Rob Eshman: Julia Ioffe, meet the real Donald Trump

Jewish Journal Editor Rob Eshman writes:

Screen_Shot_2016-04-29_at_10.55.26_AM_539_332_c1

Back in February as the winds began to shift toward Donald Trump, they picked up a distinct anti-Semitic odor. It was more subtle then, like rotting jasmine in the night air, but if you inhaled deep enough, it really stank.
I wrote a column, “Donald Trump Has a White Supremicist Problem.” This is what I sniffed:
“White nationalist leaders including Jared Taylor and former Klansman David Duke have endorsed Trump. On Vanguard News Network, the largest white supremacist website, Trump is regularly referred to as “Glorious Leader.” Bloggers compare him to Hitler, treating him like the Second Coming of the Third Reich. In January, William Johnson, leader of the white supremacist American Freedom Party, paid for a series of robocalls in Iowa in support of Trump. Johnson convened a 2015 white power political event in Bakersfield at which Matthew Heimbach of the Traditionalist Youth Network gave a speech blaming Jews for destroying the white race.”
As Trump has gained ground, he has not done anything—not a speech, not a campaign strategy, nothing—to wash the stench off. If anything, the same hate-filled, marginal voices that rose up to support him them feel even more empowered.
New evidence of that emerged this week in the vicious anti-semitic responses to a profile of Melania Trump.
Melania didn’t like the GQ journalist Julia Ioffee’s feature profile of her, and let it be known that she was suspicious of Ioffe’s motives. That mobilized the Trumpfers, whose Internet comments directed to Ioffe, who is Jewish, tell a story of rabid, unbridled, unchecked, and growing anti-Semitism, as documented in a Mediate column….

Will Donald speak out? Will his Jewish daughter and son-in-law at least publicly keep their mouths shut about this issue? I don’t know. But it stinks.

Luke says: What’s the big deal? I routinely received this kind of abuse during my 19 years of blogging. Ann Coulter gets it all the time. Conservatives get it all the time. We just don’t complain about it.

I don’t recall Rob Eshman writing any columns against death threats against Donald Trump. I don’t recall Rob Eshman writing any columns about the violence directed at Donald Trump and his supporters. I don’t recall Rob Eshman writing any columns about Israelis yelling, “Death to the Arabs.”

So when Rob Eshman and company slur those who care about white cohesion, white identity and the white future, why should they be surprised when white advocates fight back against them?

Different groups have different interests and they are often engaged in a brutal struggle for scarce resources. No group has an automatic right to exist and flourish in peace because the actions of every group affect others and when others are hurt, they retaliate.

Posted in Anti-Semitism | Comments Off on Rob Eshman: Julia Ioffe, meet the real Donald Trump

If It Is Wrong For Americans To Put America First, What Country Should They Put First?

Is it wrong for Israelis to put Israel first? Is it wrong for Jews to put Jews first? So why is is wrong for Americans to put America first?

Eli Lake writes for Bloomberg:

Trump’s New Slogan Has Old Baggage From Nazi Era

Donald Trump has given up on winning historically literate voters. Consider the theme of his major foreign policy speech Wednesday: “America first.”

This slogan is most associated with aviator Charles Lindbergh, who spent a great deal of time in the late 1930s gushing at how wonderful the Third Reich was. Before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, Lindbergh helped form “America First” committees that campaigned to keep the U.S. from fighting the Axis Powers. Lindbergh rose to become a demagogue and accused President Franklin Roosevelt of colluding with a Jewish lobby and Britain to drag America into World War II.

For years this phrase was toxic. Pat Buchanan has used it from time to time, but “America first” and the idea it represented — American neutrality towards the Nazis — has been largely banished from respectable discourse.

Now Trump is bringing the phrase back to the mainstream. He deploys it at his campaign rallies. And in his major foreign policy speech Wednesday, there it was right at the top. The real-estate magnate promised to “always put the interests of the American people first.” He said: “That will be the foundation of every single decision I will make. ‘America first’ will be the major and overriding theme of our administration.”

In fairness to Trump, the world is very different than it was when Nazis ruled Berlin. Historian Ron Radosh told me that Trump was channeling the memory of the isolationists of that era, but he also allowed that Trump “differentiates himself because clearly unlike Lindbergh, he is not an enemy of Jews or the Jewish state.” (Though on the substance, Radosh added that he did not think it was “good for Israel to have a president who is so isolationist.”)

Nonetheless, Trump’s Lindbergh-like instincts were apparent in his speech Wednesday. He said he intended to hold NATO allies more accountable to pay a fair share for their defense. If they don’t, he said, “the U.S. must be prepared to let them defend themselves.”

You don’t need a history textbook to know what that means. It’s been in the headlines since 2008: Russian forces invaded Georgia that year. In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine. To this day Russia occupies large swaths of both countries. These developments have rightly frightened many U.S. NATO allies, particularly the vulnerable Baltic States that joined the alliance after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Trump also said he hoped to repair relations with Russia because both countries share a common enemy in radical Islam. In this respect, Trump sounds like George W. Bush after 9/11, when he looked into the Russian president’s soul, or Senator Barack Obama on the trail in 2008, when he too promised to reset relations with Russia in the aftermath of its invasion of Georgia. The fact that Trump now promises another reset eight years later is instructive about the chances for success.

Posted in America, Anti-Semitism | Comments Off on If It Is Wrong For Americans To Put America First, What Country Should They Put First?

I just got my first AARP card.

I turn 50 May 28.

No, I’m not retiring from blogging.

Mike Pearson: Old Geezers will have a new and powerful ally with word-smithery skills.

Chaim Amalek: It is too bad you don’t own a house with a lawn. Then you’d be able to shout at neighborhood kids when they cut across your lawn.

Posted in Personal | Comments Off on I just got my first AARP card.

London Ex-Mayor Ken Livingstone Suspended from Labour for Saying Hitler Was ‘Zionist’

REUTERS:

Britain’s opposition Labour Party suspended former London mayor Ken Livingstone on Thursday in a row over anti-Semitism, as the party struggles with deep divisions since electing a hard-left leader last summer.
Dozens of Labour lawmakers had demanded that leader Jeremy Corbyn suspend Livingstone – his ally and a party veteran – over remarks he made about Hitler being a Zionist in defense of a colleague the party suspended a day earlier over anti-Semitic remarks.
The Labour party has been struggling to pull together after Corbyn swept into the leadership in September on a wave of enthusiasm, particularly among younger members, for change and an end to ‘establishment politics’.
Corbyn’s views have often jarred with many Labour lawmakers in parliament, however, dividing the party at a time when it is trying to hold the government, which is also deeply split over Britain’s membership of the European Union, to account.
“Ken Livingstone has been suspended by the Labour Party, pending an investigation, for bringing the Party into disrepute,” the Labour Party said in a statement.
It said another lawmaker, John Mann, had been summoned over his behavior after he was filmed shouting “You’ve lost it” at Livingstone and accusing him of being a “Nazi apologist” over the former mayor’s comments that Hitler had supported Zionism “before he went mad and ended up killing 6 million Jews.”
Prime Minister David Cameron condemned the comments, saying anti-Semitism, like racism, was unacceptable. “It is quite clear that the Labour Party has a problem with anti-Semitism.”
Jewish leaders said the party should introduce a zero-tolerance policy against anti-Semitism, and some Labour lawmakers, including the party’s candidate for mayor in an election next week, distanced themselves from Livingstone.
In an interview with BBC London, Livingstone said neither Shah nor the Labour Party were anti-Semitic.
“I’ve heard a lot of criticism of the state of Israel and its abuse of Palestinians, but I’ve never heard someone be anti-Semitic,” Livingstone said.
“Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing 6 million Jews.”

According to Wikipedia:

The Haavara Agreement (Hebrew: הסכם העברה Translit.: heskem haavara Translated: “transfer agreement”) was an agreement between Nazi Germany and Zionist German Jews signed on 25 August 1933. The agreement was finalized after three months of talks by the Zionist Federation of Germany, the Anglo-Palestine Bank (under the directive of the Jewish Agency) and the economic authorities of Nazi Germany. The agreement was designed to help facilitate the emigration of German Jews to Palestine. While it helped Jews emigrate, it forced them to temporarily give up possessions to Germany before departing. Those possessions could later be re-obtained by transferring them to Palestine as German export goods.[1][2] The agreement was controversial at the time, and was criticised by many Jewish leaders both within the Zionist movement (such as the Revisionist Zionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky) and outside it.

Hanotea (Hebrew: הנוטע), a Zionist citrus planting company, applied in May 1933 for the ability to transfer capital from Germany to Palestine. Hanotea served to assist German Jews’ immigration to Palestine as part of the Zionist endeavor. In a deal worked out with the German government, Hanotea would receive money from prospective immigrants and use this money to buy German goods. These goods, along with the immigrants, would then be shipped to Palestine. In Palestine, import merchants would then buy the goods from the immigrants, liquidating their investment. This arrangement appeared to be operating successfully, and so paved the way for the later Haavara Agreement. Connected to Hanotea was a Polish Zionist Jew, Sam Cohen. He represented Zionist interests in direct negotiation with the Nazis beginning in March 1933.[4]

“ CERTIFICATE
The Trust and Transfer Office “Haavara” Ltd. places at the disposal of the Banks in Palestine amounts in Reichmarks which have been put at its disposal by the Jewish immigrants from Germany. The Banks avail themselves of these amounts in Reichmarks in order to make payments on behalf of Palestinian merchants for goods imported by them from Germany. The merchants pay in the value of the goods to the Banks and the “Haavara” Ltd. pays the countervalue to the Jewish immigrants from Germany. To the same extent that local merchants will make use of this arrangement, the import of German goods will serve to withdraw Jewish capital from Germany.
The Trust and Transfer Office,
HAAVARA, LTD.


— Example of the certificate issued by Haavara to Jews emigrating to Palestine
[5]
The Haavara (Transfer) Agreement was agreed to by the German government in 1933 to allow German Jews to transfer property from Germany to Palestine, for the purpose of encouraging Jewish emigration from Germany. The Haavara company operated under a similar plan as the earlier Hanotea company. The Haavara Company required immigrants to pay at least 1000 pounds sterling into the banking company. This money would then be used to buy German exports for import to Palestine.

For German Jews, the Agreement offered a way to leave an increasingly hostile environment in Nazi Germany; for the Yishuv, the new Jewish community in Palestine, it offered access to both immigrants and some economic support; and for the Nazis it was seen as a way of breaking the Anti-Nazi boycott of 1933, which had mass support among European Jews and was seen by the German state as a potential threat to a fragile German economy.[6]

The Haavara Agreement was thought among some Nazi circles to be a possible way to rid the country of its supposed “Jewish problem.” The head of the Middle Eastern division of the foreign ministry, the anti-Nazi Werner Otto von Hentig, supported the policy of concentrating Jews in Palestine. Von Hentig believed that if the Jewish population was concentrated in a single foreign entity, then foreign diplomatic policy and containment of the Jews would become easier.[7] Hitler’s own support of the Haavara Agreement was unclear and varied throughout the 1930s. Initially, Hitler criticized the agreement, but reversed his opinion and supported it in the period 1937-1939.[8]

After the invasion of Poland and the onset of World War II in 1939, the practical continuation of the Haavara agreement became impossible.

According to Wikipedia:

Leopold Itz, Edler von Mildenstein (30 November 1902 – November 1968[1]) was an SS officer of the 1930s and 1940s who is remembered as a leader of the Nazi Party’s support during the 1930s for the aims of Zionism.

He sometimes worked as a writer and used the pen name LIM (his initials). He was occasionally called an English “Baron” although his rank of Edler meant “nobleman” and has no exact English language equivalent; perhaps the nearest neighbor would be “Esquire.”

After the Second World War Mildenstein continued to live in West Germany, where he joined the Free Democratic Party and was elected to its Press Committee. In 1956, he went to Egypt to work for a radio station, and after the capture of Adolf Eichmann in 1960 he claimed immunity as an intelligence agent of the U. S. Central Intelligence Agency, a claim which was neither confirmed nor denied. Nothing was heard of him after 1964, when he published a book on cocktails.

Born in 1902 in Prague, then part of Austria-Hungary, Mildenstein belonged to the lowest tier of the Austrian nobility and was brought up as a Roman Catholic. He trained as an engineer and joined the Nazi Party in 1929, receiving the membership number 106,678. In 1932 he joined the SS, becoming one of the first Austrians to do so. According to his former SS colleague Dieter Wisliceny, from the First World War until 1935 Mildenstein visited the Middle East, including Palestine, several times.[2][3]

Mildenstein had taken an early interest in Zionism, even going so far as to attend Zionist conferences to help deepen his understanding of the movement. He actively promoted Zionism as a way out of the official impasse on the Jewish question: as a way of making Germany Judenrein (free of Jews). Some Zionists, whose movement had grown tremendously in popularity among German Jews since Hitler came to power, co-operated.[citation needed] On 7 April 1933, the Juedische Rundschau, the bi-weekly paper of the movement, declared that of all Jewish groups only the Zionist Federation of Germany was capable of approaching the Nazis in good faith as “honest partners”.[4][5] The Federation then commissioned Kurt Tuchler to make contact with possible Zionist sympathisers within the Nazi Party, with the aim of easing emigration to Palestine, and Tuchler approached Mildenstein, who was asked to write something positive about Jewish Palestine in the press. Mildenstein agreed, on condition that he be allowed to visit the country in person, with Tuchler as his guide. So, in the spring of 1933 an odd little party of four set out from Berlin, consisting of Mildenstein, Tuchler and their wives. They spent a month together in Palestine,.[2][6] Mildenstein came to write a series of articles for Der Angriff, the Berlin newspaper Goebbels founded in 1927. Mildenstein himself remaining for a total of six months before his return to Germany as an enthusiast for Zionism. He even began to study Hebrew.[7]

On his return, Mildenstein’s suggestion that the solution to the Jewish problem lay in mass migration to Palestine was accepted by his superiors within the SS. From August 1934 to June 1936 Mildenstein was put in charge of the Jewish Desk with the title of Judenreferent (Jewish Affairs Officer) in the headquarters of the Sicherheitsdienst (SD), the Security service of the SS, Section II/112; his title meaning that he was responsible for reporting on “Jewish Affairs,” under the overall command of Reinhard Heydrich.[8] During those years Mildenstein favoured a policy of encouraging Germany’s Jewish population to emigrate to Palestine, and in pursuit of this policy he developed positive contacts with Zionist organizations. SS officials were even instructed to encourage the activities of the Zionists within the Jewish community, who were to be favoured over the assimilationists, said to be the real danger to National Socialism. Even the anti-Jewish Nuremberg Laws of September 1935 had a special Zionist provision, allowing the Jews to fly their own flag.[2][6]

Adolf Eichmann, later one of the most significant organizers of the Holocaust, believed that his big break came in 1934, when he had a meeting with Mildenstein, a fellow-Austrian, in the Wilhelmstrasse and was invited to join Mildenstein’s department.[9][10] Eichmann later stated that Mildenstein rejected the vulgar anti-semitism of Streicher. Soon after his arrival in the section Mildenstein had given him a book on Judaism by Adolf Boehm, a leading Jew from Vienna.[11]

Between 9 September and 9 October 1934 the Nazi Party Berlin newspaper Der Angriff, founded and controlled by Joseph Goebbels, published a series of twelve pro-Zionist articles by Mildenstein under the title A Nazi Goes to Palestine. In honour of his visit, the newspaper issued a commemorative medallion, with the swastika on one side and the Star of David on the other.[2][6]

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.[12] 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. His departure from the SD also saw a shift in SS policy, marked by the publication of a pamphlet warning of the dangers of a strong Jewish state in the Middle East, written by another “expert” on Jewish matters who had been invited to join Section II/112 by Mildenstein himself, Eichmann.[2][13] Mildenstein was replaced as the head of his former section by Kuno Schroeder.[14] Later in December 1939, Eichmann was made chief of the Jewish Department Referat IV B4 of the RSHA, which the SD became a part in September, 1939.[15][16]

As Germany moved into the Second World War, Mildenstein continued to write propaganda articles and books. After the war, his “Around the Burning Land of the Jordan” (1938)[17] and “The Middle East Seen from the Roadside” (1941)[18] were placed on the list of proscribed literature in the Soviet occupation zone and later in the German Democratic Republic.

Like the Haavara Agreement, Mildenstein’s 1933 visit to Palestine and the medal to commemorate it were later sometimes used by anti-Israel authors to argue that there was a relationship between Nazism and Zionism.[2]

Posted in Adolf Hitler, Anti-Semitism, England, Israel, Nazi | Comments Off on London Ex-Mayor Ken Livingstone Suspended from Labour for Saying Hitler Was ‘Zionist’

Donald Trump Vs Professional Consultants

From the Journal of American Greatness: The Weekly Standard highlights a perceptive memo, “What Trump Saw and Cruz Did Not,” by Rich Danker on the extraordinary success of the Trump campaign. Danker’s essential point is that Trump is on the cusp of victory because he ignored all the usual advice of Republican campaign consultants and did things that they considered impossible. Instead of “targeting” select constituencies with “big data,” Trump simply campaigned to win every state. Instead of rigidly adhering to a “disciplined” (scripted) message, Trump spoke off the cuff and responded directly to issues of the day. Instead of avoiding national media and favoring “conservative” outlets, Trump gave interviews to virtually anyone, seemingly all the time. Instead of relying on cheesy SuperPac ads, Trump garnered “earned media” by essentially turning his candidacy into the news itself.

Echoing thoughts which have appeared in this Journal on several occasions, Danker writes:
“Political professionals have gotten so much power in presidential campaigns that they have diluted the candidates of a message and put up barriers to getting votes…Why? Being stage-managed gives more power to the consultants. It makes the candidates more dependent on staff and vendors to navigate them through the torture chamber those people make the election into. The consultants become the smart people and the candidate is a commodity. This attitude is shared by the political media, whose access to the candidates is dependent on sharing a worldview about campaigns with those consultants.
It’s giving Trump too much credit to say that he meant to expose the stupidity of professionalized politics, but that’s what he ended up doing. And he got lucky in the sense that his final primary opponent–although in just about every other way the type voters were looking for in 2016–was somebody who leaned on that professionalism.”

Insightful as Danker’s commentary is, however, it overlooks the most critical aspect of Trump’s success. For Trump did not overturn convention merely with his campaign style, but most importantly in taking rather intuitive positions that Republican “professionals” considered politically impossible.

We have discussed Trump’s Greatness Agenda extensively elsewhere, but certain key elements bear repeating: Instead of bowing to the abstract theories of professional economists, Trump has argued that American workers would be better served by policies that would limit jobs being moved out of the country while reducing the number of unskilled laborers flowing into it. Instead of arguing that the Iraq war was a success because…terrible dictator…democracy…surge…Trump did not hesitate to call it an obvious failure. Instead of arguing that we should fight Assad, Russia, ISIS, Egypt, Turkey, etc., all at once, in hopes of democratizing the Middle East, Trump proposed to let Russia bomb ISIS and to let Arabs fight their own sectarian civil wars while the U.S. should simply do whatever is necessary to prevent the conflict and its terrorism from spilling across our own borders. One could go on.

To say that Trump is an iconoclast only in his get-out-the-vote approach, or “framing” of the message, is thus somewhat self-serving. What Trump saw that others did not was that not only were Republican campaign methods self-defeating, but that Republican ideological orthodoxy had become self-contradictory. Indeed, given that “professionalism” or “managerialism” is the defining characteristic of both, it is hard to see one without the other.

It is worth noting that the only remaining Republican candidates all attempted to define their campaigns with a spirit of rebellion, further proof of how discredited conservatism is. Cruz styled himself as the most strident opponent of the “Washington cartel” from his first days in Washington. Kasich showed his independence from conservative orthodoxy in accepting Medicare funding for his state and demonstrating that opposition to Obamacare was not the fundamental issue Republican pundits claimed it was (not to mention his intransigence in staying in the race). Trump is, well, Trump.

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on Donald Trump Vs Professional Consultants