Posted by Rummy Rumsfeld on Wed, 08 Nov 2006 22:09 | #

Hey, why did old Rummy have to quit - when is Wolfie Wolfowitz going to give up his comfy job?

No, goyische kop Rumsfeld - who was called a “studmuffin” by a Jewess when things were going better - is the one who walks the plank so to speak.

Not too worry, Rummy is wealthy - much more so than Iraq war widows from pro-Bush red states, or veterans who’ve had their arms and/or legs blown off.

Their sons - if they have any - can have their own lives put on the line when the Perles, Feiths, and Wolfowitz’ deem it necessary for cattle to march once more into the breach.

After all, a “clean break” requires a few sacrifices here and there, right Perle, ye old “Prince of Darkness”....

Posted by Der Dukester on Thu, 09 Nov 2006 11:49 | #

On his website, Auster once again demonstrates that, regardless of how rational he may be on other issues, when it comes to the “JQ”, his lack of logic is tragicomic.  The full quote is below, but the inconsistency is shown here:

point 1, regarding David Duke’s beliefs: “...any Jew who claims to support whites will only be a fifth columnist trying to undermine the whites from within.”

point 2:  “In the same way, Duke sees Jews as the enemy if they seek to harm European Man, and he sees Jews as the enemy if they support European man. Meaning he sees Jews as the enemy, no matter what they do.”

If Duke truly believes that Jews claiming to support whites are only “fifth columnists”, then it obviously isn’t true that Duke sees as an enemy Jews who are “supporting European man.”  In other words, Duke does not see any Jews as supporting - sincerely - white interests, so how can he see as an enemy something which he believes does not exist?

Key to this analysis - and what Auster conveniently leaves out - are the specifics of the Girin piece that Duke criticized.  Girin praises three Jews as being in the vanguard of supporting whites, and Duke specifically critiques two of these - Schiller and Berman.  As Duke notes, Schiller chose his Yeshiva over continued activism, and his major ‘accomplishment’  it seems was inducing a split in the already fractured British Right.  Berman, following in this tradition, is splitting away from American Renaissance to form his own “anti-Nazi” “race-realist foundation.”  Duke also noted that Schiller says that it is all over, that the white man has lost.  On that note, Girin’s other hero, Weissberg, gave a speech at an AR convention basically blaming whites for Jewish support of blacks (which Girin somewhat mentions) and also wrote a bizarre essay in AR telling whites to surrender and accept the way things are because there is nothing we can do about, things “aren’t that bad”, and if whites defend their interests, then blacks may riot.  Even Taylor got miffed at that.  Both Girin and Auster (and, unfortunately, Duke as well) didn’t see fit to mention that detail.

So, Auster’s comment on Duke is irrational on its face.  The only way for Auster to salvage the argument is to admit that, yes, Duke obviously believes that “pro-white Jews” are not “supporting European man”, but that this belief is unfounded and evidence of Duke’s animus.

However, reading what Duke *actually wrote*, and examining the facts, leads us to conclude that Duke has specific reasons to believe what he does.  And unless Auster can explain away Duke’s specific reasoning, his attack on Duke is unconvincing.

Auster from VFR: “Eugene Girin had an article at vdare a few days ago arguing that there is a rising movement or at least an increasing incidence of Jews who identify with and support the white race. While I questioned whether such a phenomenon exists in sufficient numbers to make it significant, I said it was greatly to be desired. Not David Duke. He doesn’t want any Jews supporting the white race. As Duke sees it, since Jews are the mortal enemies who seek the extermination of the white race, any Jew who claims to support whites will only be a fifth columnist trying to undermine the whites from within.

So, Duke doesn’t want Jews to live in Western countries, and he doesn’t want Israel to exist either. Meaning he doesn’t want Jews to exist anywhere. In the same way, Duke sees Jews as the enemy if they seek to harm European Man, and he sees Jews as the enemy if they support European man. Meaning he sees Jews as the enemy, no matter what they do.”

Posted by Jewhoo on Thu, 09 Nov 2006 18:15 | #

Markus Wolf, not an atypical early-20th century Jew, dies at age 83: 

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Germany-Obit-Wolf.html?hp&ex=1163134800&en=c4617016056aeef2&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Stereotypes
—Son of a communist, born in 1923, in Germany.
—Family moves to Soviet Union from France, in 1934 (!)
—Enrolls at Comintern school after college graduation
—Mans anti-Germany broadcasts from 1943-1945 (so much for Jewish loyalty to their gentile land of birth)
—Becomes head of the Stasi at age 29 for thirty-five years, no doubt due to ethnic nepotism.

Seems many, many Jews were placed at the top of most, if not all of the Central and Eastern European nations overrun by Soviet forces in 1945.

Posted by Ian-n-Larry-4-ever on Fri, 10 Nov 2006 12:39 | #

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/#006729

After years of Jobling at AR, he has been replaced by a Mr. Lefrevre who, according to reports, is also extremely philosemitic.

I’m not quite sure then what guys like Berman, Hart, and Auster want of Jared Taylor.  Does Jared need to wear a yarmulke at AmRen conferences? 

What?

Posted by Nick on Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:44 | #

To the juvenile last commenter: Why don’t you just call Auster a “big doody-head” or a “homo”. Perhaps you could accuse him, and Michael Hart and other Jewish race-realists, of having “the cooties”.

Hopefully, the Nazi wing of AR will continue to be marginalized. If there is a future for race-realism and a sensible position on immigration, it will be in spite of, and not because of, bigots and Jew-bashers like yourself.

And Jewhoo: Why do you suppose a Jew might have made “anti-German” broadcasts from 1943-45? Would you expect a Jew to be loyal to a country that had the policies of Nazi Germany? That would be more than a little insane, don’t you think? Why do you suppose Wolf fled the Germany in the first place?

Posted by Ian Auster on Fri, 10 Nov 2006 19:52 | #

“To the juvenile last commenter: Why don’t you just call Auster a “big doody-head” or a “homo”. “

You are the only one making an ass of yourself with such comments.  Grow up.

“Perhaps you could accuse him, and Michael Hart and other Jewish race-realists, of having “the cooties”. “

Who is being juvenile now?  Are Hart and Auster beyond criticism?  That’s ironic about the whole episode - AR actively censors negative comments about Jews (while allowing negative comments about every other group, including whites) on their sites, and yet that is not good enough.  Taylor is supposed to “purge” AR of anyone suspected of not meeting the Hart-Auster-Berman standards, and if anyone *dares* defend Taylor and ask what more should he do, then we are saying that Hart has “cooties.”  What nonsense.  Grow up.

“Hopefully, the Nazi wing of AR will continue to be marginalized.”

What Nazi wing?  Taylor?  Who?  The people attending the conference are not vetted by Jared, although I gather you believe they should be.

“If there is a future for race-realism and a sensible position on immigration…”

The Hart-Berman-Weissberg future?  The sensible policies of who?

“...it will be in spite of, and not because of, bigots and Jew-bashers like yourself.”

No, we should listen to the likes of Weissberg and Hart.  Strange isn’t it as well that an alleged friend of AR uses the term “bigot” so freely?  Of course, if one were to call, say, Hart or Auster “bigots” because of their anti-black comments, that would be “unjustified.”

Also - how is it being a “Jew basher” to ask what more do people like Berman and Auster want of Taylor?  Or, is *any* criticisms of *any* Jew now considered “Jew bashing” and “bigotry?”  That a joke was made about Taylor wearing a yarmulke?  Is that “Jew bashing?”  Let’s see: hyper-sensitivity combined with labelling opponents “bigots.”  Where have we seen that before?

“And Jewhoo: Why do you suppose a Jew might have made “anti-German” broadcasts from 1943-45?”

By this logic, the book “Russopobia” was quite justified, don’t you think?

“Would you expect a Jew to be loyal to a country that had the policies of Nazi Germany?”

That explains of course, moving to the USSR in 1934, and allying onself with the Soviet regime rather than, say, with the USA-Britain, which were also anti-Nazi.

” Why do you suppose Wolf fled the Germany in the first place?”

Didn’t Jewhoo say that Wolf’s family “fled” France to go to the promised land of Stalin-Khagonovitch “kill the Slavs” paradise?

Posted by Larry Jobling on Fri, 10 Nov 2006 20:04 | #

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2445070_1,00.html

So, it is true that Wolf’s family fled Nazi Germany, fearing “persecution.”

Interesting though the choice of destination, the promised land of freedom for the Wolf family: not the USA, not the UK, not France - the Soviet Union, a nation in the process of murdering tens of millions of its own citizens.

Maybe the fact that Wolf’s father was a “well known Jewish communist author” had something to do with that choice.

I assume that any criticism of Wolf, his father, or their choice of the USSR will be considered “bigotry” and “Jew bashing.”

Indeed, Marcus Wolf should be considered an anti-Nazi hero, and his picture should grace every future issue of AR.

Posted by Cooties on Sat, 11 Nov 2006 12:38 | #

Nick, you are making an unfounded assumption that Michael Hart does not, in fact, have cooties.  How do you know this?  Do you have access to Hart’s medical exam records?  I doubt that.  Of course, it is probable Hart does not have cooties; after all, even “Nazi” Duke did not claim that in response to Hart’s tirade.  But, we must know for sure.

Hart needs to be checked for cooties; to be fair, we can check David Duke as well.  We certainly don’t want a cooties outbreak at the next AmRen convention.

Do you know how tall Lawrence Auster is?  Why call him “big?”  And whether or not he is a doody-head is another question; you seem to have decided, a priori, that he is not.  Further, I am not aware whether Mr. Auster has of yet revealed his sexual preference, so your reference to “homo” is completely unfounded as well.

First, we need to find out whether Hart has cooties, and then whether or not Larry is a big homo doody-head.  We *must* have the facts, and not your juvenile rants.  Since Auster supports religious traditionalism, I will make the a priori assertion that he is in fact *not* a homo.  He may still be a big doody-head; I really do not know.

Please do not be unfair to Hart or Auster.

Posted by Boratenstein on Sun, 12 Nov 2006 14:26 | #

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/11/most-ironic-borat-news-story-yet.html

Note the topic of Cohen’s thesis.

Sacha Baron Cohen - a perfect candidate for a major player in the breakaway “Realist Foundation”, don’t you think?

Posted by Election Summary on Sun, 12 Nov 2006 15:14 | #

Perhaps the Brits on this board can comment:

Following yesterday’s results, the number of Jews in the Senate rose from 11 to 13 and in the House of Representatives from 26 to 30. However, the United States is still only in third place worldwide for the number of Jewish legislators, after Israel and Britain.

Britain, despite having a Jewish community 20 times smaller than that of the United States, has 59 Jewish members of parliament, including 18 in the House of Commons and 41 in the House of Lords. The latter number includes seven barons whose seats in the house were hereditary until recently. However, the umbrella organization of British Jewry said that in fact, the number of Jews in the House of Lords is even higher, totaling at least 46.

. . .

Brown, who coordinates the ICJP’s work in Israel, also noted that in recent years, cooperation among Jewish legislators worldwide has increased.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/785642.html

Posted by Bo Sears on Sun, 12 Nov 2006 21:34 | #

We’ve paid close attention to the underlying issue here, namely the helpful Semite and the helpful Shabbos Goy, and we’ve developed several tests that can be applied as rigorously as wished in determining the true intentions of the subject.

1) The first test is whether or not a key element in the arguments by the friend is one of loss, gloom, defeat, and the need for acceptance of having lost a contest we have only begun to understand has existed throughout the world for centuries. I don’t know how we could have missed it, but it is a true contest for very high stakes. When a friend tells us it is all over and that we must appease, oops, accommodate a new reality on the ground, we need to put one red flag by the name of the friend.

2) The second test of the intentions of the friend is to grasp the enormity of the difference between the friend’s policy prescriptions for the members of his or her spedific ethnicity compared with the policy prescriptions for the members of other white ethnic groups. Any significant distinction calls for another red flag by the name of the friend.

3) The third test would be honesty in general about historical realities. For example, we see Joseph Stalin personally blamed for the genocide by starvation in Ukraine when it was obviously the very logical outgrowth of the Bolshevik party’s guiding doctrines. Another example is the denial of the friend’s kin’s, uncles’, and grandparents’ role in Bolshevik leadership ranks. A final example would be the presentation of remarks about so-called krystalnacht without mentioning the assassination that immediately preceded that set of events. Spinning history that we actually have access to is another big red flag.

4) The final measure is to determine the depth of residual supremacy instincts, and this can be done by the friend’s attempt to tell us who we are through naming. Labels like WASP, goy, gentile, shicksha, and so on when applied to us are ways the friend betrays his supremacy instincts. It is an absolute truth that the claim to have the right to name someone or someone’s group is based on a claim to supremacy. There are other ways to measure the supremacy instinct, but this is a good one and is a huge red flag.

So, how many red flags should we see thrown on the playing field before determining the friend is no friend? I would say one, but certainly no more than two.

Shabbos goys move in and out of these categories. Jared Taylor is allowing all of the above items free range on Amren. Peter Brimelow is steadily moving in the same direction, and in recent weeks has participated in at least two of of the above items.

By the way, Lawrence Auster has appeared recently to have abandoned his prior very strong and aggressively argued claim to have the right to name us.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 12 Nov 2006 22:08 | #

“A final example would be the presentation of remarks about so-called krystalnacht without mentioning the assassination that immediately preceded that set of events.”  (—Bo)

Indeed, or this.

Posted by Rnl on Wed, 15 Nov 2006 23:46 | #

A reasonable summary; the entire review is worth reading too. In the post-9/11 era, what begins as anti-Semitism increasingly ends up as mainstream reporting.

***

In the definitive book about the Iraq war, liberal hawk George Packer tells the whole story of America’s worst foreign-policy debacle—and reveals how good intentions can go terribly wrong.

By Gary Kamiya

[...]

Packer [in _The Assassins’ Gate: America in Iraq_] describes how the first salvo in what was to become the Iraq war was fired by PNAC, whose members included Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, James Woolsey and William Bennett; “more than half of the founding members would go on to assume high positions in the administration of George W. Bush.” In 1998, PNAC sent an open letter to President Clinton, arguing that the policy of containment had failed and urging him to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Weakened by the Lewinsky scandal, Clinton reluctantly signed the Iraq Liberation Act. “Regime change in Iraq became official U.S. policy.”

“Why Iraq?” Packer asks. “Why did Iraq become the leading cause of the hawks?” He gives two reasons: Paul Wolfowitz’s desire to atone for America’s failure to topple Saddam at the end of the first Gulf War, and the neocons’ obsession with defending Israel.

In Packer’s account, Wolfowitz is a fascinating, fatally flawed figure, an idealist who failed to take actions in support of his ideals. As Dick Cheney’s undersecretary of defense for policy, Wolfowitz went along with Bush I’s decision not to oust Saddam at the end of the first Gulf War. But he was haunted by that choice, and determined to rectify it. “More than Perle, Feith, and the neoconservatives in his department—certainly more than Rumsfeld and Cheney—Wolfowitz cared,” Packer writes. “For him Iraq was personal.” Packer holds Wolfowitz largely responsible for the Bush administration’s failure to put enough troops into Iraq, and to plan for the aftermath.

The leading light of the neoconservatives was Richard Perle, whom Packer describes as the Iraq war’s “impresario, with one degree of separation from everyone who mattered.” A partisan of Israel’s hard-line Likud Party and a protégé of neocon Democrat Scoop Jackson, Perle recruited two other staunch advocates of Israel, Douglas Feith and Elliott Abrams, to work for Jackson and hawkish Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Packer writes, “When I half jokingly suggested that the Iraq War began in Scoop Jackson’s office, Perle said, ‘There’s an element of that.’” In 1985, Perle had met and become friends with an Iraqi exile named Ahmad Chalabi. “By the time of the PNAC letter in January 1998, Perle knew exactly how Saddam could be overthrown: Put Ahmad Chalabi at the head of an army of Iraqi insurgents and back him with American military power and cash.”

Almost all these figures, starting with Scoop Jackson, shared a key obsession: Israel. “In 1996, some of the people in Perle’s circle had begun to think about what it would mean for Saddam Hussein to be removed from the Middle East scene. “They concluded it would be very good for Israel,” Packer writes. “Perle chaired a study group of eight pro-Likud Americans, including Douglas Feith, who had worked under Perle in the Reagan administration, and David Wurmser, who was the author of the paper produced under the group’s auspices ... Afterwards the group was pleased enough with its work to send the paper to the newly elected Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.” The paper, “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” advocated smashing the Palestinians militarily, removing Saddam from power, and installing a Hashemite king on the Iraq throne.

The dangerous absurdity of this scheme (elements of which appeared in a later book by Perle and Bush speechwriter David Frum, modestly titled “An End to Evil”) did not prevent it from being accepted by high officials of the Bush administration. “A few weeks before the start of the Iraq War, a State Department official described for me what he called the ‘everybody move over one theory’: Israel would annex the occupied territories, the Palestinians would get Jordan, and the Jordanian Hashemites would be restored to the throne of Iraq,” Packer writes. The neocons were out-Likuding the Likud: Even Ariel Sharon had long abandoned his beloved “Jordan is Palestine” idea. That Douglas Feith, one of the ideologues who subscribed to such lunatic plans (the departing Colin Powell denounced Feith to President Bush as “a card-carrying member of the Likud”) was in charge of planning for Iraq is almost beyond belief.

“Does this mean that a pro-Likud cabal insinuated its way into the high councils of the U.S. government and took hold of the apparatus of American foreign policy to serve Israeli interests (as some critics of the war have charged, rather than addressing its merits head on?)” Packer asks. “Is neoconservative another word for Jewish (as some advocates of the war have complained, rather than addressing their critics head on)?” Packer does not answer the first question directly, but he makes it clear that the intellectual origins of the war were inseparably tied to neocon concerns about Israel. “For Feith and Wurmser, the security of Israel was probably the prime mover… The idea of realigning the Middle East by overthrowing Saddam Hussein was first proposed by a group of Jewish policy makers and intellectuals who were close to the Likud. And when the second President Bush looked around for a way to think about the uncharted era that began on September 11, 2001, there was one already available.”

http://dir.salon.com/story/books/review/2005/10/07/packer/index.html?pn=2

Posted by Rnl on Sat, 09 Jun 2007 16:58 | #

neoconservatives - Jewish ex-trotskyites and fellow travellers who stole the GOP from European-Americans, captured the US Presidency, opened the borders as wide as possible and declared war on Israel’s enemies.

- GW’s Little Lexicon

Some quotes culled from <http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss>:

“Senator McGovern is very sincere when he says that he will try to cut the military budget by 30%. And this is to drive a knife in the heart of Israel ... Jews don’t like big military budgets. But it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States ... American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don’t want to cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel.” (Irving Kristol, writing in 1973 in _Congress Bi-Weekly_, a publication of the American Jewish Congress.)

“I’ve always thought it was best for Israel for the U.S. to be generally engaged and generally strong, and then the commitment to Israel follows from a general foreign policy.” (William Kristol to the _Jerusalem Post_, July 27, 2000.)

“There was, to be sure, one thing that many of even the most passionately committed American Zionists were reluctant to do, and that was to face up to the fact that continued American support for Israel depended upon continued American involvement in international affairs - from which it followed that an American withdrawal into the kind of isolationist mood that prevailed most recently between the two world wars, and that now looked as though it might soon prevail again, represented a direct threat to the security of Israel.” (Norman Podhoretz, neocon godfather, writing about the centralness of Israel, in _Breaking Ranks_ [1979].)

“One major factor that drew [the first-generation neo-cons] inexorably to the right was their attachment to Israel and their growing frustration during the 1960s with a Democratic party that was becoming increasingly opposed to American military preparedness and increasingly enamored of Third World causes [e.g., Palestinian rights]. In the Reaganite right’s hard-line anti-communism, commitment to American military strength, and willingness to intervene politically and militarily in the affairs of other nations to promote democratic values (and American interests), neocons found a political movement that would guarantee Israel’s security.” (Benjamin Ginsberg, _The Fatal Embrace_ (1993), p. 231.)

====

Palestinians Barred From Bathing in Dead Sea

IDF soldiers in the Jordan Valley this week received an order with which some of them find it hard to identify.

The Jordan Valley Brigade ordered a battalion of reserves serving in the northern Dead Sea area to set up a roadblock at the eastern edge of the Jerusalem-Jericho road and to prevent Palestinian civilians from all over the territories from reaching the Dead Sea.

Officers and soldiers serving in the area reported that they had been ordered to stop all Palestinian vehicles or vehicles of Arab Israelis, and to deny anyone with a Palestinian identity card access to the Dead Sea beaches. Officers at the brigade headquarters had explained that Israelis bathing on the north shore of the Dead Sea had not been pleased with the presence of the Palestinians whom they feared might harm them.

It should be noted that the northern Dead Sea is part of the territories. On the face of it, after removal of the roadblocks in the West Bank there should be no problem about allowing Palestinians to reach the Dead Sea shore and bathing there.

But a senior officer in Central Command said the ban on Palestinians reaching the shore is not the result of a whim. He said that since the opening of the bathing season large numbers of Palestinians have been coming to the northern Dead Sea shore, which is the only beach where Palestinian from the West Bank are allowed to bathe. In some cases, the officer said, violence and scuffles broke out between Palestinians and Jews. In addition, the officer said, there are some warnings of terrorist attacks in that area.

However the officer did not explain why, if the problem is one of security, why is the very thorough security check which the army conducts on the Palestinians at the road block insufficient.

The IDF Spokesperson’s Office response to our request to comment was:

“After an evaluation of the security situation it was decided at Central Command that Palestinian traffic from Judea and Samaria to the Jordan Valley would be permitted through the Taysir and Bekaot crossing points, after a full security check.”

The IDF Spokesperson’s Office did not answer our question about why Palestinians are being denied access to the Dead Sea shore.

http://www.realisticdove.org/archives/109

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:17 | #

Now it comes out.  For this,

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106215837 ,

the unindicted war criminal George Bush, his unindicted court Jews, and his unindicted co-conspirator Toady Blair, attacked Iraq!  For this! 

For nothing!!!  For zero, zip, nada!!!

All those Yugoslavs they tried in The Hague for war crimes, that was “legitimate,” but Bush commits the worst war crimes of all and walks free, and that’s ... right you guessed it, that’s legitimate ….. <strike>Jew World Order style legitimate</strike> New World Order style legitimate ...........