Posted by Amalek on Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:15 | #

Carmen Callil has published a well reviewed biography of Louis Darquier, the Vichy France dispatcher of Jews. In an epilogue she wrote:

“The French forget Vichy, Australians forget the Aborigines, the English forget the Irish, Unionists forget the Catholics of Northern Ireland, the United States forgot Chile and forgets Guantanamo. Everyone forget East Timor and Rwanda. As I wrote this book, people constantly asked me how I could bear to write about such a villain and about such terrible things. In fact, horrors from the past did not deter me. What caused me anguish… was to live so closely to the helpless terror of the Jews of France, and to see what the Jews of Israel were passing on to the Palestinian people. Like the rest of humanity, the Jews of Israel ‘forget’ the Palestinians. Everyone forgets; every nation forgets.”

But the Chosen, or some of their self-appointed high priests, don’t like being reduced to the same moral level as us cattle. Shame on her! A party to host the book’s launch in the USA was due to be given at the French Embassy. It never happened:

http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat/authors/party_cancelled_callil_attacks_her_protestors_45364.asp

Israel lobby, vot Israel lobby? Ach, such vile hateful slanders, already! They’ll be saying we influence American foreign policy next.

Posted by JJR Apologist on Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:41 | #

The following is a quote I found curious and perplexing for quite some time, but recently found some evidence for:

“The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.”  A letter written by FDR to Colonel House, November 21st, 1933

The Rothschild agent August Belmont (enters US in 1837) had become the chairman of the Democrat party by 1860, and apparently thereon the “New York financial interests” maintained a crucial link…

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/August_Belmont

One can follow this lineage to the 1920s, when Henry Ford speaks quite a bit about the “Jewish dictatorship” centered in New York and the Tammy machine in his book the International Jew. It’s not too early to speak of the “soft” capture of the Democratic party by Jewry by 1933…

We now know that Jewry commissioned the “neoconservatives” from a handful of talented Trotskyites (the Jewish branch of communism, as opposed to the more gentile Stalinists) back in the 1960s with the explicit mission to capture the Republican party. They succeeded, and now we have a de facto soft-to-medium Jewish dictatorship.

That, for those new to the JQ, is 150-word introduction to their American political trajectory.

Posted by JJR Apologist on Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:47 | #

Tammany, not Tammy.

Posted by Rnl on Fri, 13 Oct 2006 06:40 | #

Amelek wrote:

But the Chosen, or some of their self-appointed high priests, don’t like being reduced to the same moral level as us cattle.

That’s true. Jews increasingly find themselves in the unpleasant position of worrying whenever they hear someone complaining about “racism,” since there’s a good chance nowadays that they may find themselves included in the complainer’s cast of villains, especially if the complainer is a leftist. That’s good news. 

Yet on a factual level Carmen Callil’s complaints have only minimal contact with reality:

The French forget Vichy, Australians forget the Aborigines, the English forget the Irish, Unionists forget the Catholics of Northern Ireland, the United States forgot Chile and forgets Guantanamo. Everyone forgets East Timor and Rwanda. As I wrote this book, people constantly asked me how I could bear to write about such a villain and about such terrible things. In fact, horrors from the past did not deter me. What caused me anguish ... was to live so closely to the helpless terror of the Jews of France, and to see what the Jews of Israel were passing on to the Palestinian people. Like the rest of humanity, the Jews of Israel ‘forget’ the Palestinians. Everyone forgets; every nation forgets.

The French do not forget Vichy. They remember it regularly. They may not remember it daily or at every waking moment of their lives, but remembrance of Vichy—or more accurately, of a morally simplified and distorted version of Vichy—figures prominently in France’s (mis)understanding of her past. The French don’t festoon their cities with billboards urging everyone to Remember Vichy, but if they did, everyone would understand what Remember Vichy means. The word “Vichy” is itself enough to conjure up the anti-French version of wartime history which characters like Callil want everyone to remember and which, in fact, everyone already does remember.

The claim that everyone forgets Rwanda is equally fantastic. Rwanda means the mass murder of Tutsis by Hutus. Everyone reading this post knew that; there was no need to clarify. Carmen Callil can simply write “Rwanda,” and every well-informed reader will know the event she is referring to. That’s the exact opposite of an event that has been universally forgotten.

Every well-propangandized reader will also know something else: Rwanda means the mass killing (“genocide”) that the West, and Bill Clinton in particular, failed to prevent. Rwanda, to well-propagandized readers, means not only a mass killing of Blacks by other Blacks, but also a failure of Western will (likely motivated by White “racism”) to prevent it. That interpretation, which Callil evidently believes has been forgotten, has been canonized in a host of newspaper columns and television documentaries. Short of tattooing Remember Rwanda on everyone’s forehead, so that when we’re on the subway discussing last night’s baseball game we’ll also be remembering Rwanda, there could be no interpretation of a recent event far off on a different continent that has been better remembered and more often expressed.

... people constantly asked me how I could bear to write about such a villain and about such terrible things. In fact, horrors from the past did not deter me. What caused me anguish ...

Perhaps I’m insensitive, but I don’t believe any of this. It reflects a common authorial stance employed in writing about old atrocities. The stance implies that it’s about as painful to write about an atrocity as it is to be among its victims. Thus Callil was brave and bold to immerse herself in such horrors, as befits a maverick feminist (a virago) with much experience in bravely standing up to belligerent patriarchs. But then, after establishing her claim to heroism, she modestly rejects the heroism that people _constantly_ (i.e. without interruption) keep thrusting upon her. She was not, she says, deterred by horrors, as those of us less brave and bold might have been. She forged ahead and immersed herself in evil, no matter the personal suffering it might cause. But now, sadly, she confronts another horror, which does cause her genuine anguish—the Jews of Israel have forgotten the Palestinians.

What she really means is that Israel hasn’t treated the Palestinians as she thinks they should have. If she is right in her criticism of Israel, her rightness has nothing whatever to do with Vichy. Her implicit claim, however, is that she is impelled to complain about Israel’s mistreatment of Palestinians because she has just written a book about French mistreatment of Jews. She now knows evil when she sees it.

I can understand why American Jews are angry with Callil. The idea that French mistreatment of Jews somehow illuminates Jewish mistreatment of Palestinians is just facile emotionalism. But since Jews themselves are masters of the imbecilic art of instrumentalizing old atrocities for contemporary political purposes, they’re morally in no position to complain, though of course that won’t stop them from complaining loudly.

A Brief Bio of Carmen Callil:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Callil

Bold Carmen Confronts “The Misogyny of Evil”:

Callil the feminist reserves a special scorn for [Louis Darquier’s] activities as ‘the office bottom-pincher’. He used the offices assigned to him by the Nazis mainly for sexual liaisons, since he had no interest in work. He relied on deputies to discharge his duties, which included inspecting the penises of French citizens who might have belonged to the ‘la race Juive’. Callil even wonders whether his obsession with Jewish blood might not have been a reflex of his sexual inadequacy, perpetuating ‘the fear of menstrual blood exhibited by certain men of religion over the centuries’. For her, he personifies not the banality but the misogyny of evil.

He was, as she wryly concludes, ‘one of the few men to put on weight during the Second World War’. His gourmandising at Maxim’s turned the young spiv into a pudgy, jowled blob. He ended up, incontinent and unrepentant, in Franco’s Spain and assured a French interviewer who tracked him down that in Auschwitz only lice were gassed.

Callil has a moment of vindictive triumph when she attempts to trace Darquier’s mortal remains in a cemetery near Malaga; the black plastic bag that should have contained his pulverised bones was missing. Ignominy was his fate, although Bad Faith will give this forgotten man a kind of unenviable immortality, resurrecting him in order to defame him.

http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/biography/0,,1739569,00.html

Clearly Carmen the Virago enjoyed writing her book. Any hint to the contrary should be dismissed as a lie or an act of self-deception. If Carmen the Virago had been forced, by her immersion in evil, to revise her feminist assumptions, that would have been painful. But in fact her immersion in evil only afforded her the pleasant opportunity of attacking what she already hated. That’s the normal pattern for writers who immerse themselves in old evil. It’s both fun and profitable, and you do it because you have some target in the present that you plan to attack during your immersion.

Posted by Amalek on Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:29 | #

The pack ice is beginning to creak and crack, just a little.

The firm of Mearsheimer and Walt have signed a deal to write a book expanding their London Review of Books essay on the Israel Lobby. It is expected to incorporate the criicicisms—some legitimate, I feel—of the somewhat monolithic picture they presented of US Jewish public opinion, and in their attribution of single Israel-centric explanations for American foreign policy choices. It should also, however, cover the self-fulfilling demonstration of how Israel’s American friends try to smother dissent from the Zionist consensus—as obligingly demonstrated by the fuss the enforcers and silencers kicked up over M&W’s paper.

Surprisingly, this tome will not be published by Regnery but by Farrar, Straus & Giroux, a very eminent mainstream imprint. Will the Lobby have the sense not to lean on FSG as it did on the magazines which couldn’t find space for Mersheimer’s and Walt’s original opus; or it will it shoot itself in the foot again by launching a David Irving/Goebbels biography blitzkreig?

“The imprimatur of being published by FSG is hard to match,” said Samuel Freedman, a professor at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism. “When a publishing house with its credibility and its reputation acquires a conspiracy theory, it can’t help but make that conspiracy theory look more valid than it deserves to look.”

Sorry, Sammy, an academic discussion of such phenomena as AIPAC doesn’t amount to a ‘conspiracy theory’. Put the tattered old Zionist script down, it’s not getting frissons from the audience any longer.

Speaking of AIPAC, the king of the rootless cosmopolitans George Soros is said to be planning to stick a few of his millions into a kinder, gentler, less Likudnikitsch alternative. A conclave of ‘left-wing’ Israel lovers is being assembled to discuss whether, with a spy trial of two ex-officials of AIPAC coming up, it might not be time for baiting and switching: ‘You don’t like our Classic Israel lobby? No problem, here’s the new improved Lo-Cal brand!’

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:11 | #

Can you imagine a newspaper in Iran, say, or New Zealand or China conducting a regular survey on American Presidential hopefuls to determine which would be most “good” for Iranians or Kiwis or Chinese?  It would be an absurd thing to do.  But not in Israel.  Click here.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:03 | #

Meanwhile, across the pond British Conservative leader David Cameron is, according to the Jewish Chronicle, benefitting from a heavy Jewish input of financial and strategic help.

The JC article is perfectly open about it:-

<u>Special report: Team Cameron’s big Jewish backers</u>
13/10/2006
By Bernard Josephs and Leon Symons

Prominent members of the Jewish community are playing a major role in financing David Cameron’s bid for power, a JC investigation can reveal.

The biggest Jewish donor to the party while Mr Cameron has been leader is gaming magnate Lord Steinberg, who has donated £530,000, plus a loan of £250,000. Hedge-fund owner Stanley Fink has donated £103,000, even though he was a declared supporter of Mr Cameron’s leadership rival, Liam Fox. A further £250,000 has been loaned by philanthropist Dame Vivien Duffield.

During Mr Cameron’s campaign to lead his party, Jewish figures gave his team (as opposed to the party) additional donations of more than £60,000. According to the JC’s inquiries, direct donations to “Team Cameron” in the leadership battle came from philanthropist Trevor Pears (around £20,000), Bicom chair Poju Zabludowicz (£15,000 plus £25,000 to the party), Next chief executive Simon Wolfson (£10,000 plus £50,000 to the party), former Carlton TV boss Michael Green (£10,000) and Tory deputy treasurer and key Cameron fundraiser Andrew Feldman (£10,000 through his family firm, Jayroma).

Beyond the donors, a small but influential group of Jewish Conservative officials and politicians were also key players in Mr Cameron’s campaign for the leadership. Among them was party treasurer and managing director of Cavendish Corporate Finance, Howard Leigh, who stressed that Mr Cameron was preparing a new policy on political financing.

“He is preparing to cap donations at £50,000, combined with some state financing,” Mr Leigh told the JC. “The aim is to prevent people from buying influence. We think a £50,000 cap is reasonable.”

Mr Leigh worked closely with Mr Feldman in running the so-called “Team Cameron,” and both will now be charged with broadening the party’s donor base. Mr Feldman is a close friend of Mr Cameron, whom he met as an undergraduate at Oxford University.

Other senior figures around the leader include Oliver Letwin, head of policy. A former shadow Home Secretary and shadow Chancellor, Mr Letwin is, like Mr Cameron, an Old Etonian.

Welwyn Hatfield MP Grant Shapps, who seconded Mr Cameron’s bid to become Tory leader, decided early on that he was the man “of the future.” He backed his campaign, he told the JC, because “I saw that he had great leadership qualities.” As a vice-chairman of the Conservative Party, he said, he would be taking the Cameron message to supporters around the UK.

Although he is popular with Jewish Tories, Mr Cameron’s criticism of Israel’s actions in Lebanon sparked doubts about his stance — voiced particularly by Tory donor and former party treasurer Lord Kalms.

However, Conservative Friends of Israel chair Richard Harrington stressed that the leader had given LFI “every possible access” and had met CFI officials several times.

The Key Players

Andrew Feldman - Destined to be charged with raising money for the new-look Conservative Party, Andrew Feldman (circled, at the left of the picture), 40, met Mr Cameron (circled, right of picture) at Brasenose College, Oxford. He is a close friend and tennis partner of the leader.

Said to be a member of the Tories’ so-called Notting Hill set, he lives in West London with his wife and two children. Mr Feldman attended Haberdashers’ Aske’s school, and, after qualifying as a lawyer, entered the family’s ladieswear firm, Jayroma. Having acted as fundraiser for Mr Cameron’s leadership campaign, he is now deputy treasurer of the party and is in Mr Cameron’s economic-policy group.

Michael Green- Michael Green, former chairman of Carlton Television, gave financial support to David Cameron’s leadership campaign but would not discuss details.

“I am a big supporter of David Cameron but I want to make it clear that I have not supported the Tory Party. I have supported David Cameron’s quest to become leader,” he said.

Lord Steinberg- Lord Steinberg — formerly Leonard Steinberg — became a life peer in 2004 and is a major donor to the Conservatives. Raised in Belfast and educated at Royal Belfast Academical Institution, the 70-year-old Baron Steinberg of Belfast was a founder of Stanley Leisure plc, the gaming company, serving as executive chairman from 1957 to 2002 and non-executive chairman since then. He is a former deputy treasurer of the Tory party and is a founder and chairman of his family charitable trust. His political interests are listed in Dod’s, the parliamentary guide, as Northern Ireland, tax and gambling, and Israel.

Simon Wolfson - A donor to David Cameron’s leadership campaign and to the Conservative Party, Simon Wolfson, 38, will be continuing a family tradition when he becomes an adviser to Mr Cameron on improving economic competition and wealth creation.

The son of Lord Wolfson, who was chief of staff to Margaret Thatcher, Mr Wolfson, chief executive of the Next clothing chain, is one of the youngest advisors to be appointed by Mr Cameron.

Along with MP John Redwood, Mr Wolfson will jointly chair the advisory group that will seek to reduce red tape and improve education and skills in the workplace. It will also examine the country’s transport infrastructure.

Grant Shapps MP - As vice-chairman of the Conservative Party and seconder to David Cameron’s campaign, backbencher Grant Shapps will find the next few months extremely busy as he tours the constituencies to persuade Tories of the virtues of the new leadership.

Speaking to the JC, he acknowledged that there would be doubts in some quarters but he has no doubt that the party has chosen the right man.

“I persuaded my colleagues at the parliamentary level and I shall now have to do the same thing all over the country,” said the MP for Welwyn Hatfield. “The thing that people will like about David is that he is very optimistic.”

That’s democracy in action.