General

Breaking up Ukraine along ethnic lines

/2 Comments/in /by

In an earlier article on competing nationalisms in Ukraine, I suggested that states like Ukraine with large ethnic divisions should be divided into relatively ethnically homogeneous societies. This derives from the idea of what Frank Salter terms “universal nationalism”—that all peoples should be able to live in ethnically homogeneous states free of the conflict that is breaking up Ukraine now.

But now the plan to have a referendum is being described as “illegitimate” and “illegal”:

“No one in the civilized world” will recognize the validity of the referendum initiated by pro-Russian representatives in Crimea’s regional assembly and scheduled March 16, warned Ukraine’s interim Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk. He harshly repudiated those agitating for Crimea to break away from Ukraine and join Russia as “separatists and other traitors.”

The plebiscite has been dismissed by Western nations as illegal, a political charade backed by the guns of Russian troops that have surrounded Ukrainian military bases on the strategically important peninsula for days.

But the proposed change in status for Crimea has been rapturously welcomed in Moscow. As thousands of people flooded Red Square to chant support of President Vladimir Putin and of annexing Crimea, members of the Russian parliament promised to expedite the region’s accession to Russia after the vote. Read more

Arnon Milchan at the Oscars

/1 Comment/in /by

In my article on Abe Foxman’s retirement, I discussed Foxman’s letter complaining that Jonathan Pollard’s continuing incarceration is “an intimidation that can only be based on an anti-Semitic stereotype about the Jewish community, one that we have seen confirmed in our public opinion polls over the years, the belief that American Jews are more loyal to Israel than to their own country, the United States.  … So Pollard stays in prison as a message to American Jews: don’t even think about doing what he did.”

My response was that Foxman should be happy about the long list of Jews who should have been imprisoned for spying on behalf of Israel but were not. And now we have the outrageous example of Arnon Michan not only admitting  that he stole nuclear secrets on behalf of Israel, but continues his high profile life in Hollywood with no fear of prosecution (“Admitted Spy Shows Up for Oscars — and Wins“). Michan was at the Oscar ceremony because his film, 12 Years a Slave, was nominated (and won) the Oscar for Best Picture.

Though Milchan, an Israeli citizen, admitted in November that he engaged in espionage against the U.S for many years, including helping to smuggle American nuclear bomb parts to Israel, his appearance at the Oscars was pretty much proof not all spies are treated equally.

Forbes columnist Dorothy Pomerantz, who writes about Hollywood for the magazine, noted in her morning after rundown of the Oscars, “The Billionaire Winners of the 2014 Academy Awards,” that it is “unlikely the admission will affect his standing in the film industry.”

Since revealing his “James Bond”-like past on Israeli television in November, Milchan has apparently not generated interest among U.S. law enforcement agencies. The FBI won’t even acknowledge that it investigated him previously (it has) and would not say it has plans to interview him about his spying activities now that he’s admitted to them. …

Grant Smith, author of Divert, about the decades-long Israeli operation to funnel U.S. nuclear secrets, uranium and parts to Israel, was not surprised that Milchan was “unconcerned and on stage” at the Oscars. Smith said Milchan has dodged prosecution for more than 30 years, even as a colleague in the smuggling of nuclear triggers, Richard Kelley Smyth, ultimately was arrested and jailed.

What has made Milchan untouchable, according to Smith, is his connections. These include long time associations with Israeli leaders including Shimon Peres and current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who worked at Heli Trading, a Milchan front company used for smuggling, according to Smith, who cites Justice Department documents that he acquired through the Freedom of Information Act.

So cheer up, Abe. It could be a lot worse.

Tony Obama: A Guide to Gas, Greed and Gold

/in /by

A progressive young leader sweeps into power on a tide of euphoria, consigning a discredited right-wing regime to history. He promises huge changes to his jubilant supporters, vowing to re-shape politics and govern for the benefit of the ordinary and the oppressed, not for the mega-rich who waxed fat under his predecessors. Adoring profiles of the new leader fill the media, portraying him with his wife and children as they settle into their roles at the heart of national life. But alas! In the years ahead, he will deliver crushing disappointment to his supporters while channeling lots more money to the mega-rich.

I’ve just described the election of the gasbag lawyer Tony Blair in 1997. But I could just as well have been describing the election of the gasbag lawyer Barack Obama in 2008. The resemblance between the two men is uncanny, right down to the pathological narcissism, the repulsive, grasping wives and the rumours about secret homosexuality. But the chief resemblance is that both men are lying conmen who promised the moon and delivered hot air.

I saw it coming with Blair: after his victory in 1997, I commented on the euphoria by inventing a new dating system. In a letter to a friend, I said it was now 1 Anno Blairi, the First Year of Tony. It was obvious that Blair would never deliver the miracles he loudly promised. And he didn’t. When Barack Obama first appeared in the British media, I realized that he was a tinted version of Blair, full of fine words and fake promises. So I knew what was ahead once he was elected. Read more

Canard sighting: Jonathan Tobin in Commentary

/2 Comments/in /by

One has the feeling that the pro-Israel community in the U.S. is increasingly on the defensive. Jonathan Tobin’s “Anti-Zionists Must Not Be Allowed to Hijack the Jewish Community” is Abe Foxmanesque in its tone of embattled righteousness — and for two (two!) uses of the canard strategy (i.e., the strategy  that if a belief related to Jews is common, it must be false and so obviously false that there is no need to come up with rational arguments).

Canard #1:

This week the Jewish world is discussing two incidents in which large community institutions were forced to account for invitations to prominent writers who are virulent foes of Israel. In one case New York’s Jewish Museum was under fire for inviting academic Judith Butler. In another, the Museum of Jewish Heritage, also in New York, canceled an appearance by New Republic editor John Judis. What both these figures had in common was their bitter opposition to Israel. In Butler’s case, she is a prominent supporter of the BDS (boycott, divest, sanction) movement that seeks to wage economic war on the State of Israel. Judis is the author of a book that questions the legitimacy of Israel’s creation in a revisionist history of President Harry Truman’s role in the creation of the Jewish state, as historian Ron Radosh pointed out in the Jerusalem Post.

Taken together, along with other incidents in the last year involving other BDS supporters being invited to Manhattan’s 92nd Street Y, the decision by the two museums to let outraged members and donors derail the events is seen as a sign of a wave of repression in the American Jewish community. Sounding a theme that has become a constant refrain on the left, supporters of Israel are being accused of cracking down on dissent. But the issue here isn’t free speech or even whether Israel’s policies should be debated. It’s whether an extremist anti-Zionist minority will be able to hijack Jewish institutions.

The accusation about free speech is a canard.

Why is it a canard? Because both Butler and Judis can find other venues to spew their venom outside of venues within the Jewish community. The Jewish community itself should be spared having to listen to “the voices seeking Israel’s destruction.” (Judis has since been reinvited, doubtless infuriating Tobin.) Read more

Letter to the Editor on Alain Soral

/in /by

Dear Dr. MacDonald,

I stumbled upon your work today which, by a strange coincidence, is the same day you published a blog post about Alain Soral and the Dieudonné affair, issues I know a little about, having explored a good deal of Soral’s work and movement.

A small correction: it is not quite accurate to say that “Soral does not see Muslim immigration as a threat.” Soral is opposed to immigration both because it hurts lower-class French and because it leads to multiculturalism (métissage), but he is not anti-Muslim as such. As immigration has already occurred, he supports “equality and reconciliation” between (White, Catholic) French nationalists and “patriotic Muslims.” He sees Islam as something which can help keep Muslim youth away from social degeneracy and petty criminality, and he admires Islam’s conservatism, spiritualism and virility, a potentially powerful ally against the post-60s West’s hyper-individualism, Mammonism and effeminacy. Arabs and Muslims are also more likely to be anti-Zionist for the simple reason of their co-ethnics and/or co-religionists suffering in Palestine. Soral wants an “(ethnic) community rebalancing” in which the Jewish community would be less over-represented and the Muslim community would be strengthened. Read more

RACE exhibit displays misinformation PLUS Announcment

/2 Comments/in /by

Announcement:  Craig Bodeker and Kevin MacDonald highlight this week’s episode of The Political Cesspool Radio Program
Don’t you dare miss Saturday night’s (February 8) live broadcast when we are rejoined on air by Dr. Kevin MacDonald and acclaimed filmmaker Craig Bodeker, director of the gripping documentary, A Conversation About Race.
The Political Cesspool Radio Program broadcasts live each Saturday evening (6:00 pm – 9:00 pm Central Time) from AM 1380 WLRM Radio in Memphis, Tennessee. Click here to listen live online. (Saturdays, 6pm – 9pm CST)

There is a traveling exhibit that’s hitting all the major cities and has now set up shop at the Pink Palace Museum here in Memphis. The exhibit is simply called, “RACE.”

Its purpose is to make us believe the fairy tale that race is a social construct and that all whites are evil, as if there might be a shortage of venues with that message. Really, that’s the only thing you’ll walk away having learned after suffering through this pseudo-scientific monstrosity.

After you emerge from your psychological torturing, the museum hosts a “Diversity Dialogue” where yuppies and other assorted guilty white liberals can share with one another about how much they hate themselves.

I would give you a more detailed review, but found that someone from Seattle has already covered it quite well. This video is well worth watching and tells the whole story about an exhibit that is short on science, but loaded with all of the politically correct talking points you can stomach.

‘Patriots’ Owner’s Wife Says Her Sons Could Fight for Israel, Not U.S.

/1 Comment/in /by

I’ve been urged to do more newsy blog items. It’s a good idea because there’s lots of news items where there is little to add.

Here’s one: Philip Weiss calls out Myra Kraft, wife of the owner of the New England Patriots football team (‘Patriots’ Owner’s Wife Says Her Sons Could Fight for Israel, Not U.S.” (Note: This article is from 2008. Mrs. Kraft has since died.)

On her recent visit to the Jewish state, the Jerusalem Post asked Myra Kraft, a leader in American Jewish philanthropy to Israel and the wife of Robert Kraft, the owner of the New England Patriots, how she would feel about one of her four sons moving to Israel and joining the army.

I would go with him. I always wanted to live here. As for joining the army, over Vietnam, I would have had an issue,
because I didn’t believe in it. The same goes for the war in Iraq. I don’t know why we’re there. I would hate to have one of my sons fighting there. Iran’s the problem, not Iraq. But, as far as fighting for Israel is concerned, there is no problem.

The JPost asked what issues she’ll take into account in the coming U.S. election:

Israel, the economy, the plans for getting out of Iraq quickly.

I find Myra Kraft’s comments both troubling and understandable. Understandable because she is the daughter of a Lithuanian Holocaust survivor who immigrated to Massachusetts. As a little girl she collected money from neighbors for  Palestine. I imagine she has never felt completely secure in the west emotionally, given her father’s experience. His family was annihilated. So she feels great loyalty to Israel. I know Zionists like this.

I’m troubled because of her indifference to the larger American scene, in which she is a player. … Mostly I’m troubled by her parochialism. She is a member of the American establishment, and she thinks always of Israel. Is this the way leaders should act?

No it isn’t, but it’s what we’ve come to expect in an age when Stanley Fischer, who held a policy making position in the Israeli government, is headed for a high-level position at the Federal Reserve.  For Myra Kraft, the Israel-Lobby promoted war with Iraq is over and should be wound up as soon as possible (leaving civil war in its wake). Now it’s on to Iran. But don’t expect her to encourage Jews to enlist in the U.S. military.

The allegiances of, say, Mexicans for their national soccer team are merely irritating. But when a minority basically runs U.S. foreign policy and is urgently pushing for yet another costly and disastrous war that has nothing to do with American interests, it’s far more than irritating. It’s treasonous.