Long before 1939 rolled around the Nazis had gotten well underway by drumming up a campaign of hate against Jews. Today many of the same Protestant denominations, such as the Lutherans and the Methodists, who supported Hitler then have signed on to divestment, the first stages of extending the decades old Arab boycott of Israel to America and the West. In Europe major political parties and labor unions have already proposed boycotts of Israel and even academic boycotts of scientists and engineers and graduate students whose only crime is being from Israel; regardless of their personal politics.
That divestment from Israel has gained more traction among Unitarians, Presbyterians, Methodists and Lutherans than on any academic campus strongly suggests that these denominations are either more left wing or more Anti-Semitic than even American campuses. Either possibility is extremely disturbing at best considering that these are the spirtual leaders for a large number of Americans.
In Europe while any criticism of Islam is categorized as hate speech and subject to prosecution Jewbaiting in the classical German style has become far more commonplace. Had any right wing politician taunted a politician of Jewish origin with "Show Me The Shekels," on a talk show, the righteous progressive liberals would have immediately seen it for what it was and thrown a anti-hate speech rally, when it was done by the left's favorite thug, George Galloway though, it passes as just another day in the UK.
Meanwhile the attempted censuring of London Mayor Ken Livingstone for his own round of comparing Jewish figures to Nazis backfired in a way resembling the failed legal attempts by the German Jewish community against Goebbels in the 20's. Both Galloway and Livingstone represent the ugliest side of the left that openly allies itself with extremist Muslim groups, endorses the terrorist regime of Iran and engages in open Jewbaiting.
This indeed serves a useful function. As criticism of minorities becomes increasingly verbotten, the average Englishman is encouraged to shift his bigotries to the one legally permissible target, the Jew; all the while that bully boys like Livingstone and Galloway who would have been entirely at home in a Munich beer hall egg them on taunting and abusing prominent Jewish figures and then waiting eventually for the violence, which this time will be performed by Muslim rather than German mobs.
In this way the Jews for the Europeans once again come to serve the function we have always served, as a safety valve for releasing violent anger at their living conditions while the European governments continue to hope that their Muslim minorities will accept kicking Jews as a substitute for kicking Europeans. A state of affairs they cannot expect to hold even until their Muslim minorities become Muslim majorities. But as the Czar believed that beating the Jews would be an acceptable substitute for Russians for social and economic freedom, as the Kaiser believed beating the Jews would be an acceptable substitute for a Democratic republic; Europe continues to retrace its own muddy footsteps towards a foretold conclusion.
Monday, April 24, 2006
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
DAVID DUKE CLAIMS TO BE VINDICATED BY A HARVARD DEAN
Paper Issued by Kennedy School Blames War on Israel Lobby
By ELI LAKE Staff Reporter of the Sun
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.
But the paper,“The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” by the Kennedy
School’s Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, is meeting with a more critical reception from many of those it names as part of the lobby.The 83-page “working paper” claims a network of journalists, think tanks, lobbyists, and largely Jewish officials have seized the foreign policy debate and manipulated America to invade Iraq. Included in this network, the authors say, are the editors of the New YorkTimes, the scholars at the Brookings Institution, students at Columbia, “pro-Israel” senior officials in the executive branch, and "neoconservative gentiles” including columnist George Will.
Dershowitz is quoted : here.
of course, no analysis of any media issue on Israel is complete without a review of material by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America.
APRIL 7, 2006
Updated Roundup of Coverage of the Walt/Mearsheimer "Israel Lobby" Controversy
MARCH 30, 2006
Will the real John Mearsheimer please stand up?
MARCH 22, 2006
Harvard Backs Away from "Israel Lobby" Professors; Removes Logo from Controversial Paper
MARCH 20, 2006
Study Decrying “Israel Lobby” Marred by Numerous Errors
And then we have this update from Taranto, showing that this story has 'legs' on both sides of the aisle, ie, friends and enemies alike, lol.
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Unserious nonbinding nonsense.
It has been three weeks since the Security Council was undeniably seized of the case of Iran's nuclear ambitions. At the end of it, the Council could only manage to produce a non-binding presidential statement. They could not agree to adopt a Security Council resolution. They could not agree to state clearly that Iran was in violation of its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. They could not agree that Iranian behavior constituted a threat to international peace and security. They could not agree on any actions to take against Iran at all. They could not even agree that the ball was squarely in the Security Council's court, and not in the hands of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA,) where the issue has languished for the past three years.
What could they agree on in their nonbinding statement? They had "serious concerns…that the IAEA is unable to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran." Well that's one way of putting the threat of nuclear weapons in the hands of a genocidal maniac. Evidently, they did not have serious concerns arising from the fact that the IAEA has already concluded Iran violated its legal obligations. They also had a "serious concern" about "Iran’s decision to resume enrichment-related activities...and to suspend cooperation with the IAEA..." Translation: “naughty, naughty.” And the punch line? The Council "calls upon Iran to take the steps required by the IAEA Board of Governors...which are essential to build confidence."
How about confidence in the Security Council? The Council did not adopt a single penalty for noncompliance with Iran’s treaty obligations. The only concrete action the Council took was to ask the IAEA to produce another report in 30 days. And even then, there was no consensus that the report should go only to the Security Council, so they sent it both to the IAEA board of governors and the Council.
The Russian and the Chinese, however, are not the only ones to blame for the Council's inability to fulfill its very raison d'etre of protecting international peace and security. In the heat of negotiations, with Ambassador John Bolton pressing a strong case for serious Council action, the U.S. administration introduced Iranian-American bilateral talks — ostensibly on Iraq. Bilateral discussions — especially between these normally nonconversant parties — at the very moment that America was trying to build a multilateral coalition against its interlocutor, was sure to rattle feckless European allies and embolden the Russian and Chinese to hang tough. And so it did.
Security Council first round: Iran 1; nuclear-war opponents 0.
Leave it to the UN to do nothing when something is called for, and something only when it is not! grrr...
Also see How Corrupt Is the United Nations? by Claudia Rosett at Commentary Magazine
Answer? Pretty damned corrupt....
Sunday, April 02, 2006
This site has analyzed and reviewed the best of the best free software. I have tried most of them and can agree with his/her assessment of those I have tried. Some of these programs do their job simply and lightly and others are more complicated. Do check them out before buying expensive software. These programs do what they say they do and they cost nothing. One can donate if one is happy with a particular program. There are programs which are duplicates of Microsoft Office and Adobe Photoshop. Unless one is a professional somethingorother, these programs are all that you will need. Check here: