#130: Trump & the Media

February 21, 2017

Among the many fine things that President Trump has done in only his first thirty days in office is smack down the press. His attacks on the press have gotten the same entertaining results as his order on immigration did: talking heads in psychiatric level shock over the sheer personal violation they feel. Their eyes rolling in their heads, spittle flecking their lips, they whine and screech: Does he not KNOW who we are??!!

Yes, they repeat over and over again, We are the Press, guaranteed freedom by the US Constitution!  

Jeez, they weren’t so interested in the Constitution while Hussein was president. Maybe we should point out to them that in their own view of the Constitution, it is a “living thing” responsive to changing social and political norms in which it can mean whatever we want it to. Maybe “free press” now means “a press told to mind its manners”. Just a little joke, I’m an Originalist so “free press” still means “free press.”

But what’s particularly intriguing about the nonsense issuing from their over-heated spitty lips is the word “adversarial.”

Again and again, they complain that the president has no business objecting to their lying, biased, often unsourced, “reporting.” He just doesn’t understand (the simple fool!) the special nature of the relationship in The U.S. between the (free) press and the government: that it is by its very nature “adversarial.”

Well, that’s o.k.. We know what adversarial relationships are like. The relationship between Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier was adversarial. The relationship in North American courts between prosecution and defense are famously adversarial. But what does this really mean?

It means that, for example, that the prosecution gets to say things, often perhaps outrageous things (under the watchful eye of the  court, of course), BUT then the defense gets to respond or rebut or simply bloviate in turn. Neither of the two gets to use the other as his (or her) punching bag without the other getting his (or her) turn. “Adversarial” means that BOTH sides get to punch.

Historically, presidents have for the most part decided to simply “take it.” This has generated a population of wussy news bullies who have taken it for granted that they can say absolutely anything with impunity. In effect, we are talking about a generation of snowflake reporters (I won’t use the overblown honorific they constantly bestow on themselves: “journalist.”) The combination of presidential forbearance and left wing control of the media has allowed the newsy population to develop and market a fictional “brand” for themselves: the honorable, courageous, deeply insightful, counter-balance to “power.” I suspect that this began in the post-war years with personalities like Murrow and Cronkite, the erstwhile priests of news, since canonized to News Sainthood. Again and again we hear them repeat the hackneyed phrase “we speak truth to power.” Jeez, get over yourselves! “Journalist,” today, is treated (by themselves) like “superhero fighting the forces of darkness.” But even in the comic books, the arch-enemies of the superheroes do fight back without the superheroes going into a crying tantrum.

Our modern “journalists” (it’s ok to use the word as long as it’s in quotes) resemble nothing so much as modern “Palestinians”: they throw rockets again and again at Israel, then get outraged when Israel hits back: “they hit back too hard, it’s disproportionate,” wah, wah, wah.

The lesson is simple: you don’t wanna get whacked, play nice. You don’t wanna play nice, then don’t whine when you get whacked. You insist on whining? Eventually, people are gonna point at you and laugh. It’s already started, get used to it.


#129 The Clintons and the FBI

July 5, 2016

FBI director James Comey this morning gave a press conference in which he described in great detail precisely what it was that Hillary Clinton did in the email scandal and the relevant legislation. At the very end, he stated that the FBI was not going to recommend to AG Loretta Lynch that a criminal indictment take place.

The general response among pundits was that this was a “great victory” for HC. Perhaps. But was it a great victory for the Democratic Party? Time will, of course, be the final arbiter, but there’s another possible take here.

In effect, what Comey did may be more subtle than appears.

On the surface, the whole affair, including the meeting between Lynch and Bill Clinton, smells to high heaven. It smells so much that it is difficult to understand how it could have been allowed to go so far. And when Comey did his strange routine, the whole thing became even more mysterious.

What Comey did was this: the laid out in the greatest detail the strong criminal case against HC under “gross negligence” legislation and then declined to recommend prosecution! This certainly increases the impression that “the fix is in.” But, if the fix was indeed in, then why would he lay out such a damning case against her? It makes him look bad and it certainly energizes the conservative voting public against her. Well, maybe that was precisely his intent, especially if there was indeed pressure being applied on HC’s behalf.

Here’s a possible scenario. Obama or his minions lean on Comey. Comey contacts Lynch who has also had pressure. They decide that Lynch would shift the decision burden to Comey (which she did). Comey decides to satisfy his bosses by meeting the letter of their demand: he agrees to not recommend criminal indictment (which he did). But, he’s a pissed off Republican, so he reasons that publishing a complete and damning case against her even as he recommends no criminal indictment will have the following consequences.

First, it will avoid a bad and likely outcome. Had Comey recommended indictment, it is very likely that the Party would have dumped HC and brought in Biden. The voting population on both sides would likely have heaved a sigh of relief and moved on masse behind him, assuring a Democratic victory. Comey’s move, instead, has the effect of simultaneously wounding her severely and yet keeping her as the Dem candidate.

At the same time, his move will further energize that vast part of the voting population who already believe that the fix is in.

There are two things in this speculation which are not really essential. There’s no need for Comey to have been pressured; he might have just decided that far more was to be gained from having a wounded HC staggering around on the campaign field than by finishing her off in a legal mercy killing. Second, it isn’t necessary to involve Lynch here at all. Lynch was in a terrible bind and her decision allowed her to escape her problem. In a sense, Bill Clinton’s “accidental” meeting with her was a great favour since it provided her with a convenient pretext for getting out of the fix she was in.

All in all, I think it likely that Comey’s performance will do much more damage to the Hildabeast than to Trump.

#128 The Assimilation of Illegal Aliens

March 19, 2016

Apologists for the millions of illegal aliens in the U.S. frequently make the argument that these people will quickly become upstanding and contributing American citizens and should consequently be welcomed.

The larger issue of their illegality aside, along with that of the security risks involved and the additional costs to the communities in which they concentrate, there is the further problem that what the apologists claim is most likely simply false.

The same population making this claim, that the illegals will soon assimilate, mocked G.W. Bush for his democracy spreading rhetoric. They said that it was absurd to think that one could take a middle Eastern population accustomed for centuries to strong man rule and make it respect the rule of law. It takes cultural evolution to change the political and social inclinations of a population, they said.

They were quite right in that mockery and, at the time, I was also against the invasion of Iraq for that reason as well as for the reason that Saddam was a necessary constraint on Iran. Bush would have been well served by reading a bit about the history of WW I’s military campaign in the Middle East. The effort to turn the Arab tribes into a viable army against the Turks failed miserably. Why? For substantially the same reasons that democratizing Iraq has failed. But where the apologists are wrong is in not applying this insight to the migrating illegals.

There is ample evidence that these migrants will not be a net benefit to the U.S.A..

Since the Democrat Party declared war on poverty back in the 60s, how has that gone? Billions, if not trillions, spent on this miserable fantasy war and what do we have now? Ever larger ghettos, so large in fact as to consume entire cities. Consider Baltimore, consider Detroit, consider the barrios of Los Angeles. We cannot even make our indigenous sub-populations assimilate, what could possibly make us think that importing millions of ethnically similar groups would do better?

The apologists point to the successes of the Irish, the Italians, the Jews, the Poles, the Czechs and so on. They could also point to the successes of the Asians, which are plentiful, but can they point to the successes of the Hispanics? They can try, but on balance how has that gone for us? What should be clear, political considerations aside for the moment, is that some cultures assimilate to the Western mercantile society and others do not. Europe, both Western and Eastern, has done very well. South America, Africa, and the Middle East? Not well at all.

Is this just an example of an ideologically driven mistake? Oops, sorry, didn’t expect this? Not likely.

There’s a wise old saying: When people say “It’s not the money that’s motivating me,” it’s the money. I would suggest the same is true when they say “It’s not political advantage that’s motivating me.” It’s the political advantage.

The comedian Jay Leno got it exactly right. He quipped, “We can’t say ‘illegal alien’ anymore, that’s politically incorrect. The acceptable new term,” he said, “is ‘undocumented Democrat’.” Sad, but right on the money. It’s about importing new Democrat voters.

In a democracy, it’s all about the votes. If you haven’t got them, import them, breed them, buy them, or turn to the dead (somehow, they always vote Democrat).

Kennedy was first in importing them (the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act), Obama has doubled down on that. Johnson bred them with his welfare policies. Obama simply bought them, and all Democrats appeal to the dead.

These are eternal verities. Our newly empowered Canadian Liberal Party is experimenting with a universal monthly stipend to buy votes (even though this will significantly increase the national debt) and it is taking advantage of the Syrian crisis to import Syrian refugees (i.e. Liberal voters). In the words of Rahm Emmanuel, it was just too good a crisis to waste.

Open borders policy should be understood as a tool of the conglomerate of the Democrat Party and its billionaire cronies. The Party gets its lemming voters and cash from the billionaires; the billionaires get cheap labor and favorable treatment in their multinational business transactions. It has to be understood that neither the Democrat Party nor their billionaire cronies find their interests best served by the existence of national boundaries.  Just as in the case of the EU, this partnership of financial and political convenience sees a single undivided world as best serving its own interests. The fact that the citizens of individual countries violently prefer to have national unities is an inconvenience best ignored. This attitude didn’t work in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, it hasn’t worked in the EU, and the ascendancy of Donald Trump in the U.S. suggests it’s not working there.

Oddly, the Democrat/Crony partnership shares a common objective with that much vilified old world notion: empire. Both have wanted a world under a single government and for similar reasons, only their rhetoric has been different. Go figger.

In the words of Tom Lehrer’s song “The Old Dope Peddler,” the Democrat Party and its friends does well by “doing good.” The problem is that while the Party members and their cronies do well, and the dependent class that supports them does well, the tax paying middle class citizens gets squeezed ever more tightly to support this gigantic boondoggle.

Open borders policy survives on other people’s money. As Margaret Thatcher said, sooner or later, you run out of it. 



#127 Illegal Migrants in the U.S.

November 13, 2015

Lefties have been taunting anti-migrant candidates like Trump. “What are you going to do,” they sneer, “go from house to house looking for migrants and force them across the border when you find them?”

Trump, being Trump, fell into their trap and said, yes, I will have a deportation force, etc., etc., etc.

This is unacceptably expensive, foolish, and nasty. Worse, it is unnecessary. Here is how to deal with the illegal migrants.

1) Cut off all federally funded benefits.
2) Enforce E-verify and significantly increase penalties for non-compliance.
3) Withdraw all federal funds from sanctuary cities or states. Prosecute for non-compliance with federal law.
4) Withdraw all federal funds from states which continue to provide benefits to illegals (this includes allowing them driver’s licenses).
5) Provide transportation and a per diem allowance back to country of origin.
6) Provide medical and educational and welfare benefits to American children of illegals only on the parents’ registering themselves as illegals.
7) Return the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to it’s original intent (namely as providing citizenship for the children of slaves).
8) Deport any and all illegals caught on entry with expedited procedures.
9) Establish a federal court for illegals charged with crime.

In Field of Dreams, Kevin Costner famously hears a voice which whispers to him: If you build it, they will come. Well, I don’t know if that’s true, but where income and benefits are concerned, If you take them away, they (the illegals) will leave, is a very good bet.

#126: Democracy, Populism, and the Decline of the West

June 28, 2015

A good friend just complained to me about what she perceived as bad rhetoric on the Republican side in current discussion of the homosexual marriage SCOTUS decision. She wanted the candidates to focus on the legitimate argument of the SCOTUS abuse of power, rather than talking about the bible. I understand her frustration and want to give it the attention it deserves. Here’s my response to her.

This is not about rationally defensible positions, this is about political strategy. Ultimately, we have to face the truth that democracies, whether direct or representative, inevitably morph into mobocracies, which are disguised tyrannies. The reason is not obscure, it lies in the method by which power is acquired in democracies, namely the vote. As long as this is the case, democracies will drift into tyranny and, equally inevitably, bankruptcy. This is because the voting mechanism makes populism the inescapable winner. And this is because reason is by far not the effective path to votes.

Populism is not Socialism or Communism, populism is a strategy, not an ideology. There are several elements in a successful populist strategy. First, and most important, give presents to the masses (the Romans gave “bread and circuses”). Second, capitalize on mass envy of the more successful. And third, give the masses an absolution narrative.

The third warrants emphasis. There is nothing more pervasive psychologically among the unwashed than a sense of personal inadequacy and failure. What they want more than anything else is an “explanation” for their not being rich which absolves them of responsibility for that fact. There is thus nothing more politically effective than the “it’s not your fault” narrative, especially when it’s coupled with the “it’s HIS fault” story, where HE is the successful, white, middle-aged male. The Left uses all of the above tactics in it’s march towards power.

The populist strategy is made stronger by the fact that it is not only employed by politicians; it is also employed by the mass media, and, most damaging, it is employed in the marketing of products. Advertisers shameless fawn over, flatter, and misrepresent the true nature of their consumer targets. Ads are replete with “minority” figures, e.g. blacks, Hispanics, females, and now homosexuals being shown as morally superior, cleverer, and more powerful than middle aged white males who are ugly villains. In addition, I should add that Big Government, whether in the hands of Democrats or Republicans, is firmly in alliance with the giant multi-national corporations, which donate millions upon millions of dollars to election campaigns. This is not a Left versus “business” scenario, this is a Left versus individual taxpayer scenario.

Thus, if the Republicans followed your advice, they would only be preaching to an ever diminishing choir. They do have a chance of getting a large turnout from the Evangelicals and cannot afford to lose them. Hence the bible rhetoric. Notwithstanding, there are candidates who have been at the very least mixing in reason with religion. Jeb does it from time to time, but Walker does it most of the time; Jindal can’t win, but he’s a brilliant guy who knows what’s going on. You might not like Huckabee’s religious rhetoric, but he is really very smart. Kasich would be excellent. There is really a marvelous array of brains and talent on the Republican side.

That said, it doesn’t matter. The populist strategy is near impossible to beat. This is even more so in the U.S. case because the Democrats have intentionally increased the size of the ignorant masses since the 1960s. The welfare policies instituted under Johnson’s “war on poverty” have had the effect of incentivizing breeding in the welfare population. Ted Kennedy’s legislation changed immigration policy so as to favor illiterates from third world countries over Europeans. And now, the Democrats are working to turn 25 million illegals into voters.

America was made great by the mass acceptance of a collection of “myths” that made up the average man’s self-image and image of the country. These “myths” included being Christian, being patriotic, and trusting various authorities such as the police and the government. All of these have been under systematic attack by Left-infused universities and Left-infused media. The prognosis for America is bleak in the extreme.

The only chance that America has at this point is that enough Democrats are nauseated by the Hildebeast to simply not vote, but that’s a slim chance at best. And even should the Beast lose, there are gigantic hurdles to be overcome if the U.S. is to once again lead the world towards peace and civilization.

#125: The First Amendment and Government

April 1, 2015

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The above is the text of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

Considerable ink has been devoted to commenting on its intent, which is surprising to me, since it seems pretty clear on the face of it. I may be missing something of its subtlety, though.  Perhaps we can lay the blame for its seeming opacity on Jefferson who is credited with the phrase so commonly used today: “the separation of church and state.” I’m not sure that this phrase adds anything but confusion where originally things were clear. Paraphrasing Berkeley’s felicitous phrase, we can say of Jefferson, that he has “… first raised a dust, and then complain(s), we cannot see.”

I have browsed scholarly opinion on this subject and confess that I find it wanting. In the references I followed, I found no consideration of the historical awareness of the Founding Fathers or their constituencies. So I had a look at the context of 17th and 18th c sensibilities in the New World. The following two paragraphs come from the Library of Congress, which is scarcely a partisan source:

“Many of the British North American colonies that eventually formed the United States of America were settled in the seventeenth century by men and women, who, in the face of European persecution, refused to compromise passionately held religious convictions and fled Europe. The New England colonies, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland were conceived and established “as plantations of religion.” Some settlers who arrived in these areas came for secular motives–“to catch fish” as one New Englander put it–but the great majority left Europe to worship God in the way they believed to be correct. They enthusiastically supported the efforts of their leaders to create “a city on a hill” or a “holy experiment,” whose success would prove that God’s plan for his churches could be successfully realized in the American wilderness. Even colonies like Virginia, which were planned as commercial ventures, were led by entrepreneurs who considered themselves “militant Protestants” and who worked diligently to promote the prosperity of the church.

European Persecution

The religious persecution that drove settlers from Europe to the British North American colonies sprang from the conviction, held by Protestants and Catholics alike, that uniformity of religion must exist in any given society. This conviction rested on the belief that there was one true religion and that it was the duty of the civil authorities to impose it, forcibly if necessary, in the interest of saving the souls of all citizens. Nonconformists could expect no mercy and might be executed as heretics. The dominance of the concept, denounced by Roger Williams as “inforced uniformity of religion,” meant majority religious groups who controlled political power punished dissenters in their midst. In some areas Catholics persecuted Protestants, in others Protestants persecuted Catholics, and in still others Catholics and Protestants persecuted wayward coreligionists. Although England renounced religious persecution in 1689, it persisted on the European continent. Religious persecution, as observers in every century have commented, is often bloody and implacable and is remembered and resented for generations.”


I think we can safely conclude that the people of U.S.A. were not concerned that others might worship differently than they or that their government might include evidence of Christianity in their buildings or writings; no, they were only and mightily concerned that a government might try to prevent them personally from worshiping as they wished. They were single-mindedly intent on preventing what Roger Williams called  “inforced uniformity of religion.” [my italics]

The thing to note here is this: there is no demonstrable link between the existence of a government infused with the Christian culture and symbolism of its founders and the imposition of such on others! Nor does the presence  of such on university campuses imply a lack of welcome to those of other faiths.

Let me address the actual text of the First Amendment.

The first thing to notice is the semi-colon. It separates two disjuncts of differing subject matter. The first disjunct concerns religion directly, the second only tangentially, if at all. Let’s focus, therefore, on only the first: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”

Characteristically, this clause indicates what Congress may not do, it limits Congressional power. Specifically, it indicates that Congress may not exercise its power by either creating a religion or preventing a religion from being created. There is only one way in which Congress is capable of exercising power, and that is through the “making of laws.”

We can see the intent here clearly if we compare the text to this modified axample:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a public company, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”

This would admittedly be an idiotic amendment and would never pass, but we would immediately understand that it was attempting to prevent Congress from having any power over the creation or dissolution of companies. Similarly, the First Amendment is intended solely and exclusively on preventing Congress from having a say in the births or deaths of new religions or religious practices.  It does not, even by implication, have anything to say about a separation of Church and State.

Let me make this perfectly clear: there is no inconsistency in the existence of a Christian government and religious freedom. The First Amendment addresses only the latter, not the former. In no way whatsoever does it address the existence or non-existence of a Christian government (unless in the sense that it prohibits any Congressional legislation “making” the government Christian).

 So, you ask, why are some many people arguing as if it applied to the former? Why all this talk of the separation of Church and State?

I think the blame lies largely, as it so often does, with the French. So much of what we deal with today is sadly the detritus of the French Enlightenment and its dying spasm, the French Revolution.  The French Revolution, heir as it was to one hundred years of Rationalism, was intent on erasing the Ancien Regime, the Church and its clergy especially included, and reconstituting society on a “purely rational” basis. Read this as “a purely secular” basis. Jefferson in particular was fond of thinking of himself as a European style “intellectual” (not unlike our current Democrat politicians) and was an outspoken fan of the French Revolution. I suspect that he and others like him increasingly insinuated the “separation of Church and State” meme into common discourse.

One last time: The First Amendment does NOT require the cleansing of all Christian writings and symbols from government.

#124: Jews and the Writing on the Wall

March 29, 2015

The writing on the wall.

The phrase refers to an old testament story in which a disembodied hand writes mysterious words on a wall during a feast given by Belshazzar. As they are interpreted by a Jewish seer named Daniel, they are a warning that Babylon is about to fall to Persia, which it then does.

This suggests that Bibi Netanyahu is today’s Daniel, the U.S. today’s Babylon, and Obama is today’s Belshazzar. And Obama just can’t seem to read the writing on the wall.

He’s not the only one, though. Progressive/liberal Jews suffer from the same reading impairment.

But, we’ve seen all this before.

Of course, there are minor differences. Different members of the cast are taking on different roles. That’s always bound to be the case. Last time, it was the Germans in the lead, with a supporting cast of Austrians and a multitude of bit players. Today, it looks like the French are vying for the lead, with a supporting cast from Norway, Sweden, Hungary, Greece, as well as others, not to mention the Obama administration.

We’ve seen all this before.

The 1930s were the cradle of the Holocaust and, little known though it is, one can locate the point of origin in Hungary. Of course, killing Jews had been an episodic horror in Europe for a couple of thousand years, but Hungary gets a special mention for spawning Gyula Gömbös as PM in the outset of the 30s. it was Gömbös who coined the party name “National Socialism” adopted later from him by Hitler. The Hungarians were thus the inventors of Nazism complete with virulent anti-Semitism, though it was perfected by the Germans.

Hungary has a Nazi party again, it’s called “Jobbik,” and it comes again complete with anti-Semitism. Hungary is again the canary in the mine signalling the presence of Zyklon B. Last time, the Germans made the move first, beating the French to it. This time, perhaps, the French will do it first. Marine le Pen has taken care to downplay her party’s anti-Semitism; just wait till they’re in power. The Greeks have one called “Golden Dawn.”

Violent anti-Semitism takes its cue from the top. The government “signals” that it’s “ok” to go after the Jews. The Nazi party in Germany did that under Hitler with Krystallnacht. It’s happening now all over Europe under the cover of the mantra, “I have nothing against Jews, it’s just Israeli policies I’m against.” It’s happening in the U.S. under Obama using the same mantra while demonizing Bibi Netanyahu. We know that things are changing when the comedians feel safe in attacking Jews under the umbrella of comedic license.

Dieudonne M’Bala is a French comic who spouts Nazism openly on stage, complete with anti-Semitism. Lena Dunham, who is actually nominally Jewish, just published a piece in the New Yorker which can only be called anti-Semitic. This is happening now because government and media have signalled it’s acceptability. Yes, there are people pushing back, but the damage has been done. Once this genii is out of the bottle, there’s no pushing him back in. In the New Yorker! Can you imagine!?

But Dunham is an important example. She is Jewish, she is liberal/progressive, and she attacks Jews and Judaism. It’s been like that since the Russian revolution and was seen most dramatically in the 1930s. Jews have always wrestled with the conundrum of what to do in an anti-Semitic world. Some have tried becoming a-religious (there is actually a database that was managed by the Hebrew Community Organization of Vienna which registered official withdrawal from Judaism), some tried outright conversion, others tried assimilation, others tried remaining orthodox where they were, and yet others chose Zionist aliyah, once Israel became available.

The anti-Semites have always capitalized on this internal division. Often, they didn’t have to do anything, they just sat back and watched the Jews attack themselves, siding with the enemy. I don’t know what the explanation of this phenomenon is, but for lack of a better term I term it “L.A. Syndrome” on the model of “Stockholm Syndrome,” where hostages come to identify and ally themselves with their captors. The syndrome is most aggressive among the assimilationists who use their often impressive talents to demean and humiliate the people from whom they sprang. Perhaps they hope to curry favor with the disdainful gentile environment by demonstrating that they are even more anti-Semitic than the goyim. It could, I suppose, equally be called “N.Y. Syndrome” since there are as many progressive Jews in N.Y. as L.A., but I have the irrational bias that L.A. Jews are more self-destructively progressive than New Yorkers.

Obama and the Democrat Party have declared war on Israel. There are varying explanations available for this, some making it psychological, some political. My guess is that, as always, there are multiple converging factors, some political, some economic, some psychological, all leading to the same inexorable historical conclusion: Kill the Jews, it’s all their fault. The bottom line is this: It will very likely soon become unsafe to be a Jew in the U.S., and a large number of Jews will be voluntary participants in making this come about.

Many Jews and other progressives will deride this claim as paranoid. This is the U.S.A., they will say, it will never happen here. This is simply historically ignorant.

Jews were despised in the U.S. during the early 20th C. WW II was NOT fought over saving Jews, in fact F.D.R. was far from the “friend” of the Jewish people that popular Jewish progressive mythology would make of him. Indeed, assimilated Germans in the 1930s made precisely the same claim about Germany: We are Germans, they said, nothing will happen to us. American financiers were openly pro-Nazi and American corporations had extensive business dealing with the Third Reich.

Today, we have the same internal division and conflict among the Jews in the U.S. that we saw in the 1930s in Germany and Austria. We still have the atheists, the outright conversions, the assimilationists, etc..  

There is, however, one significant difference. It is this: the Jews of the 1930s were clear on the identity of their enemy, namely the Nazis; the Jews of today are fragmented with respect to their enemy, namely the international Left.

The Jews of Europe during the 1930s were collateral damage within a brutal internecine war, one between socialist/commies, on the one side, and the Nazis, on the other. This was not, as is often said, a war between the Left and the Right. It was a war between the Left and the Nazis, it was a war between cousins, both of whom despised Jews. The “Right,” meaning by that the free enterprise conservatives, were not in the war at all, unless you mean by “in the war” profiteering wherever they could. The true Right has only one ideological commitment, and that is making as much money as is possible. Attacking the Jews was largely a part of the Nazi strategy, however much it might have also converged with other factors. There are at least two reasons that the post-war mindset does not include the wartime Leftists among the Jew murderers, 1) that they were too busy staying alive to attend to killing Jews, and 2) the post war intellectuals recast the European commies as the “good guys” in that war. Here’s a newsflash: there were no “good guys” in Europe’s part of WW II, just as there are no “good guys” in the Iranian/Arab conflict (except, probably, for the Kurds).

In that war, the Jews thought of themselves as historically and ideologically attached to the Left, however much those on the Left went about murdering them and hating them. This commitment to the Left continued after the war and the American Jews set about marketing this ideology even as they acquired disproportionate influence in the media and in the Universities. These Jews have functioned as a fifth column not only in the U.S.A., but also in Israel and they currently function as a powerful tool of the anti-Semites. L.A. Syndrome.

What they did not understand and still do not understand is that the mainstream non-Jewish Left-wing U.S. population NEVER relinquished its own 1930s loathing and contempt for the Jews. This previously concealed hatred is now being revealed as anti-Semitism, is becoming socially acceptable again. We can see it in the activities of the Presbyterian church, which is fairly frothing at the mouth. The pre-WW II American population was not that far removed from its European counterpart as far as attitudes towards Jews were concerned. Europe is currently returning to its pre-war attitudes and America is following suit.

To quote the anarchist Chernishevsky and the Communist Ulyanov (aka Lenin): What is to be Done?

I have a few thoughts on this.

1) Strengthen bonds with Christian Evangelicals, the only group for whom Israel and Jews are flavor of the month;

3) See whether the Evangelicals can work to form a relationship with the Hispanics (a long shot — the Hispanics are Catholics and the Evangelicals Protestants);

4) Shift all political allegiance to the U.S. Republican Party (for the time being, our only bet);

3) Work on regional Arab alliances, at least for the sake of security.

Jews are in greater danger now than at any time during my life. It has never been more important for Jews to identify most precisely who their friends are and who their enemies are.

Sadly, Jews have never been very good at reading the writing on the wall.