Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 21:04 | #

There’s every reason to believe that Jews would like to divert White American animus strictly toward Amerindios and Asians

Which Jews exactly?  All Jews?  Do you think that the argument would profit from a more disciplined and principled approach?

Posted by NY Mag: "Sailer invented identity politics" on Mon, 01 May 2017 17:35 | #

Unz Review, “NY Mag: “The Man Who Invented Identity Politics for the New Right”, 1 May 2017:

New York Magazine saves the image as “alt-right-steve-sailer”

  By Park MacDougald and Jason Willick

After Mitt Romney’s 2012 loss to Barack Obama, the Republican establishment undertook a rigorous postmortem and, looking at demographic trends in the United States, determined that appealing to Hispanics was now a nuclear-level priority. And yet their successful candidate in the next election won by doing precisely the opposite. The Trump strategy looked an awful lot like the Sailer Strategy: the divisive but influential idea that the GOP could run up the electoral score by winning over working-class whites on issues like immigration, first proposed by the conservative writer Steve Sailer in 2000, and summarily rejected by establishment Republicans at the time. Now, 17 years and four presidential cycles later, Sailer, once made a pariah by mainstream conservatives, has quietly become one of the most influential thinkers on the American right.

Read the whole thing there.

This New York article doesn’t link to anything it cites, so in case anybody finds their way here from it, I’ll put in links to my stuff below:

- My 2000 VDARE article advising the GOP to pursue white union families in the Great Lakes states rather than Hispanics.

- Citizenism: My 2006 article on my views in The American Conservative.

- “preference to the interests of its current citizens over foreigners, in the same way as a corporation prioritizes the interests of its current shareholders over everyone else:” Here’s me debating against Jared Taylor in VDARE in 2005.

- Human Biodiversity studies: 72 out of the last 72 finalists in the men’s 100 meter Olympic dash have been at least half black by ancestry.

- Trump as punk rock

- Michael Barone on my election strategy

- My 2006 article perhaps debuting the phrase “Invade the World / Invite the World” as the Grand Strategy of the Bush Administration.

- “Coalition of the Fringes:” here’s a 2012 VDARE article.

- “Elect a new people:” I got that from Peter Brimelow who was quoting a 1953 poem by Brecht.

- The term “ethnic nepotism” was invented in 1981 by Pierre L. van den Berghe. I probably picked it up via William D. Hamilton and Frank Salter.

- “Black privilege” in Taki’s Magazine in 2017.

- Get Out, a remarkably racist kill-the-white-people horror movie

As for the title, “The Man Who Invented Identity Politics for the New Right,” I’m really not much of an inventor. I’m more of an analyst. My contribution perhaps is to explain the inevitability of identity politics and to recommend prudent policies for moderating their impact

.

* “Invented the term ‘ethnic nepotism” ? As is if that is such an ingenious and unique combination of words that you could patent it?

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thu, 04 May 2017 10:01 | #

While I agree that the Sailer Strategy is pernicious, you’ve mentioned it alongside a lot of other analyses that I don’t actually agree with, and it gives perhaps the illusion that I do.

I haven’t actually given my position on the Ukraine crisis at all, as I prefer to keep my views on that concealed. But needless to say I do not support Russia’s position.

Regarding the presidency of George W. Bush, my analysis is obviously more detailed than ‘Wolfowitz took control of Bush and used him like he was a hand puppet’. I have absolutely never said that, and I wouldn’t want there to be the misunderstanding that I think it was that one-sided or that there was no legitimate reason to have waged to the War on Terror, or that the United States somehow didn’t have the right—as any sovereign nation does—to respond to attacks against itself with the use of military force.

To explain my view on those two topics, would probably take hours because the way that the actions which ended up benefiting Israel’s strategic interests were inserted into the process, was actually was carried out through the Office of the Chief of Staff to the Vice President at that time, Scooter Libby. And I don’t want to divert this thread by getting into that. To be honest I don’t even know why you would sandwich the Ukraine Conflict or the War on Terror into an article about the Sailer Strategy which is a domestic electoral strategy which is designed to interface with a protectionist trade strategy.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 04 May 2017 17:31 | #

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thu, 04 May 2017 11:01 | #

While I agree that the Sailer Strategy is pernicious, you’ve mentioned it alongside a lot of other analyses that I don’t actually agree with, and it gives perhaps the illusion that I do.

It wasn’t my intention for you to be perceived as in perfect agreement with me. I thought that my saying that “you could have done better” would have indicated at least some difference, but more like in elaboration; I didn’t foresee anything important to disagree with in a qualitative sense - actually, I still don’t, and I am about to address that.

I haven’t actually given my position on the Ukraine crisis at all, as I prefer to keep my views on that concealed. But needless to say I do not support Russia’s position.

I was not supporting Russia’s position here. I am against Israeli/Jewish motives. My purpose here is to trace them - Jewish/Israeli motives. The Russian part of this was not even a part of my discussion.

Regarding the presidency of George W. Bush, my analysis is obviously more detailed than ‘Wolfowitz took control of Bush and used him like he was a hand puppet’.

Yes, your analysis is more detailed, but Wolfowitz was able to influence him nevertheless - even if indirectly and it is something that Netenhayhu, one of the co-authors of “Clean Break”, would have wanted.

I have absolutely never said that, and I wouldn’t want there to be the misunderstanding that I think it was that one-sided
or that there was no legitimate reason to have waged to the War on Terror, or that the United States somehow didn’t have the right—as any sovereign nation does—to respond to attacks against itself with the use of military force.

I didn’t say that it was one sided. There are many influences to intervene in the middle east, central Asia, and I have urged you to articulate these issues so that they are not obfuscated by moncausalist conspiracy theories.

To explain my view on those two topics, would probably take hours because the way that the actions which ended up benefiting Israel’s strategic interests were inserted into the process, was actually was carried out through the Office of the Chief of Staff to the Vice President at that time, Scooter Libby. And I don’t want to divert this thread by getting into that.

Start a new thread and set us straight.

To be honest I don’t even know why you would sandwich the Ukraine Conflict or the War on Terror

I didn’t fit it in with the war on terror. I fit it in with Operation Clean Break, where it fits all too nicely.

The problem for you is that you think that I think that Jewish motives are the only ones there. They aren’t but I am satisfied that they took an initiatory and headlong role.

into an article about the Sailer Strategy which is a domestic electoral strategy which is designed to interface with a protectionist trade strategy.

Operation Clean Break and Jewish/Israeli motives are the Coherent matter. Trump was put in to take on the Iran deal every bit as W. was wanted in there to take on Iraq. (Bush/Rove Trump/Sailer)

Posted by William Kristol on Fri, 05 May 2017 13:13 | #

William Kristol is associated with a number of prominent conservative think tanks. He was chairman of the New Citizenship Project from 1997 to 2005. In 1997, he co-founded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) with Robert Kagan.

[...]

Kristol was a leading proponent of the Iraq War. In 1998, he joined other foreign policy analysts in sending a letter to President Clinton urging a stronger posture against Iraq.[15][16] Kristol argued that Saddam Hussein posed a grave threat to the United States and its allies: “The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.”[17]

In the 2000 Presidential election, Kristol supported John McCain. Answering a question from a PBS reporter about the Republican primaries, he said, “No. I had nothing against Governor Bush. I was inclined to prefer McCain. The reason I was inclined to prefer McCain was his leadership on foreign policy.”[18]

- Post by DanielS

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 05 May 2017 14:36 | #

Kumiko, It is true that arguments:

1. Such as the one above, that William Kristol would actually have preferred McCain, do call for more evidence on my part to support my thesis that Netanyahu’s clearly preferred candidate was Bush in 2,000.

However, the argument still has strong legs under it, as getting Bush in there as President would also mean Wolfowitz and other neocons came along with him - Wolfowtiz was associated with Perle, Feith, Kristol and Pohoretz.

Richard Perle:

Neoconservative leadership:

Over the past few decades, a tight-knit group of neo-conservatives have had a significant impact in the carving out of American foreign policies, especially those concerning the Middle East. Arguably at the helm of the neoconservative movement is Richard Perle. He has been aided by other prominent neoconservatives, including Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith.

Members of the Neocon core have been interrelated for decades through positions in government, think-tanks, business corporations, and even family ties. As journalist and writer of neoconservative ideology Jacob Heilbrunn states: “neo-conservatism was turned into an actual movement by Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz. Even today, the neoconservative movement is best described as an extended family based largely on the informal social networks patiently forged by these two patriarchs.”[2]

Members of the neoconservative movement are also leaders of many influential “letterhead organizations” (LHO’s) and think-tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute, Project for the New American Century, Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf, Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, and the U.S Committee for a Free Lebanon.[2] These organizations act as a support system for many neoconservative beliefs and help members of the movement draft policy papers, raise money and media attention, and lobby policymakers in order to protect their own political and personal agendas. A sociologist who examined the memberships of such neoconservative organizations ultimately concluded that “the activities of fourteen organizations were coordinated by individuals who comprised a web of interlocking memberships.”[2]

From 1981 to 1982 Wolfowitz was appointed head of the policy planning staff in the State Department.[2] In the same year Perle, who was an assistant secretary for international security policy in President Reagan’s defense department hired and promoted Douglas Feith after he had been fired from his position as a Middle East analyst at the National Security Council.[2] Later it was found out that Feith was fired due to an FBI investigation suspecting that he had distributed confidential materials to an Israeli embassy official.[2] With the right connections and support of his close allies Wolfowitz and Perle, Feith was able to attain the position of undersecretary for policy in the Pentagon in 2001 of which he resigned in 2005. In return, he appointed Perle as chairman of the Defense Policy Board.[2] This friendship was mutually beneficial for both Perle and Feith who used their overlapping positions of power to help promote the other and bail each other out of trouble. Perle is nonetheless an inspiration and mentor to Feith who describes him as a “godfather” and trusts that “He would actively work to help anybody he had worked with and liked and admired and who he thought was useful to the overall cause of U.S. national security as he saw it

Like many in the neoconservative movement, Perle had long been an advocate of regime change in Iraq. In 1998 Perle led an effort known as the Project for the New American Century with close neoconservative allies Wolfowitz, Woolsey, Elliott Abrams, and John Bolton. The Project culminated in a letter sent to US President Bill Clinton calling for the military overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime.

So, the Republicans were generally conducive to the Neocon agenda, even if Cheney was opposed (as you are careful to observe) to the first central aim of Clean Break - taking out Sadaam Hussein. Cheney could be worked around, while his general pugnaceousness could create the atmosphere to get Hussein out of power.

9 -11 does not weaken the fact that Wolfowitz et al. were having a manipulative effect on Bush, it strengthens the argument.

After all, how did Osama Bin Laden’s marshaling of Al Qaieda to attack the World Trade Center translate into Saddam Hussein being where the focus US Military might needed to go, unless you have an extremely coercive bunch of neo-cons (that Netanyahu would have wanted in power with Bush) yanking Bush’s strings?

This cannot to be mistaken as my saying that 9-11 was a conspiracy theory by Jews. It goes rather as evidence of their masterful casuisty, going beyond casuistry actually, to the point of coercion, such that they could take an unrelated issue and use it to justify their Clean Break program. 

Nevertheless, you raise two more very strong problems for my thesis -

2) The Gore/Lieberman ticket. Why would they be less appealing to Netanhayhu than Bush/Cheney? Why would Bush/Cheney be so clearly preferable as to

3) have Israel approve of the Rove strategy of having the Republicans reach out to Hispanics if that’s what it took to get Bush in power?

Let me address counter argument 2 first - Gore/Lieberman: let me admit that they are not looking a whole lot worse than Bush for Operation Clean Break objectives.  My rebut will require some nuance, so I’ll go into it later. First let me begin to look at the Gore position on Iraq and Hussein:

Counter Punch, “Liberal Myths: Would Al Gore Have Invaded Iraq?”

Apparently Gore thinks the unprovoked, pre-emptive bombing of another country is not a violation of the UN charter, not an act of aggressive war, and does not need any new doctrine. And what about imminence? Is lack of true imminence a problem?

If Saddam Hussein does not present an imminent threat, then is it justifiable for the Administration to be seeking by every means to precipitate a confrontation, to find a cause for war, and to attack? There is a case to be made that further delay only works to Saddam Hussein’s advantage, and that the clock should be seen to have been running on the issue of compliance for a decade: therefore not needing to be reset again to the starting point.

In other words, no! the lack of imminence is not a roadblock for an invasion. Gore is seems to be justifying pretense, and redefining imminence in the process. Gore continues:

  But to the extent that we have any concern for international support, whether for its political or material value, hurrying the process will be costly. Even those who now agree that Saddam Hussein must go, may divide deeply over the wisdom of presenting the United States as impatient for war.

Perception, then, is the issue: a unilateral invasion may not look good, so better efforts need to be made to gather international support. But if Gore couldn’t gain wider support, would that have stopped him?

Gore was in fact quite comfortable with military interventions. He highlighted that comfort:

  I was one of the few Democrats in the U.S. Senate who supported the war resolution in 1991. And I felt betrayed by the first Bush administration’s hasty departure from the battlefield.

He had already cited Clinton-Gore Administration actions against Iraq and could have included Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan, Sudan, Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Iraq boycott and regime change policy. In an earlier speech to the Council on Foreign Relations on February 12th 2002, he had said:

  Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq.

  As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table.

Invading Iraq is right and inevitable, the very belief he reiterates nine months later in San Francisco. Further on in that February speech, he said of the proposed invasion:

  So this time, if we resort to force, we must absolutely get it right. It must be an action set up carefully and on the basis of the most realistic concepts. Failure cannot be an option, which means we must be prepared to go the limit.

…thus portending for a Gore presidency what did happen under Bush. It didn’t go as planned, became a quagmire, and the message from Bush (or Gore) year after year was (or would’ve been) “we’ll remain until the mission is completed.”

Indeed, Gore looks like anything but an insurmountable obstacle to Clean Break objectives. He looks better for it, on the surface, than Bush and especially Cheney, who, as you observe, insisted that Hussein be left in power after the first Gulf War.

Thus, I’ll have a problem right there if I’m to defend my thesis that Bush was a much preferable candidate than Gore for Netanyahyu.

And that is leaving aside V.P. candidate Joe Lieberman - who was an even bigger pro Israeli anti-Iraq/Hussein hawk.

Nevertheless, I will go on to defend my thesis. To begin, one thing is for sure, W’s administration was beset with Wolfowitz and Feith’s influence and it actually did facilitate completion of phase one of operation clean break.

After I try to defend why Netanhahu would prefer the Bush administration, I will have to address why it is that he and the rest of the YKW would prefer them so much as to support the Republicans outreach to Hispanics via the Rove strategy.

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 07 May 2017 05:31 | #

I don’t believe that I’ll be able to convince you to see it the way that I do. Even though you actually know what my argument is, you are still determined to uphold your thesis, so this may just be a point of difference between us.

I was going to write a full explanation about what was actually on the agenda at that time. I would have included what that strategic situation actually looked like in the year 2000, where the emphasis was seen as being on Subsaharan Africa and Southwest Europe, certainly not Iraq. No one could have installed Bush with the specific knowledge that something was going to happen regarding Iraq. Bush’s priorities in the 2000 election were to secure America’s post-1991 gains by reforming Medicare and Medicaid, implementing home ownership incentives (which blew up completely in 2008) and implementing education programmes like ‘No Child Left Behind’.

But then I realised that it would actually be useless to even detail the whole argument, because even if I were to convince you specifically to see it my way, and to see that it can be harmful to allocate too much of a foresight and influence to Zionists just as it can also be harmful to allocate too little foresight and influence to Zionists, most of the audience doesn’t care anyway.

Any attempt by me to say, “Hold on, I agree that Zionists have gotten onto the inside track of certain decision-making processes and that their influence is hazardous, but I see no evidence that they were literally omniscient in the year 2000”, is always going to be met with derision when there is a WN audience, because for some reason everyone wants to believe that the Zionists are omniscient, and anyone who dares to claim that the Zionists are not literally omniscient will be regarded with suspicion anyway.

Posted by Trump favors Lieberman as F.B.I. head on Sat, 20 May 2017 05:01 | #

The Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate in 2,000, Joe Lieberman is now Trump’s top pick to replace Comey as head of the F.B.I. Despite Lieberman’s overall lack of qualification for the position he has the one most important qualification for Trump: He’s Jewish.