Bombing Iraq, Syria = ‘Choosing Hope Over Fear’

My foreign policy is to resist invasion and to not invade or bomb other countries.

From the Los Angeles Times:

President Obama today called on world leaders to “choose hope over fear” by fighting sectarian conflict and extremism, beginning with the Islamic State terrorist group in Syria and Iraq but branching out beyond the Middle East.

In a morning address to the U.N. General Assembly in New York, Obama urged leaders to support Iraqis and Syrians as they fight to reclaim their communities, as he also argued the merits of the new military campaign he is running against the Islamic State as well as Al Qaeda and its offshoots.

Posted in barack obama, Iraq, Syria | Comments Off

Talking Islam & The Jews With The John Birch Society

I heard Tomislav Sunic (a board member of the American Freedom Party) tonight address the John Birch Society at the Crescenta Valley Sheriff’s Station.

There was an even mixture of pro-Jewish and anti-Jewish sentiments at the meeting but nobody said they wanted more Muslims in America.

Tom concluded: “Why did the Chinese build a wall? Not for tourists. There were practical reasons. Because they fought the wild Mongols. I may love the Jews or I may hate the Jews. Let’s leave that aside. But I know from my own experience, Serbs and Croats, these people are similar but very different. Why did the Israelis build up this big wall? Because there is no way the fake marriage can work… It is better to seek a decent divorce than to live in a fake marriage, which is going to end up in terrible disaster for both partners.”

I was invited to speak.

Luke: “Hi, I’m an Orthodox Jew. I think our main problem today is that all the major moral categories of the modern world are false. Take something like Islamophobia, which is supposed to be such a terrible thing. If you look in the Bible, there is no commandment against Islamophobia. There is no commandment against suspicion of other religions. There is nothing wrong with being suspicious of people who are different from you. It’s normal, natural and healthy. I’m an Orthodox Jew. It doesn’t bother me if you are skeptical and suspicious of me and my people. That’s the healthy thing.

“Racism. There’s no commandment against racism in the Bible. Now I’m not telling you to hate people because of their race, but this is an entirely made-up moral category. It did not exist prior to a 100 years ago. All the great thinkers in history from Jesus to the Apostle Paul to Moses to the great Christian thinkers such as Acquinas…and Augustine, none of them mentioned such a thing as racism. It simply wasn’t thought of, and yet this term racism is used to shut down all sorts of legitimate areas of discussion about people who are flooding into our country, coming here illegally, and trying to subvert everything we stand for. Also sexism and homophobia, all these moral categories of the modern world find no resonance in the books we hold sacred such as the Bible.”

“Speaking from a minority group, I think the majority population has the right to demand from its minorities certain standards, that if we are to be guests in your country, we need to live up to certain things. I think minority groups should be expected to [take] no welfare, no seeking affirmative action, no subverting the national paradigm and the national fundamental beliefs. Americans have the right to ask that of Jews, of Muslims, of blacks, of Mexicans. This is a country that was founded by a certain people with a certain ideology. They were Christian. They were overwhelmingly white Anglo-Saxon Protestant. If a group does not live up to these standards, if a group practices honor killings, if a group lobbies for foreign powers, if a group plans terrorism, if a group tries to stigmatize those who stand up for the Constitution and traditional American values, you have every right to not just punish those people who are subverting your land but to ask minority groups to hold their own members accountable or to pay the price. I feel confident as an Orthodox Jew that we can live up to your standards and that we can be good citizens in your land.”

Man in the audience: “There’s the old saying, when in Rome, do as the Romans do. Visitors to any nation should respect the values of the people who live there.”

Another man: “The word ‘racism’ is a code word for being anti-white. The only people who have to apologize for being racist are white people.”

“I’m not as afraid of terrorism as I am about the police state we already have in America.”

“We are seen in the world, and rightly so, as the attack dog for Israel. What they did to the Palestinians last month, if any other country did that, they would be talking about sanctions and bombings. When they do it, we look the other way. Our politicians are so afraid of AIPAC and the Israeli lobby, they won’t stand up for us.”

Elliott, the chair: “The people in the Gaza strip were launching missiles against Israel.”

Man: “They were launching Roman candles that didn’t even hit the mark.”

Elliot: “It was lucky they had this Iron Dome.”

Man: “I don’t know that it was lucky. They need to take their land back that was stolen from them and we helped them [Jews] steal it.”

“When they expelled the Palestinians in 1948, do you know how many were Catholic and not Muslim? Do you know how many churches were desecrated by the Israelis? They have a hatred also for Christianity. There’s a little thing called the Talmud. I could start on that. There’s also a little thing called the Kol Nidre oath, but I won’t mention that because we have a guest here.”

William Johnson: “There is a major shift in the American public. We have largely supported Israel for a long time and now for the first time in our history we have a large Muslim population, there is a shift in the general population to lend an ear to the Muslim side. In this country, we have the Jews and the Muslims going at each other, you have the Japanese and the Koreans going at each other, you have the Armenians and the Turks going at each other, all in America, when we didn’t cause any of that stuff. The more multicultural we get, the more infighting and it is a bad development.”

Woman: “There’s no justice in the Middle East for the Palestinians.”

“The [Israeli] soldiers have a patch — born to kill.”

Bill Johnson: “There are disputes around the world between different people and America has tried to solve them. And we can’t do that. We go to war in Vietnam, and after we’re done, we want to show that we’re good guys, so we let the Vietnamese come in.”

Woman: “Every time there’s a war.”

Bill: “Foreign entanglements cause a greater problem.”

I’ve never heard of that.

Tom: “When I was a professor at Cal-State Fullerton, 70% of my students were white and 30% were black and hispanic. I had to practice some self-censorship. I had to give passing grades to my minority students simply because I wanted to avoid the possible legal hassle of being sued for flunking this guy. I had considerable difficulties having these people conceptualize on the level of white students because they were slow. I was teaching a course on East-European politics. I had to start from scratch like in high school for many of my minority students. If you say that, you get fired. Nobody is going to kill you like the gulag but they are going to kill you spiritually. My teaching had a negative impact on some of my bright white students. They were yawning because I had to slow down my teaching for my minority students. I had to be more descriptive. I had to use short elliptic sentences.”

“I have certain skills, specially linguistic skills. I’m not politically correct and I am removed from the mainstream. In normal circumstances, I should be a dean at a good university, but my values are traditional.”

Jack* tells me:

1. The John Birch Society (JBS) is interesting because its origins were the anti-communist right arising out of fear of a communist conspiracy fueled by the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities (HUAC) and the McCarthy hearings. Because so many of the communist sympathizers were Jews (although not the communists in the state department) the JBS also attracted its fair share of anti semites. In the late 60’s the JBS switched around and became convinced that the communist revolutionaries in Russia and in Europe (though not in China) were arms of the big financial interests. None Dare Call it Conspiracy by Gary Allen became the bible for the JBS. So many of the international bankers, especially the Rothschilds were Jews so although Allen never overtly blames Jews, it was easy enough for a reader to make the leap that some vast international Jewish conspiracy headed by the Rothschilds was calling the shots both for the leaders of the free world and the leaders of the communist world. It is against this backdrop that you were evaluated by the JBS members. They may share your views on social issues and true American values, but Jews will always be viewed with suspicion, although they may be accepted as allies out of expediency.

2. It’s clear Sunic is a really really smart person. I would be interested in what you think of him compared to other intellectuals with whom you have interacted. I know your phone interviews with Gottfried (who is a traditional academic intellectual) and Nicholas Wade (who is a public intellectual) are far different than meeting and speaking with someone over a longer period of time. How would you rate Sunic’s critical thinking and intelligence to those (and other really smart people you have met?)

3. You have stumbled upon one of the great paradoxes of the extreme right, the mainstream left and the mainstream right. You have found that you have been treated courteously and respectfully by those who might by their own principles disdain and dislike you. I looked up Bill Johnson, who must be a reasonable competent and successful lawyer and remembered how he was slimed when he ran for judge as a white supremacist. I think you realize that regardless of his personal beliefs, and I do not know what they are, he is able to put them aside when interacting with someone like you. I have no doubt that had he been elected, he would be a fair judge to all who appeared before him. I do not believe that is true for a great many African-American judges. This also gets down to what Dennis Prager discusses when he asks us to focus on the actions and not the thoughts (or for that matter the intentions)

4. In the portion of the speech you allude to Jews being guests in America. This is great fodder to feed the your audience, but the problem is Jews are not guests in America. Once Jews or Mexicans or Chinese people come to this country, they can become Americans and fully participate in American life by embracing its values. There is nothing inherently preventing Jews from accepting Christian values as they have evolved over the last 500 years or so out of Europe, and there is nothing preventing muslims from continuing to practice Islam while fully accepting freedom of religion. I think that what you mean to say is that any immigrant is a guest, including immigrants from northern European country and as guests are obligated if they want to become American to accept for themselves American values as established historically and agree on the need to inculcate those values in their children. If a conflict arises between that group’s belief and traditionally accepted American values, the group’s belief have to be rejected. The consequences of failure to accept are deportation and what you want to impose as collective punishment. I don’t think you can have collective punishment, although punishment by public example, which you also endorse, may be viable.

In my daily life, I find that whites (of northern European origin) display more empathy than do other groups, and most of the time in my daily life, I don’t give a damn about a group’s historic suffering because I’m relating to individuals rather than groups.

Anthropologist Peter Frost writes:

Whereas pro-sociality is attested across a wide range of cultures, full cognitive/affective empathy is more localized. The difference is like the one we see between shame and guilt. Most cultures primarily use shame to enforce correct behavior, i.e., if other people see you breaking a rule, you feel ashamed and this feeling is reinforced by social disapproval. In contrast, only a minority of cultures—largely those of Northwest Europe—rely primarily on guilt, which operates even when only you see yourself breaking a rule or merely think about breaking a rule (Benedict, 1946; Creighton, 1990).

Northwest Europeans have thus undergone two parallel changes in behavioral control: 1) a shift from pro-sociality to full cognitive/affective empathy; and 2) a shift from shame to guilt. Indeed, full empathy and guilt may be two sides of the same coin. Both are the consequences of a mental model that is used to simulate how another person thinks or feels (an imaginary witness to a wrongful act, a person in distress) and to ensure correct behavior by inducing the appropriate feelings (anguish, pity).

Finally, full empathy and guilt are most adaptive where kinship ties are relatively weak and where rules of correct behavior require a leveling of the playing field between kin and non-kin. This has long been the case in Northwest Europe. There seems to be a longstanding pattern of weak kinship ties west of a line running from Trieste to St. Petersburg, as shown by several culture traits that are rare or absent elsewhere:

– relatively late marriage for men and women

– many people who never marry

– neolocality (children leave the family household to form new households)

– high circulation of non-kin among different households (typically young people sent out as servants) (Hajnal, 1965)

Commonly called the Western European Marriage Pattern, this geographic zone of relatively weak kinship was thought to have arisen after the Black Death of the 14th century. There is now good evidence for its existence before the Black Death and fragmentary evidence going back to 9th century France and even earlier (Hallam, 1985; Seccombe, 1992, p. 94). Historian Alan Macfarlane likewise sees an English tendency toward weaker kinship ties before the 13th century and even during Anglo-Saxon times (Macfarlane, 2012; Macfarlane, 1992, pp. 173-174).

This weak kinship zone may have arisen in prehistory along the coasts of the North Sea and the Baltic, which were once home to a unique Mesolithic culture (Price, 1991). An abundance of marine resources enabled hunter-fisher-gatherers to achieve high population densities by congregating each year in large coastal agglomerations for fishing, sealing, and shellfish collecting. Population densities were comparable in fact to those of farming societies, but unlike the latter there was much “churning” because these agglomerations formed and reformed on a yearly basis. Kinship obligations would have been insufficient to resolve disputes peaceably, to manage shared resources, and to ensure respect for social rules. Initially, peer pressure was probably used to get people to see things from the other person’s perspective. Over time, however, the pressure of natural selection would have favored individuals who more readily felt this equivalence of perspectives, the result being a progressive hardwiring of compassion and shame and their gradual transformation into empathy and guilt (Frost, 2013a; Frost, 2013b).

Posted in AFP, Islam, Jews, John Birch Society | Comments Off

Black Nationalism Vs White Nationalism

I went to meet a white nationalist leader the other day and even though he wanted no Jews in his country, he sought out a kosher restaurant for me and when I went to his home, he provided kosher food. When I hung out with his fellow white nationalists, he looked out for my welfare and even though many of these whites had anti-Jewish views, they toned them down to be considerate of my feelings.

I know of a white nationalist who went to a Klu Klux Klan meeting and there was one black or Filipino in the audience and as a result, all the Klan speakers toned things down to avoid hurting the feelings of this black man.

By contrast, if you are one of the few whites at a black nationalist meeting, you’ll hear lots of talk about killing whitey, killing his women, killing his children.

In my life experience, whites are the most empathic people around. It’s not even close.

Anthropologist Peter Frost writes:

Why was affective empathy more advantageous at the northwestern end of Eurasia? Together with empathic guilt, it may be part of a larger behavioral adaptation called the Western European Marriage Pattern, which seems to reflect a culture where kinship ties are relatively weak and thus insufficient to enforce rules of correct behavior.

The WEMP predominates north and west of an imaginary line running from Trieste to St. Petersburg and has the following general characteristics:

– men and women tend to marry relatively late and many never marry

– children usually leave the family to form new households

– a high proportion of non-kin circulate among different households (Hajnal, 1965)

This zone of relatively weak kinship existed before the Black Death of the 14th century and is attested by fragmentary evidence going back to the 9th century and even earlier (Hallam, 1985; Seccombe, 1992, p. 94). I suspect its origins go back to a unique Mesolithic culture that once existed along the North Sea and the Baltic (Price, 1991). At that time, an abundance of marine resources drew people to the coast each year for fishing, sealing, and shellfish collecting, thus creating large but fluid settlements unlike anything seen in other hunter-gatherers. Social interactions would have largely involved non-kin, and there would have thus been strong selection for mechanisms that could enforce social rules in the absence of kin obligations.


Through their high capacity for affective empathy and empathic guilt, these Northwest Europeans had an edge in adapting to later cultural environments that would be structured not by kinship but by other ways of organizing social relations: the State, ideology, and the market economy.

This has been one path that leads to advanced societies, but it is not the only one. East Asian societies have pursued a similar path of cultural evolution while having relatively low levels of affective empathy and empathic guilt. They seem to have done so by relying more on external means of behavior control (shaming, family discipline, community surveillance) and by building on cognitive empathy through learned notions of moral duty.

Meanwhile, Northwest European societies have had their capacity for empathy pushed to the limit, as seen in the commonly heard term “aid fatigue.” And there is no easy way to turn it off. The only real way is to convince oneself that the object of empathy is morally worthless.

Was it all an evolutionary mistake? Time will tell.

Posted in Blacks, Whites | Comments Off

The Rise & Fall Of The European Union

Tom Sunic writes: Several costly mistakes were made by the founding fathers of the European Union:

economics, and not politics, was thought to be the best tool to bring about the unification of Europe; unclear plans about the limits of the enlargement of the European Union; the unexpected and ongoing floods of non-European immigration as a result of the iron law of capitalism, combined with starry-eyed, guilt-feeling Christian inspired “love thy colored neighbor” ecumenism.

The first signs of the decline did not wait to occur. The Amsterdam Treaty of 1997, the Nice Treaty of 2001, and the Lisbon Treaty of 2007 became face-saving attempts at rectifying the failures already embedded in the founding myth of the Maastricht Treaty of 1992.

Quite revealing is the fact that the predecessor of the European Union, the European Economic Community (EEC), following the Treaty of Rome in 1957, had adopted the “economic” name and not the name of “political community.” The underlying belief, inherent to liberalism, was that only thorough economic benefits — only through the removal of trade barriers and state borders, and with the free flux of people, goods and capital — would age-old interethnic hatreds among Europeans disappear. The results of such delusions are becoming visible every day.

Posted in europe, Tom Sunic | Comments Off

Notice of removal from Google Search


Due to a request under data protection law in Europe, we are no longer able to show one or more pages from your site in our search results in response to some search queries for names or other personal identifiers. Only results on European versions of Google are affected. No action is required from you.

These pages have not been blocked entirely from our search results, and will continue to appear for queries other than those specified by individuals in the European data protection law requests we have honored. Unfortunately, due to individual privacy concerns, we are not able to disclose which queries have been affected.

Please note that in many cases, the affected queries do not relate to the name of any person mentioned prominently on the page. For example, in some cases, the name may appear only in a comment section.

If you believe Google should be aware of additional information regarding this content that might result in a reversal or other change to this removal action, you can use our form at Please note that we can’t guarantee responses to submissions to that form.

The following URLs have been affected by this action:


The Google Team

Posted in R. YY Rubinstein | Comments Off

Outside Of Orthodoxy, Men Are Dropping Out From Participating In Formal Jewish Life

David Kelsey writes: Affirmative action for the sake of appearances will help nothing.

But Lepson’s spin that this situation is “refreshing” and a “pleasant surprise” should be emphatically rejected. For no amount of innovative projects are going to make a significant difference to the future of American Liberal Jewry if this paucity of male participation continues. We can debate what could or should be done, but apparently, we can’t even agree that the lack of male representation is a problem, never mind a dire one.

Posted in david kelsey, Jews | Comments Off

JTA: Amid declining Jewish caucus in Congress, rising concerns over communal influence

I thought we weren’t supposed to talk about Jewish influence? I thought that was a subject you could not discuss publicly? Why would Jewish numbers in Congress matter? IF they do matter, then surely Jewish numbers in media, entertainment, banking, etc also matter?

REPORT: WASHINGTON (JTA) – From 31 in 2009 to a likely 19 in January, the unofficial Jewish caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives is shrinking fast.
Jewish lawmakers have traditionally been the first stop for Jewish lobbyists seeking inroads for their issues, including Israel, preserving the social safety net, and keeping church and state separate. Additionally, lawmakers generally seek guidance from colleagues most invested in an issue.
Fewer Jewish lawmakers means the community could lose influence in areas where its voice has been preeminent.
“The Jewish community is going to have to work harder,” said one veteran official who has worked both as a professional in the Jewish community and a staffer for a Jewish lawmaker.

Posted in Israel, Jews | Comments Off

How To Deal With Muslims & Other Minorities

I think every society has the right to say to its minority groups and to its immigrants, we expect you to live up to the following demands:

* No behavior against the best interests of the society;
* No breaking the law;
* No honor killings;
* No rape nor pimping nor prostitution nor child abuse;
* No child brides;
* No living off welfare;
* No subverting the country’s mores;
* No asking for affirmative action;
* No asking for the majority to accommodate you;
* No display of a foreign flag more prominently than the flag of your host nation;
* No plotting the overthrow of the host country or of any foreign power;
* No lobbying on behalf of a foreign nation.

If a group refuses to abide by these dictates, a society has the right to demand that they leave and if they refuse to leave, a society has the right to restrict their activities, to levy heinous taxes, and finally to imprison them for forceful deportation.

I would encourage every nation to look out for its national self-interest and to take steps to preserve its way of life. It is reasonable to expect that minority groups within the nation abide by the nation’s laws and norms. It is reasonable for a nation to profile by race and religion. Jews, blacks, Chinese, Muslims, etc, all have established patterns. It’s not reasonable to fear an above average rate of violent crime from Chinese and Jews for instance, but it might be worth giving them extra scrutiny when it comes to certain aspects of national security and certain white collar crimes. Blacks have a record of above average performance of crime, including violent crime. A certain percentage of Muslims support the imposition of Sharia law by violence.

A country has a right to say what goes within its borders. Let’s say you have a group who practice a dangerous blood ritual, say, bare baby penis to mouth sucking. And they refuse to stop despite many cases of herpes transmission. You then go after everyone who practices it. You have undercover agents busting synagogues that practice it, with the parents, rabbis, board members, arrested, and photographed for the news. The synagogue is seized by the state, destroyed, and the land sold off. Organizations like Agudath Yisrael are pressured to condemn the practice. When they decline, you start auditing them, and harassing them. The OU is pressured to condemn it. If they refuse to publicly condemn the practice of MBP (metzitzah b’peh) at least in the US, pressure is brought on corporations to remove their symbols from products.

So pressure is brought to bear on all involved in enablement of a tribal crime (I would make bare MBP illegal), but not all Jews would be held responsible. Only those Jews who practice the rite and protect its practice. Reform Jews should not be held responsible, unless they are stupid enough to defend MBP, which they would never do, especially under the circumstances.

I would do the same for the encouragement of terrorism. Seize the mosque and sell it off and send the leaders of the mosque to jail. If members of a mosque commit an honor killing, seize the mosque and sell it. If illegal acts are planned in a mosque or a synagogue or any minority gathering place, seize the place and sell it. Exile members of the family of the terrorist.

I would like all non-profits and all religions and all houses of worship to lose their tax exempt status. I would also like to see an end to all lobbying for foreign governments.

If somebody is convicted of spying against your country, hang them or electrocute them, just like Eisenhower did with the Rosenbergs. After that electrocution, Americans got the message until the civil rights agitation in Selma, Alabama. If spy for Israel Jonathan Pollard had been hanged (after it appears that he gave the crown jewels of America’s nuclear secrets to Israel who then sold them to the Soviet Union to get Jews out, according to the New Yorker), the world would be a better place.

So too, with immigration. If the border is considered to be an invasion by a foreign people, than any coordination with them to promote amnesty should be seen subversion and treachery and should be treated accordingly. Right now every major Jewish organization, including the OU and Agudath Yisrael, support immigration amnesty. To me, these organizations support the destruction of the United States of America.

If we would simply hang a couple of spies and supporters of treason every five years, this country would be a better place.

Chinese in America have a long history of spying and industrial espionage. They deserve more suspicion in this regard than Koreans and Japanese in America who don’t have the same record. Korean-Americans and Japanese-Americans have been ideal citizens.

Muslims don’t invent dangerous ideologies. That’s largely the province of secular rootless left-wing radical Jews, who are a curse to their host nation with their notions of rights for the sodomite and the transgendered, feminism, socialism, pacifism, anti-racism, multi-culturalism, etc. Most American Jews love America. Jews are probably the most pro-American of all minority groups in the country, but these left-wing radicals put everyone at peril.

I not only see many advantages for the majority culture with this type of approach, but I also see many advantages for the minority culture. When you are each responsible for each other and the majority culture imposes collective punishment on you, it increases esperit de corp and collegiality among your group. You’re all in it together. It increases in-marriage, bonding, social cohesion, and the practice of your own culture. You are less likely to assimilate.

I like the idea of Jews, for instance, living within the Torah corral and blacks living within a Christian corral and Muslims living within a Muslim corral. I like the idea of people marrying within their own tribe.

Steve Sailer writes:

As an American, I want other Americans, especially other Americans of power, influence, wealth, and talent to see themselves as on my side, the American side. That doesn’t seem too much to ask. I particularly want Americans of influence who are by nature conservatives to train their innate urges toward loyalty to overlap with my loyalties toward my fellow American citizens.

In contrast, if, say, Noam Chomsky doesn’t feel terribly loyal toward American citizens, well, I don’t mind all that much because he’s not by nature all that conservative…

In contrast, there are a lot of more naturally conservative Jewish-Americans whom you would definitely want on your side, not on somebody else’s side. They like being loyal. But these days, nobody expects them to be loyal to their fellow citizens.

I would like to see our society engage in more social construction to get naturally conservative Jews like the Brookses to be more loyal to their fellow American citizens and less loyal to their foreign co-ethnics.

In particular, I favor criticism. Being criticized rationally for your poor behavior tends to encourage you to improve your behavior. But criticism of Jews for Jewish-typical failings such as excessive ethnocentrism is a career-killer today.

It’s like calling an angry black woman an angry black woman, except that angry black women tend to be more angry than powerful. In contrast, when Gregg Easterbrook wrote one sentence of criticism of Jewish movie moguls in 2003 in, of all places, Marty Peretz’s The New Republic, Easterbrook was immediately fired from his sportswriting job at Michael Eisner-controlled ESPN that accounted for half of his income. This is even though Easterbrook’s older brother Frank Easterbrook is a heavyweight federal judge. But nobody fears nepotistic vengeance by people named Easterbrook, while Eisner’s actions certainly served pour encourager les autres.

It didn’t always used to be this way. For example, as a child of the 1970s, I’ve often thought about Henry Kissinger. His career and personality have always been controversial, but I think it’s safe to say he is a man of parts. Further, I’m very glad in retrospect that Henry Kissinger was on our side, the United States of America, rather than on the side of the Soviet Union or of Israel.

My impression from reading between the lines in Kissinger’s immense memoir of 1973-74, Years of Upheaval, is that Kissinger had always been very concerned during his younger days about the possibility of accusations of dual loyalties, and that he resolved to overcome them by … not having dual loyalties, by just being loyal to the United States. And to his own fabulous career, of course, but back in the post-WWII era, loyalty to Americans in general tended to help you in your career.

Kissinger’s single loyalty drove the nascent neoconservatives wild with rage, but the neocons weren’t quite as organized and influential back then. Overall, back in the 1960s-1970s, the fact that the only thing simple about Kissinger was his single loyalty greatly benefited his career domestically by allowing him to become the right hand man of the experienced and cynical Richard Nixon.

And, more strikingly, it allowed him to play the role of honest broker in his shuttle diplomacy negotiating the disengagement of Israel’s army from the armies of Egypt and Syria after the 1973 war. That Anwar Sadat (and even Hafez Assad) came to see to see this Jewish-American as representing the interests of the United States rather than of some complicated mixture of American and Israeli interests proved highly useful to the United States (and even to Israel).

In today’s atmosphere, however, the idea that Henry Kissinger had to carefully police his own loyalties to prove, not unreasonably, to gentiles his loyalty to the United States sounds shockingly retrograde and anti-Semitic.).

Posted in Islam, Jews | Comments Off

Tom Sunic On Islam Vs The West

I’m not sure anything like this dialogue has happened before.

Last night, Tom Sunic spoke to the Institute for Historical Review. Today he spoke with me at the Beverly Hills Community Sports Center owned by JEM (Jewish Educational Movement) about Islam and the West.

Sunic was professorial and I was provocative.

One guy afterward said I tread heavily. Another lady said I could date Kate Upton (during my talk, I compared the chances of peace in the Middle East with me dating that supermodel).

Bob says: “Your tendency to tread heavily – a fair if funny characterization – is a virtue in the current climate, when everybody else is so light in their bloody loafers.”

Charles Edward Lincoln organized the event. He wrote on his blog beforehand:


Rabbi Hertzel Illulian is an extraordinary man. I share with him the dream to build a New Jerusalem in California—a new center of civilization which preserves the traditional values of European Culture and Religion in this most modern of all world cities.

I appreciate the opportunity he has given me, as JEM Community Center’s new Director of Development, to create new programs at the JEM Center. He has given me a steep assignment as well. But I was persuaded to accept the challenge because the good Rabbi is an extraordinarily honorable and upright man, one of the most interesting gentlemen I have met in Los Angeles, as well as one of the most forthright. Rabbi Illulian asked me, when offering me the position, what I could do to explain and change the fact that so many of “my people” (non-Jews) hate Jews.

To that precise end, I have decided to develop a program at the JEM Center of bringing some on the members and representatives of the “Far Right” or even Fascist political movements to speak at JEM. I think we need to address all the questions that have recently arisen as a result of recent elections in Europe: IS THE NEW RIGHT IN EUROPE A THREAT TO JEWS? Is there such a thing as the “Jewish Agenda” which promotes “culturally progressive” notions such as homosexual marriage and mixing of the races? In Rabbi Hertzel Illulian, introduced to me by Julia Gelb, one of his congregation, I have found a Jewish Gentleman of great erudition who says no. Rabbi Illulian, like Julia Gelb, opposes both homosexuality and the interracial, interfaith marriages as against God’s law. In other words, he upholds traditions as much and as fiercely as any Southern Baptist Preacher.

So what is the conflict between Conservatives of Different segments of what must be in some sense a single evolving Biblical Tradition? We all start with the same five basic books: Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Numbers, followed by the same Judges, Kings, and Chronicles, and relying on the same Prophets, Great and Small, with Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Daniel as perhaps the greatest of them all?

Have ethnic labels been used improperly to disparage or promote certain socio-cultural or political agendas? [Can we discuss these things in cool and calm voices, without fighting?] Do Jews have a better track record of maintaining their “group identity” than any other group of people? Is this an example of cultural choice in socio-biology, or of biological determination in culture? Is Dr. Kevin MacDonald fundamentally correct in his assessments of the relationships between Jews and Non-Jews in the 19th and 20th Centuries?

I have often noted, and would continue to insist, that the most prominent and politically active Jews in the 19th Century were allied with the forces of cultural conservatism in Europe: England’s Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli (in some sense the author of the British Empire, in that he proposed and procured for the Widowed Victory some quantum of solace in creating and giving her the title “Empress of India”), the Confederate States of America’s leading attorney and diplomat, Judah P. Benjamin of New Orleans, David Levy of Florida (another United States and Confederate Senator), and Sir Rufus Daniel Isaac, Marquis Lord Reading, a Conservative Lord Chief Justice of England and Viceroy of India). None of these named luminaries of the 19th Century were in any sense Marxists or Socialists, but were in fact solidly allied with traditional Christian Conservatives. So why did the “Socialist” and “Marxist” and in particular the “Cultural Marxist” traditions prevail among some sectors of the Jewish Populations of Europe and North America?

The first of these speakers will be Dr. Tomislav Sunic, a former Cultural Attache to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Croatia, and one of the most brilliant and articulate spokesmen for the so-called “New Right” in Europe. Dr. Sunic is a “part-time Californian” having graduated from the University of California at Santa Barbara (Ph.D. in Political Science, 1988). Dr. Sunic will be speaking at JEM Center on Sunday September 21, 2014 at 3:00 PM. I want to invite all of the members and supports of JEM to attend this historical event, and to support me in bringing together many more encounters which can cross the political, cultural, and religious lines of discussion which have too long been banned in the name of “Political Correctness.” I hope that everyone, of every religious, political persuasion, and cultural background, will want to address questions such as: HOW MUCH OF HISTORY IS REALLY MYTHOLOGY? IS EVEN MODERN 20th CENTURY HISTORY REPLETE WITH DISTORTIONS AND LIES WHICH ARE DESIGNED FOR PURPOSES OF “POWER PLAY” TO SUPPORT INTEREST GROUP POLITICS OF ONE GROUP AGAINST ANOTHER?

Posted in Islam, Jews | Comments Off


I went to and found this 990 form filed for 2013, which listed salaries as follows:

Sarah Rose (CEO): ~$120,000
Jillian Elliott (CFO): ~$128,000
Michael Hawk (operations): ~$96,000
H. Eric Schockman: ~$132,000

Posted in Green | Comments Off