There’s a truly strange and bizarre character running around the fringes of the extreme right, who writes under the name of “Taki.” He’s, shall we say, “old school” when it comes to, um, “the Jews.” Here’s an example from a rambling and disjointed column I stumbled across in web browsing:
What I find incredible is that there are still people around who wonder why the Middle East is up in flames. Andrew Alexander explained it very well last Friday. 90 years ago Britain initiated a policy of providing a Jewish homeland in Palestine â?? on predominantly Arab lands. Then Israel was created on land that supposedly belonged half to the Arabs and half to the Jews. But not for the first time, the Jews took a bigger slice.
It would be one thing if he had written “the Israelis,” but instead he (no doubt — and I mean that quite seriously) chose the term “the Jews,” a choice all the more obvious because of the phrase “But not for the first time,” thus invoking the canard of Jews as inherently greedy and unscrupulous. I can only imagine the contortions of his apologists in justifying such crude and hateful collectivism.
How truly disgusting.
Tom, I am told that there are clubs in Palm Beach where everyone speaks like this. And we are not speaking KKK here. N.
Doesn’t Palm Beach have a high Jewish population? http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/28139/edition_id/536/format/html/displaystory.html
Would that make antisemitism more likely or less likely?
But whether people in Palm Beach think or speak like Taki or not, Tom’s right. That’s disgusting.
I have no idea if that makes it more or less likely, but some clubs actually did have a policy of refusing memberships to people of Jewish confession. NV
Anti-semitism exists regardless of the presence of Jews, as can be readily seen in many parts of Europe today. I suspect the same is true for other forms of irrational hatred.
As a governmental entity, Israel’s policies are not above debate. However, denying Israel’s right to exist, or subjecting it to bizarre standards not demanded of other nations, are usually manifestations of anti-semitism. The other theme lurking here is, of course, the world would be a better place and all the problems would be solved if only the world were rid of the Jewish country.
Not surprisingly, Taki’s narrative is factually wrong. There was never a plan to partition Britain’s “Palestine Mandate” in equal halves. The first “half,” was the Kingdom of Trans-Jordan. The remainder was to be partitioned again along more-or-less the population’s distribution. And even that was not exactly a reflection of pure happenstance. The Arabs regularly committed pogroms in the 20s and 30s. Hebron, for example, became Arab because they killed all the Jews there. (Which isn’t to say that many, if not most Israelis don’t consider the Jews reclaiming Hebron a little bit nuts.)
The borders of the original “Palestine Mandate” were themselves totally arbitrary and meaningless, just the way the Europeans divvied up the Ottoman Empire.
As for Israel being “arab lands,” that’s false as well. Israel was the Jewish national homeland until 70 A.D., and some Jews had always remained there. The Arabs who live in the area now, much like Jews who returned, were also largely 19th and 20th century immigrants to what were largely empty “Turkish lands.” Whatever the Jews “took” in 1948 that wasn’t in the (second) partition was the result of defending against an Arab war of extermination.
Another lurking theme here is “land for peace.” If only those greedy Jews would give up their “excess” land, there would be peaceful coexistence. Israel signed onto that with Oslo, and practiced it in withdrawing from the Lebanese security buffer, from Gaza, and from Sinai. How did it work out?
Whatever can be said for “land for peace,” it cannot be said that “the Jews” haven’t tried it.
Perusing that ridiculous site, it appears Taki is a co-founder of Pat Buchanan’s magazine. Why is that not a surprise.
Alan, this addendum was missing, I guess :
http://www.takistopdrawer.us/2006/april/article_2006-April-14.html
NV
I couldn’t tell if it were some anti-Semite or from the Iranian leadership which still supports the likes of Hamas:
http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-24/0707089795000303.htm
Oh no…I recognize that site. I was just there the other day, reading something by Paul Gottfried. Ugh…why do respectable thinkers align themselves so closely with lunatics?
Maybe he’s just upset because the Jews killed his mouse:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrieBhaGgHM&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fmoishe%2Doofnik%2Eblogspot%2Ecom%2F2007%2F07%2Fno%2Dmouse%2Dtrap%2Dlarge%2Denough%2Dfor%2Dthis%2Ehtml
“Taki Takealotofcokeupthenos”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taki_Theodoracopulos
Are the terms “men” or “women” collectivist? For the sake of political correctness, let’s stop using them. That way, and only that way, will the Jews, the Americans, the Communists, the Libertarians, disappear as groups from the face of Earth.
Mr. Carlenga is either not a careful reader or not very smart. Or both. “Taki” is a sick collectivist, not because he writes of “Jews” as a group. Of course there is a group of people known as “Jews,” just as there are “Hindus,” “Moslems,” and others. He is revealed to be an anti-Semite by his sickening attribution of thieving greediness to Jews as a group: “But not for the first time, the Jews took a bigger slice.” Please, Mr. Carlenga — either learn to read (and think) or still your busy digits.
Dr. Palmer – an infelicitous turn of phrase, to be sure. However, to malign a man as an anti-semite, a serious charge in our culture, for a turn of phrase that probably isn’t uncommon in many circles, esp. when the man seems to maintain quite a few Jewish associates, seems quite unfair. I believe you are reading too much into things here.
“An infelicitous turn of phrase”? What is it supposed to mean? How could one have phrased the meaning beghind “But not for the first time, the Jews took a bigger slice” in a felicitous manner? According to “Taki,” “the Jews” as a group have taken bigger slices. The occasion in question was “not the first time.” That is not infelicitous. It’s crystal clear. He considers “the Jews” to be cheats and robbers. How am I “maligning” the author of those words by pointing out that he has maligned Jews? That is really a strange and unconvincing defense.
Dr. Palmer – In 2004, you stated that Donald Rumsfeld was not a war criminal, as such a term has a technical meaning. However, Rumsfeld is, in fact, under international law (whether customary or more contemporary) a war criminal. Does that make you an advocate for the slaughter of Iraqis? I certainly wouldn’t be bothered with this issue if I thought you to be such. I think you made an error of fact – something most people do on occasion. Having said that, I do not see how Taki’s statement is anti-Semitic. He certainly didn’t advocate any actions to be taken against Jews, by all accounts he has Jewish friends and associates. However, I find it problematic that those who advocate an unconstitutional, illegal and (frankly) immoral war can be given the benefit of the doubt, at least insofar as it revolves around technical meaning; whereas a man who has committed a fair amount of his personal resources to oppose a war that has left nearly 1 out of every 5 Iraqis (2003) dead, dismembered or displaced can not be extended a similar charity. (Note that I do not endorse many of Taki’s views, nor those of the paleos in general, esp. as they refer to immigration or sexuality. Having said that, I am pretty well convinced that war is a slightly bigger issue than marriage licenses – which, I would hope you would agree – oughtn’t be a state concern to begin with.)
Does saying somebody took a bigger slice makes somebody a hater of a group and a collectivist? (two separate claims, by the way, Mr. Palmer)
Of course not. Michael Jordan and welfare recipients of certain cultures or ethnic groups (this very independently of the fact that perhaps the cause lies in some historical abuse of that certain group, not on race/evolution or culture themselves) take a bigger slice of income and of taxes respectively makes me an Anti-Jordan or an Anti-Albanian? Of a self hating Latino if I critique my own group for taking them handouts?
I don’t know if oversensitivity is the best way to read provockers like Taki and others. It sure is a good way to seem overtly dramatic, though.
1. I only vaguely remember whatever conversation Scott Garner is referring to, but my recollection was about a legal defintion, like the definition of a felony or a misdemeanor. The Iraq war was and is a gigantic mistake, an act of folly, a disaster, a slaughter, but it was not “illegal” by the standards of international law. (Many insisted that only the UN could sanction an invasion, but the UN did not sanction the attack on Yugoslavia or Gulf War I.) It had nothing to do with whether I favored or opposed the decision to go to war, nor with whether it was justified or not, moral or not, etc. I don’t see any connection to Taki’s despicable remarks.
An antisemite is not only someone who actually violates the rights of Jews, just as a racist is not only someone who violates the rights of the members of this or that “race.” That’s an absurd over specification of the term. Someone who says “The Jews” are greedy is an antisemite. Duh. What’s to explain here? If someone says “The blacks are shiftless and lazy mud people” or “The whites are descended from ice people and have no souls” or “The asians are incapable of thinking for themselves,” we call that person “a racist.” Among racists are those who favor violating the rights of others. But it is not a defining characteristic of racism or of antisemitism that one be shown at the same time to favor denying the rights of others. (Of course, such group assertions — whether of “races,” “classes,” “nations” — are a necessary, if not sufficient, condition for wholesale rights violations directed against such groups of the sort for which history has provided us so many ugly examples.)
Mr. Garner has made the mistake of believing that only rights-violations are of moral concern. (Or perhaps even of any concern at all.) Not so. Mocking the handicapped is not a rights violation, but it is still a loathesome thing to do. And saying that “The Jews” as a group are greedy (not that this or that particular Jew is greedy, which may or may not be true, in the same way that this or that Hindu might be greedy) is an indicator of antisemitism, regardless of whether Taki is friendly with any Jews (that’s the oldest ruse, anyway; some of my best friends are blacks!) or wants to violate their rights. And when someone gives vent to crude and disgusting antisemitism or racism, why not call them on it?
2. Mr. Carlenga gives up the whole case in his first line: “Does saying somebody took a bigger slice….” Some*body* was not alleged to have taken a bigger slice by “Taki.” Rather, an entire group was alleged to be habitual takers of bigger slices; “But not for the first time, the Jews took a bigger slice.” The slander is asserted of the entire group of Jews; hence “the Jews.” Not Bob or Melinda, who are Jews, but everyone who is a Jew. Jews are asserted to have a collective moral characteristic and to have collective responsibility for that characteristic, viz. greediness and theft. That is collectivism and collectivism directed *against* Jews is traditionally known as antisemitism.
In the post (way at the top of this page), I wrote: “I can only imagine the contortions of his apologists in justifying such crude and hateful collectivism.” Now we’ve seen some of those contortions.
the willful historical ignorance here plays a role as well.
in 1948, upon the partition, israel was attacked by all of its arab neighbors, who were attempting genocide. israel accepted the partition, the arabs did not. the arabs didn’t recognize israel’s right to exist and were quite explicit about their intent to kill all the jews.
the 1948 “borders” were just where the armies stood when the shooting stopped. How greedy of those jews, to try to fend off genocide.
of course jews aren’t the only target of taki’s hate. there’s this, from a 1997 spectator piece: “There has never been â?? nor will there ever be â?? a single positive contribution by a Puerto Rican outside of receiving American welfare and beating the system. Why in hell should the taxpayer carry the load for a bunch of semi-savages to march down Fifth Avenue?”
There are these occasional right wing types who revel in being outrageously anti-PC by being crass and hateful. it isn’t really very funny or clever, just sad. taki’s defenders should be honest with themselves — it is what it is, and they enjoy it. they should save their mental exertions to examine their own prejudices.
Quite clearly Taki meant that the Jews took a bigger slice OF PALESTINE. So your phony argument about how he’s referring to some supposed greediness inherent in all Jews at all times is obviously false.
and camilla proves that da nile ain’t just a river in egypt….
If the establishment of Israel in 1948 wasn’t “the first time” that “the Jews” took more than that to which they were entitled — when was the previous time?
Camilla says it’s a reference to previous partitions of “Palestine.”
But she couldn’t be referring to the previous time that British “Palestine” was partitioned — the only people who took a slice the first time around were the Hashemite monarchy created in Jordan.
King Abdullah = not Jewish. Jordan = arab country.
Previously, “Palestine” existed only as a place name for a region of the Roman Empire consisting of the previous Kingdoms of Israel and Judea, which were the last slice of land that “the Jews” had possession of anywhere. That slice of land was considerably bigger than present-day Israel.
What Jewish country existed in the region between the Roman conquest in 70 and 1948?
It’s also worth noting that not all of “the Jews” were involved in the creation of Israel. But the biggest giveaway is that little phrase “not for the first time.” What other time(s) would he have had in mind?
According to Mr. Gura, the Israeli state existed well before anybody else had a claim to the land of Palestine. No doubt Taki is referring to this bloody history.
Go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah
for the history of the area we are discussing, which shows that the Israelis were aggressively “cleansing” the areas now called “Israel” long before the Palestinians of the present day were victimized by the Israeli government.
Mr. Palmer’s eagerness to hunt down “bigotry” in this case is suspect, and, looking through his blogs, it is apparent that his witch-hunting instincts are something he has difficulty controlling. Stop assuming people are “bigots” until you have solid incontrovertible evidence, not anything as slight as this.
Anyone who has a problem with Jews having lived in Israel three thousand years ago is quite clearly an anti-semite. Do you get this bent out of shape about what people of other ethnicities did three thousand years ago?
Should “the Jews” all move back to Babylonia? Egypt? The city of Ur? OH, it really riles up the anti-semites that Jews have their country once again — for good.
And again, the collective blame. Since Jews in ancient times were supposedly vicious and greedy, Jews today “not for the first time” are vicious and greedy.
It’s OK, Camilla. Anti-semitism is quite fashionable in certain quarters these days. You are what you are.
An ad hominem argument — not very effective.
And I am not the one bent out of shape: I am not saying I agree with what Mr. Taki says. I am saying that Taki, in his comments cited by Tom Palmer, was referring to the actions of Jewish kings and tribal leaders IN PALESTINE, not in general and throughout all of history. I am glad to see you concede that.
If Taki isn’t an antisemite, then David Duke isn’t a racist. All those remarks about blacks and Jews are just a little fun, right? Anyway, the Jews really ought to be held to account for all the bad things done by Jewish kings many centuries ago, right? What’s so collectivistic about that? There they go again, taking a bigger slice!
By camilla’s idiotic criteria, essentially every ethnic group could be accused of “taking a bigger slice”, since they all stem from people who at some time in the past invaded someplace; the Germans took over the Roman Empire, the Arabs took over the mediterranean, the Vikings took over much of Europe, the Aztecs took over much of Mexico, the Chinese took over…you get the idea. But somehow it’s the Jews who get singled out. Antisemitism? No way!
Just got sent this by a friend. This Taki guy sounds like a real character. The kind I would not want to meet. I read some of his columns. ‘Hey, look at me! Look at me! I can say a bad word, snort coke, insult Puerto Ricans and Jews! Pay attention to me!’ What a joke!
What a funny response. There was no Israel 90 years ago. So there were no Israelis. In this case the word Jews is perfectly appropriate.
I’ve heard that Jews call themselves Jews. Are they self-hating or something?
Looks like Fisk fisked Tom. And so succinctly …
Strange, Camilla, that Justin you would not have told you that the word for which you were searching is “refuted,” but no, I do not consider that a “refutation.” It’s not even a rebuttal. Here’s the whole paragraph:
“What I find incredible is that there are still people around who wonder why the Middle East is up in flames. Andrew Alexander explained it very well last Friday. 90 years ago Britain initiated a policy of providing a Jewish homeland in Palestine â?? on predominantly Arab lands. Then Israel was created on land that supposedly belonged half to the Arabs and half to the Jews. But not for the first time, the Jews took a bigger slice. After beating back the Arabs in four wars, Israel now controls the West Bank, the Holy Sites and the Gaza Strip. We Greeks lost Constantinople in 1453, and as late as 1922 were still trying to get our lands back. (We failed miserably but got Onassis and many other good Greeks to move to the mainland). So I ask you, dear readers: Why are people surprised and bored by the fact that only ninety years on Arabs are still smarting over the seizure of their lands? I know I am stating my facts rather plainly, but plain facts are real facts, not propagandistic bull.”
If he were to have wanted to focus his attention on land issues in the region, he could have used the term “Zionists,” but… he didn’t. He used “the Jews” and resorted to an ancient trope: the Jews will cheat you every chance they can. He’s clearly a sad little fellow who craves attention by writing what passes for “provocative” prose in some circles. Note that the assertion is that it was when Israel was created that “not for the first time, “the Jews” cheated others. There’s no indication that any “taking bigger slices” was going on “90 years ago,” when “Britain initiated a policy of providing a Jewish homeland in Palestine.” It is you, Camilla, who have been “fisked,” i.e., refuted, for a look at the text shows that “Taki” was asserting that “the Jews” cheated (not merely “the Zionists”). The trope is an old one and the source of much ugliness and even murder.
Good day to you.
go fuck yourself palmer
Touché!
I thought the reference to jews taking a bigger slice for not the first time was in relation to Nazi Germanyn where the jews had infleunce far in excess of their numbers before Hitler put an end to their greedy controlling antics? I’m not saying what Hitler did was right, but clearly the jews were a problem and needed dealing with. Hitler just went overboard.
Well, there you have it! Who could ever consider such remarks anti-Semitic? Taki, you have found your soul mate in “Chris.”
To respond to Alan Gura. Palestine was never at any time the sole or exclusive “homeland” of the Jewish people. The Jews only constituted a minority of the population of Palestine even in ancient times. The claim that the Arabs only wandered into Palestine to take advantage of the “prosperity” the Jews were supposedly creating is the Joan Peters “From Time Immemorial” myth. This work of pseudo-scholarship and distorted documentation has been refuted by many reputabls scholars, such as Justin McCarthy and Norman Finkelstein. Yet Zionist Jews still treat it as their Bible. It is a fact that the Arabs had been farming Palestine for centuries before the Zionists arrived. Cotton was one of the principal Palestinian export crops during the preceding 18th century. Huge Arab wheat fields and fisheries existed on the coastal plains. Orange groves in Jaffa, olive oil and Nablus soaps were all established by the Arabs before the Zionists came and “made the desert bloom”.
The Arabs of Palestine under the Ottoman Turks were hardly a “mation” in the modern sense of the term. But they were the centuries old residents of the land with a deep attatchment to the soil where their ancestors had lived. They were not, as Zionist propaganda pretends, Bedouin wandering in and out. The Jews have no claim to Palestine because ancient Jews once lived there. By that logic, Mussolini and the Italians were entitled to the Mediterranean because of the Roman Empire. The Jews coming into Palestine were mainly the descendants of the Khazars, a Turkic-Mongolian tribe which converted to Judaism en masse in the 8th and 9th centuries A.D. Although the Zionists label their Khazar descent a “myth”, there is, in fact, an ever increasing body of research to support it. Anyone interested may consult the work of Kevin Brooke and Paul Wexler.
The Jews have no claim on Palestine because of the declaration of Lord Balfour based on the purported “contract with Jewry” of David Lloyd George. The pretensions of Sir Henry McMahon about his alleged “mental reservation” excluding Palestine from the territory pledged to the Arabs after the First World War are equally irrelevant.The Jews arrogantly granted themselves title to someone else’s land after World War One and have been dispossessing the Arabs of Palestine ever since. Patrick Buchanan’s book is directly relevant to this process. Buchanan argues that the U.S. is stepping into the shoes of the old British Empire and repeating the same mistakes the British made. The Middle East, and the Palestinian problem in particular, illustrate this point precisely. The U.S., by taking over for the British as the guarantor of Zionism is destroying its prestige among the Islamic countries, the same way that the British destroyed their prestige. Buchanan treads lightly on this point for fear of the accusation of anti-semitism. Nevertheless, the Jews bulldozing the Arabs into the rubble of their former homes are the same Jews as those who communized Russia in 1917. Indeed, for those who read Professor Michael Cohen’s book on “Churchill and the Jews”, there exist remarkable passages where Churchill, as Colonial Secretary denounces the riots of 1921 as inspired by communist Jews from Russia and urges action to deport these radical elements out of Palestine. Churchill in this same time period was writing a history of the First World War entitled “The World Crisis” in which, in the final volume entitled “The Aftermath”, he reccomended recruiting defeated Germany as an ally in a joint European crusade against the bolsheviks. In Churchill’s own words: “Nothing can be achieved in Europe without Germany; everything may be achieved with Germany”. By such methods, wrote Churchill “Germany will pass from a cruel fight against us into partnership with us”.
That is a sampling of the revisionist history barely touched on in Patrick Buchanan’s otherwise excellent history. “The Unnecessary War” should be used as a guide to much more explosive material hiding behind his provocative thesis. Isn’t that what good history is all about?
To respond to Alan Gura. Palestine was never at any time the sole or exclusive “homeland” of the Jewish people. The Jews only constituted a minority of the population of Palestine even in ancient times. The claim that the Arabs only wandered into Palestine to take advantage of the “prosperity” the Jews were supposedly creating is the Joan Peters “From Time Immemorial” myth. This work of pseudo-scholarship and distorted documentation has been refuted by many reputabls scholars, such as Justin McCarthy and Norman Finkelstein. Yet Zionist Jews still treat it as their Bible. It is a fact that the Arabs had been farming Palestine for centuries before the Zionists arrived. Cotton was one of the principal Palestinian export crops during the preceding 18th century. Huge Arab wheat fields and fisheries existed on the coastal plains. Orange groves in Jaffa, olive oil and Nablus soaps were all established by the Arabs before the Zionists came and “made the desert bloom”.
The Arabs of Palestine under the Ottoman Turks were hardly a “mation” in the modern sense of the term. But they were the centuries old residents of the land with a deep attatchment to the soil where their ancestors had lived. They were not, as Zionist propaganda pretends, Bedouin wandering in and out. The Jews have no claim to Palestine because ancient Jews once lived there. By that logic, Mussolini and the Italians were entitled to the Mediterranean because of the Roman Empire. The Jews coming into Palestine were mainly the descendants of the Khazars, a Turkic-Mongolian tribe which converted to Judaism en masse in the 8th and 9th centuries A.D. Although the Zionists label their Khazar descent a “myth”, there is, in fact, an ever increasing body of research to support it. Anyone interested may consult the work of Kevin Brooke and Paul Wexler.
The Jews have no claim on Palestine because of the declaration of Lord Balfour based on the purported “contract with Jewry” of David Lloyd George. The pretensions of Sir Henry McMahon about his alleged “mental reservation” excluding Palestine from the territory pledged to the Arabs after the First World War are equally irrelevant.The Jews arrogantly granted themselves title to someone else’s land after World War One and have been dispossessing the Arabs of Palestine ever since. Patrick Buchanan’s book is directly relevant to this process. Buchanan argues that the U.S. is stepping into the shoes of the old British Empire and repeating the same mistakes the British made. The Middle East, and the Palestinian problem in particular, illustrate this point precisely. The U.S., by taking over for the British as the guarantor of Zionism is destroying its prestige among the Islamic countries, the same way that the British destroyed their prestige. Buchanan treads lightly on this point for fear of the accusation of anti-semitism. Nevertheless, the Jews bulldozing the Arabs into the rubble of their former homes are the same Jews as those who communized Russia in 1917. Indeed, for those who read Professor Michael Cohen’s book on “Churchill and the Jews”, there exist remarkable passages where Churchill, as Colonial Secretary denounces the riots of 1921 as inspired by communist Jews from Russia and urges action to deport these radical elements out of Palestine. Churchill in this same time period was writing a history of the First World War entitled “The World Crisis” in which, in the final volume entitled “The Aftermath”, he reccomended recruiting defeated Germany as an ally in a joint European crusade against the bolsheviks. In Churchill’s own words: “Nothing can be achieved in Europe without Germany; everything may be achieved with Germany”. By such methods, wrote Churchill “Germany will pass from a cruel fight against us into partnership with us”.
That is a sampling of the revisionist history barely touched on in Patrick Buchanan’s otherwise excellent history. “The Unnecessary War” should be used as a guide to much more explosive material hiding behind his provocative thesis. Isn’t that what good history is all about?
Surely, to be described as a people who have the acumen to ensure getting the better half of a deal is in fact a compliment?
But then, I am Dutch.