One of Israel's most fascinating functions for American Jewry is, It is our id. Here we have responsibility, logic, power, and indirection. There they have brawn, testosterone, impulse, straightforwardness. When I was young, women used to say that over in Israel, when a guy is interested in you, he propositions you on the street. When Israelis come to the U.S., they're incredibly rude (as a rule). Here we work at desk jobs and are urban. There they make the desert bloom and rough it. A lot of this feeling comes out of the Holocaust shadow, of course. Jews would show the world that they were not effete and would not go quietly to their deaths. The Holocaust was an emasculating experience. Consider Ari Ben-Canaan, the Paul Newman character in Exodus. He's tall, he's a man of action, he doesn't whine or natter. He's the complete opposite of the schlemiel. Back when Jeffrey Goldberg was pushing for the Iraq war at the New Yorker, people used to say that the former IDF soldier was the magazine's id. Of course, the Palestinians have had to bear the burden of this psychological demonstration for a couple of generations. Even now when I tell my sister, who's never been to Israel, about abuses in the Occupied Territories, she kind of shrugs as if to say, Hey those guys are tough. I'm all for the id. But projecting all these feelings on to Israelis means the Jewish psyche is unintegrated...
That is how I interpret the Jerusalem Post's piece reporting on Vanity Fair's list of the 100 most powerful/important Americans. The JP says that more than half of American leaders are Jewish (by the old journalistic method of counting the names it thinks are Jewish). The JP is being straightforward and sincere about an issue that no one in the U.S. can be direct about. Though Jews will talk about it amongst themselves. Isn't this important sociological journalism? Don't these numbers represent a transformation of the Establishment? Shouldn't our leading journals be doing this story? And you wonder why the Israel lobby is effective... Meanwhile Mort Zuckerman warns on television about the power of the Armenian lobby. I bet he's on the list. What a dereliction of journalistic duty...
A little meandering there Phil.
What is your point?
The individuals that comprise a list are individuals. They achieved on their own merit in their own diverse individual fields.
No conspiracy before or after the fact could be implied.
Dynamism is a virtue. I wish I were more dynamic. Action rather than inaction, rather than passivity. Ironically, a person that is capable of action, is also likely to be capable of restraint.
Able.
A good characteristic.
Why would you lead an article with the headline that you chose?
What questions are you hoping will be asked as a result?
What assertions do you expect to be made?
"Yes, we're racially proud to succeed. We hope to impose on others."
"You f-ing Jews. You dominate everything and impose on others."
Predicted, predictable. Except that there are none that are asserting the racial superiority here, but more than a couple asserting the conspiratorial.
Do you think that individual Jews should intentionally fail at their efforts, so as not to insult the white Christian elite? (That's what the neo-conservatives do when they assume roles advisor to those of power.)
Or, do you think that Jews should not express their concerns?
Hard to know.
Gotta go with Richard on this one, Phil. It wouldn't matter if 100% of the people on the list were Jewish, or Chinese, or Brahmins. It is their actions that matter, not their ethnicity.
If the actions are wrong, call them on it. I've been reading with fascination Glenn Greenwald's stuff over the past month, where daily he fixes his laser intellect on one sacred cow of the press after another, exploding their hypocrisy and mendacity, but quite correctly not getting into issues of ethnicity. He doesn't need to.
Hate the sin, not the sinner. If people lie, say so. But don't say "he lies, AND he's a zoroastrian, so therefore all zoroastrians are liars." That's a logical fallacy.
If the JP wants to play "who's the Jew," let them.
As for this: "There they have brawn, testosterone, impulse, straightforwardness." I'm gonna plotz! I can give you a short list of bars in Brooklyn where, on any Saturday night, you can find these things in abundance. You wouldn't like it, and you would never go there, because you understand that these qualities are not admirable, but primitive and dangerous. In a bar they get your teeth kicked in. In a country? You never saw 'Triumph of the Will?' Or, for that matter, a boxing match? These are underground forces that civilized people try to limit, not celebrate.
When you use the word 'arrogance,' don't you mean 'indifference to other's sensitivities?' You find this admirable? I don't.
And remember: Paul Newman (nice man that he is) isn't tall. It's how they place the cameras.
Oarwell gets it right.
Why do I get the feeling that I've grown some from reading others' opinions here, but Phil, you keep making the same mistakes over and over again.
"Don't these numbers represent a transformation of the Establishment?"
Precisely! That's why americans don't want to talk abou that. Just like jews wouldn't talk abou the holocaust after the war now it's time for americans to feel themselves as the "schlemiel". But what should americans expect, after putting aside the grandsons of those who placed the bricks in Harvard Square in order to make room for people like A. Dershowitz? Oh, yes, the spaces were empty, let's fill them with some dershowitzes and wisses and our society will become less decadent and so less prone to have young people adopting rude aliases, like "Allahstein".
Phil- OT but do you get the NPR program "on point"? there in NYC? Kanen makiya was on last week. It was really over the top. he was completely rude to the callers who excorciated him for his role in selling us the war. They played a clip of him talking about de baathification from April 03. Then he explained that he wasn't for total de baathification, virtually contradicting the statement they had just played. at one point Tom Ashbrook, the host, sounded like he was ready to throttle him. I would definately check it out. it spoke volumesabout the mentality of the war party
People with the alias Anonymous should not throw stones. If you're going to complain about someone's alias than at least use your real name.
-Natam
Richard Witty and his protege Allahstein are completely correct that Jewishness per se is not completely irrelevant to the question of Zionism and its influence in the U.S.
Obviously then Philip should be required to respect the traditional, misguided notions that Jews are frozen out of power in the U.S. WASP hierarchy.
And clearly anyone who says anything about rich Jews is constructing a sequel to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Natam, "anonymous" is a non-alias. It's not offensive and is also a pass for people to ignore my comments at will, like you should have done.
"Allahstein" comming from a zionist is offensive and intentionally so. But I guess you do not consider muslim sensibilities worthy of your attention, especially when you have a proto-zionist pup to defend. You will make a good Dershowitz one day. Maybe americans will have a place for you at Harvard, where you may help your fellow zionists out-compete true americans. It all starts this way, when goodwill is given to people of this or that tribe, rather than to those who deserve it. Afterall is easier to out-compete a group which believes in fair play, when your group has a distinct moral framework, that "anomaly" something which makes "Allahstein" sound like music, but "Anonymous" sound like goyishe, bleeergh!
I posted this to another thread, but I think it fits better here.
FOR THE RECORD:
One thing I'd like to make clear in this group therapy session is that I don't begrudge in any way the success that Jewish people enjoy in the USA. I am not worried at all about the influence that such an industrious minority has carved out for themselves. Nor do I think it abnormal that they feel concern for Israel. I have Irish-American relatives that used to pass the hat for the IRA. Rather I am worried about my own tribe.
Mine is a tribe that once produced, in no particular order, Emerson, Melville, Edison, Ford, Graham Bell, Mencken, Carnegie, Jefferson, Franklin, Thoreau, Whitman, William and Henry James, John Dewey, Oliver Wendell Holmes jr., Lincoln, Roosevelt, Hemingway and John Ford to name just a few. Now about all we can cough up is a parasitic geek like Bill Gates.What has happened to my tribe? Is it something "they" put in the hamburgers?
I am grateful to America's Jews for taking up the slack and filling the vacuum produced by the decadence of my tribe. Without its Jews, the United States would be like an obese version of Australia. The problem is with America's institutions, not the with the people who game them. There is a humorous Spanish saying, "contra el vicio de pedir está la virtud de no dar", "against the sin of begging, is the virtue of not giving". Or as Nancy Reagan has it, "just say no".
In contrast, I have seen Arab/Muslim representatives dismissed outright by Jewish voices I have had forum discussions with merely for their "tribal" affiliation. It may well be that these individuals acheived their positions on merit alone yet it does seem to stack the deck with views that would most often be pro-Zionist. Is there anything wrong with making this observation?
America has always been "there for the taking". Just ask the Native Americans.
I take the Vanity Fair's list and the Jpost's crowing as a fulfillment of Chief Seattle's prediction:
"Even the white man, whose God walks and talks with him as friend to friend, cannot be exempt from the common destiny. We may be brothers after all; we shall see. One thing we know, which the white man may one day discover—our God is the same God. You may think now that you own Him as you wish to own our land; but you cannot. He is the God of man, and His compassion is equal for the red man and the white. This earth is precious to Him, and to harm the earth is to heap contempt on its Creator. The whites too shall pass; perhaps sooner than all other tribes. Continue to contaminate your bed, and you will one night suffocate in your own waste."
Another kind of Indian would call it paying Karma.
Oarwell: "Gotta go with Richard on this one, Phil. It wouldn't matter if 100% of the people on the list were Jewish, or Chinese, or Brahmins. It is their actions that matter, not their ethnicity"
You are, of course, are right about this. It only matters if the new Jewish elite repeatedly favors Israeli interests over those of the United States.
Sarmatian, please allow me to use some of your words:
It is remarkable how comfortable some people are ASSUMING the jewish elite will favour american interests over those of Israel, despite 60 years of evidence to the contrary.
Anonymous,
As a radical agnostic I tend to say insensitive things about all religions, my grandparents included. However, I don't wish for my name to cause offense to anyone, lest of all Muslims. Allah forbid. Not an audience you want to piss off apparently.
So let me know which of the following you like best and that's what I'll use from here on out:
Christstein
Yawehstein
Elohimstein
Baalstein
Krishnastein (like Christmastime, but with curry)
Bahaistein
Jewstein
Mostein
Papalstein
Hindustein
Buddahstein
Lobbystein
Yazidistein
Salassiestein
Marxstein
Maostein
Palistein
Anonymousstein
Other
Gerstein
Why did Phil do it? Maybe he is trying to stir what is left of potentially healthy ethnically White culturally Christian citizens to unite into a political unit which will promote policy more favorable to America not sapping its strength in a suicidal attempt to continue Empire and save Israel's skin.
David Seaton wrote:
"Without its Jews, the United States would be like an obese version of Australia."
Well, it could do worse. Australia has relatively safe cities, no racial conflicts to speak of, a proper universal health care and social security system, a flourishing economy, and, for its small population, an interesting literary scene and a vibrant film industry. What exactly do you have against the place, David?
I suspect that on a much smaller percentage of the total population (0.5 % as compared to the U.S.'s 3 %) Australian Jews too are overrepresented among the super-rich. Two of Australia's three richest men are Jewish though their names wouldn't directly suggest that (Frank Lowy and Richard Pratt). They both came to Australia as migrants.
As far as the American scene is concerned I read, among other things, this:
"The story line is familiar, indeed well-worn: the east-European Jews came to the United States at the same time as many other European immigrant groups (between 1880 and 1920). Yet the east-European Jewish immigrants and their offspring reached middle class status in fewer decades, or in fewer generations, than did other immigrant groups and their offspring. Explaining this phenomenon of rapid east-European Jewish upward mobility has been a staple product of American social science for at least two generations."
I suspect that this "staple product of American social science" is a bit more nuanced than the explanation that seems to be favored by most of the contributors here (it is all due to sheer merit).
And there is a question for Phil here. If Jews are indeed overrepresented in American leading circles it is perhaps not surprising that they are equally so among the leading hawks, as they seem to be among the most influential opponents of the war. This is at any case the explanation Ilana Mercer came up with:
"I don't blame Buchanan for being righteously furious with neoconservatives and their vulgar front men and women. Pat, however, is seeing causal connections where none exist. What makes Jewish misguidedness more pronounced than gentile misconception is that Jews seem to rise to the top in many fields and professions, politics included. That there are many Jews in neoconservative seats of power is dismaying, but it's of no particular significance, other than to reflect Jewish upward mobility.
Similarly, Jews are over-represented in anti-war circles, among whom are George Soros, Robert Reich, Todd Gitlin and Michael Lerner, to name but a few. The late Sen. Paul Wellstone of Minnesota was – and Carl Levin of Michigan is – an outspoken Jewish anti-war politician. And Jewish members of Congress and the Senate were well represented in voting "no" on the War Resolution authorizing the president to undertake a unilateral preemptive war against Iraq. "Commentary" is indeed the Jewish neocon megaphone, but then there are Jewish magazines like "Tikkun" and "Forward"; they adopt an anti-war stance."
I leave it to those who are more familiar with this scene, particularly Phil, to judge whether this line of reasoning is sound or not.
And clearly anyone who says anything about rich Jews is constructing a sequel to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Posted by: MM | October 15, 2007 at 09:33 AM
Thank you… this needed to be expressed….
And clearly anyone who says anything about rich Jews is constructing a sequel to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Posted by: MM | October 15, 2007 at 09:33 AM
Thank you… this needed to be expressed….
When you generalize, you are writing the sequel.
The big question here is: Given the fact that most Jewish Americans oppose the neocon warmongering, and given the fact that many Jewish Americans are rich and powerful, why is it that only the pro-warmongering minority constitute the infamous Israel Lobby which has such a stranglehold on the media and the politicians? Is there a connection between great wealth and immorality?
Eleanor, when people have a passion, they usually are because they are for something. So Jewish people that does not like what they are doing in Israel will just tune them out, instead of speaking up against the occupation, since that requires them to be have sympathy for the other side (the occupied), which very few are. This leaves us with only the pro-Israel people, who are there because of their passion.
There are people out there that have a passion on the "against" side without having a "for" passion, and those are usually the David Dukes.
WM:
"There are people out there that have a passion on the "against" side without having a "for" passion, and those are usually the David Dukes."
That's a ridiculously naive statement; it sounds as if it was lifted off yet another ADL-sponsored SPLC tabloid feature on "Hate"(tm).
These "David Dukes" are commonly referred to by the Episcopalian-controlled press as "white nationalists". By my observation they are very much for something, which the Zionists by turn suppress and ignore at their own peril.
So having a passion that American interests take precedence over Israeli interests likely makes one akin to David Duke?
What an interesting concept!!
Using the term David Duke is just an example. They hate the Israel occupation not because of their love of the Palestinians, nor are they humanists (who detests the colonial outreach and all its implications). They usually don't view America's atrocities as anything wrong, but Israel's as a crime.
That is different from thos who gets called "self hating jews" because their upbringing (or whatever reason) eventually lead them to rebel against what they view of the racketeering by profiteers over the shoah business or the land theft over indigenous Palestinians. But not too many are willing to overcome some form of self-criticizing barrier, so they stay neutral or don't stand passionately on the issue. That leaves those who are passionate on the issue (the Israel lobby) to dictate the agenda.
OF course, there are also Islamophobes on the Jewish side, since many of them just have an instinct hatred for anything Islamic, like much of America. Even those judeophiles like the neocons, Daniel Pipe or Bernard Lewis are reflexive Islamophobe because anything that in relation to Islam, for them, are due to some Orientalist view's reason.
The problem with Duke is that he seems to be consistently ten years ahead of what is discussed in "polite" conversations, and normal people really dislike being warned of things they don't want to see before they feel prepared to.
Ask yourselves, what could possibly be more old Dukeism than the title of this very post? Yet nowadays it's "normal" to talk about it. In fact some americans seem to be ok with it, just like some americans way before felt it was alright being a british subject, afterall those revolutionaries were only people out there that had a passion on the "against" side. "We are fat and comfortable subjects, what could possibly this band of troublemakers achieve with all this talk about 'liberty'?"
The revolutionaries were against foreign control and also against internal repression. The desire for liberty is the prototypical "against something" desire, because no one really knows what comes after it is achieved. Maybe becoming Australia is the best thing that could happen to America, because right now you are not being colonized by pompous british hacks. If you take care to read the names on the lists of bolshevik high criminals, then you will understand whom you are bowing to.
Allahstein, atheism is but a compact representation of the "one supreme god" structure. If you want to impress the ladies go find a pagan godess, sorround yourself with priestesses and run naked in the woods. You are too young to either care about atheism or zionism. Practice radical happiness, not radical confrontation. Besides, there will be no zionism in the future, because, as Freddie Mercury has long ago predicted: "Izzi come, Izzi go"… but wait, isn't that the ghost of Jabotinski screamming "Bismillah No!!"
WM:
"Using the term David Duke is just an example. They hate the Israel occupation not because of their love of the Palestinians, nor are they humanists (who detests the colonial outreach and all its implications). They usually don't view America's atrocities as anything wrong, but Israel's as a crime…That leaves those who are passionate on the issue (the Israel lobby) to dictate the agenda."
You're creating strawmen. David Duke is one of many people holding a variety of fundamental beliefs who oppose Israel's actions and US funding of those actions. The speak out vigorously against the dreams of US empire harbored by neoconservative Zionists. They identify and decry the crimes not only of Israel, but especially those of America in supporting the Israeli/Likud regime.
Nice try, but it doesn't wash. One can be a critic of Israel (and of the rabidly Zionist neoconservative leadership in the US currently controlling our foreign policy) while not being an "antisemite".
It's as if you paranoid Likudniks believe that Henry Ford has risen to form a Pogrom-o-the Month Club. Get a grip on yourself, man.
cooper and Anonymous,
You could find anti imperialism views in David Duke's discussion, but only when a wiff of Israel's interest appears on the radar. But to use him as a source of information leads you to a narrow picture.
You could easily get the anti imperialist view from the left, but not just on the expansionist in the middle east, but also the takeover attempt in the western hemisphere, eastern europe, asia, etc.
The discussion of the Israel lobby should come out and its power should be curtailed, but if it is gone, what after that? Will the US become a peace loving country like Costa Rica that has no military? Obviously not, because don't forget, W&M's book is not about Israel making us imperialists, but Israel is a burden in our quest at being imperialists (of course, this being neo-imperialism, where we don't take over the world with armies, but with our economic might).
One can be a critic of Israel (and of the rabidly Zionist neoconservative leadership in the US currently controlling our foreign policy) while not being an "antisemite".
Correct; I see these rare birds with their broken wings every once in a while, always alone, mumbling, lurching in circles with nowhere to go. I think I hear one now. What did it trill so low? "Is it good for the goys?"
Jewish success has everything to do with 'ethnic networking' and most of all CORNERING INDUSTRIES (also known as shutting out any and all other competition once a firm grasp is made upon an industry or sector).
Once Jews manage to gain partial or full control of certain fields or industries (i.e. the media, medicine, or economics) they NEVER let go. Let me repeat: THEY NEVER LET GO. Jews use their Semitic ethnic networking skills to nepotistically fill up the newsrooms and board rooms with fellow Jews (all of them very competent and often Ivy League educated, of course), people they can trust and depend on since they are of the same ethnic or religious background. The more religious a Jew is the stronger this impulse is.
Remember: Jewry has ALWAYS been more of a collective ("the Jewish people") rather than a loose collection of individuals as the much more individualistic Europeans tend to view themselves. When people work together, as Jews so often do, it's easier to succeed over those who are working largely alone (as those of European heritage in America often do).
These two things (ethnic networking and cornering industries) are, have been, and will continue to be the key to Jewish success. It's interesting though, in 2007 America…with the powerful research tool of the internet it seems like more and more Gentile Americans are learning about this trend and many of them don't seem all too happy about the situation.
If this situation continues to spiral out of control as it has been allowed to over the past few decades you'll start to see 'European/Christian heritage organizations' or 'African-American lobbies' popping up across America as a natural response to undue Jewish dominance; in fact, I can already feel that this is beginning to happen.
WM, You have a very warped world view. Believe it or not, there exist many who have a passion for at least justice if not righteousness. My question was why these values are lacking in the Israel Lobby.
Eleanor, I don't have to convert to David Duke's ideology in order to fight against zionism, since that belief also exists in groups that believes in justice for all people, not just "Christian whites of European ancestry", or else I would have to filter out everything else he says just so that I could come to consensus with him on this one subject (and even then, alot of other things would have to be filtered out, like all the "Jew this" and "Jew that"). I don't even have to listen to the ideas of some of the libertarian right wingers that are American firsters and not so concerned about the oppressed worldwide, but somehow cares about the oppressed in the West Bank (don't forget they were against the monstrous wall splitting Palestine, but are all for the wall splitting occupied Mexico).
There are plenty of left wing anti-zionists, albeit not as much as there should be because the tribal affinity by the Jews would cause many to become indifferent rather than airing thire dirty laundry in public. This explains the why there is an Israel lobby, but not an anti-Israel lobby, since as explained, your lobbying have to be "pro" something, or else your "anti" lobbying gives the impression you have an hatred for the group you are lobbying against.
WM, the question is not why there is no anti-Israel Lobby, but why the Israel Lobby espouses the hardliners' far right policy of Israeli expansionism at all costs. This policy is not only anti-Palestinian but also anti-American and anti-Israeli. Bankrupting America by dragging us into wars to support Israeli expansionism is anti-American. Sacrificing Israel's cash cow on the altar of expansionism is not good for Israel either. Peace is there for the asking but the Israel Lobby prefers wars.
"…when people have a passion, they usually are because they are for something. So Jewish people that does not like what they are doing in Israel will just tune them out, instead of speaking up against the occupation, since that requires them to be have sympathy for the other side (the occupied), which very few are. This leaves us with only the pro-Israel people, who are there because of their passion."
Yes, this is so; a perfect case of it applied to many Weimar Era Germans, who some say, were therefore all guilty of what came to pass.
Eleanor, the Israel lobby doesn't necessarily push what Israel wants or what is good for Israel, but instead push for what they think is good for Israel. It often comes down to their anti-arab view of "they only understand force". So naturally, the right wing's militaristic view combined with their anti-arabism combines to creates this hegenomistic point of view.
It is not unlike other militaristic right wing's view, like many in the US, where they rather destroy the whole Latin America than let it fall into the hands of the people.
What it comes to is whether those neocons thinks they are pushing a war for the sole purpose of Israel. From their perspective, they probably are not, since they are pushing a war that these militaristic thinks are good for both USrael. It might benefit Israel more, but as long as it benefits the US's hegemony somewhat, it becomes justifiable.
The problem is what is wrong with the democrats. They don't have the passion or rage of the right (as in passion on hatred of Arabs, etc) on these issues, along with the fact they are the less aggressive of the two group (military and congressional). Also, don't forget, the democrats are just apologists for everything the right wing does, always there to pick up the pieces and mend the wounds of the right wing policies instead of setting their own agenda (from neolibralism to imperialism to USA Inc.)
We don't even have the manpower to demostrate and shut down the country because everybody is too busy doing their own things.
"Yes, this is so; a perfect case of it applied to many Weimar Era Germans, who some say, were therefore all guilty of what came to pass."
This is the justification by USrael in their attempt in turning Gaza into a zoo and starving all the people to death because their collective vote for Hamas indicates a collective crime.
This is also the justification by Bin Laden the whole America's guild because its people's complicity in their benign support for America's militaristic occupation of Arab lands.
One either accepts the concept as right or the concept is wrong. No matter how narrow a scope one wants to define it as, there is not way for someone to justify one as being right and the other being wrong.
Heck, if we are allowed to justify the starving of Gaza, the whole Muslim world could declare the whole US, Europe, Israel and UN as open season, since they will be applying our rules on ourselves.
If birds of a feather flock together, doesn't this cut both ways?
You can look at the issues HItler or David Duke have brought up
in their given times and places. Have they all been totally off the mark? Is one a racists for even raising the question?
"These two things (ethnic networking and cornering industries) are, have been, and will continue to be the key to Jewish success."
About the same analysis holds for the success of migrant Chinese in Southeast Asia. The two richest men in the place where I am now living came here as penniless migrants.
But there is an interesting consequence here: if all Jews would make alyah one of the keys to Jewish success (ethnic networking) would fall away. Ethnic networking only makes sense for ethnic minorities.