Skip to comments.Kissinger Called Jews 'Self-Serving,' 'Bastards'
Posted on 11/19/2011 11:07:03 AM PST by Eleutheria5
Transcripts from 39 years ago show that Henry Kissinger, a Jew who later served as U.S. Secretary of State Kissinger under President Richard Nixon, held anti-Jewish views. In 1972, then-Prime Minister Golda Meir asked Nixon to protest to the Kremlin over its levying of fees for exit permits for Jews who wish to emigrate.
The Associated Press quotes Kissinger as calling Jews "self serving" and using the word "bastards" in reference to them. At the time of the events, AP explains, the White House was "defending its strategy of quiet diplomacy" and sought to assure American Jews that Nixon was very concerned about the plight of Soviet Jews but that quiet diplomacy was the best approach.
A White House official, Leonard Garment asked Kissinger for help and guidance, saying he was flooded with letters and phone calls from concerned Jews. The late Alexander Haig, Nixon's national security adviser, had forwarded Meir's letter to him as well. Kissinger was Haig's deputy at the time. The transcripts show that Kissinger said to Garment: "Is there a more self-serving group of people than the Jewish community?"
Garment, also Jewish, replied: "None in the world." Kissinger was then quoted as saying "What the hell do they think they are accomplishing?" and "You can't even tell [the] bastards anything in confidence because they'll leak it."
Kissinger said, however, that he would take up the issue with Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin and also meet again with Jewish leaders. "They ought to remember what this administration has done," he added.
(Excerpt) Read more at israelnationalnews.com ...
Kissinger is absolutely correct. After they deliberately attacked the USS Liberty, I have to agree.
Herman Cain offered this guy a cabinet position?? Talk about bad timing. lol.
One big problem when discussing this subject is equivocation: is the subject a religion, race, nationality, culture, or language? It seems that these alternate groupings are often used to avoid rational debate.
Let’s put things into context. The US rapidly resupplied Israel in the Yom Kippur War. Sending Phantom F-4 directly from the US Air Force diverted from the Vietnam War Zone. Flying M-60 tanks from Europe. TheUS resupply effort saved Israel, which was decimated by it’s early losses of tanks and strike aircraft. Without the USA’s support Israel would have been a footnote in history.
39 years ago, yawning, who cares, and who was the bastard pollard working for..
Seeing as the Palestinians and the Jews are both of the Semitic race, it can't be about race, otherwise we would be calling for the destruction of a bunch of other places.
The Jewish community attacked the USS Liberty? And here I always thought it was Israel.
It should be pointed out, however, that the discussion above dealt with the Soviet Union and its repression of Soviet Jewry. It wasn't until the Reagan administration that substantial progress was made there.
Hundred percent. That was Nixon for you. Most underrated President ever.
At the time, the JDL was doing a lot of un-quiet diplomacy against the Soviets, and that was probably Kissinger’s beef.
The term “semitic” is used to describe ethnicity, language, culture, and religion. A situation ripe for equivocation.
Good example, thanks.
Moses would probably agree with Kissinger.
This is no real revelation. Nixon and Kissenger are heard saying pretty much the same thing on the Nixon White house tapes.
I still can’t figure out why Jews hate Jews (& Israel) especially here in the U.S. Maybe someone can explain it to me in simple terms.
Kissinger? Damn kraut!
The black community did and will again vote for Obama because he’s black. Southerners voted for Jimmah because he was Southern. Even if Moses would probably agree with Kissinger, these are modern times and we’ve got some serious competition in the self-serving department. Also, for people who are so self-serving, we seem to be infested with a lot of self-destructive boobs lately (thereby also belying that other stereotype; i.e., that we’re smart).
No, they just demanded favors from a Republican President whose election the Jewish community fought against, and whose political defeat they celebrated.
Meanwhile, Nixon and Kissinger airlifted huge amounts of supplies to Israel during the Yom Kipper War, for which the Arabs retaliated with an oil embargo that damaged the US economy.
NO he didn’t. I watched the interview - he was laughing when he said that, and has clarified since that he was joking. He went on to talk about people like John Bolton as the kind of person he would want in that position.
Do you think lying about Cain helps your candidate?
Would you be happier if we would have let the Arabs wipe them out, and establish a soviet client state there?
If two Jews are trapped on dessert island, they’ll establish three synagogues, one for each to separately attend, and two for each to boycott, the second so that they’ll at least both agree on something. The “Jewish community” is not known for its monolithicity (just invented a new word). My father did actively fight against Nixon’s election, and did fight for and celebrate his political evisceration. But he never “demanded” or even asked for any favors from him. Sammy Davis Junior danced and sang at the RNC of 1972. As for myself, I was 12 years old at the time, and agreed with everything my father said, including supporting George McGovern for POTUS. Older and wiser, I am still a member of the “Jewish community,” but have voted Republican in every election since 1998, and have emigrated to Israel to get away from the consequences of my more benighted bretheren’s pick’s election.
Sorry. That was supposed to be every presidential election since 1988.
I just go by what I read on FR.
I don’t have a candidate. I like Cain more than any of the others right now.
So that FR post I read was wrong. It didn’t seem to make much sense anyway. BTW, your reaction was way too hostile and defensive.
LOL, you have no idea what emotion I felt when I was writing that post.
It is in fact, a genuine question. I am asking it of all those who have no problem misrepresenting Cain in order to boost their own candidate. There are more of them than there are those who have no candidate.
If that statement didn’t apply to you, disregard it.
The specific phrases have to be put in the complete context of what was going on to be intellectually honest.
There are SEVERAL AND VARIOUS ethnic groups that are part of the American citizenry who are very concerned with the situation within the nations of their ancestry.
Now we see the wisdom of Vattel’s commentaries on NATURAL-BORN citizen. The first-generation immigrant will very often retain a mental connection to the “old country”.
I have ancestors from foreign nations. But it’s been so many generations - I CONSIDER MYSELF AN AMERICAN. I do not, therefore, believe that America has any responsibility or right to place the interests of what’s going on in those nations higher in priority than American national interests.
So here we see the rub. An “old country” has problems, the newly minted U.S. citizens from the “old country” cry to the American government for help. ANY country that cries to America for help, and has a cause that is righteous and not nefarious, like perhaps overthrowing a tyrant, is a country that America should begin to think of in terms of helping to achieve their righteous aims (none other). After all, French assistance was essential to the founding of the U.S. That being said, it is a dangerous and risky business which might damage diplomatic relations with other nations. This help, therefore, can become quite difficult if offering it will cause serious damage to America’s reputation and own cause.
IMHO, an American President should make it clear to any and every nation that America helped in ANY way - that we expect SUPPORT FROM THEM IN RETURN. Our help is not free. We are a Judeo-Christian nation - AND A NON-COMMUNIST nation. Also, most important - we would need that nation to stand up for itself in the face of their enemies, not continually give in to them, as this throws away the good that came of our help. How angry would France have been if America had the British force at Yorktown on the ropes and then just let them go, and sent a letter of surrendor to King George, promising to pay whatever tax the British Parliament desired and not requesting anything like “representation”. France would have wasted all it’s efforts on a bunch of cowards who could not complete the deal. Instead, America forged a new nation and repaid it’s war debts.
If a nation seeking help finds it impossible to support us on those principles, both publicly and behind the scenes, then I’d see no reason to provide any help.
The last thing I’d want to do is sacrifice blood and treasure helping A SOVEREIGN NATION - which has a responsibility to have all the answers for the protection of it’s citizens - out from between a rock and a hard place and then have that same sovereign nation stab us in the back down the road. Pieter no like that. Pieter no do business that way.
IMHO, you’re either for us or against us, and it is wisest to let nations be against us if they’re not 100% for us.
America seems to be in the business, over the last 150 years, of letting tons of immigrants in for cheap labor and cheap votes. The immigrants are coming to grab the golden eggs laid by the American goose. That “goose” is when people live by faith in God, which provides moral, i.e., pleasant living conditions including moral education and entertainments, the rule of law and prosperity. Some number of immigrants (certainly not all), retain the thinking that ruined the country where they emmigrated from and actually pass it on to their children. Generations later the children of those same immigrants try to idiotically impose the stupid thinking of the country of their ancestry on America - refusing to admit to themselves that the golden eggs are coming from the American goose and that their “old country” ideas are killing it.
Most Americans are no so foolish to ignore the fact that the Bolshevik revolution, despite it’s stated aim of ending miseries under the Tsar, yielded nothing but misery itself. It became, in essence, the new Tsar; nothing really changed. And when most Americans hear the same old 100-year-old tired, worn-out phrases of the communists coming out of bill ayer’s mouth, they see a small core leadership of the communists in America trying to paint the U.S. government as the old Russian Tsar. And they clearly see these communists asking the young and the confused of America to pursue their faux Tsar under their leadership in a manner most pathetically naive and Quixotic, yet brazenly treasonous.
Immigration can work exceedingly well. Living in NJ I see immigrants from Korea - by the second generation - rising from almost no net worth on arrival to fully embracing America and realizing all the benefits of living in this great nation. Notably this embrace often includes the Christian faith. And this is done with long days of diligent work, not waiting for government checks. They do not seek to “take over America” or to “change” America.
There is, therefore, no excuse for anyone wanting to change the principles America is based on - it’s possible to embrace the ideals of faith and freedom and to reap their rewards.
To really help the “old country”, those who immigrated from there to America should really be championing those ideals in the minds of those still in the “old country” so that it may be best able to protect itself, prosper and make the best use of a friendly relationship with America. The nations of the world have come to think that regardless of how much they oppose America, that America somehow owes them a guaranteed paycheck and guaranteed protection; islamic nations even go so far as to think that America not only owes them, but should subjugate herself to them despite their continued attacks on her and her allies.
Many Americans, like Pieter, are really fed up with the whole mess.
Excellent points. Thank you.
No. If you take a look at my comment history on other threads, you may notice me giving the opinion that the Israelis made a big mistake in 1967 by not demolishing the mosque on the Temple Mount, and evicting all Muslims from Jerusalem (paying market compensation).
I would be quite happy if the Israelis decided to respond to the next rocket attack by making Gaza more closely resemble Dresden/1945 (hard to do -- Dresden actually looked good before the bombing).
What I dislike is feeling like the US Jewish community hates Republicans, conservatives, and Christians, and yet has the expectation that we watch Israel's back when TSHTF, meanwhile supporting the Dems who work against Israel.
And the self serving Democrap American Jews never forgave him for using the word Jew. The American Military leaders were concerned that the large transfers of military supplies from our troops put them, and Europe, at risk to a Soviet attack and Nixon did it anyway.
Transcripts from 39 years ago show that Henry Kissinger, a Jew ....No. Henry Kissinger was a German who became a naturalized U.S. Citizen.
Dr. Kissinger was born in Fuerth, Germany, came to the United States in 1938 and was naturalized a United States citizen in 1943. He served in the Army from 1943 to 1946.Kissinger's religion was 'Jewish' (Judaism). The person 'Kissinger' was a German by birth. Just like Albert Einstein. (German physicist, U.S. citizen from 1940)
Kissenger is Jewish.
Cain was joking apparently
When it came to making the call in foreign policy, Nixon had balls and did alot of right things.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Blah blahblah teh USS Liberty blah blahblah...Whatever, dude, that ship has sailed many years ago.
Not so, the Liberty never took to see again. It was shot full of holes. The Israeli Fighter pilots kept shooting with tears in their eyes. Those orders came from on high!
And why do American Jews continue to support the party that would throw Israel overboard in a nanosecond if they got the chanch?
Yes, just another example of rank self-hatred among assimilationist Jews. Rahm Emanuel is another one. George Soros is so to the nth power. Only reason the article interests me. Nixon himself was great.
Kissinger's religion was 'Jewish' (Judaism). The person 'Kissinger' was a German by birth. Just like Albert Einstein. (German physicist, U.S. citizen from 1940)Jew is an ETHNICITY as well as religion. The overwhelming majority of European Ashkenazi Jews even though they lived in europe for a couple of millenia, are distinct genetically from the Europeans, Russians, Germans, Poles, etc. For centuries they lived apart, in their own isolated communities and they share a certain ethnic heritage, not just the cultural/religious heritage. There was very little intermarriage until the last 19th century.
They dont think they will. They think all this cow-towing to the Blacks and the other pot bangers is just for show, at the end of the day they will still support Israel when it matters..Thats what they think.
And less than half the Jews in Israel are Ashkenazi.. Juadaism is a religion, it accepts and embraces converts. Israel has immigrated thousands of Somali Black African Jews and others from around the world. Ashkenazi Jews are just one subsection, like Irish Catholics.
"And less than half the Jews in Israel are Ashkenazi.. Juadaism is a religion, it accepts and embraces converts. Israel has immigrated thousands of Somali Black African Jews and others from around the world. Ashkenazi Jews are just one subsection, like Irish Catholics."We're talking about European Jewry. After Sephardic Jews were expelled from Spain, Ashkenazi became a predominant European Jewish group and constitute about 80% of the Jews worldwide. Until the mid-late 19th century and early 20th century they lived apart from and virtually did not intermarry with the ethnic populations of nations where they lived. Converts were few and a superminority. In the medieval times in some communities it was found out that a Christian converted to Judaism, it was punishable by death and the entire Jewish community would face persecution. Judaism accepts, but does not seek, solicit or encourage converts.
I'm not sure what youre talking about. Before 1100 AD 97 % of Jews were not Ashkenazi, and today over half of Jews in Israel are either Sephardic or mixed (a majority of imigrants to Israel came from the mid east or elsewhere).
The fact that most of the Jews originating in Europe have similar gene content is no surprise given that they lived in ghettos for centuries (possibly originating before that from the Caucususes) This is similar in circumstance to the Finnish and the gypsies and the Basque, gene-wise
This doesent make German Jews less "German", and it doesent mean being Jewish means people having the same "blood". Thats just absurd.
If youd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.