← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Centinel
Thread ID: 9165 | Posts: 21 | Started: 2003-08-20
2003-08-20 05:28 | User Profile
From WorldNetDaily, available online at: [url=http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34181]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=34181[/url]
Foaming at the mouth over Israel
By Ilana Mercer August 20, 2003
"Libertarians Who Loathe Israel" continued to generate a stream of fascinating letters throughout the week. These generally confirmed the column's thesis. Part of the hostility so many libertarians harbor toward Israel, as historian Paul Gottfried points out, has to do with an unfortunate guilt by association: Libertarian animus against neoconservatives has translated into revulsion for Israel because so many prominent neoconservatives are pro-Israel Jews.
But the emphasis by these libertarians on myth-history and conspiracy to describe all matters Israel suggests an irrational belief system where "the Zionists" are seen as the root of all evil. A case in point is the libertarian Justin Raimondo. More about him later.
Meanwhile, one particular paragraph in "Libertarians Who Loathe Israel" caused another libertarian scribe, Sheldon Richman, considerable apoplexy, eliciting some strange interpretations. I wrote:
*I understand that libertarians like Sheldon Richman (and the Holocaust-denying Institute for Historical Review) believe, mistakenly, that all "the land" belongs to the Arabs. *
To begin with, and for some unreason, Richman decided that the phrase "I understand" was an expression of uncertainly on my part: "By writing 'I understand,' Mercer was declaring that she had not confirmed what she was about to say," he writes in a bizarre retort published by WorldNetDaily. I was, he asserts, unsure about his position on Israel in "Cant and the Middle East" and was hazarding a guess.
Is that the only use of the expression "I understand" Richman is willing to entertain or allow? In English (perhaps not in American English), and certainly in this paragraph, it is an expression of sarcastic condescension.
To observe such typical American literary chauvinism in a person who spends his days decrying (as he should) all other forms of American chauvinism is amusing, to say the least.
"Cant and the Middle East," however, gave me a perfectly good grasp of Richman's position on Israel. Here's what I "understand," and what readers will now also "understand":
While Richman would probably be the first to argue that a religious claim to the land of Israel is not a valid claim, he nevertheless invokes in the article a religious, ultra-orthodox, superstitious view to attenuate the Jews' claim to the "land." (Richman does not define "the land," but expects his readers, myself included, to divine what he meant when he states generically that, "In candid moments, Israeli military leaders acknowledged that the land belonged to the Arabs." WorldNetDaily gave Richman the opportunity to clarify his stand on "the land," but rather than do so, he, yet again, opted to leave it vague, piercing the fog with no more than a non-committal: "The reader can judge for himself whether I believe that all the land belongs to the Arabs.")
I understand ââ¬â and anyone reading "Cant and the Middle East" will understand ââ¬â that Sheldon Richman holds Israelis responsible for being the region's aggressors. The Jews declared war on the Arabs, he sweepingly declares, when they established a state in their ancient homeland. If not for this so-called war by Jews on Arabs, it would have never occurred to the genial Arabs to hate Jews.
Not a word from Mr. Richman about the largely dismal fate of the Dhimmi (infidel, but mainly Jew) in the Arab world before Zionism. True, the depredation suffered by Jews in Arab countries and in Israel at the hands of Muslims was not as bad as that suffered at the hands of the crusaders, but the fallacy of Muslim fondness for Jews remains just that, a fallacy.
Richman further explains: "As my orthodox grandfather taught me, the relationship between the two communities deteriorated when Judaism was transformed (by secular Jews) into a political movement." He is referring to Zionism: the national, cultural, spiritual and political revival of the Jewish people.
Richman's critique of this revival comes from an ultra-religious fringe position (when it comes to Israel, Richman is seemingly fond of those), held by a small and unhealthy Jewish minority.
Again: The position of Richman, taught to him by his grandfather, namely that the transformation of Judaism into a political movement was a blight rather than a blessing, is the stance of an aberrant Judaism. It developed in the context of the persecution and trauma of the Diaspora, which allowed a coercive rabbinic establishment (still plaguing Israel) to distort the true ââ¬â and nationalistic ââ¬â nature of the Hebrew civilization.
The belief system Richman invokes in support of his disdain for the political expression of Hebrew civilization, namely a national revival in the land of Israel, arose when Judaism began departing from its rational roots at the end of the 15th century.
Shmuel Ben Yizhak, the classical-liberal (Hayekian) Jewish scholar, has termed this period the "Jewish Dark Ages." These produced "a sterile and repressive Rabbinic Judaism in total contrast with the intellectual and spiritual development during the preceding 2,700 years."
The "Jewish Dark Ages" saw the emergence and incorporation into the faith of mystic, irrational and pagan ideas, which were decidedly non-Hebraic in origins. Around that time, we also witnessed the appearance of Lurianic Cabala (popular with Madonna and many Hollywood phonies), the false-messiah phenomenon and the Hasidim who are preoccupied with esoteric mysticism.
According to this ritualistic, anti-life tradition, espoused mainly by the ultra-orthodox, settling in Israel and speaking Hebrew is heretic. To ensure messiah comes (often referred to as the longest coming in history), the Jew had to remain weak, dispossessed and persecuted ââ¬â a sickly spirit without a body.
During the Nazi Holocaust, the rabbinic establishment actively opposed the Zionists, who urged Jews to depart for Israel. Better to brave the unknown than to die like sheep, the latter said. But to many rabbis, going to the slaughter was preferable to the heresy of settling the Holy Land before messiah deigned to give the go-ahead.
Why would an otherwise-rational libertarian galvanize this aberrant, illogical and life-loathing fringe Judaism for his case against the "political movement" that is Zionism?
In a deviant, morally inverse sense, Richman has a point when he blames Zionism for the deterioration of "the relationship between the two communities." Richman's column, remember, appears to suggest that prior to the re-settlement of Israel, Jews and Arabs lived in tolerance together. Oddly enough, the Jews ââ¬â also the real pacifists (which is how so many people evidently prefer them) at the time ââ¬â did not have such a tolerable time, not by any "objective historical account."
The brutality began not with Zionism. "Whatever reigning power after the Arab conquest, whoever the conqueror," notes Joan Peters in "From Time Immemorial," "the attitude of its Muslims toward unbelievers, and the infidel's subjugation, reinforced by terrorizing, were never abandoned in the Holy Land." Historical records attest to a life punctured with "periodic slaughter and persecution" well before Zionism.
Richman is correct ââ¬â the Zionists did change the status quo in the Middle East: After centuries of doing the Christian thing and turning the other cheek, Jews began to fight back.
The Institute for Historical Review
Richman takes umbrage over my deployment in "Libertarians Who Loathe Israel" of a perfectly legitimate literary device to illustrate his extremist position on Israel. In yet another bit of textual chauvinism, he has decided that other than to "smear" him and call him a Holocaust denier, there was no reason to invoke the Institute for Historical Review. This is worse than weak. I said that Richman's views on the "land" (not the Holocaust) conjure theirs.
The IHR is not only devoted to Holocaust revisionism, although this is their forte (why, it even tucks some legitimate stuff amidst the nutty material). Under "Conspiracy, Communism and Zionism," there are works that comport well with the kind of singularly pro-Palestinian propaganda evinced, in my opinion, by Richman. Considering that Richman wrote that "the land belonged to the Arabs," would he object to the "storyline" in "Conquest Through Immigration: How Zionism Turned Palestine Into a Jewish State"? Let the reader be the judge, as Richman is fond of saying.
In invoking the IHR, was I saying that Richman's views on Israel are radical? You bet. Am I intimating that he shares these historically creative views with intellectual crackpots? Yes again. Although Richman would like to be able to decide how a writer drives home a point, invoking the IHR, which sports titles that are not inimical to Richman's column, is perfectly legitimate.
If, however, Richman finds himself in bad company, then there's always Yasser Arafat. He has done a lot to promote the myth that things went swimmingly (exaggeration alert for the literary hegemon among us) in Israel until Jews became committed to national self-determination in their ancient homeland. Is it my doing that Richman shares a fondness for myth-history with Arafat?
By the way, I've had the odd exchange with Mark Weber, director of the IHR. He is a pleasant and polite fellow, which is more than I can say about Justin Raimondo. It would no more occur to me to accuse Weber of anti-Semitism than it would cross my mind to so accuse Richman (or Raimondo), although being Jewish doesn't inoculate one against this phenomenon.
I care not a whit who hates whom. I think it's atrocious to attempt to coerce people into liking, hiring or renting against their will. I do care about standards of truth and honest inquiry. Weber's promotion of myth and conspiracy under the guise of scholarship strikes me as hostile to the truth, as does Richman's perspective on Israel.
If anything, Raimondo and Richman are being evasive in their refusal to explain the rationale behind their one-sided and singularly pro-Palestinian perspective. Their added attempt to dictate to me which pool of crackpots is a legitimate source of simile is whiny and won't wash.
I'm glad Richman resents being mentioned in the same breath with what Raimondo calls "the nutball Institute for Hysterical Review." Given Richman's vocal protestations at the mere mention of the IHR in connection with his views on Israel, I am presuming that his own publication in the Journal of Historical Review, Volume 18, No. 1 (January-February, 1999), p. 36. is in all likelihood an unauthorized reprint. But I can't be sure.
**Matchmaking Raimondo style: "Mercer, Meet David Frum" **
That Raimondo intimates that I'm an ideological ally of David Frum (he must mean a neoconservative) shows he says stuff for the sake of it. He never bothers to see if his fanciful fluff stands scrutiny.
Indeed, it doesn't often happen to me, but in the case of Raimondo, I've mistaken style for substance. Reading through Raimondo's fit of pique (see his "Note in the Margin" near the bottom), it is quite clear he conceals his inability to address an argument, much less to interpret text or understand an analogy, with flamboyant flare.
He certainly is unaware of what Prof. Paul Gottfried referred to as my "acidic" essay about Frum's "bad manners."
I appreciate Raimondo looking for an ideological home for me, but it may prove a little more exacting than his abstraction capabilities allow. Unless neoconservatives have stopped promoting porous borders and global military gallivanting; unless they've quit bleeding all over the floor for Martin Luther King and the religion of multiculturalism; unless they've pledged allegiance to States Rights' and radical decentralization, I can't see myself remaining more than persona non grata in that cave.
But then, most readers ââ¬â except for Raimondo's few followers who lap up his baseless bunk ââ¬â already knew that.
Raimondo and the Pygmies
I compared Palestinians to Pygmy savages, Raimondo yelps, demonstrating that he might have serious difficulties with one of those IQ tests that demand an ability to distill relationships between entities. Here is the relationship that got some verbal vim in "Libertarians Who Loathe Israel":
The PA has no economy.
Israel has an economy.
Israel has no economic need to trade with an entity with no economy.
So as not to bore my readers stiff, I said: "Israel needs the economic powerhouse that is the PA like China needs trade with a tribe of rain-forest-dwelling Pygmies." Nowhere did I say that Palestinians are Pygmy savages.
If Raimondo had the level of abstraction required to cope with an IQ test, he would have seen the variable being operationalized is economic interdependence ââ¬â the need Israel has for the PA's economy is like the economic need China has for a tribe of Pygmies (bless their little souls and all that stuff). This doesn't imply Palestinians are like Pygmies ââ¬â or that Israel is like China.
It's unfortunate that with a yapping poodle like Raimondo one has to expend energy on his textual difficulties. So I needn't explain why I allegedly "likened the denial of Israeli land claims to holocaust denial." I just didn't! See for yourself. Also see the above reply to Richman's textual Teutonicism (no insults to Teutons intended ââ¬â it's just my expression, for heaven's sake).
Foreign aid
When it comes to foreign aid, Raimondo confirms my contention that in their irrational hate for Israel, many libertarians set aside their free-market economics ââ¬â he invokes the free market only when it suits his aims. As I wrote, these libertarians forget that:
Foreign aid, like welfare, exacerbates the problems it is supposed to ameliorate. As a government-to-government transfer, foreign aid serves to entrench and grow the bureaucracy and the public sector in general at the expense of the taxpayer and the private productive economy. A free-market proponent ought to know that American aid, if anything, retards Israel's progress ââ¬Â¦ In the absence of U.S. loans and cash grants, she would be forced to economize. Capital, including the billions in private voluntary Jewish donations, will be channeled to its best use and will flow to where it is most productive.
In the absence of aid, Israel would spend less on the military, and retain only what is necessary for her safety. It is thus incorrect to categorically claim, as Raimondo does, that without American aid to Israel (why is it that people like Raimondo fail to mention American aid to Arab nations?), Israel would collapse.
Although this is an academic point, Raimondo wouldn't ââ¬â or couldn't ââ¬â counter. Instead, his gabble posits that without foreign aid Israel would collapse because it would maintain the same level of militarization no matter the costs. According to Raimondo, even without aid, Israel would sooner spend herself into oblivion than become militarily more focused and efficient, i.e., rather than act rationally, Israel would always act irrationally.
So much for argument. Clearly, Raimondo's intractable positions on Israel arise in the context of extreme ideation.
The fence
Once again, hyperventilating prose masks wild and woolly inferences in Raimondo's "Wall" analysis. Raimondo (again, see his "Note in the Margin" near the bottom of his column) takes my claim that there is nothing wrong with erecting a defensive fence to be an endorsement of land appropriation by the Israelis during the construction of the fence. An innocent failure to address an issue, Raimondo takes as an endorsement of an injustice.
I was very plainly defending the idea of a mechanical barrier. To the extent that property has unjustly been incorporated en route, this must be remedied. If the Israelis don't fix the property injustices Raimondo alleges, then I share his outrage. So long as property is not appropriated without consent and just compensation, there is nothing immoral about a well-enforced border, both during peacetime and in war.
Raimondo had waxed wobbly about the interdependence between the Palestinians and the Israelis, an interdependence that'll leap over walls and conquer all. This effervescence, I pointed out, is a romanticized version of the free market.
When I stated that just as "the United States can do without the hordes of Mexicans streaming across the borders, so too can Israel do without Palestinian cheap labor if the dangers of an open border exceed the benefits," I was not drawing an analogy between the Mexican-U.S. and the Israeli-PA political situations. I was stating what I believe to be the truth about the dilemma of free trade vs. unfettered movement of people across borders which so fractures the libertarian community.
That "open borders are not a prerequisite for free trade" is true, in my opinion, across situations. Yet the cunning Raimondo insisted that I was drawing an incorrect analogy between the two situations and jumped up and down crying foul: "Mercer's U.S.-Mexico analogy would work only if America was at war with Mexico," he crowed. The man is shoddy: He finds it easier to distort his opponent's arguments and very hard to confront them.
Again, my explanation holds across the board: 1) "People can trade goods very well without trading places." 2) Opportunity costs: When the cost of open borders exceeds their benefits, then it is irrational to keep them open.
Raimondo roars about Israeli planners deliberately cutting off Palestinian lands from their owners and, in effect, expropriating them. This is precisely the nature of his thinking: Mired in conspiracy and hyper-emotionalism (the anarcho-capitalist and editor of Rational Review, Thomas L. Knapp, calls the whole "support the intifada" thing juvenile leftism of the 1960's "Che worship" variety), Raimondo sees the fence as an intentional ploy by the so-called "imperialist" Israelis to expropriate land ââ¬â a "monstrous symbol of a nation's arrogance." This is the abiding theme in his writing.
It is both possible and very probable that the fence is a desperate attempt to prevent homicide operations against civilians and to effect a period of cool between two badly bruised groups. It is both psychologically and practically a good idea given the pain on both sides.
Of course, if you adopt Raimondo's script and impute only deviance to Israel and rail about Sharon being a "horrendous toad" or, in Richman's mode, talk about Sharon being a man of "unfathomable brutality" ââ¬â unlike Yasser Arafat, of course ââ¬â you will be hard pressed to explain the acceptance of a two-state solution by Israel, the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, and the commitment to dismantling illegal settlements (Ariel Sharon is good for it: He removed settlers from the Sinai in 1978, in preparation for peace with Egypt).
In sum, I "understand" Richman's lack of appreciation for my mentioning the IHR in connection with his positions on Israel and "the land." I'm not sure Richman appreciates my lack of understanding as to how a usually lucid and fine writer like himself can share the rabid Raimondo position on Israel and "the land."
Speaking of whom, readers should attempt to look beyond Raimondo's undeniable facility with words and examine his slipshod arguments. Raimondo, as I've shown, can't think himself down a striptease pole.
2003-08-20 05:56 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Centinel@Aug 19 2003, 23:28 * ** It developed in the context of the persecution and trauma of the Diaspora, which allowed a coercive rabbinic establishment (still plaguing Israel) to distort the true ââ¬â and nationalistic ââ¬â nature of the Hebrew civilization. **
Does she know what she is saying?
:)
2003-08-20 06:48 | User Profile
Cant and the Middle East by Sheldon Richman, May 2002
In the world of diplomacy, and politics generally, words are not chosen for their correspondence to the truth. They are chosen for their power to advance some purpose. Thatââ¬â¢s why most of what we hear is cant. Nowhere is this rule more faithfully observed than in connection with the Middle East. When President Bush says Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is a ââ¬Åman of peace,ââ¬Â he doesnââ¬â¢t mean that Sharon is a man of peace. He means, rather, that some goal is served by saying Sharon is a man of peaceââ¬âeven though he is a man of unfathomable brutality.
The events in Jenin are only the latest demonstration of that fact. (He was forced to resign as defense minister in the 1980s after an Israeli commission found him responsible for permitting the massacres of Palestinians by Lebanese allies in southern Lebanon during the Israeli invasion.) What goal is served by Mr. Bushââ¬â¢s characterization? More than one, no doubt. Clearly it was aimed in part at the neo-conservative wing of his political base, which was disturbed by what sounded like critical utterances against Israel. Although Mr. Bushââ¬â¢s earlier demand of an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank villages had absolutely no teeth (such as a threat to cut off billions in annual military aid), those who believe that Israel can do no wrong and that the United States should be a good cheerleader were not mollified.
Mr. Bush needs the neo-conservatives, and it must have irked him to have them saying that his Middle East policy indicates heââ¬â¢s going ââ¬Åwobblyââ¬Â on the ââ¬Åwar on terrorism." When it comes to the Middle East, the last person Mr. Bush wants to be compared with is ... his father. The president is not the only one who speaks in cant on the Middle East. Ariel Sharon is quite fluent in it too. When he sent his troops into Jenin, he said he would leave ââ¬Åno seed of terror behind." But he surely knows this is nonsense. The destruction of that refugee camp, the murder of Palestinians of all ages, and the delay in allowing access to rescue workers can only sow the seeds of terror, not destroy them. Considering what we know about human nature and the Middle East, it is unlikely that the young people who lived through the onslaught against Jenin will conclude that cooperation with the Israeli government is their most promising course. Their world-view, if anything, has been confirmed by Sharonââ¬â¢s cruelty. Anyone who looks forward to a falling off of Palestinian violence is fooling himself.
But isnââ¬â¢t Israel justified by that very violence? Blowing up innocents cannot be condoned. But it is folly to think that that is all one needs to know. Young Palestinian men and women do not kill Israelis because they hate Jews for being Jews. One must blind oneself (and avoid objective historical accounts) to believe there is something inherently irrational about Palestinian animosity toward Israel.
After all, Jews and Arabs lived together in Palestine for many years before the twentieth century. As my orthodox grandfather taught me, the relationship between the two communities deteriorated when Judaism was transformed (by secular Jews) into a political movement whose program included encroachment on innocent Arabs in the quest for Greater Israel. (It may come as a surprise, but the harshest critics of Zionism were Reform and Orthodox Jews.)
It was the first president of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Judah Magnes, who said, ââ¬ÅThe slogan ââ¬ËJewish state or commonwealthââ¬â¢ is equivalent, in effect, to a declaration of war by the Jews on the Arabs." In candid moments, Israeli military leaders acknowledged that the land belonged to Arabs. This will be seen as ancient history, and of course the past cannot be undone. But understanding history is essential to moving intelligently into the future. The Palestinian attacks on innocent civilians must stop. But that goal will have a better chance of realization if the Israeli establishment would give up its dream of a Greater Israel void of Palestinians and really start talking about peaceful coexistence.
Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Va., author of ââ¬ÅAncient Historyââ¬Â: U.S. Conduct in the Middle East since World War II and the Folly of Intervention (Cato Institute), and editor of Ideas on Liberty magazine.
[url=http://www.fff.org/comment/com0205h.asp] http://www.fff.org/comment/com0205h.asp[/url]
2003-08-20 06:54 | User Profile
Richman's reply to Mercer.-S
Monday, August 18, 2003
'Disregard for the truth'
Posted: August 18, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Sheldon Richman
é 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
Toward the end of her WorldNetDaily article, "Libertarians Who Loathe Israel," Ilana Mercer inserts, strangely, "I understand that libertarians like Sheldon Richman (and the Holocaust-denying Institute for Historical Review) believe, mistakenly, that all 'the land' belongs to the Arabs." After making this hit-and-run charge, she blithely moves on to other matters. As readers might suspect, there are serious problems with this sentence.
By writing "I understand ..." Mercer was declaring that she had not confirmed what she was about to say. In the first version of her article, no citation or link to anything I wrote or said was provided. This self-proclaimed advocate of reason expected readers to take her on faith. (A real champion of reason would know that readers care more for hard facts than a writer's vague "understandings.")
Now Mercer has belatedly added a link to one of my articles. But it does not confirm what she alleges. The article states, "After all, Jews and Arabs lived together in Palestine for many years before the 20th century. As my orthodox grandfather taught me, the relationship between the two communities deteriorated when Judaism was transformed (by secular Jews) into a political movement whose program included encroachment on innocent Arabs in the quest for Greater Israel. (It may come as a surprise, but the harshest critics of Zionism were Reform and Orthodox Jews.) It was the first president of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Judah Magnes, who said, 'The slogan 'Jewish state or commonwealth' is equivalent, in effect, to a declaration of war by the Jews on the Arabs.' In candid moments, Israeli military leaders acknowledged that the land belonged to Arabs."
The reader can judge for himself whether I believe that all the land belongs to the Arabs.
More seriously, placing me in the company of "the Holocaust-denying Institute for Historical Review" can only have been intended to imply that I am a Holocaust-denier. Re-read her sentence and the title of her article. Since the people at IHR are not known to be libertarians, there was no other purpose in mentioning the organization.
In other words, Mercer has smeared me. Since I am a Jew, she was denied the opportunity to accuse me of anti-Semitism and so had to settle for hinting that I deny that millions of Jews were slaughtered by Hitler and the Nazis. As one who lost family in the Shoah, I find this more than a little ironic.
To put it mildly, Mercer has shown a reckless disregard for the truth.
Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at the Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Va., author of ââ¬ÅAncient History: U.S. Conduct in the Middle East since World War II and the Folly of Intervention" and editor of Ideas on Liberty magazine.
I don't think that we'll anymore of Mercer's columns on Raimondo's website.
2003-08-20 07:31 | User Profile
Unless neoconservatives have stopped promoting porous borders ...
Indeed, they have. Look no further than neocon webzines like WorldNetDaily, NewsMax, and FrontPage magazine for proof. Glenn Spencer of American Patrol is/was a JDL member, though he seems to lay low on that issue after Irv Rubin's escapade.
I've said it many times, but neocons agitated for open borders and multiculturalism back in the civil rights era, and this was all fine and dandy with them until immigrant groups hostile to zionist interests like Arabs/Muslims and radical hispanics arrived on the scene. They give not a whit for the survival of western culture. It's all Israel all the time with these folks. Their motives stem from potential voting blocs hostile to a pro-Israel foreign policy in the future.
Now that their ox is getting gored, some of the loudest anti-immigration voices come from the neocons. Since neocons are unprincipled opportunists, it comes as no surprise that their position on certain issues changes with circumstances.
2003-08-20 08:30 | User Profile
Centinel,
I have noticed that some of them are thinking twice about immigration, but other than one article whose Jewish author I have forgotten it appears to me that at this time they are really only concerned about muslim immigration. Perhaps they think despite people like the La Razaites that they can lord over the "hispanics" the way they have done with the blacks for so many years.
That article I alluded to above I'll see if I can find. This Jew was worried that the mexicans wouldn't feel the sort of "guilt" that so many people do today for events they had nothing to do with.
This thread you started could be very rich in commentary, there being so much material here.
2003-08-20 08:46 | User Profile
I have noticed that some of them are thinking twice about immigration, but other than one article whose Jewish author I have forgotten it appears to me that at this time they are really only concerned about muslim immigration. Perhaps they think despite people like the La Razaites that they can lord over the "hispanics" the way they have done with the blacks for so many years.
It was probably Horowitz -- he bangs the "hispanic anti-semitism" drum the loudest. The Jews aren't ever going to be able to lord over hispanics for a few reasons. One, they see the blacks and Farrakhanites and see the rift with Jews there. And being largely Catholic, hispanics have no use for dispensationalism. Probably the biggest reason hispanics are wise to Jewish power is geography in the US. By whatever fates, the three largest areas of Jewish population, New York, South Florida and Southern California, also have large hispanic populations. Guess who are the bosses, bankers and landlords for the most part.
2003-08-20 09:05 | User Profile
Well, this little gem I found bears out what you wrote above. I wish I could remember the name of the Jew who wrote that article. He did it for one of the immigration reform groups. It was something like Stenitz. Maybe one of the old timers from the old SFOF remembers his name. This article below has alot of hyperlinks in it, including one from the A.D.L. I have to admit that it is funny to see these hypocrites with their trask about "brotherhood" starting to realize that some of the crap they pull could wind up bitting them in a bad way.
VDARE.COM - [url=http://www.vdare.com/sailer/import_anti_semitism.htm]http://www.vdare.com/sailer/import_anti_semitism.htm [/url]
Importing Anti-Semitism, Contââ¬â¢d; By Steve Sailer
In April of 2001, I wrote a VDARE article entitled "Importing Anti-Semitism?" Well, it's time to lose the question mark. In surprisingly frank language, Abe Foxman's Anti-Defamation League reports:
One of the most important findings of [the Anti-Defamation League's] 2002 Survey of Anti-Semitism in America concerns Hispanic Americans, one of the most significant and fastest growing segments of the American population, in which the poll found an extraordinary gap between those born in the United States and those born abroad. The survey revealed that while 44% of foreign-born Hispanics hold hardcore anti-Semitic beliefs, 20% of Hispanic Americans born in the U.S. fall into the same category.
Anti-Defamation League, June 11, 2002
The survey consists of eleven statements uncomplimentary toward Jews. (You can find them listed on p. 6 of this Adobe Acrobat PDF file.) Anyone who agrees with at least six statements is labeled "most anti-Semitic." As a former marketing researcher, I found the construction of the survey somewhat tendentious. Unsurprisingly, it's designed to elicit high anti-Semitism scores. (It's important to note that even the "most anti-Semitic" aren't all that anti-Semitic by historical or global standards. For example, more of these supposed "hardcore" anti-Semites sympathize with Israel rather than with the Jewish State's Arab enemies!) Nonetheless, it's a useful comparative instrument.
The survey found the following percentages who were "strongly anti-Semitic" (with their ratio to non-Hispanic whites).
Non-Hispanic whites - 12% - 1.00 ratio American-born Hispanics - 20% - 1.67 ratio African-Americans - 35% - 2.92 ratio Foreign-born Hispanics - 44% - 3.67 ratio
The ADL's in-depth analysis (PDF file) reported:
For example, over half of foreign-born Hispanics (55%) agree with the assertion that "Jews don't care what happens to anyone but their own kind," compared to 26% of Hispanics born in the U.S.
Forty-four percent of Hispanics born outside of the U.S. agree with the assertion that "Jews were responsible for the death of Christ," compared to 26% of those born in the U.S.
Forty-six percent agree with the statement that Jews are "more willing than others to use shady practices to get what they want," compared to 22% of those born in the U.S.
Finally, over half (52%) of foreign-born Hispanics believe Jews have too much power in the business world, compared to 26% of Hispanics born in the U.S.
Clearly, on a per capita basis, Muslim immigrants are more of a threat to Jewish interests than are Hispanic immigrants. But Hispanics vastly outnumber Muslims. Nor are Hispanics as likely to remain virulent in their attitudes toward Jews as the later generations assimilate into American life. But doesn't that suggest an immigration timeout would be appropriate, both to reduce the number of anti-Semites we import, and to allow later generations to assimilate faster?
[Steve Sailer is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute. His website www.iSteve.com features site-exclusive commentaries.]
July 11, 2002
2003-08-20 09:13 | User Profile
Found it. Stephen Steinlight.
[url=http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/back1301.html]http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/back1301.html[/url]
2003-08-21 21:43 | User Profile
From the horse's mouth. - [url=http://www.ilanamercer.com/Aboutme.htm] www.ilanamercer.com/Aboutme.htm[/url]
2003-08-22 02:25 | User Profile
Could she be any more Jewish? If she had small horns, maybe.
Toward the end of her WorldNetDaily article, "Libertarians Who Loathe Israel," Ilana Mercer inserts, strangely, "I understand that libertarians like Sheldon Richman (and the Holocaust-denying Institute for Historical Review) believe, mistakenly, that all 'the land' belongs to the Arabs." ......The reader can judge for himself whether I believe that all the land belongs to the Arabs.
Here's a news flash for both of yez: all the land does belong to the Arabs! Promises made in mythological texts do not a valid bill of sale make.
**Neocons agitated for open borders and multiculturalism back in the civil rights era, and this was all fine and dandy with them until immigrant groups hostile to zionist interests like Arabs/Muslims and radical hispanics arrived on the scene. They give not a whit for the survival of western culture. It's all Israel all the time with these folks. Their motives stem from potential voting blocs hostile to a pro-Israel foreign policy in the future. Now that their ox is getting gored, some of the loudest anti-immigration voices come from the neocons. Since neocons are unprincipled opportunists, it comes as no surprise that their position on certain issues changes with circumstances. **
That will be our all-time collective lowest point, then...200 million whites sitting timidly on their hands for decades waiting for Jews to finally decide that third-world immigration must end - for reasons wholly their own. How buoyed our sense of purpose will be watching esteemed and bylined Witzes and Bergs legitimizing our survival as a necessary component of their continuing domination. Hell, by that time we'll all be Little Nell, beseeching Hyman to hurry up untying the ropes as the Mexican or Pakistani Superchief rumbles down the tracks toward us. We wouldn't dream of saving ourselves; mustn't ever do that! Heck, you're better off dead than an 'anti-Semite', what with Gawd bein' on their side and Heaven looking just like the gift shop at the Las Vegas Holocaust Memorial....
What a sad lot of wankers we are in the West. Somebody pull out an Uncle Sam 'I-want-YOU' poster and either draw a yarmulke on his head otr a c*ck in his mouth; it's about time that icon was revised to finally reflect reality, I think.
2003-08-22 02:36 | User Profile
il ragno,
If what used to be America finally becomes ungovernable and useless to the Israel-Firsters, they will probably gather up their toys and make Aliyah, leaving what's left of us behind to fend for ourselves in a multicultural wasteland similar to what happened when Argentina collapsed (minus the multiculturalism).
2003-08-22 02:54 | User Profile
They will always need a host to parasitize on. Although they may hope to become self-sufficient, I seriously doubt they can pull it off. What country can the zhids leech off if they leave the US?
2003-08-22 12:47 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Aug 21 2003, 20:25 * ** Here's a news flash for both of yez: all the land does *belong to the Arabs! Promises made in mythological texts do not a valid bill of sale make.
**
No, but military possession does. The Israelis have won a few wars. Israel is theirs if they can keep it, but don't steal money out of my pocket to support the bastards, and don't use our children's blood to make the region safe for them to dispossess.
Jews are history's most cunning syndicate. Truthfully it is said, Jews are an anti-race.
2003-08-22 19:37 | User Profile
**No, but military possession does. The Israelis have won a few wars. **
I hear ya, but I don't think that's the context they're using. It's their justification for the militarism I'm concerned with. Y'know, those first ten books of the Old Testament they use as a truncheon against the people who don't have Uncle Sham in their hip pocket - which, come to think of it, is where you'll also find the Ten Commandments - which they've forbidden us to cite in the public sphere.
And the New Testament is off limits for everyone, of course.
2003-08-29 02:10 | User Profile
P.C.Libertarianism and the Jewish taboo,by Henry Gallagher Fields. [url=http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/fields_pclib.htm]http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/fields_pclib.htm[/url]
2005-01-26 21:43 | User Profile
Vhow, vhat a difference a year and some change makes!
Back then Mercer was at Raimondo's throat. Antipathy towards Israel (hell, maybe even apathy) was equal to Nazism in her book.
Now: la Mercer is a regular columnist at Raimondo's Antiwar.com, while her articles have also appeared at VDARE.com.
And the latest: she's now writing for TAC, with a book review on p. 33 of the Jan. 31 issue of David Hackett Fischer's [url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195162536/qid=1106775375/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-3045418-1234210?v=glance&s=books&n=507846]Liberty and Freedom: A Visual History of America's Founding Ideas[/url].
I guess the in thing among "respectable" paleos nowadays is letting a few token Jews write for their publications to demonstrate that they aren't "anti-semites" -- even ones as duplicitous as Mercer.
It's a freakin' shame when the likes of Brimelow, McConnell and Raimondo sell out and let her ilk write while shunning Sobran. Personally, I'd rather not see any Jews writing in any ostensibly anti-zionist publications unless they're the Norman Finkelstein variety.
2005-01-27 16:02 | User Profile
Infiltration tactics.
2005-01-27 16:21 | User Profile
I haven't renewed my subscription to [I]TAC[/I] yet. If the repulsive Mercer will soon be a contributor to Pat's magazine, then I'm definitely not re-upping with [I]TAC[/I].
2005-01-27 21:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]I haven't renewed my subscription to [I]TAC[/I] yet. If the repulsive Mercer will soon be a contributor to Pat's magazine, then I'm definitely not re-upping with [I]TAC[/I].[/QUOTE]
This smells of McConnell's doing, with input from his former Antiwar.com buddy Raimondo, not doubt....though Pat and Taki aren't blameless in their compromises to seek mainstream "respectability." After all, Taki ultimately has the say in who's on the masthead. Oh what I wouldn't give to see Taki fire McConnell and replace him with Sobran.
2005-01-27 22:45 | User Profile
Centinel,
I think you are right about McConnell. I like the writings of his that I have seen, but believe him to be weak on this. When Norman Podhoretz turned on him he should have realized that Poddy was going to put Israel above everything else, including friendship though I believe that Poddy never was his friend, just someone who would use him.
I'd like to see Taki insure that Derbyshire no longer fouls the pages as well.