Kalle Lasn Goes Jew Hunting

Over at Adbusters, Kalle Lasn counts 26 Jews among the top 50 neoconservatives. I think there may be a bit of circular reasoning here. What makes Jonah Goldberg, for example, a "neoconservative," aside from the fact that he's conservative and Jewish? Is he an ex-Marxist? Can't a Jew be just a plain old conservative?

In any case, I'm looking forward to future tallies by Lasn. Given his culture-jamming interests, perhaps he'll go hunting for Jews in Hollywood or on Madison Avenue next. One suggestion: Why mark the Jews with little black squares, when little yellow stars would be so much more evocative?

[Thanks to Todd Seavey for the link.]

Comments

[Rick Barton]

al Roker Martyrs Brigade,

I link to wide variety of sources. Read the link and we can debate the content if you like. It's a good piece. I like your handle. Funny stuff.

[The Lonewacko Blog]

By their own self-admissions, Goldberg is a neocon and Derb is a metropolitan conservative. Use that thing called google if you need links.

[Shannon Love]

Jean Bart,

You're making an infantile argument. You sound like a bunch of college freshman setting around the dorm room smoking a joint and asking, "But what does anything really mean?"

Yes, everybody has an "identity." Yes, people of similar identities can share similar political ideas. But the phrase "identity politics" has a specific meaning in contemporary political discourse. It is the idea that ones social or group identity is the controlling factor in ones life. People believe specific things not because they have thought about it rationally, weighed available evidence and experimented but because of some fixed attribute of themselves like race or gender. It is an extended type of argument from authority.

In identity politics the providence of an idea is everything. Who advocates an idea is the most important factor in assessing whether that idea is valid or not. Further, the refusal to accept an argument from a particular group is not potentially a sign of a weak argument but rather of an inability to exceed the bounds of skeptics identity.

Lasrn's argument boils down to contention that neo-conservatives support Israel and the War on Terror primarily BECAUSE they are Jewish. Their identity as jews trumps everything else. The implication is that one can ignore the arguments of the neo-conservatives because they don't have any rational or empirical basis but instead arise purely from the neo-conservatives ethnic identity.

It is as if I held forth that your arguments about the history and interpretation of the U.S. constitution were invalid because of your claimed identity as a French person. I would argue that you just don't understand because you come from a polity with weak common law, no constitution of long standing, and a tendency towards elitism and centralized authority. All these things might be true but since I do not believe in identity politics they are to me irrelevant. I must address you arguments in isolation from your identity letting them succeed or fail on their individual merits.

Speaking of which, I will send you mail off thread regarding your assertions on miscegenation laws and ambiguous phrases in the constitution.

[Matt]

Lonewacko, Just what we needed, another conservative subspecies. What color nail polish do MetroCons wear? Pink w/glitter or something more refined and urbane, say oyster shell white?

To recap:

Cons: Reagan
Paleocons: McLaughlin, Buchanan
Neocons: Goldberg, Kristol etc
Metrocons: DerbyShire
Radcons: Wolfie
Defcons: the Klingons
Ghettocons: Walter Williams, Charles Barkley
Hipcons: Vincent Gallo

[joe]

"But the phrase "identity politics" has a specific meaning in contemporary political discourse. It is the idea that ones social or group identity is the controlling factor in ones life."

Actually, it's important to note that no one describes their own politics as "identity politics." It's a negative term that one throws at other people, with whom one disagrees. Ultimately, the charge of "identity politics" is an assertions that your opponent's beliefs are not based on consideration of the issues, but on loyalty to a group. See Shannon's rant, above, for an example of the term's use. Or, see Lasn's article, in which Jewish neocons are said to hold certain positions because of their loyalty to other Jews.

[Matt]

Whoopsie, forgot excons, Liddy, Abrams, Poindexter

[Dan]

By their own self-admissions, Goldberg is a neocon and Derb is a metropolitan conservative.

If Ralph Nader "admitted" to being a libertarian, would that make him a libertarian?

Goldberg has on occasion said that he's a neoconservative; of course, he has on many more occasions said that the term has no meaning at all. What's more important is his political views, which are (like those of almost all of the National Review staff) straight run-of-the-mill conservative. Goldberg's no more "neoconservative" than the Reason staff is.

[Michael Moore]

Everyone knows the Jews love Bush, because he's just like Hitler, and those Jews love them some Hitler.

Right?

[Warren]

OK folks, correct me if I'm wrong. But as I see it, embracing military adventurism is the defining issue that separates neocons from othercons.

For those claiming that Goldberg isn't the embodiment of neoconism, please provide two or more examples of where he fails to march to the neocon drum.

[Jean Bart]

Shannon Love,

"You're making an infantile argument. You sound like a bunch of college freshman setting around the dorm room smoking a joint and asking, 'But what does anything really mean?'"

I believe its fairly clear what a law which criminalizes marraige or sex between races "means": its an anti-miscegenation law. If anyone is getting snippy and sophmoric about the issue, and asking the above question it is you.

"But the phrase 'identity politics' has a specific meaning in contemporary political discourse."

Its merely a new term for an old concept; and that's all that it is to be blunt.

[Jean Bart]

Shannon Love,

"All these things might be true but since I do not believe in identity politics they are to me irrelevant."

What is particularly funny is that yesterday you nearly blew a neuron by claiming that my nationality had something to do with my personality and my viewpoints. 🙂 Excuse me, but it is fairly apparent that you are a liar and a hypocrite.

[Steve in CA]

Warren,

You're wrong. Hawkishness is not a complete definition of neoconservatism. I don't have time to give a full one, but try Kristol's own definition, or some stuff that (I believe) Jesse Walker has written here.

[joe]

It's useless to try to define a movement by listing a set of positions. Most movements include diverse types of people who have differing opinions on things.

Neocons are the new sort of conservative, who are different from the old sort. You can describe their ideological tendencies, but their positions are no more coherent than any other political grouping throughout history.

[Steve in CA]

Warren,

You're wrong. Hawkishness is not a complete definition of neoconservatism. Liberals, conservatives, neocons, and yes, libertarians can all be hawks. The difference, I guess, it that all neocons are hawks, but there are other factors too. For a complete definition, try Kristol his own self, or some of the stuff Jesse Walker (I think) has written here.

[Steve in CA]

This is kind of amusing, though. When I first saw this post, I thought, "I bet some of Reason's loonier readers will defend the adbusters article, or at least fail to see how it's anti-Semitic."

Thanks, Rick and Warren, for proving me right!

[T Bone]

Identity politics. "Its merely a new term for an old concept; and that's all that it is to be blunt."

It's also neatly packaged, and the phrase has caught on in a way that the ideas informing it could never have, especially with the left. Shannon has a point.

[Jean Bart]

Shannon is pointless; and it is as much a part of the right as the left.

[Warren]

Steve,
1) I never meant to say that hawkishness completely defined neocons, just that it was the primary distinction between them and other conservatives.

2) I certainly never defended the adbuster article

3) If you look close you'll see that I explicitly stated that the Jew/neocon link was mostly bogus.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me in what way is Jonah Goldberg not a neocon.

[Rick Barton]

Kalle Lasn:
And half of the them are Jewish.

So then, half of them are non-Jews. But, that just doesn't matter. What does, is that they conned us into an unnecessary war. To the...

neocon architects, Iraq was always about empire, hegemony, Pax Americana, global democracy ? about getting hold of America's power to make the Middle East safe for Sharon and themselves glorious and famous.

From:
http://antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=1981

[Shannon Love]

Jean Bart,

I did not say that your nationality informed your viewpoints. I criticized the civility of your discourse and pointed out you were acting in a fashion consistent with a negative stereotype.

Your argumentation in this case and in others relies heavily on the cheap rhetorical trick of inflating a concept so that it covers everybody and everything. If you don't wish to debate you simply declare that the concept in contention simply doesn't exist. I can't debate you because I have to first fight over vocabulary.

I find it tiresome but I will try to remain civil.

[Steve in CA]

Wow, Rick, an antiwar.com link. Now you've persuaded me!

You say that it doesn't matter to you that half of the neocons are Jews. I'd like to take you at your word, but then you say that "they" "conned" us into the war, which was "about getting hold of America's power to make the Middle East safe for Sharon."

That's an awful lot of anti-Semitic tropes you've hit there, for someone who doesn't care who's Jewish. Must be your bad luck, right?

I'm a gentile (if that matters to you), I support the war, and I don't think it has much to do with Sharon. Does that make me a dupe, or a secret agent of the neocons?

[Sigmund Freud]

I think there's some sort of sexual attraction going on in this Jean Bart-Shannon Love thing.

[Jean Bart]

Shannon,

"I did not say that your nationality informed your viewpoints. I criticized the civility of your discourse and pointed out you were acting in a fashion consistent with a negative stereotype."

Ohh bullshit; that was the clear implication of your statements. Lie to someone else please; it doesn't pass with me.

"Your argumentation in this case and in others relies heavily on the cheap rhetorical trick of inflating a concept so that it covers everybody and everything."

Again, explain to me how a law which outlaws sex between whites and blacks (and whites and Indians), as well as marraige, is not an anti-miscegenation law. The only explanation I've seen so far can be best be described as semantical gymnastics.

As to the issue of "identity politics," I think it is very apropos and historically accurate to describe 2nd-1st century BCE Roman politics as "identity politics" - look at the speeches of the Gracchi brothers for example if you do not believe me. Oh wait, that would actually require you to read something instead of holding forth opinions straight out of your ass.

[Jean Bart]

Sigmund Freud,

You forget, I am a "swarthy" Latin not fit for her "teutonic purity." 🙂

[Warren]

Steve,
You mistake anti-Israel with anti-Semitic.

[Rick Barton]

Steve in CA,

For you to say that use of the word "conned" is some how an allusion to Jews seems pretty racist to me. To oppose the Sharon government, the neocon's slavish devotion to it, and our government?s funding of the Israeli government's occupation of Palestinian land is certainly different than anti-Jewish bigotry.

"I support the war, and I don't think it has much to do with Sharon. Does that make me a dupe, or a secret agent of the neocons?"

No; just temporarily uninformed. Check out:

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

[joe]

To: Lasn

From: joe

Re: Neocons and Jews

So what?

[Dan Riendeau]

adbusters critiques of American culture, while often wacky, at least added a refreshing change to the usual morbidly dull rhetoric of the "intellectuals." Unfortunatly I think Lasn has been fatally compromised by this little display of Jew-baiting.

[Shannon Love]

Isn't Lasn's argument the logical evolution of identity politics? Once you've established a doctrine that a persons race, gender, ethnicity etc. controls how they view the world it follows that people supporting particular ideas would all have similar backgrounds. Every political grouping would have to built around some type of immutable characteristic of the people involved.

Just a thought.

[Dave Straub]

I was amused by the classifications of Gary Bauer and Bill Bennett as neocons - domestic codification of morals is not usually thougght of as a neocon trait - and of Jonah Goldberg as influential.

I always imagined that those who would be proud to call themselves "liberal" would not deliberately fall for classifying one's worldview by religion/ethnicity, or vice-versa. Ah well.

Shit's really flying on this subject at Matt Yglesias' blog...

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/002641.html

[Mark Fox]

JB: I for one do not hold your behaviour on H&R against those sharing your alleged identity.

Same for Shannon.

🙂

[Mark Fox]

My opinion of people named joe is, however, changed permanently. 😉

[Jean Bart]

Shannon Love,

Politics are always about "identity"; which is of course why people parties exist in the first place. Now, there may be more "identities" to ally with potentially today, but that doesn't mean its a new phenomenon.

[Jean Bart]

Shannon Love,

BTW, I am awaiting whatever idiotic argument you have to make concerning the 17th century laws outlawing marraige and sexual relations between blacks and whites in Virginia and Maryland.

[Warren]

What makes Jonah Goldberg, for example, a "neoconservative,"

Huh? He's the/an "NRO editor at large" for Pete's sake. Have you ever read his stuff? He's a NEOCON spirit bunny. Poitively LIVES to lick the administrations asshole.

And to tie in the Jewish angle, here's a laugh line from his latest;
"...there are enough intelligent reasons to criticize Israel - though I certainly don't agree with all of them -"

[joe]

There are paleos at NRO. Derb, for one.

[Matt]

Some shape policy from within the White House, while others are more peripheral, exacting influence indirectly as journalists

How do you exact something indirectly anyway?

[SM]

RICK BARTON ! RICK BARTON ! RICK BARTON !

[Warren]

joe,
Derb? There are no articles by "Derb" on the NRO homepage. Then again, they seem to all be twitterpated over "The Passion". Even an article under the "WAR" category is about the Mel's latest historical revisionism with supernatural overtones.

Since I maintain that the pages of NRO literally define neo-conservatism, and since they are currently engaging in post-coital pillow talk over what has been denounced as 'anti-Semitic' I conclude that the Jew/Neocon link is mostly bogus. Never the less, embracing Israel under the bedsheets remains part of the neocon platform.

[joe]

Warren, John Derbyshire. He's a hoot.

[deimos]

Is being jewish and conservative good, and being jewish and a neo-con bad? Is calling a Jewish person a neo-con equivalent to anti-semitism?

Is questioning the motives of Jews who are pro-Sharon regarding Israel worse than questioning Chalabi's motives regarding Iraq?

There may be nothing there, but as the article predicts with, "Drawing attention to the Jewishness of the neocons is a tricky game. Anyone who does so can count on automatically being smeared as an anti-Semite," hence this thread.

BTW, if Jonah Goldberg is a neo-con, and pro-Israel, and thought knocking off Saddam would be good for Israel, so what? I'm not convinced that makes him particularly bad. I'm not sure I feel someone is anti-semetic if they see a connection, anymore than someone is anti-Cuban when discussions regarding trade with Cuba get killed before they start.

[Matt]

Deimos, Is Chalabi an American?

if Jonah Goldberg is a neo-con, and pro-Israel, and thought knocking off Saddam would be good for Israel, so what?

nothing, unless he thought it would be soooooo good for Israel it bent his thinking regarding whats good for America.

[Eric]

I've subscribed to National Review for the past 10-12 years. I don't consider myself a neo-con or a paleo-con, and I don't consider NR either one. It's been careful to avoid such labels, in fact. On some issues it agrees with neos (Iraq war) on others with paleos (immigration, gun control) and on others with libertarians (legalize drugs, gun control).

[Al Roker Martyrs Brigade]

Warren,

It's more than a stretch to call Goldberg a neoconservative. He's just a conservative. Please tell me what makes him "neo", other than his Jewish name?

And to call NRO neoconservative is laughable. It's clear to me that, to the extent that neoconservatism can be defined, you haven't the foggiest notion of what that definition might be. Here's a hint: It's not just a synonym for "conservative."

[Rick Barton]

Neocons used to frequently make unfounded charges anti-Semitism against their detractors because they lacked real intellectual ammunition with which to defend their foreign policy advocacies.

This ploy doesn't get much traction anymore though, since too many of their critics are Jewish and, as the list reveals, there are many non-Jewish neos.

One of the most outrageous examples was National Review?s absurd and shameful smear of Gen. Zinni an anti-Semite:

http://www.amconmag.com/3_1_04/cover.html

[al Roker Martyrs Brigade]

Rick,

I'm still waiting for the day when you post something WIHTOUT linking to the American Conservative magazine. What, do you simply take dictation from them? Do they pay you to wear a sandwich board all day long?

[joe]

karl, I'm going to break this to you gently.

No one here is surprised to read that an Austrian would say that.

[80sfan]

Hot damn, that Adbusters is one cutting-edge newz rag for sure. NOW I'LL NEVER GO TO STARBUCKS AGAIN

[Rick Barton]

Stephen Fetchet:

"(Bill Kristol) used (neo-con) with respect to a class of people who were liberal - pro individual rights...

One of the major criticisms conservatives against the neos is their lack of adherence to individual rights. Kristol made a well noticed ideological speech where he never even mentioned "individual rights".

Note that Radosh's move toward the neo-con camp is quite recent. Like many of the neos, he was also Trot. but moved in a more libertarian direction as he co-edited A New History Of Leviathan with Rothbard in 1972. David Horowitz's big government conservatism, especially as it applies to foreign policy shows affinity to his old lefty roots.

"Jonah Goldberg by definition cannot be a neo; he admits his mother was always conservative, and his father was positively Oakeshottian."

What?? One's literal pedigree does not define whether or one is a member of a particular school of thought. It's the positions they maintain that are salient.

"American Conservative crowd - I'd take anything coming from that wing of alleged conservatism said about the [stage whisper] J. E. W. S. with a grain of salt."

You're simply repeating the slanderous, silly and anti-intellectual smear that the neo's tried to employ to defend themselves. For obvious reasons this ploy has fallen out of use. (please see: post at February 25, 12:41 PM) The American Conservative's non-intervention represents the essence of old right traditional foreign policy.

"No offense meant to Mr.Buchanan, but I don't trust his editorial judgment on these matters."

If Buchanan's advice was followed years ago, many lives might have been saved. In his Intro to A Republic, Not An Empire, in 1999 he warned:

If we continue on this course of reflexive interventions, enemies will one day answer our power with the last weapon of the weak - terror, and eventually cataclysmic terrorism on U.S. soil.

[Rick Barton]

karl kraus:

"Andrew, SF, Thorley W., are conservative contributers, and they're all good discussion partners. they are no more libertarian than joe (lower case) or jean bart, also good discussion partners."

I would be more comfortable with this if you would have said: "they are no more of a libertarian..., as in "libertarian", as a discrete status that one may be argued to either be, or not to be. Perhaps that's what you meant.

The judgment of how relatively libertarian a person is on a continuum basis depends on his/her positions on many issues and the weighting of those issues and positions.

That all five are good discussion partners is for sure.

[Stephen Fetchet]

Warren, your cluelessness has a most authoritative tone.

The term Neo-Con was coined by Bill Kristol (that's the Weekly Standard crowd, BTW, not the National Review crowd) to describe liberals who have been mugged by reality. He used it with respect to a class of people who were liberal - pro individual rights, pro civil rights, and so forth - whose politics either stayed the same while the Dems moved left (Irving Kristol); or another class who realized what a huge scam the left was, and turned conservative (Ron Radosh, David Horowitz).

The defining event for neo-cons is an awakening, a realization that their beliefs make them a better fit for conservatism or right-libertarianism than on the left side of the spectrum. Kristol also argues that American Triumphalism and Exceptionalism is a defining attribute of the Neos, but that's silly because Goldwater and Reagan shared the same thing, as does John Kerry whenever somebody questions his voting record. The Oxford Christians, were experiencing their awakening today, would fall into the neo-con, or perhaps neo-Tory, category.

Jonah Goldberg by definition cannot be a neo; he admits his mother was always conservative, and his father was positively Oakeshottian. He was born and bred conservative, albeit his cosmogony appears to be informed by Hayek as much as Burke.

As for the American Conservative crowd - the Buchananites - I'd take anything coming from that wing of alleged conservativism said about the [stage whisper] J. E. W. S. with a grain of salt. No offense meant to Mr. Buchanan, but I don't trust his editorial judgement on these matters.

Finally, the dual loyalty thing - the argument that a Jew anywhere is just an Israeli holding another country's passport - is flat out anti-semitism. It's called the dual loyalty libel, and the same slur has been used as an argument for denying public office to Catholics. Might as well argue that libertarians should never be given any responsibility at work or in the public sphere, since libertarians are first loyal to personal freedom, therefore they are liable to wander off to drink some bong water rather than continue running the air traffic control tower.

I personally think that it's more important to take note of what people's actual policy stances and behavior are, rather than impugn their motives based on their ethnicity or religion, but I understand a lot of people feel differently. After all, my opinion is just what you'd expect from a Scots-Irish descended Catholic, right?

[joe]

"Steve,
You mistake anti-Israel with anti-Semitic."

You've also confused anti-Sharon with anti-Israel.

SF, "Finally, the dual loyalty thing - the argument that a Jew anywhere is just an Israeli holding another country's passport - is flat out anti-semitism."

So pointing out that a Jewish American has close ties to the Likud Party (like, say, a history of slipping them classified American intelligence - Perle) reminds you of old fashioned duel loyalty smears.

Well, discussion of "cultures of poverty" and "welfare dependency" reminds me of old fashioned racist smears against poor black people. I guess you libertoids are all a bunch of klansmen. Not.

[joe]

Rick, dude, you're not actually claiming the Pat Buchanan isn't an anti-semite, are you? During his wacky presidential campaign, he kept saying, "Capitol Hill is Zionist occupied territory." ZOG. Capitol Hill, occupied by Zionists.

Fuck Pat Buchanan.

[karl kraus]

when goldberg cites hayek, it's done incorrectly (viz his comments on "road to cerfdom"). if the claim is that he is in the hayek school, please cite where (i'm genuinely surprised at that claim and am interested in giving him another chance).

while goldberg is not a neocon, per SF's definition, calling someone who is pro big government solutions and paternalistic state a "libertarian" is a stretch. for many it was the 11 september attacks. the comedian dennis miller for example. and i stayed up late for his show, too. would larry miller be a neocon? is a strong pro likud stance a sufficient condition (i am making the assumption it is necessary)?

Andrew, SF, Thorley W., are conservative contributers, and they're all good discussion partners. they are no more libertarian than joe (lower case) or jean bart, also good discussion partners.

and the more the merrier- it is exactly these differences in opinion that are oh so very important in life. keep arguing, gentlemen! for no other reasons, it's good vocabulary training ("asshat" - dont know what it means, but i like it!)

oh - someone just told me in a law and economics seminar here in vienna that "the american press is propaganda. don't read that. read the european press. it's objective. the american press is controlled by the jews". an austrian said that. honestly.

i guess she forgot what happened here when people started thinking like that. she also thought that the Sharon government is "responsible for the suicide bombings" - that was awful to hear. however much one might disagree with the fence or other "provoking" policies, the fence does not justify, cause, or glorify the taking of human life.

karl

[Rick Barton]

joe,

I'm pretty sure he didn't use that term. Also, one can be anti-Zionist and not anti-Semitic. There are whole sects of Jews who are anti-Zionist.

Buchanan seems to have Jewish allies and he hires Jews to write for American Conservative as well. Is this "joe", the city planner? If so, you "sound" really different.

[Rick Barton]

joe,

Maybe it is you. Pat Buchanan said congress was "Israeli occupied territory". He would never say ZOG. Anti-Jewish bigot idiots use that term. He doesn't feel or think that way. No way.

[karl kraus]

much better, rick. thank you.

karl

(joe,:-) - and to think the gov of cali is one of us - some people want to change the name of the stadium in graz, so it no longer has his name!)

[Moshe Feinstein]

Oh, thatz so dezpicable. Effryone knowz vee are a poisecuted minority wif no influence whatsoever. Oy vey, stop ze hate!!! And by ze way: Tob shebbe goyim harog.

[Moshe Feinstein]

Oh, thatz so dezpicable. Effryone knowz vee are a poisecuted minority wif no influence whatsoever. Oy vey, stop ze hate!!! And by ze way: Tob shebbe goyim harog.

[Moshe Feinstein]

Oh, thatz so dezpicable. Effryone knowz vee are a poisecuted minority wif no influence whatsoever. Oy vey, stop ze hate!!! And by ze way: Tob shebbe goyim harog.

[Rick Barton]

joe,

I can't coroberate that he ever, actually used that term. Only a couple of accusations when I Google it. But it wouldn't evidence he's a bigot anyway.

"He continued to use that same term, even after the ZOG connection was pointed out."

That would be disturbing. If you document that: I'll stand corrected. People who use the ZOG slogan don't hire Jews, as Buchanan does, though.

"This is also a man who still argues that going to war with Nazi Germany was wrong, and a Catholic has denounced the reforms of Vatican II."

Niether of which are indicated to be motivated by
racist sentiment.

"Face it, Rick. Pat Buchanan has Jewish problems."

Is that your way of saying: "He's kind of a bigot... wink wink"?

I believe that choosing bigotry is one of the worst choices a person can make, and that before we accuse someone of making that choice we should have good evidence that it is true. In Pat Buchanan's case, I don't think there is. He doesn't seem the bigot type anyway, after all he's friends with Justin Raimondo, a Gay athiest.

"Yes, I'm the city planner"

I'm sorry joe; you just "sounded" different to me in that post on this thread last night. I wasn't sure it was really you. Maybe since it was late, my perceptions were askew or something...

[Steve in CA]

Ha! Jesus, Rick, you're slaying me!

"[Pat Buchanan] doesn't seem the bigot type anyway, after all he's friends with Justin Raimondo."

Look, I'm not going to start another argument about whether Raimondo and Buchanan are anti-Semites. Just don't be surprised when most people who read their work get that impression.

I actually don't think Buchanan is really a bigot, on a personal level. I don't know the guy, of course, but people who have met him almost always describe him as a nice guy, even when they completely disagree with him (see: Thompson, Hunter S.).

In other words, his whole "America's Le Pen" rhetoric is basically an act. (Or it was an act, and he's started to believe it.) When he was running for president, and he gave those "populist" speeches that could have been translated directly from the original German, I always thought there was a little glint in his eye that said "come on, I don't really buy this shit."

But maybe I'm being too generous. Or, he could be a bigot politically, and still a perfectly nice guy with plenty of Jewish friends. It happens.

[joe]

Rick, he did not use the term Z.O.G., to my knowledge. He stopped just short, so that his target audience would know exactly what he was talking about, while allowing him to have plausible deniability when called on his racial pandering.

Sort of Nixon's Southern Strategy - a strategy that was turned into campaign speeches by none other than Mr. Pat Buchanan.