Softpanorama

May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Contents Bulletin Scripting in shell and Perl Network troubleshooting History Humor

Neoliberal Brainwashing: Journalism in the Service of the Powerful Few

Journalism Vacation from Truth

I think journalists today — elite journalists at least — absorb the biases of the ruling class far more readily than they used to do. The media establishment is populated by yes-men. I do not understand how any skeptical person can, in good conscience, trust a western MSM description of foreign events. You need a second source to compare coverage. The mainstream media gives us no real news. Just the talking points they were given. Seeing how they treat the concept of truth these days, one might think that MSM just don’t care anymore.

Skepticism > Political Skeptic > Media-Military-Industrial Complex > Propaganda

News Neoliberal newspeak Recommended Links Fake News scare and US NeoMcCartyism Purple revolution against Trump Anti-Russian hysteria in connection emailgate and DNC leak
Demonization of Putin Hillary Clinton email scandal: Timeline and summary Who Shot down Malaysian flight MH17? Obama's Putin-did-it fiasco Media-Military-Industrial Complex Anti Trump Hysteria
Doublespeak Discrediting the opponent as favorite tactic of neoliberals The Guardian Slips Beyond the Reach of Embarrassment Freedom of speech played by Western MSM as three card monte Patterns of Propaganda The importance of controlling the narrative
MSM Sochi Bashing Rampage Cold War II "Fuck the EU": State Department neocons show EU its real place Neoconservatism as the USA version of Neoliberal ideology  Charlie Hebdo - more questions then answers New American Militarism
Swiftboating: Khan gambit against Trump at Democratic Convention Pussy Riot Provocation and "Deranged Pussy Worship Syndrome" Deception as an art form The Deep State National Security State Totalitarian Decisionism & Human Rights: The Re-emergence of Nazi Law
Inside "democracy promotion" hypocrisy fair US and British media are servants of security apparatus The attempt to secure global hegemony American Exceptionalism Co-opting of the Human Rights to embarrass governments who oppose neoliberalism Manipulation of the term "freedom of press"
Lewis Powell Memo Anatol Leiven on American Messianism Neocolonialism as Financial Imperialism Edward Lucas as agent provocateur Groupthink Soft propaganda
Diplomacy by deception Democracy as a universal opener for access to natural resources Deconstructing neoliberalism's definition of 'freedom' The Real War on Reality Nation under attack meme Bullshit as MSM communication method
Neo-fascism Classic Hypocrisy of British Ruling Elite Is national security state in the USA gone rogue ? Big Uncle is Watching You What's the Matter with Kansas Media as a weapon of mass deception
Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass The Good Soldier Svejk Nineteen Eighty-Four Propaganda Quotes Humor Etc

"The truth is that the newspaper is not a place for information to be given,
rather it is just hollow content, or more than that, a provoker of content.
If it prints lies about atrocities, real atrocities are the result."

Karl Kraus, 1914

WAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

1984

We are the world, we are exceptional, we cannot fail. The elite will lie, and the people will pretend to believe them. Heck about 20 percent of the American public will believe almost anything if it is wrapped with the right prejudice and appeal to passion. Have a pleasant evening.

jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com, Feb 04, 2015

Journalists manipulate us in the interest of the Powerful

Do you also have the feeling, that you are often manipulated by the media and  lied to? Then you're like the majority of Germans. Previously it was considered as a "conspiracy theory". Now it revealed by an Insider, who tells us what is really happening under the hood.

The Journalist Udo Ulfkotte ashamed today that he spent 17 years in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. ...he reveals why opinion leaders produce tendentious reports and serve as the extended Arm of the NATO press office. ...the author also was admitted into the networks of American elite organizations, received in return for positive coverage in the US even a certificate of honorary citizenship.

In this book you will learn about industry lobby organisations. The author calls hundreds of names and looks behind the Scenes of those organizations, which exert bias into media, such as: Atlantic bridge, Trilateral Commission, the German Marshall Fund, American Council on Germany, American Academy, Aspen Institute, and the Institute for European politics. Also revealed are the intelligence backgrounds of those lobby groups, the methods and forms of propaganda and financing used, for example, by the US Embassy. Which funds  projects for the targeted influencing of public opinion in Germany 

...You realize how you are being manipulated - and you know from whom and why. At the end it becomes clear that diversity of opinion will now only be simulated. Because our "messages" are often pure brainwashing.

Gekaufte Journalisten - Medienwelt Enthüllungen Bücher - Kopp Verlag

Truth-Killing as a Meta-Issue

The problem is fundamental, and relates to a broad spectrum of policy issues both foreign and domestic, because truth — factual reality — is a necessary foundation to consider and evaluate and debate policy on any subject. 

Crushing the truth means not just our having to endure any one misdirected policy; it means losing the ability even to address policy intelligently

To the extent that falsehood is successfully instilled in the minds of enough people, the political system loses what would otherwise be its ability to provide a check on policy that is bad policy because it is inconsistent with factual reality.

The National Interest Blog

Propaganda can be  defined as a war on reality using fake news, disinformation and other methods. An attempt to create an artificial reality.  The key here is controlling the narrative

How does Fake History and Fake News gradually supersede their reality-based version and were enforced on the US society as the only acceptable narrative? My impression is that McCarthyism was not exactly only about Communists. It has elements of a more general witch hunt for "dissidents" who question "official Washington narrative" and simulataniously brainwashing of population in best Bosheviks style. After which questioning of official narrative has  become a "though  crime".

While Senator McCarthney has  a certain gist for this staff and probably would be a suitable candidate for high collision in NKVD, he was not a pioneer. He was just a talanted follower. This type of modem witch hunt was first implemented on large scale by Bolsheviks in Russia after 1917.  Actually Bolsheviks originated many modern methods of brainwashing of the population.  which later were enhanced and further developed in Nazi Germany and than imported to the USA after WWII. Creation of intelligence agencies by Truman was actually a creation of national security state and  with it the huge apparatus of state propaganda controlled and directed by intelligence  agencies, which gradually acquired considerable level of control of MSM  (see Church Committee - Wikipedia )

In other words it was a gradual switch to a "cult-style" practice of mind control of population (Bolshevism actually can be best viewed as a cult merged with the political movement, much like political Islam today ). the main methods here is generation and control of "suitable" narrative. 

"The primary aim of official propaganda is to generate an "official narrative" that can be mindlessly repeated by the ruling classes and those who support and identify with them. This official narrative does not have to make sense, or to stand up to any sort of serious scrutiny. Its factualness is not the point. The point is to draw a Maginot line, a defensive ideological boundary, between "the truth" as defined by the ruling classes and any other "truth" that contradicts their narrative. "

 Due to the size an introduction was converted to a separate page Neoliberal Propaganda


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

"It tends to be all accurate, but not in an over-all context."

Donald Rumsfeld

"Citizens must be alert to propaganda and
glittering generalities is a type of propaganda
which often uses words such as freedom and patriotism."

"Civics in Practice". Page 274

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001

[Sep 19, 2017] How Trumps advisers schooled him on globalism

Notable quotes:
"... Trump's national security team had become alarmed by the president's frequent questioning about the value of a robust American presence around the world. When briefed on the diplomatic, military and intelligence posts, the new president would often cast doubt on the need for all the resources. ..."
"... The session was, in effect, American Power 101 and the student was the man working the levers. ..."
"... brought with him advisers deeply skeptical of what they labeled the "globalist" worldview ..."
"... In coordinated efforts and quiet conversations, some of Trump's aides have worked for months to counter that view, hoping the president can be persuaded to maintain ! if not expand ! the American footprint and influence abroad. ..."
"... In the weeks since the briefing in the Tank, Trump has split with top adviser Steve Bannon, the engine of many of his nationalist, isolationist policies. He threatened war with North Korea and agreed to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, abandoning his promise to withdraw quickly. Announcing the plan, Trump acknowledged the influence of his advisers. ..."
Sep 19, 2017 | apnews.com

On a sweltering Washington summer day, President Donald Trump's motorcade pulled up to the Pentagon for a meeting largely billed as a briefing on the Afghanistan conflict and the fight against the Islamic State group.

There, in the windowless meeting room known as "The Tank", Trump was to be briefed on the state of America's longest-running war as he and his top aides plotted ways ahead. But, according to current and former U.S. officials familiar with the meeting, it was, in reality, about much more.

Trump's national security team had become alarmed by the president's frequent questioning about the value of a robust American presence around the world. When briefed on the diplomatic, military and intelligence posts, the new president would often cast doubt on the need for all the resources. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson organized the July 20 session to lay out the case for maintaining far-flung outposts ! and to present it, using charts and maps, in a way the businessman-turned-politician would appreciate.

The session was, in effect, American Power 101 and the student was the man working the levers. It was part of the ongoing education of a president who arrived at the White House with no experience in the military or government and brought with him advisers deeply skeptical of what they labeled the "globalist" worldview .

In coordinated efforts and quiet conversations, some of Trump's aides have worked for months to counter that view, hoping the president can be persuaded to maintain ! if not expand ! the American footprint and influence abroad.

The result of the meeting and other similar entreaties may start to become clear this week, as Trump heads to New York for his first address to the United Nations General Assembly. The annual gathering of world leaders will open amid serious concerns about Trump's priorities, his support for the body he is addressing and a series of spiraling global crises.

Trump, who seized as his mantra "America First" and at times unnerved world leaders with his unpredictability, is expected to offer warmth to the United States' allies and warnings to its adversaries, particularly North Korea and Iran. The president's envoy to the global body suggested a presidential message that would focus on the basics on America's role in the world.

"I personally think he slaps the right people, he hugs the right people, and he comes out with the U.S. being very strong in the end," Ambassador Nikki Haley said.

In the weeks since the briefing in the Tank, Trump has split with top adviser Steve Bannon, the engine of many of his nationalist, isolationist policies. He threatened war with North Korea and agreed to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, abandoning his promise to withdraw quickly. Announcing the plan, Trump acknowledged the influence of his advisers.

[Sep 19, 2017] Con Of The Century by Rod Dreher

Notable quotes:
"... Within the next 18 months, US Steel announced that the nation's largest steel producer was also shutting down 16 plants across the nation including their Ohio Works in Youngstown, a move that eliminated an additional 4,000 workers here. That announcement came one day before Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp. said they were cutting thousands of jobs at their facilities in the Mahoning Valley, too. ..."
"... Within a decade 40,000 jobs were gone. Within that same decade, 50,000 people had left the region, and by the next decade that number was up to 100,000. Today the 22 miles of booming steel mills and the support industries that once lined the Mahoning River have mostly disappeared ! either blown up, dismantled or reclaimed by nature. ..."
"... Candidate Trump promised to create millions of new jobs, vowing to be "the greatest jobs president that God ever created." Cohn, as Goldman Sachs's president and COO, oversaw the firm's mergers and acquisitions business that had, over the previous three years, led to the loss of at least 22,000 U.S. jobs, according to a study by two advocacy groups. Early in his candidacy, Trump described as "disgusting" Pfizer's decision to buy a smaller Irish competitor in order to execute a "corporate inversion," a maneuver in which a U.S. company moves its headquarters overseas to reduce its tax burden. The Pfizer deal ultimately fell through. But in 2016, in the heat of the campaign, Goldman advised on a megadeal that saw Johnson Controls, a Fortune 500 company based in Milwaukee, buy the Ireland-based Tyco International with the same goal. A few months later, with Goldman's help, Johnson Controls had executed its inversion. ..."
"... "There was a devastating financial crisis just over eight years ago," Warren said. "Goldman Sachs was at the heart of that crisis. The idea that the president is now going to turn over the country's economic policy to a senior Goldman executive turns my stomach." Prior administrations often had one or two people from Goldman serving in top positions. George W. Bush at one point had three. At its peak, the Trump administration effectively had six. ..."
"... Politically, 2016 would prove a strange year for Goldman. Bernie Sanders clobbered Hillary Clinton for pocketing hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees from Goldman, while Trump attacked Ted Cruz for being "in bed with" Goldman Sachs. (Cruz's wife Heidi was a managing director in Goldman's Houston office until she took leave to work on her husband's presidential campaign.) Goldman would have "total control" over Clinton, Trump said at a February 2016 rally, a point his campaign reinforced in a two-minute ad that ran the weekend before Election Day. An image of Blankfein flashed across the screen as Trump warned about the global forces that "robbed our working class." ..."
"... It's Cohn's influence over the country's regulators that worries Dennis Kelleher, the financial reform lobbyist. "To him, what's good for Wall Street is good for the economy," Kelleher said of Cohn. "Maybe that makes sense when a guy has spent 26 years at Goldman, a company who has repaid his loyalties and sweat with a net worth in the hundreds of millions." Kelleher recalls those who lost a home or a chunk of their retirement savings during a financial crisis that Cohn helped precipitate. "They're still suffering," he said. "Yet now Cohn's in charge of the economy and talking about eliminating financial reform and basically putting the country back to where it was in 2005, as if 2008 didn't happen. I've started the countdown clock to the next financial crash, which will make the last one look mild." ..."
"... Trump ( and the GOP generally) are running the William Henry Harrison routine. Talk about the plain common working people, mix in some log cabins and hard cider, describe anyone who wants to raise wages as an effete elitist, and the downsize, merge, consolidate, offshore, the better to profit from the misery of others. ..."
Sep 17, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Michele Paccione/Shutterstock Salena Zito has a moving NYPost piece about the day that began the destruction of Youngstown, Ohio, and "sowed the seeds of Trump." Excerpts:

From then on, this date in 1977 would be known as Black Monday in the Steel Valley, which stretches from Mahoning and Trumbull counties in Ohio eastward toward Pittsburgh. It is the date when Youngstown Sheet and Tube abruptly furloughed 5,000 workers all in one day.

The bleeding never stopped.

Within the next 18 months, US Steel announced that the nation's largest steel producer was also shutting down 16 plants across the nation including their Ohio Works in Youngstown, a move that eliminated an additional 4,000 workers here. That announcement came one day before Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp. said they were cutting thousands of jobs at their facilities in the Mahoning Valley, too.

Within a decade 40,000 jobs were gone. Within that same decade, 50,000 people had left the region, and by the next decade that number was up to 100,000. Today the 22 miles of booming steel mills and the support industries that once lined the Mahoning River have mostly disappeared ! either blown up, dismantled or reclaimed by nature.

If a bomb had hit this region, the scar would be no less severe on its landscape.

More:

The events of Black Monday forever changed not only the Steel Valley, but her people and eventually American culture and politics. Just last year the reverberations were felt in the presidential election when many hard-core Democrats from this area broke from their party to vote for Donald Trump, a Republican who promised to bring jobs back to the Heartland.

Even today, after the election, the Washington establishment still hasn't processed or properly dissected its effects. Economic experts predicted that the service industry would be the employment of the future. Steel workers were retrained to fill jobs in that sector, which was expected to sustain the middle class in the same way that manufacturing did.

It did not. According to a study done by the Midwest Center for Research the average salary of a steel worker in the late 1970s was $24,772.80. Today, according to the most recent Bureau of Labor statistics, the medium household income in the Mahoning Valley is $24,133.

Now that they have the working man's champion in the White House, what's he doing for them? Here are Gary Rivlin and Michael Hudson, writing in The Intercept , about how Goldman Sachs more or less runs the Trump administration. Excerpts:

Trump raged against "offshoring" by American companies during the 2016 campaign. He even threatened "retribution,"­ a 35 percent tariff on any goods imported into the United States by a company that had moved jobs overseas. But [Gary] Cohn laid out Goldman's very different view of offshoring at an investor conference in Naples, Florida, in November. There, Cohn explained unapologetically that Goldman had offshored its back-office staff, including payroll and IT, to Bangalore, India, now home to the firm's largest office outside New York City: "We hire people there because they work for cents on the dollar versus what people work for in the United States."

Candidate Trump promised to create millions of new jobs, vowing to be "the greatest jobs president that God ever created." Cohn, as Goldman Sachs's president and COO, oversaw the firm's mergers and acquisitions business that had, over the previous three years, led to the loss of at least 22,000 U.S. jobs, according to a study by two advocacy groups. Early in his candidacy, Trump described as "disgusting" Pfizer's decision to buy a smaller Irish competitor in order to execute a "corporate inversion," a maneuver in which a U.S. company moves its headquarters overseas to reduce its tax burden. The Pfizer deal ultimately fell through. But in 2016, in the heat of the campaign, Goldman advised on a megadeal that saw Johnson Controls, a Fortune 500 company based in Milwaukee, buy the Ireland-based Tyco International with the same goal. A few months later, with Goldman's help, Johnson Controls had executed its inversion.

With Cohn's appointment [as his economic adviser], Trump now had three Goldman Sachs alums in top positions inside his administration: Steve Bannon, who was a vice president at Goldman when he left the firm in 1990, as chief strategist, and Steve Mnuchin, who had spent 17 years at Goldman, as Treasury secretary. And there were more to come. A few weeks later, another Goldman partner, Dina Powell, joined the White House as a senior counselor for economic initiatives. Goldman was a longtime client of Jay Clayton, Trump's choice to chair the Securities and Exchange Commission; Clayton had represented Goldman after the 2008 financial crisis, and his wife Gretchen worked there as a wealth management adviser. And there was the brief, colorful tenure of Anthony Scaramucci as White House communications director: Scaramucci had been a vice president at Goldman Sachs before leaving to co-found his own investment company.

Even before Scaramucci, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., had joked that enough Goldman alum were working for the Trump administration to open a branch office in the White House.

"There was a devastating financial crisis just over eight years ago," Warren said. "Goldman Sachs was at the heart of that crisis. The idea that the president is now going to turn over the country's economic policy to a senior Goldman executive turns my stomach." Prior administrations often had one or two people from Goldman serving in top positions. George W. Bush at one point had three. At its peak, the Trump administration effectively had six.

Ex-Goldmanista Steve Bannon's White House agenda was not in Goldman's interest, though. But now he's gone. More:

The Trump economic agenda, it turns out, is largely the Goldman agenda, one with the potential to deliver any number of gifts to the firm that made Cohn colossally rich. If Cohn stays, it will be to pursue an agenda of aggressive financial deregulation and massive corporate tax cuts ! he seeks to slash rates by 57 percent ! that would dramatically increase profits for large financial players like Goldman. It is an agenda as radical in its scope and impact as Bannon's was.

The story tracks Gary Cohn's impressive rise from an aluminum siding salesman to a Goldman Sachs top leader. In the mid-2000s, Goldman saw that the housing market was a bubble waiting to pop, and arranged its position to take advantage of the coming collapse. The Intercept continues:

Cohn was a member of Goldman's board of directors during this critical time and second in command of the bank. At that point, Cohn and Blankfein, along with the board and other top executives, had several options. They might have shared their concerns about the mortgage market in a filing with the SEC, which requires publicly traded companies to reveal "triggering events that accelerate or increase a direct financial obligation" or might cause "impairments" to the bottom line. They might have warned clients who had invested in mortgage-backed securities to consider extracting themselves before they suffered too much financial damage. At the very least, Goldman could have stopped peddling mortgage-backed securities that its own mortgage trading desk suspected might soon collapse in value.

Instead, Cohn and his colleagues decided to take care of Goldman Sachs.

Goldman would not have suffered the reputational damage that it did ! or paid multiple billions in federal fines ! if the firm, anticipating the impending crisis, had merely shorted the housing market in the hopes of making billions. That is what investment banks do: spot ways to make money that others don't see. The money managers and traders featured in the film "The Big Short" did the same ! and they were cast as brave contrarians. Yet unlike the investors featured in the film, Goldman had itself helped inflate the housing bubble ! buying tens of billions of dollars in subprime mortgages over the previous several years for bundling into bonds they sold to investors. And unlike these investors, Goldman's people were not warning anyone who would listen about the disaster about to hit. As federal investigations found, the firm, which still claims "our clients' interests always come first" as a core principle, failed to disclose that its top people saw disaster in the very products its salespeople were continuing to hawk.

What follows is an amazing, very detailed story about how Goldman maneuvered successfully through the rubble of the economic collapse, and came out on top. And then, get this:

Politically, 2016 would prove a strange year for Goldman. Bernie Sanders clobbered Hillary Clinton for pocketing hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees from Goldman, while Trump attacked Ted Cruz for being "in bed with" Goldman Sachs. (Cruz's wife Heidi was a managing director in Goldman's Houston office until she took leave to work on her husband's presidential campaign.) Goldman would have "total control" over Clinton, Trump said at a February 2016 rally, a point his campaign reinforced in a two-minute ad that ran the weekend before Election Day. An image of Blankfein flashed across the screen as Trump warned about the global forces that "robbed our working class."

So Trump won ! and staffed up with Goldman machers ! Gary Cohn most important of all:

There's ultimately no great mystery why Donald Trump selected Gary Cohn for a top post in his administration, despite his angry rhetoric about Goldman Sachs. There's the high regard the president holds for anyone who is rich ! and the instant legitimacy Cohn conferred upon the administration within business circles. Cohn's appointment reassured bond markets about the unpredictable new president and lent his administration credibility it lacked among Fortune 100 CEOs, none of whom had donated to his campaign. Ego may also have played a role. Goldman Sachs would never do business with Trump, the developer who resorted to foreign banks and second-tier lenders to bankroll his projects. Now Goldman's president would be among those serving in his royal court.

Finally:

It's Cohn's influence over the country's regulators that worries Dennis Kelleher, the financial reform lobbyist. "To him, what's good for Wall Street is good for the economy," Kelleher said of Cohn. "Maybe that makes sense when a guy has spent 26 years at Goldman, a company who has repaid his loyalties and sweat with a net worth in the hundreds of millions." Kelleher recalls those who lost a home or a chunk of their retirement savings during a financial crisis that Cohn helped precipitate. "They're still suffering," he said. "Yet now Cohn's in charge of the economy and talking about eliminating financial reform and basically putting the country back to where it was in 2005, as if 2008 didn't happen. I've started the countdown clock to the next financial crash, which will make the last one look mild."

Read the whole thing. Please, do. It is staggering to think that here we are, a decade after the crash, and here we are.

Tonight (Sunday), PBS begins airing Ken Burns' and Lynn Novick's long Vietnam War documentary. I'll write more about it this week. I've watched it, and to call it landmark television is to vastly undersell it. It comes to mind reading the Goldman-Trump piece because it revealed, however inadvertently, how little we Americans learned from the Vietnam experience when it came time to invade Iraq.

Twenty, thirty years from now, don't be surprised if some American president proposes a "this time, it's different" invasion of another foreign country. And don't be surprised if we the people cheer for him. We're suckers for this kind of thing. Here's Kevin Williamson, on Trump's epic flip-flop on immigration and DACA:

What did they expect? Trump is a serial bankrupt who has betrayed at least two-thirds of the wives he's had and who lies compulsively ! who invented an imaginary friend to lie to the press on his behalf. He has screwed over practically everyone who has ever trusted him or done business with him, and his voters were just another in a long series of marks. They gave him that 280ZX with no down payment ! and no prospect of repossessing it until 2020 at the earliest. Poor Ann Coulter is somewhere weeping into her gin: "I bet on a loser," she explains.

It was a dumb bet.

With no market-oriented health-care reform and no hawkish immigration reform and the prospects of far-reaching tax reform looking shaky ! even though Republicans exist for no obvious purpose other than cutting taxes ! Trump is still looking for his big win. Even those who were willing to suspend the fully formed adult parts of their brains and give him the benefit of the doubt are coming around to the realization that he has no beliefs and no principles, and that he will sell out any ally, cause, or national interest if doing so suits his one and only true master in this life: his vanity. He didn't get rolled by Pelosi and Schumer: His voters got rolled by him. That's the real deal.

Cheers to you, Youngstown!

When Youngstown (so to speak) figures out what's been done to it, politics in this country is going to get very, very interesting. In the meantime:

Some of Trump's base is happy to let him cut deals with Pelosi and Schumer so long as he tweets gifs of Hillary and CNN logos. WWE BS.

! Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) September 17, 2017

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js 116 Responses to Con Of The Century ← Older Comments Newer Comments →

grumpy realist , says: September 18, 2017 at 10:30 am

Given Trump's history of betraying everyone he's been involved with (wives, businesses, family members) why are people surprised?

And no, I don't suspect Trump supporters to ever turn on him. Whatever he does, they'll find a way to excuse it and cast the blame of "the media", "those liberals", "those people", and "them" instead. It's easier for them to allow themselves to be ripped off, over and over again, than to admit to themselves that they were fools who fell victim to a con man.

(And no, I don't place much credence in Ann Coulter's hissy fit. She's just trying to keep the TV cameras on her as long as possible. Like usual.)

Roy Fassel , says: September 18, 2017 at 10:32 am
The world has changed. It used to be ."what is good for General Motors is good for America."

Multinational corporations tend to have most of their revenue growth outside of the USA today. Some companies like Apple manufacture their phones overseas, and most sales are overseas. This complicates all historical comparisons. The world is much more interconnected these days and we are all "God's children" living in all parts of the globe. Nationalism that is practiced by Trump eventually ends with a 1930s in Europe. BLAME creates hatred which then becomes to great uniter.

This all will not end on the plus side.

Sam M , says: September 18, 2017 at 10:33 am
Matt W

"Be charitable. It's VERY hard for someone to admit that they were fooled. It will be interesting to see all the mechanisms of denial."

Will it be interesting? Or entirely predictable? We have a model: All the ostensibly progressive people who for years voted Democrat and essentially ended up with a huge bait and switch. Which is not the divide in the Democratic Party, with the social justice left now ascendant and angry, because they got an awful lot of Dont Ask, Don't Tell and Clinton-era mass incarceration for their loyalty. While the union-wing got Goldman Sachs stuff.

All those people got rolled the same way Trump is rolling people now. So now we have BLM and Bernie Sanders and basically nothing in between.

So yeah. That's what we will get on the right.

Roger II , says: September 18, 2017 at 10:39 am
Trump has always been an ethically-challenged con man. I would still like to hear someone identify an actual policy that would help Youngstown. The truth is that steel industry jobs are gone, and they aren't coming back. Illegal immigration had nothing (or next to nothing) to do with that and has next to nothing to do with the fact that Youngstown has not developed other jobs for its citizens. Trump never proposed any concrete solutions, but quite frankly neither has JD Vance. Democrats have ! Obamacare, training programs, increased minimum wage, financial aid, more support for unions ! but by and large the white working class has rejected those policies. So maybe Youngstown should figure out what it wants from Trump or anyone else.
Allen , says: September 18, 2017 at 10:51 am
"The faithful man has perished from the earth, and there is no one upright among men. They all lie in wait for blood; every man hunts his brother with a net. That they may successfully do evil with both hands-the prince asks for gifts, the judge seeks a bribe, and the great man utters his evil desire; so they scheme together." Micah 7:2-3 (NKJV)

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

collin , says: September 18, 2017 at 11:14 am
Trump raged against "offshoring" by American companies during the 2016 campaign. He even threatened "retribution,"­ a 35 percent tariff on any goods imported into the United States by a company that had moved jobs overseas.

Again, can somebody explain to me how in the hell this is going to be done as free trade is 50%+ popular and any changes in a deal, such as NAFTA, will have serious negative economic consequences in certain parts of the nation. Rip up NAFTA, Iowas LOSES BIG!

Also, in terms of employment the steel industry is not that large anymore. It has about 80K workers today which is significantly about 90% less in the 1980s. And we produce almost (about ~95%) as much steel today as in the 1980s. So steel tariffs will increase steel jobs by 10% which is 8K workers and construction will lose 1% of 730K which is almost 8K workers. So somebody has to show me the benefit of steel tariffs as I don't see it.

Purple Tortoise , says: September 18, 2017 at 11:29 am
[NFR: But that's not really the point. The point is that Trump *specifically* ran against Goldman Sachs and what it represents. And now look. It simply won't do to say, "But Hillary would have been worse." Maybe so, but at this point, that strikes me as a way of rationalizing Trump's failure to keep his promises. ! RD]

Actually, I see it as rationalizing on the part of the NeverTrumpers for why they were justified in offering the voters a sh*t sandwich and why the voters were wrong to go with Trump in the hope of not being forced to eat a sh*t sandwich. Now that Trump has gone back on his promises, the NeverTrumpers are rationalizing that it proves they were right all along because the voters didn't escape the promised sh*t sandwich.

Jeff R , says: September 18, 2017 at 11:35 am
I would dearly love to help them out, and rebuild their cities. It would be the right thing to do. But as long as they keep voting for republicans (and yes, republicans are more corporate and Wall Street friendly then the democrats, Hillary Clinton notwithstanding), they are going to continue to decline.

As a Baltimore resident, I find this statement hilarious.

BlairBurton , says: September 18, 2017 at 11:37 am
http://www.thedailybeast.com/i-told-you-so-trump-is-a-conman-in-chief

"As members of the reviled Never Trump movement, it's not just an end-zone celebration play to say we warned you. We warned you over and over that Trump's brand isn't success; it's betrayal. We warned you that he believes in nothing, and so he will break any promise, shaft any ally, and abandon any position. Hate us all you want, but if you think this is the last time he'll shank his faithful, you might want to review the last 40 years of his personal and business behavior."

Donald , says: September 18, 2017 at 11:37 am
"There is a subset of voters who look upon their politician in an unhealthy God-like/3rd world fashion; much more tangible on the Left, but there on the Right as well."

This is correct, except for that ludicrous claim that it is worse on the Left. It's obvious on both sides and it's been that way forever.

I despise Trump. I am glad he is making deals with Democrats, but the Goldman Sachs thing is horrible. There was always a faint chance he could have governed as a populist, pushing massive infrastructure projects to create jobs, for instance. I thought that would appeal to his vanity as someone who builds things. No such luck.

Sawbuck , says: September 18, 2017 at 12:02 pm
It isn't just the steel industry. You underestimate the level of rage out there in flyover country – and the towns where the service workers live next to the towns where the 1% live because the workers cannot afford the uptown costs – they really will be fine if the whole system burns to ash.

They are used to being poor and will last longer.

Richard Morton , says: September 18, 2017 at 12:05 pm
VikingLS (at 10:19pm) hits the mark, IMO. I'd be interested to hear more. Playing the "con man" card gets stale & tiresome fast. Thanks also to Rob G for recommended reading (at 7:08am). So, Rod, won't a good shot of Ben Op faith and virtue also help make America industrious again? It is hard work, but is it impossible to imagine or too complex to do? If you think so, I think you underestimate us–and our Lord.
Captain P , says: September 18, 2017 at 12:15 pm
So long as the Clintonistas don't find a new figurehead, bet on Sanders winning in 2020. If anyone's a true opponent of neoliberal economic policies, he is.
Phillip , says: September 18, 2017 at 12:16 pm
Yes, Trump is bad, is going back on promises, etc. etc.

But what's the freaking alternative?

Give me an actual name that is not worse.

Siarlys Jenkins , says: September 18, 2017 at 12:31 pm
Trump ( and the GOP generally) are running the William Henry Harrison routine. Talk about the plain common working people, mix in some log cabins and hard cider, describe anyone who wants to raise wages as an effete elitist, and the downsize, merge, consolidate, offshore, the better to profit from the misery of others.

Now, what could have been done in 1977? That was the beginning of Jimmy Carter's term, his first year in office. At the time, he was a conservative southern Democrat, America's first born-again Christian president, despised by liberals, who tried to run Ted Kennedy against him in the 1980 Democratic primary, producing plenty of material for Ronald Reagan campaign commercials in the general election.

It would have taken a VERY comprehensive plan and some long-term investments. The steel plants were aging and uncompetitive. The companies laid off thousands because they didn't think it worth investing billions in new plants, new technology, etc. A few plants that employees pooled their hard-earned savings to buy turned out to be unsustainable too. A good stop TOWARD a more sensible socialist economy would have been a law providing that IF a company employing more than 1000 workers wanted to shut a plant, a government agency has first option to buy, at a price no greater than original investment minus all depreciation taken on corporate tax returns (that is, next to nothing).

Then it would have taken billions in federal financing to do the upgrade. Why do this? Well, considering the economic and social costs of all the crime, drug networks, drug treatment, alcoholism, etc. in the forty years since, it might have been a net cost savings. This is how socialism becomes a paying proposition, rather than "running out of other people's money."

But a sustainable program has to be geared to production people will actually need and use and want and buy. Production of stuff that piles up because there is no market for it is not sustainable. Something could have been done, but there was no will. Democrats were, then as now, afraid of their own shadow, and addicted to putting band-aids on long-term problems. Republicans, then as now, were addicted to "market forces," which, of course, are what triggered the catastrophe. What passed for a "left" at that time was too busy debating whether Deng or the Gang of Four were the true heroes of proletarian revolution and holding May Day picnics where 90 percent of participants were college graduates. They weren't reading the business pages.

It is also the case that Hillary Clinton was in bed with Goldman.

True, and relevant, but hardly in contradiction with what Dux Bellorum said.

Dux Bellorum, Austinopole , says: September 18, 2017 at 12:33 pm

[NFR: This is simplistic trolling and you know it. It is also the case that Hillary Clinton was in bed with Goldman. Remember the private Wall Street speech she gave, released by Wikileaks, in which she talked about how one needed to have "a public and a private position"? We would have been equally screwed by a Clinton.2 presidency, and a conventional Republican one. My anger at Trump over this is that he promised to be something different ! and, being fabulously wealthy, he didn't depend on the largesse of financial titans to make his living. He was in a position to change things ! yet on economic issues, he's turned out to be as bad or worse than those he ran against in both parties. ! RD]

It would be trolling if we were describing a single election, sure, but the comment refers to the very, very long alliance between social conservatives and business conservatives, which, in the south, goes back to the nineteenth century. Institutional Christian powers have been taking money and power from business interests to enforce their particular visions of what everyone should live like, and it's had the effect of giving them more and more power over an ever-shrinking and ever more miserable kingdom.

There's that lovely idea that by their fruits shall one know ideas, I think that Youngstown, in synecdoche, is a great example of the fruits of that particular idea.

$0.02,

DBA

Weldon , says: September 18, 2017 at 12:44 pm
The problem with this line of thought is that it would lead you to expect that Trump won Rust Belt voters whose chief concern was jobs and the economy. But he didn't; Clinton (narrowly) did. Trump won Rust Belt voters whose chief concern was "cultural decline".

Somehow the economic narrative got way off from what the data actually show: on election day, Trump underperformed recent Republican candidates in every economic cohort *except* households making $70K-$100K. This is the group you need to look at to explain his appeal.

Donald , says: September 18, 2017 at 12:45 pm
"Just shocking that a politician went back on a campaign promise. Throw the bum out. Shocking."

And this silly sort of cynicism is exactly why politicians think they can get away with breaking any and every promise they make.

Deplorable MD , says: September 18, 2017 at 12:50 pm
These can be true:

1. I am unhappy with certain (even "many") Trump decisions.
2. I remain happy I voted for Trump over Clinton.

What would it take for me to instead have wished I voted Clinton over Trump?..some combination of the following:

1. An increase in taxes on the working and professional class.
2. An offensive ground invasion of foreign country.
3. The nomination and Senate approval of a doctrinaire Liberal to the Supreme Court.
4. Policies that would lead to increased working class and poor immigrants to our country.

I imagine there are more, but these are some of the important points. I can muddle through a temporary ill mannered President and don't have a problem getting dirty to avoid the above.

BD , says: September 18, 2017 at 12:54 pm
Judging from the reaction of Trumpers in this comment thread it's pretty clear that there is literally nothing he could do that would cause them to abandon him. They will rationalize anything he does.

During the campaign, some of them said "well if he betrayed us on immigration then we'd leave him" and the biggest crimes committed by the Rubios of the world was that they cut deals far better (from restrictionist points of view) than this. So it's clear how they react to a betrayal–simply pretend it's not a betrayal, or that any non-Trump alternative would have been worse.

It's looking like they have become a cult.

Venice , says: September 18, 2017 at 12:56 pm
I'm always amazed at how loyal Trump supporters are. At times he was voted in to totally disrupt Washington, at other times he was supposed to make deals to keep the peace.
Look, Trump was always part of Wall Street. This was always going to happen. I don't think it's a bad thing but I do feel bad for the people who voted for him expecting anything different.
BD , says: September 18, 2017 at 1:01 pm
"It's not whether he makes deals. It's on whether they are good deals. The DACA deal would not be a good one if it follows what has been outlined."

That's not true. It's an excellent deal for the Democrats and Republican immigration doves.

For immigration restrictionists? Well, for them this puts them next on the long list of people who made the mistake of trusting Donald Trump.

BD , says: September 18, 2017 at 1:06 pm
"It's easy to criticize but a lot more difficult to say what they should have done. So tell me, who should they have supported? And don't say "Anybody but Trump" – that's not an answer."

This is a fair question, but they easily could have organized around another candidate who represented what they believed in (surely Trump is not the only person in the world who favored cutting back immigration–it's a very popular position in the GOP grass roots). Pat Buchanan ran on it in the '90s.

But to say "let's get behind the guy whose track record practically screams at you that you're going to get backstabbed" seems worse than even staying home. What are the chances now that next time a candidate runs on those issues anyone is going to believe him?

TR , says: September 18, 2017 at 1:13 pm
I suggest taking Wes seriously ("Could be better, could be much worse"). I have a suspicion his position is probably the norm.

In any case, some politicians pay for their "sins," some don't. I have an awful feeling, Trump will fall into the latter category.

TR , says: September 18, 2017 at 1:22 pm
A side note: John_M's correction of the steel plant closures makes sense. At the time they happened, it was not unusual to point out that American steel was uncompetitive even in a fair market (which didn't exist). Failure to modernize was a big factor.

And even if evil capitalism and elitist government may have been behind the closings, one should point out that a lot of less bright capitalists lost their shirts.

Potato , says: September 18, 2017 at 1:30 pm
They know they're getting screwed, in Youngstown and elsewhere. For some reason they don't care. They'll stick with Trump to the bitter end.
EngineerScotty , says: September 18, 2017 at 1:33 pm
And the standards keep getting lower and lower
Loudon is a Fool , says: September 18, 2017 at 1:46 pm
+1000 @ Old West

Any legislation. Congress doesn't need to pass some thing. They could pass any thing. Except they can't pass any thing. Not a single thing. They're incapable of governing. It's thoroughly depressing. As Williamson has noted previously, the wily McConnell is just the wrong man for the job. Trump's broken promises are nearly 100% McConnell's leadership failures. Could any other GOP president overcome McConnell's incompetence? Maybe. But that's a lot of incompetence to overcome. The Democrats are terrible human beings. But they know how to pass legislation. So if you want to pass some legislation and your choices are the Democrats or McConnell do you really have a choice as to the party you're going to approach?

Rosita , says: September 18, 2017 at 2:11 pm
Have to agree with all the Trump voters and supporters on this thread. None of them voted on principles; as they have stated, more on emotion, affinity and bread and butter issues. Your points about Trump's betrayals ring hollow. Everybody understood that Trump's positions are malleable and that was part of the package. Even when his policies begin to hurt his supporters, that will be a necessary evil to shore up the cultural and social solidarity that Trump represents. Plain and simple.
Polichinello , says: September 18, 2017 at 2:16 pm
All of this info was there–and being spouted loudly by the left–during the campaign.

This is the deal you (not you, Rod, since you didn't vote for him..) made for Gorsuch. We'll all get to see how bad a deal it was in the next years.

Given the Left's attitude to free speech these days and judicial overreach, totally worth it. Totally.

Hound of Ulster , says: September 18, 2017 at 2:23 pm
Everyone who voted for Trump based on ANYTHING he said during the campaign is a sucker. We warned you, but you wouldn't listen and just wanted to watch the 'libtards' cry.

Fools

Polichinello , says: September 18, 2017 at 2:25 pm
To be honest, I never understood how Trump was going to bring these jobs back as automation was the primary cause and the connection of Illegal Immigrants was not significant. Please show the direct lines of DACA Immigrants to manufacturing jobs in the Rust Belt?

They increase the labor pool that will compete with those people whose jobs have been eliminated by automation. Moreover, they require the same public spending (actually more), so now those people affected by automation are left with less government succour, as resource now have to be diverted to people who entered the country illegally.

I, for one, understand that some sort of compromise solution will need to be reached to deal with the Dacaritos, but let's not wave our hands and pretend this is all the fault of Skynet and that inflating the number of no- to low-skilled people in the pool will have no effect.

Be aware, too, that we're NOT discussing just a few hundred thousand people here, as the deals being thrown around will go up into the millions, once you factor in chain migration, as well as the knock on effect of encouraging yet more illegal immigration with the promise of future amnesties.

Alex Curbelo , says: September 18, 2017 at 2:26 pm
Mr. Dreher routinely gets into the pitfall of context denial when it comes to Trump.

Given the state of the country, and especially what the Republican and Democratic parties have given us for the last 40 years, no one (including Mr. Dreher) will ever be able to make the case that supporting Trump was not the rational way to go despite the risks. It was the right way to go under the circumstances and given the horrid alternatives that the GOP gave us in the primaries and the Democratic Party gave us for the general.

More importantly, just because Trump may be fake doesn't mean he did not tap into real issues. The reason Trump won is that, again, he tapped into very real issues.

YM , says: September 18, 2017 at 2:31 pm
Since I discovered your blog, Rod, I have wondered, why would you have your blog on such a lame website. Now I know – its your way or the highway. No choosing between imperfect choices.
ludo , says: September 18, 2017 at 2:39 pm
Just as the Clinton campaign disintegrated into a vacuous, visionless, vapor which the ultimately voters did not care to inhale, so too the Trump administration is in the premature process of decay into an amorphous, gelatinously unrecognizable politico-administrative life-form ("neither fish nor foul," "because you are lukewarm!neither hot nor cold "), perhaps to better camouflage and disguise the creedless (nihilistic) plutocratic pillaging of what remains of the non-oligarchically captured corpse (or, at least, despoiled and desecrated body) of a once proud and productively positive Middle Class government and state.
The Color of Celery , says: September 18, 2017 at 2:46 pm
Maybe Elizabeth Warren needs to be president if there is going to be something done about Goldman Sachs.

[NFR: If she weren't so fanatically down-the-line liberal on social issues, I'd strongly consider voting for her. ! RD]

Alex Curbelo , says: September 18, 2017 at 2:48 pm
A deal with Pelosi/Schumer would make sense on infrastructure but not DACA. Trump will not survive this betrayal on DACA. People aren't stupid.

There is a debate in the informed pro-Trump community ! is Trump a con artist, sell out, traitor, or man who means well but whose hands are tied. On one side, you have people bending over backwards to defend pretty transparently treacherous moves by Trump's on the grounds that he has little real choice. The argument is that because Trump's Jacksonian agenda is being monolithically and implacably opposed by the top leadership of both parties, the courts, the military, the IC, the banks and big corps, etc. (our true rulers), Trump has to bide his time, cut deals, and play Nth dimensional chess until he can move forward with his real populist agenda.

The other side of the argument is that Trump is just a con artist. When pro-Trump people try to argue to me that Trump's hands are tied, I also counter by pointing out the factors that are under Trump's control. Trump can't control Ryan, McConnell, etc. but what can he control. Trump can certainly control who works for him! Which means the strongest evidence that Trump never meant it can be found just by looking at who he has working for him. He gave top jobs to establishment figures like McMaster, Kelly and Cohn.

I can understand the claim that CIA and other deep state figures, McConnell, etc. won't go along with Trump and have been working overtime to sabotage Trump ! those things are true ! but what then is Trump's excuse for giving jobs to people like McMaster and Cohn?

Kushner and Cohn (and really most likely Lloyd Blankfein himself) have mostly neutralized Trump's economic, immigration and trade agenda in areas where the president has a lot to autonomy to act independent of the courts and Congress, while McMaster has done the same on the foreign policy front. And John Kelly, by all accounts, now has Trump under de facto house arrest, having reportedly cut off Trump from all of his remaining advisors that support the original MAGA agenda.

These are dark days for anyone who recognizes that the issues that propelled Trump to victory are real. Nothing ever changes because our true rulers are not the people we elect.

Finally, the idea that Trump pulled off the con of the century does not hold up. That honor belongs to the post-1980 Republican party for pulling off the longest and greatest con over the largest number of people ever. Trump can't come close.

Noah172 , says: September 18, 2017 at 2:52 pm
Who did Kevin Williamson favor in the 2016 primaries? Jeb? Rubio? Cruz?

Here is the reality that Williamson and his ilk refuse to acknowledge. If any of Trump's Republican rivals were in his position now:

The federal government would not be appreciably smaller.

Obamacare would not be fully repealed/replaced.

A bigger amnesty would be at least under consideration, if not already enacted.

The personal income tax would not be abolished or turned into a flat tax.

We'd be in a regime change war with Assad (and thus Putin).

Paul Ryan-ish "entitlement reform" would not be enacted.

Latinos and millenials would not love the Republican Party.

Homosexual marriage would not be rolled back.

These other Republicans (most to all of whom would have lost to HRC) would not have been so successful enacting the movement con agenda, which is unpopular and internally contradictory.

Voucherize Medicare + open borders + neocon wars + free trade + PC pandering = balanced budgets, prosperity for all, and a "permanent Republican majority"?

And Trump is the con man?

walking horse , says: September 18, 2017 at 2:54 pm
"Just shocking that a politician went back on a campaign promise. Throw the bum out. Shocking."

This is in fact shocking. It's shocking at least on the order of Bush the Elder's reversal of "read my lips: no new taxes", which cost him a second term.

I see that Trump has opened a US military base in Israel, the first ever, which is one of the stupidest acts in recent American history.

all of which suggests that Trump will soon be history himself

swb , says: September 18, 2017 at 2:59 pm
Given the comment section, there is no indication that his voters are judging his progress based on any criteria that is usually applied to normal politicians. Real benefits are not actually a criterion used by his voters. If trump can find enough scapegoats to blame for things, I believe that qualifies as progress for his voters because that makes them feel better. Since he is adapt at generating controversy and thereby creating appropriate new groups to blame I do not really see reason why this virtuous cycle could not continue for two terms.

I mean seriously, bush junior sent off their sons and daughters to vacation in the desert and thousands of them did not come back and he got two terms. Trumps voters are not going to be upset just because he lies to them.

lllurker , says: September 18, 2017 at 3:00 pm
"Or cancelling Obama regulations such as the one that required any buildings re-built with federal money needs to take rising sea levels into account?"

I didn't even know that was a thing. (The regs themselves.)

As I followed the Houston and then FL news, once I would get past all the human suffering my mind always seemed to end up in the same place: "We're not really so stupid that we're actually gonna rebuild in these same low-lying places?"

I know this only applies to certain areas, and that the storm over Houston was pretty freakish and perhaps a one-of-a-kind. But some of these areas are destined to flood so much over the coming decades that they will eventually have to be abandoned, at least as building sites. So in the meantime how many billions are we going to put on Uncle Sam's credit card, to be paid by coming generations, for rebuilding doomed structures?

I hope there are controls in place that at least force the people who in the worst places to move elsewhere.

Mike Alexander , says: September 18, 2017 at 3:05 pm
Kronstein1963 writes:
It's easy to criticize but a lot more difficult to say what they should have done. So tell me, who should they have supported?

They should have voted for Sanders in the primaries and then the GOP nominee in the general. By doing this they would have helped further the economic nationalist message by demonstrating significant support for a serious anti-Wall street message. By putting Trump in there they established empirically that

populist economic nationalism = Goldman Sachs.

Populist economic nationalism is now a dead letter

Noah172 , says: September 18, 2017 at 3:18 pm
I'm in holding mode on Trump right now. I'm wait-and-see on where DACA negotiations go, and I'll call my Representative and Senators to voice my opposition to amnesty (and support for some of the restrictionist bills pending). Here's the possibilities of what the past week's DACA drama means to me:

Looks, quacks like a duck: Trump sincerely wanted to agree to amnesty, with little in return, with the Democrats, got blowback from his troops, and backtracked by seeming to insist on tougher demands.

Total sellout: Trump will go for amnesty, with no meaningful concessions, base voters (and small donors) be damned.

4D chess: Trump was using talk of amnesty and delaying a fight over the wall to lure the Democrats into negotiation so he could then drop tougher demands on them (end to chain migration), which he knows they will reject, setting them up to look like extremists and have a government shutdown fight (which, e.g., Congressman Luis Gutierrez openly wants) right before Christmas.

In the first possibility, I'm upset and undecided for 2020, but at least Trump listened to his troops after only a few days of Breitbart and Twitter screaming at him. That's more than you can say for GWB, John McCain, or Paul Ryan.

In the second possibility, I'm through with Trump, for good.

In the third, I'm OK with political chess-playing in principle, but you gotta do it right. It's dangerous, especially for Trump, hated as he is by all TPTB, even in his own party, to demoralize and confuse your core fan base (and small donation base, I repeat) in attempt to lure the opposition into a political trap.

I can't tell if possibility 1 or 3 is the truth (2 is unlikely but frighteningly possible). In any case, I don't see a DACA amnesty happening because too few Republicans will risk it, Trump seems to be offering a trade which the Democrats will never ever accept (only DACA applicants for RAISE Act and maybe wall or some interior enforcement), and some Democrats (Gutierrez and company) are so stupid and greedy and fanatical that they think they are entitled to a massive amnesty with literally nothing in return, not even fake border enforcement (Schumer and Pelosi are trying to talk sense into their backbenchers, we'll see to what avail).

Rusty , says: September 18, 2017 at 3:23 pm
It's almost as though the last 40 years of Youngstown citizens felt *entitled* to having those good jobs replaced, in their town, w/o having to move or re-invent themselves.
cdugga , says: September 18, 2017 at 3:38 pm
I am not buying the we were fooled thing in the least. Like, the don is putting health care and DACA in the hands of republican legislators and all they have to do is legislate. They have not and cannot. Now we are reading about the don's betrayal of labor on TAC? This is not any sort of news whatsoever. Someday, maybe after some environmental disaster in appalachia, we will read about how the don betrayed the amerian people by crippleing regulations designed to protect their air and water. As if that was something new too. No, what we are seeing here is what I have been seeing since the rise of the don. If he is successful, it is because we supported and voted for him. If he does what anyone paying attention saw him doing already, then we can say, well, he never was a true conservative anyway. All this, is just more of the same ole lies of omission and lies to deny responsibility and place blame on anyone but ourselves. How many columns have I read here about how the don was the fault, not of the people that actually voted for him, but the fault of those gay transgender mexican muslim blacks and their secularist enablers. And the beat goes on.
Oh, and I was mortified when trump was elected but not at all surprised. He followed every standard GOP strategy including the tried and true decisive pander to the NRA. If he did do anything different, it was to claim in a much more outright manner that we were being victimized by immigrants and all those other non-deserving people. He even set the bait for people like me, by saying he would go after wall street and the hedge funds that shorted the whole world in the financial collapse.
But in this pile on, we should give the don credit where it is due. He has successfully exposed the republican party for what it has always been about. And putting healthcare and DACA into republican legislator's hands is going to be much more revealing about who has been fooling the fools than anything the don himself has done.
lllurker , says: September 18, 2017 at 3:39 pm
"Steel workers were retrained to fill jobs in that sector, which was expected to sustain the middle class in the same way that manufacturing did.

It did not. According to a study done by the Midwest Center for Research the average salary of a steel worker in the late 1970s was $24,772.80. Today, according to the most recent Bureau of Labor statistics, the medium household income in the Mahoning Valley is $24,133."

There seems to be some misperceptions regarding the wages that were paid in old-line manufacturing industries vs modern service jobs. The most important thing to understand is that the once strong wages and benefits in the steel and auto and other similar industries had nothing to do with the sort of work the people were doing. The pay and benefits were a direct result of the employees having strong unions and the unions having favorable federal legislation in place.

The truth is that the jobs themselves were often awful, especially in steel. And dangerous. But the jobs didn't require any more experience or ability from a new hire than the fast food industry requires today.

It is just a quirk of the way the industrialization of the country played out that the industrial sector ended up, at least for awhile, with employee-friendly compensation packages. In fact had it all gone the other way, and the service sector grown first, before manufacturing, many of the problems the non-college educated crowd face today wouldn't even exist. Manufacturing has become especially sensitive to labor costs because companies can choose to build factories in other countries where salaries are low. Most of the country's service industry isn't like that.

VikingLS , says: September 17, 2017 at 8:59 pm
"When Youngstown (so to speak) figures out what's been done to it, politics in this country is going to get very, very interesting."

Rod what are you going to do to change this? The Ben Op doesn't help.

[NFR: I dunno, Viking, I guess I'm waiting on you to tell me what to do. You know perfectly well that the Benedict Option is not about changing American politics, but about the life of the church. Besides, it is not the case that I or anybody else has to have a "solution" to offer before we can criticize what we see. I doubt very much you apply that standard to your own judgments of the world. ! RD]

Planet Albany , says: September 17, 2017 at 9:03 pm
Since I voted for Trump and you did not, doesn't that put me in a better position to judge whether Trump's willingness to make deals with Dems on DACA, taxes and infrastructure amounts to betrayal? Answer: It doesn't. It's what I want him to do. He campaigned on making deals, including with Russia, which I also want to see to keep the peace. Just hold the line on social issues, and we're good.
Trey , says: September 17, 2017 at 9:08 pm
But I thought we were a bunch of hicks that did not understand the constitutional checks and balances and the need for compromise and when we found out Trump was not able to be a dictator we would turn on him.
Corwin , says: September 17, 2017 at 9:35 pm
The problem is Youngstown won't figure it out. They, and so many other small and industrial towns across the country, are looking for a solution on their terms. They have had the last 30 plus years to update, and some have, like Pittsburgh. Meanwhile, the people who have figured this out left for greener pastures a long time ago.

I would dearly love to help them out, and rebuild their cities. It would be the right thing to do. But as long as they keep voting for republicans (and yes, republicans are more corporate and Wall Street friendly then the democrats, Hillary Clinton notwithstanding), they are going to continue to decline.

Francis E Blangeard , says: September 17, 2017 at 9:36 pm
To a large extent Goldman Sachs is the 'Deep State'.
Adamant , says: September 17, 2017 at 9:40 pm
I was in Youngstown just the other week. You could no more thoroughly destroy a city than if you had the Air Force flyover and reduce it to rubble via saturation bombing. You could say the exact same thing about 1000 other towns here in the Rust Belt. The main source of economic activity is methamphetamine production and heroin trafficking, and the ruination of generations yet unborn is baked in.

"So Trump won ! and staffed up with Goldman machers ! Gary Cohn most important of all"

As did Obama, and Bush, and Clinton, and on and on unti the heat death of the universe. Wall. Street. Always. Wins. Like the Military Industrial Complex always wins.

And they will continue to win until we can decide as a people to put our cultural distinctions and differences aside and defeat them. Because they are going to exsanguinate your tribe of traditionalist Christian conservatives as surely as they will my tribe. Say what you want about the political praxis of Occupy Wall Street, at least they were yelling at the right buildings.

I'd like to bring an old word back into our political currency: solidarity.

Wes , says: September 17, 2017 at 10:17 pm
Still a happy Trump supporter here; unphased by the presence of Goldman Sachs employees (the horror!) or of deals with Democrats. Could be better, could be much worse.
VikingLS , says: September 17, 2017 at 10:19 pm
[NFR: I dunno, Viking, I guess I'm waiting on you to tell me what to do. You know perfectly well that the Benedict Option is not about changing American politics, but about the life of the church. Besides, it is not the case that I or anybody else has to have a "solution" to offer before we can criticize what we see. I doubt very much you apply that standard to your own judgments
of the world. ! RD]

Actually I do try and hold myself to a standard along those lines. People don't always like my suggestions, but I do have them. I wouldn't have asked you that question if I didn't have an idea what I think you, or at least somebody at TAC, needs to do.

Someone needs to talk about what Trump getting elected as a Republican with his platform says about the voters, even if he himself seems to have pulled a bait and switch. Not what liberals say it means ("Clinton was a bad candidate" at best "America is racist" at worst.) This is conference worthy.

Nothing against you and Larrison, you're both fine writers, but is it possible to get the other writers here to write more? What's the difference between yourself and say, Bill Kaufman in TAC's structure?

Someone, it doesn't have to be you, but someone, needs to spend serious time looking at the Conservative movement in new media. That's looking like where the future is, not the New York Times op-ed page. There really are people who supported Trump who are both aware that Trump isn't keeping his campaign promises, and are discussing what their next move is going to be.

Try and resist the temptation to write variations of "Trump voters must feel stupid now". As opposed to what? Having Clinton as president? Do you honestly think if Clinton was president you wouldn't be writing some version of "Wow, I knew Clinton was going to be bad, but I didn't realize she'd be THIS bad." In a little over 3 years, it will be a different story, but for a lot of people a Clinton presidency where she kept her promises would be worse.

I am going to write you a personal email. I actually have taken a pretty serious personal professional hit because of this election, and I STILL don't regret my vote. This is not all academic for me.

Old West , says: September 17, 2017 at 10:41 pm
Trump would have signed any legislation a GOP controlled House and Senate passed.

ANY.

It wouldn't even need to have been good.

Making a deal with the Dems is his way of punishing the GOP for being incompetent.

At this point I'm still feeling betrayed by them. But I reserve the option of adding him to the list.

Sam M , says: September 17, 2017 at 10:42 pm
It's hilarious how selective people are about economics. Nothing to be done about the steel industry. Just how markets work. Too bad so sad Youngsville.

Unless you are cool. Like Amazon. And cities will slobber all over themselves to say to hell with the market, we need to subsidize development. And give the richest guy in the world free stuff:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/technology/amazon-headquarters-north-america.amp.html

Elon Musk has received at least $5 billion in subsidies:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story,amp.html

Hmm. It's almost like it's only poor schmucks who have to suffer the ups and downs of the free market.

collin , says: September 17, 2017 at 10:51 pm
I am sorry but this happened almost 40 years ago and I remember when conservatives like Reagan were dancing on the death of union graves in the 1980s. Conservative loved when Reagan fired union air traffic controllers. And one reason why I voted for Bill Clinton because in 1992 he campaigned on the jobs of tomorrow as was honest to the American people that many of these jobs were not coming. (And the second fall in manufacturing was occurring in 1992 as well.) To be honest, I never understood how Trump was going to bring these jobs back as automation was the primary cause and the connection of Illegal Immigrants was not significant. Please show the direct lines of DACA Immigrants to manufacturing jobs in the Rust Belt?

Agreed, as long as he rub in his Grand Victory over HRC, conservatives will take anything from Trump.

The Sicilian Woman , September 17, 2017 at 11:16 pm
Just hold the line on social issues, and we're good.

Such was/is the hope of social conservatives with whom I share the same values but who voted for Trump and whom I suspect will be badly betrayed.

Purple Tortoise , September 17, 2017 at 11:16 pm
I didn't vote for or against Trump ! the election winner was foreordained in my state ! but I am surprised to hear these "I told you sos". Despite Trump's betrayals, I am not at all convinced that the situation would be any better now had Hillary Clinton or an establishment Republican been elected. In fact, being cozy with Wall Street and immigration amnesty is exactly what Hillary Clinton or an establishment Republican would have done. So I can see how Trump is now and always has been a worse alternative from the viewpoint of the Republican establishment, but I can't see how Trump even now is a worse alternative than the Republican establishment or Hillary Clinton from the viewpoint of the typical Trump voter.

[NFR: But that's not really the point. The point is that Trump *specifically* ran against Goldman Sachs and what it represents. And now look. It simply won't do to say, "But Hillary would have been worse." Maybe so, but at this point, that strikes me as a way of rationalizing Trump's failure to keep his promises. ! RD]

The Owners , says: September 17, 2017 at 11:19 pm
@Planet Albany – "Since I voted for Trump [ ] Trump's willingness to make deals with Dems on DACA, taxes and infrastructure amounts to betrayal? Answer: It doesn't. It's what I want him to do. He campaigned on making deals, including with Russia, which I also want to see to keep the peace. Just hold the line on social issues, and we're good."

I voted for him too. Making deals witn Dems on DACA isn't "holding the line on social issues", obviously.

Trump's a total prisoner of DC, Wall Street, and Silicon Valley now. We need a new president. Thanks for Neil Gorsuch, Donnie. 'Bye.

Kronsteen1963 , September 17, 2017 at 11:19 pm
So, who were the people of Youngstown supposed to support? Hillary Clinton and a Democratic party that is visciously hostile to their social values? Jeb Bush and a Republican Party that's indifferent to their plight, and considers them to be lazy losers? Both parties support immigration and trade policies that are killing these people because it benefits their corporate and Chamber of Commerce contributors. Only one guy spoke to their situation: Donald Trump.

I don't like Trump – never have. And I didn't vote for him. I lived in Maryland – Clinton was going to win that state easily. My vote didn't matter so I voted 3rd party as a protest vote. But, I understand why people voted for Trump. They were desperate and he was THE ONLY CANDIDATE in either party that talked to their struggles. This is not a failure of the voters. It's the criminally negligent failure of both political parties to address the problems facing ordinary America.

It's easy to criticize but a lot more difficult to say what they should have done. So tell me, who should they have supported? And don't say "Anybody but Trump" – that's not an answer.

Walter Sobchak , September 17, 2017 at 11:24 pm
Shapiro is right. Planet Albany is one of the Trumpeters who love the personality, and who would not care if Trump shot somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue. Their problem is that Trump can flip the Bird at the Media and the Cultural elite all he wants, but he will not affect system in the slightest, because he has no understanding of its structure and no plane to affect it in any way.
Glaivester , says: September 17, 2017 at 11:32 pm
Since I voted for Trump and you did not, doesn't that put me in a better position to judge whether Trump's willingness to make deals with Dems on DACA, taxes and infrastructure amounts to betrayal? Answer: It doesn't. It's what I want him to do.

It's not whether he makes deals. It's on whether they are good deals. The DACA deal would not be a good one if it follows what has been outlined.

John_M , says: September 17, 2017 at 11:47 pm
Trump is taking his supporters for a ride.

When I got out of graduate school I was offered a job by a steel company research lab – so yes, I was somewhat of a steel metallurgist. I went into micro-electronics instead. When I turned down their job offer, I told them that they would survive the Japanese competition, but that I thought that the mini-mills would decimate them.

The research lab closed down 3 years later as the steel company restructured.

Even without import competition, the steel industry we knew in the 1970's was doomed. The facilities were antique and the development of the basic oxygen furnace and the sophisticated electric arc remelt furnaces obsoleted much of the existing infrastructure. If you look at a Nucor mill now, you won't see many employees.

Even without any import issues, there would not have been many employees left.

Imports were – and are – a problem. But the carnage was done by technology and automation. The politicians do not seem to be very willing to discuss this – automation doesn't give the simple villain of the Chinese, Indians, Ukrainians, .

Philly guy , says: September 17, 2017 at 11:53 pm
If you look at the present day, we are still fighting over theVietnam war, as the pro and con sides are roughly the same as 40 years ago, middle class hippies vs "working class whites".
ANDREW ALLADIN , September 17, 2017 at 11:53 pm
Hillary Clinton would have easily defeated Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, or Jeb Bush. Cruz is still stuck in his Reagan impersonation; Rubio wants to go to war with Russia over Ukraine, Crimea, Georgia, Syria, etc; and Jeb couldn't even bring himself to criticize the war in Iraq because of family loyalty.

Ben Shapiro charges $10,000 to give the same speech over and over again to college students. It's always the same: SJWs are whiny children, Millennials need to grow up, socialism sucks, the Alt-Right are losers, blah! blah! blah! A nice living if you can get it and he's got it.

Trump was and is still the lesser of two evils. I think of Trump the same way Christians in Syria think of Assad. Or Christians in Iraq thought about Saddam Hussein. There's always someone worse waiting to take over.

Some fellow Christians are facing bankruptcy because they refuse to provide services for a gay wedding. This isn't some whiny college campus SJW showdown. That's where my concern is. I really couldn't care less about Goldman Sachs. I don't earn enough to care. Don't care about DACA or The Wall either. Sorry.

Christian liberty is the only issue I'm voting on. And Trump will always be the lesser of two evils. Always. Always. Always.

Alex Brown , says: September 17, 2017 at 11:54 pm
So Trump is a crook, and Hillary too. I suspect much of 'Youngstown' knew that. When other choice did the system offered, from 150 millions eligible potential candidates?

Yes, things may get even more interesting. Haven't tried Sanderistas yet, have we?

ADC Wonk , says: September 18, 2017 at 12:44 am
Just hold the line on social issues, and we're good.

@Planet Albany ! how do you feel about tax "reform" that blows the budget even more, and gives the bulk of the benefit to the top 1%-ers? Or cancelling Obama regulations such as the one that required any buildings re-built with federal money needs to take rising sea levels into account? Or p!ssing off Mexico so much that that they are turning to Argentina and Brazal to purchase their wheat and corn (NAFTA uncertainties).

cecelia , says: September 18, 2017 at 2:10 am
good Rod get angry see what is happening maybe when people see how they have been betrayed then maybe they will be open to something honest
KS , says: September 18, 2017 at 2:13 am
@planet Albany,

What would Trump have to do that would make you feel he has betrayed you? Don't worry he will do it, but somehow I suspect you and the rest of the Trump faithful will stick by him anyway. This is a cult, not a political following. He is one of 'you' and so anything he does is ok.

Dux Bellorum, Austinopole , says: September 18, 2017 at 3:09 am
Those people who are dying in Youngstown because of a government working in cooperation with corporate interests to enrich shareholders no matter the cost of American lives may take great solace in the knowledge that the people making those decisions and benefitting from them said some words sometimes about how gay relationships are objectively disordered, and those outside of the zones of suffering may feel sad for those deaths, but must understand that they are martyrs who gave their lives in the war to prevent gay people from getting health insurance for their families.

$0.02,

DBA

[NFR: This is simplistic trolling and you know it. It is also the case that Hillary Clinton was in bed with Goldman. Remember the private Wall Street speech she gave , released by Wikileaks, in which she talked about how one needed to have "a public and a private position"? We would have been equally screwed by a Clinton.2 presidency, and a conventional Republican one. My anger at Trump over this is that he promised to be something different ! and, being fabulously wealthy, he didn't depend on the largesse of financial titans to make his living. He was in a position to change things ! yet on economic issues, he's turned out to be as bad or worse than those he ran against in both parties. ! RD]

Deplorable MD , September 18, 2017 at 6:51 am
Con? We are always being conned by politicians. There is a subset of voters who look upon their politician in an unhealthy God-like/3rd world fashion; much more tangible on the Left, but there on the Right as well.

I voted Trump fully expecting to be conned, hopeful that one or two promises would become reality. So far I am pleased with the level of duplicity.

Ping Lin , says: September 18, 2017 at 6:55 am

Twenty, thirty years from now, don't be surprised if some American president proposes a "this time, it's different" invasion of another foreign country. And don't be surprised if we the people cheer for him.

20 or 30 years?? Try three. We're barreling towards war with North Korea and half the country will be cheering the President (whoever it is) on.

Sam (A Different One) , says: September 18, 2017 at 6:59 am
So because Trump has failed to deliver on promises to the working class, said working class should abandon Trump for whom? The Liberals, who hate them? The GOP types, like Williamson, who also hate them?
Rob G , says: September 18, 2017 at 7:08 am
re: Youngstown, etc., The New Minority by Justin Gest is worth a read. It's a sociological study of the white working class in two comparable areas, Youngstown and East London, and what happened when industry failed. The book was written before DT won the GOP nomination, but it does take Trump's primary run into consideration. The work that Gest did is based on survey results and interviews he conducted with residents during time spent as an "embedded" researcher.
Liam , says: September 18, 2017 at 7:18 am
None of which should be a surprise to anyone who paid even a modicum of critical attention.
markw , says: September 18, 2017 at 7:33 am
For many years we have heard U.S. politicians sanctimoniously intoning that Chinese politicians legitimacy depended on their creating jobs. This last election Jeb Bush and others found out this applies to them also, to their astonishment. Trump has the wind at his back on this front with the economy going forward, but can't count on this continuing thru the next election.
Michelle , says: September 18, 2017 at 7:34 am
For those of us who always thought Trump was a huckster with no principles other than self-aggrandizement, his behavior as president comes as no surprise. He's never made a promise he couldn't break. But, like all successful hucksters, he knows his mark and knows, on an instinctive level, how to appeal to their hopes and fears to close the sale. I'm not sure what it would take to break through the rationalizations of his base, but it would have to be something pretty spectacular.
markw , says: September 18, 2017 at 7:35 am
The comment that stuck with me in the first PBS segment was that Diem owned us. This seems to apply today to Israel, probably Saudi, and who else?
Matt W , says: September 18, 2017 at 7:38 am
Be charitable. It's VERY hard for someone to admit that they were fooled.

It will be interesting to see all the mechanisms of denial. I suspect that the reality of Trump will be dismissed in the same way as the reality of Climate Change.

1. God would never allow such a terrible event to happen to His beloved USA
2. It's all the fault of (NON-WHITE) foreigners
3. FAKE NEWS!
4. It's actually a good thing

Philly guy , says: September 18, 2017 at 7:40 am
As during the Vietnam war, the real battle continues, middle class hippies vs white working class.
Jack B. Nimble , September 18, 2017 at 7:42 am
' When Youngstown (so to speak) figures out what's been done to it, politics in this country is going to get very, very interesting .'

Republicans know what they are doing, and as long as there are more scapegoats available and more vote suppression techniques to be tried, they aren't worried about losing elections. Consider this example:

Mr. Dreher's own senior US senator is pushing a last-ditch ACA repeal and replace bill, called GCHJ, that would strip federal $$ from states like Louisiana that expanded Medicaid on the federal dime. How much money is involved?

In 2026 alone, La. would lose $3.2 billion while Texas, Mississippi and Alabama would collectively gain 11.3 billion in new federal $$. Put another way, La. with its 1.4% of the US population would shoulder 4% of the total cuts mandated by GCHJ in 2026. Then a tidal wave of more federal cuts arrives in 2027.

Why would Dr. Bill Cassidy, who formerly worked in Louisiana's notorious charity hospital system before entering politics and reaching the US Senate, seek to hurt his own constituents this way? In brief, many in Louisiana oppose Medicaid and food stamps because they see the federal benefits going mostly to 'those people.' If voters in La. are conned, it is because they have conned themselves.

Source: https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/like-other-aca-repeal-bills-cassidy-graham-plan-would-add-millions-to-uninsured

MH - Secular Misanthropist , says: September 18, 2017 at 7:54 am

When Youngstown (so to speak) figures out what's been done to it, politics in this country is going to get very, very interesting.

It will be Snowball's fault!

[NFR: Perfect! ! RD]

Prof. Woland , says: September 18, 2017 at 8:31 am
If any of this is surprising to people on the right, it's because of willful denial during the campaign.

All of this info was there–and being spouted loudly by the left–during the campaign.

This is the deal you (not you, Rod, since you didn't vote for him..) made for Gorsuch. We'll all get to see how bad a deal it was in the next years.

PS–Trump's base will never leave him. If he were to eat a live baby on TV, they'd find a way to justify it.

connecticut farmer , September 18, 2017 at 8:40 am
" how little we Americans learned from the Vietnam experience when it came time to invade Iraq."

Amen! As in the lyrics of that Pete Seeger song "Where Have All The Flowers Gone"?":

"When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?"

Polichinello , says: September 18, 2017 at 9:06 am
He didn't get rolled by Pelosi and Schumer: His voters got rolled by him. That's the real deal.

This is the part where the Never-Trumpers are overplaying their hand. They act as if they were offering a better alternative. They were not. On trade, immigration and foreign policy, all other 16 candidates were worse–significantly worse. Each promised to re-run the Bush Administration, except they'd make Putin the new Saddam Hussein.

It's as if they were the team that lost conference championship, and then gloated when the the team that won it went on to lose the Super Bowl. How about they spend a little more time looking at their own positions and trying to figure out why a significant plurality (often a large majority in a number of states) outright rejected them?

None of them have done this. They dare not anger their Boomer donors, I guess. Got to keep those cruises going!

Again, even if everything they say about Trump is true, he is still better than them.

Philip Martin , September 18, 2017 at 9:12 am
The money power of Wall Street infiltrated and changed the Democratic Party sometime after the LBJ years. As a result, we have a one-party-system with a lib and a con wing. The wings differ on social issues, and they sweep the crumbs off the table to different constituencies.

However, after 40 years of this BS, can we really expect the children and grandchildren of displaced steelworkers (who symbolize all the outsourced, discarded workers in the U.S.) to rise in anger with torches and pitchforks? Sad to say, but the victims of this betrayal so far are passively standing by. I am not calling for violent revolution, but instead for a party that puts the needs and aspirations of the average person at the head of the table. If the Democratic Party won't do it, and yet won't go away, then a serious effort needs to made to foster a new party.

Polichinello , says: September 18, 2017 at 9:13 am
It's worth noting, too, that the Trump base has been melting down phone lines in Washington protesting Amnesty.

Obviously, it's your blog, Rod, so you can do what you like with it, but why not take a look at this issue itself instead of post after post taking victory laps about that Horrible Mr. Trump? What do you think would be a good deal? Should there be some limited amnesty (which I favor)?

Uncle Billy , says: September 18, 2017 at 9:19 am
Goldman Sachs is the fourth branch of government. They are indeed "too big to fail." Perhaps we should stop fighting them and try to somehow get them working for the common good. I don't know how this could be done, but it is worth a try.
Wes , says: September 18, 2017 at 9:20 am
[NFR: But that's not really the point. The point is that Trump *specifically* ran against Goldman Sachs and what it represents. And now look. It simply won't do to say, "But Hillary would have been worse." Maybe so, but at this point, that strikes me as a way of rationalizing Trump's failure to keep his promises. ! RD]

Putting things into context is precisely the point.

ROB , says: September 18, 2017 at 9:23 am
Just shocking that a politician went back on a campaign promise. Throw the bum out. Shocking.
KD , says: September 18, 2017 at 9:33 am
No Quarter, Rod!
Sheldon , says: September 18, 2017 at 9:36 am
I'm not remotely surprised to read in these precincts that the Democrats, particularly Clinton, are just as much in the bag for Wall Street as Trump and the Republicans. Too bad it's completely untrue. Even if Clinton were so inclined, which she certainly wouldn't be to nearly the same extent, major elements in the Democratic party and Congress would be pushing for policies far removed from the plutocratic – as they have for years, for increased financial and antitrust regulation, higher taxes on the 1%, limits on CEO pay, environmental controls, minimum wage, and on and on and on. There is no such significant political element among Republican officeholders, either at the state or federal level. The argument that "Democrats (especially evil Hillary) are just as bad" – all evidence to the contrary – is really just an after-the-fact rationalization to justify one's prior support for what is clearly one of the most financially and morally corrupt administrations in our history.
KingP , says: September 18, 2017 at 9:44 am
It is amazing how much research and
socio-political commentary is necessary in order to prove that an amoral, egomaniac MTV-era pseudo-celebrity apparently intends to govern the country like an amoral, egomaniac MTV-era pseudo-celebrity. In other words, he is a narcissistic goofball who will tell anyone anything in order to get press or money.

Who knew? Apparently not enough of us to prevent the cartoon presidency.

Daniel R. Baker , September 18, 2017 at 9:56 am
And when the people of Youngstown realize Trump has betrayed them, they will turn left, and turn hard. The next Bernie Sanders cannot be stopped, for the same reason Trump couldn't be stopped: because he will simply take the party away from the establishment. As I said last year, when you elect Marius, Sulla follows.

I'm not surprised that Trump can't see this coming. I am a bit surprised that Goldman Sachs apparently doesn't either.

KD , says: September 18, 2017 at 9:58 am
The politics of immigration restriction is interesting. The restrictionists have clear and strong preferences.

"Popular opinion" may be against restrictionism (or not given the media lens), but at the end of the day, most of public against restrictionism has a soft level of support mostly for virtue signalling purposes. They don't actually care.

The business lobby cares a lot, and the ethnonationalist/racialist wing of the Democrats, and that is about all.

Playing games with DACA is going to open the GOP to nasty primary battles, which judging from 2016, the Establishment candidates will be vulnerable. Also, supporting these schlock sentimental policies aren't going to win them any votes, anymore than giving money to refugee assistance or homeless shelters.

I don't think the Establishment has any idea of the level of dissatisfaction and discontent there is in the electorate, as their plan is short to mid-term doom. (Polling has 9% of Americans identifying as "Alt-Right" post-Charlottesville, and about another 30% you can describe as "Alt-Lite". These are mostly the people who will vote in GOP Primaries in 2018.)

[Sep 19, 2017] Time for a Conservative Anti-Monopoly Movement by Daniel Kishi

Sep 19, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Amazon, Facebook and Google: The new robber barons?

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos in 2010. Credit: /CreativeCommons/SteveJurvetson Earlier this month Amazon, announced its plans to establish a second headquarters in North America. Rather than simply reveal which city would become its second home, the Seattle-based tech company opted instead to open a bidding war. In an eight page document published on its website, Amazon outlined the criteria for prospective suitors, and invited economic developers to submit proposals advocating for why their city or region should be the host of the new location.

Its potential arrival comes with the claim that the company will invest more than $5 billion in construction and generate up to 50,000 "high paying jobs." Mayors and governors, hard at work crafting their bids, are no doubt salivating at the mere thought of such economic activity. Journalists and editorial teams in eligible metropolises are also playing their parts, as newspapers have published a series of articles and editorials making the case for why their city should be declared the winner.

Last Tuesday Bloomberg reported that Boston was the early frontrunner, sending a wave of panic across the continent. Much to the relief of the other contenders, Amazon quickly discredited the report as misinformation, announcing in a series of tweets on Wednesday that it is "energized by the response from cities across [North America]" and that, contrary to the rumors, there are currently no front-runners on their "equal playing field."

That Amazon is "energized" should come as no surprise. Most companies would also be energized by the taxpayer-funded windfall that is likely coming its way. Reporters speculate that the winner of the sweepstakes!in no small part to the bidding war format!could be forced to cough up hundreds of millions of dollars in state and local subsidies for the privilege of hosting Amazon's expansion.

Amazon has long been the beneficiary of such subsidies, emerging in recent years as a formidable opponent to Walmart as the top recipient of corporate welfare. According to Good Jobs First, a Washington, D.C. organization dedicated to corporate and government accountability, Amazon has received more than $1 billion in local and state subsidies since 2000. With a business plan dedicated to amassing long-term market share in lieu of short-term profits, Amazon, under the leadership of its founder and chief executive, Jeff Bezos, operates on razor-thin profit margins in most industries, while actually operating at a loss in others. As such, these state and local subsidies have played an instrumental role in Amazon's growth

Advocates of free market enterprise should be irate over the company's crony capitalist practices and the cities and states that enable it. But more so than simply ruffling the feathers of the libertarian-minded, Amazon's shameless solicitation for subsidies capped off a series of summer skirmishes in the Democratic left's emerging war against monopolies.

Earlier this summer when Amazon announced its $13.7 billion purchase of Whole Foods, antitrust advocates called upon the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission's Antitrust Division to block the sale and update the United States government's legal definition of monopoly. Although the acquisition!which was approved in August!only gives Amazon a 1.5 percent market share in the grocery industry, it more importantly provides the tech giant with access to more than 450 brick-and-mortar Whole Foods locations. Critics say that these physical locations will prove invaluable to its long term plan of economic dominance, and that it is but the latest advance in the company's unprecedented control of the economy's underlying infrastructure.

Google also found itself in the crosshairs of the left's anti-monopoly faction when, in late June, the European Union imposed a $2.7 billion fine against the tech company for anti-competitive search engine manipulation in violation of its antitrust laws. The Open Markets Program of the New America Foundation subsequently published a press release applauding the EU's decision. Two months later, the Open Markets Program was axed . The former program director Barry Lynn claims that his employers caved to pressure from a corporation that has donated more than $21 million to the New America Foundation. The fallout emboldened journalists to share their experiences of being silenced by the tech giant, and underscores the influence Google exerts over think tanks and academics

Most recently, Facebook faced criticism after it was discovered that a Russian company with ties to the Kremlin purchased $100,000 in ads from the social media company in an effort to influence the 2016 presidential election. Facebook, as a result, has become the latest subject of interest in Robert Mueller's special investigation into Russian interference in last fall's election. But regardless of whether the ads influenced the outcome, the report elicited demands for transparency and oversight in a digital ad marketplace that Facebook, along with Google, dominates . By using highly sophisticated algorithms, Facebook and Google receive more than 60 percent of all digital ad revenue, threatening the financial solvency of publishers and creating a host of economic incentives that pollute editorial autonomy.

While the Democratic left!in an effort to rejuvenate its populist soul !has been at the front lines in the war against these modern-day robber barons, Stacy Mitchell, co-director of the Institute of Local Self-Reliance, suggests that opposition to corporate consolidation need not be a partisan issue. In a piece published in The Atlantic , Mitchell traces the bipartisan history of anti-monopoly sentiment in American politics. She writes :

If "monopoly" sounds like a word from another era, that's because, until recently, it was. Throughout the middle of the 20th century, the term was frequently used in newspaper headlines, campaign speeches, and State of the Union addresses delivered by Republican and Democratic presidents alike. Breaking up too-powerful companies was a bipartisan goal and on the minds of many voters. But, starting in the 1970s, the word retreated from the public consciousness. Not coincidentally, at the same time, the enforcement of anti-monopoly policy grew increasingly toothless.

Although the modern Republican Party stands accused of cozying up with corporate interests, the history of conservative thought has a rich intellectual tradition of being skeptical!if not hostile!towards economic consolidation. For conservatives and libertarians wedded to the tenets of free market orthodoxy!or for Democrats dependent on campaign contributions from a donor class of Silicon Valley tycoons!redefining the legal definition of monopoly and rekindling a bipartisan interest in antitrust enforcement are likely non-starters.

But for conservatives willing to break from the principles of free market fundamentalism, the papal encyclicals of the Roman Catholic Church, the distributist thought of Hilaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterton, the social criticism of Christopher Lasch, and the observations of agrarian essayist Wendell Berry provide an intellectual framework from which conservatives can critique and combat concentrated economic power. With a respect for robust and resilient localities and a keen understanding of the moral dangers posed by an economy perpetuated by consumerism and convenience, these writers appeal to the moral imaginations of the reader, issuing warnings about the detrimental effects that economic consolidation has on the person, the family, the community, and society at large.

The events of this summer underscore the immense political power wielded by our economy's corporate giants. To those who recognize the dangers posed by our age of consolidation, the skirmishes from this summer could serve as a rallying cry in a bipartisan war for independence from our corporate crown.

Daniel Kishi is an editorial assistant at The American Conservative . Follow him on Twitter at @DanielMKishi

[Sep 19, 2017] The Fateful Triangle Russia, Ukraine and the Jews - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... The USA would benefit tactically from drawing Ukraine into the EU orbit, as this would strengthen our hand; however, on a larger strategic scale it would further inflame Russia, a potentially dangerous thing. ..."
"... Shamir, regardless of the unflattering things he has to say about various groups of Jews, makes a few pretty specific and generally plausible, though not ironclad, arguments: ..."
"... Russia tried to pull Israel and American Jews to his side without success. ..."
"... Israel is neutral towards Putin's Russia. ..."
"... Ukrainian Jews are siding with the new pro-EU, anti-Russia government. ..."
"... Jews in the US and Europe are divided, but organized Jewry in these places is generally anti-Russia ..."
"... Ukrainian nationalism was encouraged in Austrian Galicia in the 19th century as a force vs. Russia and also against any rise in Polish nationalism. The Ukrainians were encouraged in their traditional hatred of Poles and in a rather new hatred of Russians. To this day the most nationalistic part of Ukraine is in the West, the former Polish territories once under Austrian rule. ..."
"... [In comments, capitalization represents "shouting" and commenters who shout too much may have their remarks trashed.] ..."
Sep 19, 2017 | www.unz.com

The erotic reliefs of Hindu temples with their gravity-defying and anatomy-challenging positions have found a new modern competitor in the Ukrainian crisis. Each party wants to get the Jews on their side, while claiming that the other side is anti-Jewish and a Jewish puppet at once. This impossible, Kama-Sutraesque position is the result of extremely confusing alliances: the Kiev regime lists devout Jews and fiery antisemites among its mainstays. The leading figures of the regime (including the president-elect) are of Jewish origin; strongman and chief financier Mr. Igor (Benya) Kolomoysky is a prominent Jewish public figure, the builder of many synagogues and a supporter of Israel. The most derring-do and pro-active force of the regime, the ultra-nationalists of the Svoboda party and the Right Sector, admire Hitler and his Ukrainian Quisling, Stepan Bandera, "liberators of Ukraine from the Judeo-Muscovite yoke". Jews are ambivalent, and the sides are ambivalent about them, and a most entertaining intrigue has been hatched.

The Russians tried to pull Israel and American Jews to their side, with little success. President Putin condemned the antisemitism of the Svoboda party; he mentioned the desecration of the Odessa Jewish cemetery in his important talk. The Russians re-vitalised the World War Two narrative, fully identifying the Kiev regime with the Bandera gangs and the Nazi enemy. Still, this rhetoric is not taken seriously by Jews who refuse to feel threatened by cuddly Kolomoysky. "These Nazis are not against Jews, they are against Russians, so it is not a Jewish problem", they say.

The Kiev regime mirrored the Russian attitude, if not Russia's tactics. Being rather short of facts to brandish, they faked a leaflet from Donetsk rebels to local Jews calling upon them to register and pay a special poll tax "for the Jews support the Kiev regime". This rude and improbable hoax was immediately and convincingly disproved, but not before it was used by, no less, Barak Obama and John Kerry. The American Jewish newspaper of record, The Forward , obfuscated the issue by saying that Russians and Ukrainians are antisemites by birth and their denials are to be taken with a grain of salt. This mud-slinging was effective – the hoax has made the front pages, while its debunking was published on the back pages.

The Russians had the facts on their side, and the West knew that: the US refused entry to Oleg Tyagnibok and other Svoboda leaders (now members of Kiev government) because of their antisemitism as recently as in 2013. But Russian appeals to Jewish and American sensitivities failed to make an impact. They know when to feign indignation and when to hush. Pro-Hitler commemorations are frequent in Estonia, Latvia, Croatia, and cause no lifting of a censorious brow, for these countries are solidly anti-Russian. In March of this year, the Obama administration's special envoy on anti-Semitism, Ira Forman, flatly denied everything and said to the Forward that Putin's assertions of Svoboda's antisemitism "were not credible". The US wants to decide who is an antisemite and who is not; like Hermann Goering wanted to decide who is a Jew and who is not in the Luftwaffe. In the Ukrainian crisis, the Jews remain divided, and follow their countries' preferences.

Israel is neutral

Recently Prime Minister Netanyahu called President Putin. Putin is always available for and always courteous to Netanyahu, as opposed to President Obama, who shows signs of irritation. (Admittedly Obama has to listen to Netanyahu much more often and for hours.) Netanyahu apologised that he wouldn't be able to come to St Petersburg for Israeli Culture Week; instead, old reliable Shimon Peres, Israel's President, will make the trip. He apologised for leaking the news of this visit cancellation to the media, as well.

This is quite typical for the Israeli PM: at first, he asks for an invitation, Russia extends it, then he cancels his visit and leaks it to the press, thus earning brownie points with the Americans. He did it at the Sochi Olympic games, and now again, in St Petersburg. This is his way of expressing Israeli neutrality.

Israel is explicitly neutral in the Ukrainian crisis. Israelis walked out and did not vote on the UN GA Crimea resolution at all, annoying its American sponsors. The Israelis had a flimsy excuse: their Foreign Office was on strike. The Americans weren't satisfied with this explanation. Strike or not, vote you must!

We learned from our Israeli colleagues the details of the Putin-Netanyahu phone conversation, which elaborated the reasons for Israeli neutrality. Israel is worried that as an asymmetric response to the US sanctions, Russia would deliver its potent air defence systems to Iran and Syria. Iran and Russia had signed a weapons supply contract a few years ago, Iran duly paid; then the shipment was suspended. Iran went to court demanding a massive compensation for the breach of contract. Likewise, the Syrians were supposed to get the S-300 surface-to-air missile system, able to protect its skies from Israeli raids. The deliveries commenced; PM Netanyahu beseeched Putin to put it on hold. Initially Putin objected, stressing the defensive nature of the system. Netanyahu told the Russian president that the S-300 would allow the Syrians to cover the whole North of Israel, at least all the way to Haifa, rendering important airfields unusable and endangering civil aviation as well. Putin agreed to stop the deliveries.

Vladimir Putin is friendly to Israel. He promised he would not allow the destruction of Israel; he promised to save its population if the situation should become truly dangerous. During the recent visit of PM Netanyahu to Moscow, Putin was not carried away by Netanyahu and Liberman's hints of possible Israeli re-alliance with Moscow instead of Washington. He told the Israelis that their ties with the US are too strong for such a re-alliance being conceivable. Putin said that Russia is satisfied with the present level of friendship and does not demand that Tel Aviv weaken its ties with Washington. Putin visited Israel a few times, he received the Israeli PM in Kremlin. The Israeli ambassador Mme Golender sees Putin more often than do her American or French counterparts.

This friendly attitude has a down-to-earth reason: Putin is not fluent in English or French, while Mme Ambassador speaks Russian to him, eliminating the bothersome need of an interpreter. A deeper reason is Putin's background: a scion of liberal elites, brought up in St Petersburg, schooled by ultra-liberal Mayor Sobchack, anointed by Boris Yeltsin, Putin is naturally friendly to Jews and to Israel. This friendly attitude annoyed some Russian ultra-patriots, who excitedly circulated his photo taken in the obligatory kippah near the Wailing Wall. They also counted and recounted the names of Jewish oligarchs in Moscow.

True, some of them – Berezovsky, Gusinsky, Hodorkovsky – had to flee their Russian homeland, but the Russian president is surely not the Jewish-tycoons-Nemesis and the-new-Hitler he is sometimes made out to be. Abramovich and Friedman, to name just two, retain his trust and access. Putin does not mind any oligarch (Jewish or Gentile) – as long as he stays out of politics.

Putin is also friendly with Jewish intellectuals and gentlemen-of-the-media, even if they are outright hostile to him. Masha Gessen, Jewish Lesbian Putin-hater and magazine editor; Alexey Venediktov, Jewish chief editor of Echo Moskvy , a popular liberal medium that attacks Putin every day; many others enjoy access to Putin, – while no Russian nationalist including Dr Alexander Dugin can boast of having met with the president privately.

Putin's affability does not turn him into a bountiful source for every Jewish initiative. He stopped S-300 deliveries to Iran, but rejected all Israeli overtures asking him to ditch Iran, or Syria, or Hamas. In the course of their last phone conversation, Netanyahu claimed the Israelis discovered proofs of Iranian nukes. Putin politely expressed his doubts and re-addressed him to IAEA. He agreed to receive the Israeli "experts" with their proofs in Moscow, but nothing came of it. Russia's support for Palestine is unwavering, – there is a Palestinian embassy in Moscow, too.

Putin supported building of a spacious Jewish museum in Moscow and personally contributed to its budget – but Russian street advertising proclaims the Resurrection of Christ, Eastertide, and His Nativity at Christmas. No "season's greetings", but open affirmation of Christianity. Russia is not like the US or EU, where external signs of Christian faith are forbidden, Easter and Christmas can't be mentioned and whatever Jews request must be done immediately. Western Jews are annoyed (so their organisations claim) by public displays of Christian faith, but Russian Jews do not mind; moreover, they intermarry, convert and enter the Church in previously unheard of numbers. They are not strongly pro-Israeli, those that were already left for Israel.

So the Jews of Russia are not an influential factor to the Russian President. Putin will do what is right according to the Christian faith, and what is good for Russia, as he understands it ! and he can't be convinced to give up really important points. Other considerations – such as friendship with Israel – would normally take a much lower place in his priorities. However, in the midst of the Ukrainian crisis, as the Russians are worried by sanctions and by threats of isolation, they try to pull Jews to their side. This makes them increasingly susceptible to Israeli manipulation, whether state-authorised or a private venture.

Last week, Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld visited Moscow. In 2003, he famously threatened Europe with nuclear destruction (the "Samson Option"), saying "Israel has the capability to take the world down with us, and that will happen before Israel goes under". Now he has explained to Russians Israel's new policy: While the US enters the period of its decline, Israel must diversify and hedge its bets by drawing close to Moscow, Beijing and Delhi, he wrote in Izvestia daily. Perhaps, but without going too far. A flirt – yes, switching sides – not yet.

Israel prefers to stick to its neutrality. This is easy, as the Israeli populace (excepting its Russians) is not interested in Russian/Ukrainian affairs, does not know the difference between Russia and the Ukraine and is rather unfriendly to Russians/Ukrainians. This goes for both the Left and Right; the Israeli Left is even more pro-American than the Israeli Right. As for Russian Israelis, they are equally divided between supporters of Russia and supporters of Kiev regime. While observing niceties towards Russia, Israel does not intend to side with Moscow. The Jewish oligarchs of Ukraine – Kolomoysky, Pinchuk, Rabinovich – are integrated within the Kiev regime, and they support Israeli right-wing on a large scale. Israeli businessmen are invested in the Ukraine, and the oligarchs are invested in Israel. Kolomoysky controls YuzhMash, the famed missile construction complex in Dnepropetrovsk, and holds the secrets of the Satan ballistic missile, the most powerful Russian strategic weapon. He allegedly intends to share these secrets with the Israelis. If Israel were to side with Moscow regarding Ukraine, the breach with Washington would be unavoidable, and Israel does not intend to provoke it.

Some marginal Israeli right-wingers support Russia; they claim that they represent Israeli public opinion and government. They try to collect on their promises before they deliver. However, this is not an ordinary scam: they are trying to turn Russia into a supporter of right-wing Zionism.

Consider Russian-Israeli far right activist Avigdor Eskin. He impossibly claims that the Israeli government has already decided to jump from the US train to join the Russian one, that Israeli commandos are on their way to fight for the Russians in Donetsk, that Israeli authorities intend to strip Mr Kolomoysky of his Israeli citizenship. Naturally, all that is a load of bunkum, but Russians swallow it hook, line and sinker.

Avigdor Eskin is a colourful personality: a convert to Jewish faith (his mother is not Jewish), an observant Jew, an ex-Kahanist who was arrested in Israel for an alleged attempt to desecrate Al Aqsa mosque and a Muslim cemetery, and who served two or three years in Israeli jail; he styles himself a "Rabbi" and wears a full beard. After serving his time in jail, he moved to Russia and built a network of Israel supporters among the Russian far right. His message is "Israel is a true friend of Russia, while Muslims are Russia's enemies". He also adds that Israeli settlers are anti-American and pro-Russian. (If you believe that, the tooth fairy is the next step.)

Recently he claimed that the Aliya Battalion of "experienced Israeli commandos and sharpshooters" came to warring Donbass to fight on the Russian side against the Kiev regime troops. The Aliya Battalion is a battalion in the sense Salvation Army is an army. This is an Israeli NGO, established by Russian Israelis of far-right Zionist persuasion and of some Russian military background. It is not a part of Israeli Army. For a short while, the NGO provided guards for Jewish settlements in Gaza and the West Bank, but the settlements stopped using them as they were extremely unreliable. They boasted of murdering Palestinian civilians, of torturing and killing children, but this was just a sick sadist and racist fantasy, people say. Afterwards, the Battalion leaders turned its name into a profitable scam, roaming American Jewish communities and collecting donations for their supposedly secret activities. As this scam was exposed by Israeli TV (RTVI network; it is available on the YouTube ), they had disappeared from the public eye. Now Avigdor Eskin resurrected the old scam, and made a lot of headlines in the Russian media.

Eskin found a soulmate in prominent Russian media man Vladimir Solovyev. The Solovyev is of partly Jewish origin, lived abroad, then returned to Russia; he runs an important political show Sunday Evening on Russian TV. The Saker (a well-known blogger) described him as follows: "This show is hosted by a famous personality, Vladimir Solovyev, who is a very interesting guy. Solovyev is a Jew, and he is not shy about reminding his audience about it, who was even elected as a member of the Russian Jewish Congress. He is also a Russian patriot, and he is an outspoken supporter of Putin and his policies. His position on the Ukraine is simple: he as a Jew and as a Russian has zero tolerance for Ukrainian nationalism, neo-Nazism or Banderism. He is a determined and total enemy of the new Kiev regime."

It is possible Solovyev is going through some personal identity crisis: from celebrating his Russian roots, he moved to proclaiming his Jewish origin. Alternatively, it is possible (and more likely) that the Russian decision-makers want to pull Jews on their side, and Solovyev is acting with US Jews in mind. Stalin did it, so Putin could repeat the trick. In 1942, as Nazi onslaught threatened Russia, Stalin had sent some Russian Jews to the US, to speak Yiddish to Jewish communities and lobby for the USSR. The American Jewish community surely carries some clout Now Solovyev and others are trying to influence Jews abroad; or at least to show to their superiors they are trying.

The price Eskin extracts for his fantasy stories is high. In Solovyev's prime time programme, he called for the destruction of al Aqsa mosque and for the building of the Jewish temple on its place. He called Palestinians "the people of Antichrist". Even in Israel such statements can't be voiced on public TV. In confused Moscow, Eskin was feted and given a place in another important political programme, that of Arcady Mamontov. Who is conning whom: is Eskin conning his Russian hosts, or are his media hosts using him to con their superiors, or are their superiors trying to con the Russian people? Or is Israel hedging its bets? Who knows?

Ukrainian Jews beg to differ

Jews came to the Ukraine a thousand years ago, perhaps from Khazaria. This is not a homogeneous community; rather, they represent several communities. A lot of them emigrated to Israel; even more moved to Russia. They speak Russian and usually do not speak Ukrainian, though they picked up the vernacular over last twenty years. Normally, they wouldn't care about Ukraine's independence, as Jews traditionally side with the strong, be it Poles under Polish rule, with Russians under Moscow rule, or with Germans under Vienna or Berlin. Now many of them have decided to side with the US or EU. One of the reasons why so many people of Jewish origin do well is that the ruling ethnic groups trust the Jews and rely upon their loyalty to the powerful and lack of compassion for their Gentile neighbours.

Another reason is the vague definitions. For last three or four generations, Jews have intermarried freely; children of these mixed marriages are often considered 'Jews'. These are the 'Jews' to the present regime; often they have only one Jewish grandparent.

Ukraine, following its independence in 1991, moved into the Western sphere of influence, but Eastern Ukraine (Novorossia) retained its Russian character and links. Jews did well in both parts. Mr Kolomoysky is a prominent member of the Jewish community, and a mainstay of the Kiev regime. He is a ruthless businessman, famous for his raiding of others'properties and for his Mafia connections. Rumours connect him with many killings of business adversaries.

On the other side, in Kharkov, the Mayor and the district Governor (nicknamed Dopah and Gepah) are Jewish, and they can be considered pro-Russian. It was thought that Kharkov would become the centre of rising Novorossia; president Yanukovich fled to Kharkov hoping to find allies and supporters. But Dopa and Gepa disabused him, so he continued his flight all the way to the Russian city of Rostov. Their decision to remain loyal to Kiev did not work well for them: one was shot, and the second one has been imprisoned and his attempt to run for president thwarted.

Kharkov is also home to Mr. Hodos, a wealthy and prominent Jew who fought most valiantly against Habad, the Jewish spiritual movement of which Mr Kolomoysky is a prominent member. The Jews of Novorossia apparently support the general pro-Russian trend, though there are exceptions. Practically all Ukrainian Jews have relatives in Russia, and had Russian education.

Israel has a strong network of agents in the Ukraine. They snatched a Palestinian engineer and flew him to an Israeli dungeon, and that could not be done without support of Ukrainian security services. However, the stories of Israeli soldiers fighting in Ukraine are somewhat exaggerated: these are individuals of dual citizenship who act at their own will, not a state representatives.

US Jews are divided

US Jews are divided on the Ukraine, as they were divided on Palestine. Friends of Palestine, people with a strong anti-imperialist record and sound knowledge of East European history – Noam Chomsky and Stephen F. Cohen ! recognised and renounced the US attempt to sustain their hegemony by keeping brazen Russia down. A subset of people, Gilad Atzmon aptly called AZZ (anti-zionist zionists), Trots and other faux-Leftist shills for NATO like Louis Proyect – called for American intervention and brayed for Russian blood.

The notorious Israel Lobby is strictly anti-Russian. The State Dept. official Victoria ("Fuck EU") Nuland personally directed the Kiev coup; she handpicked the government and the president of the new American colony on the Dnieper River. Her husband, Robert Kagan, is a founder of FPI, the successor of infamous PNAC, the extremist Zionist think tank which promoted wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and pushed for a war with Iran. Now they attack Russia, but they do not forget about their support for Israel.

Consider a young American gender activist and journalist, James Kirchick. He entered the Neocon network by shilling for the Lobby. He pink-washed Israel ("Israel as the best friend of gays on earth, while the Palestinians are homophobes who deserve to be bombed"). After doing the Israeli stint, he moved on to fighting Russia. He worked for the CIA-owned and US Congress-funded Radio Free Europe; stage-managed the sensational Liz Wahl's on-air resignation from the RT and protested alleged mistreatment of gays in Russia. His dirty tricks were revealed by Max Blumenthal , a Jewish American journalist, a known anti-Zionist (working together with a Palestinian Rania Khalek).

While Israel is neutral re Ukraine, Israeli friends in EU and US are hostile to Russia and supportive of American hegemony, while friends of Palestine stand for Russia's challenge to the Empire. The French Zionist media philosopher Bernard Henri Levy is an example of the former, while Michel Chossudovsky of Global Research is a representative of the latter. Leading critical ("anti-Zionist") websites Counterpunch, Antiwar, Global Research sympathise with Russia, while pro-Israeli sites are hostile to Russia.

Zionists are nasty and vicious enemies, but they make even worse friends. Edward N. Luttwak is friendly to Russia; he called upon the US to make up with Russia. Strategic union of Russia and America is necessary, he says. Who cares about Ukraine? And here is his pitch line: Russia should fight China for the US benefit. Another Zionist friend, Tony Blair, also calls for peace with Russia – so Russia can fight the Muslim world for Israel. Quite similar to Eskin who offers his pathetic support to Russia in order to neutralise her positive influence and defence of Palestine.

The bottom line: Israel remains neutral for its own reasons. While Jews as individuals differ on Ukraine, there is a correlation with their stand on Palestine and on Syria. Enemies of Putin in Russia, Ukraine, Europe and US do support Israel and are hostile to Palestine, to Syria of Bashar, to Venezuela of Chavez. And the most dangerous lot are those who support Israel and Russia, as they are surely plotting some mischief.

Language editing by Ken Freeland

Israel Shamir can be reached at adam@israelshamir.net

norman ravitch > , June 14, 2014 at 12:42 pm GMT

Who is this Shamir fellow? Can his views be trusted? I doubt it. He has his own axes to grind. Is he related to Itzhak Shamir, the former Israeli PM and terrorist?

We should judge the Ukrainian-Russian conflict like the Sunni-Shiite conflict. We have no dog in that fight.

SFG > , June 14, 2014 at 2:33 pm GMT

Shamir's a known anti-Zionist. (My opinion? I personally favor a two-state solution with a big wall down the middle. Everyone gets a country, and keep 'em apart.) The USA would benefit tactically from drawing Ukraine into the EU orbit, as this would strengthen our hand; however, on a larger strategic scale it would further inflame Russia, a potentially dangerous thing. What's probably best for America? Staying out.

norman ravitch > , June 14, 2014 at 3:09 pm GMT

Look Israel Shamir up in wikipedia. He appears to have obscured his real identity, his real name, his real positions. He is accused of anti-Zionism, which in my book is no crime. He is also accused of Holocaust denial, which would be serious if true. In any case, he seems a controversial character and not one to rely on for basic understanding of what is going on between Ukraine and Russia.

Cahokia > , June 14, 2014 at 4:14 pm GMT

None of that negates the content of this article.

This is one of the most informative assessments of the role of Israel in the Ukraine civil war and of the relationship between the Russian government and world Jewry.

The bottom line is that Israel is skilled at pitting "the nations" against each other to its advantage, including the U.S.

One interpretation of Jewish elite and neoconservative influence in America is that it has been devoted to ensuring that Washington face off against every and any foreign opponent in recent decades *except* China. Just when the Bush administration might have started to confront the PRC, 9/11 happened. Then with the war in Iraq over and Afghanistan winding down, the neocons start a war in Ukraine and initiate a Cold War with Russia.

My interpretation is that Israel knows that China will inevitably be a world superpower and intends to cultivate it, with an eye to making the People's Republic it's principal patron once it has leached America dry.

fnn > , June 14, 2014 at 4:14 pm GMT

Shamir also mocks the realities of the Holodomor and the Cambodian genocide. Maybe all the Communist Holocausts. On Cambodia:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/18/pol-pot-revisited/

Johnny F. Ive > , June 14, 2014 at 4:28 pm GMT

I've seen some of the stuff he said from other sources and he really nailed Proyect. It is obvious that Israel seeks a foreign policy based on what it thinks is its national interest. They have no reason to anger Russia and the US will not abandon one of its masters. Putin doesn't want to get on Israel's bad side, but I cannot imagine why he would want to have the kind of relationship Israel and the US has. I'm all for Israel switching sides, and letting the Russians deal with it. It would further endear Putin to the Chechens who threaten Russia. Russia is over there within striking distance of Salafi Jihadist. Russia was going to be the target for Mohammad Atta, but America's special relationship with Israel made it the target instead.

norman ravitch > , June 14, 2014 at 5:15 pm GMT

Shamir devious ways automatically make him suspect. Yes, he knows a lot. But it would be wiser to get information from elsewhere. As for Cahokia, beware of paranoia.

norman ravitch > , June 14, 2014 at 5:50 pm GMT

Shamir has become the target of many Jewish or Zionist writers. But don't assume from that that he is ok. You can be anti-Zionist and still be a jerk, a criminal, or a fraud. Anti-Israel Lobby people need to beware of their own possible paranoia.

Yes I know, paranoics can also have real enemies. But the Zionists thrive on their enemies going bonkers and discrediting themselves with conspiracy theories and other nonsense.

We need anti-Zionists who are intelligent, rational, mentally healthy, and sensible. Are there any?

matt > , June 14, 2014 at 6:02 pm GMT

norman ravitch,

Do you always feel like you have to determine whether someone is an "enemy" before you evaluate the truth or falsity of what they say?

norman ravitch > , June 14, 2014 at 7:45 pm GMT

Truth or falsity takes a lot of time and work and resources. In a pinch the stature and reputation of someone giving so-called facts and opinions is very important and provisionally the only thing you may have.

Much historical analysis which passes for objective cannot be and is not objective. People believe things and call them facts.

SFG > , June 14, 2014 at 8:25 pm GMT

"We need anti-Zionists who are intelligent, rational, mentally healthy, and sensible. Are there any?"

What's an anti-Zionist?

A Zionist is someone who believes Jews should have a state in the current land of Israel. They can be a one-stater, a two-stater, or any variety; they don't even actually have to support Israel's current foreign policy or demand it receive any aid, only its right to exist.

Therefore an anti-Zionist takes the opposite position, i.e. Israel has no right to exist. Not that many people actually want to take that position outside of the alt-right and far left. There are few anti-Zionists as you describe, and they tend to engage in ridiculous statements like claiming the Holocaust didn't happen.

Supporting Israel's foreign policy and covert operations is another story altogether. Israel and the USA are two nations with interests that are frequently at variance, despite the best efforts of AIPAC to obscure this. Israel's covert operations are devoted solely to the interests of the state of Israel, which is what you'd expect; the problem is the manipulation of the USA to keep its covert operations from behaving in the same fashion.

If you mean sane and intelligent *critics of Israeli foreign and domestic policy* Walt and Mearsheimer come to mind, and there are hundreds of others. Not so many on the mainstream right, which is part of the reason this site exists.

Full disclosure: I am half-Jewish, though my fellow-feeling for the tribe has weakened *considerably* after the Iraq war. I'm half considering converting just to give Dershowitz and the SPLC the finger.

norman ravitch > , June 14, 2014 at 8:51 pm GMT

What is anti-Zionism? What is Zionism? Israel is an integral nationalistic state; integral nationalism places the individual under the dominance of the ethnic or racial state. It grew up in Europe where the Jews picked it up as a means of self-defense.

Arabs practice integral nationalism with a Muslim fanatical bent when they deny Jews the right to live among them, even though Jews have lived in the Middle East before the Arabs came and before Islam.

An anti-Zionist opposes integral nationalism, which is the father of Fascism. Most European countries either have abandoned integral nationalism or are too ashamed to admit they still prctice it. Hungary is moving towards it. So might Rumania. Both are trying to eliminate their gypsy population and perhaps their Jewish populations as well. The very question in Ukraine is whether the Ukrainian nationalists are integral nationalists or not. In the past they have been, but they may now have changed. Who can tell?

SFG > , June 15, 2014 at 12:28 am GMT

Yeah, and how's abandoning integral nationalism working out for them? Thing is, even if you think you're post-ethnic, other ethnic groups are still ethnic, and will take the land away from you.

My opinion? Hungary for the Hungarians, Romania for the Romanians, Israel for the Jews, Palestine for the Palestinians. And yes, we have to split up the country to make that last pair work. The Holocaust wouldn't have happened if the Jews had had an Israel to go to.

Integral nationalism doesn't make sense in the USA, or many places in the New World. Agreed. We have our own path, and it involves heavy assimilation and patriotism to make the country work. But if you have one ethnic group, you can't have conflicts, and I think that's what the Old World with its blood-soaked history needs.

As for the Ukrainians? I think they want Putin out of their country, and I don't blame them. It's one thing to admire Tsar Vlad as a defender of Russian interests, but that doesn't bode well for Ukrainians. But I don't support the USA getting involved–it's not worth starting WW3 over.

Yakov > , June 15, 2014 at 2:58 am GMT

What's wrong with this site? Why it keeps publishing anti-Semitic propaganda?
'One of the reasons why so many people of Jewish origin do well is that the ruling ethnic groups trust the Jews and rely upon their loyalty to the powerful and lack of compassion for their Gentile neighbours.'

As a Russian Jew, I view Russians and Ukrainians as part of one nation. It's unfortunate that the coup in Kiev, was financed and organized by the US and EU has caused the government to lose its legitimacy and led to the rebellion in the eastern regions. It's also unfortunate that the Ukrainian government chose to suppress Russian language in the Russian speaking provinces. It so easy to be fluent in both languages and if you know one of them. US and EU supported policies that they had opposed in places like Sri Lanka in their efforts to weaken Russia or out of pure stupidity. At this point, I think the eastern provinces will end up joining Russia, unless Kiev immediately grants them the federal autonomy that they are seeking.

norman ravitch > , June 15, 2014 at 12:46 pm GMT

The reason this site has so much anti-semitic propaganda is that frustrated people ! those who blog here ! are always looking for a simple explanation and for a long time finding it in the Jews has been common.

One can be against the excesses of Zionism without being anti-Jewish, but it is easier to damn all the Jews with the same brush. You cannot blame the negroes because no one would believe that stupid people is capable of anything but vice and crime. So blame the Jews.

Of course some Jews, like the Likud and its PM Netanyahu, do behave in an arrogant and outrageous way. Also Jews tend for good reason to be paranoid and self-promoting. Also offensive are the stupid evangelicals who find reasons in the irrational apocalyptic writing of the bible.

Avoiding anti-Jewish expression may be difficult for some but it is worth the effort.

SFG > , June 15, 2014 at 4:00 pm GMT

I'll disagree with Norman here, and address Yakov. I can only speak at length about the USA, which is the only nation I have lived in.

Assume for the moment Jews are better than average at climbing the socio-economico-political ladder, for a variety of reasons (high verbal IQ, neuroticism applied usefully, historical concentration in fields with strengths that overlap with those required to succeed in politics). There's quite a bit of evidence for this.

Furthermore, assume that Jews (this is the kicker) are *differentially represented across the political spectrum*. There are sensible historical reasons for this–the Right was frequently antisemitic, murderously so in Germany, almost as deeply so in Russia (Yakov may have heard stories of the Black Hundreds from his grandparents). In America, the Right is tied up with Christianity, and Jews are not Christians, almost by definition. (A converted Jew is technically still Jewish but no longer belongs to the Jewish community in any practical sense.)

Furtherfurthermore, even when on the Right, Jews tend to retain certain positions at variance with mainstream conservatism, such as embracing immigration. There may be historical reasons for this as well–this is not so clear to me. Still, it's not too hard to see why you could look at George Soros and Sheldon Adelson (who no doubt despise each other) and see a Jewish conspiracy to flood America with brown people.

Additionally, many of the leading lights of the left, particularly in the media (Walter Lippmann and Jon Stewart, from 2 different eras) are Jewish, and American Jewish culture was tied up with leftism for a long time. So it's not surprising that conservatives looking for a conspiracy can find one among the Jews.

*Is* there a conspiracy? I tend to think the historical and cultural aspects of American Judaism (as outlined above) tend to produce a flood of bright left-wingers which has the effects described above, that it is a matter of tendencies and people doing what comes naturally. However, while having some Jewish relatives and growing up between West End Avenue and Central Park West, I have never been behind the scenes in the media or government, so it is entirely possible that I cannot see the strings behind the puppets. We know companies pay millions of dollars to buy politicians through campaign contributions, so I am willing to believe other types of backroom deals occur as well.

As for Unz: well, most of the media's Jewish, so naturally people pissed at the media get pissed at the Jews too. I tend to think a lot of the problems with the media would occur with Christians in charge–they have to please the public, so they have to produce lots of crap people want to buy, and like everyone in history they have to avoid annoying the powerful–but who knows? Certainly Israel's probably gotten a better rap than it deserves (though being judged as a 'white' country, their sins tend to be magnified as well).

Jeff Albertson > , June 15, 2014 at 4:05 pm GMT

Norman goes, from his first comment, total ignorance of the author, to complete expert after two hours of googling, citing Wikipedia which is notoriously unreliable on these subjects. Is he familiar with the phrase "going off half-cocked"?

Oscar Peterson > , June 15, 2014 at 6:11 pm GMT

Norman Ravitch,

I don't understand your perspective, and I don't find your response to Matt (#9) quite adequate. You say that truth or falsity take time and resources to establish, so "in a pinch" reputation can stand in place of analysis of the particular argument that is being made. That is just dressing up ad hominem arguments in nice clothes. In any case, reputation is at least as time-intensive in assessing as a narrowly-focused substantive argument.

Shamir, regardless of the unflattering things he has to say about various groups of Jews, makes a few pretty specific and generally plausible, though not ironclad, arguments:

1. Russia tried to pull Israel and American Jews to his side without success.
2. Israel is neutral towards Putin's Russia.
3. Ukrainian Jews are siding with the new pro-EU, anti-Russia government.
4. Jews in the US and Europe are divided, but organized Jewry in these places is generally anti-Russia

Do you agree or disagree with any or all of these points? It requires no trust in Shamir to render a judgment on them. Your many posts in this string never address any point of substance in the article. They simply repeat the insinuation–I can't really call it an argument–that Shamir is untrustworthy, whatever that really means. You have made seven posts that all, in various ways, suggest that we be suspicious of Shamir while avoiding any specific critiques of any kind. I find your obvious interest in this string–almost half the comments are from you–very interesting and rather bizarre–or maybe not so bizarre.

norman ravitch > , June 15, 2014 at 7:49 pm GMT

OK, I have given too much attention to Shamir! Granted. I find his comments uninteresting generally and the whole topic of Jews and Russia/Ukraine uninteresting.

If you want information about these issues read Steven Cohen and Timothy Snyder, very different in perspective but real authorities about whom you need have no worry.

I don't think any of us wants to get into Ukrainian-Russian squabbles about:

1. Are Ukrainians a separate people or only provincial redneck Russians?
2. Are Ukrainians or Russians the best example of inheritors of the Kievan Principality of Rus?
3. Should there be an independent Ukraine and independent Belarus at all?

norman ravitch > , June 15, 2014 at 8:34 pm GMT

For those who care (but why should you care?)

Ukrainian nationalism was encouraged in Austrian Galicia in the 19th century as a force vs. Russia and also against any rise in Polish nationalism. The Ukrainians were encouraged in their traditional hatred of Poles and in a rather new hatred of Russians. To this day the most nationalistic part of Ukraine is in the West, the former Polish territories once under Austrian rule. The Poles of course suppressed Ukrainian nationalism. The typical Ukrainian nationalistic slogan was: Poles beyond the San (river border with ethnic Poland) and the Jews to the gallows!

norman ravitch > , June 15, 2014 at 8:35 pm GMT

Yes, I know. I promised to cease and desist! I shall try.
You have to promise not to bait me.

SFG > , June 15, 2014 at 10:15 pm GMT

Honestly, Norman, it's a comment thread. Say what you want, that's the whole point. Just be aware that citing only the source in arguing against an argument is technically argument ad hominem and therefore a fallacy. (Silly example, because I don't believe in Godwin: if Hitler said 2+2=4, 2+2 does not equal 5.)

The left does it too–'mansplaining', 'check your privilege', etc.

Jeff Albertson > , June 15, 2014 at 11:28 pm GMT

I knew it! Damn 19th century Austrians. Oh when will the world be safe from their machinations? I think we have discovered a new master baiter here. I wonder if he's related to Dianne Ravitch? Let's see what the last guy to edit the Wikipedia page has to say

quercus > , June 15, 2014 at 11:37 pm GMT

@Chahokia. "What Jews and Chinese Have in Common" by Michael Goldfarb in BBC News Magazine, 8th of February 2014. An extremely juvenile piece (e.g., Jews like Chinese food) if ever I read one, but nonetheless, perhaps evidence of your claim?

@Norman Ravitch. Who is Norman Ravitch?

quercus > , June 15, 2014 at 11:40 pm GMT

. Your observations reflect, to me anyway, someone able to stand outside his/her cultural, religious, or ethnic baggage, and look at the world for what it is and people for whom they are.
Thank you.

norman ravitch > , June 15, 2014 at 11:52 pm GMT

Let's stop worrying about the Jews and Ukrainians. Let's worry about all the Americans who have died in vain. In the Civil war they died to give Lincoln glory and to free those miserable excuses for human beings, the negroes. In WWI they died for British Imperialism. In Vietnam they died to make JFK and LBJ look good. Now they have died for George W. Bush's manias and fantasies.

Let's send no more live Americans to die in the Middle East. Send A bombs and H bombs instead. Wipe out those diabolical Muslims once and for all. It couldn't be done in the Crusades but now we can and we should.

Ron Unz > , June 16, 2014 at 1:57 am GMT

Although I try to avoid injecting myself into comment-threads, I greatly appreciate the participation of those who do, especially when they reflect a variety of different perspectives and sometimes might have reasonable knowledge of the subject.

Also, as our Comments Policy indicates, http://www.unz.com/masthead/#comments-policy , we tend to moderate with a light hand and allow a wide range of vigorous and clashing perspectives, sometimes including extreme ones.

However, our Comments Policy also strongly suggests participants would avoid cluttering up a comment thread and craft their remarks carefully. So when a single individual provides one-third or more of the total comments in a thread, the likelihood of additional comments being approved may sharply decline regardless of other factors. The same may be true when too many comments across the entire website are submitted in a single day.

Yakov > , June 16, 2014 at 4:10 am GMT

There is a joke about an old Jew standing by a newstand and reading anti-Semitic magazines. Another Jew sees him at it and askes in indignation:
- You are an old man! Aren't you ashamed of yourself reading these magazines?
- Not at all – replied the old man – When I read the Jewish papers all I hear is about anti-Semitism and how weak and persecuted we Jews are. When I read the anti-Semitic papers I find out that we rule the world!

Cahokia > , June 16, 2014 at 5:23 am GMT

Times have changed Yakov! If you read the Forward, the Jerusalem Post, Tablet, the New York Times, or Time magazine, you will indeed hear how you rule the world.

But it's curious – if someone observes that some other ethnicity dominates a nation, it is not necessarily assumed that said person is a bigot. If you note that white people still control the levers of power in the West, only ideological right-wingers will call you a racist.

But in the case of Jews, any accounting of their power which is expressed with less than complete adulation is automatically ascribed to anti-Semitism.

Hanshaw > , June 16, 2014 at 3:32 pm GMT

This is a brilliantly clever and wry piece of writing – can you imagine, if elected, a person with Hillary Clinton's kind of grasp of international affairs EVER coming to a grips with a world that is covertly 'influenced' – I shall not say 'ruled' – by the kinds of character described herein? Like her recent predecessors Hillary will naturally go with the flow and contribute nothing: just as she already did at State. Damn depressing but I imagine it has always been pretty much like this; only maybe less so.

Scott Locklin > , Website June 16, 2014 at 5:11 pm GMT

"If you want information about these issues read Steven Cohen and Timothy Snyder, very different in perspective but real authorities about whom you need have no worry."

Timothy Snyder is a gibbering propagandist who will tell you whatever the State Department wants you to hear at that particular moment about the political situation in Ukraine. You're better off reading the Lonely Planet guide to Ukraine (which, FWIIW, is also horrible). While I don't think much of Shamir; this article contains far less bullshit about Ukraine than a typical Snyder piece.

Norman Ravitch > , June 16, 2014 at 10:59 pm GMT

I intentionally coupled Tim Snyder with Steven Cohen, they have very different views but are worthy of respect.

Scott Locklin has opinions but no stature.

Scott Locklin > , Website June 17, 2014 at 12:17 am GMT

Yeah, that's sort of like the "choice" people are presented with in American elections: two varieties of baloney; the old Soviet apologist, and the neocon liar.

As for you: you've already been exposed for what you are. This week's obsessive compulsive NB ding dong.

The Undiscovered Jew > , June 17, 2014 at 2:22 am GMT

Jews tend to retain certain positions at variance with mainstream conservatism, such as embracing immigration.

Why do you insist on promoting this falsehood?

1) The "Jews opened the borders to feel safer in a multicultural nation" is a deception* fabricated by Kevin MacDonald. MacDonald's sources, which throughout his career he's distorted beyond their original meaning, show pre-WWII American Jews (whose elite at the time was conservative) weren't interested in in non-white immigration. By 1965 the entire American elite wanted an end to national origins and, given his history of deception, there's no particular reason to trust MacDonald's version of events the Jews were the main force behind the act.

2) Jews want less immigration:

http://cis.org/ReligionAndImmigrationPoll

In contrast to many religious leaders, most members think immigration is too high.

Jews: 50 percent said it is too high; 5 percent said is too low; 22 percent just right.

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/10/12/2741253/poll-jewish-support-for-obama-falling

The survey asked its Jewish respondents: "A new law in Arizona gives police the power to ask people they've stopped to verify their residency status. Supporters say this will help crack down on illegal immigration. Opponents say it could violate civil rights and lead to racial profiling. On balance, do you support or oppose this law?"

The result was a slim majority in favor of the law: 52 percent to 46 percent.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_B._MacDonald#Academic_criticism

MacDonald has particularly been accused by other academics of academic fraud, saying that he has promoted anti-Semitic propaganda under the guise of what he says is a legitimate and academic search for truth.[27] He has also been accused of misrepresenting the sources he uses in that regard. Fenris State University professor Dr. Barry Mehler cited for example a quote from a 1969 dissertation by Sheldon Morris Neuringer titled American Jewry and United States immigration policy, 1881-1953 where MacDonald surmised that when Neuringer noted Jewish opposition in 1921 and 1924 to the anti-immigration legislation at the time was due more to it having the "taint of discrimination and anti-Semitism" as opposed to how it would limit Jewish immigration, MacDonald wrote, " Jewish opposition to the 1921 and 1924 legislation was motivated less by a desire for higher levels of Jewish immigration than by opposition to the implicit theory that America should be dominated by individuals with northern and western European ancestry." "It seems to me Mr. MacDonald is misrepresenting Mr. Neuringer in this case and I posted my query hoping that a historian familiar with the literature might have a judgment on MacDonald's use of the historical data," Mehler wrote, citing other examples.[28]

Yakov > , June 17, 2014 at 5:45 am GMT

'Times have changed Yakov! If you read the Forward, the Jerusalem Post, Tablet, the New York Times, or Time magazine, you will indeed hear how you rule the world.'

I don't read these publications, for everyone's benefit can you please provide a few links that will support your point? Namely, that the Jews rule the world. If you fail to provide them, the joke is on you.

There is some confusion about the nature of Zionism on this board that I would like to clarify. Zionism is a national liberation movement of the Jewish people, who are the indigenous inhabitants of the land Israel. Nobody questions the Arabs rights to Arabia why are the Jews' rights to Judea are not recognized by many? Anti-Zionism usually equals anti-Semitism.

SFG > , June 17, 2014 at 10:34 am GMT

"In contrast to many religious leaders, most members think immigration is too high."

Good point. I guess I should have said that *elite* Jews are enthusiastic immigration proponents–as with most things, there is a gap between the people and their overlords. This has the effect of resulting in the whole population being blamed for something they didn't actually support.

quercus > , June 17, 2014 at 11:45 am GMT

. " liberation movement of the Jewish people, who are the indigenous inhabitants ."
Actually, no, Yakov, Jews were NOT the indigenous inhabitants of that land. If one accepts there might be some truth in the biblical narrative, the people now referred to as "Jews", left Egypt, wandered around for 40 years, got into fights with other people, engaged in some internecine warfare, until finally, they TOOK OVER the land of Canaan, murdering most of its inhabitants.

A sordid bit of history that has been repeated throughout human history all too frequently. The only difference to this story is the claim made that some divine being promised the land to non- residents.

As a US citizen, I was born in a place that is held by force against others who might seek to make a claim, and according to the laws of those who hold it by force, I am 'told' I have a right to remain on this land. Is that 'right' right? That is one of those deep philosophical questions people far more intelligent than you or I have been pondering for millennia.

Yakov > , June 17, 2014 at 1:54 pm GMT

Philosophers can question anything including their own existence. Quercus, this is not a philosophical question but a question of healthy national identity and practical solution to an existential problem of the existence of the Jewish nation. Keep it simple: nobody questions that Arabia belongs to the Arabs, why Judea doesn't belong to the Jews at least from the Jewish perspective? Is this hard to understand? Is it hard to understand that Greece belong to the Greeks and not to the Turks?

Anonymous > , Disclaimer June 17, 2014 at 8:08 pm GMT

Not a good analogy. There are nothing but Arabs in the Arabian peninsula so there is no real question of Arabs vs others. There is no equivalent of Eastern European Jews coming in from the outside and trying to take control, so again, the analogy doesn't work. Of course, the Saudis have essentially claimed that all of the peninsula should be ruled by them (minus Yemen). That's why the Omanis have had to fight them off in the past. The basic principle of humans trying to take stuff from others applies on the AP as well as anywhere.

Zionism might be seen as a national liberation movement, but like many such movements, it comes at the expense of other nationalities. Arabs made up 90% of the population of IS-PAL in 1900. Jews snuck in under the protection of British imperial control and through superior organization, funding, and military capability, achieved control of the area. They are on their way to a gradual elimination of the Palestinians by driving down Palestinian birth rates, and coercing the migration of young Palestinians who need to find work. Eventually, it is hoped, the demographics will allow the annexation of all of "Eretz Israel" and a final solution to the Palestinian problem.

The fact that Jews owned a small chunk of the West Bank 2000 years ago and expanded that into a larger mini-empire for a century or two is no justification for the ongoing, gradual ethnic cleansing of the Arabs none of whom ever wanted to live under the iron heel of a Jewish state.

The Jews are not the only ones to take control of land this way, but there is absolutely no reason for the US to subsidize the process. Quite the contrary given what a strategic liability the Jewish state is for us.

Yakov > , June 18, 2014 at 2:39 am GMT

You are certainly entitled to your opinion that Israel is a strategic liability to the US. I will not contest this point.

The rest of your post is a distortion of the facts, which I also will not contest.

I only hope that you understand that Judea to Jews is at least like Arabia to Arabs, or Kosovo to Serbs, or Ararat to Arminians.
The greatness of us, Jews, is that after 2,000 years of exile http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaea_Capta_coinage we came back and reestablished ourselves in our ansestral land speaking our ancestral language. What other nation can show such a powerful national identity?

Karl > , June 18, 2014 at 12:54 pm GMT

It's easier to learn to read Hebrew newspapers fairly well, than to learn to understand spoken Ebonics.

I advise all interested parties to read the Hebrew press.

fnn > , June 18, 2014 at 3:19 pm GMT

Keep it simple: nobody questions that Arabia belongs to the Arabs, why Judea doesn't belong to the Jews at least from the Jewish perspective? Is this hard to understand? Is it hard to understand that Greece belong to the Greeks and not to the Turks?

Ethno-states are de facto illegal within the EU. It's likely a hate crime for a white Englishman (as traditionally understood) in England to call England an Anglo-Saxon country. When BNP was on the ascent the term "indigenous English" was regularly attacked in the mainstream press as devoid of meaning. Raceless/non-ethnic "constitutional patriotism" and "proposition country" formulations are the norm in the West. This is true even with respect to nationalist or separatist parties like SNP, Sinn Fein/IRA and the Catalan separatists.

The Undiscovered Jew > , June 18, 2014 at 10:44 pm GMT

You are certainly entitled to your opinion that Israel is a strategic liability to the US. I will not contest this point.

I'll contest it.

A strategic liability compared to what other nations? Our support of Taiwan's independence against a China which is quite a ways more militarily dangerous than any Arab military. Or the thousands of troops and nuclear missles we defend South Korea with?

The strategic resources invested in Israel, $3 billion in aid which is mostly a subsidy for US arms manufacturers and diplomatic support, are puny relative to those we've devoted to numerous other countries.

The Undiscovered Jew > , June 18, 2014 at 10:57 pm GMT

Ethno-states are de facto illegal within the EU.

So what? It was European gentile elites (Jews are single digits of the Western Euro elite because of WWII) who created their immigration policy .

The Undiscovered Jew > , June 18, 2014 at 11:03 pm GMT

I guess I should have said that *elite* Jews are enthusiastic immigration

In which case antisemites have no standing to even criticise Jews when they lie about the history of Jewish support for immigration and when gentile elites support immigration as much and even where Jews have little influence (e.g. Sweden).

Rove and Grover Norquist are Norwegian and Swedish, respectively. Tom Donahue of the Chamber of Commerce is Irish as are/were Ted Kennedy, John McCain and the WSJ's Bob Bartley who wanted a constitutional amendment stating "there shall be open borders.

The Undiscovered Jew > , June 18, 2014 at 11:14 pm GMT

you will indeed hear how you rule the world.

America's elite is more or less 80% gentile. Jewish American overrepresentation is generally 20%, but can be pushed higher if partially Jewish elites like Pinch Sulzberger, Steve Ballmer, and John Paulson are counted as fully Jewish.

So while Jews certainly have outsized influence it can't honestly be called controlling or that gentiles have no say in affairs when gentiles are at ~80% and where Jews and gentiles both support basically the same policies.

The case "Jews control everything" is even weaker in Western Europe where their gentile elite is usually over 90% and Jews are in the single digits.

Ron Unz > , June 18, 2014 at 11:48 pm GMT

Participants should try to combine several replies into a single comment, addressing them individually by using a sequence of @s. Multiple successive comments by the same individual tend to clog up the comment-thread.

Yakov > , June 19, 2014 at 2:10 am GMT

We got a little sidetracked from the main topic of this article. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union the Slavic republics had abandoned their traditional policy of anti-zionism and anti-Semitism. The new policy had caused the Russian Jewish expatriates like myself to change our attitude as well. Israel is my true home, but it is natural for a person to be attached to the place of his birth. I love Russia, it's people, land, language, and literature. The former Slavic republics are friendly to Israel and the Jews. The Jews are portrayed fairly in the Russian media, contemporary literature and cinema. I enjoy dealing with Russians. Until now the same could have been said for Ukraine and Belarus. There is all the reason for growing cooperation.This may not sit well with numerous anti-Semites on this blog, but in the current Russian-Ukranian conflict Israel and the Jews don't have dog in the fight. I do support Russian position but as a Russian patriot whose grandparents and uncles fought and died for that land, not as a Jew. It's a wonderful feeling to be able to identify with Russia after a bitter past relationship.

Oscar Peterson > , June 19, 2014 at 2:13 am GMT

In response to my last post (#39–showing as "anonymous") you say:

"Our support of Taiwan's independence against a China which is quite a ways more militarily dangerous than any Arab military. Or the thousands of troops and nuclear missles we defend South Korea with?"

It's interesting that you use Taiwan as a contrast to Israel. In fact, we do NOT support Taiwan's independence. We maintain a "one-China" policy and we take no official position on Taiwanese sovereignty. We have modified our position on Taiwan and distanced ourselves from that entity over the years precisely because our post-WW II relationship with the ROC became a strategic liability. In order to build a strategic relationship with the PRC to counter the Soviet Union. This strategy proved successful in 1989, and we have further modified our position based on OUR and not Taiwan's national interests.

We have NEVER done that with Israel. George Marshall predicted that Israel would be a strategic disaster for the US, and he was right. Our self-destructive relationship with Israel has alienated much of the Arab and Muslim worlds and greatly weakened our long-term position in the Middle East and elsewhere. Our pro-Israel policies are gradually opening space for peer rivals in the region. In the past, we could delude ourselves about the high and growing costs of the Israel relationship, but now, it is obvious to all except those whose first loyalty is to Israel. Taiwan is an excellent contrast because it is an example of modifying a decreasingly effective strategy in order to realize new and emerging strategic goals.

With regard to Israel, we need to impose a peace with Palestine that conforms to our strategic needs. If Israel will not go along, we need to abandon it completely. We also need to impose a nuclear free agreement on the region–one that applies to ALL countries in the region. Again, either Israel follows our directives or we end all our subsides and diplomatic support.

Your South Korean example is totally irrelevant. Our relationship with the ROK has been and continues to be strategically useful.

So, one of your examples actually supports MY point and the other has no bearing on the question at all.

Yakov > , June 19, 2014 at 3:32 am GMT

@Oscar Peterson

'With regard to Israel, we need to impose a peace with Palestine that conforms to our strategic needs'.
Where in the Middle East or the world at large has US been able 'to impose a peace that conforms to our strategic needs'?

' Again, either Israel follows our directives or we end all our subsides and diplomatic support'. Is this the relationship that you advocate with every sovereign state?

Oscar Peterson > , June 19, 2014 at 4:21 am GMT

,

In cases where we (and the Europeans) subsidize both parties, we absolutely can use our leverage to compel the parties to a settlement that suits our strategic needs. We have never been shy about using that leverage on the Palestinians. It's time we started using it with full force on Israel: Here's what you, Israel, have to do to retain our support. If you want to go it alone, fine. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

"Is this the relationship that you advocate with every sovereign state?"

Absolutely. Our financial and diplomatic support are a privilege, not, as Israel seems to think, a right. We expend them–or we SHOULD expend them–in pursuit of OUR strategic interests, NOT simply because some other country has needs. Either Israel takes measures to change its current status as a US strategic liability, or we should dump it post haste. The first step, of course, is to defang our den of disloyal vipers better known as the Israel lobby.

SFG > , June 19, 2014 at 10:20 am GMT

" I do support Russian position but as a Russian patriot whose grandparents and uncles fought and died for that land, not as a Jew. It's a wonderful feeling to be able to identify with Russia after a bitter past relationship."

Weird. I would never have guessed that considering what all the Russian Jews over here in the USA say. Thanks!

Yakov > , June 19, 2014 at 11:06 am GMT

And what would is your answer to my first question?

'With regard to Israel, we need to impose a peace with Palestine that conforms to our strategic needs'.
Where in the Middle East or the world at large has US been able 'to impose a peace that conforms to our strategic needs'?

Yakov > , June 19, 2014 at 1:08 pm GMT

Weird. I would never have guessed that considering what all the Russian Jews over here in the USA say. Thanks!'

What do they say?

Oscar Peterson > , June 19, 2014 at 2:42 pm GMT

"Where in the Middle East or the world at large has US been able 'to impose a peace that conforms to our strategic needs'?"

What does that have to do with the specific question of Israel and the Palestine? We subsidize an Israeli state that is undermining our position in the world. If your point is that Israel may be unwilling to accede to the conditions that would rectify that problem, then you may be right. If that is the case, then we need to rid ourselves of the Israeli albatross and let it fend for itself.

norman ravitch > , June 19, 2014 at 4:10 pm GMT

Israel is the price we pay for:
1. Anti-Jewish immigration policy before and during WWII.
2. Guilt for the Holocaust in which all the European nations and America allowed the Germans to do their dirty work in decreasing the number of troublesome Jews around.

Other countries do not have these guilt feelings because Americans are for the most part more decent human beings.

Still, we can treat Israel, over a half century later, with realism and a consideration for our own national needs. Israel should now be no more important to us than Finland.

Oscar Peterson > , June 19, 2014 at 5:51 pm GMT

Norman Ravitch,

The US has never owed any group, whatever its circumstances, entry into this country, nor did we owe the Jews of Europe anything more than we owed the Tutsis and considerably less than we owe the Cherokees et al. The US should in no way be expected to compensate for the systemic problem of Jewish alienation of host populations which continues today.

Organized Jewry has, in the past, very adroitly and successfully spearheaded the effort to generate guilt feelings which, combined with considerable resources and extremely hard-ball politics, has left us with the unfolding strategic disaster we now confront.

Don't know why you say that Americans are more decent human beings than the rest of the world. Americans had the good fortune to take possession of a resource-rich and population-depleted continent where the zero-sum condition of scarcity was considerably reduced (though that is now changing.) That did not stop us from wiping out much of the native population (that had survived smallpox) and establishing a slave culture. If the native Americans had already developed immunity to European diseases and moved beyond a mesolithic level of development before we got here, the conquest of North American would have looked like Canaan or the Caucasus or Algeria or Palestine. To our credit, we have transcended these aspects of our culture to a large extent. But your implication that Jew-friendliness is some unique criterion for "decency" is absurd and, despite your last paragraph, evidence of self-obsession.

I obviously DO agree with your conclusion, but the issue is not simply what we "should" do but how we overcome the power of an Israel Lobby that has much of our governmental structure in it pocket. I'm rather afraid that "decency" will be inadequate to that task.

Yakov > , June 19, 2014 at 7:41 pm GMT

@Norman Ravich

Do I understand correctly that your comparison with Finland is intended to say that US should abandon Israel at times of war like it had abandoned Finland. And this is in the US strategic interest?

@Oscar Peterson

So to sum up your point in a somewhat crude manner: any country that is the recipient of us aid and diplomatic support should be treated like a prostitute? And this is in the US strategic interest?

Oscar Peterson > , June 19, 2014 at 10:31 pm GMT

"So to sum up your point in a somewhat crude manner "

Well your summary is certainly crude. US global strategy is not a charity operation. There is room for aid, but the aid recipient, must at the very least, not be a strategic liability. Israel, in particular, does not meet this criterion. I have outlined above the direction I think Israel is heading in its own strategic thinking, and this is totally at odds with a sound and productive regional US strategy in the Middle East. Israel has a profound sense of entitlement to all sorts of support, and this mind-set must be broken. Either that, or over the side it must go.

Yakov > , June 19, 2014 at 11:10 pm GMT

@Oscar Peyerson

'I have outlined above the direction I think Israel is heading in its own strategic thinking, and this is totally at odds with a sound and productive regional US strategy in the Middle East.'

What is this sound and productive regional US strategy?

'Either that, or over the side it must go.'

Why? Is it only because Israel is a strategic liability? Any country that is a strategic liability to the US 'should go over the side'? This is the policy that is in the US interest?

The Undiscovered Jew > , June 19, 2014 at 11:22 pm GMT

Weird. I would never have guessed that considering what all the Russian Jews over here in the USA say. Thanks!'

What do they say?

Yes, what do they say, SFG? Be detailed. Let's see if you can impress Yakov, an authentic FSU Jew, who'll know if you're a fake. I'm sure you're up to the task.

It's interesting that you use Taiwan as a contrast to Israel. In fact, we do NOT support Taiwan's independence. We maintain a "one-China" policy

$12 billion* in weapons sales means we do support Taiwanese independence. We maintain strategic ambiguity over Taiwan and strongly hinted our direct military intervention is possible if China tries to seize the island. Clinton moved warships to the Straight of Formosa in the 1990s when China was doing some saber rattling.
If there's been no break with Taiwan, why aren't you raising even a 1/100th of the protest to end relations with Tawain as with Israel?

Our self-destructive relationship with Israel has alienated much of the Arab and Muslim worlds

The Oscar Peterson Doctrine: America must any alliance with any nations in a territorial dispute against Muslims.
Your policy means the end diplomatic relations with the following nations:

1) Greece – conflict with Turkey over Crete and, in the past and maybe the future, Constantinople)
2) India – conflict with Pakistan and native Muslims over Kashmir
3) Russia – conflict over Chechnya)
4) China – conflict with Central Asian Muslim separatists

Taki, especially, should be out in the streets demanding the small, unimportant strategic liability on the Mediterranean, Greece, cede control of Crete to Turkey, to please the Arab street – or else have Athens carpet bombed.

We also need to impose a nuclear free agreement on the region–one that applies to ALL countries in the region.

Which means you would end all relations with nuclear armed Russia, China and India to please Muslims.

* http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/tightrope-diplomacy-us-arms-sales-taiwan

Congressional pressure (especially from the Republican-controlled House of Representatives) is mounting on the Obama administration to sell Taiwan more advanced weaponry. House members inserted an amendment in the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act urging President Obama to sell Taipei the F-16 C and D models. Reports circulated in Taiwan that a senior Republican, Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, assured Taiwanese officials during a visit to the island earlier this year that the United States would approve the sale of Apache attack helicopters in 2014 and Patriot missiles in 2015[

Oscar Peterson > , June 19, 2014 at 11:24 pm GMT

"Any country that is a strategic liability to the US 'should go over the side'? This is the policy that is in the US interest?"

Yes.

norman ravitch > , June 19, 2014 at 11:53 pm GMT

Russian and Ukrainian anti-semitism was entirely religiously based. It was never racial. It was the Jews who were racially hostile to the Slavic populations. Jews who converted to Russian Orthodoxy were fully assimilated into Russian society and culture.

In any case, why any Jew in Russia or Ukraine wants to remain there is hard to understand. Why don't they all go to Israel, as most of them have? Many prefer to come to the USA where the standard ov living is higher. The greatest embarrassment of the Zionists is that so many Jews have never wanted to live in Palestine-Israel.

norman ravitch > , June 19, 2014 at 11:54 pm GMT

Scratch a rabbi and you find a mullah or ayatollah!

Doesn't matter where: Israel, America, Russia, Timbuktu.

Oscar Peterson > , June 20, 2014 at 1:13 am GMT

"The Oscar Peterson Doctrine: America must [forswear] any alliance with any nations in a territorial dispute against Muslims."

Well, now you're just being obtuse. That absurd inference doesn't follow in the slightest from anything I have said. Russia and China are geopolitical rivals and their Muslim problems in the Caucasus and Xin Jiang are a strategic boon to us. We are not the strategic guarantor of either of these countries, and their treatment–or mistreatment–of their Muslim minorities does not reflect on us in anyone's perception except maybe yours. India/Kashmir basically falls in the same category. Though we have developed closer relations with India over the last 15 years, the Kashmir issue is not laid on our doorstep. It could potentially become a problem for us in the future, so we will see. The Turkey-Greece acrimony has diminished greatly over the last decade, and, for now, is not a significant issue. In short, none of your examples come close to substantiating your argument, if we can really call that an argument.

The case of Israel is obviously a very different one, which even you must be able to grasp. Unlike the three large Eurasian powers you reference, Russia, PRC, and India, the US has no subjugated Muslim minority concentrated in a distinct geographical region of the country. In great power competition, this is a big point on our side and explains in part why we were once so warmly welcomed in the Middle East. We are well down the road to squandering that estimable strategic advantage through our support to the infiltration of Eastern European Jews into the region and to the subsequent imposition of a Jewish state on unwilling Arabs. Unlike the other cases, we ARE responsible in large part for what Israel has done. As the Zionist ambition for Eretz Israel gravitates towards the gradual elimination of the Palestinian population and the ultimate annexation of the the remaining Palestinian land, the ill will of Muslims worldwide, but especially in the Muslim heartland of the ME, is set in stone, threatening the highly advantageous position we achieved after WW II, even as we have to contend with rising powers and a weakened economy.

Our relationship with Israel is an unfolding disaster for us and must be either changed to suit OUR–not Israel's–requirements or discarded entirely.

It is evidently your self-appointed task to defend the interests of Israel as you see them. Are you an Israeli citizen? I hope so–or, at least, that you are not an American.

Yakov > , June 20, 2014 at 1:15 am GMT

@Norman Ravitch
It was the Jews who were racially hostile to the Slavic populations.'

In what way may I ask?

@Oscar Peterson

Maybe you can find a few minutes to explain what is this 'sound and productive regional US strategy'? I think the whole board can benefit from your explanation.

@Ron Unz

Ron, I'm for freedom of speech for everybody, but I don't see how we benefit from baiting and inflammatory comments if we are trying to have a serious discussion.

Ron Unz > , June 20, 2014 at 1:42 am GMT

I'm for freedom of speech for everybody, but I don't see how we benefit from baiting and inflammatory comments if we are trying to have a serious discussion.

That's a perfectly valid point. However, in one of your earlier comments you stated:

Zionism is a national liberation movement of the Jewish people, who are the indigenous inhabitants of the land Israel. Nobody questions the Arabs rights to Arabia why are the Jews' rights to Judea are not recognized by many? Anti-Zionism usually equals anti-Semitism.

Now it seems to me that throughout a large portion of the world's population, that comment of yours would be considered extremely "baiting" and "inflammatory." So perhaps I should have refused to publish it or even banned you as a consequence.

The central problem is that on controversial topics, people have a wide variety of different standards regarding what they perceive as unacceptable positions to take.

Yakov > , June 20, 2014 at 1:58 am GMT

@Ron Unz
I'm new to the blog and just wanted to understand your approach. Thanks.

The Undiscovered Jew > , June 20, 2014 at 3:53 am GMT

Russia and China are geopolitical rivals and their Muslim problems in the Caucasus and Xin Jiang are a strategic boon to us. We are not the strategic guarantor of either of these countries, and their treatment–or mistreatment–of their Muslim minorities does not reflect on us in anyone's perception except maybe yours. India/Kashmir basically falls in the same category.

The Peterson doctrine is even better applied to China and India than Israel. Both nations depend on America for their economic development. What better way to prove our friendship than to deliver an ultimatum to two large, powerful nations to give up territory to Islam or be completely cutoff from the United States as you want Israel to be?

We are well down the road to squandering that estimable strategic advantage through our support to the infiltration of Eastern European Jews into the region

If Muslims care that deeply about the oppression of fellow Muslims, why is Putin able to simultaneously enjoy good relations with both Arab states and Israel while repressing Chechens more brutally than Israel does the Palestinians?

Unlike the other cases, we ARE responsible in large part for what Israel has done.

By the standard you judge Israel, we are certainly responsible for India's mistreatment of Kashmiris. Israel and India enjoy the military cooperation, weapons sales, and diplomatic support from America. Which makes us a co-conspirator to India's crimes against Kashmir. Isn't it time we join our Muslim brothers and end diplomatic ties with India?

The Turkey-Greece acrimony has diminished greatly over the last decade, and, for now, is not a significant issue

If Crete isn't a potential flashpoint, the Greeks and Turks don't know it. Both sides maintain armed forces near their border, which tells us their militaries do think the chances of armed conflict is high.

If Greece and Turkey think war is possible, so must the Peterson doctrine. In the (plausible) chance they go to war over Crete, then your logic means we break off all relations with Christian Greece until they agree to all of Islamic Turkey's territorial demands.

If it were up to you, you would break off relations with Greece if they refused, wouldn't you?

Yakov > , June 20, 2014 at 3:56 am GMT

@ Norman Ravitch

Scratch a rabbi and you find a mullah or ayatollah!

Doesn't matter where: Israel, America, Russia, Timbuktu.'

How is this relevant to our discussion? Do you feel this way only about ayatollahs and rabbies or about clearly in general? Why?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnwI2jcQ2Ww&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Yakov > , June 20, 2014 at 3:57 am GMT

I meant cleargy.

Oscar Peterson > , June 20, 2014 at 6:23 am GMT

Your posts are becoming progressively more ludicrous. Just throw a lot of stuff against the wall and see if anything sticks, eh?

"The Peterson doctrine is even better applied to China and India than Israel. Both nations depend on America for their economic development. What better way to prove our friendship than to deliver an ultimatum to two large, powerful nations to give up territory to Islam or be completely cutoff from the United States as you want Israel to be?"

Obviously, the point is not to "prove friendship" with Muslims or anyone else. It's to pursue and manage interests. Your simplistic understanding of our relationship with Russia and China is laughable. And no one views the US as connected in any way to the actions of those two towards Muslims in their respective states. The Zionist infiltration of Palestine under the protection of the British Empire and the subsequent conquest of Arab land is not accepted by Arabs in particular and Muslims in general. Why should it be? We made a huge strategic error in ever supporting the establishment of the Jewish state in the first place. Now it must be brought to heel or put on the other side of a "separation fence." That should be obvious to anyone who places US interests first.

"If Muslims care that deeply about the oppression of fellow Muslims, why is Putin able to simultaneously enjoy good relations with both Arab states and Israel while repressing Chechens more brutally than Israel does the Palestinians?"

Putin has plenty of problems with the Arabs–some of the same ones that we do. The Saudis have funded the Chechen-Dagestani insurgency on and off over the years and implied that they could leash or unleash terror campaigns there depending on the Russian position on Syria, which should tell you something right there. Second, simply having good relations in the near term with decaying state regimes like Saudi Arabia and Egypt while alienating the broader population–which will translate into a more hostile leadership sooner or later–is very poor strategic thinking. We need to solve our Israel problem NOW while we still DO have relatively good relations with many states. Third, the psychological impact of the Zionist-chosenist conquest of Palestine in the Arab Muslim heartland is much deeper and broader than mistreatment of Muslims around the periphery of Islam in Chechnya, Xin Jiang or Kashmir. This is why we suffer more from our debilitating relationship with Israel than the other cases you are so desperately referencing.

"By the standard you judge Israel, we are certainly responsible for India's mistreatment of Kashmiris. Israel and India enjoy the military cooperation, weapons sales, and diplomatic support from America. Which makes us a co-conspirator to India's crimes against Kashmir. Isn't it time we join our Muslim brothers and end diplomatic ties with India?"

How would "ending diplomatic ties with India" help the US? Unlike the case of Israel/Palestine, no one is associating us with the Kashmir problem. And unlike Israel, India actually provides us with strategic benefits vis-a-vis China. India is not a strategic liability. Israel IS a strategic liability. Is that simple enough for you?

"If Crete isn't a potential flashpoint, the Greeks and Turks don't know it. Both sides maintain armed forces near their border, which tells us their militaries do think the chances of armed conflict is high. If Greece and Turkey think war is possible, so must the Peterson doctrine. In the (plausible) chance they go to war over Crete, then your logic means we break off all relations with Christian Greece until they agree to all of Islamic Turkey's territorial demands."

First of all, if you can't even tell the difference between Crete and Cyprus–which is actually the issue you are trying to raise–then you shouldn't even use the example. There is no problem in Cyprus that threatens US interests–period! Just give it up.

Now what about an answer to my question from my last post: Are you a loyal Israeli or a disloyal "American?" How many passports do you hold? Where DO your loyalties lie? Not with the US, that's for sure!

norman ravitch > , June 20, 2014 at 12:04 pm GMT

My point is that the rabbis have made the Jews what they are. You can fill in the blanks.

Anonymous > , Disclaimer June 20, 2014 at 4:59 pm GMT

@Oscar Peterson

Maybe you can find a few minutes over the weekend to explain what is this 'sound and productive regional US strategy'? I think the whole board can benefit from your explanation.

Many people have conflicting loyalties and deal with them through their lives. Why this focus on Jews only?

norman ravitch > , June 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm GMT

They focus on Jews because of the Zionist Lobby. But you are right, many focus on the Jews out of principle ! the principle of anti semitism ! and find a use for their focus later. Because this website encourages unorthodox thinking and opinion it necessarily encourages Jew haters, as well as other haters.

norman ravitch > , June 20, 2014 at 5:55 pm GMT

There wasn't much anti Irish opinion when all Irish politicians here were going out of their way to support the terrorist Irish Republican Army. Look at Congressman Pete King of NY and all the Irish politians in Massachusetts. Perhaps some were afraid of appearing anti-Catholic. Anti-Catholics no longer are afraid thanks to the pedaphile crisis.

On the subject of anti-Catholics, probably Protestants and secular men molest minors and women just as much and perhaps more than Catholic priests, but it is easier to criticize a Church which has failed to be what Jesus asked it to be. No one expects Protestant churches to be what Jesus expected of them, as they have never seemed very Christian to some of us Romanists.

Oscar Peterson > , June 20, 2014 at 6:52 pm GMT

@Anon

"Many people have conflicting loyalties and deal with them through their lives. Why this focus on Jews only?"

Because the multiple loyalties of Israel's zealous supporters, including Zionist Christians and others who are gulled into passively supporting this destructive relationship are having a particularly pernicious effect on the position of the US in the world and, by extension, on the future security and prosperity of the American people. This is not some academic or theoretical point. Does it not make sense to you to focus on more significant, rather than less significant, issues? Of course, you can disagree with the premise–that this phenomenon is especially threatening–as other posters here have been doing, but I don't find the disagreement in any way compelling. On the contrary, I find the arguments presented either delusional or deeply dishonest or a mixture of the two.

@ Norman Ravitch

Your point about the IRA is a valid one. Peter King is a hypocrite in too many ways to list here. The two issues are actually quite similar up to a point. A lobby's power saddles the US with a systemically bad policy. But the difference is that the damage done to long-term US interests and strategy stemming from Israel and its vicious lobby is incomparably more devastating than that of the Irish or Cuban or any other conniving interest group. So, don't try to use the Irish terror lobby to deflect the long-overdue exposure of the psychopathic Israel lobby and its own, especially deleterious brand of dual loyalty.

norman ravitch > , June 20, 2014 at 7:52 pm GMT

I AM NOT SEEKING TO DEFLECT CRITICISM OF ISRAEL BY FOCUSING ON IRELAND. I HAVE BEEN AS CRITICAL OF THE ZIONISTS AS ANYONE. YOUR SUSPICION LEADS ME TO BELIEVE PERHAPS, ONLY PERHAPS, YOU HAVE OTHER ISSUES AT HAND.

Too much concern with the Jews raises a whole host of questions. The Israel Lobby and the Zionist question are not the most outrageous in recent American history.

Oscar Peterson > , June 20, 2014 at 8:56 pm GMT

@ Norman Ravitch

"I HAVE BEEN AS CRITICAL OF THE ZIONISTS AS ANYONE."

Yes, I've seen your bit about how our relationship with Israel should be like the one with Finland. But there is no prospect of it being anything like Finland. What are YOUR prescriptions to make the relationship more like Finland? What actions are you willing to take to make it like Finland? Do you believe it will just happen by itself? Do you or do you not agree that our relationship with Israel is, in fact, inimical to our interests and to our long-term welfare?

"Too much concern with the Jews raises a whole host of questions. The Israel Lobby and the Zionist question are not the most outrageous in recent American history."

To be honest, I'm not that interested in the questions it raises for you. That seems like a smokescreen to me. And what does it mean to say that "the Israel Lobby and the Zionist question are not the most outrageous in recent American history?" Well, yes, of course there are other issues, but IF they are of so much greater concern to you, why are you wasting time here when you could be focused on THEM wherever it is that they are being addressed and debated? Frankly, your criticism of Zionism and, specifically, of our Israel problem appears to be of the distinctly "faux" variety.

Stop whining about "too much concern with the Jews" and give us your appraisal of the US-Israel issue, your understanding of its strategic context and implications, and any broad prescriptions you might have. I have already done so in my posts (though Yakov continues to pester me for further restatements), so I am most interested to hear you go beyond the rather vague and mystical pronouncements you have been making about Israel and Finland.

SFG > , June 20, 2014 at 10:19 pm GMT

"Yes, what do they say, SFG? Be detailed. Let's see if you can impress Yakov, an authentic FSU Jew, who'll know if you're a fake. I'm sure you're up to the task."

LOL I haven't been keeping up with this thread. But if Unz wants comments, he knows what to publish.

The two I knew complained of anti-Semitism and the occasional beatings. They had nothing nice to say about Russian culture.

And no, I'm not a fake, though I have no clue how I'd prove that online. I could be three skinheads in a bunker in Terre Haute, a guy in a shack in Boca Raton, or a guy chomping a pastrami in a deli on the corner of Park and Lexington. Though if you're for real you'll be able to pick out the mistake in my last paragraph.

norman ravitch > , June 20, 2014 at 11:12 pm GMT

What do you wish me to say? Yes, Israel is not an ally that does us much good. Yes, it has interests not at all compatible with American interests. But all countries have interests that clash and yet can be temporarily reconciled in the interest of something greater. What I refuse to do, as you anti-semites (yes, I think perhaps this is a correct name for y'all) do is to identify Israel and its interests as permanently evil. What could be more evil than Islam, a medieval semitic revenge against Christianity and true intellectual honesty. The Jews are not as bad as the Muslims, historically speaking. Perhaps they might have been had they had power; but they didn't.

Oscar Peterson > , June 21, 2014 at 1:16 am GMT

OK–your comment is interesting at any rate.

But what a contradictory mess: "What I refuse to do, as you anti-semites (yes, I think perhaps this is a correct name for y'all) do is to identify Israel and its interests as permanently evil. What could be more evil than Islam, a medieval semitic revenge against Christianity and true intellectual honesty. The Jews are not as bad as the Muslims, historically speaking."

A condemnation of "anti-semitism" immediately followed by the equation of semites, Islam and evil–all in two sentences! Not sure what you mean by "permanently evil," and I don't agree with your characterization of Islam, but that's another subject that we don't need to get into.

Well, I'm done with this string. Bonam noctem.

The Undiscovered Jew > , June 21, 2014 at 1:35 am GMT

The Zionist infiltration of Palestine under the protection of the British Empire and the subsequent conquest of Arab land is not accepted by Arabs in particular and Muslims in general.

Islam is hanging on to a number of holy sites they acquired through not so moral ways. Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria. The last remaining Zoroastrians called, they'd like Persia back.

We made a huge strategic error in ever supporting the establishment of the Jewish state in the first place.

America got involved in the Middle East to block Soviet Russia from gaining hegemony over the world's oil supply. As a NATO allied proxy state, Israel proved useful enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower_Doctrine

Putin has plenty of problems with the Arabs–

And doesn't let them dictate who can be allies with. If he can get away with angering Muslims in select cases why can't we?

Second, simply having good relations in the near term with decaying state regimes like Saudi Arabia and Egypt while alienating the broader population–which will translate into a more hostile leadership sooner or later–

Again, Putin is doing just that without shedding a tear for the 'democratic' Arab street. Syria's Assad and Egypt's new military junta all have his backing:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/10635530/Vladimir-Putin-backs-Egypt-army-chief-Abdulfattah-al-Sisi-for-president.html

Third, the psychological impact of the Zionist-chosenist conquest of Palestine in the Arab Muslim heartland is much deeper and broader than mistreatment of Muslims around the periphery of Islam in Chechnya, Xin Jiang or Kashmir.

Muslims have endless territorial claims that will never be satisfied unless the entire globe converts to their absurd religion.

They also consider their loss of Al-Andalus as an even greater Naqba than Israel's war of independence. If Islamic immigrants in Spain were to demand their neighborhood secede from Spain and rejoin Morocco, would you demand Spain to surrender their demands?

Unlike the case of Israel/Palestine, no one is associating us with the Kashmir problem. And unlike Israel, India actually provides us with strategic benefits vis-a-vis China. India is not a strategic liability. Israel IS a strategic liability.

Were you aware Pakistan is Muslim? Pakistanis associate India's occupation of Kashmir with American meddling and they've consistently been one of the most anti-American of all Islamic nations. In order to stay consistent with your doctrine, our diplomatic ties with India relations must go.

First of all, if you can't even tell the difference between Crete and Cyprus–

I obviously meant Cyprus.

As for the possibility of conflict over it, both Turkey and Greece have invested significant military assets to fight the other, both on the island and in the rest of the Aegean. Their armies wouldn't be deployed unless they think there's a realistic chance of war.

With both Greeks and Turks think war is possible, what would you do in that case? If you followed your strategy of placating Muslim territorial demands, you would have to break off relations with Greece and side with Islamic Turkey; we can't have Dar Al-Islam upset.

Yakov > , June 22, 2014 at 2:34 am GMT

'The two I knew complained of anti-Semitism and the occasional beatings. They had nothing nice to say about Russian culture.'

I grew up in a working class neighborhood and beatings or rather fights were a permanent feature of our lives. To live with dignity I trained in boxing from the age of eleven. By my bar-mizva I was more than holding my own. Russians do fight a lot and for a Jew in a tough neighborhood life can be a nightmare. So what they told you is true. The Russians, in my times, did not like Jews as a group but liked having Jewish friends. I was popular with Russian girls not just because I was smart and a good fighter that offered protection, but as I realized later on, because the Jews have a name of not drinking, not being physically abusive and, yes of course, for having money.

If they had nothing good to say about Russian culture it reflects poorly on them.

John Cole > , June 23, 2014 at 10:15 pm GMT

This thread is great fun in that it educates and entertains. I realise it's necessary to take the extremes with a grain of salt.

Yakov > , June 24, 2014 at 1:20 am GMT

I've read that there wasn't a family in Finland that hadn't suffered a casualty in its was with the Soviet Union. Would it be so terrible if this little nation had a powerful lobby in Washington to influence the US government to support its territorial integrity? Wouldn't it be in the interests of the US to support a democratic, European and Christian nation against a barbaric conquest? Would American people sympathize with Finland? Wouldn't they find it in their hearts to to save this little nation? Firm American support could have prevented that war.

The Undiscovered Jew > , June 24, 2014 at 1:49 am GMT

Oscar,

If Greece and Turkey fight a war doesn't the logic of your Israel doctrine call for us to favor Islamic Turkey and break off all support for Greece?

If not, why not?

SFG > , June 25, 2014 at 1:28 am GMT

"To live with dignity I trained in boxing from the age of eleven. "

That's it then. The combination of fighting and erudition in Russia always struck me as odd–but then again, that is one of the things about other cultures; they do not fit into the mental schemes you are familiar with.

"Would it be so terrible if this little nation had a powerful lobby in Washington to influence the US government to support its territorial integrity?"

Oh yeah, I'd definitely support the Finns over the Russians. But should they become a major recipient of US aid and get us in a hairy mess with a rival power? We're staying out of the Ukraine because we don't want to start WW3. I mean, don't get me wrong; when the Arabs finally overrun Israel and water their camels in the ruins of the semiconductor factories, it will be a huge civilizational loss (though we may be able to get us some PhDs with no loyalty to China). But is it good for the Americans to have the Arabs hate us? Is Israel still worth any strategic advantage?

Yakov > , June 25, 2014 at 4:01 am GMT

'I mean, don't get me wrong; when the Arabs finally overrun Israel '

What makes you think so? Please listen to the first 3 minutes.

' Oh yeah, I'd definitely support the Finns over the Russians. '

Russians don't have any beef with Finland, it was Stalin and USSR.

SFG > , June 28, 2014 at 1:17 pm GMT

It's not that important who won in Lebanon. The Israelis are massively outnumbered and the USA is going to get sick of supporting them. Short-term, they can't be beat; long-term, they are doomed. Why would we succeed where the Crusaders failed?

Russia and Finland? Fair enough.

The Undiscovered Jew > , June 28, 2014 at 5:09 pm GMT

Oscar,

If Greece and Turkey declare war on each other, shouldn't your doctrine compel us to abandon Greece?

Come on, you paleocons are always crying about not having your arguments direcly confronted. Now your logic is being challenged and you can't even give a straight answer. How are you going to get the mighty ethnostate off the ground if you can't so much as handle a little internet debate?

But is it good for the Americans to have the Arabs hate us?

What good would come from them liking us?

Yakov > , June 29, 2014 at 5:15 am GMT

The point of the video was not that Israel had won but WHY it had won.

Why would we succeed where the Crusaders failed?'
I assume that 'we' are the Jews. There are no guarantees, but it looks good for us. Just like Armenia fights for its land so will we because we are the indigenous inhabitants of the Land of Israel. Remember – it's not the size of the man in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the man.

Russian TV had a long program on the Israeli army where they interviewed immigrants from FSU currently serving in the IDF. At the end they asked a question which remained open: why is Israel able to have an army that gives it's young people a positive experience wheras Russian army fails to do so? What was different about IDF? Was it the army or the character of the people that made it different? In Israel kids after high-school spend a year in a military preparatory program being trained by professionals in order to get into elite combat troops and pay for it out of their own pocket. Can you name any other country where this happens?

SFG > , June 30, 2014 at 11:40 am GMT

"I assume that 'we' are the Jews. There are no guarantees, but it looks good for us. Just like Armenia fights for its land so will we because we are the indigenous inhabitants of the Land of Israel. Remember – it's not the size of the man in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the man"

Numbers are a big deal too–a single US Army squad would eventually fall to the Taliban after they ran out of bullets. Without allies Israel cannot win.

As for the Russians–I can well see why Russia would look to the Israelis for ways to restore national pride, and it is a change of tone from the past. But an army isn't supposed to give its young people a positive experience, it's supposed to defend the country. Being in an elite Israeli combat unit gives you a leg up on jobs in the future in high tech, which can be quite lucrative. I'm not Russian, but I don't get the sense 'doing well' in the Russian Army puts you on track for anything except a Russian Army job, which isn't much fun even if you do like the army. Israel, for all its problems, isn't nearly as corrupt as Russia.

Markus > , July 2, 2014 at 7:32 pm GMT

The truth is "antisemitic". (Nevermind todays jews are a mix-mash of southern Europeans, semites and asians)

Yakov > , July 3, 2014 at 3:28 am GMT


'Without allies Israel cannot win.'

True, and this is what diplomacy and lobbying are for.

'I'm not Russian, but I don't get the sense 'doing well' in the Russian Army puts you on track for anything except a Russian Army job. '

In Russia it's generally considered proper for a man to serve in the army as an expression of patriotism and manhood. It certainly wins you points with women.

' Being in an elite Israeli combat unit gives you a leg up on jobs in the future in high tech, which can be quite lucrative.'

All it does is to serve as an indicator of your character qualities and, if you are an officer, of your managerial ability. I don't think anybody goes into the army to get high tech jobs. On the other hand many employees wouldn't hire someone who hadn't served in the IDF.

Kyle McKenna > , July 4, 2014 at 1:39 am GMT

Endless, endless ranting and obsession with The Tribe.

Forget the rest of humanity–it's all about The Tribe!

Yakov > , July 6, 2014 at 3:20 am GMT

@Willam Catto

This post IS about the Jews. You haven't made it clear in your comment if you are addressing Ron Unz for posting disproportionately about Jews, or commenters on this post. I cannot speak for Ron, but speaking for myself I believe that my comments were related to the subject at hand and are not indication of an obsession.

As an example, can you post a comment about humanity that would be germane to the subject at hand?

Anonymous > , Disclaimer July 15, 2014 at 1:22 pm GMT

UNZ must limit comments of thsoe people who go after whoever dare to talk about zionist Jews who have taken over world politics and economic and kill at will.
The troll "norman ravitch", to me, is the following zionist agent who pose as 'anti imperalist' , but in fact is a propagandist for zionist war machine, USG and its stooges in Washington. Last time was trying so hard for an invasion of Syria where it failed.

This stooge writes with different names to fool others, but at the end he himself.

http://louisproyect.org/2014/06/16/blood-spirit-the-family-and-soil-a-response-to-israel-shamir/

SFG > , July 16, 2014 at 12:31 am GMT

"UNZ must limit comments of thsoe people who go after whoever dare to talk about zionist Jews who have taken over world politics and economic and kill at will.
The troll "norman ravitch", to me, is the following zionist agent who pose as 'anti imperalist' , but in fact is a propagandist for zionist war machine, USG and its stooges in Washington. Last time was trying so hard for an invasion of Syria where it failed."

You mean he should limit people who disagree with you? I'm not disagreeing with you about the power of the rest of the media, but comments on an Internet bulletin board?

Anonymous > , Disclaimer July 16, 2014 at 11:37 am GMT

{You mean he should limit people who disagree with you?}

As long as the person in the link, censors any comment that slightly differs from his reactionary
position, then other outlets MUST do the same.

Bill Jones > , July 18, 2014 at 2:45 am GMT

@SFG A Zionist is a racist.

SFG > , July 19, 2014 at 2:07 pm GMT

Bill Jones:

Sure, but most of the people here are in favor of racism. So why does every other race get a homeland but Jews?

I think Israel's situation is untenable in the long run, but I don't see why they can't exist as long as they can.

Yakov > , July 20, 2014 at 3:43 am GMT

@ Bill Jones

'A Zionist is a racist.'

Any more than a Dashnak or a Chetnick?

Director > , July 29, 2014 at 12:57 am GMT

@Cahokia I agree. However what do the Chinese think of this? The Middle Kingdom suck up to