Roman Dmowski writes: The 9/11 attacks found only two groups with a coherent explanation and proposed strategy: paleoconservatives, who suggested a limited punitive campaign coupled with immigration restriction, and the neoconservatives, who supported an ambitious and “idealist” campaign deliberately designed to destabilize the Middle East and usher in democratic change. The latter won out, but the Iraq War’s results proved lacklaster at first and eventually turned into an undeniable quagmire. Similar results transpired in Afghanistan. The disaster of Arab Democracy appeared in full flower in the Arab Spring, where relatively stable and friendly (or at least manageable) regimes became increasingly hostile, such as Egypt and Libya. And attacks in Boston, Fort Hood, San Bernardino, and Chattanooga were reminders of the importance of immigration restrictions, particularly of Muslims, to any effective containment of the Islamic extremist threat.
The failed campaigns of McCain and Romney also suggested something out of kilter about the Republican message. The prior emphasis on free market capitalism appeared increasingly tone death to the realities of globalization, where immigration and off-shoring rendered a great swath of the economy net losers, especially among the working class. The 2008 economic crisis rendered many once middle class people impoverished, and their own struggles were easily contrasted with the continuing big bonus culture of Wall Street, who obtained massive government assistance to keep their speculation going. Further, there are cultural factors: the decline of marriage and the increasingly Darwinian dating scene, the harsh suffocating effects of political correctness, perennial racial tensions exacerbated by Obama’s leftist message, and the realization among Baby Boomers, who did so well in the 80s and 90s, of their fragile economic position, coupled with the change in the texture of everyday life wrought by immigration and cultural leftism. These changes to the country have all conspired to bring about a strong feeling of dissatisfaction. The Republican Party’s continued embrace of neoconservative foreign policy also fell on increasingly deaf ears, made wise by the unfulfilled promise of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns. Finally, the occasional pushes of the GOP’s establishment wing for immigration amnesty, first by Bush in 2005, and then later during the Obama years, added alienation to this dissatisfaction, and amnesty was for many the last straw.
The Alt Right emerged from a combination of these structural and intellectual factors. All of the changes above made core Republican voters–middle class whites–more nationalist in tone and orientation. At the same time, the declining intellectual integrity and influence of the Right’s flagship publications have left lacunae that have been filled from a combination of samizdat sources, ranging in quality, but all of which have been magnified in influence by the weakening power of gatekeepers. On Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and numerous blogs, wide-ranging “forbidden” ideas have gained currency, including the Mens’s Rights Movement, the nationalist views set forth in Richard Spencer’s Radix publication, the race realism of American Renaissance magazine, Steve Sailer, and Vdare, foreign policy skepticism, and anti-feminism. These heterodox ideas have been further amplified by internet-savvy, alienated, and undeniably mischievous young activists, who are also energetic and sharp, and have been behind such diverse phenomena as the “chalkening,” #gamergate, and #NROrevolt.
Ironically, the increasingly ideological and unrigorous laundry list of official “conservatism” propagated by National Review and the mainstream Republican Party, is less intellectual than ever. The often Catholic intellectual forbears of Reagan’s New Right views are now unread and forgotten for the most part, including by the Alt Right. Instead, we have ended up with the shrill John Podhoretz and unserious Jonah Goldberg, whose main influences appear to be pop culture, in which both are immersed. The new leadership, often Jewish, is frequently reflexively hostile to the ethno-nationalist strains of conservatism that existed even in the very recent past. Further, the devolution of National Review–which has purged such stalwarts as John Derbyshire and Peter Brimelow for their “politically incorrect” musings on race–is engaged in purges on explicitly liberal grounds.
The early National Review did not represent nearly as dramatic a break with the Old Right of H.L. Mencken, Robert Taft, and the American Mercury magazine. Just as the Cold War created a new phenomenon–Soviet sponsored aggressive international socialism– that supported abandoning the traditional isolationism of the Old Right, the new phenomena of globalization, mass immigration, and crony-capitalism collectively demand the revival of the national unit, as well as a privileged position for its core historical demographic (white people), as an adaptation to new circumstances.
Like the occasional New Right thinker such as Erik von Kuehnelt Leddihn, the Alt Right has a more continental and authoritarian view than the classically liberal free market views of the New Right. But even this distinction can be overstated. Reagan embraced the Chrysler bailout and pushed for increasing exports to Japan. Further, Reagan continued the Nixon realpolitik rapprochement with China to weaken our number one foreign policy threat, the Soviet Union. Reagan had the good sense to withdraw from Lebanon after the Beirut Barracks Bombing. No one thought, as many Republican leaders do today, that we were honor bound to stick around the Middle East for 15 years pursuing the impossible, as we have done in Iraq and Afghanistan. Further, our ties to Israel made sense when the Soviet Union went “all in” for Arab Nationalism after 1967, but have become less useful, and positively dangerous in certain cases, after the end of the Cold War.
The modern Republican Party’s “True Conservatism” is an ideologically rigid series of positions on taxes, trade, and foreign relations that proponents imagine, but do little to prove, is coextensive with the interests and flourishing of the American people. Indeed, in characters ranging from Rubio to Jeb to the annoying Kevin Williamson at National Review, we see passionate support for jobs-destroying trade policy and fomenting unnecessary conflict with Russia and Assad’s Syria. We also see a fever pitch of opposition to Trump, who has not signed on to this ossified political ideology, but whose patriotism and right-leanings are undeniable.
Posted inAlt Right|Comments Off on The Intellectual Origins Of The Alt-Right
It also opens the door for a more sophisticated future candidate, one reared on alt-right arguments rather than stumbling into them the way Trump has. Such a candidate could effectively whip up an alt-right base of support, but potentially use it more intelligently and effectively than Trump. If this sounds fantastical, it’s worth remembering that open white supremacists like Strom Thurmond and James Eastland were serving in the US Senate 40, 30, even 20 years ago. Our current period without avowed white nationalists in power, backed by an organized constituency of the same, is the exception, not the norm.
“Trump is a flashlight. Trump shines a light on forgotten truths,” the neoreactionary Ryan Landry writes. “Trump shines a light on the fact that we truly have reached a point where a candidate who implicitly advocates for whites is considered dangerous and a cause for protest. … Those on the edge have known this anti-white mania is out there, but the protest-riot made it real for millions more.”
That’s exactly it. Neoreaction is on the edge, as is the alt-right as a whole, but Trump is not. Trump is decidedly mainstream. He’s scaring mainstream conservative outlets like National Review and Commentary. And like Gamergate before him, he suggests that the ideas of neoreaction and alt-rightism could potentially break through, and that candidates supported by alt-right elements have a bright future ahead of them.
Posted inAlt Right|Comments Off on What Will Follow Donald Trump?
Let’s start with the most theoretically minded, and probably most interesting, branch of the alt-right: the neoreactionaries.
In 2007, a writer with the pen name Mencius Moldbug (né Curtis Yarvin) started a blog called Unqualified Reservations. He proceeded to write essays that would inspire a whole movement of online political writers. The neoreactionaries drew inspiration from earlier paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan and Joseph Sobran but with a tech-y twist. Moldbug, for one, is a veteran Bay Area programmer currently working on a startup he cofounded called Urbit.
And the core contention of Moldbug and the other NRx thinkers is one that’s been common in technolibertarian circles for a long time: Democracy is a failure.
“Democracy is — as most writers before the 19th century agreed — an ineffective and destructive system of government,” Moldbug writes. Moldbug doesn’t actually like the term “democracy.” He prefers “demotism,” or rule of the people, a label under which he sweeps modern-day developed democracies like the US or Western Europe but also the former Soviet bloc, Nazism, and fascism. “Universalist lawful democracy is the least demotist of demotisms, Demotism Lite if you will,” he writes. “Compared to Communism and Nazism, there’s much to be said for it. But this is a rather low bar.”
The purpose of government, in the view of neoreactionaries, isn’t to represent the will of the people. It’s to govern well, full stop. “From the perspective of its subjects, what counts is not who runs the government but what the government does,” Moldbug explains. “Good government is effective, lawful government. Bad government is ineffective, lawless government. How anyone reasonable could disagree with these statements is quite beyond me. And yet clearly almost everyone does.”
And democratic government, the neoreactionaries insist, is not effective, lawful government. Because the will of the people is arbitrary and varying, it cannot have the consistency of real. durable law, and it creates incentives for wasteful and, worse still, left-wing government. Moldbug started as an Austrian-school libertarian, and most neoreactionaries have general small-government sympathies and express a fear that democracy inevitably leads to ever greater taxation and redistribution, and otherwise encroaches on individual liberty.
“Democracy and ‘progressive democracy’ are synonymous, and indistinguishable from the expansion of the state,” Nick Land, the next most influential neoreactionary thinker after Moldbug, writes. “Since winning elections is overwhelmingly a matter of vote buying, and society’s informational organs (education and media) are no more resistant to bribery than the electorate, a thrifty politician is simply an incompetent politician, and the democratic variant of Darwinism quickly eliminates such misfits from the gene pool.” The result is a government that grows larger and larger.
Moldbug is even blunter: “Cthulhu may swim slowly. But he only swims left.”
This is a strain of thinking that more mainstream libertarians have expressed in greater and greater numbers of late. In 2007, George Mason economist Bryan Caplan argued in The Myth of the Rational Voter that democracy will inevitably lead to suboptimal economic policy because the general public is systematically biased against markets, increased productivity, and trade with foreigners. Peter Thiel, the libertarian billionaire who co-founded PayPal and Palantir and was the first outsider to invest in Facebook, declared in 2009, “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.”
But while mainstream libertarians are outspoken about democracy’s deficiencies, they rarely propose an alternative. The neoreactionaries do: monarchy. Well, not monarchy specifically, but some kind of nondemocratic system with rule-driven succession. Moldbug likes to use the term “formalism,” or “neocameralism,” a reference to “cameralism,” the philosophy of government embraced by Frederick the Great of Prussia. Moldbug’s vision is corporatist, where instead of a nation belonging to a royal family, it belongs to corporation with shareholders to whom it is accountable. “To a neocameralist, a state is a business which owns a country,” he writes.
When asked who should lead it, Moldbug’s tech roots come through. “It’s easy to say ‘put Elon [Musk] in charge, he’ll figure it out,’ and he might well,” he tells me via email.
Posted inAlt Right|Comments Off on What Is Neo-Reaction?
The leading actual neoreactionaries are not fans of Donald Trump. “Trump appears to have no ideology at all and very little historical/intellectual awareness of his context,” Moldbug — who now just goes by his birth name, Curtis Yarvin — writes in an email.
“I would love to see a CEO with a real track record of strategic execution in a large enterprise — an Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos — running against Trump. I don’t even think the ideology matters that much; once someone competent got in that office, and felt a real sense of both authority and responsibility, ideology would start to matter a lot less.”
Instead, the alt-right’s affiliation with Trump comes from another group that blended paleocon-ish ideas with internet culture. I speak, of course, of 4chan.
4chan is mostly still a forum for trolling and random nonsense. It was started to discuss anime, and insofar as it’s been political it’s been in a not strictly left-right way, and usually through the avenue of Anonymous, the activist group that split off from 4chan to do direct action. Protesting Scientology and leaking information on the Steubenville rapists are definitely political acts, but they’re not identifiably left-wing or right-wing.
But in recent years, a vocal right-wing contingent has popped up. As New York magazine’s Brian Feldman explains, part of this is an artifact of 4chan gaining popularity and its popular catchall board — /b/ — losing ground to alternatives, notably /pol/, or the “Politically Incorrect” chat board. “To the extent that there is a shared political ideology across /pol/, it’s a heavily ironic mix of garden-variety white supremacy and neo-reactionary movements,” Feldman writes.
“Most days,” the Daily Beast’s Jacob Siegel writes, “/pol/ resembles nothing so much as [white supremacist blog] The Daily Stormer with the signal to noise dial turned only slightly.” The Southern Poverty Law Center has taken notice, with fellow Keegan Hankes telling Siegel, “You can’t understate 4chan’s role. I constantly see 4chan being mentioned by the more Internet- and tech-savvy guys in the white nationalist movement. They’re getting their content from 4chan.”
Hankes has noticed this trend on Reddit as well, noting in a Gawker essay that “Reddit increasingly is providing a home for anti-black racists — and some of the most virulent and violent propaganda around.”
This has channeled into the Trump movement. Milo Yiannopoulos, the Breitbart writer and major Trump defender who’s perhaps the most vocal exponent of alt-rightism online, famously employs an army of interns, a lot of whom he says are “young 4chan guys.” In their own alt-right explainer, Yiannopoulos and co-author Allum Bokhari argue that /pol/’s alt-righters have embraced racism purely for shock value:
Just as the kids of the 60s shocked their parents with promiscuity, long hair and rock’n’roll, so too do the alt-right’s young meme brigades shock older generations with outrageous caricatures, from the Jewish “Shlomo Shekelburg” to “Remove Kebab,” an internet in-joke about the Bosnian genocide. Are they actually bigots? No more than death metal devotees in the 80s were actually Satanists. For them, it’s simply a means to fluster their grandparents … Young people perhaps aren’t primarily attracted to the alt-right because they’re instinctively drawn to its ideology: they’re drawn to it because it seems fresh, daring and funny, while the doctrines of their parents and grandparents seem unexciting, overly-controlling and overly-serious.
For good measure, they quote Moldbug/Yarvin: “If you spend 75 years building a pseudo-religion around anything – an ethnic group, a plaster saint, sexual chastity or the Flying Spaghetti Monster – don’t be surprised when clever 19-year-olds discover that insulting it is now the funniest fucking thing in the world. Because it is.”
This branch of the alt-right has also played an important role in the Gamergate movement, an ongoing effort to harass women in the video game industry until they shut up about equality and representation. Yiannopoulos, who before the controversy called gamers “pungent beta male bollock-scratchers and twelve-year-olds,” jumped on it as a cause with reactionary potential. “GamerGate is remarkable — and attracts the interest of people like me — because it represents perhaps the first time in the last decade or more that a significant incursion has been made in the culture wars against guilt-mongerers, nannies, authoritarians and far-Left agitators,” he wrote in late 2014.
The affinity between gamers and right politics makes sense. “It’s not hard to see why this ideology would catch-on with white male geeks,” Klint Finley writes in his excellent explainer on neoreaction. “It tells them that they are the natural rulers of the world, but that they are simultaneously being oppressed by a secret religious order. And the more media attention is paid to workplace inequality, gentrification and the wealth gap, the more their bias is confirmed.”
“While GamerGate started off as a very diverse, vocal opponent to what they saw was unethical journalism (before it was debunked), many of the anonymous /pol/ rightists would take advantage of its anti-left character by creating sock-puppets,” an anonymous 4channer and ex-Gamergater wrote last year. “Today it is hard to find a 4chan user that doesn’t have an attachment to far right politics.”
And this enthusiasm for far-right politics has bled into Trumpism. JaredTSwift, an alt-righter who got his start on 4chan, gushed to Motherboard’s Oliver Lee, “Trump was meme-able and entertaining, and something like a ban on Muslim immigration would never have been considered before him.”
r/The_Donald — the alt-right dominated home of Trump supporters on Reddit — wracked up 52 million pageviews in March, way more than the 35 million at r/SandersForPresident. The driving force behind the subreddit is CisWhiteMaelstrom, a user whose very name includes the kind of purposefully offensive trolling that defines the Channer alt-right. “Clicking through r/The_Donald is like walking into a rowdy clubhouse for (mostly) men who feel under siege from ‘political correctness,'” MSNBC’s Beny Sarlin reports. Scrolling through the Reddit page, one sees reference after reference to “cuckservatives,” an alt-right term of art which analogizes mainstream conservatives to cuckolded husbands.
Posted inAlt Right|Comments Off on What Is The Significance Of 4Chan?
The neoreactionaries are a distinctly ’00s and ’10s phenomenon, but they draw on the racialist and traditionalist arguments of a much older movement: paleoconservatism.
The term “paleoconservatism” is a retronym coined in the 1980s to characterize a brand of conservatism that was by then going extinct, a brand exemplified by Robert Taft, the Ohio senator and legendary isolationist who lost the 1952 Republican nomination to Dwight Eisenhower, and by Pat Buchanan in his 1992, 1996, and 2000 presidential runs.
Paleocons agree with mainstream conservatism on social issues — they tend to be stridently anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ rights, pro-school prayer, and disproportionately traditionalist Catholic — and on the evils of the welfare state, but part ways on international affairs, including immigration, trade, and warfare.
Paleocons are largely isolationist, warning America against foreign entanglements and dismissing neocon attempts at democracy promotion as hubristic and doomed to failure. They were overwhelmingly against the Iraq War, and tend to be heavily critical of Israel. They’re also more fervently nationalist than mainstream Republicans. That translates into a very negative view of immigration, both due to its perceived economic harm to Americans and because of the “damage” it does to American culture, and into more support for tariffs and trade protection.
But since Buchanan, the movement hasn’t had a loud national voice. After 9/11, paleocon isolationism became anathema among conservative intellectuals and politicians. Mainstream conservatives like George W. Bush and Marco Rubio embraced immigration reform that offered unauthorized immigrants citizenship. Free trade opposition within the GOP went extinct.
There are a number of reasons the paleocons lost ground, but a big one was that the movement had a huge racism problem. In particular, skepticism of foreign entanglements and of the alliance with Israel specifically would occasionally bleed into overt anti-Semitism.
The saga of Joseph Sobran is a case in point. A longtime columnist at National Review, he was fired by William F. Buckley in 1993 following years of open clashes about his attitude toward Israel and Jewish people in general. In 1991, Buckley had dedicated an entire issue of the magazine to a 40,000-word essay he wrote, “In Search of Anti-Semitism,” in which he condemned Buchanan (then challenging President George H.W. Bush in the GOP primaries) and his employee Sobran for anti-Jewish prejudice. Buckley had a point. Sobran really was a world-class anti-Semite, writing in one National Review column , “If Christians were sometimes hostile to Jews, that worked two ways. Some rabbinical authorities held that it was permissible to cheat and even kill Gentiles.”
After leaving NR, Sobran’s writing, in the words of fellow paleocon and American Conservative editor Scott McConnell, “deteriorated into the indefensible.” He started speaking at conferences organized by famed Holocaust denier David Irving and the denial group Institute for Historical Review, asking at the latter, “Why on earth is it ‘anti-Jewish’ to conclude from the evidence that the standard numbers of Jews murdered are inaccurate, or that the Hitler regime, bad as it was in many ways, was not, in fact, intent on racial extermination?”
He wasn’t alone. John Derbyshire, perhaps the last real paleocon left at National Review, was canned in 2012 after writing a piece addressed to children full of advice like, “Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally,” “Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods,” and, “If planning a trip to a beach of amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date.”
After that, Derbyshire started writing at VDARE, an anti-immigration white nationalist site named after Virginia Dare, the first white Christian born in British North America. The article that got him fired wasn’t actually posted at National Review but at Taki’s Magazine, an outlet run by millionaire paleocon Taki Theodoracopulos that was formerly edited by outspoken white supremacist Richard B. Spencer and has run articles by Theodoracopulos in support of the Greek neo-Nazi party Golden Dawn.
This has been the trend for paleoconservative writing in the past decade or two. It’s largely turned from mainstream conservative outfits to openly racist venues like VDARE, Taki’s, American Renaissance, and the Occidental Observer. Admirably, the American Conservative has held the line and resisted crossing over into open white nationalism, but they’re basically alone in that.
Meanwhile, Pat Buchanan, the paleocons’ great political hope, has more or less always been this openly bigoted. In 1990 he infamously insisted that 850,000 Jews couldn’t have died at Treblinka from diesel fumes. In 2007 he declared, “If you want to know ethnicity and power in the United States Senate, 13 members of the Senate are Jewish folks who are from 2 percent of the population. That is where real power is at.” In 2008, he wrote an entire book arguing that the Second World War was basically Britain’s fault and Hitler was largely blameless. So it’s no surprise that he, too, has been increasingly marginalized, losing his MSNBC position in 2012.
The neoreactionaries are not simply heirs to the paleoconservatives. The paleocons are ultimately more religious, and more loyal to the US Constitution and basic small-r republican ideals. But the neoreactionaries share with the paleocons a belief in tribalism and racial difference, and a deep sense that the mainstream is trying to crush them. Joseph Sobran didn’t use the term “Cathedral,” but he’d surely think it to blame for his marginalization.
From the perspective of Amalekites (and those who identify with them), Jews are a hate group.
From the perspective of Palestinians, Jews are a hate group.
From the perspective of white nationalists, Jews are a hate group.
From a Jewish perspective, white nationalists are a hate group.
From the perspective of at least a third of Muslims worldwide, Jews are a hate group.
For much of Christian history, Jews have been regarded as a hate group.
From the perspective of Haman, Mordecai and the Jews comprised a hate group. From the perspective of the Jews in the Book of Esther, Haman and his cohorts represented a hate group.
From the perspective of the ancient Pharoah in the Book of Exodus, the Jews were a hate group. From a Jewish perspective, the Egyptian hierarchy was a hate group.
From the perspective of the Nazis, the Jews were a hate group.
From the perspective of the Jews, the Nazis were a hate group.
From a Jewish perspective, much of Muslim identity is based on hate.
From a Tibetan perspective, the Chinese invading their country are a hate group.
During the Cold War, I thought of the communists as a hate group.
If you love something, you are going to hate that which threatens it. All groups are engaged in a competition for scarce resources. When another group threatens your well-being, you are naturally going to hate it.
Posted inDiversity|Comments Off on What Is A Hate Group?
HOW DONALD TRUMP’S CAMPAIGN BROUGHT WHITE NATIONALISTS OUT OF THE SHADOWS
BY ALEX ALTMAN
TIME, APRIL 25, 2016
The men eased past the picketers and police barricades, through a security-studded lobby and up to the eighth floor of a federal building named for Ronald Reagan. Inside an airy rotunda, guests in jackets and ties mingled over pork sliders and seafood tacos served by black waiters in tuxedos. There were celebratory speeches during dinner, crème brûlée for dessert. Apart from the racial epithets wafting around the room, the Saturday-night banquet seemed more like a wedding reception than a meeting of white nationalists. The event was sponsored by the National Policy Institute (NPI), a tiny think tank based in Arlington, Va., dedicated to the advancement of “people of European descent.” NPI publishes pseudo-scientific tracts with titles like “Race Differences in Intelligence,” runs a blog called Radix Journal (sample post: “My Hate Group Is Different Than Your Hate Group”) and holds conferences on topics like immigration and identity politics. This time it had gathered a group of 150 sympathizers in downtown Washington to discuss what the rise of Donald Trump has meant for the far right. Since the start of the 2016 campaign, Trump has built a broad coalition of supporters, attracting voters with his forceful personality and his willingness to challenge party doctrine. And while the vast majority are driven by reasons other than race, Trump has also emerged as a hero to white nationalists. “Trump has energized us,” says Richard Spencer, president of NPI. For the first time since George Wallace in 1968, far-right activists in the U.S. are migrating toward mainstream electoral politics, stepping out of the shadows to attend rallies, offer endorsements and serve as volunteers. “It’s bound to happen,” Spencer says of white nationalists’ running for office one day.
“Not as conservatives but as Trump Republicans.”
Extremists have latched on to Trump as a rallying cry and recruiting tool. Attendance at NPI events has jumped 75% over the past year, Spencer says.
[ . . . ]
THE ALT RIGHT
A billionaire mogul from multicultural Manhattan makes an unlikely tribune for a white-grievance movement. But in more than a dozen interviews, extremists described why they feel galvanized by Trump’s candidacy. They love his calls for walling of the southern border and barring Muslim immigration. They find his salvos against political correctness refreshing. And they interpret his laments of national decline as a dog whistle about demographic change.
Now they’re hoping a powerful and ubiquitous messenger can spread their ideas. “It used to be that nobody would say these things,” says Richard, a Maryland resident in his 20s wearing a wispy beard and a black knit tie. “Trump has opened the door to nationalism in this country—not American nationalism but the white race. Once that door has fully swung open, you can’t close it.”
Trump’s ascendancy comes at a moment of reinvention for the far right. A new generation of leaders like NPI’s Spencer are trying to recast white nationalism as a 21st century movement steeped in social media. The NPI meeting was dominated by young men under 30, many of whom said they were part of an online network known as the Alt (for Alternative) Right. Originally rooted in antipathy to mainstream conservatism, the Alt Right has morphed over the past year into a virtual pro-Trump army. It’s a loose collection of furies who range from provocative Twitter trolls to white-rights activists, garden-variety anti-Semites, proto-fascists and overt neo-Nazis.
Like any other movement that peddles belonging to the alienated, the Alt Right has developed its own lexicon. The protesters holding anti-racist signs on the sidewalk below were classic “SJWs” (a derisive acronym for social-justice warriors). Establishment Republicans are known as “cuckservatives,” a term designed to connote emasculation. Both groups fall into the category of people whom members of the Alt Right refer to on Twitter and in blogs like the Right Stuff as “ovenworthy.”
Though they often disagree on tone and tactics, members of the Alt Right are bound by a few core beliefs. They regard most Republican politicians as Zionist puppets, captive to corporations seeking cheap labor. They tend to be protectionist on trade, isolationist on foreign policy and unmoved by cornerstone conservative issues like free markets or the Constitution. They reject the benefits of diversity and view demographic trends as an existential threat.
Over $10 cocktails at the NPI event, white nationalists described U.S. population dynamics with a sense of dread. “In a democracy, the majority rules,” said Jefrey, a 27-year-old soap entrepreneur from Louisiana. “If we become a minority in our own country, we will be stripped of our power.” Others suggested that they could face systemic persecution if white birthrates remain low and immigration isn’t curtailed.
“Diversity brings differences, and sometimes those differences are so irreconcilable, they cause conflict,” said Nathan Damigo, a 29-year-old student from Oakdale, Calif., who blogs about incidents of alleged anti-white bias. To Damigo, a former Marine who fought on the sectarian battle fields of Iraq, the rise of a candidate like Trump was inevitable. “This is what happens in all multiracial, multi-religious, multiethnic societies,” he said. “Identity politics trumps everything else.”
[. . . ]
THE WHITE ETHNOSTATE
Richard Spencer is ready to seize the moment. Spencer, 37, has devoted much of his adult life to forging a new path for white nationalism. “We need to present ourselves as serious and attractive,” he explains. “The type of people who can rule a country one day.”
Spencer is clean-cut, polite and solicitous. He spends his days on Twitter and Slack and peppers his paragraphs with academic jargon picked up during postgraduate studies at Duke and the University of Chicago. At the NPI meeting, where the tables were decorated with images of Trump’s golden mane, he wore a dark suit, a purple vest over a pink dress shirt and a distinctive haircut—shaved on the sides, longish on top—that has been widely mimicked by white nationalists.
Spencer strives to soften the edges of his ideology. He says he rejects white supremacy and considers slavery “abhorrent.” He calls himself an “identitarian,” a belief system that emphasizes racial identity and has much more in common with European far-right movements than anything cooked up by William F. Buckley and his cohort. But the preppy demeanor belies a radical vision: the establishment of a whites-only “ethnostate.”
It’s still just a fantasy, Spencer admits. But he’s not wrong to suggest that the rise of Trump, coupled with demographic trends and social crosscurrents, has imbued this cause with new momentum. The Black Lives Matter movement that took root in Ferguson, Mo., has fed a broader white-persecution complex. About 4 in 10 Americans—and nearly 75% of Trump supporters—say discrimination against whites is now as big a problem as discrimination against blacks, according to a November study by the Public Religion Research Institute.
Attempts to stifle free speech on college campuses—where students seek out “safe spaces” and complain that chalking “Trump 2016” on the quad is an act of intimidation—seem to validate the candidate’s jeremiads against political correctness. Meanwhile, the GOP’s perpetual pursuit of policies like free trade, entitlement cuts and lower taxes for the wealthy has widened the gulf between party bosses and the base. “Conservatism is committing suicide,” Spencer says. “We want to fill that space.”
In the age of Trump, the emergence of a new nationalist third party no longer seems impossible. The GOP front runner has shattered so many taboos, smashed so many conservative idols, that to Spencer it feels as if a movement rooted in race and identity, rather than the Constitution and capitalism, is gathering steam. It may take years of fitful progress, he predicts, capped by some seismic shock—a sudden war, a stock-market crash. Or maybe just the arrival of a candidate like Donald Trump.
Posted inAlt Right, Jews|Comments Off on Time Magazine Covers The Alt-Right
Why can’t Jews have communities where they can be free from Palestinian attacks? The only way to do that is to have communities from Palestinians.
Why should not all Israel be free from Palestinian attacks? The only way to do that would be to ban all Muslism from the Jewish state.
The Muslim state of Saudi Arabia has no problem banning non-Muslims from many of its sacred spaces. Why can’t the Jewish state do the same?
Why can’t all peoples have safe spaces? Why can’t the Japanese have spaces free of non-Japanese? Why can’t Tibetans have spaces free of non-Tibetans? Why can’t whites have neighborhoods free from non-whites? If gentiles want to have social clubs and hotels free from Jews, why should not the goyim have safe spaces?
Saudi Arabia’s set-up of banning non-Muslims from sacred spaces does not bother me in the least. Saudi Arabia’s decision to ban the practice of Judaism and Christianity on its soil is fine with me too. In this case, I think the Saudis are shining the light. Distinctive civilization requires exclusion. Let’s do such things the Saudi way.
Posted inIslam, Israel|Comments Off on Why Can’t Jews Have Safe Spaces?
Let me lay my cards on the table: I am an American supporter of Israel, non-Jewish but a philo-semite. Perhaps not all VDARE.COM readers will agree with me. But the ideologies governing all Western nations are closely interlinked. What happens in one nation is likely to happen in the others. Nationalism as such is under systematic attack by globalist ideology. We can no longer afford to fall into the classic trap that has always bedeviled nationalists: instinctive difficulty in cooperating with the nationalists of other nations.
Moreover, the central problem facing Israeli nationalism at this moment is the Palestinian question—the presence, within the borders of the national state, of a large, unassimilable, alienated population. Because of current mass immigration, the U.S. and all the historic nation-states of Europe are beginning to face the same problem. Ultimately, they may have to consider some version of the same solution.
The current “road map” for peace will self-destruct like all previous ones and for the same reason: the Palestinians believe in eternal war against Israel. The world can go on proposing futile peace plans—or it can consider a solution that would actually end the conflict: the non-lethal but forcible expulsion of the Palestinians to Jordan.
(Arguably, Jordan is Palestine anyway, and has been since at least 1923, when three-quarters of the League of Nations mandate of Palestine was set up as the Emirate of Transjordan by the British and reserved for Arabs. The Palestinians do not constitute a distinct nationality, being racially, ethnically, linguistically, religiously, and culturally indistinguishable from the majority of Jordan`s population.)
Population transfer is almost certainly the only long-term solution—which is why 1/3 of the Israeli electorate already favor it, usually in the form known as the “Elon Plan” after cabinet minister Benny Elon. (One of Elon`s aides showed him a draft of this article—he seems to have appreciated it but responded that his own intentions towards the Arabs were more “peaceful.”)
The underlying principle is simple: borders work. If the Palestinians live in Jordan and the Israelis in Israel, the day-to-day bloodletting will cease. Suicide bombs and other attacks are only possible when hostile populations have physical access to each other. Separate them, and they can only attack each other by outright military invasion, which Israel can defeat.
There is already a wall around Gaza. Since its completion, not a single suicide bomber has emerged from that territory. Israel is currently building a wall around the West Bank. Since the effectiveness of a wall depends on its ability to establish a “sterile” zone inside it, it is time to follow this policy to its logical conclusion and plan the removal of the threat-bearing population.
This is the point in the argument where most people blanch. But this is based on the mistaken assumption that population transfer must be brutal, like the Turkish genocide of the Armenians or Stalin`s deportation of the Crimean Tatars.
But it is the genocidal aspect of “ethnic cleansing” that decent people rightly object to. Non-genocidal ethnic cleansing—even if nothing to be taken lightly—is another question entirely.
Involuntary population transfer obviously cannot be wholly peaceful and fair. But if properly organized and carried out in a disciplined manner, it can be done with a tolerably low level of violence, i.e. one involving less long-term bloodshed than the current situation, in which people are dying every day. It would not require machine-gunning people in the streets.
The key would be a graduated system of carrots and sticks. Those Palestinians who left in response to a minor prod would receive nothing stronger. But those who required a stronger push would get it.
The ethical principle is that any given Palestinian would only get as much rough treatment as he brought on his own head by failing to leave sooner.
Transfer would have to be inexorable, relentless, and executed with the utmost self-discipline on the part of the Israeli army. If it took 2-3 years to slowly squeeze the Palestinians out, this would be acceptable, if it were the price of getting rid of them forever without the mass slaughter that a Western liberal democracy like Israel cannot countenance.
Logistically, population transfer would be accomplished by Israel militarily occupying a small territory on the east bank of the Jordan River and extruding the Palestinians there by squeezing them out of the West Bank sector by sector. Jordan has shown in the past that she does not like taking in Palestinian refugees, but will do so. In any case, Jordan does not have the military muscle to object.
Things would play out something like this:
As soon as the repatriation policy is credibly announced, X% of the Palestinians see the writing on the wall and leave.
When a cash bribe is offered, another X% go.
When stiff taxes are imposed, another X%.
When arrangements for compensation for lost property are put on a sliding scale rewarding those who leave soonest, another X%.
When Palestinians are fired from their jobs, another X%.
When they only receive an unemployment check if mailed to an address outside Israel, another X%.
When Palestinians are expelled from schools and universities, another X%.
When certain parts of pre-1967 Israel are declared “Palestinians-free zones,” another X%.
When the electricity is turned off, X%.
When the water is turned off, X%.
When sale of gasoline to Palestinians is prohibited, X%.
When sale of food to Palestinians is prohibited, X%.
When a 24-hr curfew is imposed, X%.
At various times, all of these measures have actually been employed already. While they have motivated only about 250,000 Palestinians to leave, they have been proven to be physically and politically possible. The key is to drive up the percentages in a dispassionate and relentless way. The key to this is to apply these policies systematically and with sufficient credibility to establish the futility of resistance.
Further measures would include:
Ban all economic activity.
Ban the importation of all foodstuffs and destroy agriculture with aerial spraying. Naturally, this must be combined with the provision of food to any refugee who leaves.
Deplete the Palestinians` aquifers; this is happening anyway simply because there is a water shortage.
Demolish housing and destroy all possessions except those being loaded onto a bus to Jordan.
Arrest Palestinians on the street and deport them.
Have the police physically drag Palestinians from their homes.
Have the army physically drag Palestinians from their homes.
Warn people their homes will be blown up with them inside them if they don`t leave.
Carry out threat 21.
The core tactic is simply to squeeze the Palestinians out. The objective, of course, is not to kill them, so this must be done sector-by-sector and combine the starvation of one sector with the generous provision of free food in the sector immediately closer to the border. As Palestinians fled the starved areas for areas where food was available, a military cordon would be put up behind them.
The process would be repeated until they were all out.
Governments all over the world regularly deport people. It is a legitimate function of a sovereign state to determine that the presence of certain persons is not in the national interest, to make it illegal, and to enforce it. Even the United States, which has de facto given up enforcing its southern border, still deports 300,000 people per year.
The closest precedents for population transfer are the expulsion of millions of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe following World War II and the exchange of populations between Turkey and Greece after World War I. Both precedents were bloodier than anything I`m proposing. But both did settle longstanding issues that could not be settled any other way. Both have been accepted as legitimate by the world at large.
Why not in Israel?
International opinion, contrary to leftist myth, was long willing to contemplate population transfer. As Herbert Zweibon of Americans For A Safe Israel has written,
“Zionist leaders from right and left advocated it in the 1920s and 1930s. Two American presidents endorsed it in the 1940s. The British Labor Party made transfer of Arabs from Palestine part of its official Middle East plank in 1944.” (Outpost, October 2002)
Indeed, some amount of population transfer has always been accepted as part of the Oslo process—although Oslo envisaged cleansing Gaza and part of the West Bank of Jews, not Palestinians.)
So why are people so shocked?
The Arab states would obviously react negatively to population transfer. But there is little they could do. With the exception of Egypt and Jordan, they are already so hostile to Israel that it could hardly make matters worse. Doubtless, the oil weapon will be discussed. But swing producer Saudi Arabia is broke and needs every penny, our hand is on Iraq`s oil spigot, and the Gulf States, unlike in 1974, hold significant assets in the West that could be seized if they make trouble.
Morally, the Arab states have no standing to complain. They have alternately brutalized and expelled the Palestinians within their own borders, and they expelled nearly a million Jews after the founding of the State of Israel in 1948.
If Israel follows through on this plan, it would probably be prudent for the United States to distance itself in various ways, perhaps by cutting off our billion dollars a year in economic aid. But, given that Israel really needs to get off of American welfare anyway, this would not be a serious problem.
Even the Palestinians will be better off if they are forced to abandon their revanchist dream, which the other Arab states have pushed on them for the sake of making them a weapon against Israel, and to start constructing a normal society.
Twenty years from now, many Palestinians may look back on the whole thing as irrelevant to their lives.
Population transfer is not a perfect solution. Some people would get killed.
But the alternative is a low-intensity war in which people are being killed every day. It would be a cauterizing but effective end to the conflict, a cutting of the biggest Gordian knot in world politics.
And it has, as I said, crucial implications for other Western nations—including America.
Posted inIsrael, Nationalism|Comments Off on Is Population Transfer the Solution to the Palestinian Problem—And Some Others?
In a 2006 article entitled “9/11 Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theories Still Abound,” the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) criticized Petras’s assertion that there was evidence that Israelis may have known about the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks but withheld the information from the United States government. The ADL also noted Petras’ assertion that “The lack of any public statement concerning Israel’s possible knowledge of 9/11 is indicative of the vast, ubiquitous and aggressive nature of its powerful diaspora supporters.”[11][12]
In a 2009 article, the ADL again criticized Petras, alleging that he blamed the ongoing economic crisis on “Zionist” control over the U.S. government and world events, and alleged that Petras argued that pro-Israel Americans had launched a massive campaign to push the U.S. into a war with Iran. The ADL also alleged that Petras’ allegations included the anti-Semitic accusation that the American Jewish community controls the mass media and is “bloodthirsty” in its appetite for war.[13] The previous year, Petras alleged that that “It was the massive infusion of financial contributions that allowed the [Zionist Power Configuration] (ZPC) to vastly expand the number of full-time functionaries, influence peddlers and electoral contributors that magnified their power – especially in promoting US Middle East wars, lopsided free trade agreements (in favor of Israel) and unquestioned backing of Israeli aggression against Lebanon, Syria and Palestine…No economic recovery is possible now or in the foreseeable future…while Zionist power brokers dictate US Mideast policies.[14][15]
The ADL also cited a 2008 interview in which Petras stated that [U.S.] presidents are at the disposal of “Jewish power” [16] and maintained that Jews represent “the greatest threat to world peace and humanity.”[17] In the same 2008 interview cited by the ADL, Petras stated that “it’s one of the great tragedies that we have a minority that represents less than 2% of North American’s population but has such power in the communications media” and that the reason “why the North American public doesn’t react against the manipulations of this minority…[is] because the Jews control the communications media.”[18] In an 2010 article published in the Arab American News, Petras stated that “For the U.S. mass media the problem is not Israeli state terror, but how to manipulate and disarm the outrage of the international community. To that end the entire Zionist power configuration has a reliable ally in the Zionized Obama White House and U.S. Congress.”[19]
If discussion of Jewish power is marginalized, then only marginal people will discuss Jewish power.
I know Jews tend to be concerned about the number of Jews on the Supreme Court. Growing up as a Protestant, I never heard any discussion of the number of Protestants on the Supreme Court. It wasn’t a concern I remember.
Growing up as a Protestant, I don’t recall much concern about the reach and extent of Protestant power. By contrast, when I converted to Judaism, I joined a tribe that was in it to win it.
The Rise of the Jewish Policy Elite: Meritocracy, Myth and Power
Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court marks a continuation and deepening of the lopsided ethno-religious representation in the US judicial system. If Garland is appointed, Jewish justices will comprise 45% of the Court, even though they represent less than 2% of the overall population.
Roman Catholics comprise the other 55% of the Court – even though they represent approximately 30% of the population. Protestants (historically the authors and signers of the country’s foundational documents, and the major confessional group) are totally absent from this august body of jurists.
Equally important the increasing power of Jewish justices on the Supreme Court is accelerating: Counting Garland, two of the last three appointments (67%) have been Jews.
In the first half of the 20th century in the US, progressive Jews and civil libertarians decried what they termed WASP (white Anglo-Saxon Protestant) exclusivity, privilege and discrimination, citing their domination of the Supreme Court and their ‘over-representation’ throughout the elite centers of power. Having totally displaced and replaced the dreaded WASPS, there is nary a word from the plethora of civil rights groups and Jewish organizations claiming to be concerned with issues of discrimination and exclusion. Perhaps the marginalized WASP population lacks any qualified jurists among their scores of millions, an ethno-cultural degeneration unique in US history or perhaps the last few WASPs appointed to the Supreme Court turned out to be among the most ardent and independent defenders of citizen rights, to the chagrin of numerous Administrations.
Nevertheless, if a rare individual should dare to raise the issue of nepotism and the exercise of narrow political considerations in the choice of Supreme Court nominees, the factious response is that ‘it’s all about merit’. Meaning, among the thousands of WASP graduates of the top law schools with academic awards and publications in prestigious journals, no qualified candidate can be found to address this lack of representation.
But scholarship and originality may not be of much merit: A brief perusal of the legal publications of Elena Kagan and Merrick Garland reveals meager, mediocre and pedestrian articles and monographs. In the case of Kagan, her rise to power was facilitated by her relationship with the former (and heartily voted out of office) Harvard President ‘Larry’ Summers, who appointed her Dean of the Law School despite her lack of quality publications. Summers, as Harvard President, led a raucous and bullying campaign against any academic critics Israeli policies during his abruptly abbreviated tenure in office.
Clearly the problem of ethno-religious nepotism is not confined to Jews, it was an abuse practiced by WASP elites and others before them. Nor does such nepotism benefit the average wage and salaried Jews, who have to struggle side-by-side with their Gentile compatriots to make a living and exercise their rights.
However, nepotism or ethno-religious favoritism has become an acute problem now when exclusive control of the Supreme Court compounds the growing problems of abuse in other spheres of the power structure – political, economic and mass communications. This imbalance has profound repercussions on everything from US overseas wars of aggression to the everyday struggle of Americans faced with deepening inequalities and the shredding of the social contract.
Historically, and particularly among progressive and leftist critics, what was referred to as the “Jewish Problem” was a multifaceted issue that revolved around the persecution of resident Jews by anti-Semitic regimes and within Christian majority cultures. Various solutions included the granting of citizenship rights following the French Revolution, socio-cultural assimilation, the development of socialism or separation and re-settlement in Palestine through the Zionist movement. Today the major issue has turned into an ‘American Problem’: how a powerful ethno-religious elite can use its multi-faceted power to secure (and create) strategic positions in the state while excluding contenders, repressing critics and actively promoting policies in the interest of a foreign state, Israel.
Not all Jewish appointees and elected officials explicitly follow the extremist position of the most aggressive Zionist organizations, especially the self-styled ‘Presidents of the Major American (sic) Jewish Organizations’ . . . but… nor do they openly object to Israeli-First activities or try to block them – for fear of ostracism and retribution – with the calumny of ’self-hating Jew’ unlikely to promote one’s career or social life.
…Dr. Paul Wolfowitz received his BA from Cornell and PhD from the University of Chicago. In the 1980’s, early in his government career he temporarily lost security clearance for having passed confidential documents to Israeli agents. Despite this ‘youthful indiscretion’ (or act of treason), Wolfowitz became Deputy Defense Secretary under President George W. Bush (2001-2005). In this position, he was one of the earliest and most forceful advocates for military interventions against Iraq, Syria, Iran, Lebanon and Libya. He persuaded the American Congress and the Bush Administration that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq would be short and self-financing. He glowingly predicted that the wars would ‘pay for themselves’ in terms of looted natural resources and ‘re-construction’ contracts. In fact, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost tens of thousands of US military casualties, over a trillion dollars in military expenditures and they continue over 13 years (Iraq), and 15 years (Afghanistan) with no end in sight but completely devastated societies spewing millions of refugees and thousands of terrorists.
Equally luminous in academic credentials, the third of the ‘Israel-First Troika’, Douglas Feith received his BA from Harvard (magna cum laude), and JD (magna cum laude). He worked closely with Israeli intelligence officials fabricating out of whole cloth the myth of Saddam’s quest for ‘yellow cake’ uranium to construct Iraqi nuclear weapons of mass destruction pushing the US into war against Iraq.
Feith set up a cozy nest at the Pentagon, the ‘Office of Special Plans’ (OSP), which served as a base of operations for Israeli operatives. One thoroughly disgusted former Pentagon official described the flow of Israeli officials in and out of OSP as resembling ‘a brothel on Saturday night’.
One of Feith’s crowning achievements was the destruction of the Iraqi Baath Party and administrative apparatus, which included the entire police force, the army and public administration, education, and even the huge public health system. Virtually all qualified Iraqi officials were either fired or ‘disappeared’. The result was the total breakdown of essential services, the pillage of the national and historic patrimony and decimation of civil and secular Iraqi society. Even the most fabulous archeological treasures of Mesopotamia were destroyed or looted for American and European collectors. Feith’s level of meddling and disastrous policies led the colorful US General Tommy Franks to describe the Harvard ‘JD’ as “the dumbest fucking guy on the planet”.
Hovering on the periphery of the ‘Troika’ was the ‘mysterious’, veteran manipulator, Richard Perle. With his BA from the University of Southern California and MA from Princeton (and no military experience), Perle was qualified to push for serial US wars on Israel’s behalf, starting with Iraq and moving on to all other countries which had traditionally supported the rights of the Palestinian people. He was a key member of the US Defense Policy Board under the Bush Administration and the front ideologue for invading Iraq. His second ‘job’ was strategic adviser to Israeli Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon and Benyamin Netanyahu. Perle pushed for US military intervention to effect ‘regime change’ in Syria and Iran as well as Libya…
Ross’ partner, Martin Indyk received his PhD from the Australian National University and served as Deputy Research Director and co-founder of AIPAC (1982-85). This, the most powerful lobby in Washington, serves exclusively as a political fifth column for the Israeli Foreign Office. Indyk was founding Director of the Washington Institute of Near East Policy (WINEP), a barnyard of ideological propagandists for Israel. When President Clinton appointed (the Australian, Israeli, US citizen) ‘Marty’ Indyk as US Ambassador to Israel, serious questions came up about his transfers of confidential documents to Israel. He thus became the first Ambassador stripped of security clearance. Israel Lobby pressures led to reinstated security clearance for Indyk who was subsequently named Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs. As a mouthpiece for Israel’s interests, Indyk has pushed to ‘contain’ Iraq (through bombing) and Iran (through economic sanctions).
…Throughout his career, Indyk sabotaged peace negotiation between Israel and Palestine and he undermined any early diplomatic resolution of the Iraq-US conflict, which might have prevented the disastrous war. His meddling on Israel’s behalf has cost the US treasury hundreds of billions of dollars in lost trade with Iran. Despite his clear record of ’service to Israel’ and ‘disservice to the US’, President Obama appointed Indyk as US (sic) Special Envoy for Israel-Palestine Negotiations (2013-2014).
There’s nothing unique or nefarious in the Jewish belief in Chosenness. Every people see themselves as fulfilling special role in the universe, that they belong to the chosen.
In a 2006 lecture, Tom Wolfe said: “Each individual adopts a set of values which, if truly absolute in the world – so ordained by some almighty force – would make not that individual but his group…the best of all possible groups, the best of all inner circles.”
Comments posted to James Petras:
* In the religion of Judiasm, the concept of the Jewish people being ‘chosen’ does not mean chosen for special favors or “destined to prevail over the inferior ‘others’” as the article contends. Rather it means chosen for a burden, that of maintaining the Covenant and the ten commandments.
Also Larry Summers was not controversial because he ‘oppressed’ the banal and repetitive anti-Zionism among left-wing faculty. He was controversial because he made the entirely reasonable suggestion that men and women might differ somewhat on average in inherent scientific ability and interest and that could explain the supposed gender disparity at the highest end.
* “Jews have a mission to elevate the world morally and spiritually . . to take responsibility to teach the world values — spiritual values, ethical values . . ..Jews are chosen by God to be the moral leaders of the world . . . To teach the world how to behave ethically . . .” Rabbi Ken Spiro, AISH.org
* However if we consider their foreign policies in the alternative terms of Israel’s political, economic and military interests, they regain their ’summa cum laudes’! They have been well rewarded for their services: The war against Iraq destroyed an opponent of Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine. The systematic destruction of the Iraqi civil society and state has eliminated any possibility of Iraq recovering as a modern secular, multi-ethnic, multi-confessional state. Here, Israel made a major advance toward unopposed regional military dominance without losing a soldier or spending a shekel! The Iran sanctions authored and pushed by Levey and Cohen served to undermine another regional foe of Israeli land grabs in the West Bank even if it cost the US hundreds of billions in lost profits, markets and oil investments.
* There is an Israel-first coterie that has managed to insert itself into the power and policy structure. You can’t blame people for doing what they think is to their own advantage, when buttressed by survival paranoia. The Holocaust plays large in the psychology of this – whatever it takes, never again. And Americans are famous for thinking if something is worth doing, it is worth overdoing.
Now probably these neocons are beyond reformation. But the policies of excess not only don’t serve the interests of most Americans, in the long run, they aren’t “good for the Jews” either. It would be tragic if the over-the-top behavior of a certain number of elitists caused such systemic failure and devastation that an entire ethnic and religious group were scapegoated for their crimes. It wouldn’t be the first time that an elite leadership betrayed the interests of its own people, as the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem revealed occurred all too often – an historical circumstance of treason that Hannah Arendt called a most tragic aspect.
One should note it’s not just the Jewish one per cent betraying the country’s interests, it’s the one per cent of all ethnicities allied by class, extreme wealth and their donorist proprietorship who are betraying all American constituencies outside their own. Unions have gone all wobbly and fallen over, but the capitalists of the world have united.
* “Merit” is a hopelessly subjective criterion, which can be twisted to mean anything that a particular person or group desires.
As far as I can see, it may be highly correlated with the kind of practical intelligence that allows an individual to understand “on what side his bread is buttered”. In other words, those people who are said to have “merit” tend to be those who “go along to get along”.
* David Cohen is not the Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence within the US Treasury Department, he’s been promoted to being #2 at the CIA.
Adam Szubin is now the Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence within the US Treasury Department.
That the FED would hire the former head of the Bank of Israel to be #2 is troubling. Where does Fisher loyalties really lie or can I ask that question w/o getting slammed or deleted?
* Petras is a third rate sociologist who owes his education and career to affirmative action and lefty Jewish professors who sheltered and advanced him beyond his capabilities.
It’s ironic that he would now be bashing alleged unfair Jewish advantages in government and academia.
* One of the truly astonishing facts of the 2016 presidential campaign is the incredible degree of Jewish influence. Obviously, there is Brooklyn socialist Jew Bernie Sanders, but he isn’t going to win. Neither will Cruz. That leaves Hillary, whose daughter is married to a Jew, and Trump, whose daughter is ALSO married to a Jew.
Now, what’s the sheer mathematical probability that, totally at random, three out of the leading four candidates have strong pro-Jewish ties, and that BOTH of the likely presidential candidates have families that intermarried with Jewry, that 45% of the Supreme Court will be Jewish, that 100% of the Federal Reserve chairs for the past 30 years straight have been Jewish, that Secretaries of the Treasury in the past 20 years include Paulson, Geithner, Summers, Lew and Rubin? That the entire Clinton foreign policy apparatus — Albright, Wesley Clarke, William Cohen, and Samuel Berger — was Jewish?
The idea that “Jewish control” of America is some kind of crackpot theory is in itself ridiculous. The evidence is so overwhelming that you’re a crackpot if you believe that the Jews DON’T control America.
* Israel already had conventional dominance, and nuclear weapons as a further guarantee. It is only neocons who live in the US who thought Iraq was a threat worth taking out. Israel could and would use nuclear weapons if it was in genuine peril. The neocons gained from the destruction of Iraq, but Israel didn’t.
* Israel has had a long-term strategy to break up the ME into warring factions and encourages this in Syria. Israeli generals and politicians were all for the U.S. invading Iraq. AIPAC and the neocons are just sock puppets of the Likud in Israel. The Israeli Yinon Plan is an example of their goals to breakup the ME so they can expand to a Greater Israel. The zionist’s German brethren called it lebensraum.
And just because they have nukes doesn’t mean that they dare use them unless there is an imminent treat to Israel’s destruction, which is not even remotely possible with their current military strength.
* Brilliant analysis, I suppose they built a wall to keep the Arabs imprisoned inside Israel, and the Zionists now want to conquer more territory with 50 million more crazy Arabs and then build another wall to keep them inside Israel-on-the-Euphrates maybe. Israel could do that if it wanted, because the Arabs are military weak and always will be.
The wall on the west bank is far back from the border in many places, and Israel has already withdrawn from Gaza. Iraq was supporting the West Bank Arabs and so does Iran , that is the kernel of truth in what you say. The Arabs inside the West Bank are politically strong and left where they are they will inevitably lead to a choice between full rights and Apartheid which will spell the end of Israel as a Jewish state. The neocons dare not propose the solution, because they are not really interested in Israel, being focussed on sanctimonious critiques of the West, and meaningless US military adventurism that cannot save Israel from a political doom.
* Abrams and the other Neo’s such as Perle were part of the Reagan’s anti-Communist coalition. doubtless for their own reasons. But as Pat Buchanan said, “Reagan used the neocons. The Neocons went on to use Bush.” We can now see that letting these conniving tribal scoundrels into the tent was serious mistake. Perhaps their mass migration back to the Democrats will help make a no-neo zone on the right possible. We can only hope.
Israeli Sephardic leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef in his weekly Saturday night sermon said that non-Jews exist to serve Jews.
“Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world; only to serve the People of Israel,” he said during a public discussion of what kind of work non-Jews are allowed to perform on Shabbat.
“Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat,” he said to some laughter.
Yosef, the spiritual leader of the Shas Party and the former chief Sephardi rabbi of Israel, also said that the lives of non-Jews are protected in order to prevent financial loss to Jews.
“With gentiles, it will be like any person: They need to die, but God will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money. This is his servant. That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew.”
* My overall impression, after reading both the article and the following comments is extreme pessimism.This is because people still don’t seem know the exact reasons why Jews were expelled from all those countries in the past. These people must think that these expulsions were simply the result of Christian, religious based, anti semitism.
If these very same readers would go to the effort of buying E. Michael Jones’ monumental opus The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit they would quickly come to the conclusion that Jews were expelled, time after time, after having simply wreaked financial pillage on the communities they inhabited.
A couple of examples (out of many):
1) Jews were forced out of England in 1290, but not because any animosity on the part of King John. In fact, he wanted them to stay because they made so much money for him. They did this by getting him to require licenses for various activities (taverns, brothels, tax collecting, certain trades) and ignoring the usurious loaning of money that was forbidden by the church. Only Jews had to financial resources, to buy these licenses which King John apparently profited handsomely from. of. These licenses ended up being nothing more than a frontal attack on the nascent English, middle class, gentile merchants.
When the English aristocracy, which had started to succumb to usurious loans, demanded that Jews be exiled, King John required the aristocrats to come up enough money to compensate him for the money he would lose for exiling these Jews. After much research, I found that the amount he demanded (and got) was around 250,000 pounds (of silver), an absolutely astounding amount when you consider that only 2,000 Jews lived in England at the time and a person could apparently live a middle class existence on 5 to 7 pounds a year. This meant that every Jew was worth approximately 1000 pounds to King John. (the equivalent of the living expenses for a year of 200 people. )
2) Jews in pre Partition Poland (before 1772)had become so powerful that they had mercenary armies more powerful than the civil authorities. Jews even had what amounted to an entirely autonomous country within Poland. It had become so bad for Polish peasants that a Jew could kill one of them without any repercussions, (much as is the case of Palestinians in Palestine today.) Jews reached this level of power much as they did in England up until 1290: by getting the monarchy to issue licenses for various activities that only Jews, because of their ability to pool money, were only capable of buying. Again, these licenses gave them rights over taverns, brothels, certain trades, and the ignoring laws about the the usurious loaning of money at interest.
The most flagrant example of this manipulation were the so called “arendarships” which were contracts to manage the properties of the aristocracy. Again, only Jews were capable of bidding on these arendarship because of the ability to pool their money. Arendarships were supposedly sold at public auctions but the bids were fixed beforehand because the Talmud apparently forbid Jews from bidding against each other in public auctions with gentiles. These sort of arrangements resulted in the horrendous exploitation of Polish peasant because the peasant were no longer working under the restraints imposed on the gentile aristocrats by the Catholic Church. It wasn’t just rich Jews who were involved in such exploitation. It has been estimated that at one time 85-95% percent of Jews had financial shares in various arendarships.
During this era the gentile middle class virtually disappeared in Poland because they simply couldn’t compete with of the financial manipulation of monopolies controlled by the Jews. It got so bad that even the Catholic Church itself started turning over the control of its properties to the Jewish “arendars” because of the increased profits that resulted.
The Russian czar specifically attempted to end such exploitation of Polish gentiles after The First Partition by forcing Jews into The Pale of Settlement. The Jews never forgave the czar for this and their continuing grievances were made apparent in the overthrow of the czar in 1917.
Is this sort of economic warfare now taking place in the USA. Yes, under its latest terminology called hedge funds.
* “Senator McGovern is very sincere when he says that he will try to cut the military budget by 30%. And this is to drive a knife in the heart of Israel… Jews don’t like big military budgets. But it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States… American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don’t want to cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel.” (Irving Kristol)
* One of the most astonishing accomplishments of the Judeoists is to have enforced on the whole of western civilization the notion that the Hebrew bible is THE defining book/revelation about god and his attributes upon which all of civilization depends.
* Ehud Barak offered to talk about the part of the Golan that Israel occupies, see http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/160832#.Vwa8BaQrLIV.
He made a serious offer to the Arabs to give them a West bank state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit#The_negotiations. He was rebuffed.Israel could have taken the rest of the Golan and as much of Syria as it wanted at any time and it could overthrow Assad right now by, staging a military build upon the Golan which would force Assad to withdraw his foreign legions assisting Islamic State’s slow crushing of the Free Syrian Army in the south. http://aranews.net/2016/04/isis-militants-expel-syrian-rebels-key-town-daraa/Assad is using ISIS as a cats paw against the US and its client (Assad’s southerly neighbouring family dictatorship in Hashemite Jordan. Assad and his russki condor legion are helping Israel by creating the possibility of a radical Sunni takeover of Jordan. The necons are doing nothing while the US is desperately trying to stop this, see https://news.vice.com/article/the-great-wall-of-jordan-how-the-us-wants-to-keep-the-islamic-state-out and ,https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/03/11/u-s-rocket-artillery-based-in-jordan-is-being-used-to-strike-islamic-state-targets-in-syria/Jordan is an American client and no threat to Israel In fact the Jordan frontier is so safe it is where most Israeli women combat soldiers are stationed, see http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/?p=602But Israel cannot keep Arabs in the west bank without full rights and they will rever be reconciled so it will go on . The mentionable option is withdrawal from the West Bank, see http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/?p=594But there is another
http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/?p=433 Fueling the conflict are the Saudis who will oppose anything the Iranians support. Too cowardly to send in their own useless army, they are trying to get rid of Assad by heavily subsidizing his enemies.
With so many interests, native and foreign, involved, a way out does not seem in sight. Nor can the outcome be foreseen any more than that of the Thirty Years’ War could be four years after the beginning of the conflict, i.e. 1622. In fact there is good reason to believe that the hostilities have just begun. Additional players such as Lebanon and Jordan may well be drawn in. That in turn will almost certainly bring in Israel as well. Some right-wing Israelis, including several ministers, actually dream of such a scenario. They hope that the fall of the Hashemite Dynasty and the disintegration of Jordan will provide them with an opportunity to repeat the events of 1948 by throwing the Palestinians out of the West Bank and into Jordan.
It’s all shaping up nicely, but the abominable frackers have pushed the oil price down so low that the Saudis cannot dump oil without beggaring themselves as well as Iran. Nonetheless, cheap oil halting this was because Russia, Iran and the saudi run out of money will not end it. The war is due to internal forces in a country of over 20 million people, most of whom loath Assad the foreigner who killed their families. He can’t win, but he is willing to burn down the entire region if it comes to that. So Assad is Israel’s ally, and the people of the West’s. http://www.vdare.com/articles/is-population-transfer-the-solution-to-the-palestinian-problem-and-some-others
* I found the following explanation of the “real cause” of antisemitism by rabbi Ken Spiro @2:34 rather interesting:
But if we clear all those excuses aside and look at the real cause, we understand that basically what powers anti-Semitism throughout history is it’s a revolt, it’s a millennia-long revolt against this national historic mission of the Jewish people to bring certain values into the world.
This video motivated me to do a little more research on Jewish Pathways and rabbi Ken Spiro, so I decided to visit his webpage. I noticed he had listed a number of history courses and, for obvious reasons, #27, The Greek Empire, caught my eye. Here is an excerpt from that course:
In short, the Greeks introduced into human consciousness an idea which is going to come into play as one of the most powerful intellectual forces in modern history ― humanism. The human being is the center of all things. The human mind and its ability to understand and observe and comprehend things rationally is the be-all-and-end-all. That’s an idea which comes from the Greeks.
Above all, the Greeks thought that this was enlightenment, the highest level of civilization. They had a strong sense of destiny and believed that their culture was ordained to become the universal culture of humanity.
The Jews had a different vision. The Jews believed that a world united in the belief in one God and ascribing to one absolute standard of moral values ― including respect for life, peace, justice, and social responsibility for the weak and poor ― was the ultimate future of the human race.
This Jewish ideology was wedded to an extreme, uncompromising exclusivity of worship (as demanded by the belief in one God) and a complete intolerance of polytheistic religious beliefs or practices. There was only one God and so only one God could be worshipped, end of story.
To the Jews, human beings were created in the image of God. To the Greeks, gods were made in the image of human beings. To the Jews, the physical world was something to be perfected and elevated spiritually. To the Greeks the physical world was perfect. In short, to Greeks, what was beautiful was holy; to the Jews what was holy was beautiful.
Such disparate views [the Greeks stressed beauty; the Jews stressed holy] were bound to clash, sooner or later.
Now you’ll understand the significance of Gilad Atzmon’s quote:
“To beat terrorism is to depart from Jerusalem and return to Athens. Can we do that? Or must we emancipate ourselves, first?”
* This article is obvious Jew hating, biased drivel. The legal system is predicated on Jewish law. In your article you blamed all the ills of the world on Jews. The only agreements are from fellow Jew haters. Seriously, Holocaust myth? Are the tatooted arms and piles of bodies a myth, too? You can substitute out any of your characters for non Jewish characters and tell the same story. The reason Jewish people are successful is because they have been able to read longer than most groups of people. Jewish people value education and family. Twenty two percent of Israel is muslim this group has all the rights of all Israeli citizens. They are doctors, layers, teachers. They hold seats in the government. It’s sad that they are not more vocal as to the good life Israel has afforded them, especially the women. The only place that Moslem women have any sort of equality. Palestinians (which is a made up denomination) are taught to hate from the time they are born. Their text books are filled with hared and propaganda against the Jews. They store their missiles in schools and playgrounds, making it impossible for Israel to destroy them lest they harm any children. When is real takes any defensive posture to protect its citizens, they notify them as to the target so they can get out of harm’s way. Who does that?. Palastinians don’t value life. They kill indiscriminantly. A baby, a teacher, an old woman, all the same. Just look at any footage. Do you ever see any happiness, love, affection for their own people? Remember what Golda Meir said: “there will never be peace until the “Palestinians” love their children more than they hate the Jews.” One more thing. Have you looked at a current map of Israel? It’s all carved up into many, many sections designated as Palestinian. You article is just another sneaky scam to blame Jews for all the ills of the world single handedly and to make all non Jews so stupid as to allow all the jibberish you spouted to occur. Israel is not the enemy.
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)
