Antisemites Are on My Side of These Issues. How Much Should I Care?

Noah Pollak has a post at Commentary magazine showing convincingly that Philip Giraldi of the American Conservative is very interested in Jews in power. I'm avoiding the words fixated or obsessed, because god knows I'm pretty interested in Jewish power myself, and I'm a plunge-in kind of guy, and admire that quality in others. Pollak is saying that Giraldi is an antisemite. I'm not convinced but I don't know. It's a hearts and minds sort of issue.

It's true there are a lot of antisemites on my side of the fence, I can't deny that. They show up in my comment section, and Richard Witty has told me that David Duke posts some of my posts.

Two years ago Tony Kushner said it gave him angst to speak out on the Israel/Palestinian issue in the noble way that he has for two reasons, because a lot of Jews were screaming at him that he was a terrible person, and of course you don't always know who's right; and also, because he didn't want to be giving comfort to antisemites.

I don't know what to do about it and frankly I don't know how much to care. The chief issue here is journalistic. What is true and new and important? That's your charge as a journalist. Many of the statements Giraldi makes fall into that category, he is doing his best to tell people how the world works. And Jews have gone further than he has now, Seymour Hersh talking about "Jewish money" behind the Iran hysteria and Joe Klein talking about "divided loyalties."

The problem with Pollak and Commentary is that they are so steeped in a Holocaust narrative that they cannot acknowledge true and important facts about America today. That Jews have power, that we are principals in this society, maybe the most significant engines in the economy, and that neocons, who have an esprit de corps no other group had and who truly grow out of Jewish culture, played a significant role in pushing the greatest disaster in foreign policy of the last generation. They did that. On their own. Journalists have a responsibility to talk about that. Richard Witty is always telling me to get off the neocons, ignore them. But why Richard? That is intellectually incurious, a, and b, denies the American people a just accounting of this huge error. (Richard's more spiritually evolved than I am...)

Giraldi is angry at Jews, I can see that. And I don't entirely blame him. The body of Jewish organizations have basically turned a blind eye to Palestinian suffering for at least 40 years. It makes me angry too. Giraldi probably brings a little ethnic resentment to it, I read that in some of the lines that Pollak quotes. Not good, not very spiritually evolved. But is ethnic resentment in and of itself criminal or does it constitute hate speech? I don't think so. I grew up with ethnic resentment, Jewish resentment of the WASPs. Jacob Heilbrunn describes this resentment accurately in his book on the neocons, where he says that it fed the neocon rise, the desire to create a "parallel establishment" that would not discriminate against Jews. They did it too. Ethnic resentment was a great propeller. It's still latent in a lot of Commentary's work. Also, anger is a vital component of a lot of journalism. (You won't find a good investigative journalist who isn't angry.) I fixated on WASPs in college because that's where the power was and they gave us Vietnam. Now the power is in different precincts.

Some gentiles so resent Jewish power that they call themselves "goyim," adopting the term of abuse as blacks adopted "niggers." I'm more amused than threatened. That is the key word, threatening. How much power does anti-Jewish prejudice have? How much power in my life should I give it? Berlin 1938 was one story, New York 2008 another. To think that history is repeating itself is a grave intellectual fallacy. The best line I have read all year was from John Lukacs in his slam-dunk in The American Conservative of Pat Buchanan's revisionist WW2 book: "history does not repeat itself, and the rise and decline of Britain’s empire was and remains quite different from the American situation." We study history to understand how we got here and the patterns in human society, and as a guide to the future, not a blueprint.

The problem with the Commentary crowd is that they were actually stupid about this. They really did apply the Holocaust template stupidly and they did not understand their own power. Thus Alan Dershowitz at Brandeis last year calling the '67 lines in Israel/Palestine "the Auschwitz borders." Thus Frum and Perle saying it's "victory or holocaust" and we should not hesitate to knock off dictators in the Arab world; these guys actually wielded disastrous power in the Iraq runup, and they are now trying to deny that they had any power, and the liberal media have by and large granted them refuge.  They were over-emotional. They projected Hitler onto Arabs. By repeatedly invoking the Holocaust, Jews have justified an inward focus and blinded themselves to terrible injustices in their back yard. Frum and Perle say  the Israeli occupation is a distraction. That's crazy. When an Arab-American girl rose at Brandeis to describe her humiliations at checkpoints on a visit to Palestine, Dershowitz that cold superior parochialist, sneered at her that I'm sorry, but it's not my fault, it's the Arabs' fault. That makes me angry.

So much passion! That's why I have this blog, to understand myself, my background, and my country. I try to do that by talking about it, talking about the real issues. As Bill Kristol said the other day, we don't know who's going to be right in the end, but we have to speak out. After 9/11 and Iraq that became a duty to me, as a Jew who felt completely misrepresented by the anti-Arab forces in my community. I haven't seen active discrimination against Jews in my country, nor anti-Jewish violence of a sort that rises above other forms of prejudicial idiocy.  Believe me, if history starts to repeat itself re the Holocaust, I'm back with the Commentary boys in a New York second.

Comments

[LanceThruster]

It's a case of misdirection to think that someone's argument is somehow negated because unsavory groups/individuals agree with it. I'd also discount a lot of the knee-jerk smears claiming someone is an anti-Semite for the positions that they have regarding Israel/Zionism. Every piece that I read in the papers about Walt & Mearsheimer's "Israel Lobby" book opened with the line (meme actually) that David Duke agrees with them. Look how many Zionist racists agree with any particular Israeli position and you can see that this happens across the board yet is only used as an argument against one side.

[Richard Witty]

You should care Phil.

You do feed them. There are ways that you could state your theses that would express similar content, but doesn't feed them.

It is a minefield. In a minefield, you can't really whine that it is a minefield, you have to personally walk carefully so as not to make things worse (or get yourself blown up), and remove the mines that are there to the extent that you are able.

Where is the forest?

Reacting to incidents makes sense if it contributes to a coherent and benevolent thesis. If you are documenting only a series of irritations, that will either end up contradictory, or a trivial propaganda exercise.

It likely won't succeed in uncovering flaws in various neo-conservatives' theses.

To my mind, there are two critical flaws in their thesis.

1. Is the gamble that any specific escapade will be containable. USUALLY, interventions spin out, causing side conflicts that grow.

2. Is the creation of a status of empire/vassal by the intervention itself. Only a very charitable entity will undertake a military escapade for the greater good and then not opportune on the basis of it. (For what its worth, it is possible that the US will end up being that charitable in Iraq. US taxpayers footing the bill and many of the lives lost, but with no permanent base, oil drilling or pipeline contracts.)

[MRW.]

Phil,

In all my readings of Philip Giraldi, I dont see what you read in his work: Giraldi is angry at Jews, I can see that.

I can tell you what my non-Jewish friends tell me, and this includes friends in Manhattan who almost whispered it at the time. The anger is at not being allowed to talk about it. IT being Jewish political influence, Israel, national policy that does not serve US interests. The anger is at being muzzled. That anger mounts when so many lives are lost, and the economy tanks, and Christian crazies hijack a President.

You're going to see a lot of pressure valves explode before this evens out. To hurl "anti-semitism" "anger at Jews" [what are Jews? A religion? A race? A nation?] at this top coming off will undoubtedly exacerbate the situation. But maybe it's all to the good. It will hasten the discussion.

This is why I enjoy your blog because I think you are correctly framing the needed discussion on both sides. I'm not Jewish. But I have friends here in high places who have relatives back in Manhattan, and I hear from them here that they can't talk to their relatives back home about Israel and what it's doing without the threat of banishment, and an accusation of betrayal for their views.

So there is a lot of loosening that has to happen on both sides.

[Chris]

This is a great post Philip.

I generally agree with your take, although I am surprised as to how serious many people appear to Noah Pollak on the topic of biases, he is after all part of Daniel Pipes' Middle East Forum and Campus Watch -- the McCarthite wing and anti-Arab side of the Israel lobby.

I'm tempted to claim that "it takes one to know one."

[Klaus Bloemker, Frankfurt]

Follow the Israeli Sociologist Nathan Snaider's definition:
"Anti-Semitism is hating the Jews more than necessary".
(You may substitute 'hate' by 'criticise'.)

[Richard Witty]

Does it have any meaning to say "x is more spiritually evolved?"

When I hear that, I wonder if:

1. They really know me
2. They are being viciously sarcastic
or
3. They are dismissing their own experience and reflection

On ethics. My sense is that you are pursuing this line because of a commitment to what is mutual decent.

A bigger picture, the commitment to what is MUTUALLY DECENT.

The right-wing, old and new con, the anti-semitic far right and far left, don't give a shit about mutual decency. They are in a war. They usually aren't fighting to genocide, but they are often fighting to silence.

And, in the name of opening dialog, you do feed the reasoning and emotional pitch of those that wish that all Jews would keep to their place.

Their offense at the term "chosen people" isn't that anyone is preferred (a misapplication of the term anyway), but that their selected elite isn't.

Those that regard the "white race" as the natural sovereign of North America, don't want wetbacks, Jews, blacks, to have voice. They certainly don't want to acknowledge that they are living on "stolen" land, that they have an perpetual obligation that accompanies their "property".

Thats DIFFERENT that your effort to find a principled approach, a principled criticism.

[LeaNder]

Phil, this is a difficult issue, but what can you take as a compass other than your own feelings and reason? ...

Not too long ago (2002/3), I was pondering if Justin Raimondo, and thus antiwar.com were simply antisemites? The problem is the closer you look the more complicated matters get.

If, as you suggest, Richard possesses a higher spirituality than you, he has failed to communicate it to us. (apart from his dialog with you, or his admonitions about what is kosher and what not for you to write about.)

Concerning Morris to cite one of us "antisemites" (or for Bill "storm troopers":

One of the first Israeli historians to admit that Israel forced the Arabs off their land was Benny Morris, a professor of Middle Eastern history at Ben-Gurion University. Morris does not, however, think that it was a bad thing to kill other people and take their property. He only regrets that all of the Arabs were not driven out in 1948 and in 2004 recommended that those who remain be dealt with like animals, saying "Something like a cage has to be built for them…There is a wild animal there that has to be locked up in one way or another.

Maybe he can try to explain again. Why he thinks Morris is right, why Israel should have driven out all Arabs in 1948? And what exactly would be the difference now.

[LeaNder]

US taxpayers footing the bill and many of the lives lost, but with no permanent base, oil drilling or pipeline contracts.)

Hmmm? many unspecified lives lost? Which are on your mind first? There is a very peculiar relation between lives and cost via tax. Bills, lives lost. Are these my antisemite, storm trooper, ... eyes only?

No doubt you are right: all would be if there will be permanent bases. But fine from whose perspective?

Maybe you should tell Phil privately whathis hbenevolent thesis should look like.

[higginslads]

I think it's time to retire the term "antisemite," being that it's been misused for so long. As I'm sure most readers of Phil's blog are aware, an Arab is every bit as semitic as a Jew. Let's start calling things as they are: anti-Jewish sentiment should be called just that, anti-Jewish. Anti-Arab sentiment should likewise be properly defined.

[LeaNder]

all would be fine.

Sorry. Rash mails, always tell you something, about emotions... So actually, not sorry.

Daniel Barenboim

"With pain in my heart, I ask today whether a situation of conquest and
control can be reconciled with Israel's Declaration of Independence?,"
Barenboim said. "Is there logic to the independence of one people if the
cost is a blow to the fundamental rights of another people? Can the Jewish
people, whose history is full of suffering and persecution, allow itself to
be apathetic about the rights and suffering of a neighboring people? Can the
State of Israel allow itself to indulge in an unrealistic dream whose
meaning is an ambition to bring an ideological resolution to the dispute,
rather than the aim of attaining a pragmatic, humanitarian solution, based
on social justice?" Barenboim asked.

[Leila Abu-Saba]

Well I am angry, too, and when I find myself getting angry at a whole group of people I try to pull myself up short. When I try to describe my anger about these matters discussed here I often use the unwieldy phrase "the actions of the State of Israel and its unthinking supporters."

I am and have been angry about all kinds of things that Israel (the State, its military, etc.) has done against the Palestinians, the Lebanese and our lands. Since I live among Jews and am married to one (who is as non-Zionist as they get) I find it mandatory to make the distinction.

Anger "at the Jews" is not a useful sentiment in my opinion. All Jews? Noam Chomsky? Michael Lerner of Tikkun? Richard Silverstein? Jewish Voice for Peace? Brit Tzedek? Machsom Watch? Those wacky ultra-mystical Chasidim who think Zionism will prevent the return of the Messiah, and go around visiting imams in Lebanon and Teheran? Iranian Jews? Who am I angry at? None of these folk I just listed, and they are all Jews, and mostly identify strongly as Jews.

How about my friend who is so wrapped up in her love-of-Jews-and-Judaism that she can't separate the ideas of Daniel Pipes out from her own wish to connect with her ancestors. She is just ... uninformed, and goodhearted but not clued in. Should I hate her? When I got cancer the first time, she brought home-cooked organic food, and babysat my children. I just can't hate her. (But I don't talk MIddle East politics with her, and yes, I keep her at a bit more distance than I would if she "got it") Human beings do "mitzvahs." They also cling to religious, tribal, nationalist and political ideas that I might or might not agree with. Everybody's worldview is a mix of ideas and no one on this planet exhibits complete congruence with me. Hell, I disagree with myself from one day to the next.

I'm very uncomfortable with the anti-Jewish spewings in comments at this site, and if I had such commenters at my place I would scrub them. But that's my own feeling. I admire Phil for examining himself, his ideas and feelings, and his blog comment policy.

[scorpio]

i'd say the "anti-Jewish spewings" on this site are minimal. but no one likes Daniel Pipes.

[samuel burke]

Wear it like a badge of honor phil. Especially if what they mean by anti semitism is the questioning of israels policies in the middle east and the american jewish lobby that pretends to represent all jewish sentiment.

zionism is a sick ism, and hopefully for the world it is in its dying throes, for the sake of humanity lets hope that it is.

the lies that uphold the myth of the benevolent jewish nation heavily supported by the kind pluralistic jewish communities around the world will fall like the walls of jericho one day.

there is way too much money behind the IT of zionism...it buys influence and silence.

[otto]

The central underlying difficulty is talking about chauvinist political projects for which support is not universal, but is pervasive, in a particular ethnic group.

[MRW.]

Well, in the interest of staking a stand, this is my position:

I am not anti-Jew [I frankly dont understand that thinking; who backhands a people off the planet?];

I am not anti-Jewish (meaning the religion; religions fascinate me and have since I was three and a half, believe it or not: 3 1/2 years old! It was my mother reading me The Golden Bough then, and Rumi's poems, and C.S. Lewis, and listening to her funnier-than-hell yoga coach talk about life in the ME when they had drinks after practice);

I am not anti-Israel (the nation, but then I once bought into that 'light unto the world' crap, carried water for the idea);

but I am anti-Zionist (this position was learned).

[American]

Well, anti semitism.

What is it? Do some of our rants against the zionist cult and Israel resemble antisemitism? Is calling the militant zionist a cult anti semitic? What is calling the militant evangelics an anti american cult of nutbags?

Can I say I hate some jews like Perle and Feith and Abrams because their jewish identity plays a part in their agenda? Yep.

Can I say I hate the gentile neo's for their anti american, bullying, hubristic, elite identity immorality and treason in America's name without being called anti or self hating gentile? Yep.

Can I criticize the 'pro Israel segmentof the jewish community the same way I criticize the Evangelical segment of christian community? Yep.

The day someone hates ALL jews for being jews instead of just SOME jews for political reasons caused by their particular jewishness then we can call them anti-semitic.

One thing that made me delve so deeply into the US -Isr-Palestine-ME-AIPAC-Jewish deal to begin with was being called an anti-semite numerous times for simple well intentioned comments about how the US should be evenhanded in the Isr-Palestine conflict by 'pro Israel activist.

Big mistake. And exceedingly stupid to challange non jewish Americans right to opinions on Israel and US policy by sluring their character and motivations. Now they have a big well deserved blowback. Why they thought that would work is beyond me.

With a few adjustments to "Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner" we might be able to settle the anti semitic debate.

[LeaNder]

Leila, I like your comments a lot and I understand this:

I'm very uncomfortable with the anti-Jewish spewings in comments at this site, and if I had such commenters at my place I would scrub them. But that's my own feeling. I admire Phil for examining himself, his ideas and feelings, and his blog comment policy.

BUT if you ask me to decide, would I prefer to see these sentiments censured or be able to watch them? My choice is the second, without a second thought.

I am listening carefully to the arguments of "antisemites hunters", who e.g. labeled a Sharon cartoon as antisemitic while not having the slightest idea that the artist might in fact have been inspired NOT by the tale of Jewish blood libel BUT in fact by Goja's Saturn.

...

*********************************************

Richard, I hear sarcasm beneath the polite surface--"spiritually evolved"--too. The problem is, you keep presenting yourself as a wiser, more evolved person/Jew than Phil is, so what do you expect?

This by the way is rather conventional wisdom. I doubt the easy mixture of "them" vs the implicit "us", as I hope it is a narrative that will loose in the long run:

The right-wing, old and new con, the anti-semitic far right and far left, don't give a shit about mutual decency. They are in a war. They usually aren't fighting to genocide, but they are often fighting to silence.

[MRW.]

One thing that made me delve so deeply into the US -Isr-Palestine-ME-AIPAC-Jewish deal to begin with was being called an anti-semite numerous times for simple well intentioned comments about how the US should be evenhanded in the Isr-Palestine conflict by 'pro Israel activist.

That's what happened to me too. In March of 2003. And tying it in with the Iraq War. I was excoriated.

[MRW.]

____________________________________________________________________________________

I subscribe to David Shasha's email newsletter about Sephardim, which I did based on Tony Karon's recommendation. It is wonderful, and I look forward to receiving it whenever it plops in my inbox.

Just got one. It's entitled "More Anti-Sephardic Racism" and here are some paragraphs from an article subtitled "Reading the 92nd Street Y Catalog: Sephardim and Arabs Need Not Apply." It is apropos given this thread topic.

Ah, those New York Jews.

Woody Allen, Philip Roth, Ed Koch, Alfred Kazin.

Katz’s Deli, Zabar’s, Pastrami Sandwiches, Lox and Bagels, Matzoh Ball Soup, Chopped Liver, Gefilte Fish.

The Lower East Side.

All one big Ashkenazi world.

I was once told a story by Mickey Kairey, one of the patron saints of the Brooklyn Syrian Jewish community, that by now I have repeated many times, about his father’s experience on the Lower East Side in the first part of the 20th century. Mickey’s father was praying in an Ashkenazi minyan and was asked by the man sitting next to him, “Are you Jewish?” Mr. Kairey was praying donned in his tallit and tefillin and thought it a strange question. The “Are you Jewish?” question is a ubiquitous one among many Ashkenazi Jews – especially the Orthodox – and speaks to a sense of ethno-cultural prejudice that is endemic to the Ashkenazi condition. People are seen in gradations of ethnic acceptability: the Ashkenazi-Yiddish identity is central and all else is simply a drifting away from the core. Mr. Kairey made the mistake of not being able to speak Yiddish and was marked as suspect when it came to being a Jew. In fact, it should be remembered that the Yiddish language was even called “Jewish” by its native speakers.

Now in Israel, this idea that Ashkenazi culture is transcendent in the socio-political sense is one that is clear and needs little commentary. But in America, there is still the pretense that Jews – especially the fabled “New York Jew” – are filled with love and tolerance of their fellow Man.

So when I received the new catalog of events from the 92nd Street Y – it does not get more “New York Jew” than that – I carefully filtered out these Ashkenazi prejudices which are often thought by many to be a product of my own imagination.

Before I begin my argument, I should note that many events in the Y’s program series contain a plethora of non-Jewish figures. From the New York Mets’ Keith Hernandez to the African-American academic Cornel West to famed folksinger Joan Baez to Jazz pianist Dave Brubeck to media celebrity Martha Stewart, the Y has diversity seemingly covered. It is just that this “diversity” is of a very specific kind; a “diversity” that excludes two critical components – Sephardim and Arabs.

While it is not always easy to prove a negative – that Sephardim and Arabs are not welcome in this place of “civilization” – I will try and outline what seems to me to be an ideological bias that speaks to the current condition of the “Jewish” condition here in America.
[...]

[morris]

If a group of people wanted to engender anti semitism, if they wanted to turn whole populations against the Jews. They couldn't have a better ally than the Neocons. They've got their people In every war.

[lester]

Giraldis work sounds more than alot like phil weiss's except he's not jewish and weiss is.

[Ed]

Those who profess to be uncomfortable with “anti-Semitism” should ask themselves why organized Jewry and many individual Jews encourage the world to view them as monolithic. Why do they continue the canard, for example, that an attack on Zionism is an attack on all Jewry? I used to believe that most righteous Jews within organized Judaism wanted the distinction made between Jewish Zionists and all Jews, just as the distinction is made between Christian Zionists and Christians, but I don’t believe that to be the case anymore. The term “Christian Zionist” can be found regularly in mainstream media, but one hardly ever sees the term “Jewish Zionist” anywhere but on the internet. Now if Jews, who we all know are very influential in media, wanted the distinction made, the term “Jewish Zionist,” (which I regularly go to the trouble of using myself), would be far more widespread. The reason it is not is that the Jewish collective does NOT want the distinctions made, so that it can continue to hurl the “anti-Semite” charge at anyone who criticizes organized Jewry in any form, be it in Zionist form or in religious form.

As far as I’m concerned, since organized Jewry does not want distinctions made between Jewish Zionists and non-Zionist Jews, and has agreed to allow Judeofascists to hide behind the Jewish collective with charges of anti-Semitism without condemning it as a cynical ploy to enable their continued imperialism, usury and killing, they have all made a cognizant decision and compact to endure the same fate, together.

“My tribe, right or wrong” seems to be organized Jewry’s operating principle. Given that circumstance, critics of Zionism then must either plead guilty to anti-Semitism, or cease all criticism of Zionism altogether. By the definition of anti-Semitism imposed upon the world by organized Jewry, every critic of Zionism on this site, including Phil Weiss, is an anti-Semite. My attitude, and probably Giraldi’s, is: so be it. In my opinion, Phil and every other righteous, non-Zionist Jew should either adopt the same perspective (as Norman Finkelstein and other intellectually honest ethnic Jewish critics of Zionism seem to have) or bite their tongues and cease criticizing Zionism altogether. You can’t have it both ways. Organized Jewry won’t allow it. The Jewish collective won’t allow it. So either grow up and be a man, or shut up like a good, dumb little child and quit criticizing Zionism for fear of being called an anti-Semite.

[charles Keating]

The noble prize winner Alexander Solzhenitsyn (recently deceased) wrote a book eight years ago about Jewish-Russian relations over 200 years; his declared purpose was to untie the knot one is faced with when trying to understand that period of Russian-communist history. He kept running into the knot, the Jewish-Gentile knot. His declared hope was that both Gentile and Jew would look at what they have wrought. His book has yet to be published in English...

[Ed]

PS: I know without knowing that Witty has probably been twisting Weiss’s arm via email to start banning so called anti-Semites (according to Witty’s definition) from this site. That’s how these cowardly, svengali-like Jewish Zionists operate, whether they are whining to a US congressman for continued US blank check support to the Judeofascist state, or whining to a newspaper editor about its overly honest coverage of the I-P conflict. They can never appeal openly and objectively to any authority based the right or wrong of it, because they know they are in the wrong, so they make personal appeals, campaign contributions and veiled threats to enable the perpetuation of their sinister ways. Absolutely nauseating.

[Aidan]

Your title would imply that you're joining in with Commentary's attack, Phil. That is a pregnant "but I don't know" after "I'm not convinced." You don't know whether Giraldi is everything Pollack wants to imply that he is?

Before the Iraq War many people knew the score but were afraid to speak out, except for the infamous "antisemite" Pat Buchanan. This kind of defamation is truly deadly, and not just in Iraq.

Where do you stand, Phil?

Those who stand by during a lynching only kid themselves if they think they haven't taken sides.

[charles Keating]

Why not; it worked with Truman--Eddie Jacobson, no?

[the Sword of Gideon]

Witty:
This proves my point. Phil has a thriving anti-semitic fan base. They like what he writes. He likes that they like him. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Phil Weiss is a classic Jewish anti-semite. He is an advocate of the destruction of Israel and mocks all Jewish religious practices. I honestly don't see how you can defend a guy who appeals to the Keatings, Martillos, and Ed's wof the world.

[Richard Witty]

"The problem is, you keep presenting yourself as a wiser, more evolved person/Jew than Phil is, so what do you expect?"

I've never presented myself as better than any other.

I had a teenage friendship with Phil that centered around "what is good and right, (and fun and cool)?", that included personal, interpersonal and political elements. I feel permission to continue that conversation.

I also liked Leila's post.

I personally believe that a nation is an entity, and should be ethically accountable. I consider that a positive statement, a commitment to improve one's character, one's honor.

Like personal well-being, collective righteousness includes BOTH how one treats others, and how one treats one's own.

It is legitimate for Israel to be very concerned about the safety of its civilians, especially given the opportunism of triangulating militias.

For what its worth, a political commitment that is only stated as what one opposes, is really very little.

Its better than nothing, but not always.

[American]

Just need to add.

If I (or whoever) thinks their views and/or criticizisms on an issue are fair and accurate they are going to keep making them regardless of whether it involves Jews, Buddhist,Methodist, Russians, Arabs or Americans.

And like it or not even the anti-semites in the US have the same rights as the anti-Arab/Palestine Israelis in Israel.

Not regarding anyone as special or an exception to rights and rules is an old American tradition.

Another good old truism --> Your rights end where mine begin" is nice to keep in mind.

[Noah Pollak]

Philip, I think you missed the single and entire point of my post, convinced as you are that everyone associated with Commentary is perpetually in search of anti-Semites.

Your post is premised on the idea that I have determined Giraldi to be an anti-Semite, yet nowhere have I ever written that. What I did write about Giraldi is more or less exactly what you did: that he is obsessed with Jews and Israel, and much of his worldview is animated by conspiracy theory.

Why did I point this out? Not because I was attempting to reveal the presence of an anti-Semite. I pointed it out because Giraldi claims, citing an anonymous source, that Doug Feith forged documents for the White House. Since Giraldi has absolutely no evidence for this charge, he is asking the public to rely on him as a trustworthy source of information about Feith, who he has already speculated is an Israeli agent.

Giraldi, in this case, is about the least trustworthy source on earth for an incriminating and anonymous allegation about Doug Feith.

My post was not an exercise in searching out anti-Semitism, which is why I never offered an opinion on whether I think Giraldi has the Jew bug. It was an act of journalistic hygiene.

[Ed]

Phil Giraldi, Ray McGovern and Michael Scheuer are among a significant group of ex-CIA who have been extremely critical of Israel and the Zionist lobby. Due to their decades of intelligence-insider status, they are probably the best informed group in the country on what is really going on behind the scenes in Washington, and none of them seem to like it one bit.

It was inevitable that they would eventually start hitting hard at the Jewish Zionists, because they know better than anyone that the Jewish Zionists are probably the biggest threat to America today. It was also inevitable that the Jewish Zionists would start hitting back at them, because they know that the ex-CIA know better than anyone that they are a threat.

These anti-semite charges against Giraldi are routine, standard operating procedure for Jewish Zionists attempting to overthrow sovereign governments. Just ask Richard Witty and SOG.

[Klaus Bloemker, Frankfurt]

Jewish-Russian relations
_________________________

Dostojewsky had the following observation on this relationship: He wrote that even in jail the Jewish inmates would not sit and eat at the same table with their goy inmates.

As Phil said: "goy" is equivalent to "nigger".

Immanuel Kant said in his philosophy of religion, 1793:
The animus toward the Jews is a reaction to the animosity of the Jews toward the gentile peoples.

- Kant had quite a following among the Jews of the Enlightenment.

[MRW.]

_________________________________________________________________________________________

For those of you who would like to subscribe to David Shasha's email newsletter mentioned above, here is his email address. You email him and he'll put you on his mailing list:

Davidshasha At aol dot com

When Sephardic Jews are exclusively represented in largely negative ways as if they lacked agency and an intellectual culture of their own, the corollary of a negative stance towards Arabs in general makes a good deal of sense. But here we can clearly see that there is simply no effort being made by the Ashkenazi community – the fabled “New York Jews” – to look outside itself. Sure, there is Toni Morrison and there is Mario Cuomo, but inside Judaism, where it truly counts, there is no good-faith attempt to deal with the endemic racism and insular pathology of an Ashkenazi world that wants to be catered to on its own terms. Jewish advocacy means falling in line with the orthodoxies of Ashkenazi thinking and remaining completely silent on the larger cultural issues that plague the Jewish world.

[...]

For any real progress to be made, we first have to acknowledge that this Ashkenazi intolerance exists and then find substantial ways to remedy it. If this discursive impasse is not remedied, we will continue to find ourselves caught in the perennial vicious cycle of mutual incomprehension and intolerance; toxic elements that have led to endless violence and socio-political dysfunction. Given the continued absence of new possibilities that have been knowingly blocked off from the agenda by Jewish institutions run by Ashkenazim, there is little hope that we will ever be able to solve the intractable problems that face the Jewish community at present.

[syvanen]

There was a time when I accepted that writers like Buchanan, Raimondo and Giraldi were antisemitic. Then after we invaded Iraq and I suggested in public that the US shouldn't be fighting wars on Israel's behalf I was called an antisemite. First time that accusation was hurled at me. It made me angry. It also made me more concerned about Israel's treatment of her Arab subjects. I also realized that those three writers are not antisemites. From the comments here it appears that my experience was not unique.

The big question becomes has enough people followed this path to actually influence US ME policy for the better.

[Ken Hoop]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilad_Atzmon

good man, whether anti-semite or not.

US "charitibility" vis Iraq War would be imposed by the resistance and Iran.

[MRW.]

[This post got mulched somewhere.}

For those who want to subscribe to David Shasha's email newsletter, recommended by Tony Karon, here is his email address. It only arrives via email/attachment. He doesn't have a website that I know of. Shasha is the Director of the Center for Sephardic Heritage in Brooklyn.

davidshasha at aol dot com

From his current email:
When Sephardic Jews are exclusively represented in largely negative ways as if they lacked agency and an intellectual culture of their own, the corollary of a negative stance towards Arabs in general makes a good deal of sense.  But here we can clearly see that there is simply no effort being made by the Ashkenazi community – the fabled “New York Jews” – to look outside itself.  Sure, there is Toni Morrison and there is Mario Cuomo, but inside Judaism, where it truly counts, there is no good-faith attempt to deal with the endemic racism and insular pathology of an Ashkenazi world that wants to be catered to on its own terms.  Jewish advocacy means falling in line with the orthodoxies of Ashkenazi thinking and remaining completely silent on the larger cultural issues that plague the Jewish world.

[...]

For any real progress to be made, we first have to acknowledge that this Ashkenazi intolerance exists and then find substantial ways to remedy it.  If this discursive impasse is not remedied, we will continue to find ourselves caught in the perennial vicious cycle of mutual incomprehension and intolerance; toxic elements that have led to endless violence and socio-political dysfunction.  Given the continued absence of new possibilities that have been knowingly blocked off from the agenda by Jewish institutions run by Ashkenazim, there is little hope that we will ever be able to solve the intractable problems that face the Jewish community at present.

[MRW.]

Oh shoot, I really apologize for that double posting. What is the matter with my refresh cycle?!?

[MRW.]

much of his worldview is animated by conspiracy theory [referring to ex-CIA Giraldi]

I've known a number of ex-CIA and unknown alphabet operatives, and the "worldview" of every single one of them is "animated" by what we like to call "conspiracy theory."

These are not men given to easy or unthoughtful hyperbole. Nor are they voluble. Everyone of them has a trigger-sharp mind; asks precise and specific questions about issues; gets to the point.

I suspect the cavalier charge of 'conspiracy theorist' slapped on their backs like the childhood game of sticking funny stickers on your back is because our intel agencies engage in events at a level we dont know, which in many cases is life and death, and is all sounds fantastical when we do.

A foreign diplomat lived next door to us. He was low-level but his uncle was Ambassador. He befriended my father; they were big drinking buddies. He would tell my father about invasions and revolutions three months before they happened while Dad made drinks. He would cite the exact day. And he was always right.

Agents and operatives live in a different universe. Their stated task is to deal with real conspiracies, not theories about them. It's their job definition.

[Jim Haygood]

.

'The best line I have read all year was from John Lukacs in his slam-dunk in The American Conservative of Pat Buchanan's revisionist WW2 book: "history does not repeat itself, and the rise and decline of Britain’s empire was and remains quite different from the American situation." ' -- Phil W.

Oh, my. Lukacs condemns Buchanan for "special pleading," but is himself the author of a book about Churchill. Neither Buchanan nor Lukacs, with their deuling passions about Churchill, should be taken at face value.

But Lukacs is way off base claiming that "the reaching out of American power all over the world, the fact that there are now American bases and missions in more than 700 places around the globe, the building of a 600-ship Navy, etc., began with Eisenhower and Dulles." This is quite wrong. The U.S. empire happened because the U.S. (under Harry Truman, specifically) never demobilized from WW II. Is Lukacs one of those fossilized creatures from antiquity, the 'partisan Democrat'? I suspect so.

Lukacs goes on to claim that "the gradual liquidation of the British Empire, and the piecemeal acceptance by the British people of that, long preceded World War II." Well, yes. The clear demarkation point after which U.S. global influence exceeded that of Britain was in the aftermath of WW I, when Woody Wilson's nutball, usurious "peace" scourged Germany and Britain alike. An even stronger case can be made against U.S. participation in WW I (in which Churchill played a role) than in WW II. Nevertheless, given the prevailing warped account of WW II as a "good war," with its distorted emphasis on German (as opposed to Soviet) evil, Buchanan does yeoman service in calling the conventional wisdom into question.

------------

"Richard Witty has told me that David Duke posts some of my posts."

Not surprising. Politics is not a linear stage, but a ring. Left and right meet at a dark point near the backstage scenery, 180 degrees behind front center.

Phil's thesis that "why I have this blog, to understand myself, my background, and my country" evinces an bold willingness to explore intellectual territory that most others, having staked out a petrified ethnographic "political profile" for themselves, are unwilling to touch. This is intellectual ambrosia of the highest order. Carry on, my man!

[charles Keating]

RE: " Richard Witty is always telling me to get off the neocons, ignore them. But why Richard? That is intellectually incurious, a, and b, denies the American people a just accounting of this huge error. (Richard's more spiritually evolved than I am...)"--Phil

Phill, does this mean that if one is more spiritually evolved, one does not care about any just accounting to the American people?

Interesting.

Also, perhaps it's less that Richard is intellectually incurious, and more that he only cares deeply about Jews.

My my.

[Todd]

The word anti-Semite doesn't really mean anything to me. Has anyone ever met a true egalitarian? I haven't. When the term anti-Gentile is taken seriously by most Jews, I'll worry about being branded an anti-Semite.

I have met many Jews that I like personally, but I don't care to have Jewishness shoved down my throat. Jews in power just have to learn that the rest of us are not going to morph into Jews, and that Gentiles want to be Gentiles just as much as Jews wish to be Jews- and no amount of propaganda or slandering will change this.

[charles Keating]

A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, commonly referred to as the "Clean Break" report, was prepared in 1996 by a study group led by Richard Perle. The other participants were James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, Jonathan Torop, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser.

The report was prepared as a proposed new policy for the government of Israel, and presented to then Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in July of 1996.

The principle recommendations were:
A repudiation of the concept of "Land for Peace," which was the basis for the Oslo Accords
Armed incursions into Palestinian areas under the rubric of the "right of hot pursuit"
Armed incursions into Lebanon, and possible strikes against Syria and Iran
The removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq
A repudiation of the tenets of Labor Zionism, and a change to Economic liberalism

------

Check out Noah Pollak's POV

[Jim Haygood]

.

"Giraldi claims, citing an anonymous source, that Doug Feith forged documents for the White House." -- Noah Pollak

The circumstantial evidence seems strong that raw intelligence was laundered through Feith's Office of Special Plans to make it seem definitive, even though it contradicted info from the UN inspectors in Iraq. This led to Colin Powell's debacle before the UN Security Council, in which he claimed certainty about WMDs in Iraq -- which evaporated in the harsh light of day.

If Feith's OSP wasn't responsible for this, who was? No proper investigation since the Robb-Silberman Commission (whose conclusions were promptly blown away by the Downing Street memos) has ever been done. To pursue the ad hominem antisemitic angle against those (such as Giraldi) who hammer on this point seems like a rather transparent diversion. The lack of Congressional interest in pursuing the facts behind the Iraq debacle fairly screams. Giraldi is virtually a whisper in comparison to the enormity of this ongoing institutional malfeasance (which won't change under CFR 'made man' Obama).

[charles Keating]

Yes, Jim; here's some further context.

http://thestressblog.com/2006/05/10/philip-giraldi-on-sibel-turkey-israel-the-neocons-and-the-mic/

[Jim Haygood]

.

Counselor Keating, I see your bid, and raise you with Paul Craig Roberts' spectacular scourging of the nattering neocons of nihility, as they incite the next pointless, lethal war on behalf of the USrael axis of evil:

-------------

It is certain that the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia was a Bush Regime orchestrated event. The American media and the neocon think tanks were ready with their propaganda blitzes. Neocons had ready a Wall Street Journal editorial page article for Saakashvili that declares “the war in Georgia is a war for the West.”

The neocon Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., quickly called a conference hosted by warmonger Ariel Cohen, “Urgent! Event: Russian-Georgian War: A Challenge for the U.S. and the World.”

The Washington Post hosted neocon Robert Kagan’s war drums, “Putin Makes His Move.”

The New York Times hosted Billy Kristol’s rant, “Will Russia Get Away With It?” Kristol thunders against “dictatorial and aggressive and fanatical regimes” that “seem happy to work together to weaken the influence of the United States and its democratic allies.” In other words, “attack Russia now.”

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts08132008.html

------------

Bush is now sending US military assets into the Georgian conflict zone in a deliberately provocative effort which is the mirror image of the Soviets installing missiles in Cuba in the early 1960s.

Roberts' head-snapping conclusion is one is that I HOPE Phil Weiss will laud as a "slam-dunk":

------------

"The only military threat that Europe faces comes from being dragged into America’s wars for American hegemony."

------------

BINGO! Sixty-three dismal years of Cold War I and II, distilled into a single sentence. Nail it on your forehead and tattoo it on your doorposts; this shit is important.

We've all been worrying about an attack on Iran. But will the U.S. puppet state of Georgia (Tbilisi, not Atlanta) prove to be the Iraq II, elect-McCain provocation? Christ, I hope not!

[Jim Haygood]

.

Comrades! Examine the map, if you please:

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/georgia.gif

Tbilisi is an inland city, 125 miles from the coast. Poti is its port on the Black Sea. The railroad line from the port runs therough Gori, 40 miles west of the capital, which is occupied by Russian troops. And Russia forms the whole northern border of the "country."

Sorry, this is a losing hand -- just like Iraq; just like Afghanistan. Airman Bush is no military genius. And the neocons, who aren't militarily stupid -- merely devious and disloyal -- don't care. Good morning, Vietnam!

[Scott]

I think anti-Semite is a word for those who can't admire excellent Jewish qualities, can't have Jews as close friends, can't generally appreciate the contribution Jews have made to Western civilization.
Giraldi (whom I know and like) certainly doesn't fit into that category. His views are however typical of a large substrata of CIA and State Department people, those who are or who have been involved with American foreign policy -- who constantly come up and chafe against the restraints posed by Jewish power/the Israel Lobby in ways most Americans don't.

[Anonymous]

===============================================
"The prominent Jewish newspaper The Forward has released its Forward Fifty list of the most influential JEWS in America today. Topping the list are US Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul WOLFOWITZ; Abraham FOXMAN, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League; and Rabbi Yechiel ECKSTEIN, President and founder of the Chicago-based International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. Others in the top six include New York Times columnist Thomas FRIEDMAN, followed by Andrea LEVIN, executive director of the Boston-based, Committee on Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America [CAMERA], and Senator-elect from Minnesota, Republican, Norm COLEMAN.

"Each year the newspaper compiles its Forward Fifty list of Jews who have made the GREATEST CONTRIBUTIONS in various fields, such as politics, activism, community, spirit, ideas, arts, and sports.
===============================================

Such was the flower of the american jewish community before the Iraq war. Soon-to-be mass murderes, ku-klux-klanic jewish ethnic activists posing as defenders of general humanist values, christian-zionist harvesters of rabbi species, zionist nyt editorialist liars, zionist mind controllers, israeli politicians pretending to be american senators.

At that time there was pride in the voices cheering this formidable list of imbeciles. The GREATEST CONTRIBUTORS of what?

Now make a list of the people called antisemites in the last five years and come tell me on which list would you rather be included.

[Ed]

Weiss wrote: "Believe me, if history starts to repeat itself re the Holocaust, I'm back with the Commentary boys in a New York second."

It is starting to repeat itself, only this time it’s Muslims, Christians and other non-Jews who are being targeted for extermination. This is also a repeat of the Jewish Bolshevik extermination of Christians in the former Soviet Union. But I guess since the Christians and Muslims aren't of your tribe, you'll stick with the so called anti-Semites for awhile, since it’ll look good on the resume, eh Phil? And once the Judeofascists are hit back in kind, why then you'll revert back to tribalism, whether the Judeofascists had it coming or not. Puh. And left-liberal Jews claim they want to get past all the tribalism. You can’t be a humanist without allowing tribalists to be severely punished for their transgressions against God, History and man. That doesn’t mean targeting tribalists because they are part of a tribe; it means targeting them when they try to impose their supremacist ideology over all of humanity merely because it is conducive to their own tribal dogma, and because they are megalomaniacs trying to prove that they are “Aryan,” “Chosen” or any other supremacist adjective.

Phil, you and all the other unwashed stunted tribalists of both Left and Right still have a lot to learn about the laundromat of Western civilization.

[Ed]

Re: MRW’s citation of Sephardim’s criticism of Ashkenazi hegemony over Judaism: It is clear that the Ashkenazi have overtaken and co-opted Judaism for their own materialistic uses. Are they even Jews? Doubtful. Their behavior and modus operandi is consistent not with historical Judaism, but with anti-Old Testament Talmudism. Even so, words mean what people THINK they mean, thus the word “Jew” today and likely for the long-term, equates with Ashkenazim bigotry and institutional racism. My recommendation to Sephardim would be to consider Christianity, which incorporates both authentic Old Testament Judaism, plus demands acceptance of all peoples irregardless of bloodlines, skin color, or any other superficial characteristic. The Ashkenazim say Christians are “lazy,” (the same criticism they broadcast of the Sephardim); but perhaps, unlike Ashkenazim, both are merely non-money-worshipping believers (which, in the Ashkenazim universe, is an unforgivable sin.) Let the Ashkenazim try to buy their way into heaven. They will find their money only holds currency in the other direction.

[sword of gideon]

Again, I think the hatred that comes driping off this page, not to mention the crackpo theories, ( ED this means you ). Proves my point. I only wish I could put you all on a synagogue speaking tour. I could double aipac membership in a week.

[Glenn Condell]

'The problem with the Commentary crowd is that they were actually stupid about this... They really did apply the Holocaust template stupidly and they did not understand their own power... They were over-emotional...'

I disagree. Ever heard of Leo Strauss? Dersh and Frum and Perle have. They weren't too stupid, they were too clever. Too clever by half, but not very wise. They gambled and they lost. Bullshit is their modus operandi at all times. Can you find anything Richard Perle has ever said that stands up outside of the context of bullshit he lives in? Yes they were excited, yes there was a hothouse atmosphere as the war wagons got rolling, but they weren't naive, they never thought there were piles of weapons waiting to be found any more than they thought flowers and sweets awaited them. Maybe they did believe some of their own lies, but that doesn't make them true.

'The anger is at not being allowed to talk about it.'

A thousand times, yes.

'That's what happened to me too. In March of 2003. And tying it in with the Iraq War. I was excoriated.'

Me three.

'Your post is premised on the idea that I have determined Giraldi to be an anti-Semite, yet nowhere have I ever written that.'

It's true you very carefully avoided using that term, such dynamite right now, but the thrust of your piece is obvious.

'Since Giraldi has absolutely no evidence for this charge, he is asking the public to rely on him as a trustworthy source of information about Feith'

Many of us would take Mr Giraldi's word on that before yours, for example. You are after all on Doug Feith's team. And I wonder, if we stacked up all your prognostications over the last 7 or 8 years against those of Mr Giraldi, how you would fare? My guess is not especially well.

In fact, while I can understand why all you neocons who haven't been correct about anything this millennium still have perches from which to pour yet more errors and lies all over us (your paymasters being also on Feith's team), I fail to see why any sentient being would continue to read you as a 'trustworthy source of information' on anything at all.

Are you related to that other Pollak who wrote The Threatening Storm? I can't recall seeing him or that O'Hanlon fellow being sidelined since that monumentally incorrect effort helped push your country into this ruinous war; indeed they appear still to be regarded as 'trustworthy sources of information' by even the WaPo, fro memory.

Why should anyone trust people with a proven track record of being catastrophically wrong, over people like Philip Giraldi, who is normally spot on?

Why not invite Mr G to pen a repsonse in your paper Mr Pollak?

[Todd]

"But I guess since the Christians and Muslims aren't of your tribe, you'll stick with the so called anti-Semites for awhile, since it’ll look good on the resume, eh Phil? And once the Judeofascists are hit back in kind, why then you'll revert back to tribalism, whether the Judeofascists had it coming or not. Puh. And left-liberal Jews claim they want to get past all the tribalism."

Well-stated, Ed. Excusing the sins of ones own tribe, and clinging to tribalism is different than so-called anti-Semitism in what way? And these are the people who have largely cheered "diversity" while pushing the rest of us to deny culture, tribe and nation. This is going to work out well in the end.

[the Sword of Gideon]

Again Todd I ask. Are there any other countries that you deem worthy of extinction or is it just Israel.

[charles Keating]

Yes, Todd, and that is exactly the point of Solzinitzen's book covering 200 years of Russian-Soviet-Jewish relation--you know the book by the Noble prize winner--still waiting to be published in English after 8 years? Obviously not worthy given how few trees are used up each year for books in English...

SOG, is there any other country other than Israel you deem worthy of survival? I think your synagogue speaking tour is a great idea providing we put it on primetime TV. Nothing like a little sunshine in the land of informed citizenship.

[charles Keating]

On Washington Journal this morning the guest was the French ambassador. A caller said all the American papers were shouting
about Russian agression that had to be stopped now! But when
he went on the internet, he found a very different, more complex view running in the European press. The ambassador replied he would not say anthing in public about the American press and "nor would any diplomat."

[Jessica]

I will speak from the gut about my feelings on Jewish power.

1. I have never been resentful of "Jewish money" and don't consider it an issue. In a market economy, talent and hard work translate into riches. If Jews (or other people) have the talent and drive to rise to the top, good for them.

2. The same goes for "Jewish control of the media." Duh, if you don't like Jewish influence in the media, TURN OFF THE TV. Problem solved. I read antiwar.com, Counterpunch, and the American Conservative. Jewish individuals write for these publications but the editorial focus is anti-Zionist. Maybe non-Jews should do what neocons have done and create a parallel cultural bubble.

3. What does anger me are organizations like the ADL and the Simon Wiesenthal Center. They claim to be human rights organizations but have involved themselves heavily in foreign policy issues. Both groups have come out in favor of the Iraq war and are implicitly urging military action against Iran. Obviously, they are doing this for Israel. By favoring US intervention, they are following a policy that shifts the risk of defending Israel away from Jews (in the IDF) and shifting it onto a largely non-Jewish American military.

The people who lecture non-Jews about the Holocaust and bigotry 24/7 are the same people who promote policies that spare Jewish lives and risk non-Jewish lives. You notice they didn't advocate that Israel go after Iraq or that Jews enlist in the IDF in order to fight IRaq. They wanted Americans to fight. While 2 or 3 dozen American Jews have died in IRaq, the bulk of the casualties are American Christians.

In short, these groups are guilty of a particularly heinous form of anti-Gentile racism. Non-Jews know this and believe me, they are angry.

[the Sword of Gideon]

Sure Jessica, your not anti-semitic. Just a big fan of the blood libel.

[the Sword of Gideon]

Yes Keating, the United States. And if I were you I'd be a little more concerned about the fact that the white percentage of the population is dropping like a rock than the evil Jews. ( except your wife of course, you really have to explain that one to me )

[charles Keating]

Of course, SOG, you know that the biggest champions of the 1965 USA Immigration act were Jewish organizations--anyone can check out the legislative history. Ironically, the straw chief, Kennedy, is not lamenting how that revision and those after it, for example, heavily discriminate against the Irish... The idea behind the Jewish backing of chain immigration and anchor babies of non-European intake was that such would assure no
white group would retain demographic power in the USA. Now, of course, the Jews have to worry about the actual results, which, additional to stopping white majority trends, now shows demographic trends favoring Latinos and Asians--two groups who have absolutely no guilt about Auschwitz. Again, if you want to know how the 1965 Immigration was presented, who favored it, and how the projections were totally misleading, the information is easily available on the internet. Or, you could go to a law library and check out the legislative intent, pros and cons, on paper. Naturally, the American masses never had a clue that their immigration policy, presented as a civil rights package, spelled the doom of the majority culture that made this nation.

Beware of what you want, you might get it. Kennedy should have died like the fish that flapped on his car dashboard back in the day.

[charles Keating]

SOG, what's to explain, I married my wife, who happened to be Jewish. I'm not a racist. What's to explain?

[the Sword of Gideon]

If you think I'm happy about this your out of your mind. This is why a schmuck like Obama can even think of being president. And it's only a matter of time before worse than him come down the pike.

[Richard Witty]

A lot of rationalization. Not a lot of personal reflection.

Sword,
Most of the people that you criticize here will likely vote republican.

[charles Keating]

Actually, meathead Kennedy did come out recently lamenting the discriminatory affect on the Irish of his own 1965 program--google the Irish Echo.

Well, Witty, I can only speak for myself: I will not be voting for McCain. Interesting how you generalize about people on this blog. Who will you and SOG be voting for? I'll ask directly, rather than guess. Also, I'm sure its not only me who see you continually rationalize on this blog your own ideological bias. Why not free your individual self--you're not writing an entry in the Talmud here because Phil allows Gentiles to post here too.

[the Sword of Gideon]

I'm a middle aged white guy. McCain all the way. Rich, most of the people here are only sorry they didn't get a chance to vote for Hitler. But I'm guessing that this is an Obama crew.

[charles Keating]

Hey, hey! Mister "USS Liberty all the way!" McCain! Like father, like son. Or, SOG, is it McCain's delicate juggling of economic issues that won you over?

[charles Keating]

That oatmeal face guy from Conneticut? Got it, let's take out Iran tomorrow, Russia the day after, along with Syria. We got troops to spare and plenty of credit left--what's a little more usury?

[the Sword of Gideon]

I love the way you insult the patriotism of a distinguished family. And you elect a president for foreign policy, not the economy. The economy is too big and far beyond the power of a single man to control, even the president. Look, I know you probably have more decorations than Audie Murphy, or so you say. But let me ask you this. History is replete with friendly fire incidents. What was the motive in this supposed premeditated attack on a US ship.

[Todd]

"Again Todd I ask. Are there any other countries that you deem worthy of extinction or is it just Israel."

SOG, I ansewred that question long ago, and you ignored the answer because you didn't like it. Why ask the same question repeatedly?

Could you give a good definition of anti-Semitism and apply it to the actual statements of the people that you label? While you're at it, could you tell me why your brand of bigotry and racism is set apart and above whatever it is you call anti-Semitism? Why is anti-Semitism in a class by itself as an evil? SOG, I don't think that anyone needs to answer to you.

[Steve Sailer]

Pollak's attack on Giraldi is just the usual Point-and-Sputter where you denounce somebody for saying things that violate taboos, without attempting to justify the taboos.

[charles Keating]

SOG, our economy is very much tied up with our foreign policy, both in terms of the drain of foreign aid and the cost of our freely chosen wars (Iran yet to come). If you want the array of plausible motives for why those (American-financed) Israeli jets shot down our sailors in cold blood, that information is easily available on the internet. I urge all onlookers here to investigate themselves. As with Rachel Corrie, they will see the quick coverup is based on fact. Johnson, along with meathead Kennedy, were never more than opportunists at the expense of the USA's long term interests.

[the Sword of Gideon]

And what internet sites would that be. stormfront. The Liberty was a truly tragic, ( and yes I know 34 sailors died ) case of friendly fire. What possible motive or gain would Israel get from attacking a US ship on purpose. I know logic escapes you guys but give me a motive.

[Todd]

"1. I have never been resentful of "Jewish money" and don't consider it an issue. In a market economy, talent and hard work translate into riches. If Jews (or other people) have the talent and drive to rise to the top, good for them.

2. The same goes for "Jewish control of the media." Duh, if you don't like Jewish influence in the media, TURN OFF THE TV. Problem solved. I read antiwar.com, Counterpunch, and the American Conservative. Jewish individuals write for these publications but the editorial focus is anti-Zionist. Maybe non-Jews should do what neocons have done and create a parallel cultural bubble."

Jessica, I don't hold honest success against a person, but I don't quite agree with your statements.

I'm not sure that the market is free and fair, or that talent and hard work always translate to riches (I don't believe that egalitarians can exist, either. Just because someone is powerful or wealthy doesn't mean that he will use his wealth or power in good ways, and that is why many people complain about the Jewsih influence on the nation. Surely our media, financial and governing elites aren't the best, brightest and most industrious. From my vantage point, it seems that there is a ton of networking and corner-cutting going on.

Why shouldn't Americans expect an honest media that reflects the best of their culture and values in a respectful way, and gives useful information? I don't believe that the Jewish influence can last long, but that doesn't mean that I should silently accept something that is destructive just because a group of people have worked its way into positions of power and influence.

[Davis]

Some anti-semites may be on the same side as you on some issues. They hate Jews, therefore they are happy when you attack the Jewish establishment. However, if you win your particular fights, for instance by helping to make the Jewish establishment more responsible, and I/P peace more likely, then the anti-semites will lose, since will have less ammunition for their anti-semitism.

[cg]

The term is, after all these years, practically meaningless at best.
At worst, it is an inducement to anger, not fear.