|December 15th, 2013||#21|
Join Date: May 2009
|December 15th, 2013||#22|
Join Date: May 2009
Who is the Boss and Who is the Servant in this Photo?
Who is the Boss and Who is the Servant in this Photo?
|November 9th, 2014||#24|
[jews get tens of millions from white taxpayers DAILY yet feel free to attack american ships, murder dozens and wound hundreds and then lie about it.]
[this has been known since it happened, but jews have kept up their lie, for the most part]
Jerusalem Post confirms Israel knew USS Liberty was American
BY RALPH LOPEZ NOV 6, 2014 IN WORLD
A 2004 transcript of an Israeli military tape published in the Jerusalem Post supports the unanimous position of the survivors and many high-ranking US officers that Israeli forces knew the USS Liberty was an American ship, as they attempted to sink it.
|November 10th, 2014||#25|
Kremlin Attack on Russian Website for ‘Nazi’ List of Wealthy Jews Meets Skeptical Response
NOVEMBER 3, 2014
A Kremlin-backed human rights body has assailed a Russian website as “Nazi” and “racist” for claiming that nearly one quarter of Russia’s billionaires are Jewish – but the response from one Jewish leader was more composed.
Nikolai Svanidze of the Russian Human Rights Council – a Kremlin-affiliated body with no executive powers – condemned Lenta.ru, which covers the banking sector, for publishing a report that broke down by faith and ethnicity those Russian citizens appearing in Forbes Magazine’s 2014 list of the world’s wealthiest individuals. According to lenta.ru, 48 of the top 200 wealthy Russians are Jews, with a combined net worth of $132.9 billion. Mikhail Fridman, with a net worth of $17.6 billion, tops the list and is Russia’s second richest man
“It’s a Nazi and racist approach,” Svandiza was quoted as saying by the Slon.ru news site.
But , as JTA reported, Yuri Kanner, president of the Russian Jewish Congress, defended the decision to publish the study.
“If you cannot compare the proportion of representatives of various nationalities in the general ethnic composition of the country, it is impossible to understand who is really successful and who is not,” he told the currsorinfo.co.il news website on Oct. 29.
He said, however, that he doubted the authenticity of the research.
“The proportion of Jews in the population of the Russian Federation is calculated incorrectly. Besides, to compare the Jewish population, which is mainly concentrated in the major cities and has a university degree, with a total mass of Russian citizens, it is not accurate,” Kanner said.
Of the Jews who made the list, 42 are of Ashkenazi origin, and together have a net worth of $122.3 billion.
Six Kavkazi Jews (a group also known as “Mountain Jews”) appear on the list, with a combined net worth of $10.6 billion. There are only 762 Russian citizens classified as Kavkazi Jews, according to the Russian Bureau of Statistics and they represent just 0.00035% percent of the population.
A leading Russian affairs analyst was skeptical of the Kremlin’s motivations in condemning the website, arguing that false claims of Ukrainian anti-Semitism had been advanced in partial justification of the Russian invasion of Crimea – claims that were both condemned and ridiculed by Jewish leaders in Ukraine.
Michael Weiss, editor-in-chief of The Interpreter, a magazine covering Russian affairs, told The Algemeiner: “Russian ultra-nationalists and the far right seize on the theme of wealthy, bloodsucking Jewish oligarchs a great deal, but what nobody bothers to say is that the chief enabler of Russian nationalism is Vladimir Putin.”
Weiss pointed out that in spite of stringent laws against extremism, neo-Nazis marched openly in St. Petersburg earlier this year, while later this week, a full array of extremists is expected at the annual Russian March.
“Putin is aligned with fascist parties in Europe like Jobbik in Hungary and Front National in France,” Weiss added. “He’s looking to create fifth columnists in Europe, drawn from racist and xenophobic parties with the occasional communist thrown in. So it’s a bit rich for the regime to be calling out antisemitism.”
|November 14th, 2014||#26|
How kosher is Jewish money?
Israelis have the most to lose from the destructive potential of donations from the likes of Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson. We should thank them for bringing this debate out into the open.
By Anshel Pfeffer | Nov. 14, 2014
It was like a scene out of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” Two immensely wealthy Jews, key financiers of the main political parties of the world’s superpower, discussing how to wage war on the enemies of the Jews, and control the media and presidents. Only, instead of taking place at the dead of night in a Jewish cemetery in Prague, they were sitting on stage in a Washington, D.C. hotel conference room, in full view and making no attempt to hide their intentions.
If the Czarist secret police officers who published the original edition of “Protocols” at the start of the 20th century had been at the Hilton, or just reading the reported dialogue between Power Rangers impresario Haim Saban and casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, they would have had little need for the embellishment, plagiarism and forgery they used to concoct their best seller.
If you haven’t yet read the musings of these two gentlemen on the best way to confront Iran (bombing “the daylight out of these sons of bitches” is an option), the shortcomings of Barack Obama’s presidency, the need (or lack of) for Israel to be a democracy, the best way to take over The New York Times, and how to ensure a sufficient supply of latkes at the White House Hanukkah party, then you really should. It would be no exaggeration to call it a historic event.
The joint appearance of the two billionaires at the Israeli American Council’s inaugural conference last weekend was the moment that Jewish benefactors, who have always preferred to use financial influence on behalf of their brethren as far behind-the-scenes as possible, chose to do so out in the open.
Not that they had anything to be ashamed of. Jewish financiers using their fortunes to protect and promote a small scattered nation, persecuted for much of its history by vastly superior forces, is an honorable tradition. Only, it was always a tradition considered to be much more effective when carried out discreetly. Why give the haters more ammunition to incite with?
In most countries where Jews live, discretion is still the norm. On the same day Adelson and Saban took to the stage in Washington, across the pond a British daily blazed the headline “Labour funding crisis: Jewish donors drop ‘toxic’ Ed Miliband” across its front page. The Independent on Sunday was referring to a shortfall in fund-raising for Britain’s main opposition party, due to concerns of Jewish donors that its embattled leader, Miliband (himself Jewish, of course), will, if elected prime minister next year, toughen his government’s policy toward Israel.
There are a number of troubling flaws to this story. Labour’s campaign machine relies, to a large degree, on funding from trade unions and is hardly beholden to private Jewish donors. Miliband is indeed in deep crisis, but that is due to his inability to project a credible image of being prime-minister-in-waiting and the constant sniping by his own senior party members, who fear he is leading them to five more years in the political wilderness.
The misgivings of the party’s Jewish donors over his foreign policy is really the least of his worries, and it is odd (or perhaps not) that The Independent on Sunday chose to make this relatively minor concern the main headline of its Remembrance Sunday issue. Especially as even the reporter admitted that it is not yet a problem – merely one that could emerge in the months leading to the election – and is dwarfed by the general reluctance of donors, not just Jewish ones, to contribute to Miliband’s campaign.
But by far the biggest flaw in the report, especially one that had been given such prominence, was that it did not include even one named source. None of Labour’s Jewish donors or fund-raisers had agreed to identify themselves by name, though some seem to have agreed to be quoted anonymously.
Difference between U.S. and British Jews
The interviewees’ reticence is not surprising. Whether or not they are satisfied with their party’s candidate, Jewish philanthropists do not voluntarily discuss in public their political donations.
This is probably all you need to know about the difference between American and British Jews. Both communities are phenomenally successful, and for the past few decades have enjoyed a disproportionate prominence in just about every walk of life – unparalleled since the Golden Age of the Jews in Middle-Ages Spain, perhaps even surpassing that. But while Jews in the United States routinely celebrate their extraordinary position of near-dominance in finance, the creative arts, media, and now also political influence, among British Jews there is still a prevailing anxiety, and even sense of shame, whenever the words “Jewish” and “money” are used in the same sentence. Whenever a politician or media commentator combines the two, there is an outcry of “anti-Semitism.”
There is ample historic justification for this defensiveness. “The Protocols” were not the first or last time the insidiousness of Jewish moneymen was a central plank of Judeophobia. And it’s still around. Even today, when you start typing “Jewish bankers” into the world’s most powerful search engine (founded by two Jews, of course), it automatically suggests “control the world.” But then, the Web is full of the most vile conspiracy theorists, and we can’t let them dominate our lives.
The influence and power of big money in capitalist democracies are a fact of life. You can try and legislate to close loopholes and create a more level playing field, but you can’t eliminate it. Unless, that is, you want to live in a country like Vladimir Putin’s Russia, where troublesome oligarchs are packed off to a penal colony in Siberia or forced to flee and live in permanent exile.
The best we can do is try and take the Internet – that wonderful tool our capitalist economies have created – away from the conspiracy theorists and use it to truthfully increase transparency, so we at least know who is using money to acquire influence.
And that is already happening. Every community, business sector, and lobby is using its financial clout to try and change policy, and safeguard its interests. Jews have no reason to be ashamed of having learned – out of bitter necessity – to play the game well, and they certainly have every right to lobby on behalf of the country where half of their people live. Accusing them of dual loyalties (and we all have multiple loyalties) is not only anti-Semitic, it is also a denial of their democratic rights to decide who and what they choose to support.
For all the vulgarity of the Saban-Adelson dialogue, we should commend them for holding it in the open. Especially since now we have heard Adelson publicly state that as far as he is concerned, “so what” if Israel is no longer a democracy, we know the ugly truth about the man who is our prime minister’s number one patron.
It doesn’t matter whether or not we supply the Israel-haters and Judeophobes with fodder. They will warp facts and invent lies, anyway. We will have to continue facing their poisonous propaganda, and we have never been in a better position to do so.
But we need to know whatever we can about how “pro-Israel” tycoons use their money and what they believe in, because they are now in a far more powerful position than any hostile newspaper or biased blogger to cause Israel untold harm.
|November 17th, 2014||#27|
Join Date: May 2009
The Jewish Establishment
The Jewish Establishment
(Reprinted from SOBRAN’S, September 1995, pages 4–5)
|November 19th, 2014||#28|
Jewish overrepresentation at elite universities explained
Kevin MacDonald on July 16, 2010 — 158 Comments
Steve Sailer has an important blog at VDARE.com quoting from Russel K. Nieli’s essay on No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life by Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Radford. It’s no surprise that there is affirmative action for Blacks and Latinos: “To have the same chances of gaining admission as a black student with an SAT score of 1100, an Hispanic student otherwise equally matched in background characteristics would have to have a 1230, a white student a 1410, and an Asian student a 1550.”
Unfortunately, the authors lump Jews and non-Jews into the White category, but combining their results with what we know about Jewish admissions to elite universities yields some interesting results.
In a 1998 op-ed (“Some minorities are more minor than others”), Ron Unz pointed out “Asians comprise between 2% and 3% of the U.S. population, but nearly 20% of Harvard undergraduates. Then too, between a quarter and a third of Harvard students identify themselves as Jewish, while Jews also represent just 2% to 3% of the overall population. Thus, it appears that Jews and Asians constitute approximately half of Harvard’s student body, leaving the other half for the remaining 95% of America” (See also Edmund Connelly’s take.) A 2009 article in the Daily Princetonian (“Choosing the Chosen People”) cited data from Hillel, a Jewish campus organization, that with the exception of Princeton and Dartmouth, on average Jews made up 24% of Ivy League undergrads. (Princeton had only 13% Jews, leading to much anxiety and a drive to recruit more Jewish students. The rabbi leading the campaign said she “would love 20 percent”—an increase from over 6 times the Jewish percentage in the population to around 10 times.)
Jews therefore constitute a vastly disproportionate share of the population classified as White at elite universities. Data from an earlier study by Espenshade show that around half of the students at elite universities are classified as White, suggesting that Jews and non-Jews classified as White are approximately equal in numbers. (Given that students from the Middle East are also classified as White, there is the suggestion that Jews outnumber non-Jewish students of Christian European descent.)
One might simply suppose that this is due to higher Jewish IQ. However, on the basis of Richard Lynn’s estimates of Ashkenazi Jewish IQ and correcting for the greater numbers of European Whites, the ratio of non-Jewish Whites to Jews should be around 7 to 1 (IQ >130) or 4.5 to 1 (IQ > 145). Instead, the ratio of non-Jewish Whites to Jews is around 1 to 1 or less. (See here.)
So there must be some other reason besides IQ that Jews are such a large percentage of the population classified as White at elite universities.
Espenshade and Radford show that there is discrimination against poor Whites and against non-urban Whites—exactly the population groups that are least likely to be Jewish. There is a “a general disregard for improving the admission chances of poor and otherwise disadvantaged whites.”
When lower-class whites are matched with lower-class blacks and other non-whites the degree of the non-white advantage becomes astronomical: lower-class Asian applicants are seven times as likely to be accepted to the competitive private institutions as similarly qualified whites, lower-class Hispanic applicants eight times as likely, and lower-class blacks ten times as likely. These are enormous differences and reflect the fact that lower-class whites were rarely accepted to the private institutions Espenshade and Radford surveyed. Their diversity-enhancement value was obviously rated very low.
One possible explanation is that the desire for better off students reflects the universities’ desire to have students who are better able to pay their way, so that more money can be diverted to less well-off non-Whites. Nieli points out that this “cannot explain why well-qualified lower-class whites are not at least offered admission without financial aid. The mere offer of admission is costless, and at least a few among the poor whites accepted would probably be able to come up with outside scholarship aid.” Right.
Nieli suggests that the real reason that rejecting less well-off Whites benefits the university is because it raises the yield score (the ratio of those accepted to those who enroll) and lowers the acceptance rate (the ratio of applicants received to those accepted) on the theory that less well-off Whites would not be able to afford to attend without scholarship money that the university wants to reserve for non-Whites. This makes them look good to the rating agencies.
This explanation seems rather ad hoc. Quite a few less well-off Whites would doubtless be willing to take out loans in order to satisfy their dream of an education at an elite university. To be convincing, Nieli should at least have some data supporting his theory. Even an anecdote or a colorful story gleaned from an academic cocktail party would be nice.
The other finding is
what might be called an urban/Blue State bias against rural and Red State occupations and values. This is most clearly shown in a little remarked statistic in the study’s treatment of the admissions advantage of participation in various high school extra-curricular activities. In the competitive private schools surveyed participation in many types of extra-curricular activities — including community service activities, performing arts activities, and “cultural diversity” activities — conferred a substantial improvement in an applicant’s chances of admission. The admissions advantage was usually greatest for those who held leadership positions or who received awards or honors associated with their activities. No surprise here — every student applying to competitive colleges knows about the importance of extracurriculars.
But what Espenshade and Radford found in regard to what they call “career-oriented activities” was truly shocking even to this hardened veteran of the campus ideological and cultural wars. Participation in such Red State activities as high school ROTC, 4-H clubs, or the Future Farmers of America was found to reduce very substantially a student’s chances of gaining admission to the competitive private colleges in the NSCE database on an all-other-things-considered basis. The admissions disadvantage was greatest for those in leadership positions in these activities or those winning honors and awards. … Excelling in these activities “is associated with 60 or 65 percent lower odds of admission.”
It’s interesting that the bias against Red State interests holds even when controlling for other variables such as family income. These students are being rejected not because of their family income but because of their attitudes and interests–a finding that casts doubt on the yield rate/acceptance rate explanation for the bias against less well-off Whites as well.
These data strongly suggest that Jewish overrepresentation at elite universities has nothing to do with IQ but with discrimination against non-Jewish White Americans, especially those from the working class or with rural origins. It would be interesting to see the dynamics of the admissions process. How many admissions officers are Jewish? And, whether or not they are Jewish,what pressures are they under to admit Jewish students? The brouhaha that engulfed the Princeton campus because Jews were “only” overrepresented by around 6.5 times their percentage of the population suggests that there is considerable pressure for high levels of Jewish admission. The Daily Princetonian ran four front-page articles on the topic, and the New York Times ran an article titled “The Princeton Puzzle.” (See here; the original NYTimes article is here.) Clearly anything less than 20% Jewish enrollment would be met with raised eyebrows and perhaps intimations of anti-Semitism.
The big picture is that this is a prime example of the corruption of our new elite. As noted previously, the poster child for this corruption is the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. The fact that she is a Princeton graduate now makes even more sense given that when she went to Princeton the percentage of Jews was around 18% — more in line with the de facto affirmative action policies favoring Jews that we see now in most Ivy League universities.
Whatever else one can say about the new elite, it certainly does not believe in merit. The only common denominator is that Whites of European extraction are being systematically excluded and displaced to the point that they are now underrepresented in all the important areas of the elite compared to their percentage of the population.
[normal whites are locked out of the better universities, but this is a double-edged score, as staying away from uni means avoiding debt, if the white is smart]
|November 20th, 2014||#29|
Did We Vote for War?
By Patrick J. Buchanan
November 19, 2014
“How do you like the Journal’s war?”
So boasted the headline of William Randolph Hearst’s New York flagship that week in 1898 that the United States declared war on Spain.
While Hearst’s Journal, in a circulation battle with Joe Pulitzer’s World, was a warmongering sheet, it did not start the war.
Yet the headline comes to mind reading the Wall Street Journal, whose editorial pages seem to have concluded that on Nov. 4 America voted for new wars in the Middle East, and beyond.
On Nov. 13, the Journal’s op-ed page was given over to Mark Dubowitz and Reuel Marc Gerecht of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Assuming nuclear talks with Iran conclude unsuccessfully by the Nov. 24 deadline, they write, we have four options.
Two involve continued or tougher sanctions. The other two are a preemptive war featuring U.S. air and missile strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, or a U.S. attack to bring down Bashar Assad’s regime.
“Taking Mr. Assad down would let Tehran know that America’s withdrawal from the Middle East and President Obama’s dreams of an entente with Iran are over.”
It would surely do that.
But taking down the Syrian regime could also lead to a slaughter of Christians and Alawites, an al Qaida-ISIS takeover in Damascus, war with Iran, and attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and across the Middle East.
Which raises a question: What is this FDD?
Answer: A War Party think tank that in 2011, according to Philip Weiss of Mondoweiss website and Eli Clifton of Salon, took in $19 million from five rabidly pro-Israel givers.
Home Depot’s Bernard Marcus gave $10.7 million, hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer $3.6 million. Sheldon Adelson, the Vegas-Macau casino kingpin, chipped in $1.5 million.
Last week, Adelson and media mogul Haim Saban spoke of plans to dump hundreds of millions into the presidential campaigns of 2016.
What does the pair want from our next president? According to the Washington Post’s Phil Rucker and Tom Hamburger, action on Iran:
“Saban said that fundamentalist Iranians represent a real threat. If necessary to defend Israel, and as a last resort, he added, ‘I would bomb the living daylights out of the sons of bitches.’”
Echoed the 81-year-old Adelson, “I would not just talk. I would take action.”
Last year, at Yeshiva University, Adelson, who pumped $150 million into the 2012 campaign, said the U.S. should fire a nuclear missile into the Iranian desert as a warning to end their nuclear program, or the next atom bomb would be dropped on Teheran.
This billionaires boys club wants to buy U.S. foreign policy and a U.S. war on Iran. And the propagandists of FDD are paid to produce that war, in which they will not be doing the fighting and dying.
Back to the Journal. On Nov. 15, its lead editorial declared that the great “question before President Obama and Europe is how to stop the Napoleon of the Kremlin.”
Putin is Napoleon? Has the Journal lost it?
Vladimir Putin is 62. By age 40, Napoleon’s empire encompassed nearly all of Europe. France had swallowed Belgium, Holland, parts of Germany and the Italian coast to Rome. The Emperor had alliances with Austria, Russia, Denmark, Sweden and a truncated Prussia. Virtually all the resources, industries and populations of Continental Europe were at the service of the French Empire.
Putin has reacquired Crimea, which belonged to Russia before the United States was a nation, and is about the size of Vermont.
Napoleon made it to Moscow. Does the Journal think Putin will make it to Paris, as Czar Alexander I did, or to Berlin, as Stalin did?
The Journal hails the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 18-0 vote to arm the Ukrainians, and urges Congress to do the same.
And what would be the result of U.S. heavy weapons arriving in Kiev?
Would Putin recoil in shock and awe and scurry out of Crimea?
Probably not, as the Journal itself concedes, “In 15 years running Russia, Mr. Putin has never stood down.”
And if Putin, seeing U.S. weapons arriving in Kiev, sent in the Russian army to annex Luhansk and Donetsk, took Mariupol on the Black Sea coast, established a land bridge to Crimea, and then offered to negotiate, what would Kiev do?
Even with U.S. weapons Ukraine cannot defeat Russia.
What would we do? Accept defeat? Send U.S. advisers or troops into Ukraine? Launch strikes on Russian forces? Blockade Crimea? Are we really prepared for war with Russia, over Donetsk?
Since Nov. 4, the Journal and its neocon allies have been cawing for U.S. troops to fight ISIL in Iraq and Syria, for U.S. air strikes on Assad’s regime, for bombing Iran, and for arming Ukraine to fight the Russians in a war that Kiev would surely lose.
Was this what America voted for on Nov. 4?
Is this what the Grand Old Party has on offer — endless war?
|December 21st, 2014||#30|
Join Date: May 2009
Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban: Billionaire Funders for Israel
|December 28th, 2014||#31|
Join Date: May 2009
Pennsylvania – Community Leaders Condemn Antisemitic Graffiti On Jewish Residence
|April 16th, 2015||#32|
Join Date: Jul 2014
Obama, in meetings with Jewish leaders and donors, stresses how much he cares
By Ron KampeasApril 14, 2015 3:19pm
WASHINGTON (JTA) – Jewish leaders expected President Barack Obama to sell them hard on the Iran nuclear deal. Instead, participants in two White House meetings on Monday said he offered a softer pitch on how deeply he cares for Israel and the Jewish people.
“He tried to explain he understands Jewish trauma, history, the Jewish feeling of being alone in a bad neighborhood,” said a participant in the first meeting, which was attended by 15 top officials from Jewish organizations.
Another described the meeting as “intense.”
“There was an openheartedness, there were some deep reflections by the president,” this participant said.
Sources said the second meeting, for Jewish fundraisers for the Democratic Party, had a similar cast.
“He said, ‘I consider it a moral failure if something happened to Israel on my watch,’” a participant in the fundraisers’ meeting said. “He said, ‘I feel like I’m a member of the tribe.’”
JTA spoke to six participants in the meetings, both of which were off the record. None agreed to be identified because of ground rules set by the White House. Additionally, representatives of a number of groups gave JTA descriptions of the meetings. The accounts did not differ.
All six participants used “therapeutic” to describe the tone of the meetings.
Obama’s tone – at times anguished, according to participants – signals his concerns about how his presidency, heading into lame duck territory, is perceived in terms of his relationship to Israel and to Jews.
He raised these concerns in an interview with The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman posted April 5 on the newspaper’s website.
“It has been personally difficult for me to hear the sort of expressions that somehow we don’t have, this administration has not done everything it could to look out for Israel’s interest,” Obama told Friedman. “And the suggestion that when we have very serious policy differences, that that’s not in the context of a deep and abiding friendship and concern and understanding of the threats that the Jewish people have faced historically and continue to face.”
The worries come in the wake of a crisis in U.S.-Israel relations, focused mostly on disagreements over the Iran nuclear talks, but also fueled by lingering resentments over the collapse last year of the U.S.-brokered Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and the difficulties that Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have in communicating with one another.
Jewish voter approval of Obama is at 54 percent, Gallup reported last week, just eight points above the national average of 46 percent. Jewish approval of Obama has routinely run 10-15 points higher than the national average throughout his presidency.
Earlier this month, the major powers and Iran announced the outline of a deal that would exchange sanctions relief for restrictions aimed at keeping Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Congress was considering legislation that would require its review of any deal, and Obama had said he would veto it.
Last week, Secretary of State John Kerry held a meeting with Jewish leaders from the same organizations attending the White House meeting asking them not to lobby in favor of the legislation.
However, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate by Monday afternoon were close to a compromise on the legislation that would address White House concerns, and Obama told the second meeting with Jewish leaders that his concerns about the bill were allayed.
It’s not clear what the compromises were, but Democrats were seeking to remove from the bill determinations for the contents of a final deal, which is due by June 30, and instead confine the bill to mandating congressional review of any deal. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told MSNBC on Tuesday morning that a deal had been reached and that the bill was ready for a committee vote to take place that afternoon.
A number of the more conservative organizational leaders attending the first meeting, among them Rabbi Marvin Hier, the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and Allen Fagin, the Orthodox Union’s CEO, challenged Obama on the particulars of the Iran deal, including concerns that the sanctions relief went further than merited by the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activity.
Hier told JTA that he raised annihilationist anti-Israel comments by Iranian leaders coincident with the talks – and with the 70th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, as well as the threat posed to Israel by Hamas, the terrorist group controlling Gaza.
“What meaning do these negotiations have when were not confronting remarks by Ayatollah Khamenei?” Hier asked, referring to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
The meeting with the fundraisers became more of a strategy session on how Obama could better his messaging to Jewish-Americans, Israelis and the wider American community. Advice included being more communicative with Congress, which has regarded the White House as insulated, and engaging directly with the Israeli public, which is still reeling over the bitter exchanges prior to Netanyahu’s speech to Congress in March. The address was arranged without consulting the White House.
Along with Obama, National Security Adviser Susan Rice attended the first meeting. The second meeting included Vice President Joe Biden, who for decades has been close to the pro-Israel community, and Valerie Jarrett, one of Obama’s closest advisers.
Organizations represented at the first meeting included the World Jewish Congress, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, J Street, the National Council of Jewish Women, B’nai B’rith International, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the Jewish Federations of North America, the National Jewish Democratic Council, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the Israel Policy Forum, as well as representatives from the Reform, Conservative and Orthodox streams.
The second meeting, with 14 invitees, included major Democratic givers and fundraisers, including Haim Saban, the Israeli-American entertainment mogul who has been critical of Obama’s Middle East policies; and Democratic donors associated with AIPAC, including past presidents Amy Friedkin and Howard Friedman, and with J Street, including Alexandra Stanton, Lou Susman and Victor Kovner.
Not all of the Jewish leaders at the first meeting were won over by the president’s appeal for understanding.
“People who come in with an anger and a dislike still walked out with an anger and a dislike,” said a participant who was sympathetic to the president but asked tough questions. “But a little guilty.”
|October 18th, 2016||#33|
Join Date: Jul 2014
[jew admits the 1900s was the century of the Jews]
Opinion: The 20th century was the Jewish century
By SETH J. FRANTZMAN \ 10/17/2016 20:23
Never before in history and likely never again will such a small group of people create such influence as did Jews in the 20th century.
Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, Leon Trotsky, Elie Wiesel, Noam Chomsky, Shimon Peres, Steven Spielberg, Garry Kasparov. It’s hard to think of an industry or a profession in which Jews did not excel in the past century. From well-known communists such as Genrikh Yagoda and Rosa Luxemburg, and communist spies such as the Rosenbergs, to the most zealous anti-communists such as Roy Cohn. Captains of industry and of social justice, from Golda Meir to Bob Dylan.
Leaders of the 1968 student rebellion like Daniel Marx Cohn-Bendit and of the forces arrayed against it, such as Milton Friedman. Comedians, artists, heads of secret police, terrorists, chemists, writers.
Never before in history and likely never again will such a small group of people create such influence as did Jews in the 20th century. How can we understand this influence? Is it overstated? Why did it occur? Why will the 21st century witness an overall decline? Population was one factor. In 1900 there were an estimated 1.6 billion people in the world, and around 10 million Jews. Around 0.6 percent. The number of Jews would peak at 17 million on the eve of the Holocaust when there were 2.3 billion people in the world. Today the number of Jews is not only far less as a percent (.01%), but the Jewish population is concentrated almost entirely in the US and Israel. In 1900 by contrast Jews were a major minority in many of the world’s cities, from Odessa to Baghdad. Not only were there more Jews as a percentage of the world’s population, they were concentrated in the most influential cities in the world. Before urbanization became standard in countries like China and Russia, Jews were urbanized and were pioneers in new industries.
If you traveled the world in the year 1900 many of its major cities had substantial Jewish populations. In Vienna 9% of the locals were Jewish, in Berlin around 4%, but almost 10% of Dresden. Similar populations were found in Amsterdam and Prague. In England and France there were significant but smaller communities, whereas in eastern Europe there were many cities that had massive Jewish populations, such as Krakow, Chernivtsi, Edirne (now in Turkey), Lvov, Salonika, Warsaw, Minsk, Odessa, Kishinev and Budapest, with between 20% and 60%. Romania had numerous towns that were over 30% Jewish. Further east, Damascus was 5% Jewish and Aleppo almost 10%. Algiers was almost a sixth Jewish, and in Egypt there were 30,000 Jews. Many cities in North Africa were more than 5% Jewish.
A quarter of Baghdad’s population was Jewish.
All of that is gone now, often leaving only a bare memory that it ever existed. Between Nazism, Communism, nationalism and Islamism in the Muslim world, almost all Jewish communities have been destroyed, and in many cases their contributions to local culture forgotten.
But the contributions of Albert Memmi, Jacques Derrida, Yitzhak Kaduri and others cannot be forgotten.
Is there a tendency toward navel-gazing when it comes to celebrating Jewish achievements and influence? The disproportionate influence is borne out in statistics. Start writing in Google “percent of Nobel prize win...” and by the time you get there it will fill it in for you “who are Jewish.” The response will tell you 20% of winners were Jewish. In other fields, such as philosophy, visual arts and architecture it might be more difficult to quantify. But obviously the influence is disproportionate when one considers just a list of great Jewish architects such as Louis Kahn, Daniel Libeskind, Frank Gehry, Oscar Niemeyer.
The same disproportionate achievement is clear in the world of business. Do we have to wade through more names than Soros, Adelson, Ellison, Ballmer, Bloomberg, Isidor Straus, Loeb, Weill? More than half the major players in Barbarians at the Gate, from Peter Cohen to Henry Kravis and the Pritzker family, were Jewish. Jews played such an outsized role in fashion and cosmetics in the 20th century that you could spend a lifetime in Ralph Lauren, Kenneth Cole and Calvin Klein outfits.
Jews played a smaller role in politics, but nevertheless an influential one. There were great Jewish mayors such as three from Toronto: Nathan Phillips, Mel Lastman and Philip Givens. Fiorello La Guardia’s mother was Jewish, as was Ed Koch. France had two Jewish prime ministers. Jews played major roles as advisers, consultants and in various other capacities around the centers of political power.
Beyond all this there is another, larger current in 20th century history that has to be acknowledged: Jews were both the progenitors and victims of the mass social movements of the century. They played a massively outsized role in social democratic movements, socialism and communism, which made sense since they were the primary victims of nationalism, fascism and Nazism. Amid all that, Jews played a major role in social justice movements including in South Africa and the US. Beyond all that some Jews sought to revolutionize their society through the creation of a Jewish state, eventually creating one of the most successful new countries of the 20th century, with one of the strongest armies in the world.
What has to make us pause when we think of all this is how used to this achievement and tremendous contributive role Jewish communities have become. But there is an inevitable let-down coming as Jewish communities decline into obscurity in most countries. Even in those countries where they once had disproportionate roles, they are outpaced by other minorities. Their role is often forgotten in the rewriting of history by groups, whether it be African-Americans in the US, or South African history.
No one in the Muslim Middle East wants to remember Jewish labor activists, Jewish businessmen from Iraq, Jewish philosophers. The time when physics and psychoanalysis could be called “Jewish sciences,” both derisively and accurately, or when Hollywood could be called “Jewish,” are nearing an end.
The freedom and mobility that enabled Jewish achievement in the 20th century is also enabling the diversification of minority achievement beyond Jews. Concentration and demographic decline have had their impact, as has the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Jews. This will have a long-term effect on Jewish self-perception and self-understanding regarding the influence of Jews in the world. The feeling of almost universal respect that those like Elie Wiesel commanded, the respect paid those like Shimon Peres, and the role of “public intellectual” adopted by men like Noam Chomsky, will pass in the 21st century.
For better or for worse, it is worthwhile to reflect on this passing, and the heritage that was provided to 21st century by their legacy.
|4 Days Ago||#34|
Bread and Circuses
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Jewed Faggot States of ApemuriKa
Blog Entries: 1
Notice how this "religion" is involved in politics like a political ideology.
Organized jewry lobbying to shape gentile countries policy.