Conspicuous Compassion: Liberals, Lunacy and Mass Mutilation

/2 Comments/in /by

The Guardian has been performing a key liberal ritual: gazing adoringly into a mirror. Narcissism is central to liberalism and nothing is more gratifying to liberals than a chance to display their Conspicuous Compassion and Concern for Oppressed Minorities:

Today, on the UN’s first day of Zero Tolerance on FGM [Female Genital Mutilation], the Guardian is launching a national and international campaign to end FGM. We are not the first to try. There are ministers in government – Jane Ellison at the Department of Health and Lynne Featherstone at International Development – who have prioritised action. The efforts of others – in London, Glasgow, Manchester, Cardiff and Birmingham – are slowly bringing greater recognition of the problem. But too many young girls – perhaps 20,000, the daughters of mothers who have themselves been cut – remain at risk. After discussions with campaigners and among communities where it is practised, it became clear that an education programme delivered through every school in the country could provide the breakthrough in cultural attitudes that could make a real difference. We want everyone to be aware that FGM is illegal. We want potential victims – and parents who are perhaps under pressure from family elders – to know there are people and organisations ready to offer support. (Female genital mutilation: end it, Editorial in The Guardian, 5th February 2014)

Read more

Abe Foxman’s Retirement: A TOO Retrospective, Part 2

/4 Comments/in , /by

Part 1.

The Canard Strategy. Foxman loves to silence his opponents by simply saying that they are resorting to canards. Andrew Joyce began his article “Justice Denied: Thoughts on Truth, “canards,” and the Marc Rich Case” by noting:

One of the most intriguing features of the posturing of the Anti-Defamation League, and other Jewish ethnic activist organizations, is their frequent discussion of what they call ‘canards.’ There are, I am informed, many ‘canards’ ranging from allegations that ‘the Jews’ killed God and mutilated communion wafers, to allegations that Jews control the media and have inordinate influence in the areas of culture and politics. … It was apparent to me that the question of whether Jews were supernatural ‘demons,’ and the question of Jewish over-representation in the media or at elite universities, were clearly worlds apart — the former simply ridiculous and the latter capable of being empirically examined and, at least in theory, logically and rationally discussed. …

Over time, organizations such as the ADL have come to jealously guard this list [of canards], and ‘canard’ has in fact achieved the remarkable feat of acting like a magic word — capable on deployment of making even the most blatant Jewish misdemeanor disappear. Take for example American Jews, who are no more ‘loyal’ to Israel than a Chinaman — because to suggest otherwise would be to employ the ‘canard’ of ‘dual loyalty.’ Likewise, Jews have an unblemished record when it comes to matters financial — because to say otherwise would be to employ the ‘canard’ of the greedy or untrustworthy Jew. Palestinian children never fall victim to Israeli incendiary devices — because to say otherwise would be to employ the ‘canard’ of the ‘Blood Libel.’

A good example of Foxman using the canard strategy related to dual loyalty was his reaction to a Huffpo article that attributed Sen. Bob Menendez’s attempt to undermine the Obama administration’s Iran policy to AIPAC influence.  Now one might think that the matter of AIPAC influence would be obvious or at least a strong possibility for a senator who received $340,000 from AIPAC (more than any other candidate in the 2012 election cycle), but Foxman sees nothing but a canard:

Whether done intentionally or not, it is deeply troubling to see how easily even a well-respected mainstream media outlet like the Huffington Post can fail to see the ugly stereotype projected when the language of “sabotage” is combined with the image of an identifiably American Jewish organization known for its effectiveness in promoting U.S. political support for Israel. The charge of dual loyalty leveled against Jews has, for centuries, been a catalyst for scapegoating and vilifying Jews. It has no legitimate place in our society.

But it’s an effective strategy:

The result of this strategy is that legitimate discussions of Jewish influence and dual loyalty are off limits under pain of being charged with “anti-Semitism.” Foxman’s tactic, very familiar by now, is to argue that somehow the fact that Jews have been charged with dual loyalty and power over governments over the centuries logically implies that any current suggestion of dual loyalty and influence by Jews could not possibly have any empirical basis—that such charges are automatically nothing more than scapegoating. …

The common sense of it is just the opposite: If over the centuries Jewish groups in widely separated times and places have often been seen as influencing governments to pursue policies beneficial to Jews but not necessarily the rest of society and as more loyal to Jews in other societies than to the wider society they live in, the obvious suggestion is that these are real patterns, as indeed they are (see here, p. 38ff on Jews as an influential elite and p. 60ff for the pattern of dual loyalty; it’s interesting that the first examples of both of these “canards” may be found in the Book of Exodus). …

The charge of “age-old anti-Semitic canards” cuts off any rational, empirically based debate before it can start, which is exactly what the ADL wants. The charges themselves are portrayed as nothing but irrational anti-Semitism reflecting a medieval mindset. No need to discuss the evidence. (“The Canard Strategy in Service of War with Iran“)

The canard strategy was also on display in the wake of the financial meltdown:

It’s well known that when the financial meltdown first hit, the ADL was concerned about “a dramatic upsurge” in anti-Jewish messages on Internet discussion boards devoted to finance and the economy in reaction to the huge bailout of Wall Street. The ADL press release is predictable in its attempt to characterize such outbursts as irrational hatred against Jews: Abe Foxman complained darkly that in times of economic downturns, ”The age-old canards … about Jews and money are always just beneath the surface.” (“Jews Embarrassed by Jews: Slumlords — and Goldman Sachs“) Read more

Abe Foxman’s Retirement: A TOO Retrospective, Part 1

/5 Comments/in , /by

Abe Foxman is retiring from the ADL as of July, 2015. He’s had a very successful career pursuing Jewish interests, from unqualified support for Israel to strictly enforcing the ban on assertions of White identity and interests. The ADL is an 800-lb. gorilla of American politics and culture, pulling in $53 million in 2011; his salary of $688,188 should ensure him a comfortable retirement.

Since our beginnings in 2008,  TOO has posted 68 articles mentioning Foxman, so perhaps a retrospective is in order.  The vast majority of our comments relate to statements and actions of Foxman and the ADL that get reported in the media, thereby ignoring the many important programs that continue whirring in the background, such as holocaust education, making alliances with Latinos and other non-White groups, promoting diversity education (CLASSROOM OF DIFFERENCE™), etc. Still, the record as seen in TOO is a good summary of the tactics Foxman has used to advance Jewish interests, often at the expense of White America.

Hypocrisy. Paul Gottfried called attention to Foxman’s hypocrisy in a book of essays reviewed on TOO — “the idea that Israel must be a Jewish state, while having no sympathy for the idea that America should be defined as a White, Christian republic.”

Foxman’s hypocrisy was also front and center in an article titled “Shocker! Abe Foxman is a hypocrite.” Discussing the  mostly ill-fated Arizona law on illegal immigrants (also discussed here), Foxman said it was “biased, bigoted and unconstitutional.” When asked about how to reconcile this with Israel’s successful policy of getting rid of illegal immigrants, Foxman didn’t see a problem: “Well, in terms of size and dimension Israel is nowhere near the U.S.”

Wow, great news for small, traditionally White countries like Norway, Switzerland, and New Zealand! Foxman has doubtless pressured the powerful Jewish communities in these countries to oppose immigration so that they can retain their traditional White ethnic and cultural character.

And if you believe that, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.

Similarly, an article on Dutch politician Geert Wilders noted that “Abe Foxman is incensed at Wilders’ failure to agree with both prongs of the Jewish strategy, loving multiculturalism at home and Israel abroad [quoting Foxman]: “It’s akin to the evangelical Christians. … On one hand they loved and embraced Israel. But on the other hand, we were not comfortable with their social or religious agenda” (Geert Wilders’ Unrequited Love“). Read more

Deluded and Dangerous: Auster’s Insight Ten Years On

/in /by

Christopher Hitchens was a sociable extrovert who worshiped Leon Trotsky and wrote with all the grace, delicacy and intelligence of a bomb-delivery by the neo-cons. Naturally enough, when he died in 2011 he was honoured around the world in the mainstream media. Larry Auster was a prickly introvert who converted to Christianity and wrote with clarity, vigour and insight. Naturally enough, when he died in 2013 he was ignored by the mainstream media. Hitchens devoted his life to the pursuit of fame; Auster devoted his to the pursuit of understanding. Both men found what they sought. This is Auster writing a decade ago on the roots of multi-culturalism and mass immigration:

Just the other week I was telling a secular, leftist Jew of my acquaintance, a man in his late sixties, about my idea that the only way to make ourselves safe from the specter of domestic Moslem terrorism is to deport all jihad-supporting Moslems from this country. He replied with emotion that if America deported Moslem fundamentalists, it would immediately start doing the same thing to Jews as well. “It’s frightening, it’s scary,” he said heatedly, as if the Jews were already on the verge of being rounded up. In the eyes of this normally phlegmatic and easy-going man, America is just a shout away from the mass persecution, detention, and even physical expulsion of Jews. Given the wildly overwrought suspicions that some Jews harbor about the American Christian majority who are in fact the Jews’ best friends in the world, it is not surprising that these Jews look at mass Third-World and Moslem immigration, not as a danger to themselves, but as the ultimate guarantor of their own safety, hoping that in a racially diversified, de-Christianized America, the waning majority culture will lack the power, even if it still has the desire, to persecute Jews. (Why Jews Welcome Muslims, Front Page Magazine, 22nd June, 2004) Read more

Review of “Dark Albion” by David Abbott

/3 Comments/in , , /by

Dark Albion
by David Abbott
Sparrow Book Publishers,  £10

There is a long and distinguished tradition of travel books by English authors  such as Patrick Leigh Fermor and Colin Thubron who travelled to exotic and  distant lands and tell of the strange ways of the people who lived there.

It is into this category that Dark Albion — A requiem for the English by David Abbott falls but this native South Londoner has not had to make much of a journey to find himself a stranger in a strange land. Instead he has just had to step outside the door of his house in the London borough of Greenwich and walk around and see how  the streets he grew up in have been utterly transformed by the largest wave of immigration that has ever hit our shores.

This is a story that could be told time and again in communities across England. It is the story of the gradual dispossession of the native English without public debate, without permission, without a shot being fired.

It is a howl of anger from a south London resident outraged at the betrayal of his people by their own elites. Read more

Laura Ingraham KO’s George Will in Amnesty Debate on “FNS”, 2/9/2014

/1 Comment/in , /by

Well, it was awesome to watch: on Fox News Sunday’s February 9th show, the fight card matched up the (normally) well-spoken Pulitzer-prize-winning-columnist, baseball aficionado, political philosopher “Gentleman George” Will against the attractive, blonde, recent-Catholic-convert and brawler Laura Ingraham, the talk-radio host, author, Fox News commentator, and frequent (and often Traditionalist-sounding) fill-in for Conservatism Inc.’s CEO, Bill O’Reilly. The subject: amnesty. Will was bloodied and bowed — sprawled on the mat, and unable to get up, by the end of the go-round on the panel segment.

From his corner, the (typically) articulate Will came out swinging, though a bit wildly, stating the “national interest…is in considerable more immigration.” Ingraham was not thrown off her game by this nonsense from the new Wise Man of Fox, the man who gets even more deference from his coworkers than the House Rabbi at FNC, Charles “I Never Met a War That Might Benefit Israel I Didn’t Like” Krauthammer. (Krauthammer, of course, is a dark, morose, wheelchair-bound former doctor who, very possibly, paralyzed himself after drinking and/or drugging, when he skipped class at Harvard Medical School one day with a friend, to enjoy a spring day in Boston in the early ‘70’s, returned to campus, and – instead of taking a shower, decided to cool off by… diving into a swimming pool.) (?!?)

It was unfortunate that when host Chris (Jewish ethno-nepotism-beneficiary) Wallace read an excerpt from the Wall Street Journal’s recent editorial bemoaning Boehner’s “retreat,” which it said would just mean 11 million illegals continuing to work with fake documents, Ingraham did not bring up the fact that the e-Verify system is still not mandated to be used by all US employers! But, she cleaned Will’s clock, all the same. Boy, did she ever! Read more

Victoria Nuland’s family ties: The Permanent Government in action

/6 Comments/in , /by

Intertwined Jewish power families are an important aspect of Jewish history, cementing business relationships by creating networks of close relatives who married only among themselves—e.g., the Court Jews of 17th- and 18th-century Europe (see here, pp 150-152).  We see echoes of that in the contemporary world, as among the neocons.

As with the other Jewish intellectual movements I have studied, neoconservatives have a history of mutual admiration, close, mutually supportive personal, professional, and familial relationships, and focused cooperation in pursuit of common goals. For example, Norman Podhoretz, the former editor of Commentary, is the father of John Podhoretz, a neoconservative editor and columnist. Norman Podhoretz is also the father-in-law of Elliott Abrams, the former head of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (a neoconservative think tank) and the director of Near Eastern affairs at the National Security Council. Norman’s wife, Midge Decter, recently published a hagiographic biography of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, whose number-two and number-three deputies at the Pentagon, respectively, are Wolfowitz and Feith. Perle is a fellow at the AEI. He originally helped Wolfowitz obtain a job with the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency in 1973. In 1982, Perle, as Deputy Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, hired Feith for a position as his Special Counsel, and then as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Negotiations Policy. In 2001, Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz helped Feith obtain an appointment as Undersecretary for Policy. Feith then appointed Perle as chairman of the Defense Policy Board. This is only the tip of a very large iceberg. “Neoconservatism as a Jewish movement” (p. 32)
Ethnic networking and ties cemented by marriage are on display in the flap over Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland’s phone conversation with Geoffrey Pyatt, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine. As VDARE’s Steve Sailer puts it, Nuland is a member of
a talented, energetic [Jewish] family that is part of the Permanent Government of the United States. It doesn’t really matter who wins the Presidential election: some Kagan-Nuland will be doing something somewhere in your name and on your dime.
The Kagan connection is via her husband, Robert Kagan. As noted by Your Lying Eyes, “Robert and brother Fred seem to have strategically implanted themselves in key policy-making positions within the Democratic and Republican party apparatus. Robert is embedded at Brookings, while Fred is ensconsed at AEI.”
So we have another Jewish neocon family tree, beginning with Donald Kagan, a Yale historian whose history of the Peloponnesia War has been used by neocons as a rationale for invasions of countries Israel doesn’t like (see Sailer). Donald Kagan was also a signatory to a 2002 letter to George W. Bush put out by Bill Kristol’s Project for the New American Century (PNAC) equating threats to Israel (Iran, Syria, Iraq) with threats to the U.S.
The next generation, Fred Kagan (American Enterprise Institute) and Robert Kagan (Brookings) are neocon stalwarts as well. (E.g., Donald, Robert and Frederick are all signatories to the neocon manifesto, Rebuilding America’s Defenses (2000), put out by PNAC.)   They and their wives, are all graduates of elite universities and well entrenched in the neocon thinktank/government infrastructure. Fred’s wife Kimberly (nee Kessler) is the head of the Institute for the Study of War and holds typical neocon positions.
And although U.S. policy toward Ukraine likely stems from other issues besides the neocon hostility toward Russia (the latter due to issues such as Putin’s crackdown on the oligarchs and Russia’s support of Israel’s enemies, Iran and Syria), there be little doubt that Nuland’s energetic support of the pro-EU opposition to the Yanukovych government dovetails with the attitudes of her neocon network. Our Permanent Government at work.