« Just a bit less scared.... | Gene Expression Front Page | Pretty ring finger »
March 18, 2003

Foggy Dew in the Desert?

Is it just a coincidence that Bush announced his intention to send us to off on a holy war on St. Patrick's Day? Maybe W sees himself as an inspired missionary to drive the snakes out of the Middle East.

God save us from the squalor of war.

Posted by duende at 11:11 AM




I think "Purim" is the holiday you're looking for. Remember what this war is really about.

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

Posted by: jdt at March 18, 2003 01:25 PM


hahah, for a second i thought it was a joke, and then i saw the poster, "jdt," and i realized you're prolly serious....

in any case, everyone be on best behavior, y'all here?

Posted by: razib at March 18, 2003 02:07 PM


The Pope is more strongly against this war than almost any other major figure. A bad sign. When the Pope agrees with me, I lose; but he's pretty good at suppressing birth control in the third world, etc.

The pious pretensions of some of the religiously-insane Catholics on the right (Scalia, Bennett, Buckley) will suffer minor damage, but not to worry.

Posted by: zizka at March 18, 2003 02:13 PM


god is on everyone's side-that is always a certainty.

Posted by: razib at March 18, 2003 02:21 PM


"for a second i thought it was a joke"

Surely you don't disagree that the war is about Israeli interests?

As for Purim, who knows? But considering the neocons who have the president's ear, I have no reason to doubt some symbolism went into the intended March 17 deadline.

Posted by: jdt at March 18, 2003 02:37 PM


Are Darwin's wolves so unevolved they cannot appreciate rueful wit?

Posted by: duende at March 18, 2003 04:32 PM


Buchanan, Francis, Matthews, and Moran have spoken but I am simply astounded at the weightless notion that this war was orchestrated by fifth-column Likudniks. Almost all Republicans and many Democrats support this war. Almost all of the Right-wing media is calling for this war (Limbaugh, O'Reiley, Liddy, WSJ, National Review, the huge War-blog-O'-sphere). The greater bulk and higher ranking members of the current administration support this war starting with G.W., Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, etc. Is there ever a time when blaming Jews or Israel for American behavior just isn't the most parsimonious answer?

I can't help but to think and compare this to that kidnapped mormon girl. Not our sweet little girl, she simply must have been brain-washed. . .

Posted by: Jason Malloy at March 18, 2003 05:42 PM


And the "this war is about oil" shit is possibly more pathetic.

Posted by: Jason Malloy at March 18, 2003 05:45 PM


jdt, for the record, i don't discount everything you say about "jewish influence," but most american jews are Left-of-Center, the ones pushing the bush administration are a narrow sect. and they have plenty of gentile allies-also a narrow-sect. the world jewry did not back israel wholesale until after the '67 war, and the established german-jewish american community (the elite for the first half of the 20th-cen) and the british jewish community were very cool to the idea. the waters are too muddy, i'm not going to wade in....

the modern day conservative movement (mainstream)-neocon officer corps (often jewish) & New Right evangelical foot-soldiers....

that marginalizes those that look from burke to kirk-though these types make plenty of noise 'cuz of intellectual firepower-but they don't have the same numbers in their armies that the neocons do....

Posted by: razib at March 18, 2003 05:59 PM


for the record, i don't discount everything you say about "jewish influence,"

On one hand I think the taboo that goes into talking about the role of jewish power in American society breeds anti-semitism, b/c everyone can clearly see it (they're not stupid, they can read the statistics) and when they realize they're not supposed to talk about it I think that makes average people nervous (even paranoid) and that fosters a feeling of threat and anti-semitic notions result. On the other hand, I can understand why it's taboo to talk about Jewish power, b/c whenever the slightest bit of jewish power is recognized in a mainstream manner (i.e like say when its recognized that there are some high ranking jews within the administration) dip-shits like buchanan and moran just completely over-interpret what that means and start preaching anti-semitism from a main-stream pulpit which in effect validates it and results in more anti-semitism. So if jewish power is kept quiet people get nervous and that breeds anti-semitism, but if it's acknowledged people inflate the meaning and that breeds anti-semitism. So I can see the social paradox jews have living in a society with an IQ a standard deviation below theirs. I recognize this problem and I sympathize.

I feel a very good way of working towards a solution to this problem is if society cuts the bull-shit and starts facing the facts that these dramatic differences in intelligence between Ashkenazi and gentiles can best be explained as mostly innate. Perhaps it would breed even more fear and suspicion, but maybe, just maybe, it would help society become more comfortable with the idea of ethnic inequality and the consequences of that within a multi-racial society. (people will have to accept this at some point)

I think to prove this difference in intellect wouldn't be too hard. One of the big problems with the brilliant idea of adopting black children into white homes, is that black children still look like black children, so it can easily be supposed that whatever hypothetical environmental thing that can be said is lowering black IQ normally is still operating on these trans-racially adopted children. But that problem doesn't exist (significantly) between Jews and gentiles. I think a trans-ethnic adoption with Askenazis raised in gentile homes as gentiles would be a fantastic way to start showing how IQ differs between ethnic groups, and start relieving the tensions of a society mortified by ethnic inequality.

(of course this could result in explosive race troubles, but I think we definetly need to re-evalute what it means to live in a society where blacks = 85 euros = 100 and jews = 115, before America is ever going to work properly)

Posted by: Jason Malloy at March 18, 2003 06:43 PM


razib:

jdt, for the record, i don't discount everything you say about "jewish influence," but most american jews are Left-of-Center

True, they are far to the left of the average American, yet they are on average as supportive or more supportive of the war than the average American. Do you find that at all odd?

the ones pushing the bush administration are a narrow sect.

Regardless, I'd prefer not to have people who put the interests of a foreign country first in the top levels of my government. If you point out neocon conflicts of interests, the entire Jewish community will scream anti-semite.

and they have plenty of gentile allies-also a narrow-sect.

Sure. But these are people who have risen to prominence within a power structure heavily shaped by Jewish influence (AIPAC, Jewish media domination, etc.). If they weren't down with Israel, they wouldn't be where they are today.

the modern day conservative movement (mainstream)-neocon officer corps (often jewish) & New Right evangelical foot-soldiers....

Exactly. And why are the evangelical herds so fond of Israel? Again, it obviously has to do with Jewish media and cultural influence. If it was really about "shared 'Western' values" or real American interests in supporting Israel, Jews wouldn't need the biggest lobby in Washington to keep the money flowing.

Jason:

Almost all Republicans and many Democrats support this war.

Of course they do, just like they support massive American aid to Israel. Remember what happened to Cynthia McKinney? Guess what's going to happen Moran?

Almost all of the Right-wing media is calling for this war (Limbaugh, O'Reiley, Liddy, WSJ, National Review, the huge War-blog-O'-sphere).

By "Right-wing media", you are referring to the mainstream "conservative" media. These are not, of course, real conservatives. See The American Conservative or VDARE for some actual conservative opinion.

You can't succeed in mainstream conservative journalism if you fail to support Israel, so by definition the mainstream "conservative" opinion makers (and, following their lead, the Republican rank and file) will support Israeli interests.

The "War-blog-O'-sphere" is made up of maladjusted, self-important dorks thinking the thoughts they are supposed to think and directing their impotent rage at the approved targets. After reading the threads on Rachel Corrie's death at LGF and FR, words can not describe what I think of these pathetic excuses for human beings.


The greater bulk and higher ranking members of the current administration support this war starting with G.W., Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, etc.

Note, Powell was not pushing for the war (to my knowledge). He did as he was told. As for Bush, who knows what's going on in his head? But it was Wolfowitz and other Jewish neocons who used 9/11 as an opportunity to press Bush to take up their pre-formulated "making the Middle East safe for Israel" war plans. David Frum bragged about writing the "Axis of Evil" speech, and so on.

Posted by: jdt at March 18, 2003 08:40 PM


jdt all of your arguments are dull. Like the Utah press and lizzy smart you appeal to an unfalsifiable "Stokholm Syndrome" to explain away majority gentile opinions you find distasteful. Much like that Utah press you're going to have to grow-up to the fact that people make their own decisions. America is full of autonomous literate thinking people who have the easy ability to find and explore any opinion available under the sun.

Maybe Liz smart and the american people were "brain-washed" by the sinister wiles of another jdt, but you'll have to know that there's no way in hell I'm accepting such garbage without any sort of robust proof of causation. Yours is not the default assumption my friend. I'm sorry.

Posted by: Jason Malloy at March 18, 2003 09:17 PM


Sorry St. Pat's day speech doesn't make it a holy war. The RC church has a saint's day for every day in the year, and puts those in excess of 364 on Nov. 1 All Saint's day.

The date was simply chosen because of the machinations of J. Chirac.

It's time to get real.

Posted by: cayenne at March 18, 2003 09:20 PM


hey jdt -

off topic, but check this out...

oh - guess it's just "jewish" science, and doesn't count, right? What were the mean Euro-American SAT scores again? Below those of East Asians, South Asians, and Jews, right? Ha. Don't hate the player, hate the game...I happen to like most gentiles, but they definitely can't compete in a fair academic fight with E/S Asians and Jews in math/writing/etc.

Same's true in politics...how *does* 3% dominate 97%? It's by dint of brains and organization...not that gentiles are lacking, exactly, but they can't match the Jews. If you could suck it up and admit your group is just not as smart, then you might be on the road to recovery. Till then you'll just envy those smarter/richer/more powerful than yourself, whilst telling yourself that their wealth is somehow ill-gotten. Sad....

Posted by: ohno at March 18, 2003 09:26 PM


ok, lets be careful what we say, this is no "warblog" and the message board isn't like theirs.

jdt-we're going in circles, but if you want me to sum up my disagreemant with you-think probably think that jewish affinity to israel and irish-american affinity toward israel are differences of kind-i happen to think they are differences of degree. i have known of jews who have said if they had to pick between israel & the US, they would pick israel (so they said). i have known many jews who weren't like that. i've known mexican, chinese, etc. americans who seem to evince more sympathy and patriotism for their "homeland" than they do in the nation that they were born in. groups like the german-american bund also highlighted that tendency during world war II....

jews did not start intermarrying with gentiles at a high rate until after world war II-so they are perhaps behind gentile immigrant groups that came during their period (and we might attempt to differentiate between the "patriotism" of german jews and jews who came later on. additionally, italians tended to still identify with regions and dialects than an italian national culture that was rather new).

Posted by: razib at March 18, 2003 10:02 PM


Jason:

people make their own decisions. America is full of autonomous literate thinking people who have the easy ability to find and explore any opinion available under the sun.

Haha. I'm not sure there's anything I can say to someone who actually believes that.

Of course, the average American makes "decisions" from among the options presented to him by mainstream sources. Most people do not go out of their way to examine non-mainstream politics (or even examine mainstream politics in detail).

In the end, it doesn't really matter how average Americans form their opinions, since at least on issues where Jewish interests are at stake, the American public are not making the decisions. E.g.,


Poll: Americans Support Cutting Aid to Israel (Published on Friday, April 12, 2002 by Reuters)

WASHINGTON - Most Americans believe the United States should halt or reduce economic and military aid to Israel if Prime Minister Ariel Sharon does not immediately withdraw troops from Palestinian areas, according to a Time Magazine/CNN poll released on Friday.
...
But the administration has made clear it has no plans to threaten key ally Israel with a cut in its $3 billion in annual aid. Even if it did, a strongly pro-Israel U.S. Congress likely would oppose the move.

The Time/CNN poll found that 60 percent of Americans favored the aid cut off if an Israeli troop withdrawal does not take place immediately.


Likewise for immigration.

Insecure tiny-dicked Asian troll (is this godless, btw?):

I know how much you love speaking English, living in a Western country, memorizing equations derived by white men and wearing Western clothes (while the ugliest and least socially adept whites are fucking your women). But don't you think you'd be happier in the high IQ paradise that is your homeland?

I doubt Jews would appreciate being lumped with Asians, by the way. Jews do have some actual accomplishments, though nothing compared to whites.

razib:

i have known of jews who have said if they had to pick between israel & the US, they would pick israel (so they said). i have known many jews who weren't like that. i've known mexican, chinese, etc. americans who seem to evince more sympathy and patriotism for their "homeland" than they do in the nation that they were born in.

Thing is, most of those "mexican, chinese, etc. americans" would not be here without Jewish influence on immigration policy. Nor are they as powerful as Jews. But regardless of foreign allegiances in other groups, the bottom line is that the present war was conceived by Jewish neocons with Israel on their minds.

you-think probably think that jewish affinity to israel and irish-american affinity toward israel are differences of kind-i happen to think they are differences of degree

So if Jews were not influential, you think we'd be funneling tens of millions of dollars a day in aid to Israel? You think there would be Irish American replacements for Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan, Richard Perle, etc, etc? You think Israel would be foremost in the minds of Irish Americans, as they sat around planning "regime change" and "democratization" in the Middle East? You think half of campaign contributions would come from Irish Americans?

Posted by: jdt at March 18, 2003 11:02 PM


everyone cut out the ethnic insults please.

Posted by: razib at March 18, 2003 11:08 PM


when i meant everyone, i do mean everyone. attacks on white gentiles are as unseemly as denigration aimed toward non-whites or jews. i don't want to seem victorian about it-but we should all hold ourselves to a high standard or the progress toward a civil discourse is going to collapse.

Posted by: razib at March 19, 2003 01:19 AM


Jdt, your true colors are showing.

Nothing's more satisfying than having one's own predictions turn out to be true.

Run along to your Stormfront meeting or whatever pathetic organization of "master race" you belong to, you're more welcome there.

David

Posted by: David at March 19, 2003 08:44 AM


If I say, I think Chinese Americans are too concerned with China. I may be wrong, the Chinese here may not care, and I may not be a racist, I may just dislike China's government. But if I say Jews are disproportionately represented in the upper regions of power, I'm clearly a Nazi?
I think Steve Sailer wrote just recently that internal conflicts amongst jews are so interesting because they're so smart, while conflicts amongst Fijians are less interesting.
Don't get me wrong, I support Israel, and I think they'd be suicidal to give up territory without getting Muslims out of Israel. Isn't it possible that someone could think the other way without hating Jews?

Posted by: Rob at March 19, 2003 08:53 AM


Haha. I'm not sure there's anything I can say to someone who actually believes that.

Oh, I'm sorry, gentiles are cattle. Only Jews form their own opinions.

I'm not sure what I can say to someone who directs all opinions he disagrees with and outcomes he disapproves of back to Jews no matter how tenuous the connection drawn- All liberal gentile opinion isn't actually gentile opinion until it supports gentile racialist views. All conservative gentile opinion isn't actually gentile conservative opinion until it supports gentile racialist views.

All genuine opinions are in actuality formed to support one race or another, and are always cryptically presented as something else. Nothing is as it seems.

All roads lead back to race. All roads lead back to Jews. It's all so clear to me now, jdt.

Posted by: Jason Malloy at March 19, 2003 09:56 AM


Jason:

Oh, I'm sorry, gentiles are cattle. Only Jews form their own opinions.

Who said Jews form their own opinions(rationally)? Jews are culturally and genetically predisposed to put Jewish interests first. Sometimes this is conscious ("is it good for the Jews?"), sometimes unconscious. I don't know whether neocons actually believe the elaborate rationalizations they come up with for war with Iraq (doubtful; North Korea is on the verge of actual nuclear capability, while the US is using forged evidence to justify the attack on Iraq; obviously, this isn't about "WMD"). But, again, the bottom line is that they are doing what they think is best for Israel (they will admit this publically, but only thrown in as an afterthough). Maybe they also truly believe this is what is right for America. I don't. And I don't think people with loyalty to a foreign country should be determining the foreign policy of the US. Call me an "anti-semite", I really don't care.

All liberal gentile opinion isn't actually gentile opinion until it supports gentile racialist views. All conservative gentile opinion isn't actually gentile conservative opinion until it supports gentile racialist views.

I wouldn't go this far; but, how can you deny Jewish influence? Do you really think we'd be giving Israel billions in aid without the Israel lobby and Jewish campaign contributions (coupled with neocon pundits and advisers)?

All genuine opinions are in actuality formed to support one race or another

Obviously not. Whites, for example, have been brainwashed into holding (or at least pressured into not publically dissenting from) views which are directly at odds with their interests.


All roads lead back to race.

Yes, basically. You think after millions of years of intergroup competition, we are all just one big happy family now? You think that starting in 1965 everyone in the world just decided to forget about the interests of their groups? Or, maybe it was just whites.


All roads lead back to Jews.

Jews are the most powerful minority in the US; and, as concerns Jewish issues -- e.g., Mid East policy -- they are the most influential group, period.

Posted by: jdt at March 19, 2003 11:22 AM



http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=12560&intcategoryid=4

CRISIS IN IRAQ
For rabbis, it’s no coincidence
war on Iraq again linked to Purim
By Joe Berkofsky



NEW YORK, March 18 (JTA) — Purim celebrates the ancient Jewish victory over evil in Persia, but this year it also signaled war against Iraq.
Few Jewish leaders and thinkers failed to hear the historic echoes.

Rabbi Ismar Schorsch, chancellor of the Conservative movement’s Jewish Theological Seminary in New York and a tough critic of the war against Iraq, pointed to the Fast of Esther, which precedes the holiday and falls on the 13th of Adar on the Jewish calendar, which this year came on Monday.

“We are on the 13th of Adar, we are on the dark side of Purim,” Schorsch said. “It will take some time before we reach the light side.”

Schorsch, who called Iraq “a paper tiger that we have turned into a mortal enemy” despite greater threats from countries such as North Korea, was not alone in drawing historic parallels between Purim and the Iraq war.

Others drew very different lessons.

Blu Greenberg, an Orthodox feminist leader based in New York, supports the Bush administration’s campaign against Iraq as a “preventive war,” much as the ancient Jews defended themselves against Haman’s plot to destroy them.

Watching President Bush’s speech to the nation on Monday, Greenberg said she was struck by the similarities between the talmudic principle that “if someone comes to kill you, you should rise up and kill them first,” while trying not to harm innocents.

While she remains “ambivalent” about the war and would have preferred a diplomatic solution, “this seems to be a war of self-defense in the long-range scheme of things.”

Though some Jews criticize the intensity with which the ancient Jews fought back against Haman and his kin, “to me it’s always mind-boggling that when someone comes to kill you and you defend yourself, you’re accused of being bloodthirsty,” Greenberg said.

Like the Purim story in the Book of Esther, there is no mention of God in this conflict either, she added.

Iraqi dictator “Saddam Hussein is not an Islamic leader,” Greenberg said. “God is hidden, but one still has to have the hope and optimism that the ruler of the universe will shape this chapter so that good, not evil, will prevail.”

Conservative Rabbi Mark Diamond, executive vice president of the Board of Rabbis of Southern California, posted an online d’var Torah, or interpretation of the Torah, linking Purim and the war.

Diamond timed his writing for Shabbat Zachor, the Sabbath before Purim, when Jews are told both to remember their ancient enemy Amalek and not to forget him.

Explaining the apparent redundancy of the commandment, Diamond said we should remember Amalek’s “sneak attack” against the oldest and sickest Jews during their exodus from Egyptian slavery, and we should “confront” such evil — yet not abuse our power in doing so.

“There are times like now when we may not have a choice but to go to war,” he said, “but even in war, that’s the most difficult test of one’s compassion.”

Jewish sages have interpreted Amalek as a source of evil that reappears in different form from generation to generation.

Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky, of the modern Orthodox Congregation B’nai David-Judea in Los Angeles, agreed that while war against Iraq may be “morally and legally justified,” Jews shouldn’t welcome it.

“Our role as Jews is to really reject the mood and attitude that seems to be enveloping much of the pro-war camp,” Kanefsky said.

“There’s a degree of barely repressed excitement at the prospect of pounding Baghdad into submission,” he said. “But even when war is a mitzvah,” as Maimonides said, “you should see it as a failure of humankind.”

Like others, Kanefsky also found it hard to ignore Purim’s messages, particularly since the 1991 Gulf War also ended on Purim.

“On Purim, the Jews gathered and put their enemies to the sword. At the same time, they did not take the booty of war,” Kanefsky said. “That is the Megillah’s way of saying war is not about personal gain or plundering, but about saving our lives and our children’s lives.”

Rabbi Martin Weiner of San Francisco, outgoing president of the Reform movement’s rabbinical union, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, used Shabbat Zachor to draw a line from Amalek to Hitler to Saddam.

A modern-day Amalek, Saddam has attacked four of his neighbors, gassed tens of thousands of his own people and pays stipends to suicide bombers, Weiner said, so “it’s terribly important to remove him.”

Last September, Weiner was among those who backed a resolution from the Reform movement’s Union of American Hebrew Congregations urging a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, if Congress supported it and U.N. backing was sought.

But for Reform Rabbi Don Rossoff, of Temple B’nai Or in Morristown, N.J., Amalek casts a very different shadow.

Rossoff said he has refrained from publicly sermonizing this Purim about the war, which he opposes, because he is “haunted by Baruch Goldstein, who called the Arabs Amalek.”

Goldstein, a doctor in an Israeli settlement near the West Bank city of Hebron, shot to death 29 Palestinians praying in Hebron’s Tomb of the Patriarch on Purim Day in 1994.

Saddam is “a tyrannical, murderous dictator” who “would probably wipe out Israel if he could,” Rossoff added. “But he’s not the only one around. His name just starts with ‘H,’ ” like Haman.

Another war critic is Rabbi Toba Spitzer, of the Reconstructionist Congregation Dorshei Tzedek in West Newton, Mass., who used Shabbat Zachor to talk about the uses of memory.

She reminded her congregation that in Shabbat Tikudei, in the Book of Kings, the completion of the building of the temple is given to King Solomon rather than King David, a warrior “whose hands were covered with blood.”

“Our ultimate vision of holiness cannot coexist with war,” Spitzer said.

Yet Rabbi Avi Shafran, director of public affairs for the New York-based Orthodox Agudath Israel of America, said war has made it open season for anti-Semitic attacks in the form of slander — just as Jewish tradition holds that Amalek represented cynicism, and Haman symbolized evil speech.

Shafran pointed to Conservative pundit Pat Buchanan, who accused Jews of egging on the 1991 Persian Gulf War and has made similar comments this time around, and Rep. James Moran (D-Va.), who has blamed Jews in the Bush administration for pushing the United States toward war.

Instead of making outright anti-Semitic comments, such slander is “snide and insinuating,” Shafran said, and is accepted as political criticism.

“Once again, everything is focused on the Jews,” Shafran said. “If we’re not baking Christians into our matzah, we must be war-mongering.”

For Rabbi Mordecai Finley, of the unaffiliated Ohr HaTorah Congregation in Los Angeles, whose son Kayitz is in the Marines and stationed in Kuwait, Purim has taken on new meaning.

Last Purim, Finley recalled, he sensed a wave of anti-Semitism coming from Europe and left-wing groups in the United States.

Now he is “heartened” that Bush is “willing to draw a line” against evil, he said.

“Last year it felt like the 12th of Adar,” Finley said, referring to the day before the Jews began fighting back against their enemies. “This year I feel like it’s the 13th of Adar. The battle has begun.”

Posted by: jdt at March 19, 2003 09:58 PM