boston-lisp-meeting-register January 2009

boston-lisp-meeting-register@common-lisp.net

3 participants
3 discussions

[boston-lisp-meeting-register] Another War, Another Defeat -- Jewish Lobby Gives Obama His Marching Orders
by Lawrence Auster 27 Jan '09

27 Jan '09

Another War, Another Defeat The Gaza offensive has succeeded in punishing the Palestinians but not in making Israel more secure. By John J. Mearsheimer Israelis and their American supporters claim that Israel learned its lessons well from the disastrous 2006 Lebanon war and has devised a winning strategy for the present war against Hamas. Of course, when a ceasefire comes, Israel will declare victory. Don�t believe it. Israel has foolishly started another war it cannot win. The campaign in Gaza is said to have two objectives: 1) to put an end to the rockets and mortars that Palestinians have been firing into southern Israel since it withdrew from Gaza in August 2005; 2) to restore Israel�s deterrent, which was said to be diminished by the Lebanon fiasco, by Israel�s withdrawal from Gaza, and by its inability to halt Iran�s nuclear program. But these are not the real goals of Operation Cast Lead. The actual purpose is connected to Israel�s long-term vision of how it intends to live with millions of Palestinians in its midst. It is part of a broader strategic goal: the creation of a �Greater Israel.� Specifically, Israel�s leaders remain determined to control all of what used to be known as Mandate Palestine, which includes Gaza and the West Bank. The Palestinians would have limited autonomy in a handful of disconnected and economically crippled enclaves, one of which is Gaza. Israel would control the borders around them, movement between them, the air above and the water below them. The key to achieving this is to inflict massive pain on the Palestinians so that they come to accept the fact that they are a defeated people and that Israel will be largely responsible for controlling their future. This strategy, which was first articulated by Ze�ev Jabotinsky in the 1920s and has heavily influenced Israeli policy since 1948, is commonly referred to as the �Iron Wall.� What has been happening in Gaza is fully consistent with this strategy. Let�s begin with Israel�s decision to withdraw from Gaza in 2005. The conventional wisdom is that Israel was serious about making peace with the Palestinians and that its leaders hoped the exit from Gaza would be a major step toward creating a viable Palestinian state. According to the New York Times� Thomas L. Friedman, Israel was giving the Palestinians an opportunity to �build a decent mini-state there�a Dubai on the Mediterranean,� and if they did so, it would �fundamentally reshape the Israeli debate about whether the Palestinians can be handed most of the West Bank.� This is pure fiction. Even before Hamas came to power, the Israelis intended to create an open-air prison for the Palestinians in Gaza and inflict great pain on them until they complied with Israel�s wishes. Dov Weisglass, Ariel Sharon�s closest adviser at the time, candidly stated that the disengagement from Gaza was aimed at halting the peace process, not encouraging it. He described the disengagement as �formaldehyde that�s necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.� Moreover, he emphasized that the withdrawal �places the Palestinians under tremendous pressure. It forces them into a corner where they hate to be.� Arnon Soffer, a prominent Israeli demographer who also advised Sharon, elaborated on what that pressure would look like. �When 2.5 million people live in a closed-off Gaza, it�s going to be a human catastrophe. Those people will become even bigger animals than they are today, with the aid of an insane fundamentalist Islam. The pressure at the border will be awful. It�s going to be a terrible war. So, if we want to remain alive, we will have to kill and kill and kill. All day, every day.� In January 2006, five months after the Israelis pulled their settlers out of Gaza, Hamas won a decisive victory over Fatah in the Palestinian legislative elections. This meant trouble for Israel�s strategy because Hamas was democratically elected, well organized, not corrupt like Fatah, and unwilling to accept Israel�s existence. Israel responded by ratcheting up economic pressure on the Palestinians, but it did not work. In fact, the situation took another turn for the worse in March 2007, when Fatah and Hamas came together to form a national unity government. Hamas�s stature and political power were growing, and Israel�s divide-and-conquer strategy was unraveling. To make matters worse, the national unity government began pushing for a long-term ceasefire. The Palestinians would end all missile attacks on Israel if the Israelis would stop arresting and assassinating Palestinians and end their economic stranglehold, opening the border crossings into Gaza. Israel rejected that offer and with American backing set out to foment a civil war between Fatah and Hamas that would wreck the national unity government and put Fatah in charge. The plan backfired when Hamas drove Fatah out of Gaza, leaving Hamas in charge there and the more pliant Fatah in control of the West Bank. Israel then tightened the screws on the blockade around Gaza, causing even greater hardship and suffering among the Palestinians living there. Hamas responded by continuing to fire rockets and mortars into Israel, while emphasizing that they still sought a long-term ceasefire, perhaps lasting ten years or more. This was not a noble gesture on Hamas�s part: they sought a ceasefire because the balance of power heavily favored Israel. The Israelis had no interest in a ceasefire and merely intensified the economic pressure on Gaza. But in the late spring of 2008, pressure from Israelis living under the rocket attacks led the government to agree to a six-month ceasefire starting on June 19. That agreement, which formally ended on Dec. 19, immediately preceded the present war, which began on Dec. 27. The official Israeli position blames Hamas for undermining the ceasefire. This view is widely accepted in the United States, but it is not true. Israeli leaders disliked the ceasefire from the start, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak instructed the IDF to begin preparing for the present war while the ceasefire was being negotiated in June 2008. Furthermore, Dan Gillerman, Israel�s former ambassador to the UN, reports that Jerusalem began to prepare the propaganda campaign to sell the present war months before the conflict began. For its part, Hamas drastically reduced the number of missile attacks during the first five months of the ceasefire. A total of two rockets were fired into Israel during September and October, none by Hamas. How did Israel behave during this same period? It continued arresting and assassinating Palestinians on the West Bank, and it continued the deadly blockade that was slowly strangling Gaza. Then on Nov. 4, as Americans voted for a new president, Israel attacked a tunnel inside Gaza and killed six Palestinians. It was the first major violation of the ceasefire, and the Palestinians�who had been �careful to maintain the ceasefire,� according to Israel�s Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center�responded by resuming rocket attacks. The calm that had prevailed since June vanished as Israel ratcheted up the blockade and its attacks into Gaza and the Palestinians hurled more rockets at Israel. It is worth noting that not a single Israeli was killed by Palestinian missiles between Nov. 4 and the launching of the war on Dec. 27. As the violence increased, Hamas made clear that it had no interest in extending the ceasefire beyond Dec. 19, which is hardly surprising, since it had not worked as intended. In mid-December, however, Hamas informed Israel that it was still willing to negotiate a long-term ceasefire if it included an end to the arrests and assassinations as well as the lifting of the blockade. But the Israelis, having used the ceasefire to prepare for war against Hamas, rejected this overture. The bombing of Gaza commenced eight days after the failed ceasefire formally ended. If Israel wanted to stop missile attacks from Gaza, it could have done so by arranging a long-term ceasefire with Hamas. And if Israel were genuinely interested in creating a viable Palestinian state, it could have worked with the national unity government to implement a meaningful ceasefire and change Hamas�s thinking about a two-state solution. But Israel has a different agenda: it is determined to employ the Iron Wall strategy to get the Palestinians in Gaza to accept their fate as hapless subjects of a Greater Israel. This brutal policy is clearly reflected in Israel�s conduct of the Gaza War. Israel and its supporters claim that the IDF is going to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties, in some cases taking risks that put Israeli soldiers in jeopardy. Hardly. One reason to doubt these claims is that Israel refuses to allow reporters into the war zone: it does not want the world to see what its soldiers and bombs are doing inside Gaza. At the same time, Israel has launched a massive propaganda campaign to put a positive spin on the horror stories that do emerge. The best evidence, however, that Israel is deliberately seeking to punish the broader population in Gaza is the death and destruction the IDF has wrought on that small piece of real estate. Israel has killed over 1,000 Palestinians and wounded more than 4,000. Over half of the casualties are civilians, and many are children. The IDF�s opening salvo on Dec. 27 took place as children were leaving school, and one of its primary targets that day was a large group of graduating police cadets, who hardly qualified as terrorists. In what Ehud Barak called �an all-out war against Hamas,� Israel has targeted a university, schools, mosques, homes, apartment buildings, government offices, and even ambulances. A senior Israeli military official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, explained the logic behind Israel�s expansive target set: �There are many aspects of Hamas, and we are trying to hit the whole spectrum, because everything is connected and everything supports terrorism against Israel.� In other words, everyone is a terrorist and everything is a legitimate target. Israelis tend to be blunt, and they occasionally say what they are really doing. After the IDF killed 40 Palestinian civilians in a UN school on Jan. 6, Ha�aretz reported that �senior officers admit that the IDF has been using enormous firepower.� One officer explained, �For us, being cautious means being aggressive. From the minute we entered, we�ve acted like we�re at war. That creates enormous damage on the ground � I just hope those who have fled the area of Gaza City in which we are operating will describe the shock.� One might accept that Israel is waging �a cruel, all-out war against 1.5 million Palestinian civilians,� as Ha�aretz put it in an editorial, but argue that it will eventually achieve its war aims and the rest of the world will quickly forget the horrors inflicted on the people of Gaza. This is wishful thinking. For starters, Israel is unlikely to stop the rocket fire for any appreciable period of time unless it agrees to open Gaza�s borders and stop arresting and killing Palestinians. Israelis talk about cutting off the supply of rockets and mortars into Gaza, but weapons will continue to come in via secret tunnels and ships that sneak through Israel�s naval blockade. It will also be impossible to police all of the goods sent into Gaza through legitimate channels. Israel could try to conquer all of Gaza and lock the place down. That would probably stop the rocket attacks if Israel deployed a large enough force. But then the IDF would be bogged down in a costly occupation against a deeply hostile population. They would eventually have to leave, and the rocket fire would resume. And if Israel fails to stop the rocket fire and keep it stopped, as seems likely, its deterrent will be diminished, not strengthened. More importantly, there is little reason to think that the Israelis can beat Hamas into submission and get the Palestinians to live quietly in a handful of Bantustans inside Greater Israel. Israel has been humiliating, torturing, and killing Palestinians in the Occupied Territories since 1967 and has not come close to cowing them. Indeed, Hamas�s reaction to Israel�s brutality seems to lend credence to Nietzsche�s remark that what does not kill you makes you stronger. But even if the unexpected happens and the Palestinians cave, Israel would still lose because it will become an apartheid state. As Prime Minister Ehud Olmert recently said, Israel will �face a South African-style struggle� if the Palestinians do not get a viable state of their own. �As soon as that happens,� he argued, �the state of Israel is finished.� Yet Olmert has done nothing to stop settlement expansion and create a viable Palestinian state, relying instead on the Iron Wall strategy to deal with the Palestinians. There is also little chance that people around the world who follow the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will soon forget the appalling punishment that Israel is meting out in Gaza. The destruction is just too obvious to miss, and too many people�especially in the Arab and Islamic world�care about the Palestinians� fate. Moreover, discourse about this longstanding conflict has undergone a sea change in the West in recent years, and many of us who were once wholly sympathetic to Israel now see that the Israelis are the victimizers and the Palestinians are the victims. What is happening in Gaza will accelerate that changing picture of the conflict and long be seen as a dark stain on Israel�s reputation. The bottom line is that no matter what happens on the battlefield, Israel cannot win its war in Gaza. In fact, it is pursuing a strategy�with lots of help from its so-called friends in the Diaspora�that is placing its long-term future at risk. __________________________________________ John J. Mearsheimer is a professor of political science at the University of Chicago and coauthor of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Source: http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/jan/26/00006/ ----- Jewish Lobby Gives Obama His Marching Orders By Michael Collins Piper THE POWERFUL JEWISH LOBBY in Washington is already issuing marching orders to President-elect Barack Obama. One of the most influential voices of the lobby has published an array of �working papers� designed to tell the president how he must maintain the �special relationship� between the United States and Israel, increase pressure on a variety of Arab and Muslim states that are perceived as dangers to Israel, and generally assure that Israel�s interests will always be first and foremost in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy, not only in the Middle East but around the globe. The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), a particularly vocal force in the Jewish lobby, published an entire edition of its Journal of International Security Affairs (dated fall 2008), sending the official word to Obama. JINSA was founded by one Stephen Bryen who�along with a host of other well known names connected to JINSA�was once investigated by the FBI on charges of espionage for Israel. A variety of articles in the journal addressing �Middle East Policy and the Next President� and �Iran, Iraq and Beyond,� make it clear that JINSA�best known as a nest of the infamous �neo-conservatives� who misdirected U.S. foreign policy during the outgoing Bush administration, sparking the war in Iraq and continuing to clamor for action against Iran�wants Obama to pursue Bush-style policies. AIPAC is particularly obsessed with using U.S. military and economic power to force Arab and Muslim nations to �reform� from within. Talk of �democracy� flows freely within AIPAC�s assorted essays, demanding that Israel�s neighbors conform to the Western version of democracy. But when the Palestinian people voted the Hamas movement into power in the Palestinian Authority in the occupied West Bank and the Gaza strip, AIPAC and other elements in the Jewish lobby immediately began calling for the United States to reject that freely elected government. Now, of course, Hamas is largely only in control of the beleaguered Gaza�which many refer to as �ghetto�� and the Palestinian statehood movement has been eviscerated, at least for now. This makes AIPAC and the lobby for Israel quite happy, for Israel has long encouraged U.S. policies�and helped create conditions�that have the effect of �divide and conquer� in the Arab and Muslim world. Israel is not like any other nation in the world, in that it seems to thrive best (and enjoys the benefits of) having its neighbors quarreling among themselves and rent within. Other nations prefer neighbors that are peaceful and internally secure. Israel wants its neighbors in chaos, because this prevents them from waging war against Israel, either individually or united. And although in the wake of the debacle in Iraq, which led many Israelis and their allies in the United States to suddenly proclaim that the Iraq war should never have been waged, the fact is that Israel and its U.S.-based agents-in-place were the prime movers behind that war and it was Israeli intelligence that was providing what critics now recognize was the �bad intelligence� that led the Bush administration to �mistakenly� conclude that Iraq was working toward an assembly of nuclear weapons to rival that of Israel. The Israelis and their American spokesmen evidently now believe that if they tell the �big lie� often enough�the lie that Israel�s interests played no part in orchestrating the debacle in Iraq�that it will make Americans forget that Israel was the foremost advocate of the war in the first place. However, the evisceration of Iraq by the United States is part and parcel of a long-standing Israeli national security policy aimed toward �balkanizing� the Muslim world. Yet, AIPAC, in its journal, is now working to perpetuate the myth of Iraqi nuclear weapons and suggesting that Iraq�s weapons were transported into Syria, another nation which has been on the �wish list for war� of Israel and its lobby in America. And AIPAC makes it clear that the destruction of Iran�s nuclear development program is a �must.� AIPAC is not the only Israeli lobby unit sending the message to the new president. Commentary magazine, long affiliated with the American Jewish Committee, has�in recent issues�been trumpeting a similar bellicose refrain directed at Obama. The editorial director of the Jewish lobby journal is John Podhoretz, a longtime close personal and political associate of the ubiquitous William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard magazine, which is the most infamous voice of the neo-conservative, hard-line pro-Israel elements operating in the media, in the think tanks, and in official policy making and national security and intelligence circles in Washington. Their fathers, Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, are two of the founding fathers of the neoconservative network, both Trotskyite Marxists who announced their �conversion� to conservatism during the latter days of the Cold War, banging the drum for intensified U.S. support for Israel. A complete overview of the neo-conservative power structure and its rather bizarre origins in the days when American Jewish communists like Kristol and Podhoretz turned on the Soviet Union when then- Soviet chief Josef Stalin began moving against Jewish and Zionist elements inside Russia can be found in The High Priests of War and The Judas Goats, two works by this author. Whether President Obama intends real change, as he promised, or whether he will advance the Israeli agenda (which saw its power expand exponentially in the Republican administration of George W. Bush) remains to be seen. But �the lobby� is making its voice heard and Obama knows that he better not ignore it. A journalist specializing in media critique, Michael Collins Piper is the author of The High Priests of War, The New Jerusalem, Dirty Secrets, The Judas Goats, The Golem, Target Traficant and My First Days in the White House All are available from AFP. Source : http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/jewish_lobby_164.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gaza�s Children Recommended video by David Duke This short video is incredibly moving. It shows the cruel reality of Zionist terrorism. It brings the horrifying numbers of 1300 Palestinians dead, more than 5000 wounded and 40,000 homeless to the reality seen in just these few children who are victims. These horrendous numbers mean that the 1.5 million people of Gaza faced terror that was proportionately a 100 times greater for them than what America suffered from 9-11. The numbers represent real people, real women and children, real victims of Zionist murder. This video also shows incredible courage. The young boy pictured here was helping the wounded when both of his eyes were ripped out from their sockets by Israel bombs. He survives, but never will see again. While laying in the hospital, knowing that he will be in darkness forever, he does not wallow in his own suffering and pain, but remains defiant. His words are: �I am content. I fear no one, only my Lord. If they were to do this again, I would still be content. I tell the people in Gaza to remain strong. We will remain steadfast against the Israeli enemy.� If just 10 percent of Europeans and Americans had just a fraction of the courage and resolve of that blinded child, the Zionists would not today control the media, politics and policy of the Western World, and they would not have been able to destroy our heritage, traditions, values, morality, faith . They would not have been able to change America through the 20th century massive immigration of an army of Jewish supremacists into America in the last century in a similar way that they destroyed Palestine through massive Jewish immigration there. And, certainly they would never have been able to turn America from a nation founded on principles of Independence, justice and freedom to a nation that supports the horendous terror inflicted by the Zionists on women and children in Gaza. � Dr. David Duke Video : http://www.davidduke.com/general/7333_7333.html ------------ You or someone using your email adress is currently subscribed to the Lawrence Auster Newletter. If you wish to unsubscribe from our mailing list, please let us know by calling "to 1 212 865 1284 Thanks, Lawrence Auster, 238 W 101 St Apt. 3B New York, NY 10025 Contact: lawrence.auster(a)att.net -------------------------------------

1 0

[boston-lisp-meeting-register] RSVP
by Mitchell N Charity 26 Jan '09

26 Jan '09

1 0

[boston-lisp-meeting-register] Is Israel a Democracy? -- The problem with intellectually insecure whites -- Should Christians Support Israeli Terrorism in Gaza?
by Lawrence Auster 23 Jan '09

23 Jan '09

The Jewish State of Israel has no constitution, nor does it name its borders. Israel's hidden constitution is Judaism. Israel's undeclared borders range from the Nile to the Euphrates rivers. Israel's desired jurisdiction extends over the entire Earth. It could not be more clear that the Jewish State follows a foreign policy which obeys Jewish Law as iterated in the Hebrew Bible, the Talmud, Maimonedes, the Cabalah, and the many commentaries and refinements of same. The Jews are genociding the native inhabitants of Palestine, just as their religion advises, and because their religion teaches them to do so. They treat non-Jews as if non-humans, just as their religion requires them to do. They make perpetual war on every nation on Earth, just as their genocidal Jewish God has instructed. The Jews of Israel are simply being Jews. Jews are an existential threat to the human race. Israel contains one third of the Jews of the World. It is not some aberration of the Jewish spirit, but the condensation and concentration of the perverse Jewish mentality, which malady also pervades the remaining two thirds of Jewry, who almost unanimously support the Jewish State, and who certainly do unanimously support the Jewish People and its consistent and constant crimes against the human race. Israel is Jewry and the danger of Israel is the danger of the Jewish People to all others, as the Jews have demonstrated each and every day of their existence. The Jews, the entire Jewish People of 15 million, will not relent until they have wiped out all non-Jews in "Greater Israel". They will not stop destroying all other cultures, nations, religions, ethnicities, races, competition, etc. until they are either stopped, or succeed in their ancient quest to destroy the human race. What Israel is doing is not some reaction to outside forces, nor was the formation of Israel a response to the Holocaust. Israel is simply following the plan laid out in the Jews' religious texts. The Jews have openly planned to take Palestine and genocide the native population of Palestine for some 2,500 years before the Holocaust. The Jews have openly complained that "anti-Semitism" is a threat that gives them the right to genocide the Palestinians, not merely since the advent of Nazism, but for some 2,500 years. The Jewish religion is the Constitution of the Jewish State of Israel, and, to a greater or lesser extent, the constitution of the nature of every Jew alive. The borders of Israel are the range the Jew roams over the entire World. The perverse Jewish mentality is inbred by a Jew's exposure to his parents and to his community. Judaism passes in the spit and slobber of Jewish mother telling her Jewish child that he is a "Jew", as much as Judaism passes in the poison and pain of a Talmudic tractate. The secular Jews did not suddenly come to life after the Enlightenment and the Jewish Reformation a body of vampires that appeared ex nihilo, in vacuo, mostly atheistical and undetached from formally practiced Judaism. Judaism is the Jew. It is a mindset that transcends and supercedes religion. It is a belief set, a way of life, a perception of one's self and one's relation to the World that makes a Jew, a Jew, and a danger to all of humanity. In fact, the religious shell of Judaism is like the stretched and infected skin of a lycanthropic pustule. When you lance it to cure the infection, the virus only becomes more contagious and spills directly on the non-Jew. The secular Jew is a deliberate product of the hyper-religious Jew, a monster created out of the hewed corpses of the fanatically religious Jew, a Golem which is conjured up to enter the World of the non-Jew and poison its blood, and boil its brain with a rabid lunacy that bites and spreads, until the infected community feeds on itself and fills the fields with rotting bloating bodies, where once human beings tilled the soil and tended to their families. The religious Jew created the secular Jew as an army of Esthers who seduce with open thighs, broad smiles, and a Siren call that lures in the non-Jew to cast his skull upon the jagged rocks and color the seas with his blood, sickened and blinded by the venereal disease of Judaism in secular form. Israel is not a secular democracy. It is a religious mockery. It is a rabid bat flying to the ends of the Earth, to end the Earth. No one will be free nor safe until the disease is quarantined and dies out. Source: http://www.ziopedia.org/articles/israel/how_can_israel_claim_to_be_a_%27dem… -------------------- The problem with intellectually insecure whites By Kevin MacDonald January 19, 2009 America will soon have a white minority. This is a much desired state of affairs for the hostile elites who hold political power and shape public opinion. But it certainly creates some management issues � at least in the long run. After all, it�s difficult to come up with an historical example of a nation with a solid ethnic majority (90% white in 1950) that has voluntarily decided to cede political and cultural power. Such transformations are typically accomplished by military invasions, great battles, and untold suffering. And it�s not as if everyone is doing it. Only Western nations view their own demographic and cultural eclipse as a moral imperative. Indeed, as I have noted previously, it is striking that racial nationalism has triumphed in Israel at the same time that the Jewish intellectual and political movements and the organized Jewish community have been the most active and effective force for a non-white America. Indeed, a poll in 2008 found that Avigdor Lieberman was the second most popular politician in Israel. Lieberman has advocated expulsion of Arabs from Israel and has declared himself a follower of Vladimir Jabotinsky, the leading pioneer of racial Zionism. The most popular politician in the poll was Benjamin Netanyahu � another admirer of Jabotinsky. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni are also Jabotinskyists. The racial Zionists are now carrying out yet another orgy of mass murder after a starvation-inducing blockade and the usual triggering assault designed to provoke Palestinian retaliation � which then becomes the cover for claims that Israel is merely defending itself against terrorism. This monstrosity was approved by overwhelming majorities of both Houses of Congress. The craven Bush administration did its part by abstaining from a UN resolution designed by the US Secretary of State as a result of a personal appeal by the Israeli Prime Minister. This is yet another accomplishment of the Israel Lobby, but one they would rather not have discussed in public. People might get the impression that the Lobby really does dictate US foreign policy in the Mideast. Obviously, such thoughts are only entertained by anti-Semites. But I digress. In managing the eclipse of white America, one strategy of the mainstream media is to simply ignore the issue. Christopher Donovan (�For the media, the less whites think about their coming minority status, the better�) has noted that the media, and in particular, the New York Times, are quite uninterested in doing stories that discuss what white people think about this state of affairs. It�s not surprising that the New York Times � the Jewish-owned flagship of anti-white, pro-multicultural media � ignores the issue. The issue is also missing from so-called conservative media even though one would think that conservatives would find the eclipse of white America to be an important issue. Certainly, their audiences would find it interesting. Now we have an article �The End of White America� written by Hua Hsu, an Assistant Professor of English at Vassar College. The article is a rather depressing display of what passes for intellectual discourse on the most important question confronting white people in America. Hsu begins by quoting a passage in F. Scott Fitzgerald�s The Great Gatsby in which a character, Tom Buchanan, states: �Have you read The Rise of the Colored Empires by this man Goddard?� � Well, it�s a fine book, and everybody ought to read it. The idea is if we don�t look out the white race will be�will be utterly submerged. It�s all scientific stuff; it�s been proved.� Buchanan�s comment is a thinly veiled reference to Lothrop Stoddard�s The Rising Tide of Color which Hsu describes as �rationalized hatred� presented in a scholarly, gentlemanly, and scientific tone. (This wording that will certainly help him when he comes up for tenure.) As Hsu notes, Stoddard had a doctorate from Harvard and was a member of many academic associations. His book was published by a major publisher. It was therefore �precisely the kind of book that a 1920s man of Buchanan�s profile � wealthy, Ivy League�educated, at once pretentious and intellectually insecure � might have been expected to bring up in casual conversation.� Let�s ponder that a bit. The simple reality is that in the year 2009 an Ivy League-educated person, "at once pretentious and intellectually insecure," would just as glibly assert the same sort of nonsense as Hsu. To wit: The coming white minority does not mean that the racial hierarchy of American culture will suddenly become inverted, as in 1995�s White Man�s Burden, an awful thought experiment of a film, starring John Travolta, that envisions an upside-down world in which whites are subjugated to their high-class black oppressors. There will be dislocations and resentments along the way, but the demographic shifts of the next 40 years are likely to reduce the power of racial hierarchies over everyone�s lives, producing a culture that�s more likely than any before to treat its inhabitants as individuals, rather than members of a caste or identity group. The fact is that no one can say for certain what multicultural America without a white majority will be like. There is no scientific or historical basis for claims like �the demographic shifts of the next 40 years are likely to reduce the power of racial hierarchies over everyone�s lives, producing a culture that�s more likely than any before to treat its inhabitants as individuals, rather than members of a caste or identity group.� Indeed, there is no evidence at all that we are proceeding to a color blind future. The election results continue to show that white people are coalescing in the Republican Party, while the Democrats are increasingly the party of a non-white soon-to-be majority. Is it so hard to believe that when this coalition achieves a majority that it will further compromise the interests of whites far beyond contemporary concerns such as immigration policy and affirmative action? Hsu anticipates a colorblind world, but affirmative action means that blacks and other minorities are certainly not treated as individuals. And it means that whites � especially white males � are losing out on opportunities they would have had without these policies and without the massive non-white immigration of the last few decades. Given the intractability of changing intelligence and other traits required for success in the contemporary economy, it is unlikely that 40 more years of affirmative action will attain the outcomes desired by the minority lobbies. Indeed, in Obama's America, blacks are rioting in Oakland over perceived racial injustices, and from 2002 �2007, black juvenile homicide victims increased 31%, while black juvenile homicide perpetrators increased 43%. Hence, the reasonable outlook is for a continuing need for affirmative action and for racial activism in these groups, even after whites become a minority. Whites will also lose out because of large-scale importation of relatively talented immigrants from East Asia. Indeed, as I noted over a decade ago, "The United States is well on the road to being dominated by an Asian technocratic elite and a Jewish business, professional, and media elite." Hsu shows that there already is considerable anxiety among whites about the future. An advertizing executive says, �I think white people feel like they�re under siege right now � like it�s not okay to be white right now, especially if you�re a white male. ... People are stressed out about it. �We used to be in control! We�re losing control�� Another says, "There�s a lot of fear and a lot of resentment." It's hard to see why these feelings won't increase in the future. A huge problem for white people is lack of intellectual and cultural confidence. Hsu quotes Christian (Stuff White People Like) Lander saying, "I get it: as a straight white male, I�m the worst thing on Earth." A professor comments that for his students "to be white is to be culturally broke. The classic thing white students say when you ask them to talk about who they are is, �I don�t have a culture.� They might be privileged, they might be loaded socioeconomically, but they feel bankrupt when it comes to culture � They feel disadvantaged, and they feel marginalized." This lack of cultural confidence is no accident. For nearly 100 years whites have been subjected to a culture of critique emanating from the most prestigious academic and media institutions. And, as Hsu points out, the most vibrant and influential aspect of American popular culture is hip-hop�a product of the African American urban culture. The only significant group of white people with any cultural confidence centers itself around country music, NASCAR, and the small town values of traditional white America. For this group of whites � and only this group � there is "a racial pride that dares not speak its name, and that defines itself through cultural cues instead�a suspicion of intellectual elites and city dwellers, a preference for folksiness and plainness of speech (whether real or feigned), and the association of a working-class white minority with 'the real America.'� This is what I term implicit whiteness � implicit because explicit assertions of white identity have been banned by the anti-white elites that dominate our politics and culture. It is a culture that, as Hsu notes, "cannot speak its name." But that implies that the submerged white identity of the white working class and the lack of cultural confidence exhibited by the rest of white America are imposed from outside. Although there may well be characteristics of whites that facilitate this process, this suppression of white identity and interests is certainly not the natural outcome of modernization or any other force internal to whites as a people. In my opinion, it is the result of the successful erection of a culture of critique in the West dominated by Jewish intellectual and political movements. The result is that educated, intellectually insecure white people these days are far more likely to believe in the utopian future described by Hsu than in hard and cautious thinking about what the future might have in store for them. It's worth dwelling a bit on the intellectual insecurity of the whites who mindlessly utter the mantras of multiculturalism that they have soaked up from the school system and from the media. Most people do not have much confidence in their intellectual ability and look to elite opinion to shape their beliefs. As I noted elsewhere, A critical component of the success of the culture of critique is that it achieved control of the most prestigious and influential institutions of the West, and it became a consensus among the elites, Jewish and non-Jewish alike. Once this happened, it is not surprising that this culture became widely accepted among people of very different levels of education and among people of different social classes. Most people are quite insecure about their intellectual ability. But they know that the professors at Harvard, and the editorial page of the New York Times and the Washington Post, and even conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are all on page when it comes to racial and ethnic issues. This is a formidable array, to the point that you almost have to be a crank to dissent from this consensus. I think one of the greatest triumphs of the left has been to get people to believe that people who assert white identity and interests or who make unflattering portrayals of organized Jewish movements are morally degenerate, stupid, and perhaps psychiatrically disturbed. Obviously, all of these adjectives designate low status. The reality is that the multicultural emperor has no clothes and, because of its support for racial Zionism and the racialism of ethnic minorities in America, it is massively hypocritical to boot. The New York Times, the academic left, and the faux conservatives that dominate elite discourse on race and ethnicity are intellectually bankrupt and can only remain in power by ruthlessly suppressing or ignoring the scientific findings. This is particularly a problem for college-educated whites. Like Fitzgerald's Tom Buchanan, such people have a strong need to feel that their ideas are respectable and part of the mainstream. But the respectable mainstream gives them absolutely nothing with which to validate themselves except perhaps the idea that the world will be a better place when people like them no longer have power. Hsu quotes the pathetic Christian Lander: "�Like, I�m aware of all the horrible crimes that my demographic has done in the world. ... And there�s a bunch of white people who are desperate � desperate � to say, �You know what? My skin�s white, but I�m not one of the white people who�s destroying the world.�� As a zombie leftist during the 1960s and 1970s, I know what that feeling of desperation is like � what it's like to be a self-hating white. We must get to the point where college-educated whites proudly and confidently say they are white and that they do not want to become a minority in America. This reminds me of the recent docudrama Milk, which depicts the life of gay activist Harvey Milk. Milk is sure be nominated for an Oscar as Best Picture because it lovingly illustrates a triumph of the cultural left. But is has an important message that should resonate with the millions of whites who have been deprived of their confidence and their culture: Be explicit. Just as Harvey Milk advocated being openly gay even in the face of dire consequences, whites need to tell their family and their friends that they have an identity as a white person and believe that whites have legitimate interests as white people. They must accept the consequences when they are harassed, fired from their jobs, or put in prison for such beliefs. They must run for political office as openly pro-white. Milk shows that homosexuals were fired from their jobs and arrested for congregating in public. Now it's the Southern Poverty Law Center and the rest of the leftist intellectual and political establishment that harasses and attempts to get people fired. But it's the same situation with the roles reversed. No revolution was ever accomplished without some martyrs. The revolution that restores the legitimacy of white identity and the legitimacy of white interests will be no exception. But it is a revolution that is absolutely necessary. The white majority is foolish indeed to entrust its future to a utopian hope that racial and ethnic identifications will disappear and that they won�t continue to influence public policy in ways that compromise the interests of whites. It does not take an overactive imagination to see that coalitions of minority groups could compromise the interests of formerly dominant whites. We already see numerous examples in which coalitions of minority groups attempt to influence public policy, including immigration policy, against the interests of the whites. Placing ourselves in a position of vulnerability would be extremely risky, given the deep sense of historical grievance fostered by many ethnic activists and organized ethnic lobbies. This is especially the case with Jews. Jewish organisations have been unanimous in condemning Western societies, Western traditions, and Christianity, for past crimes against Jews. Similar sentiments are typical of a great many African Americans and Latinos, and especially among the ethnic activists from these groups. The �God damn America� sermon by President Obama's pastor comes to mind as a recent notorious example. The precedent of the early decades of the Soviet Union should give pause to anyone who believes that surrendering ethnic hegemony does not carry risks. The Bolshevik revolution had a pronounced ethnic angle: To a very great extent, Jews and other non-Russians ruled over the Russian people, with disastrous consequences for the Russians and other ethnic groups that were not able to become part of the power structure. Jews formed a hostile elite within this power structure � as they will in the future white-minority America; Jews were �Stalin�s willing executioners.� Two passages from my review of Yuri Slezkine's The Jewish Century seem particularly appropriate here. The first passage reminds me of the many American Jews who adopt a veneer of support for leftist versions of social justice and racial tolerance while nevertheless managing to support racial Zionism and the mass murder, torture, and incarceration of the Palestinian people in one of the largest prison systems the world has ever seen. Such people may be very different when they become a hostile elite in a white-minority America. Many of the commentators on Jewish Bolsheviks noted the �transformation� of Jews [after the Bolshevik Revolution]. In the words of [a] Jewish commentator, G. A. Landau, �cruelty, sadism, and violence had seemed alien to a nation so far removed from physical activity.� And another Jewish commentator, Ia. A. Bromberg, noted that: the formerly oppressed lover of liberty had turned into a tyrant of �unheard-of-despotic arbitrariness��. The convinced and unconditional opponent of the death penalty not just for political crimes but for the most heinous offenses, who could not, as it were, watch a chicken being killed, has been transformed outwardly into a leather-clad person with a revolver and, in fact, lost all human likeness. ... After the Revolution, ... there was active suppression of any remnants of the older order and their descendants. ... The mass murder of peasants and nationalists was combined with the systematic exclusion of the previously existing non-Jewish middle class. The wife of a Leningrad University professor noted, �in all the institutions, only workers and Israelites are admitted; the life of the intelligentsia is very hard� (p. 243). Even at the end of the 1930s, prior to the Russification that accompanied World War II, �the Russian Federation�was still doing penance for its imperial past while also serving as an example of an ethnicity-free society� (p. 276). While all other nationalities, including Jews, were allowed and encouraged to keep their ethnic identities, the revolution remained an anti-majoritarian movement. The difference from the Soviet Union may well be that in white-minority America it will not be workers and Israelites who are favored, but non-whites and Israelites. Whites may dream that they are entering the post-racial utopia imagined by their erstwhile intellectual superiors. But it is quite possible that they are entering into a racial dystopia of unimaginable cruelty in which whites will be systematically excluded in favor of the new elites recruited from the soon-to-be majority. It's happened before. Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State University�Long Beach. Permanent URL with hyperlinks: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Hsu.html ----------- Should Christians Support Israeli Terrorism in Gaza? A timely discussion between Rev. Ted Pike and Dr. David Duke, one especially important for the Christians in our audience http://www.davidduke.com/mp3/dukeradio090122DukeandPikeonGaza.mp3 In this vital discussion, Rev. Pike and Dr. Duke explore the Pro-Israel attitude of some Christian evangelical organizations, and why their position not only goes directly against Christian morality and decency, but actually is directly opposite of that expressed by Christian Scriptures. Today, Many Christians are instructed that Jews and today�s Israel has a special covenant� with God. In fact, the New Testament in the clearest of language states that the Jews �continued not in my covenant, and I considered them not, saith the Lord.� Here�s the quote that Christians aren�t supposed to notice.: 8:10 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day when I took them by the hand out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. (Hebrews 8:10) They also don�t seem to notice that a 2000 year old Judaic war against Christianity that has been waged since time of Jesus Christ and still goes on today with the most powerful Jewish organizations attempting to destroy European and American traditions, that has even become a war on our Christmas traditions. Dr. Duke and Ted Pike also speak about how over a hundred thousand Christian Palestinians have suffered with their families from anti-Christian Israel! Christian support of Israel has resulted in the very birthplace of Jesus Christ, go from 90 percent Palestinian Christians to 35 percent today because of Israeli terror and occupation. They ask, �How could any Christian in good conscience support the anti-Christian state of Israel, bombing the homes, killing and maiming, torturing and oppressing fellow Christian men, women and children?� This is a vital show for every Christian reader and listener of DavidDuke.com. Next time, you hear someone say, �God tells us that we must support Israel� you will have the clear Christian answer that just the opposite is true! For documentation on this be sure to read some of the well-footnoted, sample chapters of Jewish Supremacism and My Awakening. Source : http://www.davidduke.com/general/should-christians-support-israeli-terroris… ------------------------------------- You or someone using your email adress is currently subscribed to the Lawrence Auster Newletter. If you wish to unsubscribe from our mailing list, please let us know by calling to 1 212 865 1284 Thanks, Lawrence Auster, 238 W 101 St Apt. 3B New York, NY 10025 Contact: lawrence.auster(a)att.net -------------------------------------

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

boston-lisp-meeting-register January 2009