← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · il ragno

Thread 5537

Thread ID: 5537 | Posts: 7 | Started: 2003-03-14

Wayback Archive

il ragno [OP]

2003-03-14 02:41 | User Profile

[url=http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=3947OVERTHROW.COM]http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?arti...47OVERTHROW.COM[/url] --

[color=blue]Jonah Goldberg Beats A Straw Man Organized Jewry Favors The War, But All Jewry Favors The Destruction Of Humanity [/color]

National Review -- [Bill: Jonah Goldberg is the husband of one of John Ashcroft's senior assistants -- that factoid is important. But what is more important is this: One the one hand, we have the Jews who want to destroy the US through its support for Israel -- those are the neo-cons. On the other hand we have the Jews who want to destroy the United States through diversity and multi- culturalism and Jewish-styled "Soviet" socialism -- those are the anti-war demonstrators that the Jews recognize as "official". Left out in the crowd is the broad mass of the American population who would like to see both sets of Jews fired off of the country onboard the next rocket to the moon. International ANSWER -- the Worker's World Party -- supported the Soviet invasion of Hungary, and later, of Afghanistan. Now, it opposes the US invasion of Afghanistan. If the Soviets had invaded Iraq, it would have favoured that war, but as the US invades Iraq, it opposes that war. What is happening is that two factions of Judaism are battling it out over the best way to wreck the world. A reconciliation in America requires that both groups be removed from power so that the non-Jewish population of the United States can create communities that reflect their values.

Mr Goldberg here sets up a straw man -- that the only objection to Jews is there responsibility for this war -- but doesn't realize that what he's hitting a tar baby -- every time he mentions that people think the Jews are behind this war, he reinforces the notion that the Jews are behind this war, and sinks himself in deeper:]

[url=http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg031303.asp]http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/gol...dberg031303.asp[/url]

March 13, 2003 10:45 a.m.

Jews and War

Listening to the ugly losers.

"If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this. The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should."

To paraphrase Dickens, if that's what Jim Moran says, then Jim Moran is "a ass." Of course, few people who've followed Moran's fertile career of asininity needed to hear about this to make their mind up about that.

[Bill: Note that he starts with the ad hominem -- the attack on character, rather than the argument. Mr Moran's statements make him angry, so he first vents his anger.]

But the issue of the Jews and war is in the air these days; it's certainly in my e-mail box. It's certainly in the backroom rhetoric of Pat Buchanan and those who claim to be more conservative, more pure, more "paleo." It's a staple trope of Chris Matthews who talks about Jews in the administration the way Tailgunner Joe talked about Communists in the State Department and has dedicated countless segments of his show to the "takeover" of the GOP by the pro-Israel neoconservatives.

[Bill: Note that's interesting because the Communists in the State Department were, by and large, Jews, and -- they were real! Just like the Jewish infestation of the GOP is real!]

So let's talk about "the Jews" and "the war."

I use quotation marks because to discuss "the Jews" is already a bit of a slander. There are Jews against invading Iraq, you know? The New York Times, long considered the in-house newsletter of the Zionists, has actually been editorializing against war for quite a while, while the WASPier Washington Post has boldly gone the other way. Thomas Friedman — America's most influential pundit on Middle East affairs — favors disarming Iraq, but certainly doesn't support George Bush's method of doing it. Eric Alterman, Todd Gitlin, Michael Lerner, Tony Kushner, and Robert Reich are just a few of the Jewish noses I've counted against war with Iraq. But I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find more. Why, just look here.

[Bill: For the record: The Washington Post was bought in the 1930s by Jewish banker Eugene Meyer. Meyer's daughter, Katherine Meyer Graham, married into the Graham family. Her son, partially Jewish, now runs the Washington Post with the assistance of a predominantly Jewish staff.

Again, its not surprising that Jewish Democrats put the interests of their Jewish faction above the interests of the Jewish Republicans, but the key is that the US government -- both sides of its -- and the US media -- are dominated by Jews that hate the rest of the population of the country. Jews are bad in the Republicans and they're bad in the Democrats. Jews invented this war, and have been struggling to dominate the anti-war movement. They're causing trouble on both sides.]

You might notice from that small list that most of the Jews against war with Iraq are — surprise! — liberals. Funny thing, that. Liberals tend to be against the war and Jewish liberals tend to be against the war too. Weird.

Weirder still: Jewish conservatives tend to be in favor of the war. Now that is bizarre. And, as I look around, it dawns on me that gay conservatives tend to be in favor of forcibly disarming Saddam if necessary, while gay liberals generally insist that inspection will do the trick. And, you know, tall conservatives also favor war but tall liberals tend to be against it. My God, it's true everywhere I look: left-handed conservatives, pro-war. Left- handed liberals, antiwar. Bald conservatives: pro, bald liberals, anti. It's almost like there's a pattern here.

[Bill: He's fighting a straw man here, but he's also wrong. Note that Gentile conservatives are almost 100% united in being opposed to this war -- with the exception of those conservatives who are, as they will often tell you overtly, afraid of the Jews and Jewish power, or who have a vested interest in the success of Israeli Likud, or who receive signficant amounts of money from Jewish donors. The only gentiles who are supporting this war for reasons of their own appear to the Bush family and it immediate clique, and that seems to be more because they have backed themselves into a corner, from taking Jewish advice, from which they cannot back down, than anything else.]

Okay, I'm having fun at the expense of people who think they are being incredibly brave and manly for daring to tell the world that Jewish conservatives share a position with other conservatives. But they don't say Jewish conservatives are in favor of war, they say "the Jews" are in favor of war. They loudly invoke the hook-nosed roll call of Wolfowitz, Perle, Abrams, and — before he joined National Review — David Frum, but then they mumble and whisper through the roster of the Jews' Gentile bosses: Rumsfeld, Powell, Ashcroft, Card, Cheney, and, let's not forget, George W. Bush, scion of the famously less-than-philo-Semitic Bush clan.

[Bill: Saying that is like saying that Joseph wasn't responsible for the famine of Egypt because he had Pharoah's permission to cause it. The nature of the Jew is to insert themselves into the layer of power between the gentile rulers of the country and the workers, and to turn the rulers against the workers. They have done it since Egypt, and the only thing worse is when they have seized power themselves -- such as in Israel or the Soviet Union or pre- World War II France -- where they have invariably destroyed the land and the native people of the nation they have taken, literally committing genocide in the Israeli and Soviet examples.]

But that's what Jews are: string pullers, whisperers; clever people with clever ideas. Their loyalties aren't to Bush or America, they're to puppeteers like Bill Kristol, King of the Neoconservatives. That's why Chris Matthews could sleep with an untroubled conscience after asking a reporter about the Jews in the White House: "Are they loyal to the Kristol neoconservative movement, or to the president?" And: "Is Bill Kristol, leader of the neoconservatives….taking over the Bush White House?" ("Does the president think Cheney is an honest broker or a neoconservative….")

Let's look at my invaluable colleague and friend, David Frum. For much of last year, Chris Matthews, Pat Buchanan, Robert Novak, and others have had their dresses over their heads about the perfidious neoconservative influence Frum has had on the president. You see, Frum wrote two of the three words in the phrase "Axis of Evil," while his devout Christian boss, Mark Gerson, added the word "Evil" to the phrase and, more importantly, added the phrase to the speech the President of the United States delivered. But somehow the neocon Frum pushed the country to war, while Gerson is merely a humble Christian servant of the president. Except, the funny thing is, Frum isn't a neoconservative: He was never liberal nor Communist, he is libertarian on economics and culturally quite conservative. He is, however, a Jew and a foreign-policy hawk and he's been in the employ of The Weekly Standard: three strikes. He must be guilty, taking orders from Ariel Sharon.

[Bill: Precisely! Jonah reveals a truth there, without meaning to. It isn't that he is "neo-" or "paleo-" or "libertarian', or any one of the many other cloaks that Jews throw over themselves -- what is important is that he is a Jew, and that no matter what color of magical dreamcoat he's cloaked in, he is driven to destroy by the nature of his inner spiritual being.]

I'm sorry if I sound like I'm making too big a deal out of this — even though that's to be expected of someone named Goldberg. It's just that, you see, I'm very confused. Whenever I pay attention to the supposed keepers of the faith supposedly to my right, I hear that the Republican party has been "hijacked" by warmongering neoconservatives. I'm told that inauthentic conservatives have taken over the GOP and are dragging the real conservatives and the whole country unwittingly to war. What's confusing about this is that, according to all of the polls, the vast majority of Republicans are in favor of war and an increasing majority of Americans favor war too. The latest CBS poll has 90% of Republicans favoring war. The Washington Post/ABC poll has a mere 86% of Republicans favoring military action. If the Republican party and the nation have been hijacked, the Stockholm syndrome has kicked-in, big time.

[Bill: The nature of the worker is to follow. They follow whoever they believe is the legitimate leadership, and they conform their views to the views of the leadership caste. The Jew steps between the worker and the proper leader and distorts the view, like a prism separating light, and causes the worker to believe that the leadership caste believes other than as it does. The worker than conforms his views to a perspective that is not the perspective of the true leadership. Therefore, opinion polls are meaningless, as the majority of the population will conform to whatever belief they believe their proper leaders hold; for the majority of the population not to conform, they would have to believe that the current de facto leadership is somehow not "proper" or "legitimate", and if that were to occur, we would notice it by the rioting in the streets.]

THE LOSERS

I shouldn't be too hard on the beautiful losers — to borrow Sam Francis's half-accurate phrase for the paleos who wandered into their own exile. Almost every day, the elite media tells us that the neocons are running everything. Just this week the New York Times ran a near parody about The Weekly Standard's influence on the Bush administration, all but making the case that Baghdad will be renamed Kristolgrad in a month or so. Serious magazines and journals of opinion from across the ideological spectrum, consistently refer to conservatives who favor war as "neoconservatives" — which many unfortunately read as Jewish conservatives — despite the fact that most conservatives favor war and there's nothing inherent to neoconservatism which requires being Jewish.

[Bill: Except a history in the Trotskyist movement, or devotion to a figure who's history originated in the Trotskyist movement, and Trotsky, of course, being Lev Bronstein, in reality, ran a Jewish communist movement.]

Yes Commentary, the neocon organ published by the American Jewish Committee favors war. But Tikkun, it's Jewish opposite steadfastly opposes war. And National Review — where no Jews regularly attend editorial meetings or write editorials (or get paid what they deserve! — in my humble opinion) — favors invading. The National Interest, a realist publication if you go by what it actually says, favors toppling Saddam. Crisis, a Catholic magazine, and First Things, run by a Catholic, both lean on the pro-side of what they say would be a "just war," and many of their leading writers are far from ambiguous in defense of war. Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, Oliver North, Bill O'Reilly John O'Sullivan, Andrew Sullivan, Michael Kelly: the list of non-Jewish pro- war conservatives and conservative organizations goes on and on. Hell, Young Americans for Freedom (!) sells "Give War a Chance" buttons on their website and tramples French — not Israeli — flags at their protests. If the party was ever really hijacked, the kidnapped are now flying the plane and guarding the doors.

[Bill: And ... National Review is edited by Michael Ledeen who was the contact between the CIA and the Mossad in Iran-Contra. And ... G Gordon Liddy is one of the most slavishly pro-Israel broadcaster there is -- and broadcasts almost exclusively on Jewish owned radio stations with Jewish producers (Mel Karmazin, anyone?). Ditto for Rush Limbaugh, who broadcasts on Jewish media. And the same for Bill O'Reilly, who's network head, Rupert Mrudoch, despite probably not being Jewish, had repeatedly made the claim that he has Jewish ancestry, and is involved, along with the Rev. Sun Yung Moon, in the funding of the Israeli Likud Party (from which they profit, along with Falwell and Robertson and the rest of the Judaized Christians.) And so on and so on ... I did an entire Pravda column on Bill Buckley (who dominates Young Americans for Freedom)'s fear of world Jewry and his resulting fight with Joe Sobran. Jonah knows these things -- he is simply presenting an incomplete picture of the facts with the intent of deceiving his readers.]

But let's look outside the rarefied world of magazines and conservative organizations. Michael Kinsley offers a clever defense of Jim Moran, accurately noting that the pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC, really is very powerful. Alas, what Kinsley doesn't offer is any evidence that AIPAC has actually lobbied particularly hard in favor of war or had any notable success doing so. Maybe they have. But boldly pointing out the influence of AIPAC in defense of Moran — who claims he was talking about religious leaders, not the Israel lobby — doesn't prove the lobby actually pushed for war, does it? AARP is very powerful too, but before I dedicated a column to defending someone who says AARP is inordinately pushing this country to war, I might be tempted to find some evidence that they are. The AIPAC website, which Kinsley quotes at length, doesn't seem to be beating the war drums too loudly.

[Bill: Well, to start the evidence that Israel is pushing for war, I present the MSNBC article we just ran ...]

Also, their supposedly pliant vassals in Congress aren't so pliant when it comes to war. In 1991, when another war allegedly for the benefit of Israel and their amen corner was on the horizon, the majority of Jewish members of Congress voted against authorizing the use of force while, obviously, the majority of non-Jews voted aye. Last October, a majority of Jews did vote in favor of the use of force, but at a lower rate than the body as a whole. Funny thing about those Jews, they can get 4,000 tribesmen out of the World Trade Center in time, but they can't get them to vote for war when they need them.

[Bill: Remarkably, that is correct. Jews have much more freedom to dissent with organized Jewry than non-Jews do, becuase Jews do not view non- Jews as humans, and while they can respect differences with other Jews, they cannot tolerate any goy standing against them.]

But let me back up for a moment. I don't want to merely deny, deny, deny. Of course, there's some "there" there when it comes to Jewish conservatives and interventionist foreign policy. Buchanan & co. giggle with excitement over their brave declaration that Jewish conservatives are pro-Israel. Well, who could deny such a thing? But it's hardly as if the Perle-Wolfowitz-Kristol- Abrams crowd is only in favor of supporting Israel. These guys wanted to "bomb before breakfast" to defend the interests of the United States in such myriad and sunny locales as Grenada, Nicaragua, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, etc. Consistency should stand for something. Surely, these weren't all dry-runs for a war for Israel? I mean for a while there The Weekly Standard seemed to be getting beer muscles for a fight with China. Someone needs to explain to me why that would be a good idea for Israel — or for America for that matter. (It's a good thing the Standard's influence over the administration then wasn't so total as it is today).

[Bill: Again, precisely. Jews want to destroy America. Some want America to become so spread out it collapses, and some want America to collapse from the inside. But all Jewish ideas, as we document here daily, are nutty and destructive. All of them! "Libertarian (Party) ism", "neo- Conservativism", "liberalism", "communism", et cetera ...]

I don't dispute that Jewish-American conservatives might see the world a bit differently than, say, Irish-American ones. As Edmund Burke said, example is the school of mankind and they will learn at no other. Jews have learned from the example of the Holocaust that turning your back on evil only abets evil. That's Eli Weisel's argument, but he's just a Jew. Of course, Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel see it the same way.

[Bill: Of course, there was no Holocaust. There was simply a dispossession of Jewish money changers, bankers and real estate speculators that caused the worldwide Jewish press to lie and claim that Jews were being murdered -- and in response to those lies, and to the war those lies caused, there were incidents of violent retribution.]

I think it's totally fair to point out that the Holocaust and the plight of Israel feeds into Jewish thinking about politics. Tragically, in my mind, Holocaust victimology has made too many Jews dismayingly liberal. But for the conservatives, it's made them hawkish. Hawkish in the defense of American principles and interests. That Jewish conservatives see the only democracy in the Middle East as something worth protecting shouldn't shock anyone. And it's perfectly fair to argue that some Jewish (and non-Jewish) conservatives overemphasize the importance of Israel (I await the cries of pacifism from Chris Matthews when Ireland is invaded). I'm not necessarily making that charge, but I think it's certainly an arguable proposition.

[Bill: So many lies there its ridiculous, but to start, Israel is not a democracy. It's a Jew-ocracy. Jews have rights; no one else does. And, further, Jews believe that only they have the right to a nation with those rights, and that no one else does, either.]

But maybe instead of Richard Perle secretly receiving orders from Ariel Sharon, he might actually believe what he says. After all, if the "Dark Prince" thinks it's in America's interest to risk American blood and treasure in defense of our Taiwanese or South Korean allies, is it so treasonous that he might think we should do it for our Israeli ones as well? Apparently so, according to Buchanan. He claims that Perle & co. are "colluding with Israel" at the expense of the United States. Funny how he whimpers about "neocon smears" but has no trouble charging treason.

[Bill: Which is, of course, why Perle started that corporation ...]

Anyway, one wonders how this is supposed to work. "Neocons" are supposed to have one set of motives for war, which they keep secret, but they persuade the president, the vice president, the entire Cabinet, Tom Delay, Denny Hastert (not to mention Dick Gephardt and Tony Blair), the Republican party, the conservative establishment and the majority of American citizens with an entirely separate set of arguments? I know Jews are expert manipulators, but presumably they cannot create a whole separate case of facts. And, one hopes, our leaders are persuaded by the facts as they see them not the Jedi mind- tricks of some cosmopolitan scribblers who eat smoked fish on Sundays.

[Bill: It is not the arguments that persuade the President. It is the money, the media, and the political power. The arguments are just bullshit wrapped around the political situation.]

But even if they — "we," I suppose — could manage this, would it matter? In a democratic system, private motives matter much less than public arguments. Nobody has been saying publicly, "Let's do it for Israel!" I haven't. No one at NR or NRO has. No Republican has. So presumably, the public hasn't been persuaded by that argument because nobody has made it. The case for war is a long checklist which includes, strategic, moral, economic, and political rationales. We've debated those rationales for a very long time now and one side has lost.

Bill: Again, precisely. The public is persuaded because they think it is what their legitimate leaders want, and because the Jewish owned media spreads stupid scare stories treating these fairy tales about the danger of Iraq seriously. If the public understood that this is a war that Jews want, and no one else did, they would immediately turn against it, and as they are coming to understand that, they are turning against it. And it is fear of what is occurring that is causing the Goldberg's of the world to twitter like this.]

Sure, Jim Moran might be right. If the "Jewish Community" were more opposed to this war, it might not happen. But that's not because the Jews are pushing this war. Rather, it's because the moral arguments are such that Jewish Americans are persuaded like most everyone else, ideological differences notwithstanding, by the president's case. A rising moral tide lifts all boats, even Jewish ones. Though I would bet that support for this war is stronger among Republicans generally than it is among Jews generally.

[Bill: Of course! That's it! If the Jewish community were to oppose this war, it would only be because "America" was opposing this war, because Jews just follow the direction that "America" follows. Well, here's a question -- if that's true, why is it that no nation that is not run by Jews or bribed with Jewish/"American" money or power is supporting this war?]

And that's why Moran, Buchanan, Matthews, Novak — and more leftists than I can count — should be ashamed. They've lost an argument. They lost it on the merits and they don't like it. In their arrogance or bitterness, they assume they couldn't have lost the fight fairly, and so they look for whispering neocons and clever Jews (or, in other contexts, nefarious oil traders). This is an ugly, ugly way to argue because it forces the opposition to prove a negative and it questions the patriotism of people who've never said an unpatriotic thing. In short, they are sore losers, and the farthest thing from beautiful.

[Bill: They lost the argument just like God "lost" his argument with the Rabbi. Outsmarted by those darn Jews. But here's a question -- if they Jews have "won" the argument, why are they so worried they have to print columns like this one?]

Buchanan

2003-03-14 14:18 | User Profile

What a bunch of long winded garbage. What in the world does all this nonsense mean?

Hugh Lincoln

2003-03-14 19:43 | User Profile

It means Goldberg, like all his Jewish brothers, can't actually refute the fact of Jewish influence over American foreign policy, so he's reduced to calling us "ugly losers" while tepidly admitting that there's some "there there."

Deny, admit a little, defuse, confuse, point here, point there, who, me? Us Jews? Us simple little Jews? We, we are doing this? What, what are you saying? Listen to you! Look over there! No, over there! OK, you got us --- we're rich and clever! But rule the world? What is this craziness?

Oy! Call your mother.

Okiereddust

2003-03-15 02:10 | User Profile

Originally posted by Hugh Lincoln@Mar 14 2003, 19:43 **Deny, admit a little, defuse, confuse, point here, point there, who, me?  Us Jews?  Us simple little Jews?  We, we are doing this?  What, what are you saying?  Listen to you!  Look over there!  No, over there! OK, you got us --- we're rich and clever!  But rule the world?  What is this craziness?

Oy!  Call your mother.**

Yup, this is just typical Goldberg's brand of neocon dissembling. I'm just reminded of that old cartoon of Brehznev dressed up like a gangster, surrounded by his henchmen carrying violin cases.

"A Jewish criminal orginization to control American politics? Like the Mafia? Well that's ridiculous. Ain't that right boys?" :rolleyes:

Phillip Augustus

2003-03-15 04:15 | User Profile

If I am not mistaken, Sam Francis did not use the phrase 'beautiful losers' to describe self-described paleos who walked into exile. Rather, the phrase refers to Republicans who sing the praises of a diverse America as a propositional nation, and, who, in doing so, guarantee the eventual extinction of the GOP (or at best a permanent leftward shift to account for the new electorate).

Antiyuppie- good to see you back over here. :)

Buchanan

2003-03-16 01:17 | User Profile

Lighten up dudes. Y'all need to kick back with a brew and some nude negro females. CHILL OUT>

Sertorius

2003-03-16 01:23 | User Profile

Buchanan,

You have that wrong. It is Goldberg who needs to lighten up. Writing trash like the above will only help convince the lemmings that those of us who point this out are correct.

I hope that all these Neo-con fools succeed in overloading their mouths with this. :D

It is good to see you reading the material in this folder. This is how one learns about these matters.