reminds me of Norman Podhoretz.
Here are the last two paragraphs of Horowitz’s article denouncing Kristol, and they’re a good representative of his thought and personality:
All these dishonesties and flim-flam excuses pale by comparison with the consequences Kristol and his “Never Trump” cohorts are willing to risk by splitting the Republican vote. Obama has provided America’s mortal enemy, Iran, with a path to nuclear weapons, $150 billion dollars, and the freedom to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles to deliver the lethal payloads. Trump has promised to abandon the Iran deal, while Hillary Clinton and all but a handful of Democrats have supported this treachery from start to finish. Kristol is now one of their allies.
I am a Jew who has never been to Israel and has never been a Zionist in the sense of believing that Jews can rid themselves of Jew hatred by having their own nation state. But half of world Jewry now lives in Israel, and the enemies whom Obama and Hillary have empowered — Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, ISIS, and Hamas — have openly sworn to exterminate the Jews. I am also an American (and an American first), whose country is threatened with destruction by the same enemies. To weaken the only party that stands between the Jews and their annihilation, and between America and the forces intent on destroying her, is a political miscalculation so great and a betrayal so profound as to not be easily forgiven.
In other words, Horowitz thinks Trump is good for the Jews, so he’s mad at Kristol for being anti-Trump. Kristol probably feels the opposite. It’s a reasonable thing for two ethnocentrists like Horowitz and Kristol to argue over. And they like arguing. They’re good at it. It’s what they do.
Goldberg, meanwhile, is playing a role that traditionally has been well-rewarded in the Jewish community: the third party who comes up with a rationalization for why a typical fight like this among Jews is really the fault of the gentiles.
Your Russian Jewish great-grandfather got blackballed from joining a German Jewish country club? It was the fault of the WASP country clubs.
Jewish patriarchs invested more in the education of their sons than their daughters and their smart daughters are resentful? Society is to blame. Etc.
This is a pretty smart ethnic solidarity-building practice, but you shouldn’t have to take it seriously.
* I guess if anyone was going to write this, it would be Horowitz. Most Jews are intense, media Jews are intense, and Dave is intense.
I support protecting the Jews from these threats, in return for diaspora Jews protecting autochthonous European populations (particularly western Europeans and old stock in the Anglosphere, who are most in need) from globalism, multiculturalism, and open borders, and Israeli Jews leaning hard on diaspora Jewry to make sure they keep their side of the bargain.
Otherwise, I think we should let Israel sink or swim on her own.
* Goldberg is not entirely wrong about this. Sites like Breitbart and mainstream gentile journalists in general often avoid putting out critical pieces like this on Jewish figures unless they can have a Jewish writer do it.
* The alt-right has been pointing out that Jews are clearly dominant in neocon circles, but also dominant in American and European open-borders and pro-multiculturalism circles. Put this together and to some people it looks like a conspiracy. Jews haven’t been paying attention to the critiques of people like Kevin MacDonald and so what is an actuality a sustained critique looks like a sudden explosion of irrational anti-Semitism associated with Trump. Thus paving the way for the total freakouts of Shapiro, Kristol, Goldberg, J. Rubin, and on and on. Oh, and did I mention every single major article written on the alt-right was by a Jew or half-Jew?
But this is silly. Trump’s daughter and son-in-law are Orthodox Jews. There are Jews associated with the Trump campaign.
Jews (I’m one) need some quiet reflection on these accusations and calm dialogue with the intelligentsia of the alt-right (not the twitter trolls, the actual thinkers). There is a way out of this impasse and actually it goes through Trump.
* A Jewish guy with a reputation for hyperbole calls another Jewish guy who most people already despise a “renegade Jew” and that’s supposed to indicate “raw, violently threatening anti-Semitism.” Well, that’s the dumbest thing I’ve read today.
* It reminds me an epigram written by an author, unknown to me:
Провожая на вокзал,
Маршак Чуковского лобзал.
А покинувши вокзал,
“Какая сволочь!” — он сказал.
The epigram deals with two really remarkable Soviet poets and writers of children books, Samuil Marshak (1887-1964) and Korney Chukovsky (1882-1969).
Attempt of translation from Russian:
Brought Chukovsky to train station,
Marshak kissed him with adoration.
Afterwards Marshak left the station,
“What an SOB !” was exclamation.
The comic element, somewhat related to the pair Horovitz / Kristol,
was that those two truly remarkable Russian poets ethnically (genetically) both were Jews: Marshak 100%, Chukovsky 50%.
* I read that article and wondered if Breitbart had become a full member of the alt-right. Then I read the original article and rolled my eyes. I don’t know whether I found Horowitz’s ‘everyone who disagrees with me is an anti-Semite’ or Goldberg’s ‘Trump is secretly a Nazi’ shtick more annoying.
The bad news is, Adelson bought Trump (and now he’s in Adelson’s pocket). The good news is, Adelson bought Trump (and now, he may actually have a shot).
* I’ll always be willing to cut David Horowitz some slack. His book “Radical Son” was one of the best written, most interesting, and, perhaps, one of the most important political memoirs of the 20th century. And it was instrumental in turning me into a conservative and a Republican (in that order). I may not always agree with him – I don’t – but I’m always willing to listen to what he has to say. He’s a mensch.
Kristol, on the other hand,………………..well………………he wrote some nice stuff for Dan Quayle to say.
* Yeah, given Trump’s many familial and business connections to Jews, it is ridiculous to think that he is some kind of 1488 messiah. He is, perhaps (I hope), a patriotic American who has some affinity for the actual people who make up this country – a citizenist, as Steve would say.
* I wonder if Trump will cause a civil war amongst the neocons. On one hand, you have the Kristol-Kagan-Boot-Podhortez (Jr.) faction which wants a socially liberal (especially on immigration) candidate with extreme hawkish views. One the other hand, you have more pragmatic neocons, like David Horowitz, who don’t mind cracking down on illegal immigration and minority crime, as long as they get an pro Zionist foreign policy. Horowitz, like Podhoretz Sr., has had interesting things to say about domestic issues, unfortunately he writes a lot of nonsense about foreign policy (I.e. ” Islamofascism”).
* I attended a small conference hosted by Michelle Goldberg a few years back in New York. I was in the audience and raised a rather innocuous, but historically accurate point that undermined the entire discussion. Goldberg was completely flustered by the discussion and honestly I thought she was at the point of tears. Such that upon leaving, I politely informed her that it was merely a policy debate and that my (factually and objectively truthful) statement was not meant to be a personal offense.
* The 1488ers were there all along but most of us never paid any attention to them since they were tucked away at Stormfront and similar places. Then, suddenly there are people posting amusing 4chan/pol memes on Twitter, and then we’re following them, and the 1488ers are also following them, and CONTACT occurs.
It’s amazing the number of anti-Semites I’ve talked to on social media in the last few months after living my entire life hardly talking to ANY. When you first become aware of them it’s a bit unnerving and they’re blossoming on newer websites and hitting lots of forums so becoming more and more public.
I think they’re doing Trump a huge disservice since their main effect will be to scare off potential voters. But since they’re so enthusiastic (and often creative) the Alt-Right cognoscenti aren’t about to purge them. So now we have this interesting situation where real anti-Semites and Trump-supporting Jews are working together. Strange times.
* LF: The success of Donald Trump has encouraged more whites to pursue their interests. Most whites still don’t realize that they have group interests that are often in opposition to those of other groups such as Jews, blacks, Muslims, asians, etc.
Those whites who already feel on the fringe of society will be more likely to go whole hog for white interests (the 1488 crowd and those who have infiltrated it and want to stir up trouble).
There are no permanent allies or enemies in the world. Just conflicting interests. The Nazis had a pro-Zionist strand 1933-1938.
“In the summer of 1935, then holding the rank of SS-Untersturmführer, Mildenstein attended the 19th Congress of the Zionist Organization in Lucerne, Switzerland, as an observer attached to the German Jewish delegation. Mildenstein’s apparently pro-Zionist line was overtaken by events, and after a dispute with Reinhard Heydrich in 1936 he was removed from his post and transferred to the Foreign Ministry’s press department. He had fallen out of favour because migration to Palestine was not proceeding at a fast enough rate.”
As an Orthodox Jew, I sure hope a compromise with whites is possible.
Thinkers far beyond myself are not sanguine. F. Roger Devlin said: “I have read Dr. MacDonald’s trilogy from beginning to end twice, parts of it more often. I think the interpretation of “cultures” as group evolutionary strategies will prove a crucial insight. Viewed sub specie aeternitatis, Dr. MacDonald’s interpretation of Jewish-Gentile conflict has a tragic quality to it: Conflict is not due to any misunderstanding which might be corrected, but to the intrinsic nature of the two peoples. Of course, in politics we do not have the luxury of viewing conflict sub specie aeternitatis, and we must do what is best for our own people. This has nothing to do with harboring negative feelings toward Jews or anyone else, but only with perceiving our ethnopolitical situation accurately in order to act upon it rationally. I work with dissident Jews who are willing to work with me, but I do not foresee any time when the perceived self-interest of organized Jewry coincides with White self-interest.”
* What about Brazil? The Arab interim president and his lamented, all-white cabinet just nominated a Jew to run the central bank.
* LF: Running central banks is just one of those jobs that goyim are not suited for. On the other hand, you don’t see a lot of Jews playing on the Lakers.
I don’t know why God chose to give different people different gifts. Most Ashkenazi Jews, for instance, have been white collar workers since the 15th Century.
* It’s almost as if some people resent being held, in perpetuity, in suspicion of being in sympathy with a seventy-year-old historical crime committed by one group of foreigners against another group of foreigners
Get a load of the nerve of such people – unwilling to assume the role of latent villains in some other group’s historical narrative.
* Speaking of Big Jew embrace of Trump, the number $100 million has been mentioned as what Sheldon will donate to Trump this cycle. There will be huge opportunities for Trump supporters to get full time paid work supporting him. If you are interested, just start volunteering now and ask the campaign later.
Horowitz is exactly right, Kristol should get in line right now. He does not need to go nuts supporting Trump, but actively working against the presumptive nominee the May before the election, and encouraging Mitt to run third party, that is completely unacceptable.
* 100% of the reaction here [to David Horowitz’s essay] is due to the word “Jew” in the title; I would be surprised if Michelle Goldberg ever heard of Kevin MacDonald.
With blacks, the “n-word” has become taboo. With Jews, the word “Jew” itself has become taboo (“Jewish person” is still acceptable). That’s the taboo here, not the qualifier “renegade”.
That’s it. Occam’s razor.
* LF: If the goyim start noticing, oy gevalt, nothing good will happen for the Yidden. Best that there is no socially acceptable noticing of groups. That way Jews will be safe. Don’t even let them say “Jew.” Make them nervous so they say “Jewish people.” How about that Kim Kardashian?
* It’s ALMOST as if there was some event in the history of the Jewish people that has led many to be leery of bigoted right wing populists.
Right wing populists such as Oliver Cromwell, who allowed Jewish people to return to England?
Am I the only iStevenik who sometimes listens to Mark Levin’s radio show? Levin has taken to dismissively calling the Trump phenomenon “Populist Nationalist Agrarianism.”
“Agrarianism” = anti-Goy sneer word… Otherwise, I can’t think of anything agrarian about D. Trump.
* LF: In 1985, when I was 19 and still a goy, I started reading The New Republic. I had never knowingly met a Jew. I saw a cover story about “The idiocy of rural life” and I couldn’t understand this hostility. Now I understand that Jews fear Middle America and populism because Jews have rarely been popular. We’ve survived by cutting deals with elites. Better yet, we become the elites and control the Overton Window.
* Considering the conspicuous lack of non-marginalized bigoted right wing populists in the UK, US and Canada over the last sixty years, while Jews in these countries have prospered more than anywhere in the history of the diaspora, you might want to rethink your question.
Unless you were asking about Israel, in which case, it’s perfectly natural to be a right-wing populist in your homeland, especially when it’s under some sort of existential threat.
* Steve and commenters examples of jewish “anti-gentilism” seem to use the same few examples again and again. Phillip Roth this, country-club that.
In fact the reality is an extremely strong and mutual affection between white christian Americans and white jewish Americans, so strong there is an increasing loss of a sense of separate identity.
Across large parts of the Northeast, California, and Florida, individuals who are 25% or more ethnically Jewish make up 20% or more of the white population. And in an even larger area elsewhere in those states and around the Great Lakes and urban Northwest, the figure is in the high single digits.
Aside from this mass romantic love, there is, far outweighing Phillip Roth, one masterpiece after another celebrating white America from Jewish Americans. From just Spielberg: The ET, Back to the Future, Saving Private Ryan, Empire of the Sun. And on TV, there was never a more positive and well-made depiction of poor midwestern whites than Rosanne.
* Who chooses the title on Breitbart, the editor or the author?
[The title might be interpreted to mean Kristol is a traitor to America due to his being a Jew or (the actual meaning) that Kristol is a trait to the Jews. Was the ambiguity intentional or inadvertant?]
* Horowitz said he wrote the title.
* No “plausible deniability” needed. Breibart, or rather Horowitz, IS calling out a Jew on behalf of Jewry. I can’t believe Goldberg doesn’t know this. Nor can I believe she thinks Breitbart is a hive of crypto-anti-semites taking advantage of inter-Jew squabbles to push anti-semitism into the mainstream.
No, this is simply stupid, old political correctness. The phrase “renegade Jew” gives aid and comfort to the enemy, and therefore must be quashed. Jews aren’t at ease with the perfectly acceptable term “Jew,” and can’t even use it among themselves like the blacks use “n*****.” They’re deathly afraid of it, for some reason.
That reason is not that the Trump phenomenon will bring back gas chambers, or even broken glass. They’re not that paranoid (or are they?). The reason is stupid, old PC, again. They must remain in power. How can they, when one of their own on a right-wing-y (and for some reason that’s the only wing they’re afraid of) website talks like one of the enemy, at least for two words? Two words is too many!
* You think Horowitz’s writing about islamofascism, really Islamic expansion and soft conquest of the West, is nonsense? Both the cities and countryside of Europe are being filled by sullen low-IQ barbarians. It is a bigger threat than communism. Prague is still quite nice after 45 years of communism. European cities taken over by Muslim majorities, it is almost too tragic to contemplate.
* The problem with this is that there are no Elders of Zion that you can make a deal with. As you can see from the above contretemps, the old maxim is two Jews, three opinions. The liberal Jews who form part of the Western Coalition of the Fringes hate Netanyahu with a passion and would not take orders from him to save their lives. In fact, Jews (especially religious Jews) in the West are more threatened by the Islamic invasion than anyone else, but this doesn’t bother liberals, whether Jewish or not.
The idea that “the Jews” are some kind of unitary body that can take coordinated action is a staple of anti-Semitic thought. The corollary to this is that since the Jews are capable of taking collective action, it is appropriate to impose on individual Jews collective guilt for the actions of their group. Thus the religious Jewish cobbler is responsible and must be made to pay for the actions of the leather jacketed Jewish Chekist. Or in your version, religious Israeli Jews must be held hostage to the actions of secular American Jews.
I understand that since most American Jews fall on the liberal side of the spectrum, they are not natural friends for alt-right types. Also that, having been excluded from mainstream respectability even on the right (see Derbyshire and his defenestration by the National Review ) the alt-right is the last remaining refuge of not just anti-Semites (and there are some of those too) but also of people who believe that it is un-American to impose speech taboos so that you can’t even have a discussion about certain topics (including those that start with the letter J or N or M). The left is great at completely shutting down discussion – it’s a great way to win a debate if the other side can’t even open their mouth.
That being said, the alt-right (which doesn’t really exist any more than “the Jews” exist) is going to have to shed some of its more rabidly anti-Semitic and other lunatic fringes if it hopes to hold power and not just snipe at society from the sidelines. It’s really a non-starter to reject the idea of popular suffrage and return to the days when we were ruled by royalty or by property owning white Christian men – those days are not coming back except in fantasy.
* LF: Organized Jewry is remarkably united and organized around certain things such as increasing non-white immigration into the west, and increasing the rights of the fringe against the core.
There are no big Jewish groups opposed to immigration amnesty. There are no big Jewish groups fighting against more rights for gays and the transgendered (the Orthodox don’t generally favor trannies etc, but they are not fighting the expansion of such rights).
* Funny how things have worked out so well for the notoriously uncoordinated Jews. The world’s only white ethno-state in the Levant, an overwhelmingly pro-Jewish status quo everywhere Jews care to live, and a population always willing to take its own side in a fight. It’s just great luck that the media fell into their hands, and not, say, the oil business (great money there, but not much influence over public opinion).
* The reasons for distrusting/disliking/hating this or that minority will differ by time and place. So I’m not excluding the economics argument always and everywhere. However…
Indian Americans actually have higher median incomes then jewish americans, and Asian Americans are competitive with Jewish Americans and certainly higher then white Americans.
What makes the Jews so successful at being hated (in the contemporary setting) is their cultural and political influence, with economic influence being a third consideration (relegated mostly to the always hated banking sector).
It’s the fact that, just as one example, signaling allegiance to Israel is standard operating procedure for the republican party, while signaling allegiance to American Citizens is a species of hitlerism. It’s the reason why Coulter, formerly an ardent supporter of Israel, had to ask during a republican debate just how many jews the republicans thought there there were in the United States that such pandering was justified.
For the Nazis it was bolshevism and internationalism. For the contemporary right it’s internationalism plus a species of Zionism that doesn’t give the US Government enough foreign policy leeway to look after it’s own citizens.
* So a group that doesn’t exist is going to have to shed its antipathy towards another group that doesn’t exist to get the respectability to get elected? You’ve been reading too many articles about the so-called alt-right written by scared liberals. The collection of people it describes is just a heterogeneous bunch of exiles from polite society. If/when the Overton Window shifts and ideas like borders and nation-states become respectable once again, the citizenists currently residing in the alt-right will quite happily come back in from the cold and leave the 14/88 crowd behind. There won’t ever be an alt-right party, just parties that pick and choose the better ideas that currently float around the alt-right.
P.S. Are the words “rabidly” and “virulently” ever followed by anything other than “anti-semitic”?
In other words, Horowitz thinks Trump is good for the Jews, so he’s mad at Kristol for being anti-Trump. Kristol probably feels the opposite. It’s a reasonable thing for two ethnocentrists like Horowitz and Kristol to argue over. And they like arguing. They’re good at it. It’s what they do. Goldberg, meanwhile, is playing a role that traditionally has been well-rewarded in the Jewish community: the third party who comes up with a rationalization for why a typical fight like this among Jews is really the fault of the gentiles. Your Russian Jewish great-grandfather got blackballed from joining a German Jewish country club? It was the fault of the WASP country clubs. Jewish patriarchs invested more in the education of their sons than their daughters and their smart daughters are resentful? Society is to blame. Etc. This is a pretty smart ethnic solidarity-building practice, but you shouldn’t have to take it seriously.
I think it is more cognitive dissonance. They are wanting this to be about something different than it is, because the real issue is unmentionable. Isael is is no danger whatever from Iran.
WASPs like Clinton or Bush threaten to obliterate Iran if it attacks Israel (which members of the Israel government actually asked US politicians to stop saying think you are taking Goldberg and Kristol fat too seriously as Israel firsters. They are professional pundits and and highly successful) but never overstep the mark of acknowledging Israels impotence in the face of US policy for a Palestinian statue, which makes the West Bank Arabs a time bomb as Ehud Barak admitted:
“Every attempt [by the State of Israel] to keep hold of this area [the West Bank and Gaza] as one political entity leads, necessarily, to either a nondemocratic or a non-Jewish state. Because if the Palestinians vote, then it is a binational state, and if they don’t vote it is an apartheid state.”
Mearsheimer has explained the end game
“This situation, however, is unsustainable over time. Once it is widely recognized that the two-state solution is dead and Greater Israel is a reality, the righteous Jews will have two choices: support apartheid or work to help create a democratic bi-national state. I believe that almost all of them will opt for the latter option, in large part because of their deep-seated commitment to liberal values, which renders any apartheid state abhorrent to them.”
Though not articulated by the place-men such as Kristol and Goldstein, Israel is in a double bind; needing to divest itself of West Bank Arabs, but unable to go against the settled policy of the US . The Arabs in the occupied territories leaving or being forced out could only happen during a fluid situation in the Middle East. All the other presidential candidates but Trump plan to intervene to keep the Middle east on the current track. The Goldbergs of this world cannot accept that that a the American bipartisan consensus for a Palestinian state dooms Israel and the reason he and Kristol don’t oppose it is because they like their position of importance in US media and policy circles. So they argue that they are Israel’s brave defenders under attack. I don’t know about Horowitz, but Adelson certainly understands what the alternatives facing Israel are.
* [Mark] Levin has taken to dismissively calling the Trump phenomenon “Populist Nationalist Agrarianism.”
To give the man his due, Levin is well-read and knowledgeable. I’m sure that the “agrarian” reference is his way of making a slap at Southern supporters of Trump without crudely smearing them as Kluxers, or making reference to evangelical Christianity and possibly offending Cruz’s followers.
What Levin is alluding to are the Southern Agrarians of the 1930s, a group of intellectuals centered around Vanderbilt University, including Donald Davidson, Allen Tate, Andrew Lytle, John Crowe Ransom, and Robert Penn Warren, who contributed to a volume of essays called I’ll Take My Stand (1930). This represented a type of conservatism, later echoed by people like Richard Weaver and M.E. Bradford, which has now been banished from the consensus expressed by “Conservatism, Inc.” The latter is at present dominated by neoconservatives and Straussians (categories that have considerable overlap).
I can’t think of much in common between Trump and the 1930s Vanderbilt crowd, other than that the war of the neocons on the paleos really began with their hatchet job on Mel Bradford, who had been Ronald Reagan’s initial choice to chair the National Endowment for the Humanities in 1981. Among Bradford’s prominent attackers was George Will. Will and others wanted to push their man, the neoconservative William “Bet-a-Million” Bennett. The kind of people that pushed Bennett are the same kind that now make up the #NeverTrump claque at National Review, The Weekly Standard, etc. Paleoconservatives, like Pat Buchanan and the writers at Chronicles, are among the salon des refusés that have been excommunicated by Conservatism, Inc., and are, not surprisingly, friendlier to Trump.
Bradford was a Vanderbilt man, and, if you will, a second-generation Agrarian. Will savaged Bradford. Will is now savaging Trump. Levin concludes that, ergo, Trump, like Bradford, is an “agrarian.” Such is what passes for logic amongst the cucks.
* Well, terms I’ve heard are things like “you are a destroyer of nations.” So I’d define it not as critiques of Jewish power or influence, but stronger beliefs that Jews are inherently an evil, destructive race or cultural force.
Where is the line between legitimate criticism of jewish influence and describing jewish influence as destructive? Are jews never harmful to other nations?
* Jews are white.
But anyway, your thesis is quite false. Jews and what you refer to as ‘white cohesion’ are in a symbiotic relationship. In Europe at least, Jews were traditionally a scapegoat group used by other white ethnic and religious groups to manufacture cohesion in times of stress by ascribing powers to a common enemy. E.g. Germany blew itself up in WWI, causing enormous national division and sorrow. Out of the ruins far right groups attempted to re-assert national cohesion by scapegoating the Jews as the author of the whole disaster.
‘White cohesion’ is somewhat of an artificial ideological construct anyway. European history is a non-stop series of internal wars between groups we would all call white (with WWI-WWII being the grand climactic suicide pact). In America, white ethnic groups had and have all kinds of divergent interests and are glued together as ‘white’ mainly by race hustlers on both sides who have an interest in creating identity-based divisions. There is such a thing as European/Western culture and civilization, and there is such a thing as social cohesion, but Jews are manifestly very compatible with both.
With that said, the existence of anti-semitic views doesn’t mean that Jews don’t have particular sets of beliefs and desires that emerge out of our particular ethnic history, and that those can’t sometimes be counterproductive to the larger social good. The existence and tragic history of anti-semitism has unfortunately created barriers to responsible self-examination by Jews.
* Obiously, Jews must be very concerned about what stirs up us evil goys surrounding them. Your memory, it seems, isn’t up to remembering violent pogroms that attended Mel Gibson’s “Passion of Christ” – which the ADL rightly predicted would bring down a Hurricane Katrina of anti-Semitic madness upon innocent children of Abraham a scant dozen years ago. Can we forget the poor souls chased up and down 5th Avenue in New York and Wilshire here in L.A., hoping to escape relentless yankee Cossacks and their sabres from which erupted geysers of blood? GEYSERS, I tell you! How dare we not remember burning of humble Jewish shtetls in Palm Beach, Pacific Palisades, Great Neck, and Malibu? The suffering. The SUFFERING, dude!
* Unfortunately, our ethnic group is both mindlessly insecure and ethnocentric. Most of its members are completely incapable of criticizing Jews and our knee-jerk reaction towards any gentile making the most minute of criticisms (or even uncomfortable observations of Jews) is to resort to the ad hominen attack of screaming ANTISEMITISM!
* It is not however reasonable to speak of ethnic characteristics? One talks of “The Chinese” and that is often a useful category. Just because a group of people don’t meet in a back-room and formulate policies, doesn’t mean that they won’t tend to think, vote, and act in particular ways out of a particular group interest.
“Thus the religious Jewish cobbler is responsible and must be made to pay for the actions of the leather jacketed Jewish Chekist.”
Are we not permitted to notice the Chekist? That he often tended to be drawn from a certain group and that his animus was derived from a particular perspective? To even notice these things is deemed anti-semitic by many Jews.
* David Horowitz is a Contra-Jihadist, a renegade form of Neo-Conservatism which started around 2001. It was accepted by the Conservative Inc. so long it contributed to their efforts. The Contra-Jihadist movement died in 2011 after a deeply disturbed young man killed socialist youths in a lonely wolf terrorist attack. In 2012 the Contra-Jihadists was gone from established politics although Fox News keep allowing them on from time to time. I don’t think Horowitz and the rest of his kind has a path forward anymore. They burned their bridges with the establishment when they began to establish relations with the nationalist parties in Europe in 2007-2008. It didn’t work out well although they still connections.
The Israeli nationalists has not been willing to embrace the European nationalist them as their view non-Jewish nationalism as evil. The grassroots in the European nationalist movement don’t view Israel through a Zionist lens but a European nationalist lens. If a relationship with the Israeli nationalist is not in line with their intrest and if it not results in returns they will reject it. The nationalists in Europe have some serious problems with their grassroots radicalism. Hence, they have put the Israeli relations in the closet not to anger their voters. Horowitz will most likely burn his bridges to the nationalist movement as the future nationalist movements with their Israel first and blame the Muslims for everything kind of arguments.
Horowitz, as an opportunist goes were the wind is blowing now it’s blowing towards nationalism and non-intervention and so he jumps on that train and try to shuffle far-right Israeli politics on it. It is very visible on Breitbart. They are overtly pushing for white identity politics but then mix it with Contra-Jihadism. However, I think it will become much more difficult to leach on the Trump movement as it is filled with libertarians, paleo-conservatives, nationalist and all kind of people who doesn’t have much love for Israel or have a distained view on Muslims for being Muslims. They don’t hate Islam. They just don’t want the Western World to be involved their domestic affairs nor want uncontrolled immigration from that region. The stakes are raised since the Contra-Jihadist movement was “fashionable”. Every circle of nationalism in the West is turning more radical. If Trump loses the election the coming “Trump” will be much more radical. The same goes on the left with Bernie. The next Bernie will be much more radical.
* How could Trump be stabbed in the back when “Organized Jewry” is stabbing him in the front? It’s not like they are SECRETLY selling out to Hillary while pretending to support Trump – it’s all quite visible. Kristol is openly begging everyone he meets in the street to run as a third party candidate against Trump.
* White cohesion as distinct from nationalism is a relatively recent problem/phenomenon in western non slave holding societies. Jews were relatively sympathetic to nationalism in the 19th and early twentieth century. They were by and large prominent supporters of Pilsudki (excepting communists who were a minority of jewish population)and provided the lion’s share of financial support for the PSW. It was official zionist policy to support fellow nationalists of every stripe until Hitler’s rise to power made that untenable as a policy. The Ukrainian civil war and the slaughter of Jews that accompanied it didn’t much help the cause of nationalism in jewish hearts.
* Jews have an inherently dual identity – at once an inextricable part of Western civilization and yet in some ways apart from it. But in a black and white world, Jews are asked to take sides – in WN terms, are Jews “white” or “not white”? Real life is full of shades of gray.
Regarding your last point, near the end of his life Solzhenitsyn tried to write thoughtfully about the idea that the often fraught relationship between the Jews and the Russians was a two-way street and not purely a matter of drunken Cossacks pogromming against Jews (nor, as some would have it here, of murderous Jewish Chekists exterminating the kulaks), but as you say, just as in popular discourse blacks can only be portrayed as victims of racism and never as perpetrators, the same is true for Jews, so Solzhenitsyn’s work in this area got no traction – I don’t think it was even translated into English and he was considered to be somewhat of a fruitcake because of it.
* Trump’s initial answer on Israel was interesting in how non-political it was. A trained American politician would claim to be 100% supportive of Israel and also act as an honest broker to negotiate a peace between Israel and its enemies. Trump didn’t have the political experience to realize that this contradiction was the conventional wisdom.
That doesn’t mean he’d be anti-Israel. Another possibility for someone who acknowledges the contradiction would be to ditch the pyrrhic perennial peace process. A more practical approach might be to give the Palestinians more to lose, perhaps by helping them develop their real estate.
* There are Jewish organizations but they speak mostly for themselves and have no mandate to speak on behalf of a non-existent “organized Jewry”.
By that logic, no organized anything exists. Just because half the country doesn’t like Obama and the other half didn’t like Bush doesn’t mean that the U.S. government doesn’t exist. And the American Jewry is a lot less divided on certain key questions than the American populace.
There is no doubt that Jews lean left liberal but probably not much more than Unitarians or Belmont Episcopalians or other groups that have demographics similar to Jews. In other words, it’s not just Jewish college professors that lean left, it’s pretty much ALL college professors. It’s just that the Jews are disproportionately found in jobs like college professor.
Chuck Schumer is not liberal on Israel, whereas William Kristol is not conservative on immigration to the U.S. “Liberal” Jews on college campuses are horrified when more consistent liberals side with Palestinians and target Israel for BDS. I can go on and on.