« Saudi Arabia's "Salman Doctrine" (by CP) | Main | "Mercy Street" on PBS - TTG »

15 January 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Perhaps ingratiating himself with the winners may not prevent him from passing on information to his previous friends, to stay on good terms with them in case circumstances change again.


Debka lies like it usually does.

The Jordan-Russian "war room" in Amman was announced in October 2015 by Lavrov.


It has been working since. The military coordination center in Jordon, of which Israel to my knowledge was NOT part, has shut down the support for the southern rebels several month ago. There was a disagreement about what to attack next and the rebels went off, did what they wanted to do and failed.

Abdullah visited Moscow at the end of November last year. Since then Jordan shut down the whole southern front business.

Debka just wants to blame Abdullah and create trouble for him.

Why does anyone still regard them as a reliable source?


The SAA is moving rapidly from Quweiris north to Al-Bab. Syrian media claim that IS is pulling back from the city. Al-Bab is on the IS occupied Raqqa-Turkey route.

From the northeast the (mostly Kurdish) SDF is pushing towards Manbij. There were several Russian air support missions today in support of their move.

Should the 10 kilometer Al-Bab-Manbij connection along the M4 be closed IS would loose its direct access to Turkey.

It would also have to rename its monthly magazine "Daqib". The town of Daqib, in which the big endtimes battle between crusaders and believers was supposed to happen, would be cut off from IS land without any crusader ever appearing.


Amusing how the Russians are establishing themselves as the dominant power in the region despite have no real desire or plan to. Good luck to them, I am sure they will make a better go of it and be a more even handed referee in the various disputes.

David Habakkuk


Describing the exchanges between Putin and Netanyahu at their meeting in November, DEBKAfile write:

'There is no doubt that the prime minister spoke firmly about Israel's abiding concern that, once Assad regained control of the South, he would open the door up to the Israeli border and let in his allies and Israel's arch enemies, Hizballah and the mostly-Iraqi Shiite militias fighting under the command of officers from Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps.

A Reuters report by Josh Cohen, which has just appeared in the 'Jerusalem Post', is entitled: 'Analysis: Putin closest thing to a friend Israel has ever had in Moscow.'

(See http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Analysis-Putin-closest-thing-to-a-friend-Israel-has-ever-had-in-Moscow-441622 .)

Among other things, the article describes the way that the Russian intervention in Syria has created a 'de-facto Russian Shi'ite axis'.

It discusses the potential problems caused for Israel as a result of the introduction of S-400 missiles by the Russians into Syria, with their potential for interdicting IAF attempts to destroy weapons shipments to Hizbullah through Syria, and also the implications of Russia's reversal of its cancellation of the supply of the S-300 to Iran. And Cohen informs us that:

'According to a recent report, Russia is transferring weapons directly to Hezbollah, since Moscow views Hezbollah as a more effective fighting force than the Syrian army. If the report is accurate – and it's not yet clear it is – two questions emerge: Is Russia transferring the same types of weapons to Hezbollah that Hezbollah has already acquired from Iran, or are they more advanced? And would Russia permit Hezbollah to use these weapons against Israel as well as the Syrian rebels?'

If I had to hasard a guess, it would be that Russia strongly does not want conflict between Hizbullah and Israel, and would like to establish some kind of 'modus vivendi' between Israel and the 'Shi'ite Crescent'.

However, as ever, dogs have only imperfect control over tails. Quite clearly, Putin is trying to finesse the objectives of decisively destroying the 'Islamic State', and minimising involvement of Russian ground forces. A logical implication is that he needs Hizbullah and Iranian forces, as well as Syrian, to fight with maximum effectiveness. It would seem to stand to reason that this objective is hard to achieve, without making all of these more formidable potential enemies of Israel.

It has moreover been absolutely clear for a very long time that Putin regards jihadists as an 'existential threat' to Russia.

One thing that baffles me is the apparent inability of neocons to realise that collaborating with such jihadists against the 'Shi'ite Crescent' would be liable to create a de facto alliance between them and Russia.

Another is the way that, confronted by the first genuinely philosemitic leader in Russia history, American neocons appear hell-bent on doing all they can to oust him. It appears that Victoria Nuland et al, the heirs of the perpetrators of the Lvov pogrom are far preferable.

Are these people simply ignorant and stupid, or actively deranged?



Russia, Syria agreed 'open-ended' military presence for Moscow



Announcing something as a trial balloon and actually implementing it are two different things. pl

Medicine Man

Mr. Habakkuk:

I'm not sure if your last question was rhetorical or not but I'll take a shot at answering it. The utter invariability of neocon hostility to Russia leads me to select "deranged" as the answer. They are so captured by the injustices of the past that they resist any attempt at re-evaluation. To them all Russians are the heirs of those pogroms, regardless of recent history or facts.

Col. Lang was touching on something very significant when he recently commented on Sen. McCain's rage problems.

different clue


I would suspect the King suspects the R + 6 may be watching for signs of that. If he thought to do that, he would not risk letting it be done with such scrutiny all around.

Then too, the swiftness of King Abdullah's turnabout makes one think he suspects victory for the R + 6 may be too swift and too total to risk any such double games. Withal, he has made the right choice, even if for the wrong reasons. And if his principal reason is to get far enough away from the Titanic so as to not be sucked under when the Titanic sinks, what is wrong with that as a reason?


Marking this day down on the calendar as the first time the Colonel used "gimmedats". It is a good day.

different clue

David Habakkuk,

Probably actively both. Brill-yunt in-DUH-lectuals coming from a brill-yunt in-DUH-lectual left wing tradition have long confused prolix verbosity with intelligent thinking. Keeping within the Jewethnic groupload of people
so as to keep it an apples-to-apples comparison, Albert Einstein was intelligent whereas William Crystal is an intellectual.

Perhaps Putin can put the kind of slow friendly coercive pressure on the Israeli polity such that "correlation of brainwar forces might be bent against the Revisionists and towards such legacy Rabinists as still survive. Perhaps Putin will be the rescue squad who digs the Rabinist coal miners out from the Revisionist cave in.


Mr. Habakkuk

Most neocons are those Jews that have discarded much of the religious identity of Judaism and have replaced it with secular hedonism.

However the Tikka Olam crap that is their license to meddle is still held onto. Their animosity is still about the Tsar, Pussy Riot, and homo marriage. There is also the not so small fact that Russia repudiated communism. Seeing as how many neocons are former communists (supposedly on the former) this grinds their gears.


David Habakkuk,
It seems that Israel and Russia have diligently worked on deconflicting measures in and around Syria. Netanyahu had the Israeli Armed Forces Chief of Staff accompanying him on his visit to Moscow this fall (shortly after the Russian bombing started), and after that the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Russian Armed Forces visited Tel Aviv for four days. Apparently they reached some sort of working understanding, so Israel doesn't fret when Russian bombers fly over swats of Israeli airspace, and Russia was cool when Israel killed the notorious Hezbollah murderer Samir Kuntar in Damascus (by a missile fired from a plane), and bombed a transport of Iranian weapons to Hezbollah. BTW, the S-400 anti-aircraft system was deployed by Russia in Syria with explicit goal of protecting Russian armed forces, not Syrian airspace. Hopefully Russia and Israel also discussed the kinds of weapons Russia might give to Hezbollah, and the conditions attached; although when and if the Syrian state will be restored, Israel probably will have to deal with its Hezbollah problems in Lebanon, not in Syria.

You quite properly brought up the heirs of the Lvov pogrom perpetrators (and countless other atrocities), as people preferred by the Western policy makers to the evil Putin. Did you know, that the current Ukrainian Government has set the anniversary of establishment of UPA (the military organization under German operational command, which perpetrated the atrocities), as the official state holiday - the Day of the Defenders of Fatherland. Ukrainian President who signed that law was recently received in Israel on a state visit, and even visited the Yad Vashem, with a sombre facial expression.


The Samantha Power Indicator is the most accurate measurement of developments in Syria. See https://twitter.com/AmbassadorPower/status/687797231924154369

The "humanitarian concerns" rise in direct proportion to rebel setbacks.


Jordan is not likely to allow Israel to have an overt integrated or LNO presence at CENTCOM Forward-Jordan (CF-J) or anywhere else in Jordan.
However, there may have been a Jordanian policy change WRT Syria.
King Abdullah II went to Moscow to meet with Putin in late August, just prior to the Russian intervention in Syria, and then met with him again in Sochi in late November. There has been no Jordanian criticism of the Russian intervention, just concerns about the impact on the refugee situation.
Jordan is probably the largest per capita recipient of US assistance (after Israel...).
It is not clear to me what is occurring with the groups composing the "Southern Front"; i.e. the last hopes of the FSA...what ops they are doing; who is assisting them; and if Russia is refraining from targeting them.
While I think it is unlikely that Abdullah would gamble the monarchy over a relationship with Israel, it appears that Abdullah understand the ramifications of the Russian intervention, but may be continuing to have difficulties in getting the US, and perhaps even Gulf Arab allies to understand them.

The Twisted Genius

Things aren't going too well for IS up on the Turkish border according to Elijah J. Magnier. He reports that "Information from Al Mayadeen News saying “ISIS pulling out some troops from al-Bab toward Raqqa" while SAA and Hezbollah are 7km from the city." Since Al Mayadeen News is in Arabic, I'll leave it to one of our Arabists to verify this tidbit of information.



"there may have been a Jordanian policy change WRT Syria." It doesn't sound to me like there is any doubt. Are you still working at the Coca Cola plant? Write me off line please. pl

Babak Makkinejad

We are supposed to accept such things as this:


as the new Normal and the Height of Human Achievement and Enlightenment.

There is snow ball's chance in Hell that any one in Muslim World would consider such things as normal.


I believe it is time to accept that the Obama people are incapable of doing sound strategic analysis; hence, the prospect of their rethinking their haphazard approach to multiple interlocking problems in the Middle East is bleak. The one thing we can count on is Obama's aversion to any escalated conflict that involves American ground forces or risk of confrontation with Russia. In addition, were circumstances to emerge that offer the possibility of some sort of resolution on minimally acceptable terms, he will grab it - even if that entails a vigorous spin exercise to reconcile whatever it is with prior pronouncements. His preoccupation with legacy/memories/foundation for the next 30 years points strongly toward that judgment. From what we can infer, this is the conclusion Putin has reached. So Putin will proceed to do what it takes to create such circumstances guided by the dictates of prudence.

The Obama presidency is over for all practical intents and purposes. He has spent the 3 days since his plodding State of the Union travelling to Red states so as (as the White House press office says) hear directly from those in the country who disagree with him before he leaves office. Apparently, he hasn't heard enough abuse from the Republicans in and out of Congress over the past seven years or the vulgar declarations last night of how the candidates look forward to his "getting his ass out of the Oval Office." Obama is probably the weirdest personality in psychological terms who ever has held the office - something concealed by his seemingly masterful manner.

Babak Makkinejad

They were given a task by the Legitimate Authority - duly elected and seated - and they carried it out those orders.

You will have to go back and ask again: "What is the electorate's responsibility in all of this?"

Neocon etc. cannot be treated as the alibi of US and indeed of an entire politico-military alliance.

In regards to the putative alliance between the minority religions of Islam and Russia; such an alliance already has taken shape and is operating and I should think it will continue to do so for the duration of the Jihadi Wars - say a couple more decades.

Mind you, Russians have to periodically kick their allies in order to control their propensity to anarchic reactions and policies.


b quote "Debka just wants to blame Abdullah and create trouble for him.
Why does anyone still regard them as a reliable source?" my thoughts exactly..



I have tried endlessly to explain to the crowd here that information and sources must be evaluated separately. Too complicated for you? pl


In Britain they are coming to be known as 'gimmegrants'.

Kim Sky

WOW. Thanx for pointing this out!!!

There is a good possibility that Jordan will use this opportunity to do a Russian-spy-mission for the US? As Israeli aggression is NO joke when it comes to this region, I do agree with a bit of the hedging their bets idea.


If pogroms were the thing that bothers them - they shouldn't have supported Ukrainian government since:

1) Jewish "area of settlement" in Tsarist Russia was in modern day Ukraine (without Donbass btw) and Belarus and pogroms were carried out by locals naturally. There is long time hatred to Jews in those parts.

2) Ukrainian participation in genocide of Jews during WWII.

Alas Ukrainian government that declares killers of Jews their national heroes (glossing over this part of their activities naturally) is a best friend of all the nulands in administration and around.

So nothing personal, just business. In whatever distorted way they understand this word.



I am assured by competent non-US authority that Israel was not allowed a presence in the Amman war room. In response I have deleted the paragraph in the post that dealt with that. pl


no pl.. not too complicated.. - obviously i agree with your statement.. however, i see nothing wrong with making general statements especially when they encourage a more skeptical mind (again another general statement), in absence of what information that can be gotten on this..

different clue


You raise an interesting question which brings back to mind another theory I once read about the Jewish founders of the neoconservative ideology. As young or very young people they were all ( each of them/all of them) ideological Trotskysists in particular. They felt themselves to be in some kind of opposition to other hard-left young Jewish intellectuals who felt themselves to be Stalinists. One of the intellectual psycho-pathologies of Trotsky himself in particular and his followers was a messianic belief in the need for Permanent Revolution all over the time all over the world in all places at once. Stalin of course had decided for Socialism in One Country and was basing USSR policy on that.

So when the founding neocons decided to ditch the socialist left-wingery, they kept the Permanent World Revolution ideological psycho-pathology. And they kept the rivalrous hatred for Stalin due to his winning the Socialism In One Country argument and due to the unavenged killing of Father Trotsky in Mexico. When Stalin died, and then long later the USSR broke apart, they simply preserved the antiStalinitic psycho-pathology and projected it onto post USSR Russia and onto Putin . . . as the "heir to Stalin". So I would suggest their grudge is more recent and narrower than against the pogroms and etc. of Czarist times.

And their desire to forcibly Freedomise country after country after country is simply Permanent World Revolutionism of a psycho-Trotskyist derivation.


Would it partially be their intention to create a boogyman alliance, between Russia and other members of R-6, thus allowing for a counter-alliance with Wahhabis incorporated in modern-day equivalent of CENTO?

Old Microbiologist

Different clue - Brilliant analysis


OM, if biographies contain central hints that allow us to completely ignore the influence realities versus ideologies centrally, or a changing Zeitgeist for that matter.

I have to admit that it makes sense to acknowledge a revolutionary ingredient in what can be termed: "The neoconservative revolution". But is this the central representatives' and their adherents core desire? I am much less sure:

"And their desire to forcibly Freedomise country after country after country"


Interesting article David. What should I know about Josh Cohen, beyond the, admittedly for me curious, information about the author? Meaning, so far I have not connected USAID to economic reform projects.

"Josh Cohen is a former USAID project officer involved in managing economic reform projects in the former Soviet Union. The opinions expressed are his own."

Forgive me, if you alluded to him before and I forget details.

David Habakkuk

Babak Makkinejad,

So presumably you hold the British electorate responsible for mass immigration?

David Habakkuk


Irving Kristol famously described a neoconservative as 'a liberal who had been mugged by reality.'

Some of us thought he was a 'Trotskyist who had been mugged by reality.'

How wrong we were. It was only the superficial delusions that 'reality' managed to wrestle away from him. The deep structure remained inviolate.
Recalling his time at City College in New York at the end of the Thirties,
Kristol wrote:

'The elite was us – the "happy few" who had been chosen by History to guide our fellow creatures toward a secular redemption… '

(See http://www.pbs.org/arguing/nyintellectuals_krystol_2.html .)

The fact that he had spent his youth attempting to guide his 'fellow creatures' towards a nightmare condition did not instill any kind of intellectual modesty in him and his like.

And then his son relapsed back into Jewish tribalism, which was probably always lurking beneath Irving's 'universalist' pretensions.

What monsters.

I would like to think you might be prescient in hoping Putin might be 'the rescue squad who digs the Rabinist coal miners out from the Revisionist cave in.'

However, American Zionists – 'liberal' as well as other – have had almost half a century to stop those who were serious about the notion of a 'two-state solution' being buried under the accumulated 'cave in' of the settlement enterprise.

At no point have any significant number of them done anything very much serious to stop this, and I now strongly suspect that it is too late.

Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin.

Babak Makkinejad

I am tired of all these excuses: the Jewsih Lobby, the Zicons, the Neocons, etc.

If the English public is not fit to elect representatives that are capable of carrying out a sensible foreign policy; then, perhaps, it is time for the Commons to admit that and let the Crown assume the Foreign Portfolio.

I ask again, who is responsible for the catastrophe in Syria if not the electorate in US, Canada, EU, and Australia - I will excuse such semi-sovereign states as Germany, Korea, Greece, and Japan.

Babak Makkinejad

I must add, upon further reflection, that the Commons failed also in 1914 and in 1939; in my opinion.

If a tooth ache requires specialist advise and care, why should questions of industrialized war and peace in which tens of million souls would perish and hundreds of millions would become damaged goods be left to the whims of an assembly that lacks the special knowledge or the capacity to make such judgments?

different clue


One little piece of anecdata which makes me think "yes it is" . . . is the political and ideological career of Christopher Hitchens. Christopher Hitchens began as a self-styled "leftist" and "Trotskyist". He himself is descended from the Sunny Ethnic Uplands of Deep Core Anglo-Saxonia, so the ethnic-memory concerns of the Jewish neoconservatives would not have motivated him, I think. And yet in the last few years of his political-writing life, when Junior Bush was seeking support for invading Iraq, Hitchens decided that neoconservative was the thing to become and he started scream-writing louder than anyone about the necessity to overthrow Saddamism and Baathism and to Freedomise Iraq. When he was reminded of heavy poll-numbers against his desire in America and Britain, he responded with Trotskyist contempt for the notion of "deciding Great Policy Questions by taking poll numbers."
It was the forced serial freedomization of country after country after country that attracted the self-styled leftists Hitchens to the neoconservative policy mafia.

different clue

David Habakkuk,

You might want to read a book called They Dare To Speak Out by former Congressman Paul Findlay. It describes what was happening on that front up to 1983, when he wrote and published it. I can't remember the names of the chapters.

But parts of several chapters detail extensive efforts by Liberal Zionists to counter the AIPAC invasion and takeover of the various Jewish organizations. Findley gets down to names and cases. One such name was Phillip Klutznick who rose to broad, wide and deep reach across various organized Jewish organizations. He became among other things the President of the Organization of Presidents Of Jewish Organizations. He tried using that post to press for reachback to hints of reachout from Arafat through various discreet spokesmen. Findley describes the steady defeat of Klutznick's efforts, and then the expulsion of Klutznick from these organizations and then the Soviet-style unpersonization of Klutznick from the AIPACified institutional and political memory of Jewish organizational leaderships and memberships. He also writes of other successful suppression and unpersonization campaigns against other Liberal Zionist individuals and groups who actually fought to do what you think they never tried to do. If Findley's history is correct, the reason you have never seen American Liberal Zionists do this fightback is because they fought and lost every battle before many outside people were even aware of this happening, and by the time outside observers began outside observing, the only political landscape left to see was the sterile rubblefield of Revisionist/AIPACker victory and occupation. I found that book well worth reading, even though I didn't even read it till 2013 or so.

If my reading of Findley's book is correct, you will find the remnant remains of American liberal zionism buried under that same cave in. From 1983 to now, the Cone Of Silence just gets heavier.
The only thing middle-aged and young wanted-to-be liberal zionists can do nowadays is decide Israel is flunking its Darwin Finals, lose interest in it, and walk away.

Chris Chuba

As much as I hate the Neocons there is something more primal at play here. I recently read an article that basically said this. The U.S. needs one big enemy to focus on and currently you have one group in the Obama Administration that wants to focus mostly on containing China while you have another paranoid group, like the McCain's that are more obsessed with containing Russia.

To me the idea that we always need a big enemy to try to contain kind of rings true and is thoroughly obnoxious and deadly. Why else do we treat China's 70yr to 170ry old claim on the Spratly Islands like it's a precursor to WW2? Same comment in regard to Russia and its conflict with Ukraine and Georgia. If you listen to U.S. commentators you would think that Russia is more aggressive today than during the height of the Cold War when they had troops in East Berlin and now we are frantic over military actions that are over 1,000 miles east of Berlin in territories that speak Russian.

Why do we think like this? I won't discount your theory as it applies to some but needing one big enemy taps into a common nerve in the U.S.
1. It's a simple model. A world where we are good and there is one Hitler to defeat is much easier than dealing with the reality where most countries are rational and acting in their own interest and you have to take the time to understand each of them.
2. The WW2 experience has left an indelible mark on our thinking. It is used so often in arguments that well, people must at least mean it when they play the Hitler card even if it's a lazy and poorly applied argument.

Jag Pop

Only war can prevent war

David Habakkuk

Babak Makkinejad,

You have not answered my question. Do you or do you not hold the British electorate responsible for mass immigration?

Babak Makkinejad

Yes, they are partially responsible - just as their counterparts in US and elsewhere.

That they are partially responsible derives from the fact that there is a system of representative government in these countries and not a democratic system.

I also acknowledge that electorate did revolt and the Commons with it when US was proposing to bomb SAR back in 2013.


The Saker's report on Week 15 of the Russian campaign in Syria includes details of SOFA plus reference to supply of weapons to Hezbollah.


David Habakkuk


Thanks for that. I stand corrected.

Another interesting figure is the sociologist Norman Birnbaum. Back in 2006, he wrote an article in the 'Nation' entitled 'Is Israel Good for the Jews?' An extract:

'Domestically, the chief allies of American Jewry were once the liberal Protestants; the modern Catholics, whose great achievement was the Second Vatican Council; and progressive secularists. Now organized Jewry has an alliance with those who were not so long ago embittered anti-Semites. The Protestant fundamentalists think the founding of the Jewish state means that the conversion of the Jews is imminent. Suppose the fundamentalists demand that US Jewry anticipate the end of time by beginning their conversion now? Some have welcomed the Lebanon crisis as the initiation of Armageddon. In the meantime, they combat the pluralism of the public sphere, which is indispensable to enduring rights for Jews in the United States. America is in serious danger of becoming a nation defined not by citizenship but by bargains among struggling ethnic and religious communities, united in an impossible project of global domination. Will Nobel prizes and business acumen, and seventeenth-century biblical imagery of America as a New Israel, protect the Jewish minority as our imperial project disintegrates? Its end could generate the domestic deprivation and tension conducive to renewed anti-Semitism.'

(See http://www.thenation.com/article/israel-good-jews/ .)

Although I am something of an ideological mongrel, very much of my background is in precisely the groups which Birnbaum – rightly – identifies as traditionally philo-Semitic (here the situation is similar in U.K. as in the U.S.)

But, for precisely the reasons which he suggests, many traditional philo-Semites have been coming to watch the behaviour of the official Jewish 'communities' both in the United States and Britain with amazement and horror.

As to the alliance with the Protestant fundamentalists – it opens up what would have been an unthinkable thought: has the empowerment of American Jews been a disaster?

Of course, very much of the best analysis on all kinds of matters – among them Western foreign policy – comes from Jews. And we have, over the years, some of the most fascinating commentary here on SST has come from our Jewish contributors. But, one has to face facts.

In the 'Financial Times', one finds columns from Richard Haass, Dennis Ross, and Simon Schama – not Michael Brenner. And the stories told by jdledell and – most recently, 'Old Microbiologist', whose comments on many matters I have found fascinating – have brought out their essential marginality.

In Britain – perhaps more than the United States – part of what is involved here is precisely the phenomenon to which you point at the end of your comment. There is actually a very long history here – going back to the time when significant immigration began (or recommenced) in the late 1600s – of Jews 'walking away' from Jewish identity.

What American Jewish 'intellectuals' – and their fellow-travellers in our new 'Americanised' Britain – have been creating, or perhaps one should better say greatly intensifying, is a polarisation.

In a piece entitled 'Ari Shavit's Zionist revival is a hit in New York', back in November 2013, Philip Weiss accurately summarised part of what Shavit was saying: 'So we need a Jewish state not just because the gentiles want to murder us but because they want to marry us.'

(See http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/shavits-zionist-revival .)

But that takes one to the heart of a current problem. I heard last year of the death of the last of the three Jewish refugees from Hitler I knew – all of whom were remarkable men, who made valuable contributions to British life (a very small one of which was helping to emancipate me from a familiar British visceral hostility to Germany.)

As the others were respectively a Czech brought up as a Roman Catholic and a German brought up as a Lutheran, it was hardly surprising that they 'married out'. The surprise was the discovery that the third, who was brought up an Orthodox Jew, and always appeared very 'Jewish', looking a bit like an amiable Old Testament prophet, appeared to have done so.

But that is part of the problem. We are, very many of us, torn between 'tribal' and broader identities. In general, however, Jews who are not happy with a 'tribal' identity, to one degree or another, disappear: leaving behind a Jewish 'community' which is tribal, insular, fanatically committed to Israel, and frankly extremely boring. (One does not read the 'Jewish Chronicle' for intellectual stimulation.)

If there was to be a key to preserving an equilibrium between 'British' and 'Jewish' identities, it had to be the two-state solution. A figure who has clearly realised this, and tried to make his fellow Jews both in Israel and Britain see matters clearly, is the veteran Labour MP Sir Gerald Kaufman.

(For extracts from two critical speeches, see https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Gerald_Kaufman .)

However, the 'Jewish community' is invincibly stupid. Recent remarks by Kaufman on the influence of Jewish money on the Tory Party produced a response by Norman Finkelstein in the 'Jewish Chronicle' entitled 'Foolishness of Kaufman'.

It concluded:

'Gerald Kaufman's comments are outrageous and it is quite right that community leaders have demanded disciplinary action. The comments are clearly antisemitic. I think it is worth adding they are also idiotic.'

(See http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/columnists/148903/foolishness-kaufman )

It appears to be beyond the ability of Finkelstein and others like him to grasp the potential implications of defining 'Jews' as 'community', enforcing 'discipline'.

As it happens, in Britain as in the United States, the relationship between 'individualist' and 'tribal' political values is at the core of current dilemmas. A key element in the current situation has been the retreat from 'tribalism' on the part of a very large part of traditional 'WASP' élites.

A question to which Birnbaum's argument points is what happens if this retreat simply produces what is actually a new politics of 'communalism' – a point which was also central to the polemic against mass immigration by the late Enoch Powell: although unfortunately obscured by the violence of his language.

To define Jews in 'communal' terms, as Finkelstein does, and also by implication see their identity in terms of support for a foreign power – whose interests may or may not be deemed to coincide with those of the indigenous population – is to play with fire.

If, in addition, one smears, those Jews who do not want to 'buy into' this view of Jewish identity as anti-Semitic, an inevitable consequence is progressively to destroy the force of the taboo on anti-Semitism.

However, if Finkelstein is seriously stupid, the former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, appears even stupider. Some time back, he noted that the American-Jewish community was 'contracting through assimilation', but went on to state that he was 'optimistic about the future of American Jewry', commenting that:

''I don't know whether American Jewry will be the same size as it is now in some 30 years, but it will be more Jewishly educated, committed and attached to Israel.''

How Oren feels confident that this situation is not going to produce an anti-Semitic backlash escapes me. Perhaps he really believes that the 'Protestant fundamentalists' are reliable allies of Jews.

An even more dramatic 'hostage to fortune' is provided by Oren's clarification as to the ways in which he expects American Jews to exercise their political influence:

''The initial message about the Syrian issue was that we always wanted [President] Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran,'' he said.

'This was the case, he said, even if the other ''bad guys'' were affiliated to al-Qaida.'

(See http://www.typepad.com/site/blogs/6a00d8341c72e153ef00d83451d3f569e2/comments?filter.pending=1 .)

Ah well. As jihadists run amuck in Paris and San Bernardino, the 'goyim' are expected to believe that fighting them is far less significant than toppling Assad.

Words fail me. These people are quite incredibly silly.

David Habakkuk

Babak Makkinejad,

On an earlier thread, I linked to a recent article by Benjamin Schwarz in the 'American Conservative', entitled 'Unmaking England: Will immigration demolish a nation built over centuries?'

Unfortunately I provided the wrong link. The correct link is:


Two relevant paragraphs:

'Opinion surveys at the time consistently demonstrated that 75 percent of Britain’s population supported the proposal in Enoch Powell's ''Rivers of Blood'' speech to stop this immigration and to offer the new arrivals grants to return to their native countries...

'The impotent seething abundantly in evidence among Old Britain is rooted in their disfranchisement, in the disdain with which their political and cultural leaders have forsaken them, and in their realization that those leaders, ensorcelled by fatuous slogans and intellectual fashion, in pursuit of vacuous and untested ideas, have irretrievably transformed an ancient nation.'

To say that someone is responsible for something implies that they had they acted differently they might have prevented it.

Perhaps you would explain to me what those who opposed mass immigration could have done to prevent it which they did not do.

David Habakkuk


Actually, Christopher Hitchens was Jewish. It was a pattern which used not to be uncommon in British life – his mother was Jewish but hid the fact from her husband and children.

That said, the relevance of his origins may not be great. The kind of 'infantile leftism' which Hitchens embodied – in intellectual terms purely reactionary – was not untypical of the vacuous 'radical students' of the time. Again, the pattern whereby 'silly lefties' ended as 'silly righties' has been common enough.

In fact, Trotskyism was much less of a force in Britain than the United States, and the Jewish presence in 'infantile leftism', although real, less significant.

What characterises the – immense – Jewish contribution to British culture is its sheer diversity. However, a very great part of it was exercised in the directions of empiricism and also political caution and conservatism.
Among bizarre instances.

One of the few British films with claims to greatness is 'The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp', which appeared in 1943. It is a film about what happens to a certain kind of British military tradition, as it attempts to cope with the realities of modern war – and in effect a meditation on the relationship of ends and means. It is also a film about a friendship between an Englishman and a German.

This most purely 'British' of films was the product of a collaboration between Michael Powell, a gentleman from Kent, and Emeric Pressburger, a Jewish refugee from Hungary.

(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Life_and_Death_of_Colonel_Blimp .)


Those who oppose mass immigration should learn from the countries that control unwanted migration effectively:
- Australia has announced that none of "boat people" will ever be admitted to Australia; they paid Papua - New Guinea to set up a filtration camp for such people there, and those who gain asylum are resettled in P-NG.
- Israel has built an effective fence along the entire Sinai border with Egypt. None of the tens of thousands of non-Jewish migrants from Eritrea and Somalia, who have been smuggled to Israel before the fence went up, are granted refugee status or residence permit, they are offered about $10,000 and a one-way ticket either back home, or to an African country

Both of these measures took out of business the human smugglers, who are the one of the main engines of the mass migration.

different clue

David Habakkuk,

If Hitchens's mother was Jewish, that could make Hitchens halachically Jewish under Jewish religious law. But if his mother successfully hid that fact from Father Hitchens and from Christopher Hitchens himself, and Christopher Hitchens was brought up from infancy as a core member of High Anglo-Saxonia, then all his brainware would be formatted, programmed, etc. as Anglo-Saxon, and that is functionally what he would have been and what all his decisions would have stemmed from. So I believe my example still stands.

Unless . . . Jewish thinking characteristics are transmitted genetically independently of any cultural knowledge or upbringing. Is there reason to think it works that way?

different clue

Chris Chuba,

It would take a real brain-reformation/redirection to solve this problem of needing a one-big-simple-enemy. I think the Long Cold War coming after WWII deepened and strengthened the indelible mark on our thinking.

We would have to reach the point of believing that there is no such thing as an indispensable nation and no such thing as an exceptional nation. We could then figure out how to be an ordinary nation. We could work on American Okayness Ordinarianism as against American Greatness Exceptionalism.

But even if we were to achieve that, the recent Chinese behavior of building artificial islands in other peoples' offshore sea-area would still be the equivalent of Israel building artificial settlements of other peoples' West Bank, Golan, etc. land. The only difference is that in a no-indispensible-nation world, Chinese island building would not be uniquely America's problem.



The WW2 experience had a precedent in the Northern victory in the Civil War. The North is still trying to eradicate Southern culture and political power; that is why the movement to eradicate all monuments in the states that made up the Confederacy is gaining momentum. The left hasn't won in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Iraq or Syria but by goodness they'll whip ole Jeff Davis and Nathan Bedford Forrest (the mythologized version of him) this time around.

Babak Makkinejad

You are taking two of the consequences of Syrian Civil War and the US-UK-France-Italy War against Libya and attribute to them, implicitly, an independent origin than those that initiated the wars in those tow countries.

I understand that there is a minority of the electorate that are disenfranchised in UK, quite effectively and with subtlety - unlike the non-religious minority in Iran that has been disenfranchised quite explicitly by the electoral Law.

I agree with you that such disenfranchised electoral minorities do not bear responsibility for the actions of their governments. But they will suffer the consequences nevertheless - just as well as those that have been enfranchised.

And the majority must be partial responsibility for the actions of their representatives.

Babak Makkinejad

Australia has setup Concentration Camps - that is the price of border control.

Chris Chuba

Fred, I agree that the Northern win in the Civil war was an example of an equivalent big victory. I thought a little bit more about why we in the U.S. are so viscerally anti-Russian after 'winning' the Cold War but have patched things up with the Germans and Japanese after WW2. In the latter case, we achieved total victory and we in the U.S. were able to totally reconstruct Germany/Japan's economy, military, and foreign policy. In the case of Russia, they kept their nuclear arsenal and independence.

The reason I mention this is that this is kind of an aha moment for me because I was always baffled by how consistent the Heritage Foundation (and many other Generals and think tanks) while ticking off the litany of Russia's sins will talk about how they failed at reforming their economy and political system. I always thought to myself, why should we care about that? We don't obsess over the inner workings of country's like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or even China so why dwell on this in regard to Russia. I think it has to do with our own dissatisfaction that we didn't really win the Cold War unless they were relegated to a Germany / Japan status.

This is all pie in the sky stuff here, I could be wrong. It's just a pattern that I see in the writings of the neocon / hawks that I see lined on real clear politics and many other places. I'm an engineer, I don't enjoy speculations but I do entertain them.


You either have effective border control, or your government's immigration policy is controlled by thugs and con artists. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ae480298-eaac-11e4-96ec-00144feab7de.html#axzz3xZ17m31U

"Between 2008 and 2013 [...] effective control of [Australian] borders broke down. In that period some 800 boats arrived illegally in Australia carrying 50,000 illegal entrants. Up to 1,400 people died at sea. That state of affairs was reversed last year when the government reimposed sovereign control of our borders. The result is that boats rarely try to come to Australia illegally now, and no one trying to enter illegally has died at sea.[...]Deaths at sea in the Mediterranean is the result of years of border control failure"


Good day for you, may be. I found the word "gimmedats" distasteful. I have the highest regards for Col Lang, so it's not pleasant to read that from the Col :)


"David Habakkuk: Again, the pattern whereby 'silly lefties' ended as 'silly righties' has been common enough."

I thought I had responded. Had I not somehow dropped my response again, it would have been the same in a nutshell. Maybe including an allusion to a British poet friend once upon time in London. He described it as a circle movement, closing the usual image of a pole into a circle.

But "silly leftist", satisfies the necessities of Occam's razor, it also fits perfectly into my basic experience/perception/prejudice that these people were opportunists always, to start with. ...

You should reflect on this again: " if ... hid that fact from Father Hitchens and from Christopher Hitchens himself, and Christopher Hitchens was brought up from infancy as a core member of High Anglo-Saxonia, then all his brainware would be formatted, programmed, etc. as Anglo-Saxon, and that is functionally what he would have been and what all his decisions would have stemmed from. "

maybe starting with a definition of "core member of High Anglo-Saxiona"?



Alas, I am unmasked as an older version of Tyler. pl


David, time and context of the earlier comment, you may want to link to?

Seems I have a more general problem after updating. Now I have to figure out why, from the top of my head, updates may be an inefficient solution to keeping relatively safe. ;)

Babak Makkinejad

And I suppose at some point you will have to machine-gun women and children as in order to have effective border control.

Just as long as we are clear what one has to be prepared to do.


No sir, you're not. I've been reading your blog since inception :)


Babak, whatever may be the reason for your chronology, it surely isn't alphabetically:

"US-UK-France-Italy War against Libya and attribute to them, implicitly, an independent origin than those that initiated the wars in those tow countries."

What do I miss if I think you are wrong by heading it with the US?

Babak Makkinejad

"What do I miss if I think you are wrong by heading it with the US?" - hmm...

Is this some kind of joke?

We know that EU would not go to toilet without US approval; whom are you trying to kid here?

US is the Monarch/Primus and EU countries are akin to Dukes/Partes.

Some, among EU countries, are not even Dukes - Greece and Slovenia may best be understood as a serfdom and the other has a small county.

If US exits NATO, EU leaders would be in Washington DC absolutely begging US to please please come-back.


Oh please, don't give me that women and children bs - three quarters of the migrant wave that's overwhelming Europe as everyone talks, consists of young single men, able to pay thousands of dollars to human traffickers. The migration is mostly economic, and will not stop even if peace and tranquility will miraculously descend tomorrow on Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Once again - the humane thing is controlling the borders, and helping real refugees closer to their home - otherwise in a few decades there will be no places to run to, and nobody to help people in real desperate need.

David Habakkuk

LeaNder, dc:

All this gets very complex, and I find it difficult to pin things down. However, particularly as Germany becomes involved, some 'meanderings' may be in order:

1. A 'core member of Anglo-Saxonia' is as much myth-image as fact. My own surname betokens origins in the wilder shores of Welsh nonconformist religion, but my Welsh-speaking grandparents, very deliberately, brought their children up to speak only English, and in the year my grandfather was commissioned into the Royal Navy, he gave my father the name of an Anglo-Saxon king.

2. As to Hitchens, his father was a career Royal Navy officer, and met his Jewish mother when she was a 'Wren' – a member of the Woman's Royal Naval Service – during the war. She is quoted as having said 'if there is going to be an upper class in this country, then Christopher is going to be in it'. The 'aspirational' pattern – wanting to be part of an élite – is very strong among many Jews, as also many non-Jews. It often leads them to have a rather romanticised view of belonging to an 'upper class' means.

3. There are very few general Jewish characteristics, in my view. Before the Holocaust, European Jews had practically zilch in common. The younger brother of a friend of mine wrote a play about their father, Peter Ganz, who made it over here by a lucky fluke after spending six weeks in Buchenwald after Kristallnacht.

In a scene in the play – clearly taken from his father's recollections – Adam Ganz has the character based on his father vividly describing to his English girlfriend (clearly based on the Englishwoman he married) the different kinds of Jews who had arrived there, and remarking that they had nothing in common.

Implicit in this, clearly, is the conclusion that Hitler's anti-Semitism was the product of an absurd myth-making – but if Hitler was wrong, then can Herzl not also have been?

4. In the decades after the war, Peter Ganz told everyone – including his children – that he had spent the war in the Pioneer Corps, digging. Only after his death did I learn that he had been one of the 'secret listeners' at Trent Park, where captured senior German officers enjoyed a deliberately contrived 'upper class' existence and were bugged by the British with positive Soviet thoroughness – also that Peter's own father had distinguished himself in the Imperial German Army in the First World War.

Some years ago a German historian called Sönke Neitzel discovered the transcripts of these buggings, and the related American operation at Fort Hunt, which focused much more on ordinary soldiers, and published a book translated into English as 'Soldaten: On Fighting, Killing and Dying.'

It should, I think, be required reading for a lot of people. Perhaps if Victoria Nuland, and also CJCS Dunford had spent time reading it they might dimly be able to make some sense of the tinderbox into which we have been throwing matches in Ukraine.

Given that he had spent formative years listening to German officers describe the mass murder of Jews, as well as Slavs, one might have assumed that Peter Ganz would have been anti-German. In fact however, when nearing retirement age, he gave up an Oxford professorship to go back to work in Germany.

4. This may have some bearing on the 'myth of exile and return' which is central to Zionism. As a convert to Lutheranism who ended up murdered at Auschwitz, Peter Ganz's grandfather, Felix Ganz, is a classic exemplar of the tragedy of the 'yekke' – to use a derogatory Israeli term for German Jews.

And, if one looks at the denunciation of the 'yekke romanticism' of Avraham Burg by Ari Shavit, it is clear that at its heart is the contention that the fate of Felix Ganz was somehow inevitable, and an ever-present possibility of the 'goyim' decide once again to indulge their deep-seated ingrained propensity to annihilate Jews.

5. As Philip Weiss has brought out, however, Shavit is actually a rather confused gentleman. So on his visit to the United States back in 20913, he explained to David Remnick and Jeffrey Goldberg that Jews are 'endangered', both in Israel and the United States.

(See http://www.palestineremembered.com/Articles/General/Story8238.html .)

It appeared unclear as to how his concern was with the prospect that the male 'goyim' might rediscover their inner Nazi and rush Remnick and Goldberg off to a concentration camp, and how far with the danger that the female 'goyim' may carry their sons off to the registry office – so that their grandchildren aren't Jewish.

To conflate the two dangers is, quite clearly, profoundly morally frivolous. And people with more 'horse sense' than Shavit, Remnick and Goldberg can perhaps see a very serious potential danger.

If someone who is ethnically Jewish – wherever he or she comes from, and whatever his or her culture – wants to throw in his or her lot with people here, I am all too happy.

From such Jews, over many years, we have had very much good counsel, as well as some bad. And if such people find the tension between an identification with Israel which is hard to shed, and an awareness of what that country has become, excrutiatingly painful – and many do – that is a situation through which I want to help them.

If however the 'subtext' of what a Jew is saying to me is – I think you want to kill me, and I don't want my son to marry your daughter, and in any case I am going to whine at you about the Holocaust in the hope of manipulating guilt feelings – then he or she will get a very different response.

To be blunt, my response to such people is: OK, you can live here, but only as 'resident aliens': do not try to inveigle us into supporting the state to which your primary allegiance clearly lies. There is an old East End phrase, probably of Jewish origin, like so many good jokes: 'get my kids out of the orphanage'. It encapsulates, pithily, the disgust one feels when people whine at you.

6. A further central problem with the 'myth of exile and return' is that it requires that a 'return' should be possible, and the security problems of a Jewish settler state in the Middle East be manageable in the long term. In fact, however, all the options available for Israel have always been problematic.

Here, however, both Trotskyism and also American traditions represent, as it were, demonic temptations for Jews. And an Anglo-Welsh background, part Calvinist, part imperialist, may be of some help in understanding what is at issue.

To marginalise 'indigenous' populations regarded as inferior was something which Anglo-Saxons did effectively – partly deliberately, partly inadvertently – on the North American continent and in Australasia.

It was what Hitler tried – with catastrophic results – to do with the Slavs, also considered inferior. In trying to ape the British empire, he failed to grasp the unwisdom of trying to treat 'Indians' in India in the same way as one might treat 'Red Indians' in the 'New World'.

Associated with this view of inferior peoples in Puritan strands of Anglo-Saxon culture is both a messianic conception of American destiny, involving the remodelling of the world on the basis of American 'individualist' values, and a deeply-rooted Manicheanism, in which opponents of such projects are treated as demonic.

5. As an intellectual 'toolkit' for maximising what prospects their were for the long-term survival of a Jewish settler state in the Middle East, this was a disaster.

6. I will come back to this, on this or other threads. And there is much more to be said about Hitchens.

A good starting point, however, are some comments quoted in his Wikipedia entry from one 'Theodore Dalrymple'. An extended quote seems appropriate:

'In 2010, Theodore Dalrymple wrote, "Christopher made an early commitment to Trotskyism, but it is difficult to take him very seriously as a revolutionary because he always has been too much of a hedonist. Indeed, he appears to me to have had roughly the same relationship to proletarians as Marie Antoinette had to sheep: They have walk-on parts in his personal drama. There is not much evidence of his having thought deeply, or even at all, about the fate, under a social system he vociferously advocated, of the pleasures he so clearly values, the liking for which I don't in the least blame him; nor is there evidence of any real reflection on what the world would have been like had his demands been met. Not permanent revolution but permanent adolescence has been his goal, and I think he has achieved it."'

(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens .)

If one wanted an illustration of the extraordinary complexity of the relationships between the native inhabitants of these islands and Jewish immigrants, look no further than 'Theodore Dalrymple.

7. His Wikipedia entry makes plain that his actual name is Anthony Daniels, and tells us that:

'His father was a Communist businessman of Russian ancestry, while his Jewish mother was born in Germany and came to England as a refugee from the Nazi regime.'

(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Dalrymple .)

But then, 'Dalrymple' is the name of a Scottish clan, while 'Theodore', although sometimes used by natives here, is a Greek Christian name.

As it happens, what Daniels/Dalrymple has had to say over the years has appeared to me enormously valuable. My reservation, and it is a major one, is that he is published by the 'Spectator' crowd, and approved of by the likes of David Brooks.

7. But, at this point – if not before – the relationships between indigenous inhabitants of these islands, Jewish immigrants, and Germans – be they immigrant, Jewish, or neither – get inordinately difficult to explain. Sometimes, talking to Americans, I feel sympathy with what Afghan tribesmen doubtless feel, trying to explain how their country 'works' – or doesn't.

8. One more comment, to add into the mayhem. If one looks back at twentieth-century British history, some of the most important 'Germanophobes' were actually largely German. So Sir Edward Crowe, author of the critical 1907 memorandum warning of the threat from Imperial Germany, had both a German father and a German wife.

While Lindemann, Churchill's scientific advisor who was a central advocate of 'strategic bombing', had his roots in the German and Russian aristocracy.

9. If you ask me if the world would have been a better place, if Churchill had not listened to Lindemann, I do not know. As it happens, one of my father's lifelong friends – another Welsh grammar school boy – was one of Lindemann's 'bright young men'. At at my father's funeral, I heared him defend the strategic bombing of Germany.

10. One thing I cannot stand, be it from Jews or anyone else, is when the world is divided into 'good guys' and 'bad guys'. This is 'Mayflower talk'.

David Habakkuk

Babak Makkinejad,

I have tried to explain, and you still do not 'get it'. The world is changing, very rapidly, and it is very difficult to get a 'handle' on what is happening.

Let me try once again.

A key figure in this is Enoch Powell. For all kinds of reasons, he is a figure about whom I have very complex feelings.

This is not simply a 'British' matter. So, for instance, 'Tyler' is an American 'Powellite'.

I am a prudent, cautious man – an old Anglican at heart. I try to compromise matters – and sometimes try to compromise the uncompromisable.

Precisely because of that fact, it seems to me that 'liberals' who want to treat the concerns expressed by 'Tyler' and people like him in this country are absolute morons. They are asking for a 'backlash', and if they go on as they are going on now, may get it in spades.

If they had any 'horse sense' – which in general they don't – they would realise that 'Tyler' and his equivalents over here could be very dangerous to them.

At this time of all times, to renew the 'Civil War' in the United States, and attempt to enforce the values of Lincoln upon those who were impelled by the events of leading up to the Civil War to resist them to the death, seems to me simply stupid.

Ironically, my own background – which is mixed – is more 'northern' than 'southern', and I am certainly not proposing to see the Confederates as being simply injured innocents. But to see them as demons, willfully blind to the virtues of Puritan 'progress', is clearly self-destructively silly.

You must also realise that Enoch Powell absolutely hated the United States – in particular, because he hated its influence on us. (But then, one of his faults was that he was too good at hating.)

In one respect, I long since came to agree with Powell – that conventional American wisdoms about the Soviet Union were complete crap, with which anyone with a combination of serious combination of competence in technical military intelligence analysis and intellectual honesty could not conceivably agree.

In another, I completely disagreed with him. I thought he was attempting to defend a vision of British 'autonomy' which was unsustainable in the modern world; and also, that, whatever its faults, the post-war 'Pax Americana' in Western Europe and much of the Far East was an immensely benign order.

However, the world changes.

If indeed some months hence, Sergei Shoigu can report to Putin something along the lines of: 'Islamic State' totally defeated in Syria, casualties one Su-24 downed and a pilot killed', then the fat is in the fire. If, on top of this, China then announces a 'Marshall Plan' for Syria', as has been suggested, then you can forget about the 'Pax Americana'.

The prestige of 'democracy' has waxed and waned over the years. In 1931, it was at a low. In 1989, it was at a high. At the moment, it seems to me to be waning quite dramatically.

As to Britain, a critical question is whether the gulf between the 'neocon consensus' in British political élites and those they purport to represent can still be 'papered over'. But you keep on, despite my best efforts to correct you, insisting that British policy in recent years represents some kind of 'will of the people.'

All I can say is that I hope that Iranian intelligence agencies are a bit more sophisticated.

Babak Makkinejad

Thank you for your comments.

I am asking, yet again, what moral responsibility do the electorate bear in any country that has representative system of government regarding the outcomes.

And you keep on refusing to answer it.

Let us agree that I do not "get it" and leave it at that.

I will state that the electorate in UK, who sent men such as Blair and Cameron into office, and watched with equanimity over the wars in Kosovo, Iraq, and Libya cannot avoid bearing responsibility (legal & moral) for their choices.

You seem to be stating that they are indeed innocent.


David Habakkuk

IMO the WBS analogy is apt even if inexact. The "enlightened" elites here are driving the people in flyover American into a deeply emotional secession. the level of contempt expressed in the MSM for the "unenlightened" is appalling. As you correctly understand the MSM/elitist scorn of the Confederates is deeply offensive to the great-grandchildren of the scorned. Nothing good can come of this. pl

Babak Makkinejad

In regards to Encoh Powell; if 100,000 Germans decided to move to Tehran and live there just as they would in Germany, without a doubt there would an inevitable clash of cultures.

Likewise, if 100,000 Zulus decided to move to Tabriz, one should be ready for inevitable problems.

Neither is a problem that Representative Government can address.

Such problems do disappear under an Imperial Rule - which enables people to migrate within the Imperial Domain.

The non-Europeans moving to Europe, are a problem of Imperial Boundary - as well as Civilizational Boundary. Powell was not saying anything that Tolkein or Kipling would have disagreed with.

I get that much of his ideas - after all, I am the one who formulated the "Makkinejad Thesis".

different clue


I don't know enough English political history or ethnic history or cultural history to be able to define it. From the tiniest bit of history I DO know, I would think a few books to read to get a feel for it would be to start with every single book George Orwell ever wrote, including the four volumes of his Collected Essays, Letters and Reviews. I would also re-read an interesting book I once read 15 or so years ago called Springtime In Britain by Edwin Way Teale, an American nature-writer. Every chapter is about moving very slowly north in Britain ( including a lot of chapters about England specifically) from nature-site to nature-site to nature-site. But each chapter ALSO featured writing about that nature-site by a British (often specifically English) author from anywhere up to a couple of centuries previous. And I would then read everything ever written by every one of those authors. It would be a long hard slog requiring many years. And then maybe I would have something useful to say beyond " I think I feel it when I think I sense it".

different clue

David Habakkuk,

Well! There is a lot here to think about. All I can think of to say just now is . . . this is all very complex and Britain and England both are very different countries than the United States is.


So the million Poles that move to London are not a problem?

Babak Makkinejad

They would not be as much as 1 million Londoners would be in Tehran.

Babak Makkinejad

Your wrote:

"...the tinderbox into which we have been throwing matches in Ukraine."

I have heard the same "we" from others who live in a Representative System.

Does this not quite explicitly assume responsibility for by the electorate of the actions of their duly elected and legally seated parliaments and governments?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

My Photo

June 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Blog powered by Typepad