Have White Supremacists Really Gone Mainstream?
In November 2007, on the weekend after a $5 million one day "moneybomb" for Rep. Ron Paul's presidential bid, I covered a rally for the candidate in Philadelphia and met a student who had come to pass out fliers attacking him. "He's got truly radical views that are being mainstreamed at events like this," said Matt Sullivan, a liberal who was attending Temple University. A largely white crowd brushed him aside; his fliers, which reprinted racist statements about blacks that ran in an old Paul newsletter, were crumpled up.
Two months later, everyone who followed the race learned that Paul's connections to racists had been hidden in plain sight, in many more newsletters and in speaking engagements. In October 2008, Paul spoke at the 50th Anniversary of the John Birch Society.
All of this has been forgotten in the mainstream press, in which Paul is covered as a compelling political eccentric, but I thought of all it while reading Blood and Politics. At one point, Leonard Zeskind recreates a 1983 meeting of "tax protesters" and "Identity Christians" in Kansas who pass around a flier that can inform their neighbors of why their farms are worth ever less and less. It excoriates "Jewish bankers" and names "the real owners" of the Federal Reserve, including the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, Lehman Brothers, and Goldman Sachs.
Attacks on Paul are characterized as paranoid, obsessive and unfair, as I'm sure Zeskind's book will be characterized. Just this week, The Atlantic's political reporter Marc Ambinder wrote that Republicans suffer from a "double standard" that gives them "much less of a margin for error when it comes to making racially insensitive remarks."
The implication was that conservatives might have a few bad apples in their movement, or that they might make some gaffes in their pursuit, but that their version of racial and economic justice -- an end to racial preferences, tax cuts, school vouchers -- is perfectly legitimate. And Zeskind argues against this. Willis Carto's bigoted Liberty Lobby flourished with Barry Goldwater. Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan appointed lawyers who chipped away at civil rights. Pat Buchanan "courted [David] Duke's constituency" when he ran for president. Scratch a conservative Republican and you'll find a racist; dust off a Republican idea and you'll find a policy that would elevate the white majority over racial minorities.
This is much further than I'd go, because I know that the Myron Magnets and Charles Murrays who have convinced today's Republicans that, for example, welfare without restrictions has a malicious effect on its recipients, did not do so because they wanted to preserve white privilege. Most bad faith, racially-obsessive policies -- the fear of Mexican immigrants that David Duke used as a recruiting tool three decades before Tom Tancredo -- are adopted by people who are simply worried about their economic well-being and want to find an attackable culprit. So, fear of the shadowy federal reserve, and fear of Sonia Sotomayor's outrageous idea that non-white judges might make wiser decisions in discrimination cases than white judges.
A lot of Zeskind's material is fun and sensational, but not that worrying. Overtly racist, David Duke politics aren't effective in Barack Obama and Bobby Jindal's America, and the list of Aryan or Klan leaders who have imploded or been revealed as undercover agents is longer than the list of active, full-time racists. Zeskind's more controversial thesis should stick with us, though. Conspiracy theories about the "real rulers of the world" and anger at policies that might lift up minorities are very, very easily transmitted into mainstream politics. It's not a "double standard" or an act of political witch-hunting to ask whether a new conservative idea, wrapped up as an appeal to America's founding principles, is actually a throwback to base racism.
It's okay to ask the question, for sure. But what I'm seeing is people saying that racism is part of mainstream American society regardless of politics.
Still... is it part of the mainstream right? I doubt it. The intellectual conservatives I know aren't racists by any means. A lot of people on the left and the right have questions about the Federal Reserve and its proper roles, responsibilities and oversight and those questions have nothing at all to do with anti-semitism, and a lot of people left and right might ask, and do ask around here "who's really running things?" and there's nothing racist about saying "it's the healthcare lobby." Paranoia doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
As you say, David Duke isn't exactly influential. Ron Paul kind of is. Those Bell Curve people kind of were.
For all the bad I'll say about the last leader of the Republican Party, George W. Bush was no racist, not even an unconscious one. I think it's more likely that he has no idea how to live without the benefits of inherited wealth and influence. A poor white person would have done no better under Bush policies than any other poor person.
July 8, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You raise some good points destor. I don't know if they are, but agree I don't think all conservative 'intellectuals' are racist. Nor can I look into George W. Bush's mind either.
But their message plays to it, they know that overt racists are some of their movement's most passionate supporters and do nothing to denounce the racist elements in their midst. In fact they use code to motivate them to get them to the polls.
July 8, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's true, Libertine. But doesn't our side also have some supporters who, well... who we don't really agree with but who we don't necssarily discourage either? I don't want conservatives I debate with to have to defend David Duke any more than I want to have to defend Al Sharpton.
July 8, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
No denying that we have some problems on our side. But the Democratic Party doesn't pander to the fringe on the left. The political right considers the fringe on the right as an important part of their base...'The Bubba Vote' I think it is called.
July 8, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, when W had to call Condi in to ask what was wrong with calling Obama "bright, clean, and articulate" he wasn't unconsciously racist? I guess your argument is that he's honestly too stupid to be a racist?
July 9, 2009 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
He was too stupid to be consciously racist.
I think parts of this discussion is missing the point because it focuses of racism of a kind that is really out of intellectual fashion. There aren't many David Dukes around. But while white supremacists are not mainstream, white supremacy is, for sure, as it always was. And one (small) way this manifests itself is the "boys will be boys" attitude in the mainstream to the occasional outburst of bigotry from those margins.
July 10, 2009 3:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
conscious or not, IT'S RACISM. to pretend or think otherwise is just enabling racism. it's hard to believe that commenters on this site don't get that basic fact. it's at the heart of white America's blind spot, which some of you actually still "unconsciously preserve" (for what reason?).
while I'm venting, Al Sharpton may not be important to you, but he is important - and not without good reason - to many other people of any race. he is a staunch supporter of minority rights and stands against persecution of minorities. even if makes a mistake of judgment now and again, and even if he puts himself out there when TO YOU it doesn't seem important, it is important to many people, as well as for constitutional principles.
if someone (you?) are too much of an "unconscious" racist to realize this, and flinch from explaining Sharpton to those who stereotype him (and other black people), then I'd say add a bit of consciousness to your consciousness, not to mention to your conscience.
July 10, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry, evildoer, this wasn't meant to be about you, but more of the "unconscious" commenters ahead of you in line - apologies; you're very cool.
July 10, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks!
July 12, 2009 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It excoriates "Jewish bankers" and names "the real owners" of the Federal Reserve, including the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, Lehman Brothers, and Goldman Sachs."
Should we now censor ourselves from criticizing the secretive and all powerful Federal Reserve, out of fear of being charged with anti-Semitism?
Help Ron Paul get his legislation passed to audit the Fed, help him pass legislation that mandates the unveiling of who owns how many stocks in the Fed.
Then help Ron Paul get the Fed shut down, so that the U.S. can print its own money interest free, and so you won't have to worry about anti-Semitic criticism of the Fed.
Having Europeans at least partially in charge of our economic policy and "ensuring" our stability probably isn't the best idea, is it?
July 8, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
As much as I believe that the Federal Reserve is by in large a good thing, I agree with billwalker that the Fed's critics, including critics of the idea of having a central bank at all, deserve better than to be lumped in with white supremacists the same way that people like me who support same sex marriage deserve better than to be lumped in with pedophiles and practitioners of bestiality.
July 8, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is not a very astute comparison. "critics of the federal reserve" in fact refers to people who believe that U.S. capitalism is not ruthless enough, that its crises should be dealt with through Andrew Mellon's prescription to "liquidate labor..liquidate everything," and that the system is not punitive enough for debtors (because money isn't kept sound).
Since the audience of this "critique" is actually a section of the angry victims of capitalism, and since following their prescriptions would actually worsen the crises and hurt the same victims even more (as well as everyone else, including the richest of the rich, which is why it is inconceivable as policy), it should be clear that the only political content of this "critique" is finding scapegoats and diverting anger as a substitute for actually advancing the class interests of the system's victims. That is why white supremacism, anti-immigrant xenophobia and antisemitism are not incidental to this critique. It isn't just that hard core racists happen to like it, but that this critique works in the same political space of scapegoating the failures of capitalism instead of confronting its limitations.
Unfortunately this is not a joke. As this crisis worsens, and it will, even if Obama manages a few years respite, there will come a time when the scapegoating will no longer be unpalatable to the real ruling class. The genie that is stroked in the first act will be taken out of the bottle in the third. Palin, or someone like Palin will be President one day, probably quite soon, and those who refuse to push the Obama administration hard towards socialism will get their witches' brew of barbarism.
July 8, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Palin, or someone like Palin will be President one day, probably quite soon,"
And the Iranian Mullahs are excited for Iran to be annihilated, just for one chance to get one nuke shot at one Israeli town or city.
And Al Queda hates our freedoms.
Dude, the black son of an African Muslim just got elected President in a landslide. Palin is despised by everybody except hardcore republicans, who make up an ever-dwindling minority of the electorate.
Get a grip.
July 8, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
it's apparent you don't understand the political and social dynamics of what evildoer is talking about
bone up, dude
July 10, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
So I agree with everything you're saying, practically, about the Fed.
But as I understand it, the reason some people object to it as an institution is that it's not accountable to the people and that it's not transparent.
No doubt some people have strange and racist reasons for attacking the central bank. But there is still room to debate its role, power and responsibilities right?
July 8, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
absolutely, The Fed is indeed an unaccountable and anti-democratic institution that plays a central role in financial capitalism, managing the currency and balancing concerns for stability, dollar hegemony and capital accumulation, with the later concern quite clearly dominant.
But you cannot hope to replace the Fed with something better unless you are ready to challenge the primacy of capital accumulation. What the right-wing "critique" of the Fed promises is a magical democratization of money without disturbing the oligarchy of capital. This is impossible, and the logic of this quest must therefore focus on finding the scapegoat that "prevents" prevents the impossible from happening.
July 8, 2009 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like you, evildoer.
July 8, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Much obliged!
July 8, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But there is still room to debate its role, power and responsibilities right?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj0JAfq4esk
July 8, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is not a very astute comparison. "critics of the federal reserve" in fact refers to people who believe that U.S. capitalism is not ruthless enough,
Not everyone agrees that a more free-market system would be more "ruthless."
that its crises should be dealt with through Andrew Mellon's prescription to "liquidate labor..liquidate everything," and that the system is not punitive enough for debtors (because money isn't kept sound).
Well, liquidation worked very well in the early 1920s at clearing out a terrible recession and bringing recovery. Attempts by the Federal Reserve to reinflate the bubble and Herbert Hoover's strong-arming of business to keep wages high in the face of an economic downturn in the late 1920s helped to turn a moderate recession into the Great Depression.
When you say that "the system is not punitive enough for debtors," you seem to be implying that it is perfectly all right to devalue the currency specifically to liquidate debts and to screw over creditors.
Since the audience of this "critique" is actually a section of the angry victims of capitalism, and since following their prescriptions would actually worsen the crises and hurt the same victims even more (as well as everyone else, including the richest of the rich, which is why it is inconceivable as policy), it should be clear that the only political content of this "critique" is finding scapegoats and diverting anger as a substitute for actually advancing the class interests of the system's victims.
Or, it could be that not everyone agrees with your assertion that this policy would cause tremendous hardship and hurt everyone. You seem to assume that everyone really agrees with you on economic theory, so anyone who preaches something different must be lying. Has it occurred to you that perhaps many of the people pushing the critique of the Fed do so because they actually believe it?
That is why white supremacism, anti-immigrant xenophobia and antisemitism are not incidental to this critique. It isn't just that hard core racists happen to like it, but that this critique works in the same political space of scapegoating the failures of capitalism instead of confronting its limitations.
So you are essentially arguing that we must not criticize the Federal Reserve, but must accept it without question? Sorry, I don't close my brain because someone wants to call me "racist" if I don't.
The fact of the matter is that Dave Weigl is essentially arguing here that the Federal Reserve is beyond criticism. That is ridiculous. When you declare a topic off-limits, you get muddled thinking.
July 8, 2009 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to assume that everyone really agrees with you on economic theory, so anyone who preaches something different must be lying. Has it occurred to you that perhaps many of the people pushing the critique of the Fed do so because they actually believe it?
No, I didn't say anything about lying. The fact that some people believe in moonbat ideas is not an explanation of their social functioning. Some people, including people who posted in this thread, claim to believe the Fed is controlled by Jews for the benefit of Israel. I really don't care if they really believe that or not, and I have zero interest in debating it with them. But I am interested in why such ideas proliferate in specific historical moment.
And no, I don't assume that everyone agrees with my economic theory, but I have zero interest in debating it with right-wingers. Some people have the energy to explain why your understanding of economic history is ludicrous. I admire them but I am not one of them. My comments are intended only for people who at least broadly share my politics and with whom I find it useful to engage in debate.
July 8, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also the commentators in favor of Ron Paul need to explain why if he has such ludicrous ideas about race they trust him implicitly on his economic ideas and attributions. He's a bigoted nut case.
July 8, 2009 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two months later, everyone who followed the race learned that Paul's connections to racists had been hidden in plain sight, in many more newsletters and in speaking engagements. In October 2008, Paul spoke at the 50th Anniversary of the John Birch Society.
And why do we assume the JBS to be racist?
July 8, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Surely you jest.
July 8, 2009 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
JBS was the chunk of the conservative movement that Bill Buckley thought was so extremely stupid it had to be thrown overboard. And Buckley himself was a racist.
July 10, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still, you're missing the larger point, which is that the idea that the Federal Reserve is bad and should be audited or eliminated needs to be settled on its own merits, and not simply dismissed because some people who are racists agree with the idea.
July 8, 2009 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope,
You miss the point. I think the U.S. prison-industrial-complex is a horrible institution but I am not going to debate the "merit" of criticizing it on the ground that it is owned by Martians or serves the interests of Ukrananians.
Same goes for the Fed.
July 9, 2009 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
July 9, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
but I am not going to debate the "merit" of criticizing it on the ground that it is owned by Martians or serves the interests of Ukrananians.
Neither am I. I criticize the Fed on the grounds that it is deleterious to the economy, as I believe fiat money systems in general to be.
My point is that the fact that some people want to criticize the Fed because of paranoid conspiracy theories about Jews or whatnot should not be used to silence debate over whether or not the Federal Reserve system is helpful or harmful to our economy.
July 9, 2009 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess what I am getting at is that Dave Weigel essential mentions the anti-Federal Reserve movement in the context of white supremacist groups, criticizes Ron Paul (the leader of the anti-Federal Reserve movement) and never specifically makes the disclaimer that there are others who make criticisms of the Fed on economic, non-racist grounds.
The way the article is phrased makes it look like being anti-Federal Reserve has a one-to-one correlation with belonging to these wacko groups.
That's all I am objecting to.
I am not defending people who blame the Federal Reserve on "the Jews."
July 9, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's enough to make you wonder about the motivations of people who would lump like that.
If a demographic was highly represented by the Fed, and the Fed was seen as generally good for that particular demographic, such lumping of its critics might be seen as a useful strategy.
Lord knows the Rothschilds are as popular in Israel as the Royal Family is in England.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Balfour_declaration_unmarked.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Israel#Building
July 8, 2009 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If a demographic was highly represented by the Fed, and the Fed was seen as generally good for that particular demographic, such lumping of its critics might be seen as a useful strategy."
But is it, Bill?
If you want to find a "demographic [that's] highly represented" in America, look no further than White Protestants. Every president, except two have been.
July 8, 2009 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow!! bill walker makes a negative comment about Jews. It must be Thursday.
July 9, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that most of the people who do not trust the Federal Reserve also do not trust the government to have the power to "print money interest free." The general idea is that money should be based on a commodity rather than on government demanding that it be recognized, i.e. with legal tender laws.
July 8, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
A lot of Zeskind's material is fun and sensational, but not that worrying.
That is certainly true if you are white and financially secure.
July 8, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
As Glenn Greenwald reponded to criticisms of his uniquely fair appraisal (for the MSM) of Ron Paul:
It's also going to attract the enmity of those who push strongly for unbending support of Israel.
Accusations of racism have been made so often, and in such scattershot fashion, that Pavlovian intimidation it once wielded has been dulled. That's a good thing, since it allows us to rationally judge such accusations for accuracy, and to consider their sources. Nowadays, such accusations frequently are camouflage for agenda-driven attacks that have nothing to do with anti-Semitism or racism. These remain very real scourges here and worldwide - and are issues that should not be used so cheaply.
July 8, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ron Paul stands accused of racism not on the basis of attracting support from fellow racists but on the basis of what he published in his news letter. What do you want -- for him to swear an oath that he is racist?
July 8, 2009 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Note to self: Don't criticize the Fed and its policies because doing so is anti-Semitic.
Don't question why this is so, and don't question the motives of those who consider all criticism of the Fed to be anti-Semitic. Such questioning of motives is anti-Semitic.
Don't ask who founded the Fed, because some of them were Jewish, and why are you asking anyway? That's what white supremacists do, and everyone will think you're a Republican.
Lastly, be very suspicious of anyone critical of both Bush and Obama, by appealing to America's founding principles.
Such appeals hide racist agendas, and people like Ron Paul, Glenn Greenwald, and Dan Froomkin should be viewed with great suspicion, or even censored with new Hate Speech legislation.
July 8, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Don't ask who founded the Fed, because some of them were Jewish, and why are you asking anyway? That's what white supremacists do, and everyone will think you're a Republican."
But if only "some" of them were Jewish, why WOULD you single them out, Bill? Why would it be important or interesting to single them out? Why is it more interesting that Fed Founder #1 was Jewish than that Fed Founder #2 was Protestant?
Maybe you can explain that...
July 8, 2009 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the point billwalker is making is not to single out Jewish people involved in the Fed but to suggest (sarcastically) that the fact that some founders were Jewish is being used as a reason to claim that any criticism of the Fed is antisemitic. Or to put it another way, that the ideological link between antisemitism and anti-Federal Reservism is rather tenuous.
July 8, 2009 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm. MAYBE. Seems to me there are good, sane, objective ways to criticize any institution.
But what you say is odd, because I don't see, for example, the Jewish establishment defending the Fed or crying anti-Semitism when there are good, sane, objective criticisms of it.
However, when talk turns to talk of "international Jewish bankers," then one's suspicions go up.
Moreover, read above where Bill says this:
"If a demographic was highly represented by the Fed, and the Fed was seen as generally good for that particular demographic, such lumping of its critics might be seen as a useful strategy. Lord knows the Rothschilds are as popular in Israel as the Royal Family is in England."
Here we have Bill moving from any sort of real critique of the Fed, its undemocratic nature, or even the issue of gold, to how the Fed is "good for" a particular demographic.
Of course, Bill never explains how the Fed is good for a particular "demographic." Even if we assume the Fed is good for a few Jewish bankers, that hardly amounts to a "demographic."
Bill is clearly disturbed there were some Jewish bankers involved in the creation of the Fed (how many?) and he skips, like a bunny, across the ocean to show their connections to Israel as if this were proof of...something.
July 9, 2009 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill is clearly disturbed there were some Jewish bankers involved in the creation of the Fed (how many?) and he skips, like a bunny, across the ocean to show their connections to Israel as if this were proof of...something.
It is proof of something very simple, that capitalist predation hatches monsters, that breed most furiously in the shadow of hegemonic complacency and satisfaction. Ron Paul is so galvanizing and popular first of all because the "left," all over the developed world, has become the backbone of conservatism. That in fact you can read the most absurd right wing claptrap on the op-ed of the most prestigious "liberal" papers, (including defense of genocide) but anything to the left of Paul Krugman is forbidden. That criticism of Obama's almost complete subservience to Wall Street comes mostly from the right, or at least, that only that criticism that comes from the right receives attention. That on the left nobody no longer knows how to express popular indignation and anger, but only caution and compromise and sedate hair-splitting.
Billwalker is looking under his bad for Jewish bankers. That's pathetic. But then, the more the collapsing system of organized crime we call an economy is feted and defended, the more monsters will accumulate under our bad.
July 9, 2009 4:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, okay. I haven't read a lot of Bill (or have forgotten what I read of him), and until a few minutes ago I did not realize how Jew-obsessed he was.
My criticism of Dave Weigel is simply that the way he mentions the anti-Federal Reserve movement in this article seems to imply that all criticism of the Fed is of a piece with the "Jews want to control the world" version.
July 9, 2009 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I was suggesting that some people who dismiss any criticism of the Fed as being anti-Semitic must have a reason.
Why wouldn't those making the anti-Semitism charges want to draw back the curtain on the Fed to prove that it wasn't disproportionately owned/run by Jews?
These accusers of anti-Semitism should be getting behind legislation to make the Fed more transparent.
So one possible reason, among others, is that the accusers generally understand that Jews are phenomenally over-represented among the founders and shareholders of the Fed.
Why would these accusers of anti-Semitism want to stifle debate over the nature of the Fed, and prevent the disclosure of its very nature and makeup.
Stifling debate and education about the Fed only allows "anti-Semitic" whispers, theories, and research to fester.
""the real owners" of the Federal Reserve, including the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, Lehman Brothers, and Goldman Sachs."
If these aren't the REAL owners of the Fed, why doesn't Dave Weigel want to find out who the real owners are?
And if these ARE the real owners, as evidence seems to suggest (in addition to others like the Warburgs, Paul Warburg being appointed to the original Fed board of directors, before co-founding the Council on Foreign Relations with the Rockefellers), then some of their future actions can rightly be pondered, including the effect they had on getting the U.S. into wars, manipulating our financial markets and economy, and even the crucial American support of the founding, maintenance, and nuclear arming of Israel.
Let's find out the facts, and discuss what facts already exist without efforts to stifle the pursuit of truth in whatever shape it comes in.
That's what old fashioned free societies do.
July 9, 2009 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill, if I weren't off to a t'ai chi training, I'd go into this in more depth, but here goes...
"Actually, I was suggesting that some people who dismiss any criticism of the Fed as being anti-Semitic must have a reason.
Tintin: But what makes you think they dismiss ANY criticism of the Fed? This is a gap in your logic.
"Why wouldn't those making the anti-Semitism charges want to draw back the curtain on the Fed to prove that it wasn't disproportionately owned/run by Jews?"
Tintin: But is it? And even if it were, so what? Isn't it a fact that the US has been disproportionately owned and run by White Protestants? Is that okay with you? You don't seem to be too terribly disturbed by this fact.
"These accusers of anti-Semitism should be getting behind legislation to make the Fed more transparent."
Tintin: Who says they're not? But you get them distracted when you posit the presumed Jewish background of "most" of the founders or owners or runners of (which one is, BTW?) of the Fed?
"So one possible reason, among others, is that the accusers generally understand that Jews are phenomenally over-represented among the founders and shareholders of the Fed."
Tintin: And one "possible reason" for your repeated rants on this point, here and elsewhere, and for quite some time, is that you really ARE anti-Semitic. I mean that IS possible, isn't it? Maybe even YOU aren't aware of the foul ideas infecting your brain. Who knows?
"Why would these accusers of anti-Semitism want to stifle debate over the nature of the Fed, and prevent the disclosure of its very nature and makeup."
Tintin: Again, I don't know that they are. But you use the words "nature" and "make up" loosely. Let's say the Fed is evil incarnate: Does it really matter whether the evildoers are Jewish or Christian? Please, explain how it matters.
"Stifling debate and education about the Fed only allows "anti-Semitic" whispers, theories, and research to fester."
More later...maybe.
July 9, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, get to the point I made about the founding of Israel, its nuclear armament, and our continued support of its expansion.
And I didn't get to my largest point, which I believe I've made a year ago to you:
Kuhn and Loeb were the Rothschilds' representatives in America. They were the bankers to John D. Rockefeller, and used their financial muscle to help Rockefeller establish his oil monopoly. Kuhn and Loeb also funded E.H. Harriman while he created a railroad empire second only to J.P. Morgan's.
I'm not sure the exact nature of the relationship between the Rothschilds and J.P. Morgan (father and son), but apparently many biographers seem to believe the Morgans represented the Rothschilds to some degree in America.
If some of the founders of the Federal Reserve were WASPs and some were Jews, but most or all of the WASPs represented owed their fortunes to the investment by these same Jews, then maybe the power dynamic was affected, possibly significantly.
I've read that JP Morgan was worth only a fraction of what he was believed to have been worth when he died.
The founding of the Federal Reserve was by all accounts a secretive conspiracy between the nation's most powerful bankers and the congressmen they controlled. The Federal Reserve Act was promoted as the anti-banker bill, and it was passed two days before Christmas in 1913 when most Congressmen had already left Washington.
After the Fed was created, it's owners could use its unlimited power in whatever ways they wanted to. They could sink Presidents' popularity if they chose, by raising interest rates or causing major inflation, or by creating and popping artificial bubbles. The U.S. has been at their mercy ever since.
The Jewish dynamic might be relevant, if what this "former Jew" Benjamin Freedman said is true:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvhL5r3VkK0
In that clip he claims that England and its allies were on the verge of surrendering to Germany in WWI, in 1916. Freedman claims that the Zionists of East Germany, meaning the Rothschilds and Warburgs (Max Warburg, brother of Kuhn Loeb partner Paul Warburg, was Germany's central banker and a major zionist) approached the British War Cabinet with a deal:
They supposedly promised American participation in WWI, to help England defeat the Germans, in exchange for England promising to give Palestine to the Zionists.
Whether or not this really happened, the Balfour Declaration was written shortly afterwards. It was addressed to Baron Walter Rothschild of England, and it promised a national homeland for the Jews in Palestine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Balfour_declaration_unmarked.jpg
According to Benjamin Freedman, this document created outrage among the German people after WWI, when their country lied in ruins and the Germans realized they had been sold out by some of their wealthy Jewish bankers, who cared more about securing Palestine than they did about Germany.
I don't know how true this is, but I'll be researching WWI and post WWI era Germany more to find out the truth.
After WWI, the Rockefellers and Harrimans were major, if not crucial, benefactors to Hitler and his rise to power. This was at the same time that the Rothschilds and Warburgs were still trying to get Israel created, well before the Holocaust.
Did the secretive collaboration between the Rockefellers and Harrimans with the Rothschilds and Warburgs end with the creation of the Fed?
I doubt it.
Did the Zionists collaborate with the Nazis? Yes. To what extent, I am still very curious. I seriously doubt that the Zionists condoned the murder of 6 million Jews in order to gain enough world sympathy for the creation of Israel.
Did the Zionists use their economic clout to discourage Jewish immigration to all countries other than Palestine? I don't know, and I'll be doing a lot more research before daring to make such a claim.
Was the death toll of Jews exaggerated at the Nuremberg trials, aided by a lack of cross examination? It wouldn't shock me if this occurred, and I've seen some convincing evidence that some of this did occur.
Did the Jewish bankers of England, The U.S., and elsewhere in Europe use their economic and political clout to push through the creation of Israel? It certainly seems so. Lord knows U.S. pressure worked in securing U.N. votes against Iraq in late 2002, and in securing a "coalition of the willing."
If any or all of the above is true, it would be important to clarify that regular Jews were still tragic victims and deserving of great sympathy. Any criticism of "Jewish bankers" should be accompanied by a clarification that not all Jews are the target of the criticism.
It's also entirely possible that the official narrative of WWI, WWII, and the creation of Israel are exactly accurate, and that all the alternative theories I cited above are lies based on a hatred of Jews.
I'm reading "The House of Morgan" and I look forward to reading "The House of Warburg." They're both written by a Jewish guy in my neighborhood. I hope to learn much more from these resources.
We currently have a situation in America where Israel is rarely criticized in the corporate media, Israel's nukes are never questioned or demanded to be accounted for, and the pro-Israel lobby has incredible power to influence legislation and even elections, if congressmen don't do exactly what it says. Now we hear the war drums beating heavily for an attack on Iran, which would cause a global economic collapse which would affect the poor of the world in tragic and deadly ways.
You asked why I focused on the Jewish aspect of the Fed, and all of the above are the reasons. Perhaps I will find through research that these reasons are false and without merit.
In any event, cozy and privatized nature of many of the western world's central banks, and the likely desire of this interconnected group of bankers to diminish national sovereignty of all countries, is a matter of concern. Ethnicity is not a factor in the struggle for sovereignty against corporate influence.
July 9, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes people makes accusations of antisemitism because people like bill walker are anti-Semites. Virtually every post of yours involves Jews. You are obsessed with us. What happened, Jewish girl break your heart? Some Jew laughed at your paintings in art school? Upset because you would have been valedictorian if it wasn't for Barry Cohen? Whatever it is you are obsessed with us in a really unhealthy way. You may not be a Jew hater, but you certainly sound like one.
July 9, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point taken, ebg2465. I also have an answer to help explain my current and temporary (and unenjoyable) fixation:
Besides fearing a strike on Iran and the catastrophic chain of events that would follow, I've also come across some chilling coincidences involving American Zionists and 9/11.
It was linked to by a commenter on Huffington Post, but this web site is quite clearly anti-Semitic, even by my low standard of proof.
However, I found this list of coincidences quite powerful, especially when I consider the many many unanswered questions surrounding 9/11, and the fact that Osama bin Laden isn't even wanted by the FBI because they don't have any hard evidence connecting him to the events. I'd be curious to know what you think about this list, we the warning that it is from an anti-Semitic web site:
http://theinfounderground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5367
I found it very chilling, and the claims made in it seem to check out with the links.
Hopefully I'm wrong to be significantly persuaded by it.
The list I linked to above does seem to dovetail somewhat with this news report, which was pulled after pressure from Abe Foxman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWpWc_suPWo
Regardless, Cheney and others would have been part of this conspiracy, so it's not the work of one ethnic/religious group, if indeed this is how 9/11 went down.
I will make an effort to diversify my posts in the future, and clarify that all Jews are not targets of my criticism, by any means.
And Bibi's insecurity and paranoia are good signs that he doesn't have the go-ahead from Obama to start WWIII, which we should all care about.
Peace.
July 9, 2009 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
billwalker,
None of the items you linked to are in any way, shape, or form either true or remotely credible.
Youtube and hate groups are not reliable sources of information. I don't know you so I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you truly did not realize that a hate group is not going to link to an objective information source. It does not constitute research. Typically, people who cannot even spell (or apparently bother to use a spell-checker)are not going to be the most reliable information sources.
You sound sincere, so you may want to consider questioning the validity of what you read/are told. Question agendas and biases.
July 22, 2009 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
With you on your last sentence, but AJM nails it. Plus Greenwald's example deals with one book and one supporter, not a large group of supporters who may be galvanized by his words and perhaps hidden agenda.
July 8, 2009 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, yeah, when there's no evidence of wrongdoing, the old "hidden agenda" accusation can be trotted out. Greenwald's larger point was that "guilt by association" is poor grounds for condemnation. Anyone can agree with anyone else on any particular point: That Hitler loved dogs didn't make dog lovers Nazis. Before we send Paul off to the spite shack, here's how he defended himself at the time:
I didn't support Paul for president, and oppose his strict, libertarian/conservative approach to government, but his anti-interventionist stance and opposition to the Iraq War was bracing in a primary year that was notable mostly for lickspittle mush from both parties.
On the matter of the newsletters, he can be accused of negligence, certainly - but nothing more. Racism accusations surfaced, oddly, after his truly grassroots campaign began to attract supporters, and were impelled, mostly, by his open, honest opposition to our endless wars. Supporters of our imperial project, and neoconservatives, used this seedy accusation to considerable effect, but then, they can always count on high-minded cockatoos to parrot self-righteous demonization every time a dread charge like racism is made.
July 9, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is Lindsey Graham gay? There's nothing wrong with being gay, I just dislike hypocrites.
July 9, 2009 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I had never heard any of this about Ron Paul... sure I think he is a big bag of crazy but I always thought it was crazy brought on by the snapping due to our messed up political system, I never got a hint of a racist bias from the media.
Republicans are SO allowed to be politically incorrect. Here in Missouri a state representative recently opposed free school lunches because the hunger would make poor students work harder... and I only learned about if from the Colbert Report.
July 9, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course they have gone mainstream. Why else would Trent Lott go on BET to try and walk-back admitting it!
July 9, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously, I'm late to the party, but then, better late than never.
As to the notional that white supremicism has been mainstreamed, is a correct assessment given its history for hate and ignorace.
As a Chicano from here in the Sonoran Desert, I won't belabor the point with a lengthy post. However, I recommend two posts done in June of this year. And yet, under all this filth and stupidity, is the fundamental fact that surrounds and infuses this political arena. Thus,it comes down to easily understanding this argument for "THEIR Democracy" versus our "generic" Democracy that is inclusive. And when I say generic, I am referring to LBJ's established "participatory" Democracy, and his historical behavior that Obama should be advocating on the premise of "empowering the Individual", otherwise, his Legacy will be one for a "Second-Rate Leaderhsip Model".
Consequently, I recommend going over to the website for the Chicano Veterans Organization and click onto the page titled Cactus Juice Commentaries. And scroll down to the following:
1. "Destructive Ethnic Chauvenism" and dated June 30th.
2. "The 'Official' Gordian Knot of the Republicans" and dated June 15th.
And permit to me toss in a third, and thusly,
3. "Omerta...Justicia Con Amor" and dated June 15th.
And if so, enjoy!
Jaango
July 10, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Investigate racism suspicions, but show us the racist words and actions verified to have come from the person alleged to be racist.
Racism is one of those things for which the allegations alone can ruin lives, careers and even lead to counter-discrimination. Proof isn't necessary for those damaging effects to happen. Where partisan power interests are mixed up in the allegations of racism, extra care should be taken in verifying the facts, attributions, assumptions and historical context of what is alleged.
One premise I see in Mr. Zeskind's comments is that minority Americans may be cohesive and prefer one another's company, and that isn't racist. However, if an anglo-American acts the same way, there is a presumption of racism. If I'm wrong in that impression, I'd welcome someone saying so and saying why.
I would need to see strong evidence of racist acts, words, and causes demonstrated to be from the alleged racist him or herself. Otherwise, it is potentially damaging to those innocent of racism who happen to be caught up in a larger party or group they cannot control. One truth in America is that people who do not buy one of the 2 main party platforms but only parts with modifications often still join one of the parties because they reason that their vote will otherwise be nullified. They reason that if they can vote for the lesser evil among the party monoliths, that is at least some voting power.
With the evidence, the allegation may be true and something important has been achieved to inform the public of real racism, especially in those running for office. However, a constituency motivated by economic fears that try to use racism to political advantage seem more rooted in the Gangs of New York than in Hitler's Germany or Duke's ugly fascist Bayou. To be sure, if a fascist power sweeps into government, it could use the gangs to its advantage.
Another topic I'd like to see compared and distinguished by the posters is nationalism versus racism, since the two are not a union set despite that there are some racist intersections.
July 10, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
In reply to Mike7Woodson and from immediately above.
"Another topic I'd like to see compared and distinguished by the posters is nationalism versus racism."
Is is really necessary? I think not. Take, for example, here in the Sonoran Desert, we and the many likeminded, understand that the Federal Government intentionally sought to change human behavior has has existed for over 50,000 years. The migrant pattern of people moving north has been funneled out of Texas and California, and into Arizona or the Sonoran Desert. Thus, an undocumented immigrant is not expected to survive and prosper during their trek north into the USA. Consequently, and in order to survive, must drink their urine as a liquidity source when the water runs out.
Another example, is our "little citizens". These are the children born here in the USA to an undocumented immigrant parent. And when these parents are repatriated to their nation of origin, these 'littlest citizens' return with their parents. Thus, no one here in the USA knows whether these kids get three squares a day; whether these kids are now living in hovels; whether these kids are accessing quality and quantity health care; or whether they are attending a class room environment for the comprehensive acquisition of Fact, Reason, and Evidence on which is the ultimate platform for "good" citizenship rests.
Now, if you were to ask an Elected or Appointed Official here in the USA, none could tell you with any credibility or certitude as to this attendant FACT relative to nationalism versus racism.
And yet, thankfully, whatever our "littlest citizens" are receiving by way of any 'social insurance' the taxpayers of that parent's nation of origin, is footing the cost/bill, and all done without an iota of any public or private complaint being registered in either the media or at any governmental office. Subsequently, we have yet to recognize our national disgrace, but our federal aegis for bigotry and racism, has been 'institutionalized' and all the nations south of the Rio Grande River recognize our social, political, economic dilemma that emanates from our national behavior and political sophistry.
In closing, we don't need another 'academic' study to demonstrate our 'reality' here in the Sonoran Desert. What we want is the Oval Office and Congress to get off their butts and address this Reality.
Jaango
July 11, 2009 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
yeah i wouldnt consider Bobby Jindal and Barack Obama in the same sentance if I was talking about minorities doing well in their respective parties. They are complete opposites. Obama has is a citizen of the world he has embraced many cultures as a result of his life and his experiences and Democrats have embraced him for that. Bobby Jindal on the otherhand has done everything he can to make himself seem as non-diverse as possible to appeal to his base. As an Asian American and an Indian American in particular i find it insulting when people like Bobby Jindal are used by the Republicans as forward progress by their party.
July 13, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink