Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Political Realism- Kill the Jews

Hagyan, a reader of this blog has written me an email that has some very disquieting implications. He referenced a Palestine Post article from 1933 that mentions the thoughts of a prominent British Jew of the time. Hagyan is right, the article is redolent of the the Breath of the Beast. His message reads, in part:

What shocked me was the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph: "It was his [Lord Melchett's] impression that anti-semitism in Germany was on
the wane, as Hitler was beginning to realize that it was his anti-semitism that was keeping him from power."

I found Hagyan's message very interesting and all too apropos to our current situation. Lord Melchett's circular formulation that anti-semitism in Germany was decreasing because Hitler was moderating his Jew Hatred because it was (somehow) political liability succeeds only in dancing around the hard fact that anti-semitism was at the very core of the National Socialist movement and the even more disheartening evidence that he would eventually have his way with the enthusiastically compliant Germans.

Notwithstanding that their variety of antisemitism (or is it Jew Hatred) is smoother, less vociferously murderous and not so scabrous, Obama and his progressive elitists never could have risen to power without taking advantage of the willingness of the preponderance of Jewish Americans (along with other intellectuals and liberals) to participate in a similar soothing delusion. They sedate their consciences with the idea that Obama is a "political realist" and a reliable friend.

So many liberals, Jews and intellectuals, after all, have made a self-conscious show of their contempt for the mountains of evidence, offered on my blog and in many other places, that the Progressive elitists, Black Liberation theologians, former terrorists and assorted social activists with whom he consorts viscerally despise the middle class ideals, Judeo-Christian morals and self-reliant entrepreneurial American spirit. They practice an intentional and fatuous ignorance of the fact that it is that very set of ideals,morals and spirit that have protected and enabled Jews to become successful and even powerful members of American society in a way we have never achieved in any other country. They turn their backs on the obvious signs because, like Melchette they believe that political success depends on political correctness and it is incorrect to identify the flaws and contradictions in a coalition of ignorance once you have signed on as a member.

So, here we are, Israel is facing a perfect storm of bloody-minded terror from her neighbors while her natural supporters- Jews and political liberals are numbed to inaction by the pathetic idea that Obama is really a subtle and nuanced friend who, while he is hard on Israel to prove to the world that he is an "honest broker", would never allow Israel's destruction. We need, they think, only let him wield his subtle "soft power" unhindered by our own attempts to support or protect Israel. It is in this vein that Dershowitz can write that "Israel's Actions Were Entirely Lawful Though Probably Unwise"

Dershowitz appears to be an effective defender of Israel because he makes his legal case brilliantly. Morally and strategically, though, the wistful longing for Obama to be the benevolent but covert protector of his liberal imagination conceals from him and his readers the truth that Obama cares nothing for Dershowitz, Israel or "The Jews".

For Obama we are, at best, an irascible and untrustworthy member of the coalition of dupes and fellow travelers that got him elected and are now abandoning him in droves as he has begun to show his true colors. At worst he recognizes us better than we do ourselves as a stubborn (if still slumbering) reservoir of bourgeois dedication to the traditional values of enterprise, intellectual skepticism and sound investment that are the bedrock of America's past achievements and the single most hopeful obstacle to the progressive one-world socialism that he calls "Hope and Change". This is the hard fact that is at the core of the Progressive movement. Jews (as well as conservatives, classical liberals, religious people and small business people) are "in the way". The correctness is so bad now that in Dershowitz's circle one may not even use the word socialism as a description. In this sense Dershowitz and other liberal supporters of Obama are complicit with the Progressive agenda and, by extension, a dupe for Israel's (and all Jew's) enemies.

Since when is it not wise for a sovereign country to stop bon fide supporters of terrorists on the high seas? Since when is it not permissible for soldiers of that country to defend their own lives? Only since they are Jewish. The Jewish blood spilt by the "protesters" on the boat ( who are on record singing songs about killing Jews) as they attacked the soldiers carrying paintball guns, like the blood of the children of Sderot killed and maimed by the very "freedom fighters" the protesters are supporting must no longer be considered barter for a corrupt system of political dealing- it cheapens Jewish life and makes it expendable. Or, rather, it agrees with Obama and the rest of the world that it is expendable.

It is time for Jews everywhere to recognize and speak the truth: political realism, like political correctness cuts both ways and we are as vulnerable as we have ever been. If you do not pay attention now, if you make the mistake of Melchette in 1933, there is hell to pay down the road. Jews do not have the luxury anymore to ignore (let alone support!) the Obama administration and its Progressive agenda.

Note: My friend Robert Avrech at Seraphic Secret has another similar take on this in a very important post.


Anonymous said...

And nary a thought of why no one cares for "the Jews"

I thought you were a thoughtful people.

This American has had a snoutful of 3 hanky holocaust film - and requisite awards all around... applause applause...

The infiltration and manipulation of my government by Jews - for other Jews - including a foreign power.

I've had quite enough of Jews claiming victimhood while they use Palestinian kids for target practice and sell the body parts for cash.

AND I do not believe for a NY minute that the Trade towers were brought down by 16 Saudis.

The only word everybody understood that day in my hotel lobby in Durbuy Belgium was MOSSAD - as people from a dozen countries nodded in agreement.

It reminds me of the old Henny Youngman joke... Jews love Gentiles... they pay retail!

It's time to rethink WWII - who did what to whom - and WHY.

Jew hatred is as natural as the purchase of pest control.

Yaacov Ben Moshe said...

Thanks Very Much Anonymous!
Oh, yes, of course, the Mossad was behind 9/11. What a discreet wave at denying the holocaust too! While you are "rethinking" WWII, you might also ask your mom if the stork didn't drop your little head a little too hard on the chimney damper...

Wally Keeler said...

I'm a 63 year old WASP. I never thought I would see the day when the world would be awash with Jew-hatred. How naive am I? Not any longer.

Youy're right. It's not anti-semitism. It's outright Jew hatred.

Madness, madmess, mad mess.

Hagyan said...

Yaacov Ben Moshe,

I'm not quite ready to agree with the way you've framed Lord Melchett. In spite of a lifetime of reading, I couldn't name even half-a-dozen people (whether famous or not) who truly grasped in 1933 the true menace of the Nazis.

Do you know George Orwell's 1945 article Antisemitism in Britain? Do you think it sheds any light on the Lord Melchett phenomenon?

Incidentally, I'd love to know what ShrinkWrapped thinks about Melchett and Orwell's article, both (1) as a professional psychoanalyst, and (2) as a present-day "beast-aware" Jewish American.

lgude said...

Sometimes Yaacof I feel you overstate your case - not this time. The flotilla incident shows just how dangerous a position Israel is in. If I can add anything to what you say I would point out that I believe in addition to the Carter era realists in the current administration there is new factor - and not just the Reverend Wright fringe. But rather the kind of people who saw 9/11 and who's first instinct was to ask what was 'the root cause'. I think a lot of those people believe in their hearts that the primary answer to that question is American support of Israel and ultimately Israel itself. I certainly know Europeans who I believe are not anti Semtic who believe that the Balfour declaration was a mistake, but I am not talking about them. I think an unstated subtext is that there are plenty of people who believe in their hearts that if they throw Israel to the Islamists they will be appeased and leave the rest of us alone. What you hear is the proposition that the key to solving the War of Terror or stopping the Man Caused Disasters (or whatever is the Stockholm speak du jour) is resolving the Israeli Palestinian conflict. The tell is that these people generally claim that their pressure on Israel to make concessions is being even handed (a lot like Lord Melchett in 1933) while they ignore that the other side is only interested in the destruction of Israel. When you factor out the smoke the end result is "Kill the Jews."

I think Israel's problem is to avoid being trapped in a nuclear war and that it should be planning to do without much or any support from the US. I think it also has to raise its game in asymmetric and cognitive war. The kind of people who executed Entebbe went in with paint ball guns when there was even publicly available indications (the singing) that they might not be up against European peace activists. Much more serious is that neither the 2006 Lebanon war nor Cast Lead in Gaza were effective at countering the choke hold of the Iranian proxies. My personal opinion is that Israel will have to confront Iran directly in some manner to break the asymmetric choke-hold of the proxies.

In some ways I think this incident is good in that it makes plain just where Israel stands. And that it must fight harder and smarter and mostly alone if it is to survive.

Anonymous said...

First anonymous:

You disgrace your name.

GM Roper said...

My first thought was to take on the "first" Anonymous point by point, however you cannot teach morons and cretins anything they have already a mindset against.

Yaacov, you and I have been friends since you started blogging and I can say that you continue to be a bright light in the blogosphere. The problem is, that I don't think that those who support the Obama Administration can see the evil of abandoning our only true friend in the Middle East. They are so full of "pity" for the Palestinian that they cannot realize (and no, I don't mean that they don't realize, I mean specifically CANNOT realize) that peace could have been obtained long ago if not for the intransigence of the powers like the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, and Hezbollah. These folks have and have had but one idea; the murder of all Jews and the destruction of Israel. I fear that it will take something like the biblical apocalypse to wake these idiots up, and by then, it just might be to late.

Continue to work your magic with words Yaacov, I'll try to emulate your writing skills to the best of my humble (O.K. maybe not so humble) ability. If folk like us can overpower the so called "progressive" mindset politically, perhaps we can turn this around.

Well done my friend, very well done.

Sammy Finkelman said...

I think it's getting lost that this article was from BEFORE Hitler came to power in Germany.

The article from the Palestine Post (now the Jerusalem Post) was dated January 17, 1933, BEFORE Hitler came to power and indeed it is true that he was having difficulty coming to power. And it was not too difficult to think that this will never happen and Hitler already missed his best chance.

The problem was that there were too many elections both for the Reichstag and for President and Hitler had to win - or come close enough - in only one of them. There were just too many ways for Hitler to do this.

The statement that his anti-semitism was interfering with his quest for power is probably correct. That certainly helped motivate the opposition. The claim that anti-semitism was diminishing in Germany was probably based on the idea that Hitler was losing votes - not gaining as much in some later elections than in earlier ones.

The whole thing was said as a means of debunking the idea - the idea that that anybody should worry about the Nazi accusation that Germany was harming its relations with Great Britain by being too pro-Zionist I guess. That's when Lord Melchett said that the whole anti-semitism business was hurting Hitler more than helping him. Which was probably actually true. It *was* a political liability. The problem is, the Germans overcame that. Another problem was that, in the end, Hitler didn't intend to depend on public support, but as I said, this was said when it still mattered.

Now what the Palestine parliament was or who Lord Melchett was, I don't know. I'm curious but I'd have to do more reading or Internet research.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Anonymous: No, the twin towers were brought down by only 10 jihadists, not 16, (just two hijacked airplanes loaded with fuel) and not all of them were Saudis. The main pilot, for instance, Mohammed Atta, was an Egyptian.

The business of selling body parts of dead people for cash in a widely circulated libel that just happens to be scientifically impossible.

If you want to kill people for their body parts, you have to keep people alive until near the time of the operation, like the Chinese do.

They sentence a lot of people to death but delay carrying it out. Now, in some cases, they wait until there is a tissue match with a foreign patient in a Beijing hospital. Just ask the Falun Gong.

Last year some Chinese officials, possibly afraid of being executed themselves one of these days, started to try to promote the idea of organ donation, which just about does not exist in China.

Nancy Coppock said...

In regards to Lord Melchett and Lord Dershowitz, I am so weary of a world where the supposed brilliant are able to cut that dogma knife both ways. If Proverbs 17:15 -- "He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD"-- is true, and I believe it is.

How much more an abomination is the man that does both at the same time? If the trumpet makes an uncertain sound...better to just shut up...Undermining the righteous while offering comfort to the wicked is just plain not helpful.

Sammy Finkelman said...


How Hitler Became a Dictator by Jacob G. Hornberger

Posted June 28, 2004

In the presidential election held on March 13, 1932, there were four candidates: the incumbent, Field Marshall Paul von Hindenburg, Hitler, and two minor candidates, Ernst Thaelmann and Theodore Duesterberg. The results were:

Hindenburg 49.6 percent
Hitler 30.1 percent
Thaelmann 13.2 percent
Duesterberg 6.8 percent

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, almost 70 percent of the German people voted against Hitler, causing his supporter Joseph Goebbels, who would later become Hitler’s minister of propaganda, to lament in his journal, “We’re beaten; terrible outlook. Party circles badly depressed and dejected.”

Since Hindenberg had not received a majority of the vote, however, a runoff election had to be held among the top three vote-getters.

On April 19, 1932, the runoff results were:

Hindenburg 53.0 percent
Hitler 36.8 percent
Thaelmann 10.2 percent

Thus, even though Hitler’s vote total had risen, he still had been decisively rejected by the German people.

On June 1, 1932, Hindenberg appointed Franz von Papen as chancellor of Germany, whom Shirer described as an “unexpected and ludicrous figure.” Papen immediately dissolved the Reichstag (the national congress) and called for new elections, the third legislative election in five months.

Hitler and his fellow members of the National Socialist (Nazi) Party, who were determined to bring down the republic and establish dictatorial rule in Germany, did everything they could to create chaos in the streets, including initiating political violence and murder. The situation got so bad that martial law was proclaimed in Berlin.

Even though Hitler had badly lost the presidential election, he was drawing ever-larger crowds during the congressional election. As Shirer points out,

In one day, July 27, he spoke to 60,000 persons in Brandenburg, to nearly as many in Potsdam, and that evening to 120,000 massed in the giant Grunewald Stadium in Berlin while outside an additional 100,000 heard his voice by loudspeaker.

Hitler’s rise to power

The July 31, 1932, election produced a major victory for Hitler’s National Socialist Party. The party won 230 seats in the Reichstag, making it Germany’s largest political party, but it still fell short of a majority in the 608-member body.

On the basis of that victory, Hitler demanded that President Hindenburg appoint him chancellor and place him in complete control of the state. Otto von Meissner, who worked for Hindenburg, later testified at Nuremberg,

Hindenburg replied that because of the tense situation he could not in good conscience risk transferring the power of government to a new party such as the National Socialists, which did not command a majority and which was intolerant, noisy and undisciplined.

[Intolerant = virulently anti-semitic - SF]

Political deadlocks in the Reichstag soon brought a new election, this one in November 6, 1932. In that election, the Nazis lost two million votes and 34 seats. Thus, even though the National Socialist Party was still the largest political party, it had clearly lost ground among the voters.

[Which is what led to Lord Melchett's statement]

Attempting to remedy the chaos and the deadlocks, Hindenburg fired Papen and appointed an army general named Kurt von Schleicher as the new German chancellor. Unable to secure a majority coalition in the Reichstag, however, Schleicher finally tendered his resignation to Hindenburg, 57 days after he had been appointed.

On January 30, 1933, President Hindenburg appointed Adolf Hitler chancellor of Germany. Although the National Socialists never captured more than 37 percent of the national vote, and even though they still held a minority of cabinet posts and fewer than 50 percent of the seats in the Reichstag, Hitler and the Nazis set out to to consolidate their power. With Hitler as chancellor, that proved to be a fairly easy task....

Hagyan said...

I regret that I failed to mention that I think both the Lord Melchett under discussion (Henry Mond, 2nd Baron Melchett, 1898-1949) and his father (Alfred Mond, 1st Baron Melchett, 1868-1930) ought to be remembered by Jews with considerable gratitude.

See [PDF] "Ludwig Mond: Great Chemist-Industrialist; Alfred Mond (Lord Melchett): Great Zionist Leader"

A brief excerpt (p.30): "The night before the burial [of Alfred Mond] Dr. Chaim Weizmann took part in the first watch over the body."

Hagyan said...

Mr. Finkelman,

Insofar as you intend to caution us about the fallacy of historical hindsight, I agree completely.

My "shock" upon seeing Lord Melchett's remark was due to:

(1) Lord Melchett was indeed an intelligent, highly-reasonable, and well-informed man.

(2) Our knowledge that less than two weeks after Lord Melchett's interview Adolf Hitler became Reichskanzler. I.e., We know that Lord Melchett, though reasonable, was wrong.

I am strongly inclined to think that Lord Melchett could also not have imagined two other things we know today:

(1) That between 25-28 May 1940 the British War Cabinet actually deliberated whether they ought to sue for peace. [John Lukacs' Five Days in London: May 1940 (1999) is much better than the Wikipedia article.]

(2) That one month later the Channel Islands would be occupied, and (according to British intelligence): "When the Germans proposed to put their anti-Jewish measures into force, no protest whatsoever was raised by any of the Guernsey officials and they hastened to give the Germans every assistance. By contrast, when it was proposed to take steps against the Freemasons, of which there are many in Guernsey, the Bailiff [Alexander Coutanche] made considerable protests and did everything possible to protect the Masons." [Many of Wikipedia's 'external links' are useful.]

Roddy Frankel said...

Today's Helen Thomas bombshell is appropriate to this discussion. Here's my take:
Helen Thomas is a racist bigot. Using Helen's logic, she should also get out of this country (her parents were Lebonese). Apparently people like her, and I believe there are many, do not believe in coexistence, even though they claim to do so. That makes her a hypocrite as well. When my parents grew up in communist Romania, they were taunted for being Jewish. They were threatened with violence and told to "go back home." When they were captured by the Nazis and imprisoned in labor camps they were beaten and told to "go back home." When they moved to Israel, Egyptian president Gamal Nasser would make daily radio broadcasts, threatening to "drive all the Jews into the sea." He too told them to "go back home." More recently, when Ahmadinejad hosted an anti-Holocaust conference in Teheran, he made a speech in which he told all the Jews of Israel to "go back home to Germany and Poland." See the pattern? After the Six Day War, my parents took Nasser's advice and moved to Cleveland, Ohio. Now, having lived in the US for 43 years, my family has to listen to this "respected journalist" tell us we are only allowed to live in certain countries, at the sufferance of people like her? Do I need Helen's permission to live in Detroit? Words can not express my disgust with all the racists that have infested our airwaves, print media, and internet. This has gone way too far. If Arabs demand the right to live in Jerusalem (and they already have that right), we Jews should start demanding our right to live in the West Bank, and in Cairo, Bagdad, Tripoli, Tunis, Mecca and Medina. Let us all tear down the walls of Arab Apartheid.