Translate

Jan 31, 2010

Silverstein-Holland-Santomauro-Dershowitz--A MESSY SALAD...

 


Adam Holland: Response to a reckless attack
By Adam Holland
JAN. 31, 2010

I mentioned that his column was reposted by the neo-Nazi Michael Santomauro both to provide the factual background of Dershowitz' column about it (Dershowitz read Santomauro's repost of Silverstein's column) and to indicate who liked it ...
Adam Holland - http://adamholland.blogspot.com/


Richard Silverstein:

THE BEAT GOES ON: DERSHOWITZ SLANDERS ME IN JERUSALEM POST TOO, GHOULS REJOICE

Sunday, January 31st, 2010

Recently, I wrote that Alan Dershowitz had published a Huffington Post blog in which he named and quoted from my blog post, The Zionization of Disaster Relief, about Israel's PR extravaganza in Haiti.  Instead of attributing the blog post to me, the author, and linking to this blog, instead he wrote the following:

The neo-Nazi Web site ReportersNotebook.com features a blog entitled The Zionization of Disaster Relief.

The editors of Huffington Post, after saying they would address the issue, have not yet done so.  Now I discover that Dersh also published this same post on the same date, January 24th, in his Jerusalem Post blog.  I've also written to the Post's editors asking them to correct the record.

Given that I've attacked Alan Dershowitz before here, it can be no accident why he formulated his paragraph about my blog post in the fraudulent manner he did.  And now comes circumstantial evidence that this is the case.   An anti-Semitism-obsessed, anti-jihadi, pro-Israel blogger, Adam Holland, has taken up the cudgels.  Holland is also one of Joe Weissman's buddies, who I've alsocriticized for his jihad against Anglican cleric Stephen Sizer.

Strangely enough, Holland also actually blogs at Daily Kos.  I wonder what credentials got him that gig?  Is being a pro-Israel, Muslim hater sufficient now to get oneself a diary at DK (apologies to a few of my good blogging friends who are DK diarists)?  This is beginning to look like pro-Israel tag team wrestling.  You bad mouth one of theirs and they'll double team you with some of their big, fat sweaty hack heavyweights.

I'm not even going to get into how badly Holland mischaracterizes my views in the Haiti post I wrote.  More interesting to me is the McCarthyite guilt by association rhetorical style of demagogue-goons like Holland (and Weissman, Horowitz, Pipes and others):

Silverstein's column has traversed the left-right wormhole and has been published by the neo-Nazi blogger (and David Irving associate) Michael Santomauro at his Reporters Notebook website (read here). Alan Dershowitz read this reposted version of Silverstein's column and blasted it in a column of his own…Silverstein's column has also been reposted on Russia'sPravda English language forum and the Arab website Uruknet.

My work is republished (without my knowledge or permission, but that's neither here nor there) by a Holocaust revisionist, the discussion forum of a Russian newspaper, and an Arab website–and that makes me…what?  A known associate of organized revisionism, the Russians, and jihadists?

This may satisfy those of little brain among the pro-Israel-obsessed blog world.  They don't seem to be able to debate honestly or characterize accurately what you write, so they resort to these fraudulent intellectual stunts.  The Who once sang: "We won't be fooled again."  Unlike their song, I don't think anyone is fooled by this narischkeit.

To me, this indicates a deep unease about Israel's perilous position on the world stage as the Goldstone Report begins to reoccupy headlines and Israel refuses to appoint the investigative commission demanded by the UN panel.  The government has launched a vicious counter-attack against Israeli and international human rights NGOs, Israeli and Palestinian peace activists, the Report itself, and progressive bloggers who attest to the inadequacy of Israel's response.  The attack is also coordinated along with internet activists recruited by the Foreign Ministry.  Dershowitz and buddies of his like Weissman and Holland also play a useful role.  I call it the vast right-wing hasbara conspiracy-crusade.

Dershowitz and Holland attacked my post because it revealed that the clothes the Haiti hasbara emperor were wearing were hiding the sins of Gaza.  Interesting who they haven't attacked though–the Israeli doctor (and IDF Lt. Col.) whose newspaper article formed the basis for my article.  My post is 85%Dr. Yoel Donchin's article from the Israeli press with 15% commentary written by me.  But it would be much harder to target an experienced medicine specialist from Israel's Hadassah Hospital as being anti-Israel or loony-left than me (though it won't succeed with me either).

+++

An informal choppy letter--

JAN. 25, 2010

Professor Alan Dershowitz helps me understand how the ethnic 
sensibilities got in the way of CNN'sElizabeth 
Cohen when she was reporting from Haiti

Dear Prof. Alan Dershowitz,

Thank you, professor Alan Dershowitz, for waking-up my brain. It's because of your column yesterday in the Jerusalem Post, Double Standard Watch: For bigots, Israel can do no right that I learned something new about myself. You rascal..! Could it be an inspection of your own brain that you think of me as a racist and a fascist? Are you sure you were not looking in the same mirror as Elizabeth Cohen's when you wrote that about me?

Your link to Elizabeth Cohen's video news report with the word "marvel", caused me to investigate the integrity of her reporting, due to your endorsement of her and your misunderstanding about me. Let's click on "marvel" and go to the video clip, before we continue with my discovery, thanks to you, of her propagandist reporting.

You wrote in your fist two opening paragraphs:

As most objective observers throughout the world marvel at Israel's efficiency and generosity in leading the medical aid efforts in Haiti, some bigots insist on using these efforts as an occasion to continue their attack on the Jewish state. Both the neo-Nazi hard right and the neo-Stalinist hard left cannot help but to demonize Israel, regardless of what Israel does.

The neo-Nazi Web site ReportersNotebook.com features a blog entitled The Zionization of Disaster Relief.  It accuses Israel of "exploiting the suffering of poor, defenseless Haitians on behalf of Israeli Triumphalism." It complains that Israel is rendering medical aid to Haiti only to deflect attention from its crimes against the Palestinians. 

Let's focus on your good friend Elizabeth Cohen 

On the earth shattered grounds in Haiti on Jan.14, Elizabeth Cohen on CNN reports that the nation of Israel would send a field hospital and it would be up and running on the next day on Friday, Jan.15. In the mean time, according to Wikipedia (see LINK) over 150 nations and territories responded to the Haitian earthquake crisis. It was not worth a mention by Ms. Cohen. When Friday arrives and still there is no Israeli field hospital, she repeats the same reporting on Friday night that the Israelis will have a field hospital on Saturday, Jan.16. Why was this more news worthy than the other nations who were on the ground with field hospitals?

According to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Tweeter reports, the Israeli field hospital and it's 40 doctors arrived Friday morning. With military personnel of 200 to set up the field hospital overnight and into the early hours of Saturday morning before 8:04AM the Israeli field hospital had an ICU, with patients that were brought to them from a nearby adjacent makeshift hospital that was monitored by a Dr. Jennifer Furin. Who we would learn about, from Elizabeth Cohen, in reports she filed the following days and ways on Jan.16 with a video clip, Jan. 17 with a written article, and then Jan.18 with a spliced video clip --- all in a very sneaky way for Zionist propaganda effect.

With all of her anticipation for two nights telling CNN viewers about the arrival of an Israeli field hospital, she does not file a report about the Israeli field hospital's functioning on Saturday, Jan.16. Stretching this story for propaganda purposes until -- Monday Jan.18. 

Why? 

Monday is a bigger news day than a Saturday and definitly a Sunday when folks are watching sports, outside or at family functions. According to the IDF Tweeter reports the Israelis already had an operating field hospital functioning within walking distance from where her CNN crew was reporting unnecessary scary news.

Her live report on Saturday afternoon makes no sense and is contradictory. See my yellow highlights.

ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Fredricka, this is day three for me at this makeshift hospital of about 300 patients on the U.N. compound near the airport. And I'll tell you, the screams have intensified. We hear them all the time.

These are people with broken bones they are trying to control with morphine, and it's just not cutting it any more. For example, the loudest screams we hear are from people with pelvic fractures where the bones are sticking out of the skin. They need surgery.

And to talk about this I have Dr. Jennifer Furin here with me from Harvard medical school. And Dr. Furin, tell me, what percentage of the patients here need surgery within the next 24 hours?

DR. JENNIFER FURIN, HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL: Within the next twenty-four hours, approximately 30 percent of the patients in the hospital need immediate surgery or they are going to die.

COHEN: They will die of infections?

FURIN: They will die of infections, malnutrition, and metabolic derangements.

COHEN: The U.S. Department of Health and Human services does have a team that sets up operating rooms for patients like this. What are you hearing? Are they coming any time soon? FURIN: In any situation like this with downed communications, rumor and speculation are the norm. We hear every day that the team will be set up, we'll be able to send patients over there for life-saving and limb-saving surgery. Every day the expectation goes down, the hope, most importantly, of the patients are dashed as there is nowhere to send them for necessary, life-saving surgeries.

COHEN: Is there any hope at all? Is anyone setting up an operating room for these patients at all?

FURIN: I know there is a lot of talk and speculation about it. The only people we've actually seen on the ground doing things are the team from Israel.

COHEN: The team from Israel is building an operating room?

FURIN: Yes. They are building a functioning triage level and surgical field hospital. They are the first ones who will be operating.

COHEN: Thank you, Dr. Jennifer Furin from Harvard medical school.


The news media blitz on Monday (Jan.18)  kept reminding the public that the size of the Israeli field hospital would be able to help 500 patients a day compared to the typical field hospital of 140 patients a day. Yet at the end of the second day on Sunday Jan.17, it only helped 200 patients, this according to the Israeli Tweeter reports--short of 800 patients it could have helped, since it was built for 500 patients a day.

WHY WAS ELIZABETH COHEN MISLEADING CNN VIEWERS THAT THERE WAS CRISIS THAT AMERICAN DOCTORS WERE HAVING? WHY WAS DR. FURIN GIVING ANSWERS TO ELIZABETH COHEN THAT DID NOT MAKE ANY SENSE? ABOUT/THAT PATIENTS WERE GOING TO DIE WHEN THEY WERE BEING TRANSPORTED NEXT DOOR TO THE ISRAELI FIELD HOSPITAL SIX HOURS EARLIER? HAVING A CAPACITY TO HELP 500 PATIENTS A DAY, AND THE IDF TWEETER'S SAY THAT IN THE FIRST 48 HOURS ONLY 200 OUT A CAPACITY OF 1000 HAD USED THE FIELD HOSPITAL.

Elizabeth Cohen files an updated written report on her BLOG at 2:28 the next day Sunday Jan.17: "Furin said rumors and talk of setting up an operating room abound, but that nothing has materialized." But this is misleading! Dr. Furin had no need for surgical rooms since the Israeli field hospital was next door, to help (and was helping!) Dr. Furin and her staff for over 30 hours!!!

Here in its entirety is the updated written report she filed at 2:28 on Sunday Jan, 17. Keep in mind, she filed a video report on Jan.18, with Dr. Jennifer Furin, who she interviewd on Saturday Jan.16, saying that since she has been in Haiti she has been sending the most serious cases next door to the Israeli field hospital. It was done immediately on Saturday morning at 8:04AM or earlier, according to the IDF Tweeter reports.


Port-au-Prince, Haiti (CNN) -- Nearly a third of the patients at a makeshift hospital in earthquake-ravaged Haiti will die without immediate surgery, a doctor warned Saturday.

"Within the next 24 hours, approximately 30 percent of the patients in the hospital need immediate surgery or they're going to die," Dr. Jennifer Furin, from the Harvard Medical School, told CNN of the roughly 300 patients at a makeshift hospital on a United Nations compound near Port-au-Prince's airport.

"They will die of infections, they'll die of dead tissue, they'll die of malnutrition and metabolic derangements," she said.

The screams at this temporary hospital have crescendoed since Tuesday's earthquake, and medical workers futilely tried to ease pain with morphine. The loudest cries came from those with pelvic fractures so severe that their bones protruded through their skin.

Video: Medical facilities scarce
Video: Baby pulled from rubble


Furin said rumors and talk of setting up an operating room abound, but that nothing has materialized.

"Every day as the sun starts to go down, the hope, most importantly, of the patients are dashed, as yet again there's nowhere to send them for these necessary life-saving surgeries," she said.

One team, from the Israel Defense Forces, began setting up a surgical field level hospital at an abandoned athletic field.

"They're the first ones who are going to be operating," Furin said.

The Israeli delegation of 220 arrived at the Antoine Izmery soccer field Friday to begin setting up tents and equipment. Its doctors and other medical personnel anticipated treating about 500 casualties a day. Much of the aid will be focused on helping any survivors of the destroyed U.N. headquarters in the capital, Port-au-Prince.###


Facts that Elizabeth Cohen did not want to report, the nations from the same region, as Israel, were not noted and also may, may explain why the Israeli field hospital was so underutilized. 

From Jan. 14-16 the same time frame of the Israeli arrival to Haiti this was not reported by CNN:

Jordan: A Jordanian air force plane carrying a military field hospital and 6 tons of food and supplies left Amman on January 14. A second plane carrying Jordanian medics left the following day.

Iran: Iran's Red Crescent society sent 30 tons of humanitarian aid, including food, tents and medicine, on January 16.

Kuwait: Kuwait donated $1 million to relief efforts; the Red Crescent is preparing 100 tons of food, medical supplies, tents and blankets to fly to Haiti.

Lebanon: Lebanon is loading a plane with 25 tons of tents and 3 tons of medical supplies; it leaves tomorrow.

Morocco: Two planes carrying 24 tons of aid left the city of Kenitra on January 16. The Moroccan government has pledged $1 million in aid to Haiti.

Qatar: A Qatari C-17 aircraft loaded with 50 tons of aid left for Port-au-Prince on January 14. The Qatari government also sent a rescue team to set up a field hospital; the Red Crescent will sent another $100,000.

Turkey: Three cargo planes -- carrying search-and-rescue teams, a mobile hospital and aid materials -- left for Haiti on January 16. Another two planes left yesterday. Turkey has also donated $1 million in cash.

United Arab Emirates: The UAE sent two planes loaded with tents, and a team from the UAE's Red Crescent will arrive in the Dominican Republic tomorrow to buy $500,000 worth of supplies and truck them to Haiti. Another 50 tons of emergency supplies will be air-lifted from Abu Dhabi tomorrow.


See how FOX News filed a fair and balanced report (I can't believe I am saying this about Fox News). The report they aired on the same Monday as Ms. Cohen's aired on Jan. 18:

Treating Survivors


Compared to this propaganda news item that you drool and marvel over:

Elizabeth Cohen filed this video report on Monday morning, Jan.18. As you can see she did not air the entire interview with Dr. Furin on Jan.16 or she went back to her on Sunday to interview her with staged questions. She did not want to air the entire interview until Jan.18, for propaganda purposes. Let's "Marvel" at the MARVELOUS clip--again. It is self-explanatory how she spliced the news piece and asked coached and leading questions for the doctors to answer with the kind of answers she wanted.

Extra...extra...extra..read all about it...

01:50  CNN Elizabeth Cohen: 
Haiti Day 6 - No one but the Israelis have come to help any of ...interviews makeshift medical tent personnel on January 18, on Monday morning. Asking Harvard Medical Dr. Jennifer Furin, "Have the Americans set up a field hospital ...(Like Ms. Cohen does not know the State Department passed the baton for Israel to milk the publicity that she helped facilitate.)


Yes, Alan....you have a rabid Zionist (like yourself--you rascal) reporter doing what she is supposed to do...make sure the Israeli effort goes to the front of the media bus and everybody else to the back. Nothing new. That's standard operating procedure and the network editors know that. And the name of the game is holding the viewer for the ads to run. The big ad companies who do the Fortune 500 company ad buys are mainly Jewish owned and run, so Jewish Power in the USA have a kind of vertical monopoly. Re-read JJ Goldberg's book: Jewish Power to remind yourself. Or re-read your own books that you allege you wrote.

But with all the mess there is out there, Alan, the general public is not going to care about PR wars. About who did what, or what you think of me and ReportersNotebook.com. 

Maybe the real story is/was the under supply medicines and supplies for the hospitals that were functioning. We may learn that the orthopedic supply chain may not have a ton of excess capacity in it for tens of thousands of victims at one time. Where, like a Walmart warehouse, it could be loaded and shipped down in 12 hours.


Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com
New release: Debating The Holocaust by Thomas Dalton_._,_.

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

SEN. AL FRANKEN INTRODUCES BILL TO LIMIT SUPREME COURT RULING

 

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 18:11
Subject: [bushcon4] *? 2 ALL: SEN AL FRANKEN INTRODUCES BILL TO LIMIT SUPREME COURT RULING - WHAT ARE YOUR COMMENTS?*

 


al franken

Sen. Al Franken introduced a bill aimed at curtailing
foreign influence in U.S. elections, a measure prompted
by a Supreme Court ruling last week his office said
overturned not just federal campaign finance laws but
also a 20-year-old Minnesota law prohibiting corporate
spending on elections. - The Mudflats
(see below - thanks, Sherry)
 
======
 
Hi Team!

*? 2 ALL:

SEN AL FRANKEN INTRODUCES BILL

TO LIMIT SUPREME COURT RULING -

http://redbloodedamerican.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/scotus_1.jpg

Franken's bill would ban election spending and contributions by corporations
primarily financed by foreign nationals, whose boards of directors or stock
ownership are controlled by a majority foreign nationals. Companies that
allow foreign nationals to participate in political activities like political action
committees would also be barred.
 
All other companies would be required to disclose exactly how much of their
firm is controlled by foreign nationals or, if they can't, how much of their
financing comes from foreign nationals. - Mudflats

 

WHAT ARE YOUR COMMENTS?*

Greg Dempsey
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SECULARHUMANIST 
Voice Of The People

=====

Worth the Wait

31 01 2010

It seemed like forever and a day before Al Franken put the election behind him and took his seat as the Senator from Minnesota. He was worth the wait.  Who was that other guy?  Norm….something…

Sen. Al Franken introduced a bill aimed at curtailing foreign influence in U.S. elections, a measure prompted by a Supreme Court ruling last week his office said overturned not just federal campaign finance laws but also a 20-year-old Minnesota law prohibiting corporate spending on elections.

The ruling referenced is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. If you have a strong stomach, you can read it HERE. Let's just say if I'm ever interviewe by Katie Couric at some point in the future, and she asks me if there are any Supreme Court decisions I disagree with, I'll mention this one. And Baker v. Exxon.

Between this, voting against the reappointment of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke (as did my own Senator Mark Begich), and introducing the "anti-rape" amendment last fall, he is quickly becoming one of my favorite senators.

http://www.themudflats.net/2010/01/31/worth-the-wait/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheMudflats+(The+Mudflats)

 

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

Why has there been such silence on this?....Am I missing something?

 

Terror suspect kept visa to avoid tipping off larger investigation

NATHAN HURST
Detroit News Washington Bureau

Washington --The State Department didn't revoke the visa of foiled terrorism suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab because federal counterterrorism officials had begged off revocation, a top State Department official revealed Wednesday.

Patrick F. Kennedy, an undersecretary for management at the State Department, said Abdulmutallab's visa wasn't taken away because intelligence officials asked his agency not to deny a visa to the suspected terrorist over concerns that a denial would've foiled a larger investigation into al-Qaida threats against the United States.

"Revocation action would've disclosed what they were doing," Kennedy said in testimony before the House Committee on Homeland Security. Allowing Adbulmutallab to keep the visa increased chances federal investigators would be able to get closer to apprehending the terror network he is accused of working with, "rather than simply knocking out one solider in that effort."

The committee's hearing continues a series across Capitol Hill that started last week, all looking into the events leading up to and after the attempted bombing of Flight 253 over Detroit. Law enforcement officials say Abdulmutallab tried to detonate an explosive hidden in his underwear on board the flight from Amsterdam shortly before its landing at Detroit Metropolitan Airport in Romulus on Christmas Day.

Since the failed attack, criticism has swirled around leaders of the U.S. intelligence community who have indicated they were warned by the suspect's father about a month before the flight of a potential terror threat, but failed to stop Abdmutallab, despite other warning signs like the fact that he purchased a one-way ticket to Detroit with cash.

Politicians have also criticized the decision to treat Abdulmutallab as a civilian after the arrest in Michigan, with Miranda rights being read to him after less than an hour of interrogation and without input from the intelligence community.

Rep. Candice Miller, R-Harrison Township, the only Michigan House member on the Homeland Security Committee, said in a Tuesday statement that she planned to question officials on that matter at today's hearing.

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

Dershowitz the Racist...

 


Dershowitz Slams Goldstone: "He's An Evil Man"

 
by Hillel Fendel
Jan. 31, 2010
Israel news 

(IsraelNN.com) Following his scathing critique of the Goldstone Report, for which Israel is preparing a response, Harvard Law School's Professor Alan Dershowitz calls Goldstone an "evil man."

Speaking with Army Radio on Sunday morning, Dershowitz said that Goldstone – whose report to the United Nations on Israel's anti-terrorism Operation Cast Lead accused Israel of war crimes – "is a traitor using his Jewishness to malign Israel… He is an evil man, one who allowed himself to be used against the Jewish people, an absolute traitor."

MORE:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/135780


Prof. Dershowitz


Peace.

Michael Santomauro

Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

New Release: Debating The Holocaust by Thomas Dalton

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

Memories Of Madison—My Life In The New Left

 



Kevin MacDonald Archive

.

March 18, 2009

Memories Of Madison—My Life In The New Left

By Kevin MacDonald

The first time I became aware of leftist Jews was when, as a reporter for The Daily Cardinal, the student newspaper, at the University of Wisconsin, I was assigned to cover a meeting of the Committee Against the War in Vietnam. This was around 1965, just after the war started heating up. In my short career as a reporter I had also covered a meeting of the Young Republicans, and the contrast couldn't have been more striking. The Young Republicans were all dressed up—men in suits and ties, women in dresses—and looked like they were attending a business meeting at the country club.

Even though the Young Republicans were all white and most of them came from Wisconsin, I can't say that I related to them much. But I felt even more alien at the meeting of the antiwar committee. The attendees were dressed in a much more Bohemian style and there was a lot of intense talk about politics. And they were Jewish.

I wasn't the only one to notice the Jewish flavor of radical politics at Wisconsin. In their academic study of the New Left Roots of Radicalism: Jews, Christians and the Left, Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter quote an observer of the New Left scene at the University of Wisconsin: "I am struck by the lack of Wisconsin-born people and the massive preponderance of New York Jews. The situation at the University of Minnesota is similar." His correspondent replied: "As you perceived, the Madison left is built on New York Jews."

Things changed for me when I moved in with two Jewish roommates and suddenly became immersed in the radical Jewish subculture of Madison. Living in an environment where radical politics was an unquestioned assumption, I soon became a radical myself. A social psychologist would probably explain it as conforming to a new set of social norms—when in Rome, do as the Romans do. In some ways I was probably prepared for the plunge into radicalism. I had been politically liberal, a Democrat, and a strong supporter of the Civil Rights Movements. But there was a very large gap between being a liberal and being a radical, especially in those days.

Shortly thereafter, I remember telling someone from my hometown that I had become"alienated" from the culture. And now that I recall that incident, it calls to mind a passage from Chapter 6 of my study of Jewish involvement in 20th Century intellectual and political movements, The Culture of Critique:

"[The New York Intellectuals] conceived themselves as alienated, marginalized figures—a modern version of traditional Jewish separateness and alienation from [non-Jewish] culture. [As Norman Podhoretz described them,] "They did not feel that they belonged to America or that America belonged to them." … Indeed, Podhoretz … was asked by a New Yorker editor in the 1950s "whether there was a special typewriter key at Partisan Review with the word 'alienation' on a single key."

Without really realizing the ramifications, I had been acculturated into a Jewish intellectual and political milieu of alienation—and antipathy to the small-town Wisconsin milieu (Irish and German, Catholic, lower middle class) in which I grew up. My attitudes toward pretty much everything changed dramatically. I viewed the people and culture that I grew up in with disdain if not hatred.

The University of Wisconsin was a hotbed of the counterculture during the 1960s. Two buildings were bombed, several were occupied, and the Wisconsin National Guard was called in to restore order. There was also a substantial hippie subculture—relatively less political and less Jewish, and more preoccupied with drugs, sex, and rock-n'-roll.

At the center of intellectual life for radicals at Wisconsin were Harvey Goldberg and the History Department. One of the themes of The Culture of Critique is the tendency for Jewish intellectual movements to become centered around highly charismatic Jewish figures. At Wisconsin the student movement idolized historically important Jewish leftists such as Leon Trotsky, Rosa Luxemburg, and Herbert Marcuse. But there was a special place in their hearts for the charismatic social historian Harvey Goldberg. Goldberg's lectures presenting his Marxist view of European social history enthralled a very large following on campus. He commanded overflow crowds at the largest lecture hall on campus, Agriculture Hall, which holds 600 students. Going there was a commitment because it was not located near the social science buildings.

Goldberg's lectures were an unforgettable experience of performance art. Beginning in a low key but intense style, he built up the volume and intensity level gradually to a frenzied climax. The lectures usually ended 5–10 minutes after the class was scheduled to end, but everyone remained glued to their seats. The conclusion typically elicited a rousing standing ovation from the students.

By the end of the lecture, Goldberg, who was rather gaunt and frail looking, was sweating profusely, seemingly drained and exhausted. Throughout the lecture, students would react by laughing at his jokes and applauding his condemnations of the capitalists and other oppressors in European history. Great fun, and doubtless quite influential. As a newspaper article put it"His lectures, delivered in a voice that seemed to resonate from the depths of his soul, were a transforming experience for generations of students, stirring their minds and consciences."

Goldberg died in 1989, but his legacy lives on. Quite a few of his lectures were recorded and are available from the Harvey Goldberg Center for Contemporary History at Wisconsin. Besides the Goldberg Center at the University of Wisconsin, he has also been immortalized by a Program for Excellence in Teaching at Ohio State (his first teaching position), and witha classroom at the Brecht Forum, a Marxist cultural center in New York.

Probably because of Goldberg, the History Department achieved pride of place in terms of academic majors for radicals. (Sociology was also fashionable; I was in philosophy, which was also at least moderately acceptable for a radical.) Being accepted as a graduate student by Goldberg was very prestigious even though Goldberg was not particularly productive as a scholar.

Goldberg's rival for intellectual guruship at Wisconsin was George L. Mosse whose course on European intellectual history was also a magnet for campus radicals. Mosse was the grandson of the founder of the liberal Berlin newspaper Das Berliner Tageblatt—a prototype of Jewish-owned liberal media that drew the special ire of Hitler and his movement. Das Berliner Tageblatt was seized by the government when Hitler came to power, and Mosse and his family were forced to leave Germany.

The radicals I knew viewed Mosse as insufficiently radical. His main sin was that he was an intellectual historian. Serious Marxists view intellectual history as mere superstructure overlaying the economic basis of the class struggle.

I took Mosse's course and later came to read several of Mosse's books as background to my chapter on National Socialism [PDF] in Separation and Its DiscontentsIn his book The Crisis of German Ideology, Mosse stressed that an important ingredient in the rise of Nazism was völkisch ideology—the ideology that Germans had a unique folk spirit as a result of their evolutionary past. Incidentally, although unmentioned by Mosse, such racially charged views found mirror images in the writings of 19th-century Jewish proto-Zionists likeMoses Hess [PDF] and became a cornerstone of the racial Zionist movement that dominates the politics of Israel today.

Unlike Goldberg, Mosse's Jewish interests and identification were quite overt. His lectures, like his books, showed a strong interest in Jewish issues, particularly the Holocaust and the ideologoical basis of Nazism. Like Goldberg, Mosse has left behind a legacy at the UW History Department, endowing it with a bequest made possible by the restoration of his family's property after World War II. Mosse also taught at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem; his Jewish interests can also be seen by perusing the catalog of the book series published by the institute established in his name.

Although Goldberg never discussed Jewish issues in his lectures to my knowledge, the Jewishness of both of these campus gurus was apparent to everyone. Attending the lectures and discussing them with others was an important component of the Jewish-dominated radical subculture of Madison.

I was not alone as a non-Jew adopting the attitudes of the radical Jewish subculture. The anti-war movement spread beyond its predominantly East Coast Jewish origins to a very large swathe of the university and the city of Madison.

A lot of this was brought to mind while viewing the 1979 documentary The War at Homewhich chronicles the period from around 1964–1970 in Madison. The only people I recognize in the film are Paul Soglin and Evan Stark—two highly visible Jewish antiwar activists during that period. (Soglin parlayed his career as an activist into 6 terms as mayor of Madison, while Stark became a tenured radical at Rutgers University.) But, besides leaders like Soglin and Stark, the protests and demonstrations—some of which I participated in—showed a preponderance of non-Jews. The protest against the war—and to a great extent the values of the radical counterculture as a whole—had become mainstream.

Memories about Madison radicals in the 1960s came up again while reading Mark Rudd'smemoir (Why were there so many Jews in SDS (Or the ordeal of civility). Rudd, who is Jewish, became well known as a student activist at Columbia University during the 1960s. After being expelled from Columbia, he became an SDS organizer and (along with Bill Ayers) was one of the founders of the Weather Underground whose mission was, as quoted by Rudd, "the violent overthrow of the government of the US in solidarity with the struggles of the people of the world."

Rudd describes the SDS at Columbia during the late 1960s as a "Jewish fraternity." The Jewish radicals described by Rudd seem more like Harvey Goldberg than George Mosse. Their Jewish identification was never discussed among themselves: "I don't remember one single conversation in which we discussed the fact that so many of us were Jewish." Rudd suggests that "by being radicals we thought we could escape ourJewishness."

The late Paul Lyons [PDF], an academic historian of the American left (Philadelphia Communists 1936-56), makes the interesting comment about the Jewish Old Left that

"…most Jewish Communists wear their Jewishness very casually but experience it deeply. It is not a religious or even an institutional Jewishness for most; nevertheless, it is rooted in a subculture of identity, style, language, and social network. . . . In fact, this second-generation Jewishness was antiethnic and yet the height of ethnicity. The emperor believed that he was clothed in transethnic, American garb, but [non-Jews] saw the nuances and details of his naked ethnicity."

It was the same with their chidren who became the Jewish New Left. The topic of why there were so many radical Jews was never discussed, at least around me. But the Jewishness of these radicals was obvious to non-Jews like me who were suddently exposed to a very different subculture. The ethnic networking among Jews was obvious, as were the East Coast accents with sprinklings of Yiddish. Their taste in clothing was different, and they liked to talk about movies a lot, especially European movies by directors like Ingmar Bergman and François Trauffaut—sort of a 1960s intellectual version of Seinfeld. They had a whole set of (Jewish) idols (Trotsky, Marcuse, Luxemburg) that were initially quite foreign to me. Rudd recalls that the frame of reference for Jewish radicals at Columbia was the Holocaust and the need not to be a "good German". I don't recall mention of the Holocaust, but it is certainly true that World War II and the evils of Nazism were much on the mind of Jewish radicals at Wisconsin.

Several authors have pointed out that radical Jews saw themselves as participating in a universalist movement to establish a classless society for all people; and because of this universalist veneer, they thought that their Jewishness would be invisible to others, or at least irrelevant. Obviously, it wasn't invisible, nor was it irrelevant.

The radical Jews I knew seemed to realize that non-Jews saw them as Jews. In fact, one thing that struck me was that they were proud of being Jews and had very negative attitudes toward Christianity. At least around me, they did not condemn Christianity because of anti-Semitism. (The only allusion to historical anti-Semitism that I remember was when my roommate said something to the effect that "Do you realize that at one time or another Jews have been expelled from every country of Europe?" At that time, I did not know that.)

Rather, they were proud of the fact that Judaism represented enlightened views on sexuality, while Chistianity was prudish and sexually repressive. Their theoretical framework for this (there always has to be a theoretical framework!) was, of course, psychoanalysis which by then had become another bedrock ideology among Jewish intellectuals. In line with Freudian thinking, they attributed various forms of psychopathology and even white racial consciousness and capitalism to Christian sexual attitudes—an analysis that stemmed from their reading of Marcuse's synthesis of Marx and Freud.

Other things about radical Jews at Wisconsin only struck me after becoming more familiar with Judaism 25 years later. The intellectual atmosphere of the movement closely resembled the atmosphere of other Jewish subcultures—intensely verbal discussions in which one's reputation as a leftist was related to one's ability in Marxist intellectual analysis and familiarity with Marxist scholarship. All of this required a great deal of study, but it was worth it because being a Marxist scholar, like being a rabbi in traditional Jewish society, carried a great deal of prestige. It was also attractive to the ladies.

There was also a great deal of hostility to Western cultural institutions as politically and sexually oppressive combined with an ever-present sense of danger and imminent destruction by the forces of repression. The overwhelming forces of the fascist capitialist state led by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI were about to round up all the radicals and do away with them. This ingroup bunker mentality—which I document A People That Shall Dwell Alone—I came to realize as a fundamental characteristic of Jewish society.

Incidentally, this is a very useful thing to know about Jews. It explains how the ADL and the SPLC—the $PLC as VDARE.com calls it—makes their money: Create the feeling ofimminent destruction by the forces of white racism and bigotry as a way of prodding Jews to donate.

Not surprisingly, there was an attitude of moral and intellectual superiority as well as contempt toward traditional American culture, particularly rural America and most particularly the South. These attitudes are hallmarks of the other intellectual movements reviewed in The Culture of Critique. In Rudd's case, his ire is directed at the genteel culture of Columbia:

"What outraged me and my comrades so much about Columbia, along with its hypocrisy, was the air of genteel civility. Or should I say gentile? Despite the presence of so many Jews in the faculty and among the students … the place was dripping with goyishness."

Ah, the stuffy white goyim at Columbia hadn't abdicated quickly enough and still had the temerity to hang around past their time. We can all breathe a sigh of relief that those days are over. I suppose he would have had the same reaction to the Young Republicans at Wisconsin in 1965.

In my experience at Madison during the 1960s, there was also a strong desire for bloody, apocalyptic revenge against the entire social structure—perceived by them to be the goyish, fascist, capitalist, racist, anti-Semitic social structure. (Harvey Goldberg, whose lectures often celebrated bloody uprisings against the forces of oppression, probably fed into this.) This fits well with the set of interviews with New Left Jewish radicals in Percy Cohen's Jewish Radicals and Radical Jews: many had destructive fantasies in which the revolution would result in "humiliation, dispossession, imprisonment or execution of the oppressors." These fantasies of destruction of the social order were combined with a belief in their own omnipotence and their ability to create a non-oppressive social order.

Finally, it was very striking to me that these anti–Vietnam War Jewish radicals were euphoric incongruously about Israel's victory Six-Day War of 1967. This also struck VDARE.com's Paul Gottfried as worthy of comment:

"All my Jewish colleagues in graduate school [at Yale], noisy anti-anti-Communists, opposed American capitalist imperialism, but then became enthusiastic warmongers during the Arab-Israeli War in 1967. One Jewish Marxist acquaintance went into a rage that the Israelis did not demand the entire Mideast at the end of that war. Another, though a feminist, lamented that the Israeli soldiers did not rape more Arab women. It would be no exaggeration to say that my graduate school days resounded with Jewish hysterics at an institution where Wasps seemed to count only for decoration."(Paul Gottfried, On "Being Jewish", Rothbard-Rockwell Report [April]:9–10, 1996.

I guess the old white genteel elite at Columbia weren't the only ones capable of hypocrisy.

To his credit, Rudd does better than most Jews in trying to explain Jewish involvement in radicalism, citing John Murray Cuddihy's classic The Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Levi-Strauss and the Jewish Struggle With Modernity. Here is the central quote from Cuddihy:

"With the advent of Jewish Emancipation, when ghetto walls crumble and theshtetlach begin to dissolve, Jewry—like some wide-eyed anthropologist—enters upon a strange world, to explore a strange people observing a strangehalakah They examine this world in dismay, with wonder, anger, and punitive objectivity. This wonder, this anger, and the vindictive objectivity of the marginal nonmember are recidivist; they continue unabated into our own time because Jewish Emancipation continues into our own time."

Rudd comments:

"We Jews at Columbia—and I would guess at colleges throughout the country—brought the same outsider view to the campuses we had been allowed into. We were peasant children right out of the shtetls of New Jersey and Queens screaming, 'You want to know the truth about Columbia University, they're a bunch of liberal imperialists!'"

Rudd also cites Israel Shahak's important book Jewish History, Jewish Religion —but Rudd twists Shahak's thesis to state that

"…as a reaction to being the victims of racism throughout the centuries, we developed a religion which itself enshrined racism toward the other. This is especially true of the rabbinical commentaries developed in Eastern Europe over the almost one thousand years in which we occupied a middle position between the landlords, whom we served, and the peasants who despised us and whom we in turn despised. How could it have been otherwise? In my family, if you wanted to say somebody was stupid you said they had a 'goyishe kup,' a goyish head."

My view is that it's the other way around: The Jewish concern with racial purity can be seen in the Old Testament and throughout Jewish history.

From time to time, Western societies have attacked or erected defenses against Jewish elites and their non-Jewish allies. Since the 19th century, important anti-Jewish movements have been racialist (National Socialism in Germany), but this racialism was not the basis of Christian anti-Jewish movements (Christianity in the 4th and 5th centuries and during the Inquisition in Spain and Portugal). As Shahak points out (p. 64), the general pattern throughout European history was for popular uprisings against Jews as components of oppressive elites—and for the non-Jewish elements of the elites to come to the aid of Jews.

Rudd sees Israel for what it is: A racialist, militarist, expansionist state:

"Israel is America's future: militarized, racist, religio-nationalist, corporate, riven with so many internal splits and hatreds that only the existence of a perpetual enemy keeps the nation from exploding. If we don't organize to stop the current direction in this country, thirty years from now we will be Israel."

Rudd is probably right that America of the future will be hopelessly "riven with … internal splits and hatreds". Such are the predictable results of the rise of multiculturalism and massive non-white immigration unleashed by the activism of the organized Jewish community [PDF].

What Rudd doesn't discuss is that Jewish activism on behalf of non-white immigration can be directly traced back to Jewish activists on the left—people like Rudd. Massive non-white immigration into Western societies has been a project of the Jewish left for pretty much the entire last century. The Jewish left has been the most influential component of the organized Jewish community. And even when a significant number of Jews defected from the left, giving rise to the neoconservative movement, they retained the traditional Jewish attitudes on immigration.

That's why I think the real explanation of Jewish involvement in the Left includes an additional component. It's certainly true that, as Cuddihy wrote, Jews emerged from the ghetto with hostility toward the culture around them. This fits with modern psychological data on how people with a strong ingroup identity, like Jews, perceive outgroups. Jewish hostility toward the culture of non-Jews has been a constant throughout Jewish history. The difference was that, as Cuddihy notes, they and their preferences suddenly became part of mainstream Western culture, with a great deal of political influence and access to the media and the academic world.

But it was more than that. It's about displacement and domination. The displacement of the genteel white Protestant culture at Columbia that Rudd hated is part of the general displacement of non-Jewish whites. Rudd doesn't consider the fate of that other very influential group of leftist Jews—the Jewish radicals who fled the shtetls of Eastern Europe and, instead of going to Ellis Island, became dominant elite in the USSR after the success of the Bolshevik Revolution. These Jewish radicals were able to actually carry out in the USSR the fantasies the New Left Jewish radicals in the US—i.e., the "humiliation, dispossession, imprisonment or execution of the oppressors" mentioned above. Harvey Goldberg's wet dream.

This group of Jewish radicals became an integral part of the machinery of mass murder and oppression in the USSR. In doing so, they displaced the older non-Jewish elites of Russians and Germans. (Doubtless, they were too genteel and had other faults that warranted their displacement.) At least through the 1950s, political radicalism was popular among American Jews in large part because the Bolshevik Revolution was good for Jews. Jews had risen to the heights in the USSR, and the USSR had crushed fascist Germany.

Even though the New Left rejected Stalinism, there is no doubt it was bent on a similar displacement of white elites. All of its policies led inexorably in that direction. To a considerable extent, the current malaise of whites in the US can be directly traced to the triumph of the attitudes of the New Left—especially non-white immigration, the rise of multiculturalism, and the steady erosion of whites as a percentage of the electorate. (Thelast Democratic president to get a majority of white votes was Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964.

I have a suggestion for Rudd: If you are really interested in stopping racism, become active in opposing Zionism and its influence in the US.

Otherwise, we get the impression that you tacitly approve Jewish ethnic chauvinism in Israel while favoring the displacment of whites in the US.

And if you want to quell the" "internal splits and hatreds" within the US, become active in the cause of reversing the effects of four decades of non-white immigration.

Kevin MacDonald [email him] is professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach and a frequent contributor to The Occidental Observer. For his website, click here.

+++

Peace.

Michael Santomauro

Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

New Release: Debating The Holocaust by Thomas Dalton


__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___