Jews and the Left

Noam Chomsky: The Cleverest Zionist

/94 Comments/in , /by

Noam_Chomsky_WSF_-_2003

Noam Chomsky is one of the most influential intellectuals in the world and is indeed probably the single most influential Left-wing intellectual around today. His university, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, once boasted that Chomsky was the most-cited living person in the Arts and Humanities citation index between 1980 and 1992. Indeed, he was the only living author in the top ten, being quoted beside Shakespeare, Plato, and the Bible. Chomsky has largely maintained his academic influence, being heavily quoted in books in the humanities.

The elderly Chomsky is something of a saint for the far-Left. Thus they have been alarmed at a strange, under-reported reality: Chomsky the anti-nationalist and anti-imperialist voice is, when all is said and done, a Zionist supporter of the ethnically-Jewish state of Israel. Read more

From Communist to Neoconservative: The Ethnic Blindness of David Aaronovitch

/47 Comments/in , /by

aaronovitch1A sepia-tinted picture of life in the Communist Party in post-war London is painted in Party Animals, a memoir by neoconservative journalist David Aaronovitch whose father was a full-time communist organiser and whose non-Jewish mother was equally staunch.

Today Aaronovitch is a fashionable neoconservative who backed Britain’s involvement in George W Bush’s wars and now rails against a variety of predictable targets from boycotts of Israel to Vladimir Putin. He flits easily from perch to perch in the establishment media and is currently a feature writer with The Times.

It is a fairly predictable progression for this modern day establishment figure.  His family lived in the well-to-do, leafy Hampstead in a neighbourhood filled with like-minded Jewish families. The Communist Party life was a world within a world with its own travel agencies, daily newspapers, and bookshops. There were party doctors, dentists, plumbers — all overwhelmingly Jewish. It was a Jewish subculture of the sort that sprang up throughout the Jewish diaspora in the West: The comrades were born into it, married within it, and died within it.  And yet the strangest thing is that no-one ever seems to have asked — “Hang on? Why is everyone Jewish? Isn’t this all a bit like a Polish shtetl?” Read more

Britain’s Jewish Communist Traitors

/74 Comments/in , /by

In his plea for Britain to take in thousands more “Syrian refugees”  Lord Alf Dubs tearfully recalls how he was brought to Britain, aged six, from Prague, as a Kindertransport Jewish refugee.  His former parliamentary colleague, wealthy publisher Lord George Weidenfeld too, was fond of recalling how he found sanctuary in Britain after fleeing Austria just before the war. He said it was the main factor in his decision to help pay for the transport of thousands of Syrian refugees into the west.

The Kindertransport has been exposed as a confection of distortions, myths and omissions previously in TOO, but there is another little awkward fact about the Jewish refugees taken in by Britain before the war. And that is the remarkably high proportion of them who chose to actively betray the country which gave them sanctuary by acting as spies for Britain’s deadly enemy, the Soviet Union.

They not only ensured that many British agents were sent to their deaths or capture, torture and long periods of imprisonment, but played a crucial part in stealing the atomic bomb secrets that allowed the Soviet Union to catch up and have its own atomic bomb by 1949. Their treachery compromised the security of Britain and the West and probably extended the length of the Cold War and the enslavement of the subject peoples of Eastern Europe.

What is more astonishing is that in many cases the British authorities took no action against them to avoid official embarrassment. As a result some of Britain’s foulest traitors were left free to enjoy their retirements in comfort and security. Read more

The Krugman Scam

/72 Comments/in , /by

Paul Krugman is one of the leading intellectuals of the Left in the United States. He writes a regular column for the New York Times, won the Nobel prize in economics in 2008, and is perhaps the single most influential social-democratic pundit in the American ruling establishment. Krugman is a (self-)righteous liberal. He sharply condemned the Iraq War during the Bush years and has continuously ridiculed those in America or Europe who oppose redistributive welfare spending to equalize outcomes or stimulus programs designed to keep the economy going through government deficit spending.

But Krugman really is extremely narrow in his center-leftism. He recently wrote on his blog that all those who supported Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton were not “serious”:

Meanwhile, the Sanders skepticism of the wonks continues: Paul Starr lays out the case. As far as I can tell, every serious progressive policy expert on either health care or financial reform who has weighed in on the primary seems to lean Hillary.

This is very strange for the more consistent kind of (overwhelmingly White) liberals who find the socialist peace activist Sanders to be much more in line with their ideals than the banker-funded warmonger Hillary Clinton. This is rather ironic given that the values of Sanders-supporting young White liberals were inculcated precisely by leftist intellectuals like Krugman, as well as Jon Stewart Liebowitz, Noam Chomsky, and Howard Zinn, among others. Read more

Far Left Center for American Progress Hosts Netanyahu, Leader of the Israeli Ethnonationalist Right

/12 Comments/in , , /by

When Israeli PM Netanyahu visited the US at the invitation of then House Speaker John Boehner in March, the take-home message was that support for Israel had become a partisan issue, with strong Republican support and relatively weak, dwindling Democrat support. Indeed, the Democrats have an analogous split between the donor class and it base that we  see among the Republicans, but for different reasons.

The Democratic Party establishment and donor class are strongly supportive of the Jewish state and are seeking to find new ways to increase U.S. military aid for Israel following the Iran deal. But recent polling shows that support for Israel among rank-and-file Democrats has fallen by 10 points in one year. A Gallup poll released this year found that fewer than half of Democrats, 48 percent, report sympathizing more with Israelis than with Palestinians as it relates to the Middle East conflict, while 83 percent of Republicans sympathize more with Israel. (John Hudson, Foreign Policy: “Netanyahu Visit Sparks Internal Backlash at Powerhouse D.C. Think Tank“

The White Republican base is more supportive of Israel (at least partly because of a large, terribly misguided Evangelical component) and thus more in tune with the donors on that issue. But it is famously out of step with the donors on social issues—immigration, gay marriage, abortion, etc. On the other hand, the Democrat base is far less supportive of Israel than the donors but, as a coalition of the ascendant non-White majority, it is entirely in step with them on social issues.

The common denominator is that in both parties the donors are substantially Jewish, and these wealthy Jews are pursuing a Jewish diaspora strategy of favoring Israel and leftist stances on social issues.

So in his recent trip to the US, in addition to dunning the Obama administration for a hefty increase in military aid in return for the US not bombing Iran (at least until the Republicans are back in charge), Netanyahu was invited to give a speech at the Center for American Progress, a powerful left-wing lobbying group. The result was that Netanyahu, dedicated to ethnonationalist policies of apartheid and ethnic cleansing vis-á-vis the Palestinians and expelling African migrants in Israel, spoke at CAP which is dedicated to the dispossession of White America via immigration and multiculturalism in the name of universal human rights and empathy for the oppressed. There were some tensions, but in the end, the strength of the Israel Lobby on the left in the US was reaffirmed — and CAP bigwigs burnished their credentials for high-level positions in a putative Hillary Clinton administration. Read more

“Unrepentant Marxist” Eric Hobsbawm Still Celebrated as Britain’s Greatest Historian

/40 Comments/in , , /by

Hobsbawm

Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm lamented, “To this day, I notice myself treating the memory and tradition of the USSR with indulgence and tenderness.”

I met up with a conservative former professor of mine, for a few rounds of drinks and some lively political conversation this past Thursday, as we do from time to time when he’s up north.

Although the good professor teaches Colonial History at a liberal British university and no doubt watches his P’s and Q’s around this particular former student, after several pints of ale and a few laughs, he’s typically quite forthright.

We touched on an array of topics over lunch, including Britain’s current immigration crisis, my ‘misguided decision’ to volunteer my services as spokesman for the British National Party, Nigel Farage’s being against maternity leave due to all the lasses he’s impregnated, and the All-Blacks incredible victory over the Aussies at last week’s Rugby World Cup Final.

As the third anniversary of Eric Hobsbawm’s death had just passed, I felt it befitting to introduce the man’s name into the conversation at some point.

After all, Marxist historian Hobsbawm had also read history at Cambridge, and in spite of his unrepentant Marxist views, is still widely regarded as Britain’s most influential historian.

“Were you aware that Eric Hobsbawm expired with almost two million quid to his name?” (1) I snickered, as I attempted to mop up wayward gravy with my third Yorkshire pudding.  Read more

Jill Soloway and the “Transgender” Agenda, Part 2

/65 Comments/in , , , /by

Part 1.

Promoting the idea of “gender fluidity”

The ideological glue that holds Jill Soloway’s Transparent together is the deconstruction of the whole concept of gender. What does it mean to be a man? What does it mean to be a woman? As one character in the show puts it, “We’re just a bunch of bodies, that’s it. No penis, no vagina, what does it matter?” According to Soloway, “The show questions the binary; trans people question the binary. Trans-ness demands that people live in the gray. The word ‘trans’ is about traveling the space between the binary. Judaism/feminism/trans politics — they can all really be woven together. Living at that ground zero place of otherness is inspiring to me.” Soloway is passionate about normalizing the concept of “gender fluidity”: Paste Magazine notes that: “In Transparent sexual identity loses its ‘statehood’ and becomes fluid, treated like an ongoing process with its own ebbs and flows.”

As Dr. Paul McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital, noted, the reality, as distinct from Soloway’s ideologically-driven fantasies, , is that far from being a normal healthy behavior, “transgenderism” is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment. Noting that changing sex is “biologically impossible,” McHugh observes that “people who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.” Read more