Israel First, Again
by Tom Piatak
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
Most Americans agree that the greatest problem America faces right now is a faltering economy. One would never know that by looking at NRO’s Corner from 4:54 pm to 6:21 pm on Thursday, February 26. A visitor to the Corner at that time would conclude that the greatest threat to the Republic is the appointment of the former ambassador to China and Saudi Arabia, Charles Freeman, to head the National Intelligence Council. During that time, Freeman’s appointment was the subject of five posts, two from Michael Rubin, two from Jonah Goldberg, and one from Mark Steyn. The grave threat posed by Freeman would probably come as news to most Americans; indeed, most Americans (I include myself) have probably never heard of Freeman before.
And why is Freeman so awful? Well, Jonah Golbderg quotes Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic referring to Freeman’s “well-known hostility to Israel,” and Goldberg quotes a reader wondering if John Mearsheimer, co-author of a book critical of the Israel lobby, will be Obama’s next appointee. Mark Steyn then argues that “Being on the House of Saud’s payroll, directly or indirectly, should render one ineligible for subsequent government service.”
Funny, I don’t remember Steyn complaining about Richard Perle’s government service, even though an FBI wiretap recorded Perle discussing classified information with the Israeli embassy in the 1970. Nor do I remember Steyn, or anyone at National Review, complaining that Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser, all of whom served in the late, unlamented Bush administration, wrote an analysis for Benjamin Netanyahu, then the Prime Minister of Israel, arguing that toppling Saddam Hussein would be good for Israel, and later urged the Bush Administration to carry out that policy, a policy that has so far cost thousands of American lives and billions of American dollars. It appears, then, that National Review does not regard close ties to Israel as an impediment to government service. In fact, judging from the hysteria over Freeman, National Review regards such ties as a prerequisite for government service, something the rest of us should keep in mind the next time National Review begins beating the drums for war in the Middle East.
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
1 Comment by Sempronius on 27 February 2009:
I think you hit a bullseye there TP.
2 Comment by Robert on 27 February 2009:
Tom,
“A visitor to the Corner at that time would conclude that the greatest threat to the Republic is the appointment of the former ambassador to China and Saudi Arabia, Charles Freeman, to head the National Intelligence Council.”
It probably is a threat of sorts because what this appointment signifies is the admission from the Obamacrats that the US intends to borrow all the money they(China and the Arabs)will loan us or sell them as many American assets as they desire. Of course the NRO crowd will request their fair share of foreign aid from these trillions which the more thoughtful Israelis understand creates more problems than it solves.
3 Comment by Grumpy Old Man on 27 February 2009:
I find these reactions utterly astonishing.
Israel may have been a useful ally when Syria and Egypt were in the Russian orbit, but at this point it is of marginal usefulness, if any.
All the prattle about “human rights” is belied by the record since 1967.
Freeman is a faint cigarette-lighter flame in the darkness, along with Kerry’s visits to Gaza and Syria, and the appointment of Mitchell, who has Lebanese ancestry, instead of Indyk or Ross, as the special envoy.
It is conceivable that Netanyahu, with a narrow nationalist coalition, will overreach, by abandoning the fiction of a “peace process” even as settlements are expanded and Palestinian life throttled. Not only may people in DC get wise, but also there may be a bit of political daylight for them to say so.
(I’m not holding my breath).
4 Comment by John Mitchel's last laugh on 27 February 2009:
If Piatak keeps up with this anti-Semitic chatter, the Chosen Race will deputize the Gentile Rabbis for the Synagogue of Satan, Hagee and Robertson, to use any means necessary to re-educate him. Perhaps a Gaza awaits him, all in the names of tolerance, diversity and freedoms of speech and religion.
5 Comment by Derek Leaberry on 27 February 2009:
I can not truly comprehend the fetish the American media, the neo-conservatives and certain American politicians have over Israel at present. Israel’s existence is not threatened. Israel is at peace with the three major Arab powers- Egypt, Jordan and Syria- that it fought in 1948, 1967 and 1973. The Palestinians are more a nuisance for the Israelis than an effective military foe.
As it has no oil, Israel is less important to the United States than at least fifty other foreign nations. Yet Mexico, which is the greatest threat in the world to the American nation, receives less than ten percent of the media coverage as Israel does. The collapse of Mexican society has graver consequences for the US and its future than does Israel’s spats with the impoverished and ineffectual Palestinians.
6 Comment by Samuel Bass on 27 February 2009:
The only quibble I might have with Mr. Leaberry at #5 is to change “Israel is less important” to “Israel ought to be less important.” Were things more accurately perceived, the neo-con men would have to find prodictive work somewhere.
7 Comment by Bill Wilder on 27 February 2009:
Mr. Leaberry is correct about Israel’s status. Ironically, Jimmy Carter did more for Israel than any other American president by finalizing her peace with Egypt; after which an Arab attack on Israel was impossible. He also correct about the grave threat presented to our nation by the deterioration in Mexico. Even NPR is now reporting on Pentagon contingencies for the failure of Mexico. Yet our troops remain in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Iran’s alleged threat remains a fetish.
Tom, as ever, skewers the inanity and shallowness of the NRO crowd. They imagine (as do the Israeli Likudniks) non-existent threats to Israel’s continued existence (except for the demographic threat presented by a failure to finalize peace.) And then scream and holler at those who disagree.
It makes one wonder as to why they are so concerned about threats to Israel and unconcerned about real threats to the U.S. Perhaps because a false threat advances their ulterior purpose of imperialistic militarism, and recognition of the real threat exposes how ruinous their policies of imperialistic militarism have been.
8 Comment by KMarx on 27 February 2009:
Tom,
Short, to the point and dead on! Excellent!
9 Comment by Derek Leaberry on 27 February 2009:
As with the United States, the greatest threat to the existence of Israel is from within. Israel, like all nations of the West, is experiencing a moral degeneration of its society. Srda Trifkovic wrote a memorable essay on the West’s moral collapse in Chronicles a couple years ago.
10 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 27 February 2009:
Jonah Goldberg gets his daily briefing from the antichrist, at least that’s what his reformed rabbi told me. Maybe the Ayatollahs are right to call Israel the Little Satan.
What’s more, the use of gruesome DIME bombs by the IDF during the recent Gaza operation could bear a little time in the MSM spotlight — but don’t count on it. So far I have only heard about them on Russia Today, and even then I had to look DIME up on the internet.
11 Comment by slim on 27 February 2009:
The US’s pro-nazi policy in the ME (and elsewhere) trumps all else. What a shock that yet another shill for said policy rears his ugly head.
Simpson’s ‘Blowback’:”Over the next 18 months [sometime in mid-late 1950s] Skorzeny used CIA money to recruit for the Egyptian security services about 100 German advisers, many of whom he reached through neo-Nazi organizations and SS escape networks. Among his wards were Hermann Lauterbacher, an SS man and former deputy leader of the Hitler Youth, and Franz Buensch, a Goebbels propagandist best known for his pornographic work The Sexual Habits of Jews. Buensch, Gehlen’s resident chief in Cairo, was a veteran of Eichmann’s SS ‘Jewish Affairs’ office. This talented group was later joined by Alois Brunner.”
That’s the tip of the iceberg. Tell us again TP more about that devious ‘lobby’ influence that causes the US to train and whitewash the axis-allied losers that seek the eradication of Jews, Serbs…
12 Comment by Brock H. on 27 February 2009:
slim,
Good to have you back, you provide a very unique perspective to foreign affairs on this website. Your comments may be shrill and often hard to comprehend because of your coinage of terms and phrases we’ve never heard of before, and your maniacal obsession with fascism and antisemitism are evidence of a rather rigid ideology, but your mentionings of U.S. foreign dealings which seem to harm rather than aid Israel have been rather eye-opening.
I was wondering, now that the possibility of a U.S. foreign misadventure which WOULD benefit Israel has reared its head – I’m referring to the prospect of war with Iran – what is your position? I’m pretty sure that, unlike Iraq, such a war and subsequent overthrow of the government in Iran would be quite beneficial to Israel. Ba’athist Iraq was a secular republic, while Iran is a jihadist Muslim state. Leaving the building of a new government in Iraq to the Iraqis only led to the establishment of a new ally for Iran. Are you itching for yet another American imperial blunder, now that the tables are turned and this would be theoretically a pro-Israel war? Also, do you want the U.S. to intervene in Pakistan to stop a radical Muslim state from being born? Basically, what I’m asking is whether you are America First or Israel First in your loyalties. I’m referring to the American and Israeli PEOPLE in that question, of course, not their GOVERNMENTS.
13 Comment by slim on 27 February 2009:
Brock,
it’s all moot because the US isn’t enemies with Iran. Zalmay Khalilzad has advocated for strengthening Iran for over 20 years, and he has worked quite closely with SCIRI the entire time.
The US welcomed Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia and to write some op-eds in our government controlled media (Newsweek). We never did this for Radaczik or Milosevic. We don’t do this for enemies–and Ahmadinejad is no enemy.
Iraq was no imperial blunder. Or rather, it was a ‘blunder’ only to those that erroneously believe in Jewish conspiracy theories and think that Wolfowitz/Kristol (the State Department fascists labeled as ‘pro Israel zionists’) play a larger role in US strategy than Khalilzad and Brzezinski.
They don’t. They are used (in the media) to get you to believe that pro-Israel Jews have hijacked the US government. What a shock that a government that created its intelligence apparatus from the Gehlen Org would do such a thing.
The US has been spreading Islam, fighting for Muslims, and lying for Islamists (hamas, fatah, kla…) for 30 years. Thousands of US soldiers have died while spreading Islam under the guise of ‘eliminating terrorism’. You’ve got what you wanted. There is no zionism breaking out anywhere. You have been badly bamboozled and I’d suggest that you read about Khalilzad and his strategies on emperors clothes.
14 Comment by Brock H. on 27 February 2009:
slim,
Exactly what makes you think that smashing Saddam Hussein’s government is what I wanted? I have been firmly against the Iraq War for three years. Before that, well, that was before I recovered from being a Republican. As for your foolish statement that Iraq was not a blunder, how much imperial overstretch need we undertake for our government’s misadventures to be called blunders? Maybe when we’re $20 trillion in debt rather than $10 trillion? It is a blunder and a crime, slim, to those of us who advocate that the U.S. government live within its means and abide by its Constitutional restraints.
15 Comment by Tom Piatak on 28 February 2009:
To All:
I was mistaken when I wrote that Charles Freeman was a former ambassador to China. I apologize for the error.
16 Comment by J Meng on 28 February 2009:
I am one of those “most Americans” who have never heard of Charles Freeman, before his appointment by President Barak Hussein Obama. If he is a sign of a change in the course of U.S. policy toward Israel, I’ll believe it when it happens. Even then, I’ll probably be skeptical. The last man who put obstacles in the way of unwholesome Israeli aspirations was John F. Kennedy (apropos their desire to develop nuclear weapons) and he was assassinated. According to Michael Collins Piper in his book, Final Judgment, the Israelis had a hand in it. Nevertheless, it pleases me when reps of the Chosen One’s shriek and holler that they might not be allowed to have their way in the future.
17 Comment by slim on 28 February 2009:
Brock,
there exists no evidence whatsoever that Iraq was a blunder. In fact, when the last 30+ years of US geopolitical policy is examined, one can easily conclude that Iraq went exactly as planned. Not much different from Afghanistan or our Kosovo ’success’: spreading sharia law in cahoots with local tribal leaders, brainwashing the masses into a very stagnant 13th century ideology ripe for exploitation from the US/EU/Arabs.
Just as Kosovo and its demonization and brutalization of Christians and installation of a compliant mafia thug government is a Western media deemed ’success’ so is Iraq. You get your take on Iran from news sources that think that there is nothing more evil than someone that survives a WWII concentration camp. I tend not to believe said sources. The sites I read make it abundantly clear that we are not enemies with Iran, and that Iraq was not a failure. Failure would have been if civil-rights had accidentally broken out.
Meng: if anti-Israel zealots were murdered, then why is Carter so prominent? Farrakhan? Sharpton?
It’s the pro-Israel zealots that are murdered: Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Kahane, and they are replaced with anti-Israel zealots. Here’s how the government and its ‘leftist’ movement adds Jewhate to leftist ideology: Bobby Kennedy’s corpse was not even cold when government provocateur Ayers dedicates his little ‘manifesto’ to sirhan sirhan. This was 1969, and it was not even very fashionable to lie on behalf of Islamic naziism, but Ayers made sure to add it to the ‘leftist’ platform. He has been revived in the US MSM–whose talking heads are tolerated/elevated by the government.
Sharpton’s appointment by the ‘democrats’ to divide blacks and Jews is no different from the British appointment of Husseini. Zionism is the original slave movement. Its advocates are killed or just not covered in the MSM that much (eg: Julius Lester, Rueben Greenberg, Levon Mercer).
18 Comment by Sempronius on 28 February 2009:
Interesting sequence of events for you gentlemen to consider.Note the brilliance of Americano “foriegn policy.”Also note the opportunism of Yahweh’s little darlings.Like Cromwell’s successors,Americanos are scheduled for a nasty “surprise” from their Levantine mistress.Slim is preparing the ground for it even as we speak.
4-11 February Yalta Conference
12 April Sudden death of Roosevelt, succession of Truman
2 May Fall and surrender of Berlin
16 July First practical test of the A-bomb at Alamogordo, NM
17 July Start of Potsdam Conference
25 July Truman informed Stalin of the new weapon (he knew already)
26 July Proclamation to Japan: “Unconditional surrender or destruction”
26 July Atlee succeeded Churchill following a British General Election
2 August End of Potsdam Conference
6 August Bombing of Hiroshima
8 August USSR declared war on Japan
9 August Bombing of Nagasaki (two further bombs were scheduled)
9 August Russian troops invaded Manchuria
10 August Japan transmitted a surrender message to the US
20 August Final Japanese collapse to Soviet troops in North Korea
31 October Jewish attacks on the British in Palestine began
19 Comment by Mr. Stonehouse on 28 February 2009:
Slim, Brock
Did you guys ever think you may both be right–that what’s going on is just different heads of the same beast benefiting from the conflict, confusion and uncertainty they create?
20 Comment by Brock H. on 28 February 2009:
slim,
Iraq was a blunder as far as patriotic Americans who love their country and hate their government are concerned. If your talking points from “Blowback” are factually correct, then there is no doubt that the Iraq War was not a blunder for Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, or Richard Perle. Any war which sinks a nation’s government into insurmountable and unpayable debt which their children must endlessly pay off IS a blunder for workers and taxpayers like myself.
21 Comment by slim on 28 February 2009:
Sempronious,
I’d recommend that you google and read some Nation articles from 1948, particularly ‘British Record on Partition’. There were no ‘Jewish attacks on the British’. There were however some Jews seeking civil rights that were being quashed by an alliance of Britain, its Arab league pet, and imported German and Bosnian nazis brought in to help.
Stonehouse,
All evidence indicates that the US has played a substantial role in forcing an Israel vs. Iran face-off. This can hardly be deemed ‘pro Israel’ policy.
Supposedly, we love Israel more than any other country in the world, yet we don’t join the ‘international community’ in funding Islamist gestapo pets that attack Canada, Mexico,…
Yet we do this with Israel. How is it exactly that we love Israel more than any other country in the world, yet we contribute 30% of the funding of UNRWA, which in turn funds fatah and hamas–groups that are dedicated to the eradication of Israel?
How exactly did the pro-Israel neocons take over the reigns of the US government from the rabid antisemites of the Gehlen Org and their US sponsors (Frank Wisner, the Dulles brothers, etc.)?
US geopolitical strategy has nothing to do with Israel, but probably does benefit from our program of funding and using Israeli R&D that has improved US weaponry.
22 Comment by slim on 28 February 2009:
Brock,
‘Blowback’ is real US policy–the policy that actually takes place, the policy one would expect from a government apparatus that profitted from concentration camp slave labor, the policy documented in Suitland, the policy of a government that tells you there is nothing more evil than a pro-Israel Jew or Serb ultranationalist, the policy of a government that just can’t conceal the (non-existent) torture of its Islamist mercenaries, thus manipulating the ‘left’ to support what the government has been doing all along (attacking the best of the world with our covert allies).
Wolfie/Perle are no different from Khalilzad, Brzezinski, Indyk, etc. Their loyalty is to US imperialism and nothing else. When push comes to shove and Israel is in a bind or being lynched as the cause of 9/11, the Kristol/Perle/Wolfie gang is remarkably silent. They are pretty much the same as Herbert Samuel of the British government of the 1920s. He was the ‘Jew’ that appointed the Jewhating Husseini to lead Arabs. He did this as a servant of the British government. His loyalty to said government included his adoption of its extremely antisemitic policies.
If not supporting a default policy of supporting genocidal Islamists and the demonization of their victims means I’m ‘anti US’, then I guess I’m anti-US. But don’t worry, there are no pro-Israel Jews that would ever attack our fellow Americans. Why would we attack our fellow Americans because of the government’s policy?
And this is why we use Islamist mercenaries. You can’t get Jews or Serbs to do the kinds of things the government likes to do (in covert). The best they can do is get some traitors to assist.
23 Comment by Brock H. on 28 February 2009:
slim,
No that’s not what makes you, in my assumption, anti-U.S. I’m going to take a wild guess that you probably live in the Northeast or on the West Coast – you know, far away from middle America and its customs, traditions, and attitudes. I on the other hand try and stay in touch with it, even though I live in a cultural sewer called California, the inland and not the coast, thank God. Most of them may not be curious enough about U.S. foreign policy to delve deep into the political underground to find out the things that you and Chris Simpson apparently know (I guess I wasn’t either), but tradition-loving heartland Americans are NOT anti-Jewish OR pro-radical Islam. They’re just too occupied with the American culture of entertainment consumerism to do anything about changing their government. So that’s one excuse you don’t have to hate America. But perhaps I’m onto something about you . . . I wonder, DO you immediately see a family of racist anti-semites when you see a white gentile middle-class heartland family?
24 Comment by slim on 28 February 2009:
Brock,
“tradition-loving heartland Americans are NOT anti-Jewish OR pro-radical Islam. ”
I’d concur with this. In 1948, over 200,000 Americans rallied in support of Israel after the US government renounced its support for Israel. Working class Americans have always loved the Jews. Zionism is (among other things) the original liberated slave movement, the protector of workers. I live in the southeast and Jews arrived in my state in the 1700s, were welcomed in numerous small towns, became mayors, set up shops (dry goods, clothing, five and dime typically).
The average American has no problem with Jews. Ergo, the question is: why has the US been covertly arming, training, whitewashing and sponsoring Islamic nazis for 50+ years, while simultaneously putting out agitprop that pro-Israel neocons control US policy? Why? because this is what one would expect from our Gehlen Org leaders, a government that sponsors the KLA, a government that calls all genocidal antisemitic/Serbophobic Islamists ‘moderates’. It is a grave mistake to attribute the sick amoral ideology of the US government/business leaders to the average American. I’ve never done so.
The average American is not pro-Islam or consciously anti-Jewish. But he/she has no idea of how pro-Islam US policy is and always has been. It is a myth that the people that: run the State Department, run the NGOs, that are a part of the revolving door between the US government and the Arab oil lobbies, that these people have the same values as the average American.
They have the opposite values. They lie and say they are spreading democracy when they are actually spreading brutal oppression and misery–and using the koran as the modern day mein kampf (Geert Wilders stated such and he was absolutely right). Most Muslims are quite benign and peaceful. It’s only the government sponsored ones that are genocidal Islamic supremacists. There are Muslims that love Israel–and there is no US/EU/Arab big money support for their ideology, just as there was no support for it in 1920, when the Brits appointed the Mufti.
Obviously, governments engaged in such ventures, that consider kosovo to be a beacon of success, will also tell you to hate societies that are the opposite of this controlled thuggery and exploitation. Ironic is it not that the biggest ‘democracy spreader’ saves its most vitriolic slander for the concentration camp survivor nations, which are probably the least racist and most tolerant nations in the world.
In one of your posts you stated: “Any war which sinks a nation’s government into insurmountable and unpayable debt which their children must endlessly pay off IS a blunder for workers and taxpayers like myself.”
No disagreement here. But just as my protests against our pro-Islamist policy means that I have ‘dual loyalties’ to Israel, your statement can only mean that you have ‘dual loyalties’ toward Iraqi baathists. Unless of course the entire ‘dual loyalty’ charge is just a way to get Jews to shut up while the US State Department carries on business as usual.
If you oppose the sharia spreading, democracy crushing ideology of the people in the State Dept, you can only be pro-Israel. A ‘leave everyone alone’ policy means: stop buying Israeli policy, stop fighting wars for Islam, stop spreading sharia, stop lying about how ‘disproportionate’ Israel is while we are engaging in infrastructure bombing and ambiguously reported in numerous places.
Bottom line is that our zionist controlled, pro-Israel media is a myth. There is no US MSM that encourages me (or anyone) to support Israel. We do it because it is right. Interestingly though, there are very, very, few Israel supporters that will openly acknowledge the US State Department’s long history of sabotaging Israel’s safety. Most Jews are entirely ignorant of this, or are more than happy to make no mention of it. Mainstream Jewish leaders have always (for 2009 years) towed the line with the ‘our leaders love us to death’ line. They were often quite wrong.
25 Comment by Brock H. on 1 March 2009:
slim,
I must be pro-Israel if I am against radical Islam? That’s great, absolutism is natural and healthy, I suppose . . . like Lenin claiming that you’re either with us, or you’re with the capitalist bourgeoisie? Like Hitler claiming that you’re either with the Germanic peoples or you’re with the dirty Jews?
Yes, slim, rigid absolutist creeds have served humanity well in its history. It’s only caused a few billion deaths.
And no, my dual loyalty charge is not simply because you’re against U.S. foreign policy. No, there are bigger pieces of evidence from your past posts that you truly do not have any loyalty to anything authentically American – its founders, its history, its Constitution, etc. What is that evidence? The fact that you have never spoken one word of praise or love for them! You’ve talked a blue streak about your love for and devotion to Israel and to your fellow Jews, however. So maybe you see where I’m coming from.
And where do you get your infatuation with watery abstractions like civil rights and democracy? Hate to break it to you, but the men who came to this land and their descendants who broke free from the British didn’t believe in such foolishness. All democracies do is devolve into mob rule, just look at Greek history. America’s government was built as a REPUBLIC, something diametrically the opposite. And civil rights? You mean forcing people at the barrell of a gun to admit blacks into schools and businesses? Do you mean creating a new kind of “marriage” out of thin air for homosexual perverts – by court order? But hey – maybe I’m onto something! Perhaps Jefferson and Washington themselves were really fascist Muslims all this time!!
26 Comment by Polemicscat on 1 March 2009:
17
Slim’s case is convincing because the evidence he cites is
abundant and relevant.
27 Comment by slim on 1 March 2009:
Brock,
Whatever this ‘authentically American’ ideology is, I’ve done sufficient study that it has not existed in a very long time. Certainly not in the last 60 years, nor in the 40+ years prior to that when the US elites were teaching the Germans about the benefits of eugenics.
Evidently ‘authentically American’ in your book includes a maniacal obsession with maintaining the genetic ‘purity’ of the US. Am I right? Too bad we weren’t more strict regarding those eugenic-based immigration acts of the 1920s. We took in too many of those filthy Italians and Jews. Or was the ‘authentically American’ part prior to our national obession with ethnic cleanliness? We are even obsessed with the ethnic cleanliness of the ME, where any Israeli presence is seen as a filthy blight on the next mafia-thug-palestinian state.
Founding fathers? I have no problem with them. They were not at all like the monsters that currently run the show–but it can be hard to tell because history is the propaganda of the victor.
The ancient Greeks ran a very corrupt society that was ruled by corrupt wealthy elites that shared power only amongst themselves.
You seem to be getting confused. All we know for certainty is that the US leaders of the last 60 years have sponsored Muslim nazi movements for strategic reasons. This went a bit more mainstream when Carter first started embracing Arafat, and the ‘left’ adopted Waldheim’s ‘zionism is racism’ mantra. These are the same stance peddled by some of the writers on this site.
If you are so opposed to civil rights, you should probably move to any number of Muslim countries, where a wide variety of people are treated as second class citizens.
28 Comment by slim on 1 March 2009:
Brock,
I accidentally edited out part of my reply. Opposition to our pro-Islamist policy does indeed mean that you are pro-Israel. Israel is merely the most noticeable theater of this conflict: the US obsession with Islamist ethnic cleanliness vs. those horrible rightwing, fascist, ultranationalist, likudnik Jews that resist this policy.
We lie on behalf of Husseini’s movement over there just as we lie about it in the Balkans. The ‘geopolitically consistent’ oppose it regardless of whom the US is trying to inflict it upon. Unfortunately, there are many, many propagandists for the protagonists that will lie for the jihadists in the ME, or lie for them in the Balkans. Very few will tell the truth about them, who is sponsoring them, and why our media lies so egregiously on their behalf.
I have no reason to think that the founding fathers would have expended so much money and effort into demonizing liberated slave movements. This would be an ideology that came later, thus I’m not sure why a true ‘conservative’ would adopt it.
29 Comment by Brock H. on 1 March 2009:
slim,
A desire to be surrounded by your own people and their customs and traditions is not an ideology. An ideology is a devotion to watery and meaningless abstract creeds like those you devote yourself to. A nation of peoples which has an authentic identity unpolluted by those of other very foreign peoples is no outgrowth of any ideology. It’s merely an outgrowth of tending to their flock and preparing a good future for their posterity, and devoting themselves to real institutions with stone foundations, like their churches, their schools, their neighborhoods, their 4th-of-July picnics, their high school baseball and football games.
As for your assertion that America in its truly real sense has not existed in such a long time, good point! Maybe now you understand our love affair with the past here at Chronicles. About ethnic purity, should America be a creedal nation, where all peoples all over the world can come on in, while the white descendants of 17th-century American colonists become extinct??!! Maybe that’s a good way to put that evil policy of ethnic purity behind us?
All non-whites were treated as second-class citizens in America until my parents were born. Were my ancestors radical Muslim fascists? The Founding Fathers all each said that white should be the overwhelmingly dominant ethnicity in this country, and blacks should not share the same space and facilities as whites. How about them?
Liberated slave movements? There was a nice fellow back in the early 20th century who glorified a revolution to liberate those who he perceived as slaves . . . he was a wicked murderer named Lenin!
This all isn’t too much of a surprise, though. When a society of people cease to believe in God, they find other gods to worship, Baals, so to speak. Civil rights, equality, universal voting rights and healthcare, etc. Welcome to postmodern and post-Christian America, everybody!
30 Comment by slim on 1 March 2009:
Countries fixated on “an authentic identity unpolluted by those of other very foreign peoples” are the ones that gladly became quisling states in WWII.
I support states consist of people that are tolerant of the rights of others. Domestically, the US is such a state. In terms of foreign policy, we attack/sabotage/demonize such states elsewhere because they are not as easily controlled by the US/EU/NATO ‘new world order’.
I don’t believe in any mythological ‘white colonialist’ ideology that is dying out. The US is a large country and has always had many kinds of people. Nothing wrong with this, for nothing is more repulsive than seeing ethnic-cleanliness obsessed losers kill people that are no different than themselves. Often the killers are those that could not handle life as an infidel/dhimmi and they converted to the faith of their master.
31 Comment by Brock H. on 1 March 2009:
So, once again, even before the Nietschiean (don’t think I spelled that right but no matter) ideologies which gave birth to fascism were developed in the mid-19th century, our own Founding Fathers were fascist monsters who would have dumped all their Jews into an oven if they were perceived as becoming too much of a problem. You sound like those open-borders crowds like La Raza, who will continually dredge up Hitler whenever any talk of closing the borders comes up.
Until the original native people of the American Republic, whites – the people whose methods and behaviors and customs define America as a nation, are finally gone, of course. Then the Marxist mission to destroy the West will be complete. And that is the main difference between then and now, slim. Yes, there were many different ethnicities of people who have lived alongside whites ever since they established their colonies here. But since the 18th century, when have minorities exploded to a percentage of 35%, while whites sink from %90 to %65, and become projected to become a MINORITY 30 years later? Not until now, the Immigration Act of 1965 made sure it would happen. Was this necessary, slim, to make sure the “ethnic-cleanliness-obsessed losers” don’t have their way? I’d hate to think I’m not being . . . what’s the word, TOLERANT enough, of other peoples.
Death by tolerance – that’s how Rome fell, you know.
32 Comment by slim on 1 March 2009:
As I already stated, I don’t have any evidence that the founding fathers were the monsters that their descendants were. The definition of fascism varies, but the one I prefer is that it describes empires that like oppressing the masses, enslaving others, and removing citizen rights.
This describes most empires, starting with the Romans/Greeks, as well as their descendants of the 3rd reich. In ancient Rome, unless you were among the ruling elites, life was very miserable and you were likely a slave. Rome falling was no tragedy. The tragedy is that their ideology has never gone away.
The Persians were opposed to this, as are their ideological descendants, who are slandered as Islamist-abusing, human-rights abusing rightwing ultranationalists in Western media, which lies egregiously. The greatest tragedy was the fall of the Persian empire.
Open borders does not scare me so much as the possibility that US leaders will import (possibly over the next 50-100 years) tens of thousands of intolerant Islamists. Why? Western birthrates are anemic and someone will be needed to pick up the slack and pay taxes.
US leaders love playing divide and conquer games and attacking regular Americans. There is no one in the government that supports upholding any kind of ‘white’ culture, or even any kind of culture that values tolerance and refraining from attacking others.
We could have this. But instead our government and media attack the places that aim for this.
33 Comment by Brock H. on 1 March 2009:
What do you mean miserable? Do you mean that there was not an overabundance of food and material comfort/security like there is here today? That’s hardly misery. As for the Roman slave business, glad we’re both on the same page there. No, it wasn’t a tragedy that Rome fell. The tragedy is that its own people LET it happen. The tragedy was in the way the Roman Empire and then its civilization died – the way all civilizations die – by suicide.
Why does open borders not scare you? Not a surprise that Arab Muslims scare you, based on what you’ve said – don’t worry, I’m kind of standoffish towards them myself. But what about Hispanics, the ethnicity of peoples that is competing with blacks for committing the vast majority of urban area murders in America? How about the boldness of those illegals in their declaration of “immigrants’ rights” three years ago, as they proudly and defiantly marched through America’s major cities?
34 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 2 March 2009:
Gentlemen, you are wasting your time arguing with “slim.” The best thing is to ignore him.
35 Comment by slim on 2 March 2009:
Brock,
Life in the Roman empire was miserable. History being the propaganda of the victor that it is, usually describes the ancient Romans and Greeks as being the opposite of how they actually were. Not unlike the way current media talks about our ‘moderate’ allies and our ‘ultranationalist, rightwing’ enemies–when these enemies are merely resistant to the genocidal fascism of our moderate allies.
Hispanics/Latinos don’t affect anyone that much in the southeast. We have them, they do a lot of the manual labor that no one else wants to do. I suppose I *should* harbor resentment towards them, but as stated: they do jobs that no one else wants to do. They have some bad apples, but for the most part they work hard, do no harm, and want to be left alone.
As we’ve discussed the government wastes so much money on other boondoggles that I have a hard time working up much resentment towards them. I don’t fear illegal immigrants as much as I fear the mercenaries of our own government, and the lies spewed by the propagandists for our government.
Wilson,
What’s the matter? A little harder for some folks to pen these little ‘boo hoo! Israel is the tail wagging the dog!’ articles when I’m on the scene?
Yes, everyone should learn history. Empires that put out a lot of ‘boo hoo! the Jews won’t stop running the show!’ type articles have never been anything but big-lie spewers, and there are no bigger liars than jihadists and the governments that are in covert alliance with them (i.e. that use them as mercenaries).
36 Comment by Maciano on 3 March 2009:
I wish Israel and the Israelis all the best in their struggle for survival. May they finally find peace. I really mean that.
The Israel-lobby in the US, they can go to hell.
37 Comment by gargi on 7 March 2009:
The tragedy was that Rome fell and fell in such a way that the Western world got a religion from a tribe of Semites and instead of Western mythology, you began to have Jewish mythology, after Rome became Christian. Of course the religion got transformed as the Western world was a creative world–There has been a conflict between religion and clear thinking in the West ever since. I think the traitor was Constantine–the ancients were far superior in outlook to the outlook Christians brought with them and only when the West revived their ancient outlook did it get out of the dark ages.
Slim is correct about the tolerance of the Persian empire–in fact it was Cyrus who gave freedom to the Jews.
Does this mean that I do not like Christianity or Christians? No just that I do not see Christianity as a Western pehonomenon–but it has been their religion and has given them something based on miracles so I have nothing to say about it–
38 Comment by gargi on 7 March 2009:
Also Christianity was probably a boon for the rest of the Western world apart from Greece and Rome which did not have a sophisticated culture of its own but adopted Greco-Roman culture–For this world, Christianity gave a source of morals and ethics to peoples who could not come up with their own.
But Christianity no longer remained a graft and became like second nature to the Western peoples and it also helped unify cultures–
Also, Christianity grew because it advocated humility and compassion–the most popular early Christians were all widows and such–people shipwrecked in life–for the first time in the Western world, with Christianity, you have a recognition that the slave is also a human in that he is created in the image of God–
39 Comment by gargi on 7 March 2009:
And finally, the folly of trying to remove something which constitutes the identity of a peoples now but which formerly was borrowed from outside, is shown by the anti-Christian stance of the Nazis. For most people in the West, when you remove Christianity, there remains nothing to replace it.
40 Comment by gargi on 7 March 2009:
slim,
The biggest tregedy that happened to the Persian empire was that it fell under the hands of the Arabs–the brothers of Jews–although following a different religion.
Read about it in history–it took the Arabs several decades nearly a century to force the Persians to become Muslims via the sword–it is extremely tragic what happened to the Persian empire. Iranians have not lost their identity though and I have Persian friends who view Islam as not Persian and say it destroyed their culture–but they say “it was imposed upon us, our culture was destroyed and without it we have no religion anymore–”
But even under Islam the Persian genius did not die out– in fact, most of the so called Isalmic philosophers and scientists and poets were all Persian. I see hope for this country if they are able to return to their true roots.