Organized Jewry getting nervous because of the Walt-Mearsheimer study...

[Petr]

Check out these Yids and shabbas-goys talking about the recent Mearsheimer-Walt report on the obnoxious "Little Green Footballs" forum.

They are trying to act with blustering machismo, but one can clearly scent a beginning panic here and there... this is their ultimate nightmare scenario, US elites turning against Israel. :D


http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=19708_Stephen_Walts_War_with_Israel#comments


#30 yehoshua 3/20/2006 09:38AM PST

Someone once asked Menahem Schneerson,the Lubavitcher Rebbe, of blessed memory and the greatest leader of this generation, if anti-semitism could break out in America. His answer: "In a minute." What is happening at Harvard could be an adumbration of things to come. I hope America gets it, namely, that America needs Israel more than Israel needs America. Throughout history, any nation or world power who persecuted or turned its back on the Jews perished. Only the Jews remain.


(Btw, if you want a short introduction on what the followers of this rabbi Schneerson believe in, check out this thread of mine:

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5172&highlight=chabad


Amazingly, I could find at least one reasonable comment on this thread:


#192 Kyriakon 3/20/2006 12:44PM PST

#152 Cato the Elder

I really don't understand your characterization of Professor Mearsheimer, with whom I have spoken on several occasions, as "some creature." He has a distinguished history of service to our country, serving two years in the U.S. Army as an enlisted man and then going on to West Point and serving five years as an Air Force officer.

Reading his analysis, it is clear that it is anti-Israeli, but we must look at the underlying reasoning. It isn't ill-reasoned anti-Semitism. Instead, he lays out the case (though I think it is flawed) that American interests do not coincide with Israeli interests, and then makes the somewhat tenuous argument that pro-Israeli elements in America must therefore be directing American foreign policy in a way that benefits Israel at the expense of America.

As a realist, then, what he advocates American policy in which we consolidate our own interests for our own sake, and that we should not subjugate the interests of our nation to the interests of some other nation. How does this amount to anti-Americanism or unpatriotic conduct, accusations which so many fellow LGFers throw at him without a moments a hesitation?

Really, as an enthusiastic pro-American realist, my fundamental of disagreement with John Mearsheimer is with his assessment that Israeli and American interests do not coincide. If we, for the sake of argument, assume that Israeli and American were opposed, then what he says is actually quite well-reasoned.

What is it he has said that deserves such hasty condemnation? Are Israeli interests such a sacred cow on LGF that the suggestion that they do not coincide with genuine American interests doesn't even warrant debate, but instead a deluge of condemnations?


Let's see how the lemmings respond to that! :p


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

I posted the Mearsheimer and Walt study the other day and the response was complete silence. Here you have two of the most distinguished political scientists in America saying Jews are behind the debacle that is the Iraq War. You would think this would generate more discussion than it has.

[Fade the Butcher]

This isn't any real surprise. Buchanan, Duke, and WNs have been saying this for years now and have been using exactly the same arguments.

[Fade the Butcher]

Someone once asked Menahem Schneerson,the Lubavitcher Rebbe, of blessed memory and the greatest leader of this generation, if anti-semitism could break out in America. His answer: "In a minute." What is happening at Harvard could be an adumbration of things to come. I hope America gets it, namely, that America needs Israel more than Israel needs America. Throughout history, any nation or world power who persecuted or turned its back on the Jews perished. Only the Jews remain.

See, this is why people start to dislike Jews. They are so utterly blind that they cannot see that their attempts to fight anti-semitism (which stem from their legendary paranoia) in fact generates anti-semitism where it did not exist before. For example, I grew up in an area that was virtually judenrein. I never had a negative thought about the Jews until I stumbled upon their role in forcing integration down our throats back in the 1960s. That is how I first got interested in the Judenfrage. As I learned more about them, I discovered the role they have played in the pornification of our culture, how they manipulate our government to advance their foreign policy interests, and how they use dishonest tactics to silence and bully their critics into submission and so on. I discovered that was just the tip of the iceberg too.

[Petr]

Here you have two of the most distinguished political scientists in America saying Jews are behind the debacle that is the Iraq War.
I hope this leads into a chain-rection of some sort. :)


Btw, more bad news for neocons; their attempt to take over Belarus has failed:

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/03/20/belarus.poll.results/index.html


Also, in the coming parliamentary elections in Ukraine next Sunday, "The Orange Revolution" may be officially over as Yanukovich takes back the power:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2081653,00.html


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

How many Jews will die because of this article?

JG

The article is an updated version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It essentially says that the Jews are running the United States. Nothing you wouldn't see over at Daily Kos.

Why don't they just call it the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion? A more impressive title, donchya think?


Their hysterical outbursts never cease to amaze me. How can any reasonable person took these loons seriously? Meirsheimer and Walt lay out an extended rational argument awash with documentation and they respond with their typical tactics of name calling and denunciations.

[Fade the Butcher]

Raimondo chimes in here.

The Lobby (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8730)

Interesting.

David Duke Claims to Be Vindicated By a Harvard Dean (http://www.nysun.com/article/29380?access=967250)

""I have read about the report and read one summary already, and I am surprised how excellent it is," he said in an e-mail. "It is quite satisfying to see a body in the premier American University essentially come out and validate every major point I have been making since even before the war even started." Duke added that "the task before us is to wrest control of America's foreign policy and critical junctures of media from the Jewish extremist Neocons that seek to lead us into what they expectantly call World War IV."

[Fade the Butcher]

I will point out for the record that I have long made the argument that Jews don't control America; that they have substantial influence, but that's all. They are not invincible. The FBI, for example, has gone after AIPAC recently. The CIA was also bitterly opposed to the Iraq War. Furthermore, there are plenty of professional civil servants who work for the State Department that are hardly fans of Israel. There are also voices of opposition in the universities.

[Petr]

Their hysterical outbursts never cease to amaze me. How can any reasonable person took these loons seriously?
They are pampered people who have never had anyone personally put them in their place - to verbally slap them at the snout.

Before Jews got really powerful, they had the good sense to at least try to look humble before Gentiles. Now the have become drunk with power and are in for a rude awakening.

A bit like Dubya himself, come to think of it. Pampered people are infuriating to debate with.


Petr

[Starr]

[QUOTE=Deconstructionist]
David Duke Claims to Be Vindicated By a Harvard Dean (http://www.nysun.com/article/29380?access=967250)

A paper recently co-authored by the academic dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government about the allegedly far-reaching influence of an "Israel lobby" is winning praise from white supremacist David Duke.

The Palestine Liberation Organization mission to Washington is distributing the paper, which also is being hailed by a senior member of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization.

Oy vey! evil racists and evil islamicists! You certainly shouldn't be able to place any credibility in an article that would be praised by the likes of such people. The next thing this guy will be saying is 6 million more.:nono:

[Petr]

Here's more intriguing-looking stuff from John Mearsheimer:

http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/11/john-mearsheimer-rise-of-china-will.html


The rise of China will not be peaceful at all


"THE question at hand is simple and profound: will China rise peacefully? My answer is no.

If China continues its impressive economic growth over the next few decades, the US and China are likely to engage in an intense security competition with considerable potential for war. Most of China's neighbours, to include India, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Russia and Vietnam, will join with the US to contain China's power."

...


Petr

[Kodos]

Reading his analysis, it is clear that it is anti-Israeli, but we must look at the underlying reasoning. It isn't ill-reasoned anti-Semitism. Instead, he lays out the case (though I think it is flawed) that American interests do not coincide with Israeli interests, and then makes the somewhat tenuous argument that pro-Israeli elements in America must therefore be directing American foreign policy in a way that benefits Israel at the expense of America.


American jews are mostly left wing liberals who opposed the war.

[Fade the Butcher]

American jews are mostly left wing liberals who opposed the war.

If you had bothered to read the study, then you would know they made just this point.

[Fade the Butcher]

David Duke finally chimes in here.

A Real Breakthrough in the Battle for the Truth! (http://www.davidduke.com/?p=501#more-501)

by David Duke

The New York Sun has recently attacked me as well as the authors of a new report, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” by Stephen Walt, dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago.

The Harvard report contains little new information. I and a few other American commentators have for years been making the same assertions as this new paper. The great thing is that now the most prestigious school of government in the United States has adopted the same position that I took even before the start of the Iraq War, that Jewish extremists have taken over America’s foreign policy, harm America’s interests on behalf of Israel, and are the driving force behind the Iraq War and America’s disastrous Mideast policy.

Although the Sun and many other mainstream publications have attacked this new report, in actual fact the report does not go nearly far enough in exposing the perfidy of Israel and its fifth columnists in America.

The authors do show how Jewish extremists manipulated America in launching the disastrous Iraq War, and point out that the Israeli Lobby (whose agents are now being prosecuted for espionage) controls Congress and has dramatic influence in the executive branch.
Although the report discusses the destructive espionage of Jonathan Pollard for Israel, it doesn’t even mention the well-documented record of Israeli terrorism against the United States in actions such as the Lavon Affair and the attack on the USS Liberty. It makes no mention of the fact that the Israeli Government and President recently honored and called “heroes” the Israeli terrorists who years ago firebombed American installations in Egypt in the Lavon Affair in s treacherous attempt to manipulate America into an unjustified war against Egypt.

If Jewish extremists don’t exercise power over American policy then how can one explain the fact that America continues to send billions of dollars to a nation that has ceremonies honoring admitted terrorists who attacked America? How can the highest leaders of the American government including President Bush and Vice-President Cheney support and speak at the meetings of AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, even while its officials are on trial for espionage.

And if the media are not unduly influenced by these Zionists, how the Israeli partisans get away with such actions without scandal and outrage in the media?

As any reader can see for himself in the archives of www.davidduke.com over the last few years, here is short summary of a few of my positions.

1) I showed that Jewish Neocons such as Perle, Wolfowitz, Wurmser, Feith, Libby, Abrams, Pipes, Kristol, and many other Jewish Neocons had long seen the destruction of Iraq as part of Israel’s strategic agenda. Perle, the chief promoter of the Iraq War, was even one of the authors of “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” a paper written for Israel not America, that called for a war on Iraq to secure Israel’s realm, not America’s.

2) Obviously, America couldn’t be induced to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives fighting a war for Israel, so the Zionist extremists had to manufacture the lies that Iraq and Saddam were imminent threats to America rather than Israel.

3) Long before the war I said consistently that the evidence showed Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and had no ties to bin Laden, that these lies were necessary for the Jewish Neocons to enlist the American people into this strategic war for Israel. Israel invaded its neighbors and broken dozens of United Nations resolutions, but only Iraq was singled out. While Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, Israel had one of the world’s largest stockpiles of chemical, nuclear and biological weapons and allowed no inspections at all. How does one explain the double standards without understanding the powerful Jewish extremist influence in government and media.

4) I showed that the primary authors of these lies against Iraq were the same Jewish Neocons. For instance, the CIA official supplying the false intelligence on Iraq was none other than Jewish supremacist Stuart Cohen and that much of the false intelligence was actually provided by the government of Israel.

5) Repeatedly, I pointed out that the lies were spread uncritically and the war cheerleaded by Jewish extremists in key media positions in publications such as the New York Times, Washington Post and throughout the broadcast media.

6) The Harvard report talks about Israel’s “blood kinship” immigration rules, yet for years I have exposed Israel’s immigration laws that allow non-religious Jews from around the world to immigrate and qualify for cash grants while Palestinians who were born there can’t even return home. Why no outrage in the same government and media that condemns any effort of European Americans to limit immigration into the United States?

7) I have pointed out for years that Israel does not legally allow the marriage of Jews and non-Jews, and even recently would not allow the legal marriage of Jew of the Cohanin (priest class) to marry a religious Jewish woman who simply happened to have some Gentile genetic heritage. Similar laws led to American sanctions against South Africa, but not only does the U.S. government not sanction Israel, it sends Israel billions of American tax dollars and criminalizes American firms who try to divest from Israel. Again no outrage in America’s Jewish-extremist dominated media.

8) I pointed out for years that the same government and media that sees racial and ethnic segregation as a great evil — supports Israel that has institutional segregation of Jews in non-Jews in schools, facilities, neighborhoods, apartment buildings, whole towns, and even the settlements in the West Bank on stolen land of the Palestinians are themselves segregated and allowed for Jews only! How does one explain the government and media position toward Israel without factoring in that fact that Jewish extremist partisans have so much influence in government and media?

The New York Sun article refers to me as a White supremacist, an epithet I completely reject and refute. The truth is that the Sun and its staff are the real supremacists, Jewish supremacists who seek and support Jewish supremacy not only in the Mideast but in United States as well.

Indeed, they have a working supremacy over American foreign policy and many politicians. They have a working supremacy over much of the American press, especially the most important and powerful media institutions.

This Jewish supremacy is easy to document and prove. It is the proverbial gorilla in the room that nobody dares mention. If one dares to speak about it, they will be characterized like me, as a “supremacist” or “anti-Semite.”

As usual, my most powerful arguments come from the Jewish supremacists themselves. Here are two important admissions from their own words. The first one is from one of the leading Jews in the United States, a Jewish activist who was once head of National Affairs for the largest and most powerful Jewish organization in the United States, the American Jewish Committee, Stephen Steinlight. Am I supposed to be an anti-Semite because I quote a prominent Jewish leader in saying how he and “typical Jews” are raised to put loyalty to Israel first and to view Gentiles as inferior?




“I’ll confess it, at least, like thousands of other typical Jewish kids of my generation, I was reared as a Jewish nationalist, even a quasi-separatist. Every summer for two months for 10 formative years during my childhood and adolescence I attended Jewish summer camp. There, each morning, I saluted a foreign flag, dressed in a uniform reflecting its colors, sang a foreign national anthem, learned a foreign language, learned foreign folk songs and dances, and was taught that Israel was the true homeland. Emigration to Israel was considered the highest virtue, and, like many other Jewish teens of my generation, I spent two summers working in Israel on a collective farm while I contemplated that possibility. More tacitly and subconsciously, I was taught the superiority of my people to the gentiles who had oppressed us. We were taught to view non-Jews as untrustworthy outsiders, people from whom sudden gusts of hatred might be anticipated, people less sensitive, intelligent, and moral than ourselves. We were also taught that the lesson of our dark history is that we could rely on no one.” Steinlight, Stephen. (2001). Backgrounder. Center for Immigration Studies. October.

The second is from a major Jewish publication boasting about the Jewish supremacist control of the largest media conglomerates in the United States. Again, am I supposed to be an anti-Semite or supremacist because I quote a Jewish publication bragging about their dominance? Is Davidduke.com an anti-Semitic website for reporting what Jewish publications themselves say?




Four of the largest five entertainment giants are now run or owned by Jews. Murdoch’s News Corp (at number four) is the only gentile holdout — however Rupert is as pro-Israel as any Jew, probably more so.” (Los Angeles Jewish Times Oct. 29. 1999)

Truth is I am not a supremacist. I am not a racist. I do, however, love my people and my heritage, and I do resent that much of the media as well as significant policies of the government of the United States are controlled by the interests of a foreign nation and a group within our nation that has loyalties to it.

—David Duke

[Scales]

While I agree that this is an interesting subject, I find it rather cheap and unpleasant when intelligent people use base slurs like 'Yid' in their thread titles.

[Ahknaton]

I posted the Mearsheimer and Walt study the other day and the response was complete silence. Here you have two of the most distinguished political scientists in America saying Jews are behind the debacle that is the Iraq War. You would think this would generate more discussion than it has.
I read it over at the European Ethnocentrism blog and couldn't see what the fuss was about. It's nothing that hasn't been said a hundred times before. Academia is swimming with anti-Israel leftists, I can't see how this is a major sea change. IMHO it's counterproductive and hypocritical for nationalists of any stripe to jump on the anti-Israel bandwagon, especially when it's loudest critics are trying to force Israel to accept the same nation-destroying suicidal leftism that is wrecking the West. A better tactic would be to support Israel as a means of deflecting accusations of "anti-Semitism" and use Israel as a role-model for ethnonationalism, using it as leverage to point out the double-standards of those who support ethnonationalism in Israel but not in the White West.

Massive American military and financial aid is of course a major issue, but support for Israel's right to exist and defend itself should be pretty much a given. (Disclaimer: I'm not an American, so I don't have huge personal stake in this)

[Fade the Butcher]

While I agree that this is an interesting subject, I find it rather cheap and unpleasant when intelligent people use base slurs like 'Yid' in their thread titles.

C'mon, Scales. Yid is pretty mild compared to the sort of vitriol that gets thrown our way. In any case, I agree. The term does nothing but distract from the content of the paper and the controversy over it.

[Fade the Butcher]

I read it over at the European Ethnocentrism blog and couldn't see what the fuss was about. It's nothing that hasn't been said a hundred times before.

True. It's still a significant paper though. We're not talking about any two academics here. We're talking about the Dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and the Co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago; two of the most elite political scientists in the United States.

Academia is swimming with anti-Israel leftists, I can't see how this is a major sea change.

Because you can count on your hand the number of academics in the United States who speak with such authority on international relations. There isn't a notable scholar who works in this field who isn't going to read this.

IMHO it's counterproductive and hypocritical for nationalists of any stripe to jump on the anti-Israel bandwagon.

How so?

[Petr]

In any case, I agree. The term does nothing but distract from the content of the paper and the controversy over it.
Actually I agree too - those LGF jerks just made me momentarily see red.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

Actually I agree too - those LGF jerks just made me momentarily see red.


Petr

Understandable. I read through 200 posts of nonsense over there. I didn't see a single substantial point made in that waste of bandwidth.

[Fade the Butcher]

Where is Sulla? He hasn't chimed in yet to denounce Mearsheimer and Walt as "anti-semites." :p

[Starr]

Massive American military and financial aid is of course a major issue, but support for Israel's right to exist and defend itself should be pretty much a given.

That massive military and financial aid is exactly what I have a problem with and as for Israel's right to exist and defend itself I couldn't agree more.

using it as leverage to point out the double-standards of those who support ethnonationalism in Israel but not in the White West.

Talking about how Israel runs its affairs for any other reasons but to point out this double standard is hypocritical, yes.

[Fade the Butcher]

A better tactic would be to support Israel as a means of deflecting accusations of "anti-Semitism" and use Israel as a role-model for ethnonationalism, using it as leverage to point out the double-standards of those who support ethnonationalism in Israel but not in the White West.

I don't spend my time denying the right of Mongolians to exist as an independent nation. I don't have any problem with them. Mongolians aren't a massive distorting influence in my society nor are they trying to manipulate my government into stirring up wars that our not in our best interests. The soldiers over there dying in Iraq come from states like Alabama and Mississippi. The money that is being used to pay for this Jewish war is being siphoned off U.S. taxpayers. The majority of Jews don't even live in Israel either. They live here in America.

Massive American military and financial aid is of course a major issue, but support for Israel's right to exist and defend itself should be pretty much a given. (Disclaimer: I'm not an American, so I don't have huge personal stake in this)

I will cease to consider Israel an enemy when three things happen: 1.) when Jews relocate there once and for all, 2.) when their distorting influence over my government and culture ends, and 3.) when Jews formally apologize for all harm they have caused us in the past. If they would just go away and leave us the hell alone, then I wouldn't consider them a problem.

But no. They refuse to do this. In the 1960s, busloads of Jews came to Alabama and Mississippi in order to flaunt our laws and stir up hatred against us. They stuck their noses in our business; in matters that did not concern them. They lobbied the government to strike down our laws and to open our borders to third world immigration. They degrade and vulgarize our culture. They stir up wars against countries that have done us no harm. This sort of behavior is why they have been kicked out of nation after nation throughout history.

[Scales]

Actually I agree too - those LGF jerks just made me momentarily see red.
Petr
I can see why they make you see red; the paper certainly indicates the unhealthy influence of AIPAC and really, it's disingenuous to argue otherwise. It would serve 'organised Jewry' well to acknowledge the manipulative effect that this group and their advocates have had on American foreign policy, and in doing so emphasize the divide between Zionism and Judaism. Responding to this kind of thing with indignant defensiveness is an argument of forced denial.

The knee-jerk loyalty that many Jewish people have for the Zionist cause lays them, as an ethnic group, open to the same attacks that Israel itself is (often with validity) subjected to. Sooner or later, in the US, there's going to have to be a sincere critique of Zionism by Jews themselves, just as, in Europe, it's of growing importance that Muslim communities express opposition to the extremists that are shaping their public perception.

[Starr]

I will cease to consider Israel an enemy when three things happen: 1.) when Jews relocate there once and for all, 2.) when their distorting influence over my government and culture ends, and 3.) when Jews formally apologize for all harm they have caused us in the past. If they would just go away and leave us the hell alone, then I wouldn't consider them a problem

The third one would never happen unless it was done under some kind of force or threats of some kind and then it would only be to save themselves so it woud mean nothing. I would settle for the first two.

I keep on laughing about this response:
How many Jews will die because of this article?

How tiring is the poor jews, all criticism is going to lead to another "holocaust" shit. I wish someone, with a set, would respond with something along the lines of simply "who cares" or "you brought it on yourself" and watch how much they cry then.:rolleyes:

[Dan Dare]

While I agree that this is an interesting subject, I find it rather cheap and unpleasant when intelligent people use base slurs like 'Yid' in their thread titles.

Fuck off back to MSF then, Scalesy, you nigger-loving kike-a-like :222:

[@88mmFlaK - just kiddin' mate :D]

[Fade the Butcher]

This accusation was made in the UK several years ago too.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/04/ndaly04.xml

Tam Dalyell, the Father of the House, sparked outrage last night by accusing the Prime Minister of "being unduly influenced by a cabal of Jewish advisers".

In an interview with Vanity Fair, the Left-wing Labour MP named Lord Levy, Tony Blair's personal envoy on the Middle East, Peter Mandelson, whose father was Jewish, and Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, who has Jewish ancestry, as three of the leading figures who had influenced Mr Blair's policies on the Middle East.

Yesterday Mr Dalyell, the MP for Linlithgow, told The Telegraph: "I am fully aware that one is treading on cut glass on this issue and no one wants to be accused of anti-Semitism but, if it is a question of launching an assault on Syria or Iran . . . then one has to be candid."

He added: "I am not going to be labelled anti-Semitic. My children worked on a kibbutz. But the time has come for candour." The Prime Minister, Mr Dalyell claimed, was also indirectly influenced by Jewish people in the Bush administration, including Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser, Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defence secretary, and Ari Fleischer, the President's press secretary.

"They very much have captured the ear of the President of the United States. I said [to Vanity Fair] I thought that Blair was very sympathetic to them. I cannot understand why," Mr Dalyell said.

Mr Dalyell's claim caused fury last night. Mr Mandelson said: "Apart from the fact that I am not actually Jewish, I wear my father's parentage with pride. As for Tam, he is as incorrigible as ever."

Lord Janner, a Labour peer and the chairman of the Holocaust Education Trust, said: "I think these comments are sad and unfounded. Tony Blair is his own man. He will follow advice if he considers it correct and not otherwise. He has been a good friend of the Jewish people and the Jewish state."

Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain of Maidenhead Synagogue and a spokesman for Britain's Reform Synagogues, said: "Tam Dalyell is not being candid but misguided. Concerning Iraq it was crystal clear that Tony Blair was not swayed by popularity or anyone else but by his own deep convictions. It is also obvious that the majority of President Bush's circle are Christian Evangelicals rather than Jews."

Ned Temko, the American-born editor of the Jewish Chronicle, said: "I just think these sort of comments are offensive and are a profound misunderstanding of the way foreign policy is made in the United States or here."

A spokesman for Lord Levy said he was not available for comment. A spokesman for the Foreign Secretary said: "If these reports are accurate, these remarks are too unworthy to be worth a comment."

[Scales]

Fuck off back to MSF then, Scalesy, you nigger-loving kike-a-like :222:

Nazi scum. :222:

[Fade the Butcher]

How tiring is the poor jews, all criticism is going to lead to another "holocaust" shit.

"The Jews could be put down very plausibly as the most unpleasant race ever heard of. As commonly encountered they lack many of the qualities that mark the civilized man: courage, dignity, incorruptibility, ease, confidence. They have vanity without pride, voluptuousness without taste, and learning without wisdom. Their fortitude, such as it is, is wasted upon puerile objects, and their charity is mainly a form of display."
--H.L. Mencken

[Ahknaton]

I don't spend my time denying the right of Mongolians to exist as an independent nation. I don't have any problem with them. Mongolians aren't a massive distorting influence in my society nor are they trying to manipulate my government into stirring up wars that our not in our best interests.Israelis and Jews are not the same thing. Why should resentment of diaspora Jews be taken as a reason for hostility towards Jewish nationalists in Israel seeking to defend their ethnostate?

How would the defeat & destruction of Israel end any of these problems caused by disapora Jewry? If anything it will make them worse, because a large flow of Jewish refugees from Israel will stream into the West where their culture-distorting influence will increase. Furthermore, since they no longer have their own state they will go into overdrive agitating for a war to get it back. They'll also no longer feel constrained to respect out nationhood, since they won't have a nation of their own, and we won't have Israel to point as an example of their double-standards regarding ethnonationalism (although I admit, they show precious little respect as it is).
The soldiers over there dying in Iraq come from states like Alabama and Mississippi. The money that is being used to pay for this Jewish war is being siphoned off U.S. taxpayers. The majority of Jews don't even live in Israel either. They live here in America.
I don't accept that the Iraq war is being waged 100% for the benefit of Israel. It is in Israel's interests that American predominance be maintained in the Middle East, but America has it's own reasons for being there.

Also, if the majority of Jews live in America, and those are the Jews that you have a problem with (for their culture distortion and leftwing agitation) then why do you take your frustration out on the "good Jews" i.e. the Zionist Jews who put their money where their mouth is and move to Israel, like you want them to? You are trying to punish those whose behaviour you want others to emulate. This doesn't make any sense.

I will cease to consider Israel an enemy when three things happen: 1.) when Jews relocate there once and for all, 2.) when their distorting influence over my government and culture ends, and 3.) when Jews formally apologize for all harm they have caused us in the past. If they would just go away and leave us the hell alone, then I wouldn't consider them a problem.
If you "consider Israel an enemy" then you are advocating policies that sabotage any chance of number 1 ever coming about. I think that number 2 will naturally flow from number 1 being achieved, and I think that the continued existence of Israel is actually essential for it to be a viable goal (the other alternative is assimilation of Jews into the "White" identity). Number 3 is probably never going to happen, since acknowledging that Jews have fallible moral judgement and aren't the saviours of humanity would mean renouncing the lynchpin of their identity as superior moral beings for most of them. Although I agree, it would be nice.
But no. They refuse to do this. In the 1960s, busloads of Jews came to Alabama and Mississippi in order to flaunt our laws and stir up hatred against us. They stuck their noses in our business; in matters that did not concern them. They lobbied the government to strike down our laws and to open our borders to third world immigration. They degrade and vulgarize our culture. They stir up wars against countries that have done us no harm. This sort of behavior is why they have been kicked out of nation after nation throughout history.
All true. If you want to kick them out, where are you going to kick them out to? Just remember that the official policy of Likud is that diaspora Jews should move to Israel.

[Fade the Butcher]

Israelis and Jews are not the same thing.

I refuse to draw any distinction between Israelis and American Jews. It's an artificial distinction that doesn't exist in reality. Wurmser and Pearle formulated their foreign policy of transforming the Middle East for Netanyahu years before they sold it to George W. Bush. Israel is a Jewish state. Most Jews, however, don't live in Israel. They live in the United States. American Jewry is a nation within a nation.

Why should resentment of diaspora Jews be taken as a reason for hostility towards Jewish nationalists in Israel seeking to defend their ethnostate?

1.) Israel actively attempts to subvert our government to further its own narrow interests at our expense. Mongolia is not doing this.
2.) The method of choice, of course, is through political activism on the part of the fifth column that is American Jewry. Organized Jewry in America literally coordinates its policies with a foreign government, as Mearsheimer and Walt point out. Mongolia is not doing this.
3.) The interests of different nations are often in conflict. For example, Palestinian nationalists and Israeli nationalists are at odds with each other. The same is true in America where the organized Jewish community actively attempts to subvert and suppress ethnic American identity. I don't have any problem with Mongolians. Mongolians aren't a huge distorting influence in my society.

How would the defeat & destruction of Israel end any of these problems caused by disapora Jewry?

Once again, I don't draw any distinction between the two. They are the same people. They work together to accomplish mutual goals. One of these goals happens to be the eradication of racialism in America and the promotion of multiculturalism in order to dilute our national identity -- to further their own narrow interests (i.e., "fighting anti-semitism"). They have chosen to treat people like me as their enemies and have done so for years. I have done nothing more than acknowledge this and return the favor.

If anything it will make them worse, because a large flow of Jewish refugees from Israel will stream into the West where their culture-distorting influence will increase.

I have no valid reason to support the existence of Israel.

1.) Israel attempts to manipulate my government.
2.) The existence of Israel has done nothing to solve our problems. American Jews haven't relocated there.
3.) If anything is true, then it is that the maintenance of their little outpost in the Middle East has incited the wrath of virtually the entire Islamic world against us and has involved us in numerous wars in the region.
4.) The destruction of Israel wouldn't make much of a difference as far as I am concerned. It's not like we don't already have a Jewish problem on our hands as things stand today.

Furthermore, since they no longer have their own state they will go into overdrive agitating for a war to get it back.

They already have their own state. This doesn't stop them from agitating for wars.

They'll also no longer feel constrained to respect out nationhood, since they won't have a nation of their own, and we won't have Israel to point as an example of their double-standards regarding ethnonationalism (although I admit, they show precious little respect as it is).

They didn't have a state of their own back during the 1930s. This didn't stop them from agitating to get America involved in the Second World War. They have their own state today, but this has done absolutely nothing to curtail their ambitions. It has only made them more ambitious. They believe they have to outright dominate our foreign policy now in order to advance their interests.

I don't accept that the Iraq war is being waged 100% for the benefit of Israel.

The Iraq War would never had happened if Jews had not been pushing for it. They are trying to stir up another war against Iran today. They have spent years trying to get us into a war with Syria too.

It is in Israel's interests that American predominance be maintained in the Middle East, but America has it's own reasons for being there.

The U.S. State Department opposed the creation of a Jewish state in the Middle East from the beginning. Israel is a liability in promoting U.S. interests in the Middle East, not an asset. The best example of this would be the oil embargo back in the 1970s that did significant damage to the U.S. economy.

Also, if the majority of Jews live in America, and those are the Jews that you have a problem with (for their culture distortion and leftwing agitation) then why do you take your frustration out on the "good Jews" i.e. the Zionist Jews who put their money where their mouth is and move to Israel, like you want them to?

The neocons are not "good Jews." They are just as distasteful and repulsive as their counterparts on the left (probably even more so to be honest). They share the same anti-nationalist, anti-racist, anti-white agenda. OTOH, I have always been an avid reader of Noam Chomsky.

You are trying to punish those whose behaviour you want others to emulate. This doesn't make any sense.

It makes perfect sense. Jews consider me to be their enemy. They openly declare that people like me are their enemy. I acknowledge this fact and act accordingly.

If you "consider Israel an enemy" then you are advocating policies that sabotage any chance of number 1 ever coming about.

I disagree. Jews are never going to leave the United States unless they are forced out.

I think that number 2 will naturally flow from number 1 being achieved, and I think that the continued existence of Israel is actually essential for it to be a viable goal (the other alternative is assimilation of Jews into the "White" identity).

I have no valid reason to support the existence of Israel.

Number 3 is probably never going to happen, since acknowledging that Jews have fallible moral judgement and aren't the saviours of humanity would mean renouncing the lynchpin of their identity as superior moral beings for most of them. Although I agree, it would be nice.

It would follow that I will probably never change my views about the Jews then.

All true. If you want to kick them out, where are you going to kick them out to?

That's not my concern.

Just remember that the official policy of Likud is that diaspora Jews should move to Israel.

Likud doesn't want diaspora Jews to relocate to Israel en masse. That's a ploy. If that were to ever to really happen, then Israel would lose its American backing. If America were to stop backing Israel, then the pressure that is put upon virtually all other nations by America would evaporate in turn.

[Fade the Butcher]

Organized Jewry is engaged in full fledged damage control. They don't seem to realize that by swinging into action in such a dramatic fashion they are doing nothing but verifying everything Mearsheimer and Walt accused them of.

Kalb Upbraids Harvard Dean Over Israel (http://www.nysun.com/article/29470)

KR Comments (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1600187/posts)

[Fade the Butcher]

An entirely predictable reaction from FrontPageRag.

David Duke and Harvard's New Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21758)

"Anti-Semitism can appear in many forms, many disguises. Its latest camouflage can be seen in “The Israel Lobby,” an article in the March 23 London Review of Books by Political Science Professor John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Dean Stephen M. Walt of Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. . . .

But even the chief U.S. correspondent of Ha’aretz in his blog on March 16, blasted Mearsheimer and Walt, describing their paper as “academic garbage” and an example of “the decline of academic values and the misuse of academic titles by contemporary American pseudo-scholars.”

^^ See, this is how they throw around the label "anti-Semitism" in order to silence debate. Reasonable people are starting to notice this and see through the labels to the spitting Jews behind them.

[Fade the Butcher]

David Duke, Pat Buchanan, and Justin Raimondo deserve credit for being onto these bastards from day one.

"In 2004, David Duke endorsed John Kerry for President. Duke has been an outspoken critic of the Iraq war for some of the same reasons Mearsheimer and Walt express. Duke embraced a slogan that says in a few words what these two scholars took 83 pages to say: “No War for Israel.”

As Ben Johnson of FrontPage Magazine reported, David Duke has been a big booster for leftist war critic Cindy Sheehan. On Syrian National Television in November 2005, Duke again summed up in a few words the bottom-line message of these scholars’ more caged and qualified report.

“The Zionist neocons…are crazy,” David Duke reportedly said. “The people who are pushing Jewish supremacism, Zionism – they are absolute evil and they are crazy. All they know is more power, and so there is a real danger, I should say, for Syria, and a danger for Iran….”

[Fade the Butcher]

Justin Raimondo weighs in on Jewgate again.

The War Party in Disarray (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8743)

It isn't looking so good for the War Party. As things fall apart on the ground in Iraq, a similar process of disintegration is occurring on the home front. It seems as if there are almost daily defections from the ranks, and – as the blame game gets underway – our war birds are turning on each other, with Donald "Super-Stud" Rumsfeld, once hailed as the War Party's answer to George Clooney, now in the neocons' crosshairs. As for our commander in chief, his poll numbers are at an all-time low, and he seems to have retreated so deeply into a world of delusion that not even the outbreak of full-scale civil war in Iraq can shock him out of his mental catatonia.

Worse yet, as the ostensible rationales for the invasion of Iraq are debunked and fall by the wayside, the War Party's real motivation for bringing about what Gen. William E. Odom has rightly called the biggest strategic disaster in our history has come out in the wash. "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," a study by John J. Mearsheimer, the doyen of foreign policy realism, and Stephen M. Walt, dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, has blasted the scales from our eyes. While not falling into the trap of identifying the efforts of "the Lobby" as the sole reason for the radicalization of U.S. foreign policy in the post-9/11 era, their research clearly shows that this was the decisive factor.

I have to say that this conclusion was fairly obvious early on: after all, if all the other rationalizations – WMD, Iraq's alleged links to al-Qaeda, uranium-pilfering in Niger – were pure bunk, then, by means of a simple process of elimination, we come to the geopolitical explanation as the only logical alternative. If the U.S. is systematically dismantling Arab regimes from Baghdad to Beirut to Tehran – and perhaps beyond – then the primary geostrategic beneficiary leaps out at any objective analyst. As I put it way back in 2003:

"The Iraq war, as we are beginning to discover, had nothing to do with 'weapons of mass destruction,' zero to do with al-Qaeda, and zilch to do with implanting 'democracy' in the inhospitable soil of Iraq. The first phase of the second Yom Kippur War is revealing, in action, the strategic doctrine at the heart of U.S. Middle Eastern policy: the installation of Israel as regional hegemon."

I am glad to see the Kennedy School is finally catching up to the level of analysis long available here at Antiwar.com: it's a good sign, albeit long overdue.

Another good sign is the wellspring of hysteria that has arisen in the wake of the study's publication. Already Alan Dershowitz has smeared the distinguished authors as anti-Semites, and the Usual Suspects have launched a deafening chorus of caterwauling. Among the "arguments" raised by the study's detractors: David Duke has praised it, the Washington office of Fatah is handing out copies, and the Muslim Brotherhood likes it, too. None of which proves anything – except for the thesis, advanced by the study's authors, that the role of the Lobby is to prevent any objective analysis and rational discussion of the very "special relationship" Israel enjoys with key U.S. policymakers.

The Mearsheimer-Walt study is an important step in identifying how and why we are bogged down in the Iraqi quagmire, but it is only a first step. The second, third, and fourth steps will come as we unravel the complex web of lies that lured us in on a variety of pretexts. What were the sources of the phony "intelligence" that made U.S. policymakers believes – or pretend to believe – Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction" primed to launch at a moment's notice? More importantly, how did this ersatz data get pumped into the U.S. intelligence stream, and who injected it? As I wrote two years ago:

"The concept of the Iraq war as a successful Israeli covert operation is altogether plausible. It would hardly be the first time a foreign government made a concerted effort to drag us into war on their side. "

Those who are crying the loudest about this study are the same people who, when confronted with the news of an FBI raid – two of them! –on the headquarters of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the powerful pro-Israel lobby that has long dominated the debate of Middle East policy on Capitol Hill, were either uncharacteristically silent or else in total denial. The arrest of Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin, and charges of spying on behalf of Israel lodged against longtime AIPAC leader and spark plug Steve Rosen, and his associate Keith Weissman, should have alerted even the most loyal pro-Israel stalwarts that where's there's so much smoke there has to be some real fire. Seen as background to the mid-April trial of Rosen and Weissman, the Mearsheimer-Walt study throws some real light on a situation that has long been untenable and may now be finally coming to a head.

[Fade the Butcher]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0321/dailyUpdate.html

Study alleges US sets aside own security interest for Israel's

Research paper by two leading academics on US-Israel relationship ignites controversy.

By Tom Regan (http://www.csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/encryptmail.pl?ID=D4EFEDA0D2E5E7E1EEA0ADA0E2F9ECE9EEE5) | csmonitor.com

A research paper by two leading American political scientists alleges that the US relationship with Israel is not good for US security (http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf), and that the Israeli lobby in the US, particularly the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, has helped exaggerate to the US media and public the importance of making the protection of Israel a key part of US foreign policy.

John J. Mearsheimer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer), a professor of political science and a co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago, and Stephen M. Walt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Walt), academic dean of the Kennedy School, published their paper, "The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," on the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University website. A shorter version was also published by the London Review of Books (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html).
Mr. Mearsheimer and Mr. Walt question the relationship between the two allies right from the beginning of the paper:
The US national interest should be the primary object of American foreign policy. For the past several decades, however, and especially since the Six Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of US Middle East policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering US support for Israel and the related effort to spread democracy throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized US security.
This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the United States been willing to set aside its own security in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries is based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives. As we show below, however, neither of those explanations can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the United States provides to Israel.
The 81-page paper then says that the "overall thrust of US policy in the region is due almost entirely to US domestic politics, and especially to the activities of the 'Israel Lobby.'" While other special interest groups have skewed US policy in their favor, the authors write that no group has been so successful at diverting the US national interest from what it should be as the Israel lobby, "while simultaneously convincing Americans that US and Israeli interests are essentially identical."

The paper also says that the unquestioning relationship with Israel actually makes winning the war on terror a much more difficult task.
More important, saying that Israel and the US are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: the US has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around. Support for Israel is not the only source of anti-American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it makes winning the war on terror more difficult. There is no question that many Al Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are motivated by Israel’s presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians. Unconditional support for Israel makes it easier for extremists to rally popular support and to attract recruits.

As for so-called rogue states in the Middle East, they are not a dire threat to vital US interests, except inasmuch as they are a threat to Israel. Even if these states acquire nuclear weapons – which is obviously undesirable – neither America nor Israel could be blackmailed, because the blackmailer could not carry out the threat without suffering overwhelming retaliation. The danger of a nuclear handover to terrorists is equally remote, because a rogue state could not be sure the transfer would go undetected or that it would not be blamed and punished afterwards. The relationship with Israel actually makes it harder for the US to deal with these states. Israel’s nuclear arsenal is one reason some of its neighbors want nuclear weapons, and threatening them with regime change merely increases that desire.
Justin Raimundo of Antiwar.com, a long time critic of the activities of the Israeli lobby in the US, writes that the authors also cite incidents when the lobby groups went after Jews who were advocating a different approach (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8730) to US policy in the region.
When Edgar Bronfman, president of the World Jewish Congress, wrote a letter to President Bush expressing his opposition to the "security wall," and asking that the US put pressure on Israel to stop construction, he was accused of "perfidy" by leading figures in the Lobby. The nature of the attacks revealed an attitude toward Israel not unlike that held by the Communists of the Cold War era toward the Soviet Union. As Mearsheimer and Walt point out:

"Critics declared that, 'It would be obscene at any time for the president of the World Jewish Congress to lobby the president of the United States to resist policies being promoted by the government of Israel.' When Seymour Reich, president of the Israel Policy Forum, suggested to Condi Rice that the Israelis should be pressured to reopen a Gaza Strip border crossing, the Lobby went ballistic, and Reich soon recanted, announcing that 'the word "pressure" is not in my vocabulary when it comes to Israel.'"
United Press International also reports that the paper suggest the role played by the Israeli lobby in shaping US policy towards Iraq prior to the war is now being repeated (http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1148725.php/Pro-Israel_lobby_in_U.S._under_attack.) in the US position towards Iran.

In the Jan./Feb. 2003 edition of Foreign Policy, Walt and Mearsheimer wrote "An unnecessary war (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/walt.htm)," which questioned the major rationales being offered at the time by the Bush adminstration for war against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
If the United States is, or soon will be, at war with Iraq, Americans should understand that a compelling strategic rationale is absent. This war would be one the Bush administration chose to fight but did not have to fight. Even if such a war goes well and has positive long-range consequences, it will still have been unnecessary. And if it goes badly – whether in the form of high US casualties, significant civilian deaths, a heightened risk of terrorism, or increased hatred of the United States in the Arab and Islamic world – then its architects will have even more to answer for.The latest Walt and Mearsheimer research paper is being widely criticized by Israel supporters.

CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, said that the paper is "marred by numerous errors (http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=35&x_article=1099)." An article on the group's website said that a similar article "submitted by a student would flunk."
In fact, even a cursory examination of The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy reveals that it is riddled with errors of fact, logic and omission, has inaccurate citations, displays extremely poor judgement regarding sources, and, contrary to basic scholarly standards, ignores previous serious work on the subject. The bottom line: virtually every word and argument is, or ought to be, in “serious dispute.”The Jerusalem Post reports that the paper has "sparked instant controversy (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395630337&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)."
An official with a pro-Israel organization in Washington said that the authors' disagreement "is not with America's pro-Israel lobby, but with the American people, who overwhelmingly support our relationship with Israel, and with Democrats and Republicans in successive administrations and Congress, who so strongly and consistently support the special relationship between the United States and Israel."The Jerusalem Newswire called the paper a new example of "the centuries-old libel (http://www.jnewswire.com/library/article.php?articleid=1025) that the Jewish people have somehow taken control of the affairs of the most powerful nations on earth," dressed up in academic attire.
It is unclear how they feel about Washington's close ties to brutal dictatorial regimes, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, since they chose to spend their time engaged in the more popular pastime of Israel-bashing. Naturally, the report has topped headlines in the leftist international media, and in particular in the Middle East, where no love is lost for either Israel or the United States.
The nature of the relationship between Israel and the US is also explored in political analyst Kevin Phillip's new book "American Theocracy," but more from the US end. Mr. Phillips writes about the role of "prophetic Christians" (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/books/review/19brink.html?_r=1&incamp=article_popular_3&oref=slogin) who believe that one of the key signs of the Second Coming will be the Jewish settlement of the whole of Biblical Israel, and how this powerful religious group within the US, often working with the Israel lobby mentioned by Walt and Mearsheimer, affects US policy in the Middle East.
Ha'aretz reported Monday that President Bush reiterated US support for Israel, saying that the US would use military force (http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/696486.html) to protect Israel from Iranian threats if necessary. The president also said he would prefer to resolve the dispute over Iran's nuclear program diplomatically.

Also on Monday, Reuters reported that the US Supreme Court rejected an appeal (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/20/AR2006032000561.html) by Jonathan Pollard. Mr. Pollard, a former Navy intelligence analyst convicted of spying for Israel, had wanted access to classified documents in his sentencing file. With comment, the court "declined to review a US appeals court ruling that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review claims for access to such documents for clemency petitions."

[Fade the Butcher]

3/21/2006
Jewish Extremists Circle Their Wagons In Hate Campaign Against Harvard Dean
By Dr. David Duke

Zionist media sharks have gone on a feeding frenzy against the dean of Harvard’s prestigious Kennedy School of Government, Dr. Stephen Walt, and of course, me.

I am used to the media distortions and smears such as the inaccurate and mean-spirited epithet often used to describe me: “supremacist.” Indeed, how ironic it is for the Jewish extremists who support the apartheid state of Israel — to refer to their opponents as “supremacists”. I am no supremacist.

Psychologists have a term for what these hypocrites do, it is called projection. Dare we forget that Israel is a nation with immigration laws based on Jewish genetics, where marriage between a Jew and Gentile is not legal, where there is practically total segregation of neighborhoods, apartment buildings, schools, even whole towns, and where even the settlements which are built upon stolen Palestinian land forbid non-Jewish residents. Israel is a land where Palestinians can be tortured while Jews cannot, where non-religious Jews from all over the planet are given cash to come and settle, but where Palestinians who were born there can’t even go back home. And they call me a “supremacist!” In actual fact the Jewish supremacists who support Israel make me look very, very moderate.

I am used to the abuse, but Stephen Walt, dean of the most celebrated school of government in the United States, is not. A man of lifelong academic achievement and exuberant acclaim from his peers, Dr. Walt must be taken aback from the attacks.

He committed the unpardonable sin. He simply told the truth about the proverbial gorilla in the room: the Zionist lobby and its enormous political and media power. He dared to talk about its critical role in the Iraq War, a war not fought for American interests but for Israel’s.

The Iraq War has deeply harmed not only the 20,000 Americans already maimed or dead, but will cause untold numbers of Americans to be massacred by future terrorism spawned by this insane war. Even if America withdrew tomorrow, the costs of the war will be in the trillions of dollars and result in economic hardship for millions of Americans. It should be noted that from this war America did not get one gallon of cheaper gas and oil, only higher prices from the destabilization created by this war. The war was not about American imperialism or oil; it was about Jewish imperialism and Israeli strategic interests.

The main promoters of the Iraq War were two Jewish extremists, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. Both are long supporters of the most rabid Zionism and the Likud Party in Israel. Perle went so far as to co-author a report for the Israeli government that called for war against Iraq. It was titled, “A Clean Break, Securing the Realm,” The title referred to Israel’s realm, not America’s. Perle and Wolfowitz and the other main cohorts of the war such as Wurmser, Feith, Libby, Abrams, Kristol and the like — couldn’t do it alone, they had allies that stretched across the incredible influence of extremist Jews in media and in government. Stuart Cohen in the CIA manufactured the WMD lies, Israel supplied much of the false intelligence. And, is it really necessary for me to mention the roll played by the incredible power of the Jewish supremacists in American media. The New York Times and the Washington Post were key elements in the creation of this war for a lie, and their staff looks like an Israeli cabinet meeting.

Do I have to name the names in the network and cable news that promoted the war? I can. Check out the chapter from my book, Jewish Supremacism called Who Runs the Media (http://www.davidduke.com/?p=358)?

Perhaps our unbiased news is best illustrated by the “journalist” who has been at the heart of reporting the Mideast stories and the Iraq War, none other than the ubiquitous Wolf Blitzer. Who is Wolf Blitzer? He is the son of Holocaust survivors and formerly an official of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee). This radical Jewish Supremacist is the man from whom millions of Americans are supposed to get an unbiased view of the Mideast? The fact that he would even be chosen for the job must tell even the most hard-hearted American a lot. Could you see a network hiring a PLO official to report on Israel and the Mideast?

Dr. Walt and his co-author Dr. Mearsheimer ran into that incredible network of Jewish extremists so ensconced in the American landscape of media and politics.

Take a close look at the most recent Sun article (http://www.nysun.com/article/29380) attacking Walt, Mearsheimer and, of course, me. Walt is smeared simply because I have said the same things that he says in the report. The attacks against Walt go far beyond what the media calls McCarthyism. In the halcyon days of the McCarthy era, academics and media were attacked for their own associations with Communist groups. McCarthy never went so far as to attack someone simply because a Communist expressed agreement with him. If we go down that road, one can find discredited people who support every politician or point of view. It is the cheapest of cheap shots.

In the convoluted world of Jewish extremist character assassination, Walt is attacked and besmirched because I agreed with what he says. When the character assassination is complete against Walt, some other poor schmuck in the future will be attacked because Walt publicly agreed with him.

And who is doing the attacking in the New York Sun article? First off, the reporter who originally called me was Mr. Gerstein. I don’t think Gerstein is an Irish name. The Sun, like so many leading American newspapers have a staff that would feel right at home in Tel Aviv.

And in the latest article who do they quote to disprove all of Walt’s assertions in the paper?

Well they headline, “Kalb Upbraids Harvard Dean over Israel.” Who is the Kalb in question? Well, it’s none other than Marvin Kalb. Must I point out his deep roots in the Jewish community? Kalb doesn’t much refute what Walt says, he simply makes the oblique and insidious attack by demeaning the academic standards of the report.

Then the NY Sun article goes on to quote none other than Dennis Ross, former American envoy to the Mideast. Ross is another Jewish extremist, who informs the Sun’s readers that the report’s authors displayed “a woeful lack of knowledge on the subject.”

Then the Sun reporter quotes Jewish extremist Mortimer Zuckerman attacking the report. Finally, the article quotes Daniel Pipes who accused the report of “sloppiness, carelessness, fantasy.”

Pipes, of course is another Jewish supremacist who has advocated that Israel should put the whole Mideast under Israeli military subjugation. And, as a side note, Pipes is a close friend of fellow Jewish supremacist, Flemming Rose, the man who fanned the flames religious war by purposefully publishing the Mohammed cartoons in his Denmark newspaper.

The NY Sun’s attacks on Dr. Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer actually validate everything that these academics wrote in their report exposing the Israel lobby and their power over government and media. These vicious attacks also validate everything that I have written on the subject as well.

The American people must have government that works on behalf of the American people, not a powerful, extremist special interest group with loyalty to a particular minority ethnic group and the foreign nation it supports. The same is true in media. How are we to know the truth unless we have a media and an academia that is free and unbiased?

Dr. David Duke

http://www.davidduke.com/?p=502

[Fade the Butcher]

Duke was on Scarborough Country last night talking about the Mearsheimer-Walt study. Here is the video file.

http://rapidshare.de/files/16114743/mar2106duke.wmv.html

-After the page loads go to the bottom right and click on the "Free" button at the botom of the second column.
-You will be taken to another page where a timer (around 60 seconds) counts down. When the timer finishes you're taken to another page.
-At this page scroll to the bottom where you're asked to enter a code that is coloured. After you enter it you should get a download window.

[Fade the Butcher]

LOL

"Hate at Harvard" is the subtitle of the story. Dershowitz is saying they are anti-semites publishing hate speech; the "Learned Protocols of the Elders of Zion!" Has anyone else here read his The Vanishing American Jew: In Search of Jewish Identity for the Next Century (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684848988/102-5660100-8235357?v=glance&n=283155) where he wails, moans, and cries about Jewish miscegenation? BTW, Dershowitz was also O.J. Simpson's lawyer.

[Petr]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0321/dailyUpdate.html

Study alleges US sets aside own security interest for Israel's
It's so embarrassing that dispensationalists keep on sucking up to Israel and leave it to freaking Christian Science cultists to report objectively about issues such as this... :o

Amazingly even-handed approach from CS Monitor, however.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

This whole controversy illustrates everything Duke, MacDonald, Raimondo and now Mearsheimer and Walt are saying. The response to the study was entirely predictable: accuse M&W of anti-semitism, paint them with the brush of conspiracy theories, viciously attack them in various mediums in the press, quote and cite other radical Jews, throw out the old guilt by association trope, engage in massive doublethink.

[Mike Jahn]

Organized Jewry had nothing to fear, the Walt-Mearsheimer book only reached a small group of leftists and paleocons. Since 9-11 it has become almost impossible to reach the White flag-waving, Fox News fans, with any criticism of Israel as such criticism has been smeared as "pro-Arab/pro-terrorist"