Majorityrights Central > Category: U.S. Politics

Dugin/Stark interview: Beginning concession to White Post Modernity

Whereas he used to have a completely botched notion of post modernity - mixing-up what should be the antidote to modernity and liberalism with liberalism itself - it now appears that we are improving Dugin’s understanding - viz., that modernity is the problem and the essence of liberalism.

His ideas in this talk are largely amenable and well considered.

His proposition that the state is a bit too much of an artifice to suffice by itself and that there needs to be a hypothesized realm, as we would say, beyond the physically verified moment, which girds and orients a people, is also well considered.

However, now that we are getting him to a better understanding of “post moderntiy”, viz. White post modernity, we need to get him to a better understanding of biological reality and “racism.”

Anti-racism is the quintessential modernist liberal notion; it is a Cartesian farce: It has been proposed as innocent but it is not -

Anti-racism is prejudiced, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.

For “racism” is a necessary concept in a benign form, which is not supremacism nor a singular conclusion to aggrandizement and annihilation of an opposing people (as YKW propose and liberals might accept as a definition). It is in fact, a practical concept that is practiced by ordinary people everyday of necessity, as a non-Cartesian requirement of the human condition, of being in the world - one must discriminate in human-sized categories, including social classification - of one’s own people and of other peoples - to form a coherent basis of ones own and to form a basis of human ecologies for our systemic coherence, social accountability, warrant and agency.

These classifications are “hermeneutic”, that is to say that they are not absolutely empirically based in every moment, as the taken-for-granted and the state of partial knowledge - faith, if you will - must subsist behind the working hypothesis.

Call it a working hypothesis, call it faith, call it rules, call it narrative, call it taken for granted, call it the partly unknown, call it a mystery, a quest, an adventure, some of that as you must, some of it you might, as it has practical function to ensconce the under-determining facts of the empirical; but I have believed and continue to believe that a sacred overlay, in orientation and guidance of a people is a good idea.

I believe that it is a hermeneutic notion nevertheless, which is itself accountable to deal concretely with biology, sex and genetics, mediating toward fairness and justice in regards to this social capital - otherwise, without this empirical accountability, this “spiritual” realm will be the realm of evil charlatans.

Press Start

In the run up to the speech that Donald Trump was going to make at AIPAC, lots of ‘prominent white nationalist movement figures’ started making extremely arrogant statements about how they believe that Donald Trump is only pretending to support the Jews by deliberately attending a place where politicians go to be lobbied by Jews while being supported by Jews at every turn.

At Majorityrights we have done everything to try to highlight the fact that placing stock in Donald Trump is completely irrational and continues to be irrational.

It’s plainly obvious that white nationalists of any sort have exactly zero capability to influence Donald Trump’s campaign, because Donald Trump is not a white nationalist and does not accept campaign donations from white nationalist groups. Donald Trump is saying things that he thinks will convince the various contradictory segments of the Republican Party voting base to imagine that he empathises with them while they wait with bated breath to see what he’ll say next, so that they can write yet another breathless article on how the Trump train ‘cannot be stopped’. It should be obvious.

Attaching themselves to a political candidate like Donald Trump, and running articles that praise him for an entire electoral season, even though they know that they have no means through which they can control him, is a bad idea which yeilds predictably bad results.

You are pretty bad at this game

Various venues and groups, for example Radix Journal, The Occidental Observer, the Daily Stormer, David Duke dot com, The Right Stuff, and American Renaissance all refused to use Occam’s Razor, and instead have been continually coming up with ever more fanciful explanations about how all of this is supposedly Donald Trump’s cunning 57-dimensional chess game.

Yesterday, Trump went on CNN with Wolf Blitzer and once again disavowed those who he refers to as ‘the antisemites’, by saying that he “can’t imagine” why antisemites would want to support him, and that he has “always condemned” such persons. He also added that he is “the least racist person you’ll ever meet.”

Indeed, most sensible ethno-nationalists and antisemites should be unable to support a person who within 90 minutes of making those statements in the CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer, would go on to utter the following words in a room packed full of cheering Jews on international television:

TIME / Donald Trump, ‘Read Donald Trump’s Speech to AIPAC’, 21 Mar 2016:

I love the people in this room. I love Israel. I love Israel. I’ve been with Israel so long in terms of I’ve received some of my greatest honors from Israel, my father before me, incredible. My daughter, Ivanka, is about to have a beautiful Jewish baby.

(CHEERS, APPLAUSE)

In fact, it could be happening right now, which would be very nice as far as I’m concerned.

(LAUGHTER)

The Jewish baby’s head could’ve been exiting Ivanka Trump’s vagina in that very moment, and Donald Trump wanted to make sure that the audience understood the implications of that. That was just after Trump had quite predictably reversed his fake ‘neutrality’ position, voicing his true positon of total unwavering support for Israel.

But I know, I know, let me guess, Trump-fans. You all will say that everything that happened at AIPAC was ‘deep cover’, and that it is a ‘strategic deep cover’ Jewish baby that he’s getting all enthusiastic about, right?

No matter what Trump does, someone is always going to come out and implausibly claim that it’s either ‘a deep strategy’ or ‘an accident’.

Those bazookas that the red team is firing at your blue team tanks? I guess it’s part of a ‘deep strategy’, the red team is only pretending to destroy those units, they are only pretending to be the red team, right? Well, maybe, if you ignore the minor problem of those little blue units actually being destroyed in reality.

But blithely ignoring reality is obviously what being a Trump-fan is all about.

Here’s an example of the Trump-worshipping Daily Stormer trying to spin its way out of acknowledging reality:

Daily Stormer / Andrew Anglin, ‘Regarding Donald Trump’s AIPAC Speech’, 22 Mar 2016:

Okay, guys. Here’s the deal: in order to get elected, Donald Trump has to say nice things about Israel.

That is simply the fact of the matter. The Jews have created a situation where the overwhelming majority of Christians in this country believe in bizarre science fiction fantasy about the nature of the terrorist Jew state, and if they view someone as hostile to it, they won’t vote for them.

So the options are:

a) call out the Jews, have zero chance of winning, and

b) say nice things about Israel, and have a shot at getting in.

[...]

I cringed like you all cringed. But these are the facts of life. The Jews have put us down so deep, the climb back up involves a bit of unpleasantness.

Remember: these were just words.

They were just words, according to Anglin! How about a flesh and blood Jewish baby which is literally inside of Ivanka Trump’s womb? Is it really ‘just words’? Or is it words which are describing things which have occurred in actual reality?

Here’s another flesh and blood example, the flesh and blood of Michael Cohen:

Jewish Daily Forward, ‘Meet Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s Jewish Wingman’, 20 Jul 2015:

[...]

Cohen, who is Jewish, has been Trump’s most loyal ally for nearly a decade, standing up for the real estate mogul in the media and filing lawsuits when Trump perceives he’s been wronged. A 2011 ABC News profile reported that within The Trump Organization he’s called the boss’s “pit bull.”

“If you do something wrong, I’m going to come at you, grab you by the neck and I’m not going to let you go until I’m finished,” Cohen, now 48, told the TV network.

To wit: When New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman filed a fraud suit against Trump’s for-profit college in 2013, Cohen threatened Trump’s vengeance: “The damage to the attorney general is going to be very significant,” Cohen told The New Yorker. “So significant that he will possibly have to resign.” (Schneiderman has not resigned. The case is ongoing.)

And in February 2011, when Trump was mulling a 2012 presidential run, Cohen twisted himself in knots to defend Trump’s newfound opposition to abortion, telling National Journal, “People change their positions all the time, the way they change their wives.” (Trump has changed his, twice.)

Cohen, who did not respond to requests to be interviewed for this story, has been tied to Trump since at least February 2007, when the New York Post reported that he had been snapping up apartments at Trump’s properties like a hoarder at a flea market. He owned two at the time, was buying two more, and had talked his parents and his wife’s parents into buying another four between them.

“Michael Cohen has a great insight into the real estate market,” Trump told the Post at the time. “In short, he’s a very smart person.”

Cohen was a partner at the law firm Phillips Nizer at the time of the Post story, but he joined The Trump Organization three months later as an executive vice president and as Trump’s special counsel, according to Cohen’s LinkedIn page. No word on whether he’s bought more Trump apartments since then.

Cohen himself is something of a cipher. We know from the 2011 ABC profile that he grew up on Long Island and that his father is a Holocaust survivor. A Democrat, Cohen voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and volunteered for former Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis’s presidential campaign in 1988. (Cohen told ABC in 2011 that over time he grew disappointed with Obama.) He favors Dolce & Gabbana and Hermes, and once went sailing off Cape Cod with Ted Kennedy.

The real estate newspaper The Real Deal reported in February that Cohen had made a New York real estate play of his own, buying a $58 million rental apartment building on Manhattan’s Upper East Side from Israeli-born developer Ofer Yardeni.

Beyond those spare, if colorful, details, Cohen’s entire public profile is entangled in the Trump galaxy. He’s a member of the board of the Eric Trump Foundation, a children’s health charity named for Donald Trump’s 31-year-old son. He was chief operations officer of Affliction, a mixed martial arts promotion partially owned by Trump. And in 2011, during Trump’s last flirtation with presidential politics, it was Cohen who led the charge.

Along with Stewart Rahr, the 68-year-old Jewish drug distribution billionaire who calls himself “Stewie Rah Rah Number One King of All Fun,” Cohen created a website in early 2011 called “Should Trump Run?” and visited Iowa in a private jet with Trump’s name on the side to discuss a potential Trump candidacy. A Ron Paul backer charged that Cohen and Trump were breaking campaign finance laws by taking the trip without filing disclosures with the Federal Elections Commission. (The FEC eventually found that no law had been broken, as Trump never actually became a candidate.)

This time around, Cohen has fully embraced his attack dog role within the Trump apparatus. During the contentious morning interview with Chris Cuomo, Cohen was relentless in defending his boss.

“You’re making the same problem [Trump] is, which is odd, because you’re here to kind of clean it up for him,” Cuomo said. “He shouldn’t have said they’re rapists, they’re this, they’re drug dealers, and some are good people. He shouldn’t have said it. True or false?”

“No, I disagree,” Cohen said, speaking in a voice that sounds like Trump’s, but with the volume turned down from 11 to around 7. “I really believe that Mr. Trump was making his voice heard.”

As Cuomo grew increasingly frustrated, Cohen refused to back off. “It was wrong, and you haven’t admitted that yet,” Cuomo said.

“And I will not,” Cohen said as the interview ended.

They could also say that ‘Cohen’ is ‘just a word’, but it’s a word that actually does have an ominous real-world meaning.

But I guess when reality becomes inconvenient for Trump’s movement fans, the words that are used to describe that reality also become inconvenient for Trump’s movement fans, and then those words are suddenly referred to as ‘mere words’ whose actual meaning they think should be disregarded and replaced with various fictions.

Let’s dispel these fictions

Both David Duke and Kevin MacDonald, among others, have been giving little open letter style warnings to Donald Trump about how it’s ‘useless’ for him to attend AIPAC and make speeches, and how he needs to beware of the Jewish lobby.

As though Donald Trump is even listening to them, and as though Donald Trump—a person who has spent his entire career in the company of Jews and whose presidential campaign is presently packed full of Jews—somehow doesn’t know what he’s doing.

Let’s dispel this fiction once and for all that Donald Trump ‘doesn’t know what he’s doing’. He knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s undertaking a systematic effort to harness the disparate strands of discontent among America’s white working class so that he can funnel all the resulting activism back into the Jewish-owned straitjacket which binds the Republican Party political apparatus.

(Photo: Joshua Roberts—Reuters)

With his address to AIPAC, Trump lost the characteristic equivocalness in his manner of speaking: he brought-out his trump card - unequivocal pandering to Israel ..as we knew he would.

From his talks to “the international press” regarding Jewish concerns prior to his speech and through his speech, he was unequivocal.

1) He was unequivocal in his denunciation of “racism and anti-Semitism.”

2) He was unequivocal in his prioritization for Israel’s security; their borders and identity as a Jewish state for Jewish people.

3) He was unequivocal not only in his denunciation of the Iran deal, but in saying that it must be reversed; and, in asserting that Iran’s nuclear weapon’s program must be stopped, he intimated that he is not averse to Israel’s coveted hawkish solution to dealings with Iran.

4) His unequivocal closer - for those familiar with salesmanship, the closing line of a pitch must “close” (confirm) the deal: Trump proudly asserted that he was “about to become a grandfather of a Jewish child.” Asserting his blood-ties in commitment to Jewish interests.

White Nationalists may be correct that he is the best option in buying them some time. At least he makes noises as if he is going to do something about closing U.S. borders and that he would sympathize with closing the borders of Europe as well.

But toward that end, we are having to take the word of a man who brags about his negotiating skills following these avowals to Israel and Jewish interests.

AIPAC might cooperate to some extent with our domestic issues, including our security, OUR WHITE BORDERS FOR OUR WHITE PEOPLES - U.S., Europe and elsewhere - but only to the extent that coincides with Israeli and Jewish interests more broadly; and to the extent that Trump’s and other regimes would (very incorrectly) treat Jews as if they are White; a specially protected White minority among our lands.

That is a highly suspect deal.

And in exchange for that deal come an array of foreign policies - our side, opponent side distinctions - even more suspect.

About the only consolation to be offered to those who favor Trump in the interest of European peoples is that at least in what she speaks and intends, viz. in her antagonism of Whites, Hillary is even worse. Her rhetoric is even more out of the liberal, P.C., anti-White mold: her disregard for White boundaries more brazen, her commitment to Israel as “rock solid, unwavering, enduring and forever” as ever (as emphatic, in fact), and her war-hawkishness even more flagrant. Every bit as much as Trump shored-up his pro-Israel, pro-Jewish-line..

   
Hillary shored-up her Neo-Con Credentials.

(AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

The horror won’t end

It must be really difficult for Alt-Right ‘Big Tent’ proponents these days, especially since they declared war against reality and reality is systematically thrashing them.

Increasingly miserable Donald Trump supporters in the Alt-Right Big Tent may have been wondering whether Trump was going to take Fox News up on their idea for another debate that was supposed to happen next week between himself, John Kasich, and Ted Cruz.

Donald Trump believes that this would clash with his busy schedule:

The Hill, ‘Insider: Trump to skip GOP debate for pro-Israel conference’, 15 Mar 2016 (emphasis added):

Donald Trump will miss the final Republican presidential debate to address a major pro-Israel lobbying organization instead, according to an insider.

“Hearing that Trump secured a Monday night speaking slot at AIPAC conf. in D.C,” tweeted Noah Pollak, executive director of the Emergency Committee for Israel, referencing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

“Also happening that night: [the] Republican debate in Salt Lake City,” he added, alluding to the 13th GOP presidential contest on March 21.

[...]

That Republican debate in Salt Lake City? Apparently it’s not happening after all:

The Hill, ‘Fox News cancels GOP debate after Trump backs out’, 16 Mar 2016 (emphasis added):

Fox News is canceling next week’s Republican presidential debate in Salt Lake City, Utah, after front-runner Donald Trump publicly backed out early Wednesday, followed by John Kasich.

“Ted Cruz has expressed a willingness to debate Trump or Kasich – or both. But obviously, there needs to be more than one participant,” Fox executive vice president Michael Clemente said in a statement.

Trump announced early Wednesday that he would not show up for the debate, saying there have been “enough” debates and noting he’d be speaking at a pro-Jewish rally on Monday.

Instead of appearing at the debate, Trump said he would be making a “major speech” at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference, he announced Wednesday on “Fox and Friends.”

[...]

So basically, Fox News called for a television debate, and asked Donald Trump if he’d like to attend it. Trump declined, because he has what he perceives as better things to do already on his schedule, things such as kissing the backsides of the mendacious Jews at AIPAC.

No doubt, all television cameras will follow Donald Trump to AIPAC, because that’s where the ratings are, and then all of the people who have been enthusiastically promoting Donald Trump will get to see how many cringe-worthy pro-Israeli and pro-Jewish statements he can rattle off within the time that he has there.

Option one: Speaking bitterness

When Donald Trump first started his incoherent campaign, he created a space for ‘politically incorrect’ discussions in the public space.

The appearance of that space could have potentially been harnessed by American ethno-nationalist advocates and channelled away from Trump and toward ethno-nationalist causes. This could have been accomplished through sending people to Trump rallies to look for people who could be converted and drawn into ethno-nationalist activism, distributing flyers, speaking bitterness or consciousness raising, and so on. To accomplish that, ethno-nationalists in the United States would have needed to draw a hard line between themselves and Trump’s campaign, and would have needed to walk parallel to his campaign while simulataneously criticising it.

The opportunity to do this was completely squandered by them.

Option two: Being an idiot

Instead of doing that, Alt-Right players in actual reality chose to simply attach themselves to the Donald Trump campaign, make tweets on his behalf, act as an independent public relations arm for him, all while not challenging him on any of the big problems of his campaign.

They also chose to tell themselves nice stories about how everything that is wrong with Donald Trump is all part of some kind of 57-dimensional chess game. Trump’s daughter literally married to a Jew and incubating heirs for the Jew? Ivanka Trump’s womb is engaged in 57-dimensional chess, apparently, if Big Tenters are to be believed. Her womb is really complex and dynamic. Trump flip-flopping on the second amendment? It was ‘a different time’ back when he supported the so-called ‘Assault’ Weapons Ban, so that too is portrayed as 57-dimensional chess. Promises to support Israel stronger and harder than any candidate in the GOP? Chess again, supposedly. Literally has Jews as his advisers and lawyers? Allegedly it’s chess again. Insipidly idiotic protectionist anti-trade policies and tariffs? More excuses about how it’s about ‘fair’ trade, whatever that even means. Also, ‘chess’.

Cuck

It was almost like the Alt-Right Big Tent wanted to become Donald Trump’s girlfriend. And yet Donald Trump was never interested in that, and has never even so much as acknowledged them by name, because he’s too busy cuddling with the Jews. You know, those people who he’s been rubbing shoulders with his whole life because his career was launched in real estate development in New York City.

A key example of this is when someone like David Duke gives his support to Trump, and then Trump reacts by pretending not to know who Duke is, followed by all of the pro-Jewish pandering proceeding ahead full steam as before. Another example would be Kevin MacDonald saying that Donald Trump basically ‘knows exactly what he is doing’ as though some kind of chess game is going on, and then Donald Trump is meanwhile literally allowing Ivanka Trump to marry into Jewish bloodlines.

It’s in moments like that, when one can imagine that Donald Trump leans in close to the ear of people like Duke, or MacDonald, and softly whispers a single word: “Cuck”.

 
It was this bartender’s first year at McSorley’s the first time that I went there some years ago when I was 18. It was perhaps the first time that I drank so many beers. I suppose he could have thrown me out when I started running around the place euphoric on hops as I was, but he merely told me to calm down. He was also there again my last time there (2007, I guess it was). On that occasion a TV talk show crew came in with a lesbian couple (black woman and White woman) who were asking men’s opinion as to whether the White girl should get breast implants since she thought that would please her black girlfriend. I was asked my opinion by the production crew. I answered that in particular, “I rather like flat chested women, so my opinion is particularly biased against breast implants for that reason for starters; but there were more reasons to be against it than that; including as part of a more general stance against bodily alteration - I stated that I believe that given that our bodies have evolved over tens of thousands of years, that they are bound to be wiser, smarter if you will, than our conscious decision making and should be given the benefit of the doubt against our anxieties and against popular consensus; rather, we should try to learn what our bodies have to teach us about our interface with the social ecology and bring our corporeality to bear in social critique if necessary, rather than the other way around - bending to what may well be a popular fad against the better wisdom of our evolution.” I was told by the couple that my answer was good and they asked me to sign a release; but the bartender, yes that one, asked, “what was that ‘stuff’ you were saying?  ...I don’t think that was what the TV producers were looking for.” I suppose that he was right and that my opinion was not aired.

     
Interracial lesbians wanting to air-out the matter of breast implants at McSorley’s? Heck, women were not even allowed in the pub until it was forced to allow them in 1970 when the NOW attorneys Faith Seidenberg and Karen DeCrow won a discrimination suit against them.

That is among the benchmarks of what is, by American standards, a historical bar, patronized also by the famous: well circulated writers drank there; famous athletes drank there - e.g. in the movie, “Pride of The Yankees”, the legendary Babe Ruth announced to all of the Yankees that he was buying rounds for the team at McSorley’s after the game - many things can be said about the demographic that has gotten sloshed while noshing onions, mustard and cheese by the potbelly stove and saw-dust strewn floor; but aside from a few infamous luminaries - U.S. Presidents have drunk there as well, ranging from racial rogues the likes of Lincoln to Kennedy - the rank and file attendees have not been the kind of demographic responsible for crime in NYC.

The folks down at McSorley’s aren’t committing the crime in N.Y.C.

But was “The New York Times” going to tell you that?..

READ MORE...

​
For many years I have argued that Maslow’s hierarchy establishes an excellent point of departure - a paradigm to transform into a new paradigm on our behalf as Whites - as it does represent the apex of the American dream of individual self actualization, it also provides instantiation to look at the problems that can, and quite evidently do, ensue from its rule structure. Hence, a critique of it permits its highly relevant occasion to retool and socialize it to our concern as Whites. To do that we might look back to its classical origins in Aristotle, to its popularization in the feminism and the human potential movements of the 60s, to how we might transform and cast the path of needs and motives in optimal terms for both the individual and group interests of Whites.

However, the right-wing hasn’t yet gotten the significance of my argument. Where they do see merit, they want to put it in their own Cartesian terms. They miss a crucial hermeneutic point in history, that Friedan’s second wave of feminism had women acting through and in accordance of this paradigm - highlighting the vulgarity of its social disregard, self righteously pursuing “self actualization” while ignoring the “privilege” that men alone had of being required at the same time to go to Vietnam to die. But rather than seeing the valid gender aspect of the hippie protest of the draft as a male thing (a quest for midtdasein for males), the right-wing in their desperate, reactionary way, go along with the Jewish story that it was all about “free love”, “civil rights for blacks”, and “universal peace” or they cater to the right-wing story that hippies sought nothing that a real man should pursue - they were part and parcel of the downfall of Whites - our men, by reactionary contrast, have to learn how to be real men: and now the right-wing will be..

Defining real White men for you… with a lisp..
     

Puerto Ricans in attendance to karate movies and White boys imitating gay pride parades

A return of what? A morning and evening call to prayer, perhaps.

Sex tourism in South East Asia

Ignore and talk past the White Left as defined at MR

Pretend there’s this “new thing” called “alt-left” and its anything but a foil for the Regnery circus’ Alt-right.

“Introducing the ‘Alt left”

Ignore our many discussions as to the drawbacks of black hyper-masculinity in comparison to terms of optimal White/European masculinity - which need to be confirmed and which only MR has confirmed…

Instead toss the idea with a gay friend..
   
Who casts black hyper-masculinity in contrast to homosexuality.

Even though you have no special concern for Whites and consider mixing with blacks to be no big deal..

Even though you have no special concern for Whites, latch onto the alt-right big tent to compensate for your floundering market and source of ideas - such as the idea of re-tooling, transforming, viz., socializing, optimizing and normalizing Maslow’s hierarchy in White/European interests (which can be safely ignored as having been discussed at MR for years).

         
Be a crass businessman

   
Kiss the ass [Welcome back!] of Jews and their proxies; and on their behalf..

Appropriate Asian lands and resources, allow Jews and neo-liberals to parasitically trade on that..
           
Aggrandizement as middle men at others expense instead of developing a Russian ethnostate.

...learn, in fact, how to act like a Jew and without honor so that you can get-over over there.

     
Atavistic intelligentsia - an apt term for themselves. And they “Hail ‘The’ Donald”

Puke.

       
        “Become who we are”: Teaching us how to be real White men

Upchuck.

                                                   
Compulsory Diversity News:
       
                He knows you not…

In a story that shows that Jewish-American lobbyists and journalists have very little self-awareness, Adam Entous and Danny Yadron thought that it would be a good idea to publish a story in which they made it appear that the US Government was violating some kind of agreement to not spy on ‘allies’, when the NSA monitored Netanyahu’s activities during the P5+1 negotiations with Iran.

The monitoring activities were carried out with the intention of discovering what Netanyahu’s views on the proposed deal were, and what his response to it going forward might be. This monitoring would have been approved by senior figures in the Obama administration, as well as the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

Wall Street Journal, ‘U.S. Spy Net on Israel Snares Congress’, Adam Entous and Danny Yadron, 29 Dec 2015:

President Barack Obama announced two years ago he would curtail eavesdropping on friendly heads of state after the world learned the reach of long-secret U.S. surveillance programs.

But behind the scenes, the White House decided to keep certain allies under close watch, current and former US officials said.

[...]

The National Security Agency’s targeting of Israeli leaders and officials also swept up the contents of some of their private conversations with U.S. lawmakers and American-Jewish groups. That raised fears [...] that the executive branch would be accused of spying on Congress.

[...]

Of course, what neither of these persons mention in their article is that monitoring Netanyahu’s communications was both legal and necessary.

Monitoring what other world leaders are doing so that the United States can have good information from which to make policy decisions is literally the mission statement of the NSA. Furthermore, Israel has chosen to prefer a policy on Iran that is directly at odds with that of the United States, and at odds with that of NATO more broadly. The North Atlantic desired to cultivate Iran as a swing-power which could be peeled away from Russia and utilised for offsetting Russian preponderance over natural gas supplies to Europe, and which would perhaps someday be able to frustrate Russian attempts to consolidate its influence over CIS states that have cultural or historical ties to Iran. Israel has different ideas, because Israel has a different set of priorities.

So what are they complaining about? It’s a nonsensical complaint. The Israelis should have expected that they’d be monitored. This of course did not prevent Israel’s most ardent defenders from writing absolutely ridiculous stories for weeks on end about it.

But there was an element of this story that was not touched on and which was almost conspicuously not touched on. The fact that spying on Netanyahu would become the same thing as ‘spying on the US Congress’ was what really ought to have been the story. If spying on Netanyahu is almost the same thing as spying on the US Congress, then that is an indicator of there being a serious problem in the political system itself.

That problem looks like this:

Wall Street Journal, ‘U.S. Spy Net on Israel Snares Congress’, Adam Entous and Danny Yadron, 29 Dec 2015:

How Mr. Netanyahu and his advisers had leaked details of the U.S.-Iran negotiations—learned through Israeli spying operations—to undermine the talks; coordinated talking points with Jewish-American groups against the deal; and asked undecided lawmakers what it would take to win their votes, according to current and former officials familiar with the intercepts.

And also ambassadors getting themselves involved:

Wall Street Journal, ‘U.S. Spy Net on Israel Snares Congress’, Adam Entous and Danny Yadron, 29 Dec 2015:

Mr. Dermer was described as coaching unnamed U.S. organizations—which officials could tell from the context were Jewish-American groups—on lines of argument to use with lawmakers, and Israeli officials were reported pressing lawmakers to oppose the deal. [...]

Israel’s pitch to undecided lawmakers often included such questions as: “How can we get your vote? What’s it going to take?”

But you see, according to present and former US lawmakers who have enormous mouths and are suddenly very concerned about the somewhat nebulous concept of ‘civil liberties’, discovering when someone is trying to plunge a knife into your back is just the gravest violation of the privacy of those who are trying to do the plunging.

For example, Representative Ted Lieu, (D-California) who “has consistently voted to curb powers of the NSA”, asserted on twitter that:

If this is true, it is outrageous. #NSA should not be spying on Congress without a warrant.  https://t.co/YYfZbvwozt.

— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) December 30, 2015

That’s the part he objects to.

And there was also none other than Pete Hoekstra (formerly R-Michigan), the former congressman who chaired the House Intelligence Committee from 2004—2007, took to twitter to complain, saying:

WSJ report that NSA spied on Congress and Israel communications very disturbing. Actually outrageous. Maybe unprecedented abuse of power.

— Pete Hoekstra (@petehoekstra) December 30, 2015

Perhaps Hoekstra is really upset because he shares something common with former representative Jane Harman (D-California), who in 2006 was being lined up to seamlessly replace him, and whose Israeli tricks were foiled by the NSA at that time too:

Wall Street Journal, ‘Lawmaker Is Said to Have Agreed to Aid Lobbyists’, Neil A. Lewis and Mark Mazzetti, 20 Apr 2009:

[...] Ms. Harman was inadvertently swept up by N.S.A. eavesdroppers who were listening in on conversations during an investigation, three current or former senior officials said. It is not clear exactly when the wiretaps occurred; they were first reported by Congressional Quarterly on its Web site.

The official with access to the transcripts said someone seeking help for the employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a prominent pro-Israel lobbying group, was recorded asking Ms. Harman, a longtime supporter of its efforts, to intervene with the Justice Department. She responded, the official recounted, by saying she would have more influence with a White House official she did not identify.

In return, the caller promised her that a wealthy California donor—the media mogul Haim Saban—would threaten to withhold campaign contributions to Representative Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat who was expected to become House speaker after the 2006 election, if she did not select Ms. Harman for the intelligence post.

[...]

Much like Hoekstra, Harman also had something to say about supposed ‘abuses of power’ at that time:

Think Progress, ‘Harman: ‘I’m Just Very Disappointed’’, Ali Frick, 21 Apr 2009:

I’m just very disappointed that my country — I’m an American citizen just like you are — could have permitted what I think is a gross abuse of power in recent years.

She’s one of the people who approved the budget and the legal framework that would supply the NSA and others with equipment and a mandate to watch PCS networks and collect the data under ONEROOF, but then she thought that the NSA and FBI were going to magically avoid collecting signals from her because she’s special?

Whenever Jews or their associates find themselves being treated just like everyone else, they suddenly get very tearful and start talking about how they are so, so, so oppressed. A sad tune needs to be played for them, perhaps, on the tinyest of tiny violins.

I love pointing-out to people, right-wingers, who want to blame youth culture of the 60s as the onset and crux of our demise (not you, GW), that Jewish power and influence combined with Modernist naivete were the forces that were the major culprits - and they were well in force already in the 50s and early 60s, well before kids grew their hair long, listened to rock n’ roll and resisted the Vietnam draft.

Take note of Michael O’Meara’s discussion of how The Soviets and other Marxists/communists used black “civil rights” as a weapon against America; also note my reinforcement that Jewish interests, via Katzenbach, prominently, were only too happy to facilitate what was then more straightforwardly referred-to as “integration.”

Kennedy had been ignoring Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson’s advice, to “look Southerners in the eye and tell them that integration was a moral and Christian issue.”

Governor Wallace, posturing as if to stand in the way of integration, is confronted by Katzenbach

Watching Wallace’s posturing, President Kennedy decided for the first time in his career to risk his political standing in the South by taking the side of integration. President Kennedy decides to go on national television that night and give a speech calling for a civil rights act to end discrimination in the South.

“We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the scriptures and as clear as The American Constitution. The heart of the question is, whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities (He ‘finally’ calls for Federal law ending segregation). Next week I shall ask the Congress of The United States to act, to make a commitment that has not been fully made in this century to the proposition that race has no place in American life or law.”

This, GW, is why not only the Arahamic universalism of The Right, but its wedding to Enlightenment style objectivism (and universalism) must be overcome as well - and it is the post modern project, proper, which has undertaken to do that.

Kennedy is also the one who got us into the Vietnam debacle with a strategy of showing strength against communism with “small wars.”

The documentary concludes..

‘Kennedy set so much in motion in such a short period of time”...

Perhaps the most reliably good outcome of Kennedy biographies are the endings.