The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPaul Craig Roberts Archive
A Grand Book from the Saker
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Several years ago a new commentator appeared on the scene. He writes under the pen name, The Saker, and describes himself as European born son of Russian refugees from the Bolshevik Revolution. He has two US college degrees and worked in Europe as a military analyst until his opposition to the US/NATO sponsored wars in Chechnia, Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo cost him his career. He retooled as a software engineer and began writing in response to the nonsense spewed by the Western media.

The Saker knows several languages which, together with his background, provides him access to information not available in the presstitute media. He has collected articles and essays from his website and published them as a book, The Essential Saker. http://www.amazon.com/Essential-Saker-trenches-emerging-multipolar/dp/1608880583/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1453053411&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Essential+Saker

The Saker is an outside-the-box thinker. His analysis is interesting even if you disagree with it. He makes you think. He is knowledgable in many areas. His contrast of the “Russian civilizational realm” with the “AngloZionist Empire” contains many valuable insights into the real differences between Russia and the West.

His book is divided into parts: Russia and Islam, Russia and the Ukraine, Russia and the West, Anglo-Zionism, Russia and China, Syria and Iran, France, the Russian Military, Religion, the West and Sex, and a section explaining how he became a 9/11 truther.

The Saker’s writings have many virtues. They are forthright and do not kowtow to political correctness and enforcement groups such as the homosexual lobby, the Israel lobby, and the neoconservative media.

The Saker points out that the role assigned to NATO by Washington is to isolate Russia politically and to threaten Russia militarily. This role originates in the neoconservatives’ Russophobia, which is partly based in myths about Soviet oppression of Jews and overlooks that it was only Jews who had the right to emigrate from the Soviet Union. The Saker finds it astonishing that the West so lacks leadership that a medieval concept of ethnicity shared by a small group of neoconservatives is able to be the determining factor in the formulation of the West’s aggressive policy toward Russia, a major military and nuclear power that does not have to tolerate the dissolute West.

The real competition between Russia and the West is the competition between the Russian/Chinese multipolar model and the Anglo-Zionist unipolar imperial model. When the characteristics of these two models are compared point by point, it is obvious that most countries are going to chose to align with the multipolar model. In other words, the stakes are high, because the West’s days are numbered.

It did not have to be this way, but the neoconservative animus toward Russia forced Russia to “finally turn her face to her natural ecosphere—the East” and to form the Eurasian Economic Union and alliance with China. China’s participation in Russia’s Victory Day parade, boycotted by the West, marked a turning point in history and sealed the defeat of the pro-Western “Atlantic integrationists” inside Russia. While Hillary Clinton calls the President of Russia “the new Hitler,” the Saker notes that “the true heir of the Nazi regime is the Anglo-Zionist Empire, with its global hegemonic ambitions and never ending colonial wars.”

The Saker is not taken in by false flag events. He recognizes the Paris attacks for what they are and correctly predicted that the French government would capitalize on the attacks to “crack down on their own population,” just as 9/11 was used in the US to eviscerate constitutional protections and launch wars. He finds the West’s hypocrisy over the Charlie Hebdo attack to be repulsive. Marching in support of 12 degenerate dead Frenchmen while ignoring the West’s murder of hundreds of thousands of Muslims “made insulting others into some kind of noble feat.”

The Saker thinks that perhaps the rising cost of being a component of the Anglo-Zionist Empire, such as the refugees from the West’s wars that are overrunning European countries, could result in the decolonization of Europe. Regardless, he does not see hope in democratic elections given the propagandistic function of the Western media. He notes that the experts who comprise the 9/11 truth movement have “proven far beyond reasonable doubt that the Twin Towers and WTC7 were brought down by controlled demolition.” Yet this fact has had no impact on the political order. Change is more likely to result from Western failures than from reforms.

The Saker has interesting things to say about Western cultural developments as well as foreign affairs. He notes, for example, that precisely the same argument that was used to normalize homosexuality also normalizes pedophilia. He wonders if all of the traditional paraphilia, the pathological sexual activities, including incest and necrophilia, are on their way to normalization. Perhaps it is already happening. The Saker quotes from a Canadian newspaper report: “Ottawa, Ontario, February 28, 2011. In a recent parliamentary session on a bill relating to sexual offenses against children, psychology experts claimed that pedophilia is a ‘sexual orientation’ comparable to homosexuality or heterosexuality.” A definition of normal behavior is behavior that cannot be changed through treatment. The experts testified that pedophiles, just like homosexuals, “do not change their sexual orientation,” and thus are normal.

There is much to be learned from the Saker. However, he is not always right. He gets both Ronald Reagan and Joseph Stalin wrong. As these are both subjects about which I am knowledgable, I am going to correct him. I have learned so much from the Saker that he can learn a little from me.

ORDER IT NOW

The Saker sees President Reagan as allied with the neoconservatives in support of monied interests, US military violence, illegality, American arrogance and imperial hubris, and systematic deception. Saker’s impression of Reagan seems to have come from a left-wing screed. As I have explained many times, president Reagan had two goals. I know because I had assignments in both. One was to end the stagflation that was devastating the poor and the prospects for the government’s budget. The other was to end—not win—the cold war.

These were difficult undertakings. Wall Street, the Republican Establishment, and even Reagan’s own chief-of-staff and budget director did not understand his economic program. At the Treasury in order to get Reagan’s program out of his own government we had to fight the Reagan administration. Anyone interested in this history can read my book, The Supply-Side Revolution (Harvard University Press, 1984). There were no neocons in the Treasury. Reagan’s economic policy was based on the Kemp-Roth bill, which I wrote while a member of the congressional staff. The supply-side approach to macroeconomics became the policy of both House Republicans and Senate Democrats.

The Saker’s focus is on Reagan’s foreign policy, which Saker misunderstands along with the danger to Reagan of the politics of the policy. The military/security complex did not want the Cold War to end, because the cold war was profitable for the power and profit of the military/security complex. American conservatives did not trust the Soviets and did not trust presidents who negotiated with them. The wily Gorbachev, whom many called the anti-Christ, would take advantage of the old movie actor, and America would suffer the consequences.

One reason that Reagan wanted to renew US economic performance by finding a solution to stagflation was to be able to put pressure on the Kremlin with the threat of a renewed arms race. Reagan did not believe that the Soviet economy could stand up to the threat, and, therefore, Gorbachev would come to the negotiating table and agree to the end of the cold war. The CIA told Reagan that as the Kremlin controlled the economy, the Kremlin could allocate more resources to an arms race than an American president could, and that if Reagan renewed the arms race the US would lose.

Reagan did not believe this, and he formed a secret committee to which he appointed me to assess the CIA’s claim. The committee found that the claim was based in the CIA’s self-interest in continuing the Cold War.

The neocons sold themselves to naive conservatives as anti-communists. It pleased American conservatives to have left-wing support originating in Trotskyism against American liberals who ridiculed conservatives for their anti-communism. This is how the neoconservatives took over gullible conservative foundations and media.

However, Reagan was not a neocon. If he was, I never would have been appointed to the Treasury or to the secret committee with subpoena power over the CIA. When the neoconservatives, who had wormed their way into the Reagan administraion as anti-communists, acted independently of presidential authority and broke the law, the Reagan administration indicted, prosecuted, and convicted them.

On the scale of present day scandals, Iran-Contra hardly qualifies, but when the Iran-Contra affair came to light, Attorney General Ed Meese went on national TV and reported it. The White House followed up and launched investigations. The investigations were real and produced accountability:

Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams was convicted, National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane was convicted, Chief of CIA Central American Task Force Alan Fiers was convicted, Clair George, Chief of the CIA’s Division of Covert Operations was convicted. Richard Secord was convicted. National Security Advisor John Poindexter was convicted. Oliver North was convicted. North’s conviction was later overturned, and President George H.W. Bush pardoned others. But the Reagan Administration held its operatives accountable to law. No American President since Reagan has held the government accountable.

Clair George was convicted of lying to congressional committees. Richard Secord was convicted of lying to Congress. John Poindexter was convicted of lying to Congress. Alan Fiers was convicted of withholding information from Congress. Compare these convictions then with James R. Clapper now. President Obama appointed Clapper Director of National Intelligence on June 5, 2010, declaring that Clapper “possesses a quality that I value in all my advisers: a willingness to tell leaders what we need to know even if it’s not what we want to hear.” With this endorsement, Clapper proceeded to lie to Congress under oath, a felony. Clapper was not indicted and prosecuted. He was not even fired or forced to resign. For executive branch officials, perjury is now a dead letter law, thanks to the corrupt Obama regime and to a subservient Congress.

Reagan, the nemesis of the neocons is gone, and no Reaganite is allowed near any power position in Washington. In fact, there are only two of us left—myself and Pat Buchanan. The neocons were resurrected by the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes. The neocons control US foreign policy and what was once conservative foundations and publications. The editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, for example, is a neocon propaganda sheet as is National Review.

As for Stalin, the Saker sees him as the thug element opposed to the intellectual element—the Trotskyists—among the Bolsheviks. However, as my scholarly work shows, Stalin was a more realistic communist than Trotsky. Trotsky wanted world revolution before communism was working in Russia. To Stalin, this seemed the best possible way to lose control of the revolution. How could there be world revolution when not even Lenin had been able to get communism to work in Russia?

Stalin declared “socialism in one country” and planned anew the process of liquiditating the market and replacing “commodity production” with production for direct use. To do this successfully, Stalin thought it was first necessary to build up Soviet industry so that there would be manufactured goods to exchange for the products of the collective farms. I documented this story in my book, Alienation and the Soviet Economy (1971), especially in the Introduction to the new edition (1990), and in Survey A Journal Of East & West Studies, Autumn 1973 (Vol. 19, No. 4).

Stalin is regarded as a thug because he purged that part of the party, which by happenstance happened to be largely Jewish, because he thought they would cause communism to overreach and fail when it had not yet established its success in Russia.

ORDER IT NOW

Even to this day scholars do not understand that Lenin and Stalin were committed to abolishing markets as a way of allocating resources. Both, following Marx, believed that economic justice required that an economy be organized like a self-sufficient family farm in which every participant had an equal stake in the output. The Bolsheviks did not realize the organizational challenge that this presented. Indeed, as I concluded in Alienation and the Soviet Economy, their program was an inordinate aspiration contradicted by a refractory reality.

Anyone who cares to understand Soviet experience needs to read my books, Alienation and the Soviet Economy, and Marx’s Theory of Exchange, Alienation and Crisis. These are peer-reviewed academic publications. They might also read my articles in scholarly journals, such as my article on “War Communism” in the June 1970 issue of Slavic Review, “A Note on Marxian Alienation,” Oxford Economic Papers, November 1970, “Alienation and Central Planning in Marx,” Slavic Review, September 1968, and the article in Survey cited above.

In addition to the Saker’s interesting analyses, he is rewarding as a person unafraid to speak his mind and as a person from whom one can learn new ways of thinking even when in disagreement with his analysis. These are gifts that few writers convey to readers. For my part, I wish the Saker was my next door neighbor. I would have someone very interesting with whom to discuss the the state of the world.

(Republished from PaulCraigRoberts.org by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Russia, The Saker 
Hide 21 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Good analysis, especially of Reagan’s influence, in an era where misunderstanding of him has been misappropriated by ideologues in both duopoly parties. Thanks for your perspective on Stalinism, as well.

  2. attonn says:

    Good stuff. Roberts is undoubtedly one of the smartest and gutsiest people living in the USA.

    • Agree: Orville H. Larson
  3. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says:

    The nutty neocons are protected because of the cult of Holocaustianity and how we use the term ‘antisemitism’. That is why they are able to get away with so much. We have an unconditional love of Jews. Even the term ‘neocon’ conveniently hides the fact of the Jewish nature of this power. Neocons should be called Ziocons.

    One of the biggest farces I’ve seen in recent years was the spectacle of both Russians and Ukrainians attacking and denouncing each other for ‘antisemitism’. Both were unconditionally in worship of Jews. It was hilarious because the Ukrainian coup and anti-Putinism were engineered by Jews and because many Ukrainian activists were neo-Nazis. But both sides tried to curry favor with the almighty and all-righty Jews.

    We need to better define the term. ‘Antisemitism’ is problematic in the same way ‘racism’ is. It’s a zero sum game. You must love Jews in order to be good, and all other options are evil.
    The way the term ‘racism’ is used offers the same stark choices. You either oppose ‘racism’ and are a good person, or you are an evil ‘racist bigot’. There are no gradations of meaning and truth between those two extremes.

    In some ways, ‘racism’ is even more problematic because it takes what should be a neutral term and twists it to mean ‘hateful racial supremacism’. But ‘-ism’ merely means belief or consciousness. So, race + ism should just mean ‘belief in the existence of races(and possibly racial differences) or racial consciousness’. But because a neutral-sounding term has been thus twisted, people are apt to believe that “any thought about races and racial differences means you’re KKK or Nazi.”
    But surely, the so-called race-realists, who should really just be called race-ists, are not radical racists committed to an extreme ideology or program. Sure, there are some people like that. There are some Neo-Nazis, there is the nutty Nation of Islam that believes whites were created by an evil scientist named Yakub, and there are extreme Zionists who see gentiles as subhuman cattle.

    But most people who believe in the reality of races and racial differences do NOT think like that. They have likes and dislikes in regard to other races, but they don’t harbor supremacist, let alone genocidal, views of other races. They are more interested in compatibility and survival. They want to survive as a race, and they believe that their survival as a people is incompatible with huge numbers of foreign races.
    But then, Jews seem to agree on this point when it comes to the issue of Israel because they fully support Jews-only immigration policy to Israel.
    Also, all honest people can’t help but notice that some races are certainly more prone to crime and violence due to a number of factors: naturally more aggressive, lower IQ, and/or physically stronger.

    The problem with the term ‘antisemitism’ is it implies that anyone who dislikes Jews or is critical of them is evil and wicked and irrational.

    Now, I would not have a problem with a term like ‘antisemitism’ IF it meant “disliking, hating, or condemning Jews for no rational, sane, or justifiable reason”. I suppose some people are indeed like that. Some people have a fetish for hating other races and cultures. Even without knowing anything about another people, they just feel hostility because others are ‘different’. Or some people may have reasons for hating Jews, but the reasons aren’t moral. Suppose someone is envious of Jews for being so good in math and science, and suppose this envy gradually turns into hatred. As envy is natural to our mental makeup, we can understand the existence of such emotions. Nevertheless, hatred based solely on envy would be ignoble. After all, it’s not the Jews’ fault that they are smart and brilliant in many fields. (On the other hand, if someone were to notice that Jews possess superior intelligence and are using that advantage to exploit and harm his people, his hatred would be based on the valid interest of group survival. It’s like a poor man who hates a rich man purely out of envy is being ignoble. But if the poor man hates the rich man for using his riches to denigrate and harm the poor man’s folks, the poor man’s hatred is morally justified.) So, if ‘antisemitism’ simply means “disliking or hating Jews for irrational, insane, or immoral reasons”, I can accept the meaning.

    But the term is not used in such manner. It is used on ANYONE who dislikes, hates, or criticizes Jews and Jewish power. It doesn’t matter if the person has valid or compelling reasons for not liking Jews, distrusting Jews, being suspicious of Jews, being critical of Jews, and hating Jews.
    The way ‘antisemitism’ is used, you are evil just for the fact of disliking or hating Jews. Your reasons don’t matter. You could have the best and most compelling reasons in the world. You are still wrong and evil because you don’t love Jews.

    So, it doesn’t matter if you’re, say, a Palestinian. It doesn’t matter if your people had nothing to do with WWII and the Holocaust. It doesn’t matter if your people were ethnically expelled from your own ancestral land and are still living under brutal & humiliating Zionist occupation. Because you dislike or hate Jews, you are an ‘anti-semite’ not unlike the Nazis.

    Now, the Nazis hated and killed even innocent Jews who did nothing wrong. Hitler decided that every Jew is evil and to be hated for his or her Jewishness.
    In contrast, Palestinians hate Jews for a simple historical reason. Jews stole their land and forced them to live under imperialism and colonization. But according to the logic of ‘antisemitism’, such reasons don’t matter. You can have the best and most compelling reasons in the world for hating Jews. You are still evil and a ‘Nazi’ because the logic of ‘antisemitism’ says ANYONE WHO HATES JEWS FOR ANY REASON IS EVIL.

    Now, imagine there is a guy who just hates Jews for the hell of it. Suppose he gets a kick out of hating people, and he finds pleasure in hating and hurting Jews.
    Next, imagine someone else who has no ill feeling toward Jews. But suppose Jews jump him, beat him up, rape his wife, and burn his house down. Suppose he comes to hate Jews for that reason.

    Surely, the second person’s hatred of Jews is different from the first person’s hatred of Jews.

    But the logic of ‘antisemitism’ overlooks all such considerations and bundles the two hatreds together. According to the logic of ‘antisemitism’, it is an article of faith that there can never ever be a good or decent reason for hating Jews. We must have faith in the Jew like Job had faith in God. Even when God did horrible things to him, Job was supposed to be devoted to God. We are supposed to view Jews the same way. It doesn’t matter what Jews do to us. They can financially rob us, they can seduce and encourage our daughters to dress and act like prostitutes, they can open up the gates of immigration and flood our nations with foreign hordes, they can desecrate the meaning of marriage by promoting and pushing ‘gay marriage’, they can encourage black rage and make excuses for black violence against whites, they can foment wars all over the Middle East and kill millions, and etc.
    Whatever Jews do, no matter how much their actions hurt us, we are supposed to love them, adore them, pledge loyalty to them, praise them, honor them, and worship them. It’s like the robot David in A.I.: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE is imprinted to love Monica or ‘mommy’ no matter what she does to him. She can desert him in the middle of nowhere, but his only wish in the entire world is to be with ‘mommy’ again and win her love.

    The problem with the term ‘antisemitism’ is that it equally applies to those with crazy reasons for hating Jews and to those with rational reasons for hating Jews. I would say Palestinians have very good reasons for hating Jews. And given Jewish behavior in the US, EU, Russia, and the Middle East since the end of the Cold War, I think many people have very good reasons for disliking, distrusting, or even hating Jews.

    To be sure, there is sometimes no clear boundary between rational hatred of Jews and irrational hatred of Jews. Germans during the Weimar period had some good reasons to feel hostile toward Jews as many Jews were involved in financial fraud, radical politics, and the culture of vice. Also, communist Jews were killing millions of Christians in the Soviet Union.

    But sometimes, the compelling reasons got mixed with crazy ones. Hitler himself had some compelling reasons for hating Jews, but he also had some crackpot theories about race that were cuckoo-bananas. And in the so-called Alternative Right, we have some people with good reasons to hate Jews but also some people who have both good reasons and bad reasons. They can plainly see that Jewish power has done a lot of damage to white identity and interests, but some people also fall for crazy Holocaust Denial theories and/or wax romantic about the degenerate Hitler. While Hitler had some good qualities and good ideas, one has to be nuts to deny his major role in WWII that led to the deaths of 50 million white people. And no matter how one may feel about Jews, the Holocaust is no joking matter. It’s true that many Jews have exploited the Holocaust most cynically, and it’s also probably true that the number of dead Jews come nowhere near 6 million. But many innocent Jews were killed in the most horrific manner, and decent people should not making light of such stuff. Some things are beyond the pale, and being glib about historical tragedies does honor to no one.

    Anyway, the politics and morality of hating Jews should be like hating any other group.
    Indeed, when it comes to all groups except Jews and Negroes(and maybe homos), we are permitted the choice of hatred/hostility on justifiable grounds. One is not forced to accept, as an article of faith, that Russians, Iranians, Chinese, Mexicans, Saudis, Poles, Germans, French, Japanese, Indians, and etc are good and noble. We may like or dislike such people based on observation, experience, and knowledge.
    So, if you went to China, Russia, or India and returned with the observation that you generally don’t like those people whom you find barbaric or stupid, you will not be denounced or penalized. People will think that, based on your personal experience and observation, your assessment of a people turned out to be either generally favorable or generally hostile.

    There is no term such as anti-Sinicism to suggest that one’s dislike of the Chinese is always evil because some article of faith demands that you believe that Chinese are always good and that all people must love and praise Jews.

    You can be pro-Chinese if you believe that Chinese are a good people beneficial to your own, OR you can be anti-Chinese if you believe that Chinese are a bad people hostile to your people. It is up to you to decide based on observation, experience, and knowledge.

    And indeed, Jews have strong opinions about every people. Jews often generalize about white Americans, Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Turks, Iranians, Venezuelans, Italians, Germans, and etc. And we see nothing wrong with Jews forming opinions(often negative and derogatory) such as those. We would never demand Jews to believe that we or any bunch of gentiles are always good and always must be loved, praised, and etc.
    No people have the right to demand that all other peoples love, praise, and never judge them. A people making such a demand would be acting like god, like big brother.

    Now, Jews often say they have negative feelings about Germans and Russians because of what the Germans and Russians did or are doing. Germans carried out the Holocaust, and Russians had anti-Jewish attitude and policies. Okay, we can understand why Jews would feel that way. Given their history and experiences, we can see why they harbor such feelings about Germans and Russians.
    We would never say Jews have no good reason to dislike Russians or Germans. We would never say Jews must praise Germans and Russians all the time and never ever criticize them as a people, culture, power, or history.

    But surely, every people have their own history. Just as Jews surely had negative experiences with certain peoples, it is no less true that gentile populations had negative experiences with Jews and observed many examples of bad Jewish behavior. So, surely gentile groups have some good, rational, and moral reasons for not liking Jews. I mean it would be crazy to say Palestinians have no good reason to hate Jews. And given all the foul things Jews have done in Germany and Russia, the gentiles had as many legit reasons for hating Jews as Jews surely had legit reasons for hating Russians, Germans, and other goyim.

    This is true of any two peoples. Germans surely have some reasons for disliking Poles, and Poles have some reasons for distrusting and disliking Germans. Japanese and Chinese feel the same way. We don’t say Chinese must love Japanese and never ever condemn Japan because doing so would be ‘anti-nipponic’. We figure Chinese have reasons to hate Japan over WWII and for working with US to contain China. And if Japanese fear and dislike China today, we figure it has to do with China’s growing power, arrogance, and hypocrisy. So, there may be good reasons why Chinese don’t like Japan, and there may be good reasons why Japanese don’t like China. No problem.

    Same goes for HIndus and Muslims in India and Pakistan. Given their troubled history, we understand why both sides have grievances and have lots of reasons to hate the other side. Hindus remember Muslims acting badly, and Muslims remember Hindus acting badly.
    So, both sides have some legit reasons for hating one another.

    But when it comes to Jews, it’s as if there can never ever be any good reason to dislike, distrust, or hate Jews. It doesn’t matter what Jews do with their control of Hollywood, Las Vegas, Silicon Valley, Wall Street, US government, US foreign policy, big media, manipulation of courts, control of academia, and etc. We must be like innocent children believing in Santa Claus and uphold as an article of faith that Jews are always wonderful and can never do any wrong. We must love the Jew like people in the USSR had to love Stalin.

    This is why the use of ‘antisemitism’ is so problematic.
    With no other people — with the exception of blacks — are we required to love, respect, and praise without condition.
    With most peoples, whether we like them or hate them is incumbent on their attitudes & behavior and what their power means to our interests. So, we may like the Russians or hate the Russians. We may like the Chinese or hate the Chinese. We may like the Iranians or hate the Iranians. It all depends on what they do and what they mean to us.

    While all of us would surely denounce someone who says, “I hate Russians for the hell of it”, “I hate Chinese simply because I love to hate”, or “I hate Iranians because I feel like it”, we can understand why someone might hold a generally negative view of those people for certain rational, empirical, or political reasons.

    But we have no choice when it comes to Jews. Even when Jews do us wrong, they are wonderful and we must love them. If Jews were to do wrong and if we were to notice it, WE are at fault for the mere fact of noticing. It’s like daring to notice that the emperor has no clothes.
    In contrast, Jews are free to pass generalized judgment on the rest of humanity. It’s like Anne Applebaum has written vicious things about Russians in general, but she still has her esteemed place in academia and media. Jews can say that certain national groups are deficient in morality, ethics, culture, character, and etc. Such observations are regarded as intellectual, critical, academic, or journalistic. But if someone were to make similar assessments about Jews, he or she would be condemned as irrational, rabid, virulent, deranged, demented, and etc.

    Now, I’m willing to concede that some people just like to hate and that such people may hate Jews for no good reason. Some people just get a kick out of being bigoted.
    I’m also willing to concede that some people may have had good reasons to dislike or hate Jews, but they’ve allowed their hatred to get the better of them and fester into all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories or even nonsense like Holocaust denial and making apologies for the Nazis. Even justifiable hatred can degenerate into crazy obsessions. It’s like Lawrence of Arabia had good reasons to hate Turks, but he went too far when he ordered the Arabs to mow down every retreating Turk. And even though Americans had good reasons to hate the Japanese following Pearl Harbor, they might have gone too far with firebombing entire cities and dropping two nukes.
    And even though Arabs had good reason to resent and hate American imperialism in the Gulf, the likes of Osama bin Laden went to extremes in carrying out terrorist attacks in the US — if indeed Osama and gang really were behind those attacks.

    But it’s simply not true that most people who harbor negative feelings about Jews are demented, deranged, rabid, and nuts. It’s not true that they hate Jews just for the insane joy of hating Jews. If anything, many such people began with neutral or even favorable opinion of Jews but gradually came to hate Jews because of overwhelming evidence of bad Jewish behavior. And as long as we are forbidden to express our rational dislike or hatred of Jewish behavior, bad Jews will be shielded and protected, thereby emboldened to act worse and worse. And that means that there will be even more rational and sane reasons to hate Jews.

    Likewise, the term ‘racism’ has a negative impact on national discourse. Because the way it is used by the media, academia,and government, there can never be a good, rational, or existential reason for disliking, distrusting, or hating blacks. We are supposed to worship MLK, believe in noble-tragic black holiness, and admire all blacks. So, it doesn’t matter that blacks commit so much crime, act so wild and crazy, exhibit so much hostility and arrogance. We must overlook all of that or even praise such behavior as ‘badass’ and
    ‘cool’ in our mindless and unconditional love for the Negro.

    So, while blacks are allowed to like or dislike a people based on the latter’s attitude and actions toward blacks, all non-black groups must take it as an article of faith that blacks are always noble, holy, and wonderful.
    Indeed, even when blacks burn down cities and attack white people and other non-blacks, we are supposed to make excuses for black behavior and tell ourselves that such black rage is justified as an act of revolution and resistance against ‘racism’.
    Given such twisted logic, is it any surprise that so many blacks have gotten worse and worse in their attitude and behavior.
    Blacks now believe that they are deserving of love, admiration, and respect even when they act like total louts.

    If blacks treat you bad and if you notice that blacks act like shit, YOU are the guilty one. As far as the theory of ‘racism’ is concerned, there can never be a good reason for disliking or hating blacks. Never ever. So, even though the reason why black students are suspended more than non-black students is due to bad black behavior, we are supposed to pretend that black students are innocent victims of ‘institutional racism’. So, even though Pamela Deen used the word ‘ni**er’ in reaction to a black man robbing her with a gun, the narrative made her our to be the bad person for noticing violent black behavior.

    It’s so crazy.

    So, we need to create a new way of social discourse. We need to distinguish between ‘antisemitism’ defined as hating Jews for no good reason and ‘anti-Jewishism’ defined as hating Jews for good reasons based on foul Jewish behavior in so many industries and institutions.

    For example, how can any decent person not be appalled by Sheldon Adelson’s proposal to drop a nuke on Iran? And how can decent people not be outraged by so many powerful Jews in the media, academia, and government tolerating and even supporting someone like Adelson and allowing people like him to play such a prominent role in US politics?
    When we survey Jewish behavior in America, there are many good reasons to dislike Jews, distrust Jews, hate Jews, and revile Jews.
    No, it’s not ‘antisemitism’ because we are not hating Jews just for the hell of it.
    It is anti-Jewish-ism because we have come to hate Jews for all the foul things Jews have done and are doing.

    Sure, we have a responsibility to not allow our justified hatred to turn into something deranged and pathological.
    It’s like just because you have good reasons to hate someone doesn’t mean that you should kill him and burn his house down.
    You have to control your anger and keep it rational and moral.

    But we deserve the same rights that Jews have in regard to other peoples. Jewish perception of gentile groups is not unconditional. We don’t say Jews must never dislike, criticize, or hate Russians, Germans, or Iranians. We fully understand that Jewish attitudes about such people will be informed by their own history, observations, interests, and experiences.

    Then, we too should have the same right in relation to Jews. Our feelings about Jews must not be unconditional. We should have the right to develop our own view of Jews based on our histories, observations, interests, knowledge, and experiences.
    For Jews to demand that we love, praise, and respect them regardless of their behavior, attitudes, and agenda is to tell us that we must worship Jews as perfect race of gods.

    Of course, what is most ironic about Jews bitching about ‘antisemitism’ is that they complain about all these ‘antisemitic stereotypes’ but then go about doing their utmost to fulfill them. It’s like a black guy screaming and hollering that white folks have this ‘racist’ perception of blacks as being too loud and obnoxious.

  4. Mark Green says: • Website

    Excellent overview. It’s good to have both Roberts and The Saker with us at UNZ. And Roberts may be right that Reagan was ‘not’ a neocon, but the sneaky, no-good weasels who call themselves neoconservatives did march into Washington under Reagan’s watch and they never left. They’re busy plotting wars right now.

  5. Rehmat says:

    I’m afraid had Mr. Roberts left a comment which expose Russian barbarism and occupation of Muslim lands in Caucasia as I did, his opinion of Saker would be different.

    The man behind is a typical of Russian Orthodox anti-Islam mentality. He has praised only Muslim leaders (Hizbullah’s Sheikh Nasrallah), or Muslim countries (Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, etc.) who have supported Russia against United States.

    Saker didn’t like my mentioning Putin’s dirty hands in both Chechnya and Bosnia and my following tributes of Bosnian first president Alija Ali Izetbegovic (1925-2003).

    Alija Ali Izetbegovic along with Muhammad Ali Jinnah (Pakistan) and Imam Khomeini (Iran) were those rare Muslims who inspired and lead their nations in their pursuit of freedom from the foreign and local anti-Muslim powers during the 20th century.

    Alija Ali Izetbegovic, born into a practing Muslim famili, chose a career in law. He was imprisoned twice by the Christian Serb-dominated Marshal Tito’s communist regime (in 1946-48 and 1983-88). First for being a member of anti-communist Young Muslim movement – and second time being one of the authors of an anti-Fascism and anti-Communism draft-document (Islamic Declaration) – two idealogies personified by Hitler and Stalin (both with Jewish ancestry).

    During his second trial, Alija Izetbegovic told the presiding judge: “I love Yugoslavia, but not its government. I bestow all my love on freedom, and there is nothing left over for the authorities…. I am a Muslim and so shall I remain. I consider mysel to be a fighter for the cause of Islam in the world, and shall so feel to the end of my days. For Islam for me has been another name for all that is fine and noble, a name for the promise or hope of a better future for the Muslim people of the world, for their life in dignity and freedom, in a word for everything that in my belief its worth living for”.

    Muhmmad Ali Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan was a one-person-one-vote democracy based on Islamic Shria’h governance with equal rights for the non-Muslim communities. Imam Khomeini’s vision was atheocratic ‘Islamic State’. However, Alija Izetbegovic’s visioned a multi-religious democratic state with equal rights for all religious and ethnic communities.

    In 1990, as his political party (SDA) came into power with the fall of communist regime in Belgrade, Alija Izetbegovic was elected as the first President of Bosnia-Herzegovina. His 20-member cabinet was a Unity Government representing Muslims, Serb Orthodox and Croat Catholics.

    He stood by his people throughout the war of agression against his country in the 1990s, leading his people with nerves of steel, living by his principles both as a European and as a Muslim. He signed the Dayton Peace Accord in November 1995 and was re-elected to the three-member collective Presidency forced upon Muslim Bosniaks majority by the West-Serb-Croat alliance in 1996. It was Islamic moral principles, however, for which he eventually resigned from the post in 2000, citing that the international community was pushing things forward in a manner with which he could not live…..

    http://rehmat1.com/2011/06/08/alija-ali-izetbegovic-a-timely-tribute/

  6. MarkinLA says:

    On the scale of present day scandals, Iran-Contra hardly qualifies,

    Yeah, ignoring the Boland Amendment and bringing drugs into the country to pay for an illegal covert army while also selling arms to your avowed enemy is nothing.

    How many of those people “convicted” ever spent a day in jail?

    Reagan, the nemesis of the neocons is gone

    Yeah after he appointed all the neocons like Paul Wolfowitz to positions in the government. What a strange thing for a nemesis to do.

    PCR is like all the rest of the ex-Reagan staffers they have created their own fantasy world.

  7. tbraton says:

    “Muhmmad Ali Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan was a one-person-one-vote democracy based on Islamic Shria’h governance with equal rights for the non-Muslim communities.”

    Why did not the Kosovar Albanian Muslims not embrace that principle? Kosovo was historically a part of Serbia, and the Albanian Muslims arrived later. Why were those interlopers not content with having Kosovo remain part of Serbia and the entire area being governed on the principle of one man-one vote? In fact, why were the Bosnian Muslims so insistent on having a Bosnia independent of Serbia when they only constituted a little more than 50% of Bosnia’s population? Why shouldn’t the Bosnian Serbs and the Bosnian Croats be allowed to exercise the same principle the Kosovar Albanian Muslims were so determined to apply in Kosovo?

  8. tbraton says:
    @Priss Factor

    Is it OK to hate Jews because you hate pastrami? If the answer is yes, then I hate Jews. When it comes to the Chinese, I am sophisticated enough to distinguish between the Chinese who gave us “Chow Mein” (definitely not God’s Chosen People) and the Chinese who gave us “Peking Duck” (in a word, “sublime”). As you can see, I base my judgments on sophisticated cultural issues, not like that nasty Hitler guy.

    • Replies: @alexander
  9. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says:

    “Is it OK to hate Jews because you hate pastrami? ”

    Pastrami is great. You must be one of those deranged anti-semites who hate Jews for no good reason.

    If you want to be decently anti-Jewish on culinary grounds, how about matzo ball soup.
    That stuff is worse than Amy Schumer.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  10. He notes that the experts who comprise the 9/11 truth movement have “proven far beyond reasonable doubt that the Twin Towers and WTC7 were brought down by controlled demolition.”

    Can this claim be considered remotely true? I’m no expert myself. Any around?

    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    , @alexander
    , @RobinG
  11. Thirdeye says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    Just goes to show that even the well-credentialed aren’t immune from spinning off into la-la land. It takes a lot of sifting through both PCR’s and The Saker’s BS to get find the good stuff. They’re both into oversimplified narratives and conspiracy theories. At Least reading through PCR’s review of The Saker gives a guide to what topics he’s nutty on.

  12. RobinG says:
    @Priss Factor

    Welcome back, Miss Prissy! New Year, New Identity, eh? Still verbose, however. (And look, someone actually read it!) But your take on Killery as the Lansbury/Streep Manchurian character is divine. 😉

  13. @Priss Factor

    Aren’t you the same person who writes as “Priss Factory”?

  14. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    Ronnie Reagan was a cornball phony who shilled his whole life for GE….whose nukes are now pointed at Conservative Orthodox Christian Russian….War Criminal Ashton Carter was mentored in his youth in the Reagan Administration via a brief tour of duty in the Carter Administration. Ronnie Reagan was a corporate whore….and this made Ronnie Reagan and his whole administration the mortal enemy of the Native Born White America Working Class.

    At least Stalin would never tolerate the homosexual social and cultural filth being pushed by the Greedy Cheating White Liberal MEGA-CEO Males who own both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party(The former Verizon CEO comes to mind).

    Paul

    Did Ronnie Reagan use Black Oxford shoe polish in his hair every morning before the photo ops?…Do you think the Black Oxford shoe polish in his hair was the cause of his dementia while he was the acting POTUS?

  15. alexander says:
    @tbraton

    Oh, Oh.

    I love pastrami.

    What does that mean ?????

  16. alexander says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    Dear Mr Diamond,

    I can tell you, to a certainty, that it takes an extraordinary amount of skill and preparation by top demolition experts to ensure that a “planned demolition” occurs so that the intended building to be demolished collapses neatly and completely within its own foot print.

    The idea that two of the tallest buildings in the world as well as an additional building (building number seven) would all collapse neatly and completely within their own footprint,naturally, without tilting, or swaying, or staggering down, is either one of the greatest miracles of nature one can contemplate, or evidence of something else.

  17. RobinG says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    Stephen, I’m not sure this will answer your question, but it should prove that there ARE questions. “A film for Coppers & Fire Fighters by Coppers & Fire Fighters.”


    Incontrovertible – New 9/11 Documentary by Tony Rooke

    • Replies: @alexander
  18. tbraton says:
    @Priss Factor

    “Pastrami is great. You must be one of those deranged anti-semites who hate Jews for no good reason.
    If you want to be decently anti-Jewish on culinary grounds, how about matzo ball soup.
    That stuff is worse than Amy Schumer.”

    To be honest, nothing else came immediately to mind. That was the only reason I latched on to pastrami, since it an iconic Jewish food. I’ve never had matzo ball soup. If I had, I probably would have used it in my message. It sounded dreadful, which was the only reason I was never tempted to try it. Years ago I had a Norwegian friend, and I used to invite her and her British husband over for dinner. I guess she thought it necessary to invite me and my girl friend over for dinner to savor a Norwegian specialty, “lutefisk,” as I recall. Both I and my girl friend thought it was perfectly dreadful. I consider myself an “omnivore.” I will eat anything once, but, if I don’t like something, I will not eat it a second time. Actually, when I was living in D.C., there was an excellent and popular Jewish deli a few blocks from my office. I used to eat there all the time. Reuben sandwiches were a particular favorite. The place also had a sandwich made with fried white chicken meat with layers of other stuff, like cole slaw and a tasty sauce, which I would order frequently. There were also pastrami sandwiches, made like reubens but with another name, which I can’t remember, but which were yummy. I haven’t eaten a pastrami sandwich since I moved to Florida over 25 years ago, but that is because I rarely go out for lunch (too time consuming–easier to just make a sandwich–the whole process takes 15 minutes).

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  19. alexander says:
    @RobinG

    That was a good documentary, thanks Robin.

  20. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says:
    @tbraton

    “lutefisk”

    Is that salmon in liquid drano?

    I hear that stuff is nasty.

    Those Norwogs don’t know cooking.

    It’s true of all Scandinavians. Their cooking sucks so bad.

    It’s like the old ladies in Babette’s Feast serving oatmeal and liquid drano fish at every meal.

    PS. Matzoball soup is like this. Take the white part of wonder bread, smoosh it into a round clump, and then put it in a bowl of chicken broth. That’s about it.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  21. tbraton says:
    @Priss Factor

    ““lutefisk”

    Is that salmon in liquid drano? ”

    It was a white fish. Definitely not salmon. I believe it was cod or some similar white fish. And not drano. I think it was lye. Might have been better had it been drano, but it was certainly dreadful.

    Liked your reference to “Babette’s Feast.” A favorite film of mine, which I have watched about five times, but not recently. The eyes of the two Danish sisters and the townspeople who are invited to the feast, opening wide in discovering a whole new world of delicious food, are unforgettable. A marvelous movie.

    ” PS. Matzoball soup is like this. Take the white part of wonder bread, smoosh it into a round clump, and then put it in a bowl of chicken broth. That’s about it.”

    It doesn’t sound so bad from your description. I think it was the name alone which turned me off.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Paul Craig Roberts Comments via RSS