Tag Archives: Hidden History

FDR and Jews

‘In 1923, as a member of the Harvard board of directors, Roosevelt decided there were too many Jewish students at the college and helped institute a quota to limit the number admitted. In 1938, he privately suggested that Jews in Poland were dominating the economy and were therefore to blame for provoking anti-Semitism there. In 1941, he remarked at a Cabinet meeting that there were too many Jews among federal employees in Oregon. In 1943, he told government officials in Allied-liberated North Africa that the number of local Jews in various professions “should be definitely limited” so as to “eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany.’

articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/07/opinion/la-oe-medoff-roosevelt-holocaust-20130407

Run Away Underclasses

RUN AWAY UNDERCLASSES

I’m reflecting on this column by my acquaintance, Mustafa Akyol: www.nytimes.com/2015/01/14/opinion/islams-problem-with-blasphemy.html?_r=0

The aristocracy of the Muslim world doesn’t not want confrontation. It’s obvious.

The elite, the educated, the *landed*, those with something to lose, those who find the best aspects of Islamic history in science, commerce, scholarship — they recognizing the absurdity of the open confrontation with the West being promoted by their own underclasses. All the West has to do is lose patience.

But the elites seem powerless to stop the pull of these mal-incentives. Islam as an ideology is too appealing to the underclasses. (Anyone gets redemption by becoming an enforcer of Islam — the stricter the interpretation, the nobler the violence.)

So there’s a fundamental incentive problem. It appeals to the wrong people for the wrong reasons.

Here’s a theory of recent history to test: the brain drain of Islamic aristocracy from the Middle East into the West left the inmates running the asylum. The best of Islamic society was not present to suppress stupid interpretations of their beliefs, and now they’ve coalesced from a religion to an ideology to a movement.

(An interesting aside: Early incarnations of Islam strictly reserved for the upper classes, and considered it absurd to share the revelations with the underclasses. In the words of Haille Mariam-Lemar​:

—-“ISIL/ISIS/IS are actually theoreticians of democracy. Within islamic theology they belong to a historical tradition called khajirites. The khajirites combined radical democracy with literalism. This is why the middle eastern tyrannies are so frightened of them. As anyone familiar with islamic history would tell you the early islamic caliphates viewed islam as a property of the arab aristocracy and opposed mass conversion. The aristocrats were opposed by the khajirites who argued that any man, even a black slave, can become a caliph so long as he has the requisite theological training and is elected.”—-)

The appeal to the underclasses, and specifically, the licensing of bad behavior among the underclasses gives Islam an irreparable incentive problem.

Communism is similarly broken (for this and MANY other reasons). The worst people have license to use excuse their personal failures and use violence against imagined enemies.

A third instance of this theme: It seems a similar incentive problem exists in the victim narrative adopted by parts of the black community in the US. Look at how Richard Sherman’s very gentle self-reflection of violence in his community is perceived as utter betrayal: www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDIlx7oP_d8

Look for what ideologies do to underclasses — to people who are not that good at life, and tend to cling to just a few actionable ideas in their heads as if they were liferafts — because in the confusing, dangerous worlds they perceive, boiled-down ideologies ARE liferafts.

(h/t Curt Doolittle​)

City Council honors Ethel Rosenberg for ‘great bravery’

Trigger warning for people who suffered under communism.

Ethel Rosenberg, who was executed with her husband for treason in 1953, was honored Monday by the City Council on what would have been her 100th birthday. . .

The proclamations also said she was “wrongfully” executed for helping her husband, Julius, pass atomic secrets to the Soviet Union.

“A lot of hysteria was created around anti-communism and how we had to defend our country, and these two people were traitors and we rushed to judgment and they were executed,” said Councilman Daniel Dromm (D-Queens).

nypost.com/2015/09/29/city-council-honors-woman-executed-for-treason-in-1953/

“Whatever Happened to German America?”

In what is a largely forgotten chapter of American history, during the roughly 18 months of American involvement in the war, people with German roots were falsely accused of being spies or saboteurs; hundreds were interned or convicted of sedition on trumped-up charges, or for offenses as trivial as making critical comments about the war. More than 30 were killed by vigilantes and anti-German mobs; hundreds of others were beaten or tarred and feathered.

Even the German music of Beethoven and Brahms, which had been assumed to be immune to the hysteria, came under attack. …

. . . .

The crushing of German-American pride in 1917 made possible both Prohibition and Suffragism, since the big German-American brewers were the main funders of the resistance to letting women vote, since everybody assumed that votes for women meant Prohibition.

Much of 1920s culture was a reaction to the triumph of Progressive WASPism during the second Wilson Administration.

Although German-Americans made up a high proportion of small town (and big city) Americans in the 1920s, German culture was seen in the 1920s by bohemians as less puritanical and fanatical than American Protestantism. Germans seemed to have worked out a healthy, reasonable relationship with alcohol, while British-Americans tended to swing between alcoholism and Prohibitionism.

www.unz.com/isteve/whatever-happened-to-germa-america

Jerusalem Post confirms Israel knew USS Liberty was American

A 2004 transcript of an Israeli military tape published in the Jerusalem Post supports the unanimous position of the survivors and many high-ranking US officers that Israeli forces knew the USS Liberty was an American ship, as they attempted to sink it.

The Liberty was the only ship of its kind at the time, easily distinguishable for the huge satellite dishes mounted on its deck and the bristling array of antennae which served as the spy ship’s “ears.”

The survivors, and the audio tape on which the transcript is based, are presented in a new documentary which was broadcast on the Al Jazeera America channel last week. The audio tape has never been heard before by an American audience. The film “The Day Israel Attacked America” is directed and produced by British film maker Richard Belfield [mp4 at USS Liberty survivors’ website.]

Israel has long maintained, with official US government inquiries agreeing, that the attack was a case of mistaken identity. However, a growing chorus of critics, and the USS Liberty survivors themselves, say the official reports are cover-ups of an incident in which American sailors were ruthlessly, deliberately attacked in order to draw the US into war with Egypt, by blaming it for the loss of the ship with all hands. Israel was engaged in the Six Day War with Egypt and other Arab states at the time.

The attack, which commenced on June 8th, 1967 at 1:58 p.m. local time with strafing runs by Israeli Mirage jet fighters, lasted for approximately two hours, after seven to nine reconnaissance flights over the Liberty by slow-moving Israeli patrol planes beginning at 5:30 a.m. Liberty survivors are unanimous in their conviction that the attackers knew the ship was American, and that they were trying hard to sink it. Expended over the course of the attack were over 800 rounds of 30mm cannon, air-to-surface rockets, heat-seeking missiles, napalm bombs, and five torpedoes.

In the documentary, during the course of the attack, at 2:14 p.m., 16 minutes after the first strafing run begins, voices of Israeli military controllers are heard to say, as the timeline is counted in the background:

“”To what state does she belong?” (Answer): “American””

Supporting the authenticity of the tape, in 2004 the Jerusalem Post published what it said was a transcript of Israeli military transmissions directing the attack on the USS Liberty. In that transcript, at precisely the same time, 2:14pm, the exchange translated from Hebrew to English is reported:

“”Kislev, what country?” (Answer): “Apparently American.” “

Snyder is a sanitizer of history.

—“From the defeat of 1918 Hitler drew conclusions about any future conflict. Germans would always triumph if Jews were not involved. Yet since Jews dominated the entire planet and had penetrated the minds of Germans with their ideas, the struggle for German power must take two forms.”—

Incomplete and irresponsible to ignore the failed 1919 Bolshevik revolution in Germany. As I keep pointing out, Snyder’s gig is to sanitize history.

We are going to have fascism again unless we grow up and acknowledge that its rise in the 20s and 30s was a reaction to communism.

The same reaction is happening today, just against cultural marxists instead of economic ones.

www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/sep/24/hitlers-world/

Gandhi’s racism

* In an open letter to the Natal Parliament in 1893, Gandhi wrote:

“I venture to point out that both the English and the Indians spring from a common stock, called the Indo-Aryan. … A general belief seems to prevail in the Colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than savages or the Natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to the position of a raw Kaffir.”

* At a speech in Mumbai in 1896

Ghandi: “to degrade us to the level of the raw kaffir (ie Africans) whose occupation is hunting, and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then, pass his life in indolence and nakedness.”

* Protesting the decision of Johannesburg municipal authorities to allow Africans to live alongside Indians, Gandhi wrote in 1904:

“(We) must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location. About this mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians, I must confess I feel most strongly. I think it is very unfair to the Indian population and it is an undue tax on even the proverbial patience of my countrymen.”

* In response to the White League’s agitation against Indian immigration and the proposed importation of Chinese labour, Gandhi wrote in 1903:

“We believe also that the white race in South Africa should be the predominating race.”

18th-19th century Etiquette for dueling

Etiquette and rules for dueling included the following:

1 No duels were to be fought on Sunday, on a day of a Festival, or near a place of public worship.

2 A gentleman, who valued his own reputation, would not fight a duel with, nor act as a Second to, a person who aggravated and increased discord or violence by striking someone with his fist, a stick, or a glove or called the person a liar, coward, or any other irritating appellation.

3 The Second was to be “a ‘man who [was] not passion’s slave,'” and no gentleman was to accept the position of a Second, “without first receiving from his friend, a written statement of the case upon his honor.”

4 When “bosom friends, fathers of large, or unprovided families, or very inexperienced youths…[were] to fight, the Seconds [were to]….be doubly justified in their solicitude for reconciliation.”

5 A Principal was not to “wear light coloured clothing, ruffles, military decorations, or any other…attractive object, upon which the eye of his antagonist [could]…rest,” as it could affect the outcome of the duel.

6 The time and place was to be as convenient as possible to surgical assistance and to the combatants. The Royal Code of Honor noted that “special precaution should invariable be used, to prevent…carrying wounded gentlemen over walls, ditches, gates, stiles, or hedges; or too great a distance to a dwelling.”

7 The parties were to salute each other upon meeting “offering this evidence of civilization.”

8 As there were always unexpected advantages—the terrain or light—advantages were to be “decided by the toss of three, five, or seven coins…carefully shaken in a hat,” and the challenged party was entitled to the first toss, the challenger to the second, and so on until the advantages were decided.

9 No gentleman was allowed to wear spectacles unless they used them on public streets.

10 There was to be at least 10 yards distance between the combatants.

11 The Seconds were to present pistols to Principals and the pistols were not to be cocked before delivery.

12 The combatants were to present and fire together without resting on their aim at the agreed upon signal.

13 After each discharge the Seconds were to “mutually and zealously attempt a reconciliation.”

14 Each combatant would fire one shot and if neither was hit but the challenger satisfied, the duel was declared over. However, if the challenger was unsatisfied, the duel continued. But no more than three exchanges of fire were allowed, as to exchange more shots was considered barbaric.

15 The offended party determined what conclusion was acceptable and there were three possible outcomes: 1) first blood (the duel ended when one combatant was wounded); 2) the duel continued until one combatant was physically unable to proceed; or 3) death, a combatant was fatally wounded.

16 Neither the Principal nor the Second were to abandon an injured gentlemen “without…securing for him a proper conveyance from the field.”

17 After the duel was over, the Seconds were to remind friends and relatives of the combatants, that the slightest indiscretion could renew the breach and Principals were also to abstain from conversation upon the subject so as not to reopen closed wounds.

One nineteenth century article concluded that dueling “is not only a useful method of resenting an injury, it is an admirable school of manners as well. Its effect upon the seconds is no less beneficial than its effect upon the combatants. While these require courage and address, those are lost without vigilance and tact; and the law which blinks at the illegal duel so long as it is fought in strict accord…would instantly punish an accident.”

Three Quotes About Slavery

”We think this trade must go on. That is the verdict of our oracle and the priests. They say that your country, however great, can never stop a trade ordained by God himself.”

”The slave trade is the ruling principle of my people. It is the source and the glory of their wealth…the mother lulls the child to sleep with notes of triumph over an enemy reduced to slavery…”

“It would be a mistake to frighten the King of Kumasi and the Ashantis generally on the question of slavery. We cannot sweep away their customs and institutions all at once. Domestic slavery should not be troubled at present.”

***

First is by a Nigerian king.

The second by the king of Dahomey

The third is by a British colonial officer in Ghana