January 17, 2011 http://vdare.com/macdonald/110117_daily_show.htm Jared Taylor just had a nice column at VDARE.com on his adventures following absolutely groundless news reports that Arizona shooter Jared Lee Loughner was linked to Taylor'sAmerican Renaissance. His account says a lot about how Political Correctness is enforced in the media. Politico, having eagerly picked up the story that Loughner was linked to AR, happily agreed to run Taylor's account of how he stood up to the smear. But his article was pulled, just after Taylor sent the following description of AR at her request to Politico Opinion Editor Allison Silver [Email her]: "My magazine takes a conservative position on race and immigration and argues that diversity of the kind we are supposed to be celebrating is a weakness for the country, not a strength." Silver claimed that "there has been too much of a time lag". Taylor comments sarcastically: "We really do live in fast-moving times, don't we? A story can go from 'fascinating' and 'swell' to stale news in less than 12 hours. Or even from 'Got it, thanks!' to stale news in a little over an hour." A strikingly similar thing happened to me last summer, during the Elena Kagan SCOTUS confirmation process. I got an email from Miles Kahn, [Email him] a producer of The Daily Show, inviting me to go to New York to film an interview with Samantha Bee, one of the show's reporters. It was a tough decision—several people I asked said it was a bad idea. Ms. Bee is famous for skewering unwary interviewees, as in this bit on "A San Antonio good Samaritan [who] uses camera-mounted rifle technology to allow disabled hunters to shoot live exotic animals via the Internet". And, of course, the show gets to edit the interview. (On the advice of a friend, I asked to tape the interview myself, but—perhaps significantly—Kahn refused.) Still, I eventually agreed, perhaps on the theory that there is no such thing as bad publicity. So I flew across the country, at The Daily Show's expense, showed up at The Daily Show studio on the far west side of Manhattan at 9:00AM for what would be a 3-hour session that would be later cut to fit the format. Ms. Bee, the "always pregnant lady", was very pregnant with her third child at the time—probably a record for well-off White career women in New York. I was tempted to congratulate her for being a paragon of White fertility but restrained myself. Kahn sat in with us. The ostensible reason for the interview: I had written some blogs on the Elena Kagan nomination, which was a particular obsession of mine (see here, here, here, here, here, andhere.) Main theme: How can someone with absolutely no scholarly qualifications or any other relevant experience get nominated to the highest court in the land? Answer: Ethnic networking. Two other blogs dealt with the Kagan nomination as a symptom of the decline of WASP America(see here and here). This point (which had been separately albeit blandly raised in some MSM commentary) was to be the focus of the interview. It just goes to show you that you never know who is reading your stuff! Quite a bit of the interview was on how Justice John Paul Stevens, whose retirement occasioned Kagan's nomination, exemplifies the pathologies of WASP America: The ultimate non-ethnic actor. I thought I might as well get something out of my trip to New York, so I subsequently posted my interview notes on my Occidental Observer webzine: John Paul Stevens as Prototypical WASP Main theme: Stevens was principled to a fault, and he is naïve to think that non-Whites are as principled as he is. I wrote: "Stevens and [David] Souter are naive. Their devotion to ideas and principle along with similar attitudes of a very large number of like-minded Whites will cast a long, deadly shadow as we head into the future. All the research shows that ethnically divided societies are prone to conflict and have less of a civic sense — for example, people in ethnically divided societies are less likely to contribute to public goods like health care. The new elite is much more likely to act out their historical grudges against the White majority than to uphold WASP ideals. Ethnicity matters." [VDARE.com links added] Of course, it could be said that Kagan is principled too—the principle being "Is it good for the Jews?"—but that's a whole other ballgame. I added another detail in my interview with Bee that somehow never got into my other writing on Kagan. After managing to get tenure at the prestigious University of Chicago Law School with almost no publications, Kagan went to work for the Clinton administration. After failing to be confirmed as a judge on the U.S. District Court of Appeals, she tried to return to her tenured position at the University of Chicago, but was rejected because of her lack of commitment to scholarship. Kagan then got a non-tenured visiting professor position at Harvard—a very low rung on the academic totem pole (although admittedly a pretty prestigious pole). But shortly thereafter, she miraculously became dean of Harvard Law, as a result of the actions of someone whose Jewish identity and commitment have never been a secret—as New York Magazine's Jason Zengerle put it[(Judging Kagan, May 14, 2010]: "Were it not for [Larry] Summers [who had worked with her in the Clinton Administration], she would probably be grading law-school finals right now rather than prepping for her Senate confirmation hearings." To paraphrase Mel Brooks' line, it's good to have Jewish connections. A memorable moment in our interview of the decline of the WASPs was when I informed Bee that Ralph Lauren (nee Lifshitz) is Jewish. Apparently this was news to her and she pretended to start sobbing uncontrollably. I apologized for shattering her illusions! After the Kagan-Stevens thing, the interview veered into unexpected territory. Kahn was busy passing questions to Bee on a whole range of topics. I talked about Jewish media influence, Bee joking "you should see what it's like around here!" Shades of Rick Sanchez! (The Daily Show's star, Jon Stewart, was born Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz). Ms. Bee seemed surprised that I was not a WASP—that I grew up Catholic in a small city in Wisconsin. There seemed to be an effort to get me to say bad things about the WASPs I had known. But my general message was that what did in the WASPs were the traits like moral idealism so characteristic of John Paul Stevens — not exactly the image that plays well in the media. I told them that I always thought that I could have become part of the WASP club myself if I had just decided to take up golf and get a job where I would make a bit more money than college professors make. In sociology-speak, the boundaries separating me from them were permeable. Indeed, one of my childhood friends was a wealthy Catholic who was well ensconced in the local country club WASP milieu. I was asked about anti-WASP movies, the classic being Caddyshack where WASPs are depicted as snobbish, dishonest, vain, pompous, dim-witted, and sexually repressed. I forgot to mention that our local Jewish surgeon (there were maybe two Jewish families in town) was also member of the local country club scene—but he behaved nothing like the Rodney Dangerfield character inCaddyshack. I was also asked about my affiliation with American Third Position party. I kept reiterating the point that everyone has ethnic interests and that people who don't have a sense of ethnic identity and interests will simply lose out to those that do—a knockdown argument if ever there was one. Bee paraphrased the argument as urging Whites to "get in the game". Sounds like a good slogan for A3P! I was told that the piece would run in a week or two. But nothing happened. Eventually, Kagan was officially confirmed. Not long after, Kahn sent me an email saying "I wanted to let you know that due to circumstances beyond my control, the piece featuring your interview won't be airing. I'm so sorry we weren't able to feature it, but this happens from time to time." Oh, well. Of course, one never really knows why the interview wasn't aired. Maybe it genuinely was no longer topical. But the suspicion must be that, as with Politico and Jared Taylor, the senior media honchos do not want discussions of race, White identity and interests, or Jewish influence in a way that gets outside the box of Political Correctness. Lower-ranking MSM operatives apparently don't always get this message, but they are brought up pretty sharply. The only exceptions are Archie Bunker types who can be easily skewered. I have no doubt whatever that if the interview had aired, I would have come across as a nut case. And of course, from MSM point of view, they are absolutely right. The greatest power of the MSM is the power to define the boundaries of acceptable political discussion. The ideas I was expressing must be seen as espoused only by people who are uneducated, criminal and/or mad. Hence the fervent desire to find that Jared Lee Loughner had ties to White advocacy. Until this intellectual monopoly is broken—as the internet is to some extent doing—there will be no movement on big issues like immigration, especially legal immigration. And anti-White organizations will continue to have the doomsday weapon: being able to end careers with charges of "racism" and "anti-Semitism" simply for writing or saying things that are well-thought out, reasonable, and factually-based—but beyond the pale. The good news for me: it was a learning experience in how the media elite works. And I greatly enjoyed dinner with supportive friends on the night before the interview. They can't take that away from me. 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.
Kevin MacDonald Archive
Email a Friend...
Printer Friendly Version...Kevin MacDonald's Daily Show Adventure
--
Jan 17, 2011
Kevin MacDonald's Daily Show Adventure
Why does health care in Cuba cost 96% less than in the US?
From: frank scott <frankscott@comcast.net>
Date: January 17, 2011 8:15:46 PM EST
Subject: Why does health care in Cuba cost 96% less than in the US?
http://links.org.au/node/2082
email: frankscott@comcast.net
Frank Scott writes political commentary which appears in print in The Independent Monitor and online at the blog Legalienate
The Holocaust Debate: Finally, some clear thinking., April 6, 2009
Rather than writing a review longer than the book itself, I'll just first note that with Thomas Dalton's book, the biggest single problem has finally been addressed, That It Has Been Impossible To Grasp The Big Picture Of The Holocaust Because Of The Incoherence Of The Story. The goals of Nazi policy, the means by which it was ordered and carried out, major events and where they happened (nobody really knows where the burial and cremation grounds of Chelmno are), the technical challenges that would come with a mass extermination effort, even something as basic as the death totals; nothing about the Holocaust story is consistent from one source to another. Over the decades figures, testimonies and documents have been exaggerated, reduced, misrepresented, changed or even disappeared, and in many cases with the obvious goal of keeping certain details a mystery so that awkward questions don't come up (Saul Friedländer - I'm talking to you!). When Dalton writes that he found "...a Holocaust story in tatters..." he simply states the truth, and it is easy to see why two important historians, Michel De Bouard and Jean-Claude Pressac, remarked that the historical record of the Holocaust is "rotten".
To deal with this, Dalton introduces a remarkable (and easy!) analytic tool which he calls the death matrix, a technique that combines various tables into a single analytic field that clearly demonstrates the properties of any account of the six alleged extermination camps. It can be done by anybody who has a spreadsheet option on their computer. Not unique to Dalton, it's a common tool in several technical fields, and you have to wonder why anti-revisionist John Zimmerman, who is a professor of accounting and has to use similar tools in transaction analysis, never used it in his various refutations.
For the reader, this means a book where you have to take pen to paper and do some homework of your own, but that is a refreshing change to Holocaust books which don't just ask but demand that you swallow whatever they say without question. Dalton's results when he applies his death matrix are clear, transparent and easily understood, but Dalton clearly states that certain data rests on questionable assumptions and that his use of the tool is preliminary and needs refinement (I could already suggest a revision where Dalton credits Krema II at Auschwitz with cremating 11,000 bodies at a time when it was out of service, the six weeks from the beginning of May through June 12 of 1943). It's a terrific tool, something that becomes clear when the tables reveal that the combined work of exhumations and cremations at Belzec had no choice but to run at a rate of 92,000 per month. That's better than 3,000 per day, 125 per hour, a corpse dug out of the ground and thawed and burned to fragments and ground to powder every 30 seconds; and on wooden pyres in the dead of a Polish winter when weather conditions would have frozen the ground rock-solid and rendered many days impossible for work. That account is ridiculous; whatever the truth is, it's something else. Why didn't somebody think of this technique before?
Avoiding the dreary name-calling, Dalton divides the two camps into "traditionalists" and "revisionists", and then divides the revisionists into the "agitators" and "academics". Another good idea where ideas are sorely needed; when it comes to the revisionists Dalton intelligently ignores the "agitators" and concentrates on the solid arguments of the academics. Revisionists who have made it some sort of holy crusade to challenge the Holocaust will not be happy with this book. Dalton clearly states that the Holocaust cannot be dismissed as a hoax, a fraud or a conspiracy (the financial exploitation of it and the loathsome criminalization of challenging it are another matter). Something awful happened, but exactly what it was, and how it fits into the even bigger picture of the Second World War is impossible to determine with the history that we have.
As accessible as a book that addresses technical issues can be, DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST would make an excellent high school textbook, teaching young people about the story while challenging them to accept nothing until they've applied their own brains to it. Certainly a better choice than THE DIARY OF ANNE FRANK, a book which has nothing in it about the Holocaust but nevertheless is required (forced?) reading on the subject.
While my review lists five stars, I'm actually giving it four and a half, with half a star taken off for listing a large percentage of the deaths at Majdanek as "natural causes" in one of the tables. This is insensitive to say the least. In their 2003 book on the camp (one of only two studies ever made!) revisionists Carlo Mattogno and Jurgen Graf, no defenders of the Holocaust, are themselves aghast at the way some 40,000 people died slow deaths of exposure standing in the open, sewage soaked fields. These are not "natural causes". As a police worker I know that "Official Indifference" is a crime that American police, fire and rescue workers can be charged with, so even if the Nazi's didn't intend to kill these people they are responsible, at the very least, for mass manslaughter.
With that unfortunate beauty mark addressed, I can finish with a preview of Dalton's epilogue, which is depressing. Dalton points out that there is an appreciable amount of common ground between traditionalists and revisionists; no academic revisionist has ever denied that tragic atrocities happened, and the best (and bravest) traditionalists have themselves noted that there is something terribly wrong with the history, which suggests that a combined effort between the two camps holds an excellent possibility of finally bringing to light a clear and coherent picture of what the events of the 1940's really were.
But it ain't gonna happen. As B'nai Brith director Ian Kadegan ominously crows, "The memory of the Holocaust is central to The New World Order" , and goes on to obscenely call it "...Western Civilization's greatest failure" (that would actually be the Congo Corvée, something that only die-hard Mark Twain fans have heard about). The traditional story of the Holocaust is a multi-billion dollar cash cow that enriches some of the most corrupt institutions on Earth, and has truly become an idolatrous religion that too many people are staked in. If the traditional story falls, not only reputations and livelihoods but power will be lost, for the traditional Holocaust story is used as a club to dictate what morality is by people who have no authority to do so, and to intimidate them not to question that authority.
Which means reading this book is may actually qualify as a revolutionary act. The enemies of free speech can exact a price, but they can't stop you. That's why the right is called unalienable. Not even God can take it away. Thanks for the book Thomas.
Faurisson affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair
Peace.
Michael Santomauro
@ 917-974-6367
What sort of TRUTH is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth?
Robert Fisk on Tunisa and the West's calls for 'democracy'
Memo: Emphasis mine. I don't altogether agree with Fisk's conclusion save for the short term. Eventually, the people in all of these countries, including all the good, decent, lovely people I have met in my travels, will revert to the peace and stability they enjoyed before we began meddling in their affairs and hate no one but us, deservedly. Regarding the Palestinians, I have every confidence that western 'Jewry' will not condone the bestiality and mendacity perpetrated in their name. ST
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/the-brutal-truth-about-tunisia-2186287.html
The brutal truth about Tunisia
What's left of the face of ex-president Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali
stares out from a torn poster in Tunis yesterday
Bloodshed, tears, but no democracy. Bloody turmoil won't necessarily presage the dawn of democracy
By Robert Fisk, Middle East Correspondent
Monday, 17 January 2011
The end of the age of dictators in the Arab world? Certainly they are shaking in their boots across the Middle East, the well-heeled sheiks and emirs, and the kings, including one very old one in Saudi Arabia and a young one in Jordan, and presidents – another very old one in Egypt and a young one in Syria – because Tunisia wasn't meant to happen. Food price riots in Algeria, too, and demonstrations against price increases in Amman. Not to mention scores more dead in Tunisia, whose own despot sought refuge in Riyadh – exactly the same city to which a man called Idi Amin once fled.
If it can happen in the holiday destination Tunisia, it can happen anywhere, can't it? It was feted by the West for its 'stability' when Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali was in charge. The French and the Germans and the Brits, dare we mention this, always praised the dictator for being a 'friend' of civilised Europe, keeping a firm hand on all those Islamists.
Tunisians won't forget this little history, even if we would like them to. The Arabs used to say that two-thirds of the entire Tunisian population – seven million out of 10 million, virtually the whole adult population – worked in one way or another for Mr Ben Ali's secret police. They must have been on the streets too, then, protesting at the man we loved until last week. But don't get too excited. Yes, Tunisian youths have used the internet to rally each other – in Algeria, too – and the demographic explosion of youth (born in the Eighties and Nineties with no jobs to go to after university) is on the streets. But the 'unity' government is to be formed by Mohamed Ghannouchi, a satrap of Mr Ben Ali's for almost 20 years, a safe pair of hands who will have our interests – rather than his people's interests – at heart.
I fear this is going to be the same old story. Yes, we would like a democracy in Tunisia – but not too much democracy. Remember how we wanted Algeria to have a democracy back in the early Nineties?
Then when it looked like the Islamists might win the second round of voting, we supported its military-backed government in suspending elections and crushing the Islamists and initiating a civil war in which 150,000 died.
No, in the Arab world, we want law and order and stability. Even in Hosni Mubarak's corrupt and corrupted Egypt, that's what we want. And we will get it.
The truth, of course, is that the Arab world is so dysfunctional, sclerotic, corrupt, humiliated and ruthless – and remember that Mr Ben Ali was calling Tunisian protesters 'terrorists' only last week – and so totally incapable of any social or political progress, that the chances of a series of working democracies emerging from the chaos of the Middle East stand at around zero per cent.
The job of the Arab potentates will be what it has always been – to 'manage' their people, to control them, to keep the lid on, to love the West and to hate Iran.
Indeed, what was Hillary Clinton doing last week as Tunisia burned? She was telling the corrupted princes of the Gulf that their job was to support sanctions against Iran, to confront the Islamic republic, to prepare for another strike against a Muslim state after the two catastrophes the United States and the UK have already inflicted in the region.
The Muslim world – at least, that bit of it between India and the Mediterranean – is a more than sorry mess. Iraq has a sort-of-government that is now a satrap of Iran, Hamid Karzai is no more than the mayor of Kabul, Pakistan stands on the edge of endless disaster, Egypt has just emerged from another fake election.
And Lebanon... Well, poor old Lebanon hasn't even got a government. Southern Sudan – if the elections are fair – might be a tiny candle, but don't bet on it.
It's the same old problem for us in the West. We mouth the word 'democracy' and we are all for fair elections – providing the Arabs vote for whom we want them to vote for.
In Algeria 20 years ago, they didn't. In 'Palestine' they didn't. And in Lebanon, because of the so-called Doha accord, they didn't. So we sanction them, threaten them and warn them about Iran and expect them to keep their mouths shut when Israel steals more Palestinian land for its colonies on the West Bank.
There was a fearful irony that the police theft of an ex-student's fruit produce – and his suicide in Tunis – should have started all this off, not least because Mr Ben Ali made a failed attempt to gather public support by visiting the dying youth in hospital.
For years, this wretched man had been talking about a 'slow liberalising' of his country. But all dictators know they are in greatest danger when they start freeing their entrapped countrymen from their chains.
And the Arabs behaved accordingly. No sooner had Ben Ali flown off into exile than Arab newspapers which have been stroking his fur and polishing his shoes and receiving his money for so many years were vilifying the man. 'Misrule', 'corruption', 'authoritarian reign', 'a total lack of human rights', their journalists are saying now. Rarely have the words of the Lebanese poet Khalil Gibran sounded so painfully accurate: 'Pity the nation that welcomes its new ruler with trumpetings, and farewells him with hootings, only to welcome another with trumpetings again.' Mohamed Ghannouchi, perhaps?
Of course, everyone is lowering their prices now – or promising to. Cooking oil and bread are the staple of the masses. So prices will come down in Tunisia and Algeria and Egypt. But why should they be so high in the first place?
Algeria should be as rich as Saudi Arabia – it has the oil and gas – but it has one of the worst unemployment rates in the Middle East, no social security, no pensions, nothing for its people because its generals have salted their country's wealth away in Switzerland.
And police brutality. The torture chambers will keep going. We will maintain our good relations with the dictators. We will continue to arm their armies and tell them to seek peace with Israel.
And they will do what we want. Ben Ali has fled. The search is now on for a more pliable dictator in Tunisia – a 'benevolent strongman' as the news agencies like to call these ghastly men.
And the shooting will go on – as it did yesterday in Tunisia – until 'stability' has been restored.
No, on balance, I don't think the age of the Arab dictators is over. We will see to that.
Like Robert Fisk on The Independent on Facebook for updates
--

