Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Iran, Today's Number One Threat To World Peace And Order

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Prescience

unread,
Sep 23, 2005, 9:42:54 AM9/23/05
to
Has President Bush lost his focus. Yes,according to Michael Ledeen in the
following article"

http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200509230815.asp


Logician

unread,
Sep 23, 2005, 9:56:25 AM9/23/05
to

Bush's problem is that he backs down from a fight - the same exists for
the USA as a nation.

Americans like easy targets, defenceless people.

Iran will put up a stern fight if invaded by the USA, and Iranians have
a lot of FRIENDS in Asia and Russia. Those friends will supply money
and arms probably and put pressure on the West.

An attack on Iran will result in a 100,000 dead Americans.

Bush can save 100,000 lives now, and lose 3,000,000 in 20 years when
Iran in nuclear and we are all looking down the barrel of a nuclear
gun.

Bush has to act now to neutralise Iran.

The difference between Iraq and Iran is that Iraq was NOT a threat, it
was a beaten country with no air force or navy and a weak army which
mainly protected Saddam. There were no legal or military reasons to
invade.

There are a lot of legal and military reasons to neutralise Iran.

abracadabra

unread,
Sep 23, 2005, 10:07:03 AM9/23/05
to
Well, if National Review represented a rational point of view, you'd have a
point.
As it is, NR is a bunch of chickenhawks, pinheads, and hysterical
republiars.
Nothing they print has any value in any way what so ever.

BTW - Mama's boy and chickenhawk supreme Jonah Goldberg was on C-span. As a
leftie I think that guy is great - he represents so well what a real
Republican is - someone who couldn't get a job washing dishes at Denny's if
it weren't for his family, who supports the war in Iraq but wouldn't risk a
hangnail by going to fight for his noble cause.

"Prescience" <pres...@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:-OadnVNLwOn...@rogers.com...

abracadabra

unread,
Sep 23, 2005, 10:10:04 AM9/23/05
to

"Logician" <sa...@logicians.com> wrote in message
news:1127483785.6...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Prescience wrote:
>> Has President Bush lost his focus. Yes,according to Michael Ledeen in the
>> following article"
>>
>> http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200509230815.asp
>
> Bush's problem is that he backs down from a fight - the same exists for
> the USA as a nation.
>
> Americans like easy targets, defenceless people.
>
> Iran will put up a stern fight if invaded by the USA, and Iranians have
> a lot of FRIENDS in Asia and Russia. Those friends will supply money
> and arms probably and put pressure on the West.
>
> An attack on Iran will result in a 100,000 dead Americans.
>
> Bush can save 100,000 lives now, and lose 3,000,000 in 20 years when
> Iran in nuclear and we are all looking down the barrel of a nuclear
> gun.

Why do you assume Iranians are nuts?
You think the Iranians want to be nuked?

> Bush has to act now to neutralise Iran.

WIth what?
Are you volunteering for the army to make up for the recruitment short fall?

> The difference between Iraq and Iran is that Iraq was NOT a threat, it
> was a beaten country with no air force or navy and a weak army which
> mainly protected Saddam. There were no legal or military reasons to
> invade.
>
> There are a lot of legal and military reasons to neutralise Iran.

1) Nobody is going to believe the USA
2) Nobody believes Bush or the nitwits who sold Iraq as a Nu-cu-lor threat
3) We don't have the money
4) We don't have the forces
5) Most importantly - BUSH CAN'T EVEN HANDLE A HURRICANE and you think HE
CAN HANDLE ANOTHER INVASION?

Get real!


mimus

unread,
Sep 23, 2005, 10:16:55 AM9/23/05
to
On 23 Sep 2005 06:56:25 -0700, Logician wrote:

> An attack on Iran will result in a 100,000 dead Americans.

Yeah, right.

--

Conservatism = plutocracy + theocracy + hypocrisy
Liberalism = plutocracy + bureaucracy + hypocrisy

indiab...@yahoo.com

unread,
Sep 23, 2005, 10:16:38 AM9/23/05
to

God is behind the making and unmaking of Bush and America.

indiaBPOking.

mimus

unread,
Sep 23, 2005, 10:19:37 AM9/23/05
to
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 09:42:54 -0400, Prescience wrote:

> Has President Bush lost his focus. Yes,according to Michael Ledeen in the
> following article"

The major threat to world peace today is Saudi Arabia and its global
campaign of Sunni/ Salafist- Wahabbite terrorism.

Not to mention its agents in the US White House and Congress.

--

Io non giudico né giudicheròmai essere difetto
difendere alcuna opinione con le ragioni,
sanza volervi usare o l'autorità o la forza.

< Machiavelli

mimus

unread,
Sep 23, 2005, 10:23:20 AM9/23/05
to
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:10:04 GMT, abracadabra wrote:

> BUSH CAN'T EVEN HANDLE A HURRICANE and you think HE
> CAN HANDLE ANOTHER INVASION?

We've already seen that rational calculation of forces and resources needed
play no role in Bush- Saudi military planning.

--

Find out just what any people will quietly submit to
and you have found out the exact measure
of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them.

< Frederick Douglass

hoo...@aol.com

unread,
Sep 23, 2005, 10:31:59 AM9/23/05
to
Nobdy is going to nuke anything. and putting troops in Iran is nothig short
of sucide look whats hapeening in Iraq Iran would be 100 times worse


XTS

unread,
Sep 23, 2005, 11:49:24 AM9/23/05
to

"Logician" <sa...@logicians.com> wrote in message
news:1127483785.6...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
For a logician, you show no signs of logic. You should be named knee jerk
instead. You are reacting to the same bullshit the people reacted to over
Iraq. You, have learned nothing from the recent past. Wise up and stop
listening to the rhetoric, it's the same as before. Christ, are you people
living in a fuckin vacume?


XTS

unread,
Sep 23, 2005, 11:53:35 AM9/23/05
to

<indiab...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127484998....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

No he isn't. It's that kind of absurd thinking that has us on the verge of
global destruction. You fail to see the grand scheme of things. If this god
you speak of is infinite, created everything, knows everything, why would he
cast lots over a 200 year old country on only one of the planets and stars
he created when he created this whole universe you religious wackos claim he
created. If what you claim is true, the eath is but as grain of sand, and
America even less. If you're going to preach, at least do it from a logical
prespective. This whole god and america thing is pure nonsense.


> indiaBPOking.
>


XTS

unread,
Sep 23, 2005, 12:06:42 PM9/23/05
to

"mimus" <tinmi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1nkc5ac8xfybi$.ysdos71zoayx.dlg@40tude.net...

> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 09:42:54 -0400, Prescience wrote:
>
> > Has President Bush lost his focus. Yes,according to Michael Ledeen in
the
> > following article"
>
> The major threat to world peace today is Saudi Arabia and its global
> campaign of Sunni/ Salafist- Wahabbite terrorism.
>
> Not to mention its agents in the US White House and Congress.

There would be no such thing as terrorism on this planet if governemnts did
not hire "terrorists" to strike terror into the hearts of the masses of
chickenshits so the governments can bring them to their knees, and use fear
as their motivation to grant them more control, win elections and broker
international influence. All you have to do is open your eyes and see it
all around you.

How many times per day does the cable news nets use the words "terrorism" or
"alqueada". All day every fuckin day, it's the same old brainwash. It
keeps the suckers under control, and they go through life with their eyes
wide shut. This is not how this country was formed, but if it continues, it
willl be how this country will be destroyed, and everyone who continues to
allow themselves to be hoodwinked by this huckster, flim flam bullshit
instead of rising in protest, will be culpable in the demise of the USA,
that they all claim the love so damn much.

Instead of fighing for our country back from these ruthless pigs, they would
rather take the safe fight and bicker over whether we should say god in the
pledge of alliience. Well let these people have their way and there will be
no USA to pledge to.

Cmdr Buzz Corey

unread,
Sep 23, 2005, 4:02:32 PM9/23/05
to
eX-TS wrote:

>
> There would be no such thing as terrorism on this planet if governemnts did
> not hire "terrorists" to strike terror into the hearts of the masses of
> chickenshits so the governments can bring them to their knees, and use fear
> as their motivation to grant them more control, win elections and broker
> international influence. All you have to do is open your eyes and see it
> all around you.
>
> How many times per day does the cable news nets use the words "terrorism" or
> "alqueada". All day every fuckin day, it's the same old brainwash. It
> keeps the suckers under control, and they go through life with their eyes
> wide shut. This is not how this country was formed, but if it continues, it
> willl be how this country will be destroyed, and everyone who continues to
> allow themselves to be hoodwinked by this huckster, flim flam bullshit
> instead of rising in protest, will be culpable in the demise of the USA,
> that they all claim the love so damn much.
>
> Instead of fighing for our country back from these ruthless pigs, they would
> rather take the safe fight and bicker over whether we should say god in the
> pledge of alliience. Well let these people have their way and there will be
> no USA to pledge to.

You really don't have a clue do you.

And we all know what the TS stands for.

Crash

unread,
Sep 23, 2005, 4:08:40 PM9/23/05
to
One of the reasons that I thought that going into Iraq was a dumb idea
is because we should use our troops to deal with people that actually
threaten us, or who have actually attacked us - like, say, Saudi
Arabia...

But nooooooo, we went tear assing into Iraq to make the world safe for
Israel and 12 year old Iraqi school girls {who ironically lose rights
under the new constitution}, and now we have pissed away nearly $300
billion in treasure and all we have to show for it is a destabilized
region and massive chaos - something that only a true neocon could see
as a success...

omare...@aol.com

unread,
Sep 23, 2005, 6:32:01 PM9/23/05
to
abracadabra wrote:
> Well, if National Review represented a rational point of view, you'd have a
> point.
> As it is, NR is a bunch of chickenhawks, pinheads, and hysterical
> republiars.
> Nothing they print has any value in any way what so ever.
>
> BTW - Mama's boy and chickenhawk supreme Jonah Goldberg was on C-span. As a
> leftie I think that guy is great - he represents so well what a real
> Republican is - someone who couldn't get a job washing dishes at Denny's if
> it weren't for his family, who supports the war in Iraq but wouldn't risk a
> hangnail by going to fight for his noble cause.

When are you heading out to Iraq?

Roger

unread,
Sep 23, 2005, 7:06:27 PM9/23/05
to
"Prescience" <pres...@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:-OadnVNLwOn...@rogers.com...
> Has President Bush lost his focus. Yes,according to Michael Ledeen in the
> following article"

Bush is incapable of focus.

Always has been.


>
> http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200509230815.asp
>


Topaz

unread,
Sep 23, 2005, 7:28:38 PM9/23/05
to

by Kevin MacDonald

The current situation in the United States is really an awesome
display of Jewish power and influence. People who are very strongly
identified as Jews maintain close ties to Israeli politicians and
military figures and to Jewish activist organizations and pro-Israeli
lobbying groups while occupying influential policy-making positions in
the defense and foreign policy establishment. These same people, as
well as a chorus of other prominent Jews, have routine access to the
most prestigious media outlets in the United States. People who
criticize Israel are routinely vilified and subjected to professional
abuse.
Perhaps the most telling feature of this entire state of affairs is
the surreal fact that in this entire discourse Jewish identity is not
mentioned. When Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Michael Rubin,
William Safire, Robert Satloff, or the legions of other prominent
media figures write their reflexively pro-Israel pieces in the New
York Times, the Wall Street Journal, or the Los Angeles Times, or
opine on the Fox News Network, there is never any mention that they
are Jewish Americans who have an intense ethnic interest in Israel.
When Richard Perle authors a report for an Israeli think tank; is on
the board of directors of an Israeli newspaper; maintains close
personal ties with prominent Israelis, especially those associated
with the Likud Party; has worked for an Israeli defense company; and,
according to credible reports, was discovered by the FBI passing
classified information to Israel - when, despite all of this, he is a
central figure in the network of those pushing for wars to rearrange
the entire politics of the Middle East in Israel's favor, and with
nary a soul having the courage to mention the obvious overriding
Jewish loyalty apparent in Perle's actions, that is indeed a
breathtaking display of power.
One must contemplate the fact that American Jews have managed to
maintain unquestioned support for Israel over the last thirty-seven
years, despite Israel's seizing land and engaging in a brutal
suppression of the Palestinians in the occupied territories - an
occupation that will most likely end with expulsion or complete
subjugation, degradation, and apartheid. During the same period Jewish
organizations in America have been a principal force - in my view the
main force - for transforming America into a state dedicated to
suppressing ethnic identification among Europeans, for encouraging
massive multiethnic immigration into the U.S., and for erecting a
legal system and cultural ideology that is obsessively sensitive to
the complaints and interests of non-European ethnic minorities - the
culture of the Holocaust. All this is done without a whisper of
double standards in the aboveground media...


www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com

gaffo

unread,
Sep 23, 2005, 9:31:57 PM9/23/05
to
Prescience wrote:


No - China is.

always was always will be.


--

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to
explain to us what the exit strategy is."
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

"Had we gone into Baghdad -- we could have done it,
you guys could have done it, you could have been there
in 48 hours -- and then what? Which sergeant, which
private, whose life would be at stake in perhaps a
fruitless hunt in an urban guerilla war to find the
most-secure dictator in the world? Whose life would
be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I,
unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went
beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show
our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be
an occupying power -- America in an Arab land
-- with no allies at our side. It would have been
disastrous."
-- G. Bush 2/28/1998

gaffo

unread,
Sep 23, 2005, 9:42:56 PM9/23/05
to
Logician wrote:

> There are a lot of legal and military reasons to neutralise Iran.


there is NO reason to "neutralise" Iran chump.


Iran will do that the day they get the bomb.

its called MAD. try looking it up.

gaffo

unread,
Sep 23, 2005, 9:46:52 PM9/23/05
to
indiab...@yahoo.com wrote:


wrong.

God helps those who help themselves.

if we are too stupid to act wisely - he will simply turn his back and
tell America to fuck herself. We will get what we deserve.

gaffo

unread,
Sep 23, 2005, 9:52:02 PM9/23/05
to
mimus wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 09:42:54 -0400, Prescience wrote:
>
>
>>Has President Bush lost his focus. Yes,according to Michael Ledeen in the
>>following article"
>
>
> The major threat to world peace today is Saudi Arabia and its global
> campaign of Sunni/ Salafist- Wahabbite terrorism.
>
> Not to mention its agents in the US White House and Congress.
>


wrong.

CHINA REMAINS THE THREAT..............911 shime11

in sick of that DAY!!!!!!!!

CHINA CHINA CHINA - in 1999 in 2000 TODAY and TOMORROW!!!!!!!!!!!


CHINA IS OUR ENEMY Godammit!

figure it out before it is too late!!!
--

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to
explain to us what the exit strategy is."
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

"Had we gone into Baghdad -- we could have done it,

gaffo

unread,
Sep 23, 2005, 9:54:24 PM9/23/05
to
Crash wrote:


when did Saudi Arabia "attack" the US??????????????

Crash

unread,
Sep 26, 2005, 1:36:44 PM9/26/05
to

gaffo wrote:
> when did Saudi Arabia "attack" the US??????????????
>

On 9/11... But because Bandar Bush is so in tight with the current
fraudulent administration that fact will never be broadcast over the
air...

hoo...@aol.com

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 1:43:06 AM9/27/05
to
China is not a naval issue. There economy is mingled with the Us to such an
extent that any attack on the US would be as detrimetal to China as it would
the US.


National Alliance Terrorism

unread,
Oct 3, 2005, 1:32:15 AM10/3/05
to
Kevin Macdonald writes for the Occidental Quarterly which calls for the
purification of the "White" race, the banning of all culture in America
except for "Classical, Christian, and Germanic" and the restriction of
US citizenship and immigration to
"...selected people of European ancestry."

He advocates in his books for systematic discrimination against Jews in
college admission and employment and heavy taxation of Jews "to counter
the Jewish advantage in the possession of wealth."

Leading scholars have rejected MacDonald's work as contradicting "basic
principles of contemporary evolutionary psychology" and failing "basic
tests of scientific credibility.

Just like David Duke, Macdonald claims he has no bias or hatred against
Jews. People who have researched the claims and references in his books
have illustrated otherwise (see below). Although his simple-minded
Neo-Nazi supporters endlessly scream that he dares to tell the truth
about Jews, the crafting of Nazi propoganda is a complex art. Mcdonald
uses misrepresentation, distortion and selective reporting of facts to
promote his racist agenda and his threatening and evil conclusions
about Jews.
-----
Subtle Inflections and Selective Silences: MacDonald on Jews in the
Secret Police
Although MacDonald repeatedly assures his readers that the communist
government in Poland was "Jewish-dominated" in the years immediately
after the Second World War, he devotes comparatively little space to
discussing Jewish participation in actual government operations. The
only government function he treats at any level of detail is the secret
police force. I suspect this is because he rightly believes that their
participation in such an abhorrent organization may be the most
devastating charge that can be leveled against Jewish communists in
Poland; it would certainly appeal to any reader predisposed to accept
indications of inherent Jewish malevolence. Taking MacDonald's word for
it, the secret police would appear to have been a fundamentally Jewish
institution:
Quote:
Jewish ethnic background was particularly important in recruiting for
the internal security service: The generation of Jewish communists
realized that their power derived entirely from the Soviet Union and
that they would have to resort to coercion in order to control a
fundamentally hostile noncommunist society ([Schatz 1991,] p. 262). The
core members of the security service came from the Jewish communists
who had been communists before the establishment of the Polish
communist government, but these were joined by other Jews sympathetic
to the government and alienated from the wider society. This in turn
reinforced the popular image of Jews as servants of foreign interests
and enemies of ethnic Poles (Schatz 1991, 225).[MacDonald, Culture of
Critique, p. 66; emphasis added]
Compare the foregoing with what Schatz actually says on page 225. The
following would appear to be the text upon which MacDonald bases the
assertion I have emphasized above:
Quote:
To begin with, there was the basic fact of the general society's
hostility toward the regime and the latter's need for trusted cadres.
Old Communists, among them members of the generation [i.e., Jewish
communists], had to be relied on as their core. [Schatz, The
Generation, p. 225; emphasis added]
Schatz is quite clear: Jews numbered among those Old Communists who
initially filled the ranks of the internal security service.
MacDonald's paraphrase would have it that these positions were filled
exclusively by Jews, a claim for which he has no evidence. The effect
is to exaggerate ethnic hostility or rivalry as a motivational factor
for the secret policemen while at the same time encouraging a reaction
of real ethnic hostility on the part of his non-Jewish readers.
Moreover, MacDonald utterly ignores this passage, also appearing on
page 225:
Quote:
How many Jews, in general, and how many prewar Communists, in
particular, served in the security service is impossible to say. Their
number and role must have been much smaller than the propaganda
campaign, undertaken by Soviet intelligence and aimed at putting all
blame for "errors and distortions" on Jewish officials, had it. In
addition, it must be stressed that contrary to the popular stereotype
of a Jewish secret police official and his non-Jewish victim, 40
percent of those affected by secret police officials are reported to
have been of Jewish descent. However, the number of Jewish secret
police officials and, most important, their visibility must have been
significant enough to justify the hopes of the initiators of the
campaign and its relative success. [Schatz, The Generation, p. 225]
MacDonald's desciption of an exclusively (or even predominantly) Jewish
secret police force in Communist Poland appears, then, to perpetuate a
myth Schatz explicitly attributes to Soviet propaganda. Schatz's
conclusions may or may not be correct on this score, but insofar as
MacDonald cites no source to contradict Schatz, he can offer no grounds
for a) misrepresenting the "core" ethnic makeup of the secret police as
reported by Schatz, or b) ignoring Schatz's contention that Soviet
propaganda exaggerated Jewish participation in the secret police -- no
grounds other than preconceptions driven by the theory of Jewish group
behavior he is ostensibly proving by reference to Schatz.
MacDonald chooses not to alert his readers to the existence of branches
of the security service that had nothing whatsoever to do with
advancing Jewish interests. Instead, he subtly conflates the whole of
the security service with its internal branch (i.e., on page 66 of The
Culture of Critique he claims that Jews were "the core members of the
security service"), ignoring sections in which Jews either did not play
a significant role, or in which Jews themselves -- both in and out of
power -- were placed under surveillance. He ignores, for instance, the
role of the Informacja:
Quote:
Until the thaw [i.e., the mid 1950's], the Polish security apparatus
was totally controlled by the Soviet secret police. Seen as a whole, it
had a double function; it served as an instrument of Soviet control
over Poland and its regime while, at the same time, securing the Polish
Communist party's monopoly of power. This apparatus consisted of the
military counterintelligence called the Informacja, the civilian
security service known in common parlance as the Bezpieka, and the
so-called Department Ten, whose task was to supervise the loyalty of
the highest strata of party and state leadership ...
The Informacja was created in November 1944 as a Polish version of the
Soviet counterintelligence agency, Smersh. It was formally placed under
the Polish Ministry of Defense but was in fact the most important
instrument of Soviet domination in Poland. ...
The first Polish officers in the Informacja were recruited from among
the so-called Spaniards (the Polish veterans of the Spanish civil war),
the Communist armed underground during the German occupation, and the
repatriated Polish members of the French Communist party. The bulk of
the Polish Informacja officers, however, were recruited from among
young peasants and workers with little formal education and no
political experience. The role of the members of the generation [i.e.,
Jewish communists] was negligible. Forming a segment of the initially
recruited small group of prewar Polish Communists, those few who left
the army to join its service were gradually eliminated. [Schatz, The
Generation, pp. 222-23]
Poles' willingness to serve in the Informacja, which Schatz calls "the
most important instrument of Soviet domination in Poland," undermines
MacDonald's contention that Polish participation in the communist
government was a deceptive sham, an attempt "to place a Polish face on
what was in reality a Jewish-dominated government," [MacDonald, The
Culture of Critique, p. 67] and it explicitly contradicts his assertion
that the "Jewish-dominated government" was "the agent of Soviet
domination in Poland" [MacDonald, The Culture of Critque, pp. 68-69].
He chooses, therefore, to ignore the Informacja entirely.
He deals similarly with the problems raised by Department Ten, also
mentioned in the passage quoted above. Created in 1948 (i.e., at the
presumable height of Jewish domination of the Polish government),
Department 10 appears to have been preparing the way for a systematic
campaign against "Polish-Jewish Communists [with] accusations of
cosmopolitanism and Zionist conspiracy" almost from the moment of its
inception [Schatz, The Generation, p. 224]. MacDonald's hypnotically
frequent references to "the Jewish-dominated government"
notwithstanding, a fuller consideration of Schatz's description of the
security appartus suggests that Jewish communists in Poland hardly had
an exclusive or even pre-eminent hold on power at any point in the
post-war period. Instead, they appear to have been pitted, perhaps
deliberately, against a variety of other blocs, hardly a situation one
could fairly define as "domination."
Even MacDonald's exemplar institution of Jewish domination, the
internal security service, raises problematic issues as a model for
Jews in positions of power serving Jewish interests at the expense of
ethnic Poles. As MacDonald again fails to mention to his readers,
Quote:
[a] Jewish section [of the civilian security service] was organized
within the frame of the political department of the ministry of public
security. In this period, it was manned almost solely by functionaries
of Jewish descent and carried out an intensive surveillance of all
institutions within the Jewish sector, their activities, employees, and
clientele.[Schatz, The Generation, p. 223]
Noting that "Jews were very prominent in the domestic security forces
in Poland" [MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p. 80] without also
calling attention to the fact that some number of them were tasked with
the surveillance of other Jews amounts to a fairly significant
distortion of the record. One would expect a responsible social
scientist to wonder what proportion of Jews in the secret police were
assigned this duty, and whether this would have accounted in some
measure for "Jewish prominence" in the internal security service. It
might also occur to a social scientist to wonder what the perceived
need for a "Jewish section" of the civilian security service would
imply about the government's relationship with the Jewish community; at
the very least, and in spite of MacDonald's assertions to the contrary,
the government's perceived need to create a special office to track the
activities of "the Jewish sector" suggests that the loyalty of the
Jewish community could not be taken for granted. Given the behavior
Schatz attributes to the majority of Jews in Poland during the
immediate post-War years, the communist government's mistrust of the
Jewish community may indeed have been well-founded -- I will address
this behavior in more detail in the next section of this article.
The pattern of omissions that characterizes MacDonald's discussion of
the security service as an institution also extends to his discussion
of Jewish secret policemen as individuals, particularly with respect to
their motives for joining the security service. Here, a side-by-side
comparison of MacDonald and Schatz may be helpful:
Quote:
MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p. 66
Jewish members of the internal security force often appear to have been
motivated by personal rage and a desire for revenge related to their
Jewish identity:
Quote:
Their families had been murdered and the anti-Communist underground
was, in their perception, a continuation of essentially the same
anti-Semitic and anti-Communist tradition. They hated those who had
collaborated with the Nazis and those who opposed the new order with
almost the same intensity and knew that as Communists, or as both
Communists and Jews, they were hated at least in the same way. In their
eyes, the enemy was essentially the same. The old evil deeds had to be
punished and new ones prevented and a merciless struggle was necessary
before a better world could be built. (Schatz, 1991, 226)
Quote:
Schatz, The Generation, pp. 226-227
The picture of their motives for joining the security service is mixed.
For some, the primary motive appears to be an overwhelming sense of
identification with the new order and a sense of personal
responsibility for defending it against its enemies. Others, initially
hesitant to join the service, had to be persuaded by appeals to their
Communist responsibility or with orders to take it on as their party
duty. Although they might have preferred to work in other sectors, a
disciplined Communist could not resist this kind of argument. However,
there were also other motives. For some of the policemen, equal to or
more important than their sense of personal duty was a desire for
revenge and a personal rage.
Their families had been murdered and the anti-Communist underground
was, in their perception, a continuation of essentially the same
anti-Semitic and anti-Communist tradition. They hated those who had
collaborated with the Nazis and those who opposed the new order with
almost the same intensity and knew that as Communists, or as both
Communists and Jews, they were hated at least in the same way. In their
eyes, the enemy was essentially the same. The old evil deeds had to be
punished and new ones prevented and a merciless struggle was necessary
before a better world could be built. Another, often closely related,
motive was the pure desire for power and might. Thus achieved, power
could be intoxicating. Those policemen for whom this was the primary
motive could "hear the houses tremble" when walking the streets -- and
loved it. Still another motive was a general desire to find some
position within the system, quite independently of what sector or the
system that happened to be. Had such people been proposed for or found
themselves in other positions, they would have taken them gladly. Thus,
their initial involvement in the security apparatus was quite
coincidental.
The only motive of relevance for MacDonald is that dealing explicitly
with Jewish identity; he ignores others, preferring instead to offer a
skewed rendition of Schatz as a demonstration of his thesis. Note that
the point is not that the other explanations are at all exculpatory;
they are inconvenient for MacDonald because they do not provide direct
evidence of Jews acting in the interest or in the name of the group,
rather than in the interest of the Communist Party or in their own
individual interests. Even his indicator of indeterminate number is
unsupported in the source: where Schatz is only willing to say that
"some" Jewish secret policemen acted out of a sense of "personal rage,"
MacDonald intensifies the point by claiming that this was "often" the
case. How often is "often"? One would, again, expect a social scientist
to ask such a question before resorting to a loaded adverb suggestive
of a widespread phenomenon, perhaps even a typical pattern. A casual
reader could well be forgiven for concluding that a significant
percentage -- if not the majority -- of Jewish secret policmen were
motivated by a desire for vengeance in the name of the group.
Of course, MacDonald himself does not know how often "often" is because
his source does not say -- in fact, his source quite explicitly states
that reliable statistical data that might show how often "often" is
does not exist. The absence of such data does not discourage MacDonald
from making a broad and, given the range of alternative explanations he
omits, quite unwarranted generalization. Such practices -- and this is
far from an isolated example -- make it difficult to believe that he is
not actively enouraging his readers to adopt precisely the sort of
vague impressions of widespread Jewish malevolence that effectively
validate antisemitism. And it is precisely such rhetorical strategies
that undercut MacDonald's contention that he bears no personal
responsibility for his popularity with right-wing extremists.
MacDonald's discussion of Jews in the secret police, illuminating as it
is as a demonstration of his cavalier and opportunistic use of
secondary sources, is to some extent itself a secondary matter. His
treatment of Schatz is characterized throughout by a far more egregious
misrepresentation. This mispresentation forms the subject of the next
section of this article.
=====
MacDonald's "Great Majority" Libel
Although in the introductory chapter of The Culture of Critique
MacDonald claims that "[t]here is no implication here of a unified
Jewish 'conspiracy' to undermine gentile culture, as portrayed in the
notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion," [MacDonald, The Culture of
Critique, p. 1] he appears particularly anxious to convince his readers
that there was indeed substantial agreement and mutual cooperation
between Jewish communists in power and the wider Jewish population of
post-war Poland. The following excerpts from his discussion tend to
contradict his own assertions a) that "[s]ince the Enlightenment,
Judaism has never been a unified, monolithic movement," and b) that he
is more concerned with the Jewish agendas of the individuals who
dominated the intellectual and political movements he discusses than
with attributing anti-gentile behavior to Jews as a group. [MacDonald,
The Culture of Critique, pp. 1-2] At least as far as post-war Poland is
concerned, MacDonald would apparently very much like his readers to
believe that Judaism was a unified, monolithic movement, exhibiting
anti-Gentile behaviors that were generally consistent within the group.

Quote:
It will be apparent in the following that the Jews, including Jewish
communists at the highest levels of government, continued as a
cohesive, identifiable group. [MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p.
63]
[T]he general opposition between the Jewish-dominated Polish communist
government supported by the Soviets and the nationalist, anti-Semitic
underground helped forge the allegiance of the great majority of the
Jewish population to the communist government while the great majority
of non-Jewish Poles favored the anti-Soviet parties (Schatz 1991,
204-205). [MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p. 65]
Moreover, the Jewish-dominated government regarded the Jewish
population, many of whom had not previously been communists, as "a
reservoir that could be trusted and enlisted in its efforts to rebuild
the country. Although not old, 'tested' comrades, they were outsiders
with regard to its historically shaped traditions, without connections
to the Catholic Church, and hated by those who hated the regime. Thus
they could be depended on and used to fill required positions" (Schatz
1991, 212-213). [MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p. 66]
... Poland became polarized between a predominantly Jewish ruling and
administrative class supported by the rest of the Jewish population and
by Soviet military power, arrayed against the great majority of the
native gentile population. [MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p. 66]

The problem with these assertions of general Jewish solidarity with the
Communist government is that they are, quite simply, false. Indeed, the
evidence that contradicts MacDonald on this is readily available and
clearly laid out in Jaff Schatz's The Generation, the principal source
informing MacDonald's discussion. The vast majority of surviving Jews
who remained in or returned to Poland immediately after the Second
World War signaled their lack of faith in what MacDonald calls the
"Jewish-dominated" Communist government in the clearest language
possible: they left.
Quote:
The first wave of returnees reached its peak in April, May, and June
1946, when 213,000 Polish refugees returned from the USSR. Of these
64.1 percent, that is, 136,550 persons, were Jews. At least 20,000
Jewish refugees came back on their own, before the organized groups of
repatriates reached Poland. In 1946, the CKZP [i.e., the Central
Committee of Jews in Poland] registered 157,240 Jewish repatriates from
the USSR. ... Together with approximately 60,000 to 70,000 survivors of
concentration camps and soldiers, there were at least 245,000 Jews in
Poland in July 1946. [Schatz, The Generation, p. 203]
Despite the strong condemnation of anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish
violence by Polish intellectuals, such violence was widespread.
Individual Jews were killed on returning to small cities and villages
and were victims of the underground's raids on towns, settlements,
railroads and buses. Several organized pogroms, which always seemed to
begin with blood-libel accusations, also took place. Altogether, by
summer 1947, approximately 1,500 Jews were killed in assaults that took
place in 155 localities. This was bound to speed up the emigration that
was already in motion. Despite the appeals of Jewish Communists,
Bundists, and the Central Committee of Jews in Poland, and the promise
that the regime would suppress anti-Semitism, by the end of 1947, only
100,000 Jews remained in Poland. [Schatz, The Generation, p. 207;
emphasis added]
Most of the Jewish returnees left Poland during the two first postwar
years. After this, emigration quietly continued. Thus, 38,000
applications for emigration to Israel were filed between September 1949
and December 1950. Two-thirds of these were approved. ... This wave of
emigration was cut off when Poland closed its borders to all
emigration. It has been estimated that by the middle of 1949, there
were only 70,000 to 80,000 Jews left in Poland. ... As emigration
continuously decreased the number of Jews in Poland, in relative terms,
the PZPR [i.e., Polish United Workers' Party] members formed an
increasing proportion of those Jews who remained in Poland. [Schatz,
The Generation, p. 208; emphasis added]
In other words, at the presumed height of "Jewish domination" of the
Communist government in Poland (a somewhat indeterminate period,
insofar as MacDonald offers only imprecise dates for this Jewish reign
of terror), a steady flow of emigration decreased the total Jewish
population by more than sixty-six percent; far from offering their
allegiance to the Communist government, the "great majority of the
Jewish population" got out of Communist Poland as soon as they could.
There can be no question that MacDonald would have seen this
information in his research: it comes from the very pages he cites (one
of them incorrectly, as it happens) in The Culture of Critique on page
65, where he is happy to quote Schatz's statistics on how many Jews had
been killed by Poles expressing their opposition to "the
Jewish-dominated Polish communist goverment."
Moreover, returning MacDonald's citations from Schatz to their original
context further weakens his position. For example, see pages 204 and
205 of The Generation, where MacDonald, as quoted above, finds the
government forging allegiances with "the Jewish population" [MacDonald,
The Culture of Critique, p. 65]:
Quote:
As the underground was strongly anti-Semitic, identifying Jews with the
Communist system, the struggle against it became yet another factor
that bound those Jews who were planning to rebuild their lives in
Poland on the side of the regime. [Schatz, The Generation, p. 204;
emphasis added.]
Here, as elsewhere, MacDonald's repeated formulation "the great
majority of the Jewish population" flagrantly disregards Schatz's
distinction between "those Jews who were planning to rebuild their
lives in Poland" and those who constituted the actual "great majority,"
those who were not planning to stay and, as Schatz makes quite clear,
did not. MacDonald's assertion [The Culture of Critique, p. 66] that
"the Jewish-dominated government regarded the Jewish population, many
of whom had not previously been communists, as 'a reservoir that could
be trusted and enlisted in its efforts to rebuild the country'"
similarly evades distinctions informed by Schatz's discussion of the
ongoing Jewish exodus from Poland. The full citation is as follows:
Quote:
The opportunity for upward mobility [within the government structure]
even applied to many of the generation's previously non-Communist
peers, especially the former sympathizers, who out of idealistic or
opportunistic motives now enrolled with the new government. Against the
background of their prewar experience and the Holocaust, the postwar
political configurations resulted in their perception of the new regime
as their only ally against anti-Semitism. For them, the new regime was
very attractive: it was antinationalist, fought anti-Semitism and
bigotry, carried the flavor of universalism, and promised a secular
society based on humanism and social justice. Most of all, it needed
their services, offering them possibilities to work and prospects of
social promotion that previously had been closed to Jews. From the
point of view of the new regime, these Jews were a reservoir that could
be trusted and enlisted in its efforts to rebuild the country. [Schatz,
The Generation, p. 212; emphasis added.]
Schatz makes clear that it was not, in fact, the whole of the Jewish
population whom the goverment regarded as a trustworthy reservoir, but
a) those Jews, a minority of the total Jewish population, who were
self-selected by virtue of their decision not to emigrate, and b)
particularly those who, though not party members before the war, had
been party sympathizers. Throughout his discussion MacDonald displays a
resolute and, for a social scientist, utterly irresponsible neglect of
Jewish emigration as a factor affecting the government's relationship
to the Jewish population. Yet this pattern of emigration provides the
context for all of the passages in Schatz quoted above, and in fact,
for all of the passages in Schatz MacDonald quotes or paraphrases in
his own discussion. Indeed, as the pattern of citations offered here
indicates, Schatz's discussion of Jewish emigration from Poland is so
tightly interwoven with his discussion of the government's relationship
with the Jewish population (and with his discussion of Jewish
participation in the government) that to have missed it so completely
MacDonald would have had to adopt a perversely contorted reading
strategy.

=====
MacDonald's "Great Majority" Libel
Although in the introductory chapter of The Culture of Critique
MacDonald claims that "[t]here is no implication here of a unified
Jewish 'conspiracy' to undermine gentile culture, as portrayed in the
notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion," [MacDonald, The Culture of
Critique, p. 1] he appears particularly anxious to convince his readers
that there was indeed substantial agreement and mutual cooperation
between Jewish communists in power and the wider Jewish population of
post-war Poland. The following excerpts from his discussion tend to
contradict his own assertions a) that "[s]ince the Enlightenment,
Judaism has never been a unified, monolithic movement," and b) that he
is more concerned with the Jewish agendas of the individuals who
dominated the intellectual and political movements he discusses than
with attributing anti-gentile behavior to Jews as a group. [MacDonald,
The Culture of Critique, pp. 1-2] At least as far as post-war Poland is
concerned, MacDonald would apparently very much like his readers to
believe that Judaism was a unified, monolithic movement, exhibiting
anti-Gentile behaviors that were generally consistent within the group.

Quote:
It will be apparent in the following that the Jews, including Jewish
communists at the highest levels of government, continued as a
cohesive, identifiable group. [MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p.
63]
[T]he general opposition between the Jewish-dominated Polish communist
government supported by the Soviets and the nationalist, anti-Semitic
underground helped forge the allegiance of the great majority of the
Jewish population to the communist government while the great majority
of non-Jewish Poles favored the anti-Soviet parties (Schatz 1991,
204-205). [MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p. 65]
Moreover, the Jewish-dominated government regarded the Jewish
population, many of whom had not previously been communists, as "a
reservoir that could be trusted and enlisted in its efforts to rebuild
the country. Although not old, 'tested' comrades, they were outsiders
with regard to its historically shaped traditions, without connections
to the Catholic Church, and hated by those who hated the regime. Thus
they could be depended on and used to fill required positions" (Schatz
1991, 212-213). [MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p. 66]
... Poland became polarized between a predominantly Jewish ruling and
administrative class supported by the rest of the Jewish population and
by Soviet military power, arrayed against the great majority of the
native gentile population. [MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p. 66]

The problem with these assertions of general Jewish solidarity with the
Communist government is that they are, quite simply, false. Indeed, the
evidence that contradicts MacDonald on this is readily available and
clearly laid out in Jaff Schatz's The Generation, the principal source
informing MacDonald's discussion. The vast majority of surviving Jews
who remained in or returned to Poland immediately after the Second
World War signaled their lack of faith in what MacDonald calls the
"Jewish-dominated" Communist government in the clearest language
possible: they left.
Quote:
The first wave of returnees reached its peak in April, May, and June
1946, when 213,000 Polish refugees returned from the USSR. Of these
64.1 percent, that is, 136,550 persons, were Jews. At least 20,000
Jewish refugees came back on their own, before the organized groups of
repatriates reached Poland. In 1946, the CKZP [i.e., the Central
Committee of Jews in Poland] registered 157,240 Jewish repatriates from
the USSR. ... Together with approximately 60,000 to 70,000 survivors of
concentration camps and soldiers, there were at least 245,000 Jews in
Poland in July 1946. [Schatz, The Generation, p. 203]
Despite the strong condemnation of anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish
violence by Polish intellectuals, such violence was widespread.
Individual Jews were killed on returning to small cities and villages
and were victims of the underground's raids on towns, settlements,
railroads and buses. Several organized pogroms, which always seemed to
begin with blood-libel accusations, also took place. Altogether, by
summer 1947, approximately 1,500 Jews were killed in assaults that took
place in 155 localities. This was bound to speed up the emigration that
was already in motion. Despite the appeals of Jewish Communists,
Bundists, and the Central Committee of Jews in Poland, and the promise
that the regime would suppress anti-Semitism, by the end of 1947, only
100,000 Jews remained in Poland. [Schatz, The Generation, p. 207;
emphasis added]
Most of the Jewish returnees left Poland during the two first postwar
years. After this, emigration quietly continued. Thus, 38,000
applications for emigration to Israel were filed between September 1949
and December 1950. Two-thirds of these were approved. ... This wave of
emigration was cut off when Poland closed its borders to all
emigration. It has been estimated that by the middle of 1949, there
were only 70,000 to 80,000 Jews left in Poland. ... As emigration
continuously decreased the number of Jews in Poland, in relative terms,
the PZPR [i.e., Polish United Workers' Party] members formed an
increasing proportion of those Jews who remained in Poland. [Schatz,
The Generation, p. 208; emphasis added]
In other words, at the presumed height of "Jewish domination" of the
Communist government in Poland (a somewhat indeterminate period,
insofar as MacDonald offers only imprecise dates for this Jewish reign
of terror), a steady flow of emigration decreased the total Jewish
population by more than sixty-six percent; far from offering their
allegiance to the Communist government, the "great majority of the
Jewish population" got out of Communist Poland as soon as they could.
There can be no question that MacDonald would have seen this
information in his research: it comes from the very pages he cites (one
of them incorrectly, as it happens) in The Culture of Critique on page
65, where he is happy to quote Schatz's statistics on how many Jews had
been killed by Poles expressing their opposition to "the
Jewish-dominated Polish communist goverment."
Moreover, returning MacDonald's citations from Schatz to their original
context further weakens his position. For example, see pages 204 and
205 of The Generation, where MacDonald, as quoted above, finds the
government forging allegiances with "the Jewish population" [MacDonald,
The Culture of Critique, p. 65]:
Quote:
As the underground was strongly anti-Semitic, identifying Jews with the
Communist system, the struggle against it became yet another factor
that bound those Jews who were planning to rebuild their lives in
Poland on the side of the regime. [Schatz, The Generation, p. 204;
emphasis added.]
Here, as elsewhere, MacDonald's repeated formulation "the great
majority of the Jewish population" flagrantly disregards Schatz's
distinction between "those Jews who were planning to rebuild their
lives in Poland" and those who constituted the actual "great majority,"
those who were not planning to stay and, as Schatz makes quite clear,
did not. MacDonald's assertion [The Culture of Critique, p. 66] that
"the Jewish-dominated government regarded the Jewish population, many
of whom had not previously been communists, as 'a reservoir that could
be trusted and enlisted in its efforts to rebuild the country'"
similarly evades distinctions informed by Schatz's discussion of the
ongoing Jewish exodus from Poland. The full citation is as follows:
Quote:
The opportunity for upward mobility [within the government structure]
even applied to many of the generation's previously non-Communist
peers, especially the former sympathizers, who out of idealistic or
opportunistic motives now enrolled with the new government. Against the
background of their prewar experience and the Holocaust, the postwar
political configurations resulted in their perception of the new regime
as their only ally against anti-Semitism. For them, the new regime was
very attractive: it was antinationalist, fought anti-Semitism and
bigotry, carried the flavor of universalism, and promised a secular
society based on humanism and social justice. Most of all, it needed
their services, offering them possibilities to work and prospects of
social promotion that previously had been closed to Jews. From the
point of view of the new regime, these Jews were a reservoir that could
be trusted and enlisted in its efforts to rebuild the country. [Schatz,
The Generation, p. 212; emphasis added.]
Schatz makes clear that it was not, in fact, the whole of the Jewish
population whom the goverment regarded as a trustworthy reservoir, but
a) those Jews, a minority of the total Jewish population, who were
self-selected by virtue of their decision not to emigrate, and b)
particularly those who, though not party members before the war, had
been party sympathizers. Throughout his discussion MacDonald displays a
resolute and, for a social scientist, utterly irresponsible neglect of
Jewish emigration as a factor affecting the government's relationship
to the Jewish population. Yet this pattern of emigration provides the
context for all of the passages in Schatz quoted above, and in fact,
for all of the passages in Schatz MacDonald quotes or paraphrases in
his own discussion. Indeed, as the pattern of citations offered here
indicates, Schatz's discussion of Jewish emigration from Poland is so
tightly interwoven with his discussion of the government's relationship
with the Jewish population (and with his discussion of Jewish
participation in the government) that to have missed it so completely
MacDonald would have had to adopt a perversely contorted reading
strategy.

Topaz

unread,
Oct 3, 2005, 6:35:37 PM10/3/05
to
"I was listening to a speech that he gave in Sweden. You can listen at
the
Url below if ya want. http://www.davidduke.com/

Anyway, the guy made an analogy that sums it all up.

He said, lets look at Iceland. They have one of the worlds lowest
crime rates, and have some of the worlds highest test scores.

He then went on to say: Haiti is rich in natural resources, they have
great weather, beaches etc.. Yet its a murder, rape capital of the
world. etc, etc.

He went on to say: If we were to take all of the people from Haiti &
Move them to Iceland, Well, they would soon die.

Take those from Iceland and move them to Haiti and within one
generation Haiti would be paradise on earth.

He explained it better than I did. But you should get the gist of the
Iceland / Haiti analogy. Better yet, listen to the Stockholm speech
and hear it for yourself.."

Tommy

0 new messages