« Speculation about Obama and Iran | Main | Why are libertarians poor? And value transference. »

December 27, 2011

Comments

"he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII."
Since it was Hitler who declared war on the USA and not vice versa, that point is pretty foolish.

"He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business." If that was an allusion to WWII it's also pretty foolish. The war wasn't fought to save the Jews since in '41 no-one knew that they faced mass slaughter.

Commenter Jonathan Bowen points out:

Eric Dondero was fired by Ron Paul. Eric Dondero then ran against Ron Paul and got trounced. Eric Dondero's real name is Eric Rittberg. Eric Dondero obviously has an agenda so take his comments with a grain of salt. The spelling and grammatical mistakes don't help his credibility.

http://rightwingnews.com/election-2012/statement-from-fmr-ron-paul-staffer-on-newsletters-anti-semitism/#comment-394431543

"There was another incident when Ron finally agreed to a meeting with Houston Jewish Young Republicans at the Freeport office. He berated them, and even shouted at one point, over their un-flinching support for Israel. So, much so, that the 6 of them walked out of the office. I was left chasing them down the hallway apologizing for my boss."


Good. Too many people in this country have dual loyalties. If mestizos gained influence here Mexico would comes first.

The only reason someone would oppose Israel -- deny its "right to exist" -- is because he's an anti-Semite. Because you know those great principles of classical liberalism that say governments have a right to exist. That's a right governments have always had. And they can be created anywhere via mass unwanted immigration.

Obviously Paul is not being true to his core principles. He's clearly motivated by anti-Semitism n' stuff.

Are you worried, Sigma?

there's a pretty credible case to be made that WW2 *was* wilsonian blowback. Peter Beinart's "The Icarus Syndrome" explains it pretty well. (beinart is a jew, fwiw).

I'd recommend reading the whole post to all here.

Is it jew-hateration to speculate that Israel would be better in Arizona? Considering their current neighbors, it seems pretty obvious (barring some biblical crap) that all Jews would be better off here than there (or Sweden or anywhere else.)

http://m.thelocal.se/24632/20100127/

[HS: 1. the Palestinians would be better of somewhere else, why shouldn't they move instead? There are lots of Muslim countries they could go to. 2. No one offered the Jews Arizona or a piece of Sweden.]

I like Jews and don't give a shit about Isreal. I'm also not afraid of big bad Muslims in their little mud huts.

I don't know if Ron Paul is an anti-Semite or not. Frankly, it doesn't matter because he's not going to be our next president. He won't even be the Republican nominee who gets the honor of losing to Obama. I imagine that support for the Palestinians is a pretext for being anti-Israel for some people.

However, to be honest, it seems that pro-Israel Jewish Americans are a little bit too quick to label folks as anti-Semites.

Too bad those Zionist conspiracies are true in the form of lobbyist and campaign contributions. Why do you think any candidate hailing from NYC are required to support Israel?

Ask any Arab and they'll tell you that Israel is the aggressor in many conflicts and they don't deserve that land just because the Brits wanted them out.

Ron Paul is anti Israel, and hopes for Israel to be destroyed. but that doesn't mean he has animus towards American Jews.

Ron Paul is likely to agree with half sigma on much of the theory of value transference, indeed ron paul probably thinks most value transference is caused by the government one way or the other and elimination of the government reduces value transference

there are some professions (value creating) where your success is almost entirely due to iq and others where, once you are past the threshold connections and wealth of your parents are most important (these are often value transference professions)

I would cite academia as an example of both -

if you are looking to be considered the best theoretical physicist in the world, you better have a spectacular IQ. connections and wealth count for much less than iq.

if you are looking to be considered a leader in some pseudo science like gender studies, then iq is not so important - your network and political skills are most important

similarly, if you want to get rich as a "stockbroker" you can do it with moderate iq and a lot of ass kissing and golf.

if you want to make a billion dollars as a hedge fund manager charisma and political skill may not matter so much as raw and exceptional levels of iq.

Stevie Cohen famously lacked all charisma. He also lacks muscle mass and lacks any sort of alpha mail traits. He married a woman of puerto rican ancestry. yet he is a billionaire simply as a function of his IQ and what he did with that iq, not from any sort of connections or networking

in fact go look at the list of all the hedge fund billionaires - almost none of them came from wealthy families - lots of middle middle class wage slave parents. They got theirs due to IQ

[HS: If Ron Paul wanted Ireland to be destroyed, I bet that Irish Americans would say that he hated the Irish. If he wanted Italy to be destroyed, I bet that Italian Americans would say that he hated the Italians.]

It's rather obvious that Zionism conflicts with basic conservative principles. It's a huge social engineering project, and the reason Israel is "surrounded by 22 Islamic countries" is because of huge waves of immigration, altering the region in a way so that the social geography no longer reflected the natural geography.

Isn't a common criticism of liberalism that the government takes YOUR money and then gives it to someone else? So what gives great powers the authority to take Arab land and give it to migrant Jews?

Secret of NAM- your argument is similar to that the great anti-Semite Gandhi. Diaper boy claimed that Israel exists "in the hearts and minds of Jews" and so need not refer to a literal "tract of land." I bet he's down in Hell with a copy of the King James Bible kicking himself in the ass.

[HS: Jews always lived in Israel, we just returned the land to them after that same land was previously controlled by the Ottomans and the British.]

America really does not get very much out of our 'alliance' with Israel. Our pro Israeli partisanship causes a lot of muslim resentment and we get nothing to compensate. I'm not saying we should let them get rolled, but I also can't see how being extremely critical of this relationship should be considered evidence of anti-semitism.

And simply observing that Israel appears to exert an immensely disproportionate indirect power over our foreign policy is not conspiracy theorizing. Our politicians talk as if Israel is a critical strategic ally when it is insignificant in strategic and economic terms.


Still, if Ron Paul really believes in 9/11 conspiracies he is easily DQd on crazy grounds.

I usually hear Rothbardians blame J. P Morgan for the creation of the Fed (Rothbard thought a lot of American history was House Rockefeller vs House Morgan). There were seven members of the Jeckyll Island group, as per a book Paul has favorably cited. I think the only Jewish member was Paul Warburg.

"No one offered the Jews Arizona or a piece of Sweden."

Right, and the social-democracies you want the U.S. to copy have become bread-and-circuses hellholes.

http://www.rights.no/publisher/print.asp?id=59&tekstid=3476

Ron Paul wants a society where the government focuses on protecting people and their property and is the clear choice for any Jew who can get past his obsession with communism, you included.

Considering that the original Israel was created through the use of force (i.e. Joshua and others slaughtering the people already living there)I'm not sure why Jews are now considered to be its rightful inhabitants.

Why not the Romans?

[HS: Those Bible stories are bogus myth, not real history.]

Not caring about Israel doesn't make you Anti-Semitic. I personally don't care about Israel any more than I care about Bhutan or Mozambique, but it doesn't mean that I hate anyone.

Furthermore, merely pointing out the Israel causes image problems for the US in the Middle East, that DO result in Islamic extremists targeting the West, is simply being truthful. Al-Qaeda and the terrorists cite Western support for Israel as their primary motive for their dislike of the West. The 1973 embargo was a result of Western support for Israel.

Ron Paul's comments on Jewish victims of Hitler, if true are disgusting. The US and British elite were OPENLY apathetic to the fate of European Jews.
It is fine to criticize Israel, but to criticize an entire ethnicity is bigoted and racist.

[HS: Ron Paul cares a lot about Israel, he is actively pursuing policies hostile to Israelis and is actively trying to convince people that the Muslims are the good guys.]

" The war wasn't fought to save the Jews since in '41 no-one knew that they faced mass slaughter."

You're right about the first part, but everyone who wasn't a complete idiot knew the Jews were being massacred wholesale, they just didn't think that alone was worth fighting about. Of course in '41 people also knew that Poles faced mass slaughter, but no one ever talks about that today.

The Real Vince says that, "The only reason someone would oppose Israel - deny its "right to exist" - is because he's an anti-Semite".

Maybe. But hopefully Paul is merely trying not to have any position on Israel's right to exist, ie that he's merely trying to disengage the US from Middle East politics.

Of course, this isn't a tenible position. While isolationism was perhaps feasible in the early 19th century, it's not possible now that nations are now highly interconnected and that the US is the dominant nation.

So I suggest that Paul is just a stupid redneck, rather than a malicious anti-Zionist. (Though, of course, it's possible that he's both.)

"2. No one offered the Jews Arizona or a piece of Sweden." They were offers a chunk of Uganda.
" they don't deserve that land just because the Brits wanted them out." What on earth are you talking about?

[HS: Uganda might not have worked out so well anyway. Look at what happened to whites who tried to settle in South Africa and Rhodesia.]

Half Sigma seems to me to be a nineteenth-century liberal in the sense of Milton Friedman and also a human biodiversity realist. Ron Paul seems to me to be a Christian conservative sound-money libertarian but also somewhat like Pat Buchanan. Are the two preceding observations correct?

"Considering that the original Israel was created through the use of force (i.e. Joshua and others slaughtering the people already living there)I'm not sure why Jews are now considered to be its rightful inhabitants."

If you believe that the Bible is accurate, then the answer to your question is pretty simple. The entire area belongs to the Jews as a matter of Divine promise.

Of course, even ignoring the Bible, one can be pretty confident that ancient Israel "was created through use of force." Why? Because that's how nations were created back then and that's how many (perhaps most) are created now.

If you want to argue that Jews do not have a legitimate claim to the area because Jews originally came in by force, then to be logically consistent you need to admit that the Arabs have even less of a legitimate claim.

They should have been offered Tasmania, an island more or less the size of Portugal or South Korea which no one cared about with a temperate climate. The original inhabitants had died out and the very small number of australian settlers could have been bought off and/or assimilated/agreed to stay and live under Jewish law.

It's a tad on the cold side but probably has a carrying capacity a lot larger than the current state of Israel. It's also well out of the way (of everything).

It certainly seems like a missed opportunity to etablish a Jewish state with minimal impact on the rest of the world.

[HS: The British could have given them the Falkland Island. On the other hand, it's pretty cold down there. Still, I'd rather live in the Falklands than in a desert surrounded by enemy Muslims.]

[HS: Jews always lived in Israel, we just returned the land to them after that same land was previously controlled by the Ottomans and the British.]

This is not quite right. Before the land could be returned, Jews had to immigrate to take it. I can't quite say they "returned" because you cannot "return" to a place you've never been. This is the politically incorrect comment that lost Helen Thomas her job. She observed that many people living in Israel were not from there. They actually came from Europe. There's a documentary called DEFAMATION by an Israeli Jew who has family living in Israel since at least the 19th century... his grandmother sounds racist incredibly racist against new arrival Jews. Anyway, it's the film the ADL does not want people to see.

It's indeed true that Jews have lived in that region before recorded history. So? Are you in favor of returning the Eastern seaboard to relatively recently displaced tribes?

It's just a huge, huge clusterfuck and, as I said, conflicts with rather basic conservative principles regarding organic societies versus social engineering. It's funny to see Republicans and libertarians twist and try to rationalize Israel, sometimes arguing that Muslims have X number of countries, so it's only fair Jews get one. So they support affirmative action in international relations for Jews and when it benefits small states in the Electoral College.

"It's rather obvious that Zionism conflicts with basic conservative principles. It's a huge social engineering project, and the reason Israel is "surrounded by 22 Islamic countries" is because of huge waves of immigration, altering the region in a way so that the social geography no longer reflected the natural geography."

This is stupid. The Jews came to Israel in the wake of a fallen empire. They didn't destroy the social fabric of an established nation-state. The land was basically up for grabs.
Or was the Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britain "unconservative" as well?

"This is stupid. The Jews came to Israel in the wake of a fallen empire. They didn't destroy the social fabric of an established nation-state."

I have to agree -- what you said IS stupid. Do you know how many "established nation states" there were in the early part of the 20th century?

"The land was basically up for grabs."

Uh-huh. Reminds me of an old story. A wanderer sees a man tilling some land, asks "Whose land is this?"
"Mine."
"How'd you get it?"
"My father gave it to me."
"How did he get it?"
The farmer grew agitated.
"My grandfather gave it to him."
"How did HE get it?"
"He fought for it!"
The wanderer rolls up his sleeves, "Well, I'll fight you for it right now."

Whatever. Abstract notions of justice aside, immigration to a crumbling Ottoman backwater is in no way comparable to today's welfare-seeking mass migration from the Third World.

"America really does not get very much out of our 'alliance' with Israel. Our pro Israeli partisanship causes a lot of muslim resentment and we get nothing to compensate. I'm not saying we should let them get rolled, but I also can't see how being extremely critical of this relationship should be considered evidence of anti-semitism."

It is usually evidence of anti-semitism because the "conservative" and liberal Israel critics rarely worry or even mention how our support for America's alliance with other small democracies "incites resentment" with other totalitarian states.

America's support for Taiwanese (de-facto) independence from mainland China also incurs Chinese resentment of US foreign policy, but I don't see the "isolationists" being "extremely critical" of our alliance with Taiwan.

At least 90% of conservative and liberal "isolationists", such as mearsheimer and walt, focuses on Israel, a country where we have no troops stationed.

The problem Zionists have with the anti-israel peanut gallery is that you aren't being CONSISTENTLY isolationist with all of America's alliances.

The ONLY alliance the liberal and 'conservative' Muslim apologists want us to terminate relations with is Israel and that's because you want Israel to be destroyed, not because you want an "end to entangling relations".

If liberal and 'conservative' "isolationists" want us to stop supporting small democracies, then why don't we see your kind saying we should end relations with Taiwan in order to placate China?

"I have to agree -- what you said IS stupid. Do you know how many "established nation states" there were in the early part of the 20th century?

"The land was basically up for grabs."

Uh-huh. Reminds me of an old story. A wanderer sees a man tilling some land, asks"

Using your line of reasoning, America should hand back control of the US to the Indians.

So let me ask you, do you favor the UN ordering white Americans to leave North America and head back to Europe so that the Indians can have it back?

"It's funny to see Republicans and libertarians twist and try to rationalize Israel, sometimes arguing that Muslims have X number of countries, so it's only fair Jews get one."

The reason Israel owns the land is because they beat the Arabs for it.

The Arabs have no more right to Israel than the Japanese have a right to claim Manchuria back as a territory of Japan.

War settled the issue, if you paleoconservatives don't like the outcome of the war then you're free to join Hamas (if you haven't already) and fight for the liberation of Palestine.

I'm not a paleo-conservative, or any kind of conservative. I'm a liberal internationalist who thinks it's probably a bad idea to legitimize war as a means of resolving disputes, but I don't think a paleo-con would mind. He'd just say that Zionism is not worth supporting, and while Israeli aggression can be useful provided it does not conflict with our interests in the region, it's not a country that should make significant demands our treasury.

"Using your line of reasoning, America should hand back control of the US to the Indians."

I think you're a bit confused, maybe more than a bit confused. The line of reasoning that defends the Stern gang also, by virtue of universal reason, legitimizes Hamas. Those who argue that because Jews once lived in the "holy land" so that it belongs to them applies to everyone else who was kicked off the land.

As far as I'm concerned Israel exists. There are lots of Jewish Israelis who did not choose to move there -- the children and grandchildren of European colonists. Nevertheless, it's not a project worth propping up -- financially, morally, diplomatically, militarily.

Anyone who wants to understand Ron Paul and why he is right about everything has to read mises.org
For example:
http://mises.org/daily/688
The Real Crime of Pearl Harbor
by Lawrence W. Reed

"Anyone afflicted by watching this historical poison should rush out immediately and get the antidote in the form of Robert B. Stinnett’s blockbuster book, Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor. Judged by the Chicago Sun-Times’ Tom Roeser as "perhaps the most revelatory document of our time," the Stinnett book appeared in hard cover last year and in paperback just in time for the movie. Drawing on a wealth of previously classified material, the author proves beyond all doubt that FDR could not possibly have been surprised by what the Japanese did or where and when they did it.

For at least a year before the attack, FDR pursued a policy of goading the Japanese to do it. He saw no other way to overwhelm American isolationist sentiment and get the country to enter the war against the Axis powers."

I listened to an interview of Dondero on CNN. The man is a dolt. If Paul hired him then it says more about Paul's lack of judgement than anything else.

Who cares? The Jews are going to vote for the Democrats no matter who wins the GOP nomination. It is as much of a waste of time for the GOP to go after the Jewish vote as it is for them to go after the black and Hispanic votes.

[HS: Jews in Booklyn voted overwhelmingly for the Republican in the recent special Congressional election. 2012 is an historic opportunity for Republicans to convert Jews over to their side.]

@Joe Walkwer: This jewish debate is exactly about the white vote. Democrats use the racial ticket to steer racism sensible whites their side and this is the tactics being used against Ron Paul. The same with conspiracy theory, damn, Noam Chompsky MIT Professor has a lot to say about false flag operations, and hes a die hard leftist albeit not the soviet kind.

Do you acknowledge that it is the best time to receive the loan, which would make you dreams real.

"If liberal and 'conservative' "isolationists" want us to stop supporting small democracies, then why don't we see your kind saying we should end relations with Taiwan in order to placate China?"

Diplomacy is not binary. I don't think we should end relations with Israel, and I would rather surrender Taiwan than Israel anyway. Rather, there are many factors entering into each relationship. The fact is that in many cases Israel's intransigence has deeply inconvenienced American interests. Taiwan has been more accommodating.

More to the point, we can look at the genealogy or either relationship and see that it has a lot to do with commitment and tradition. Taiwan had our allegiance because of a silly mental effort not to recognize China as communist. That has persisted to the present, and so now Taiwan is a symbol of American vs Chinese power and influence. National prestige hangs on Taiwan to a certain extent.

And so does it hang on Israel. It is not in Americas interests remotely to allow Israel to fail to Muslim armies. But it is still extremely annoying that Israel often chooses to mollify extreme religious rightists at the expense of American global foreign policy. When that happens I am going to be critical of the Israel can do no wrong Christian right factions. And now, I am not an anti-semite. I am Jewish FFS.

"And now, I am not an anti-semite. I am Jewish FFS."

Whether or not one is a "conservative" anti-semite or an anti-Zionist foreign policy liberal, it still doesn't make sense to single out Israel as uniquely burdensome compared to all the other small democracies we've supported since WWII, unless one is biased against Israel (either for anti-semitic or liberal internationalist reasons.)

"The fact is that in many cases Israel's intransigence has deeply inconvenienced American interests. Taiwan has been more accommodating."

1) This is a lie.

Israel has been *more* accommodating than Taiwan has at serving American interests. While Taiwan has merely agreed not to formally declare independence so as not to precipitate a Chinese invasion, Israel has gone further than Taiwan at placating her enemies at the request of the US government by actually offering land in exchange for peace. In 2000, for example, Israel offered 98% of the West Bank to a genocidal anti-Semitic population of Muslim Arabs.

Taiwan, by contrast, is not expected by liberal internationalists or fringe anti-Semites to surrender even a few miles of Formosa to mainland China because China would almost certainly use that section of the island as a beachhead to invade the remainder of Taiwan.

Israel is offering large territorial concessions to genocidal enemies than Taiwan because Israel has been more accommodating of US foreign policy interests.

"It is not in Americas interests remotely to allow Israel to fail to Muslim armies. But it is still extremely annoying that Israel often chooses to mollify extreme religious rightists at the expense of American global foreign policy."

Why is it in America's foreign policy interests to create a Palestinian state?

What benefit(s) does America gain from a Palestinian state? A new safe haven for Al Qaeda?

"Why is it in America's foreign policy interests to create a Palestinian state?

What benefit(s) does America gain from a Palestinian state? A new safe haven for Al Qaeda?"

You don't have to like it but an American bartered decisively pro Palestinian agreement would be a diplomatic coup the world over. It would also go a long way to reducing anti-Western feeling in the muslim world.

The Muslim obsession with Palestine is obviously psychological and not pragmatic. To them, the Palestine situation is yet another instance of Muslim failure and humiliation (1967 war, etc). More than that Israel gets to mesh easily with Islamic anti-Western sentiment because Israelis are essentially Westerners. So you have the perfect psychological enemy: A Western state in the heart of your lands further humiliating your people and your military impotence, but at the same time it is small enough that some kind of victory seems possible. People set on the bets they have a chance to win. Palestinian statehood is really really important to Muslims because Palestines central theme of western victimization resonates with Muslims. But in every other case they have no way to express it.

So, if we back the Palestinians it can potentially go a long way to change the psychological dynamic. We would be showing that the 1) West is not a monolithic entity which always favors its own, but is maybe more like the 2) universalist humanitarians we try to pretend to be in the UN. Of course I think it is a good thing that we are more like 1 than 2, but looking like 2 is still better than looking like 1.

And we would be handing them a psychological victory. Ultimately, their anti-Israeli fixation is derived from anti-Western inferiority complexes. But things change past their origin, and now the ant-Israeli fixation has a life of its own and meanwhile the anti-Western feeling has died down somewhat. Giving them a satisfying resolution would help a lot of Muslims get past the old psychological narrative of resenting Western humanist success-->Finding solace in anti-humanist religion-->being a pain in everyone's ass. I don't know what narrative will come next, but on odds alone it has to be better than what we're working with now.

Walter Block on Ron Paul's supposed antisemitism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_Q37qyfHZ1c#!

The comments to this entry are closed.