The Doctrine of ‘Superior People’: The Bond between Israel & World Zionism

The root problem is not genetic, it is collective political dementia

Introduction: The single greatest feat of Israel and its overseas missions has not been material success, or the military conquest of millions of unarmed Palestinians, it has been ideological – the widespread acceptance in the US of a doctrine that claims ‘Jews are a superior people’.

Apart from small extremist rightwing sects who exhibit visceral anti-Semitism and denigrate everything Jewish, there are very few academics and politicians willing to question this supremacist doctrine. On the contrary, there is an incurable tendency to advance oneself by accepting and embellishing on it.

For example, in August 2015, US Vice-President Joseph Biden attributed ‘special genius’ to Jews, slavish flattery that embarrassed even New York’s liberal Jewish intellectuals.

Israel’s dominant role in formulating US Middle East policy is largely a product of its success at recruiting, socializing and motivating overseas Jews to act as an organized force to intervene in US politics and push Israel’s agenda.

What motivates American Jews, who have been raised and educated in the US to serve Israel? After all, these are individuals who have prospered, achieved high status and occupy the highest positions of prestige and responsibility. Why would they parrot the policies of Israel and follow the dictates of Israeli leaders (a foreign regime), serving its violent colonial, racist agenda?

What binds a majority of highly educated and privileged Jews to the most rabidly rightwing Israeli regime in history – a relationship they actually celebrate?

What turns comfortable, prosperous American Jews into vindictive bullies, willing and able to blackmail, threaten and punish any dissident voices among their Gentile and Jewish compatriots who have dared to criticize Israel?

What prevents many intelligent, liberal and progressive Jews from openly questioning Israel’s agenda, and especially confronting the role of Zionist zealots who serve as Tel Aviv’s fifth column against the interest of the United States?

There are numerous historical and personal factors that can and should be taken into account to understand this phenomenon.

In this essay I am going to focus on one – the ideology that ‘Jews are a superior people’. The notion that Jews, either through some genetic, biologic, cultural, historical, familial and/or upbringing, have special qualities allowing them to achieve at a uniquely higher level than the ‘inferior’ non-Jews.

We will proceed by sketching the main outline of the Jewish supremacist ideology and then advance our critique.

We will conclude by evaluating the negative consequences of this ideology and propose a democratic alternative.

Jewish Supremacism

Exponents of Jewish Supremacism (JS) frequently cite the prestigious awards, worldly successes and high honors, which, they emphasize, have been disproportionately achieved by Jews.

The argument goes: While Jews represent less than 0.2% of the world population, they have produced 24% of the US Nobel prize winners; over 30% of Ivy League professors and students; and the majority of major US film, stage and TV producers.

They cite the ‘disproportionate number’ of scientists, leading doctors, lawyers and billionaires.

They cite past geniuses like, Einstein, Freud and Marx .

They point to the founders of the world’s great monotheistic religions – Moses and Abraham.

They lay claim to a unique learning tradition embedded in centuries of Talmudic scholarship.

Jewish supremacists never miss a chance to cite the ‘Jewish background’ of any highly accomplished contemporary public figures in the entertainment, publication, financial fields or any other sectors of life in the US.

Disproportionately great accomplishments by a disproportionate minority has become the mantra for heralding a self-styled ‘meritocratic elite’…. and for justifying its disproportionate wealth, power and privileges – and influence…

Challenging the Myths of Jewish Supremacists

There are serious problems regarding the claims of the Jewish Supremacists.

For centuries Jewish ‘wisdom’ was confined to textual exegesis of religious dogma - texts full of superstition and social control, as well as blind intolerance, and which produced neither reasoned arguments nor contributed to scientific and human advancement.

Jewish scholarship of note occurred among thinkers like Spinoza who revolted against the Jewish ghetto gatekeepers and rejected Jewish dogma.

Notable scientists emerged in the context of working and studying with non-Jews in non-Jewish institutions – the universities and centers of learning in the West. The majority of world-renowned Jewish scholars integrated and contributed to predominantly non-Jewish (Moslem and Christian) and secular institutions of higher learning.

Historically, highly talented individuals of Jewish origin succeeded by renouncing the constraints of everyday Jewish life, rabbinical overseers and Jewish institutions. Most contemporary prestigious scientists, including the frequently cited Nobel Prize winners, have little or nothing to do with Judaism! And their contributions have everything to do with the highly secular, integrated culture in which they prospered intellectually – despite expressions of crude anti-Semitism in the larger society.

Secondly , Jewish Supremacists persist in claiming ‘racial credit’ for the achievements of individuals who have publically renounced, denounced and distanced themselves from Judaism and have dismissed any notion of Israel as their spiritual homeland. Their universal prestige has prevented them from being labeled, apostate or ‘self-hating’. Albert Einstein, often cited by the Supremacists as the supreme example of ‘Jewish genius’, denounced Israel’s war crimes and showed disdain for any tribal identity. In their era, Marx and Trotsky, like the vast majority of emancipated European Jews, given the chance, became engaged in universalistic organizations, attacking the entire notion that Jews were a ‘special people’ chosen by divine authority (or by the latter-day Zionists).

Thirdly, Supremacists compile a very selective list of virtuous Jews, while omitting areas of life and activity where Jews have disproportionately played a negative and destructive role.

After all is it Jewish ‘genius’ that makes Israel a leading exporter of arms, high tech intrusive spy systems and sends military and paramilitary advisers and torturers to work with death squad regimes in Africa and Latin America?

Among the winners of the Nobel Peace Prize are three Israeli Prime Ministers who waged wars of ethnic cleansing against millions of Palestinians and expanded racist ‘Jews only’ settlements throughout the occupied Palestinian territories. These include Menachem Begin (notorious career bomber and terrorist), Yitzhak Rabin (a militarist who was assassinated by an even more racist Jewish terrorist) and Shimon Peres. Among Jewish American Nobel ‘Peaceniks’ is Henry Kissinger who oversaw the brutal and illegal US war in Indo-China causing 4 million Vietnamese deaths;who wrote the ‘template for regime change’ by overthrowing the democratically elected government of Chilean President Allende and condemned Chile to decades of police state terror; and who supported Indonesia’s destruction of East Timor!

In other words, these Nobel recipients, who Supremacists cite as ‘examples of Jewish Supremacy’, have sown terror and injustice on countless captive peoples and nations – giving the Nobel Peace Prize a dubious distinction.

Among the greatest billion dollar swindlers in recent US history, we find a disproportionate percentage of American Jews – curiously not mentioned by the Supremacists in their usual litany: Bernard Madoff pillaged over $50 billion from his clients, Ivan Boesky, Michael Milken and Marc Rich are well-known names adding the distinction of ‘Jewish genius’ to a list of financial mega-felons.

Among the less respectable notables whose material successes have been tarnished by personal weaknesses – we have the billionaire and pedophile pimp, Jeffry Epstein; IMF President, rapist and debaucher Dominic Strauss Kahn, entrepreneur and ‘nudist’ Dov Charney, New York Governor and ‘repeat customer’ Elliot Spitzer, Congressman and exhibitionist Anthony Weiner and the fun-loving sports impresario who brought down FIFA, the piratical Chuck Blazer. Curiously, none of these extraordinarily successful notables have been cited as examples of Jewish Supremacy.

As we contemplate the millions of war refugees driven from the Near East and North Africa, we should credit the role of US neo-liberal and neo-conservative ideologues and policymakers –a disproportionate percentage of whom are Jews. Millions of Chilean workers suffered as Milton Friedman and his Chicago Boys ‘advised’ Chilean Dictator Augusto Pinochet on dismantling the welfare state (even if it required the murder of trade unionists!). Ayn Rand (Alyssa Rosenbaum) and her fanatical free market epigones have savaged all progressive social legislation and turned the most retrograde forms of selfishness into a religion of ‘superiority’!

The disastrous US war against Iraq was largely organized, promoted and justified by a disproportionate percentage of US Jews (Zionists), including leading policymakers in the Bush and Obama administration – Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Elliott Abrams, Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk, David Frum, Shulsky, Levey, Cohen, Rahm Emanuel etc… They continue to push for war against Iran and should be seen as the ‘godfathers’ of the tragedies of Iraq, Syria and Libya where millions have fled.

The biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression was largely due to the financial policies of Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan. The trillion-dollar bailout of Wall Street by Ben Shalom Bernacke and Stanley Fischer, while Janet Yellen ignored the plight of millions of Americans who lost their homes because of mortgage foreclosures. In sum, Jewish Supremacists should proudly take credit for the American Jews who have been disproportionately responsible for the largest economic and foreign policy failures of the contemporary period – including the horrific suffering these have entailed!

Back in the more normal world of crime, Russian-Jewish mobsters dominate or share supremacy with the Italian Mafia in New York, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Miami and scores of cities in between. They display their unique genius at extortion and murder – knowing they can always find safe haven in the ‘Promised Land’!

On the cultural front, the finest Jewish writers, artists, musicians, scientists have emerged outside of Israel. A few may have immigrated to the Jewish state, but many other intellectuals and artists of note have chosen to leave Israel, repelled by the racist, intolerant and repressive apartheid state and society promoted by Jewish Supremacists.

Conclusion

The record provides no historical basis for the claims of Jewish Supremacists:

What has been cited as the disproportionate ‘Jewish genius’ turns out to be a two-edged sword - demonstrating the best and the worst.

Claiming a monopoly on high academic achievement must be expanded to owning up to the Jewish authors of the worst financial and foreign policy disasters – they too are ‘high achievers’.

Donations from financial billionaires, all ‘geniuses’, have financed the war crimes of the Israeli state and made possible the expansion of violent Jewish settlers throughout occupied Palestine – spreading misery and displacement for millions.

In fairness, the most notorious Jewish swindler in contemporary America was even-handed: ‘Bernie’ Madoff swindled Jews and Goys, Hollywood moguls and New York philanthropists – he wasn’t picky about who he fleeced.

The latest fashion among Jewish Supremacist ‘geneticists’ is to extoll the discovery of uniquely special ‘genes’ predisposing Jews to experience the ‘holocaust’ and even inherit the experience of suffering from long dead ancestors. Such ‘scientists’ should be careful. As Jazz artist and essayist, Gilad Altzmon wryly notes, ‘They will put the anti-Semites out of business’.

Ultimately, Jews, who have assimilated into the greater society or not, who inter-marry and who do not, are all products of the social system in which they live and (like everyone else) they are the makers of the roles they decide to play within it.

In the past, a uniquely disproportional percentage of Jews chose to fight for universal humanist values – rejecting the notion of a chosen people.

Today a disproportionate percentage of educated Jews have chosen to embrace an ‘ethno-religious’ Supremacist dogma, which binds them to an apartheid, militarist state and ideology ready to drag the world into a global war.

Never forget! Racialist supremacist doctrines led Germany down the blind ally of totalitarianism and world war, in which scores of millions perished.

Jews, especially young Jews, are increasingly repelled by Israel’s crimes against humanity. The next step for them (and for us) is to criticize, demystify and stand up to the toxic supremacist ideology linking the powerful domestic Zionist power configuration and its political clones with Israel.

The root problem is not genetic, it is collective political dementia: a demented ideology that claims a chosen elite can forever dominate and exploit the majority of American people. The time will come when the accumulated disasters will force the Americans people to push back, unmasking the elite and rejecting its supremacist doctrines. Let us hope that they will act with passion guided by reason.

# # # #

Professor James Petras, Boiling Frogs Post contributing analyst, is the author of more than 62 books published in 29 languages, and over 600 articles in professional journals, including the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies. He has a long history of commitment to social justice, working in particular with the Brazilian Landless Workers Movement for 11 years. He writes a monthly column for the Mexican newspaper, La Jornada, and previously, for the Spanish daily, El Mundo. Dr. Petras received his B.A. from Boston University and Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley. You can visit his website here.

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING.

Comments

  1. tonywicher says:

    This is a very balanced treatment of the pernicious idea of Jewish supremacy. It completely avoids anti-Semitism. Personally, I am part Jewish on my mother’s side, and although my parents were atheists and Judaism was not practiced in my home, I was raised among Jewish people. They were great people, and none of them were Zionists or had any beliefs about Jewish supremacy. This doctrine is closely related to both the Nazi doctrine of “Aryan” supremacy and the neocon doctrine of American supremacy. Such doctrines are always and inherently genocidal.

  2. candideschmyles says:

    Absolutely spot on analysis concisely yet comprehensively anhialating this ridiculous myth. To write so well you must be Jewish – right?
    Jokes aside I do get so tired of the psychotic and utterly repugnant purveyors of this near mythical persecution complex on the one hand and superiority complex on the other. It’s schizophrenic labour attempting to destroy good people to maintain the myth is all to pervasive in western society and so this piece is so refreshing.

  3. Reading this helps me balance the internal terror speaking of such matters releases every time I evidence ‘zion’ in 911 and the increasing violence or malevolence in the Middle East (war by deception)
    Having been brought up in the shadow of Holocaust, the fear to confront the ‘dancing Israeli/Mossad’ and Urban moving systems part of the neoconaZionist 911 false Flag, continues to haunt.
    This is good common sense stuff.

  4. Hey James – I have learned a lot from you and your writing, but I felt that this was beneath your standards. You begin with the setup to all that follows; “The single greatest feat of Israel and its overseas missions has not been material success, or the military conquest of millions of unarmed Palestinians, it has been ideological – the widespread acceptance in the US of a doctrine that claims ‘Jews are a superior people’. ” Where is this widespread acceptance? I would have been right with you if you had substituted ‘Whatever Israel wants is in US interests’ for ‘Jews are a superior people’.
    I’ve never seen that the unquestioning US support of Israel is due to a belief in the superiority of Jews and other than your stating it, you failed to corroborate it in your article. If you wanted to debunk the belief that Jews are superior, then it would have made a clean article to just do your best to do that. As it stands your post feels like you created a straw man that you wanted to beat and did so under false pretenses.

    • His experience may be different from others. This is not to say that he is wrong, but that the impression he has is a product of the innescapable bias that is a byproduct of of the divisions and partitions in reality that allow one to form an individual identity seperate from other individual identities. Individuality is inseperable from individual differences in knowledge and experience due to the limitiations necessary and innescapable for there to be the distinctions that allow for the differentiations necessary to percieve the existence of “sperate” systems within an otherwise unified whole. One system of note in this case would be James.

      The impression that I get is that the Jewish experience must be quite schizophrenic. On the one hand they have this inferiority complex with a strong sense of victimhood. Perhaps the superiority complex is a device created to make up for it? And the whole “Ura antisemitic terroramist bastard if you kestion ush” thing is just an overdefensive posture initially created as a defensive response to their history but now embelished and indulged in as a now understood means of not only self defense, but now an immoral and unethical means of self empowerment.

  5. OK, I scanned it quick, but you broached in there about the part that some… Jews have this…superior self belief.
    In where you mentioned that they, would commonly site, the whole list of examples: Einstein…/ etc. vs. a list of the opposite exempler jewish monsters, but the point is: Jews are ”exceptional, and chosen”.

    Well, forget aboutit Jews, you ain’t exceptional! I mean other than you got this impossible huge self image/ ego! and for the most part your Israelis who are driving out the indiginous from areas in Palistine, you are like over a hundred years ago…. displacing the people who lived on a land, murder and take the land!

    I know there are a huge %of Jews who aren’t with that scene, but they are the victims too.

    And just a parting shot here… why don’t we just take a little DNA test to determine who is a real Jew?
    Answer: Non of the above: real Jews are kissing cousins of the Arab Palistinians…(same DNA!… ) The power Jews, who are Aschenazi Jews, who are decendant from Kaisars, who ”ADOPTLED JUDAISM” (self proclaimed, Euro-Jews, are from Russian Stepps, not Semites at all!) Usurpers all! They are happy to kill a real Jew,just as quick as kill any good folks, like their other…(Spellchek: permutication, Nazi, how good does it get, the words are simple to see!
    NAZI…….. OR…… ASCHENAZI…. Which came first…. chicken or eggen?

  6. A couple of other people have mentioned it – where is the evidence for this supposed ‘widespread acceptance of Jewish supremacy’? Because when I listen to people talk about Jews, the number 1 thing I hear is racism against them.

    Meanwhile, the true supremacist philosophy driving so much conflict in the world is white supremacy, and you could say Jewish supremacy is a subset of that. But of course, no one in the alt media wants to talk about the rising tide of white supremacism and neo-Nazi ideology, because 95% of the alt media crowd are white. So instead we get things like this which, while providing a good argument against the philosophy of Jewish supremacism, completely miss the fucking point.

    • “completely miss the fucking point.”
      boundless narcissism

    • CuChulainn says:

      since my comment above was narcissistically misinterpreted, let me clarify that this is not an attempt to engage TS in conversation. Tom you’re just not that cute (but maybe if you lost some weight…)

      since the israelis are being especially beastly nowadays with little media coverage, let me point out that BFP has become a platform for a full-on Israel apologist who freely wields the antisemitism blood libel (this libel has, not incidentally, been wielded against Sibel in the past, as it is inevitably against critics who go to the heart of the spectacle, whether or not they mention jewish issues; e.g. Pierre Péan, who was accused of antisemitism by the French Union of Jewish Students for his documentation of the Tutsi role in the Rwanda genocide)

      “widespread acceptance of jewish supremacy” for which Tom Secker can find no evidence is otherwise known euphemistically as accepting “israel’s right to exist”–in case it has escaped notice, Israel defines itself as the jewish state to which all persons of jewish belief/ethnicity are entitled citizenship, while the indigenous inhabitants (themselves to some degree likely descendants of the ancient Hebrews) are deprived of all rights

      https://niqnaq.wordpress.com/2015/10/10/what-i-like-most-about-electronic-intifada-is-that-it-somehow-never-seems-quite-to-have-accepted-so-called-israels-so-called-right-to-exist/

  7. What is the point anyway? Supremism can be an off shoot of a defensive mentality. The issue is, perhaps, from what I can tell, and I am an ignoramus on this jew vs arab mess… But what it looks like to me is that the “jews” are pushing a philosophy similar to that we did with manifest destiny and which the germans did with nazi-ism.
    That philosophy being “it us our land and god hast gave it to us so we shalt smite thou wickedness clean from it” and “them folks dont belong there”.

    Who really started the whole fight between the palestinians and jews anyway? Did the jews just start bull dozing them with a ” mein land” mindset or did the palestinians start it by provoking the jews somehow?

    And why is it that the world always has to put up with all these stupid belief systems? It always the corporatist belief of doing whatever they want for money and lies are fine screw reality, or some wack religious concept, or some political governance mess that finds itself trying to deal with both to some degree or other.

    The core of the problem is that people are dependent on each other. Perhaps a techno re/evolutionary construct leading to an every man a nation, physically and metaphysically, paradigm is the only foreseable obtainable solution? Conflict and contempt are results of conflicting desires forced upon a singular matrix? Or multiple interconnected matrixes?

    You knownwhat would help with a lot of this? An article by some genius on the nature of categorization, the conceptsnthat influence its formation, its reliance upon perception, varying forms of categorization generated when multiple entities try to categorize the same situation while coming from different backgrounds, experiences, views, etc… and how and why these differences in categorization occur and what the implication of this is on determining the core nature of categorization.

    To.me it seems that categorization is a construct designed to form a method of control and the design of this method changes based on the needs of the one doing the categorizing. The implication being that categorization isnt necessarily reflective of truth but of opinion and the creator of that opinion. This of course maning that interaction between those of differing needs will inevitably lead to either degrading the other using categorization in an attempt to gain power over one another. This of course meaning that the current matrix we find ourselves in is insufficient to satisfy the needs of everyone, and perhaps anyone. Shall we change the needs and desires of entities to conform into a rather undynamic and dull language/philosophy of social interaction, or change the matrix to accomodate the more vibrant social dynamic? The former requires people to destroy how they define themselves and the later requires technology and knowledge.

    So, what is the point in all this belief and ideology nonsense again?

    The core solution is a greater understanding. I wonder how it this solution will express itself.

    For now it seems that this means that people’s needs and the effects of the world are in conflict with each other and until one or both change, there will continue to be turmoil. I do not foresee any positive developments on this issue any time soon.

    • The point is that Israel isn’t secretly in charge of the world, it is a NATO outpost in the Middle East. It is an extension of the same supremacist philosophies that as you point out were the founding of the Americas and the basis for Nazism. With the usual slaughter of ‘lesser’ peoples, typically brown but not always, that comes with that.

      Then again, Israel seems to have a hold over certain people’s minds. Once they become fixated on what is, after all, one small country that we created, they attribute all kinds of exceptionalism to it which in turns fuels the fixation. It becomes an addiction, a vicious cycle of misunderstanding. The reality is that Britain has killed quite a lot more Muslims in the last half century than Israel has.

      Humans will always devolve into categories. I doubt we will ever get beyond the tribal instinct for identity that is the foundation for much of the tensions and conflicts. The religions and ideologies are all post hoc excuses, sophistications that delude us into thinking it isn’t the tribal instinct that’s really at play.

      • Ronald Orovitz says:

        To your point, the more perceptive of Israelis do not see their elites as running things, but as the elite centers in D.C./N.Y.C. or London as running them. A case in point, from… http://samsonblinded.org/news/the-biography-of-benjamin-netanyahu-18982

        When most Israelis vote, they actually believe it is a personal lesson in democracy. They don’t even consider that the timing of the election and the primary candidates for office, Left and Right, are run out of the New York office of the CFR…

        Elections are timed so as to changes� to Israeli policy quickly, while the new Prime Minister is immune to public revolt. In 1992, Rabin entered the Oslo process immediately after his election. In 1996, Netanyahu unilaterally pulled out of Hebron within days of forming a government. In 1999, new PM Ehud Barak quickly ordered IDF troops out of Southern Lebanon, leaving our mostly Christian ally, the South Lebanese Army, defenseless against retaliation. In 2001, a Right Winger would have to replace Barak to get Israel out of Gaza and Northern Samaria. Ariel Sharon was the man for the job.

  8. Tom, if you as well as many others have transcended tribal identity, then it is POSSIBLE for all. For this possibility to have a chance it would be necessary that there be a free and well meaning education system as well as media that actually wanted what is best for all. On second thought, maybe your doubts are well founded…….

  9. Ronald Orovitz says:

    “Apart from small extremist rightwing sects who exhibit visceral anti-Semitism and denigrate everything Jewish, there are very few academics and politicians willing to question this supremacist doctrine”… – Actually, I would argue that anti-Semitism completely feeds into Jewish supremacism…. The mindset being that they are geniuses alright, but evil geniuses bent on deceiving and exploiting and performing every crime imaginable upon trusting and hapless gentiles of all races in order to rid them of their respective idyllic existences. This anti-Semitism only serves to feed into the supremacism of Jews themselves, as in “If they reserve this special kind of hatred for us then indeed we must be special – the anti-Semites are G-d’s vehicle for punishing us when we displease G-d, and if G-d reserves this special punishment for us, it must be because G-d loves us the most! Indeed we are God’s chosen people!”

    What anti-Semites and Jewish supremacists alike need to admit is that Jews are nothing special – or nothing more special than any flesh and blood human being.

    • candideschmyles says:

      Excellent point. They are mutually dependent. But perhaps what has not been said here is that there are a great number of Jews who want no part of the ego and are appalled by the sick and twisted manner in which certain groups that call themselves Jewish use the events of WW2, and the memory of all the victims, to maintain a fear of criticism of anything to do with Israel. These groups are based in New York and London and do not have wide support outside of their Banking and Industry backers.
      There is a definite sense of exceptionalism among a certain class of Jewish people working in MSM and it is very evident on twitter. Perhaps those that doubt its presence do not follow the same people I do.
      And I agree whole heartedly with TomS, Israel is nothing more than a nuclear weapons platform with built in perceptual deniability should it ever be used. “President of the US deplores Israel’s unilateral use of Nuclear weapons against Iran’s invasion of Saudi Arabia” for example.. Anyone who think the NY and London based elites who make the global politic a charade in the first place care about Jews just don’t know their history. Nazi doctrine was written not by Hitler but by Alfred Rosenberg, who was recruited at Moscow Polytechnic that was a recruitment hotbed for the Zionist movement. He joined the National Socialists before Hitler and was a key member of the Bank of America funded Thule society. He was key to manipulating the madness of Adolf toward pathological anti-semitism. So there is a very good argument for a Zionist being the true instigator of the holocaust. A very very good case. This demonstrates that these people some stupidly call Jews were perfectly willing to throw six million Jews in an oven. It is all sick sick manipulation of fact.

      • I would love to see an article with references on that.

        One wonders why the jews victimized by the zionists or whatever you want to call them, the types being spokes of so far, do not make a movement to reclaim their image, given that the jewish supremicist movement and the corruption of jewish behavior, usury being somewhat of a sin in judaism, is a rallying point for the anti semites.

      • Candide,

        I never heard that Rosenberg was either a Zionist or a Jew. Sources?

        • candideschmyles says:

          I never claimed he was a Jew. It his recruitment to the Zionist mission that is pertinent and the circumstantial evidence of this, his time at the Rothschild funded Moscow Polytechnic and his subsequent membership of Thule combined with his deft manipulation of National Socialist doctrine to the benefit of Rothschild associated bankers in New York that all lead to this inevitable conclusion. Even a cursory Google of these assertions will bring up a plethora of relevant citations.

      • Gerald Hines says:

        I tend to agree with your points, other than that 6 million number being gassed & place into ovens. Those logistics appear dubious if one considers the Eastern, Western & North African fronts the Germans were engaged upon. Let alone what few of these concentration camps held crematoriums, let alone gas chambers prior to incineration. I reference that to the individual, David Cole, and his research into these camps.

  10. I’ve been thinking about this and wanted to put it down somewhere, and given that this thread is about bigotry and the dementify-ing effects it has on people’s minds and logical structures, I thought I might post this.

    This is not a solution, but a question.

    Lines of logic:

    1) It matters not what the overt system is but the nature of the people who partake in it. The underlying principals of these people guide the system to where no matter what system is had, the effect will be either good or bad depending on decisions made at the micro level and not the macro. Even if the macro sysyem is changed, such as with a constitution or legal sytem or cult of personality or whatever thing of big movements, the decisions made at the micro level decide how the macro level is interpreted and the effects the macro level has on the micro.

    2) Bigotry is defensive. For example, a bigoted stance on free speech may be effective in insuring that there remains free speech regardless of what some critic may say of it.

    3) Bigotry can be born of ignorance, as in he mentality of “we do this because this is what we do” even though secretly no one any longer knows why.

    4) Bigotry can create ignorance, especially when mixed with pride and laziness. As in people become adherents to an idea, then become lazy in teaching and remembering the idea, and start to use social ridicule/peer pressure to spread and enforce it.

    5) Both 3 and 4 weaken the foundation of the idea and leave it open for attack.

    6) Eventually some entity which percieves itself to not be served by an idea comes along a uses this weakness to remove the previously dominant concept/idea from influence.

    7) Bigoted people, whether bigoted because they’ve forgotten the good and logical foundation for their relished idea/concept, or because the idea was faith based or stupidity based, defend their idea in a stupid, threatening, offensive, and even dangerous manner.

    8) Some potentially bigoted ideas are inherently strong, but still corruptable. Adherents to Christianity or Bhuddism can be peaceful, tolerant and inclusive, and whether their base concept is strong or not, this behavior can cause others to either be attracted to these potentially bigoted concepts or see them as benign.

    9) Some entity will eventually seen even a benign concept as threatening to their power and position.

    10) This will cause turmoil.

    11) This turmoil will eventually weaken the threatened entity in # 9

    12) Was there any need for the turmoil in the first place? If so why? And is it all just a matter of perception as to whether or not it was needed?

    13) It seems as though the only solution is dillution and weakening of peoples beliefs and perspective, hope and dreams, needs and desires, at least if the current world/reality matrix is maintained. Though, this is repugnant to me to an extent. Is it possible to keep the depth and diversity without the dangerous and destructive behaviors that tend to go with this depth and diversity at the moment? One man’s good can be another man’s evil. It seems that a weakening of culture or expansion of matrix are the only options.

    14) Awareness is key for justice and respect for the individual and the boundries necessary for individual prosperity and happiness.

    15) Will this awareness lead to matrix expansion or dillution of identity or both?

    —————————————

    This is some of what has heen swirling about in my head lately. I have a hard time integrating it all and would appreciate some sort of unification of the concepts, whether they are all reasonable and capable of being paced into a coherent whole, or if some or all are nonsense and need to be abandoned and the remaining made whole, even if that wholeness is complete dissolution.

    To me it seems that these concepts, if correctly relevant and representative of reality come together to mean that he whole controls the technology and the concepts which they form controls, whether through direct and intended influence, or a reverse sort of influence that backfires against this intent, controls what will come to be.

    Yhis also brings to mind that since reality as we know it and do not know it, itself will play a deciding role and insert a difficult to influence effect on the paradigm that may be coming into being.

    How and who will guide it and to what degree? Who will win? And who will lose?

  11. 8 should read

    8) Some potentially bigoted ideas are inherently strong, but still corruptable. Adherents to Christianity or Bhuddism can be peaceful, tolerant and inclusive, and whether their base concept is strong or not, this behavior can cause others to either be attracted to these potentially bigoted concepts or see them as benign. The love for an idea/concept/philosophy can lead to its corruption and the negative effects. It can become a shiboleth for a clique instead of a pure and sincere practice of living, and thereby be debased.

    BTW what is the difference between religion and philosophy? The overt concept of a god?

  12. It had too many errors so I am reposting it without them. I hope.

    I’ve been thinking about this and wanted to put it down somewhere, and given that this thread is about bigotry and the dementify-ing effects it has on people’s minds and logical structures, I thought I might post this.

    This is not a solution, but a question.

    Lines of logic:

    1) It matters not what the overt system is but the nature of the people who partake in it. The underlying principals of these people guide the system to where no matter what system is had, the effect will be either good or bad depending on decisions made at the micro level and not the macro. Even if the macro system is changed, such as with a constitution or legal sytem or cult of personality or whatever thing of big movements, the decisions made at the micro level decide how the macro level is interpreted and the effects the macro level has on the micro.

    2) Bigotry is defensive. For example, a bigoted stance on free speech may be effective in insuring that there remains free speech regardless of what some critic may say of it.

    3) Bigotry can be born of ignorance, as in he mentality of “we do this because this is what we do” even though secretly no one any longer knows why.

    4) Bigotry can create ignorance, especially when mixed with pride and laziness. As in people become adherents to an idea, then become lazy in teaching and remembering the idea, and start to use social ridicule/peer pressure to spread and enforce it.

    5) Both 3 and 4 weaken the foundation of the idea and leave it open for attack.

    6) Eventually some entity which percieves itself to not be served by an idea comes along a uses this weakness to remove the previously dominant concept/idea from influence.

    7) Bigoted people, whether bigoted because they’ve forgotten the good and logical foundation for their relished idea/concept, or because the idea was faith based or stupidity based, may defend their idea in a stupid, threatening, offensive, and even dangerous manner.

    8) Some potentially bigoted ideas are inherently strong, but still corruptable. Adherents to Christianity or Bhuddism can be peaceful, tolerant and inclusive, and whether their base concept is strong or not, this behavior can cause others to either be attracted to these potentially bigoted concepts or see them as benign. The love for an idea/concept/philosophy can lead to its corruption and the negative effects. It can become a shiboleth for a clique instead of a pure and sincere practice of living, and thereby be debased.

    9) Some entity will eventually see even a benign concept as threatening to its power and position.

    10) This will cause turmoil.

    11) This turmoil will eventually weaken the threatened entity in # 9.

    12) Was there any need for the turmoil in the first place? If so why? And is it all just a matter of perception as to whether or not it was needed?

    13) It seems as though the only solution is dillution and weakening of peoples beliefs and perspectivs, hope and dreams, needs and desires, at least if the current world/reality matrix is maintained. Though, this is repugnant to me to an extent. Is it possible to keep the depth and diversity without the dangerous and destructive behaviors that tend to go with this depth and diversity at the moment? One man’s good can be another man’s evil. It seems that a weakening of culture or expansion of matrix are the only options.

    14) Awareness is key for justice and respect for the individual and the boundries necessary for individual prosperity and happiness.

    15) Will this awareness lead to matrix expansion or dillution of identity or both?

    —————————————

    This is some of what has heen swirling about in my head lately. I have a hard time integrating it all and would appreciate some sort of unification of the concepts, whether they are all reasonable and capable of being placed into a coherent whole, or if some or all are nonsense and need to be abandoned and the remaining made whole, even if that wholeness is complete dissolution.

    To me it seems that these concepts, if correctly relevant and representative of reality come together to mean that he who controls the technology and the concepts which they form controls, whether through direct and intended influence, or a reverse sort of influence that backfires against this intent, controls what will come to be.

    This also brings to mind that since reality as we know it and do not know it itself will play a deciding role and insert a difficult to influence effect on the paradigm that may be coming into being, that maybe no one is really in control at an extreme macro level. The more macro the less real control. And therefore perhaps there is a prime mover which will be the deciding factor, the only things that change are the time frame and effects on micro entities, the more micro the more effect had by other micro entities, and the more macro the the effected the less effect the micro entity has on that macro effected.

    How will it be guided and who will guide it and to what degree? Who will win? And who will lose?

  13. ” Political dementia & a demented ideology that claims a chosen elite can forever dominate & exploit the majority of American people. ”

    Remove “America” from that, and expand the concept of elite to its obvious and historical role throughout all hiatories, find the underlying causes for the formation of that “elite”, explain them, and you will have the foundation for a very important article. One that needs to be written.

    • That article, book, podcast has been written or produced many times. It has both resulted in an educated minority and a majority who are interested in the race between snow white – if we leave out the dye – and the 17 dwarfs. Something more is needed.

  14. It’s sad, as I contemplate whether or not the funding drive is going to make it and how this may or may not relate to the number of people BFP can appeal to and whether or not there’s room to expand there, I look at this article and recognize there are very few people I know who I would recommend to this site just based on James Petras’ articles alone. I tend to agree with many of the points he makes and I wouldn’t necessarily cite any one claim as being distinctly anti-Semitic, but as someone from a jewish background, I can’t help but recoil a bit by how anti-Semitic his writing feels most of the time.

    For some perspective, it would be a bit like saying: Christians and Catholics have been the driving force behind colonialism and particularly the genocide in the “new world”. Hiding behind the hypocrisy that their religious piety is an excuse for their grievous sins and atrocities. Indeed, Jesus must spend the majority of his time grieving for the horrors committed in his name. From inquisitions to, burning crosses on the lawns of black families in the United States, condemning gays as sinners, while making excuses for serial child rapists. I’m not saying all Christians and Catholics support these things, but how come more of them don’t actively speak out against these sins and take responsibility for all the damage which has been done for so long in Jesus’ name.

    **** just to reiterate, above is a HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE, NOT a statement or reflection of MY PERSONAL VIEWS****

    Similar to Petras, none of what I said here is categorically “false” or without some sort of relevant basis, but outside of this hypothetical example, I would never grant myself with the right to speak in such derogatory and inflammatory language about Christians and Catholics because I don’t think it’s right or fair to link together a series of incriminating or morally shameful statements against people of any faith. I don’t preoccupy myself with this line of thinking unless it directly applies. In contrast, based on Petras’ writing, he appears to be extremely preoccupied with the social ills which relate to Jews.

    Just to make a point, which I think few are aware of; much of the “chosen people” BS which characterizes Zionism appears to be largely based on the sort of Christian philo-Semitism which motivated many British policy makers such as Lord Balfour to support ‘returning the Jews to their ancient homeland’, often against the better judgement of more rational figures who recognized that creating a “Jewish National Home” in a predominantly non-Jewish region would inevitably lead to disaster for all participants, which seemed particularly foolish as there was also a reasonable consensus that at that time controlling Palestine was far more of a liability than it was a strategic interest for the British empire.

    I pained myself to read Theodore Herzl’s “Jewish State” and was struck even by the contrast between the foreword, written by the translator, after the establishment of Israel, in its fanciful biblical “chosen people” ancestral heritage crap from that of Herzl’s writing which made minimal note of the historical Jewish relationship/connection with Palestine, beyond pragmatically recognizing that deciding on Palestine, opposed to “Argentine” (Argentina, which was also considered), would help galvanize support for the proposal. Indeed, the tone of Herzl’s manifesto is largely that of a secular European intellectual, who resents the majority of poor European Jewry living in their isolated run down ghettos, yet recognizes that, short of renouncing Judaism altogether, will never be fully embraced within a secular context among his countrymen. Unfortunately, his analysis of why this failure to properly integrate and the rising elements of tension and resentment towards Jewish upward mobility in Europe, post enlightenment/Jewish Emancipation would ultimately lead to disaster for European Jewry would prove to be quite accurate. (That’s another matter though)

    I’ll try to round it off by saying this: I’m opposed to Zionism and virtually everything Israel does, and resent its audacity to claim to represent “Jewish interests”, but when I hear articles like James Petras’ and the underlying tone in many of the comments regarding Israel and Zionism even here at BFP, it’s hard to stand in alliance and speak out against these wrongs which I feel deeply about and do the necessary job of stressing the distinction between criticism of Zionism and Israel from anti-Semitism when I’m less than convinced about the sincerity at heart among those who I’d task myself to defend.

    I have yet to speak so bluntly on these matters, but I do so as I lament the ways in which what I’d refer to as latent anti-Semitism tarnishes legitimate criticism of Zionism, Israel, and yes, the ludicrous idea of Jewish “supremacy”, which while I’m at it is also just as much an anti-Semitic projection used mainly by Christians to cast suspicion on the self fulfilling prophecy of “Jewish power”, which many arrogant and foolish Jews have adopted in many of the gross and easily refutable manners Petras accurately addresses in this article. Often when I speak passionately about my feelings with respect to these notions stated above, I imagine myself speaking at a rally where following a harsh line of criticism of Israel or Zionism I’m cheered on by a mixture of “yeah, fuck those Zionist Jewish pigs”.

    The extent I feel this way at BFP is rare and mainly negligible and beyond that, I have absolute confidence that Sibel’s critique of Israel, Zionism, etc are laser beam focused in their specificity and don’t go beyond that, which is a reassurance. However, this great trust has assured itself to me over time, so returning to my initial comment about whether or not I would recommend BFP to some of the people who would get a great deal out of what’s offered here, I can understand how, without that trust an article like this would be a premature deterrent in terms of the impression one might get. This same idea carries over to the Libertarian movement, which was discussed in the most recent excellent BFP roundtable.

    I’m not stating this to condemn the conversation here, cast suspicion on what others have said, or suggest that I don’t think James Petras’ work is without value or inappropriate to feature here (even if I don’t respect or appreciate it), but I feel like my reluctance to come off as sounding defensive about Israel, Zionism, etc may indeed be coming at a loss to the community here. I’m skeptical as to how well received any of this will be taken by fellow members, except perhaps TomS, who I think recognizes and appreciates some of the technical concerns I’ve attempted to express here and elsewhere. I think it’s quite likely that my comment will generate hostility, but hopefully something positive might come out of an honest attempt to struggle proactively with that hostility should it arise.

    I’m constantly frustrated with myself for allowing myself to get wrapped up in endless debates where my lack of self restraint in lengthy comments comes at a substantial productivity deficit, but somehow I’ll have to figure that one out on my own. 🙂 Little that’s truly worthwhile comes without a struggle, so in this case I’ll put the “struggle” down to balance in my handling of all that moves forward from here in the subsequent comments.

    • “For some perspective, it would be a bit like saying: Christians and Catholics have been the driving force behind colonialism and particularly the genocide in the “new world”. Hiding behind the hypocrisy that their religious piety is an excuse for their grievous sins and atrocities. Indeed, Jesus must spend the majority of his time grieving for the horrors committed in his name. From inquisitions to, burning crosses on the lawns of black families in the United States, condemning gays as sinners, while making excuses for serial child rapists. I’m not saying all Christians and Catholics support these things, but how come more of them don’t actively speak out against these sins and take responsibility for all the damage which has been done for so long in Jesus’ name.”

      I havent read your whole post yet, but even though you were trying to be snarky you failed. You forgot to including bilking people out of money to support their lavish lifestyle their god thinks they deserve to live.

      When you seek an education seek not a place where pretty things are said and everyone is in agreement. Seek a place where well informed and thoughtful people say whatever they want, no matter how offensive. It is in such a place that you will find the greatest hope for sound reasoning in the face of ever encroaching and pleasant sounding BS and lies made wonderful and “valid” with hefty sprinklings of politeness and butt licking.

      • Oh, and it is from conflict which education arises. What would be better is if people could consider things without placing so much emotional value on those things communicated. Everyone is full of it at some level or another and there will always be flaws in individual opinions. But from comparing one opinion to another one can make for themselves a view their own instead of simply becoming a follower of some flawed person or other idealogy producing entity.

        If this logic were to spread to the insitutions of society there may actually be hope that people would leave behind the bigotry that supports them. Some examples of this bigotry can be found in the mundane, such as the trust that people put in the military or doctors or professors or religion mongers. If such bigotry were left behind these instituions might never have become so corrupted.

        Also, how would one criticize Zionism and Israel without making it feel anti semitic? The apparent union between Judaism and Israel has been made strong in most people’s minds thanks to years of propoganda and being told that not supporting Israel is Jew hating.

        If I were to criticize the people in the US for not staning up to their muderous and conniving government or if I were to criticize the people of Germany for not stopping Hitler before he went on his rampage, would it be possible to make the Americans or Germans feel comfortable with that? In both cases these countries are supported and guided by their citizenry and in both cases it was not just the fault of Hitler or Obama or their puppet masters that they murder and destroy. It is also the fault of their citizenry for not having the perspicacity and boldness to stand against the wrongs that they enabled.

        Just as it is the Christian’s duty to stand up to their liars and expose them for the thieving, killing lying upity crap they do and espouse it is the duty of any person not to support the wrongs of the groups which they belong. Even just speaking out against it, if people did so casually and commonly, would be an enormous detriment to the corruption.

        Perhaps the reason criticism seems anti-whatever is because the people withing those groups who would speak out don’t, making those outside the groups who do speak out seem anti-whatever.

        Context is always a determining factor.

    • On further reflection, I take back my comment where I said that I didn’t intend to “suggest that I don’t think James Petras’ work is without value”. I still won’t go as far as to say that it’s “inappropriate” to feature at BFP, but I think it detracts from the adherence to a focus on politics and avoidance of focusing on faith or ethnicity, beyond the scope in which it’s relevant. Again though, I’m not pointing fingers, since I couldn’t really put mine on it prior to this point to begin with. I also feel that his work reinforces a negative set of stereotypes which appear to be based on a general lack of personal contact or association with Jews who fall outside of the spectrum of his critique, which would be to say the vast majority, although this is only mildly reflected here and there in a sort of “I know a couple of Jews who aren’t like what I’m describing” manner.

      As a matter of fact, when I was looking up a statement Petras had previously presented as a quote in an article published here to see where the origin this “quote” was, the only results which showed up in my search were other sites which re blogged the article in full or simply took extracts. More importantly, the sites besides BFP and Petras’ own site where these results showed up were definitely bigoted and anti-Semitic. One of them, Rense, is a straight up white supremacist outfit (how ironic).

      I’m not accusing Petras of willful anti-Semitism, but his work lacks the sense of boundary between intellectual critique and something which goes beyond that which someone like Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, who doesn’t mince words when it comes to his critique of Zionism, Israel, and the particulars within that realm of the Jewish spectrum, understands and demonstrates in his work.

      I don’t know anybody personally who buys into the idea of Jewish supremacy. There might be a sense of pride that someone like Albert Einstein for example was Jewish, but why it is that some of the statistics of high achievements in certain areas among Jews is disproportionate, is more of a “million dollar question” than any sort of inflated sense of “racial” superiority. Any Jew with an even moderate sense of humility wouldn’t try to refute the position of prominent Jews in unsavory roles worthy of criticism, just as anybody else with no excuses. Only the most arrogant neoliberal, Zionists, and banksters would look at these as positive traits and, surely in their cases, a sign of superiority.

      The only times I’ve encountered people asserting that the Jews are “God’s chosen people” are Christians and Catholics telling this to me, regardless of the fact that I’m not religious. I think the idea that this should be taken literally or seriously is nonsense, but I have yet to find a polite way to refute something which is (at least theoretically) being presented as a compliment without feeling that doing so would be a rude rejection of their faith.

      I think probably most Jews have a warped sense of identity because there’s rarely a sense of ownership over what your theoretical virtues, wickedness, status as oppressed or oppressor, victim or villain are when those who praise you are the same that despise you. The Holocaust has been used and abused without end, but when I hear people discussing “scholarly research”, questioning the extent and means of extermination of Jews in concentration camps (i.e: only about a million died and they just starved to death, they weren’t any gas chambers, etc), I don’t know if I’m more disgusted or perplexed that these individuals aren’t able to appreciate how spiteful and cynical such a line of inquiry would be viewed by anybody who has this event so deeply imprinted on their heritage.

      • BennyB,

        I can’t speak for others here but I certainly appreciate what you’re saying here. I’ve been aware of Petras and his work for years and grew tired a long while ago of how for him everything comes down to Jews and Israel. It’s just not a worldview I have much time for, having seen it derail so many serious conversations (central banking, 9/11 and other false flag terrorist attacks, NATO’s post-colonial wars in the Middle East). Also, the ease with which Petras and others slip from talking about Zionism (a philosophy) and Israel (a nation state) to talking about Jews and Jewishness (an ethnic-religious group and their supposed characteristics) bothers me. Yet whenever I bring this up directly I get accused of playing the race card or trying to cover up for Israel’s crimes with accusations of anti-semitism.

        The reality, to my mind, is that it is those who turn ‘the Israel question’ into ‘the Jewish question’ (often with a side salad of holocaust denial) are the ones most effectively covering up for Israel’s crimes, with the exception of overt Zionist mouthpieces. As is so often the case, the people most vociferously criticising something are actually the ones doing a lot of the work to prevent any meaningful resolution. I think this happens quite naturally, even without infiltration from agencies, though I’d expect this is also something that has been stoked and encouraged by infiltrators.

        Amongst all this dancing around the line of going full retard and saying ‘it’s ALL the JEWS!!!!’ and indeed with us getting drawn into that conversation out of a desire to talk about these things in a more mature way what gets lost is how this part of a bigger picture. Israel is, if you like, a microcosm of a conflict playing out across tens of thousands of square miles. The suffering of the Palestinians, as horrible as it is, is a fraction of the overall violence and suffering inflicted by NATO. It is perhaps the most concentrated, sustained version of that.

        I’m not sure I’m substantively adding anything to what you said, but I do share a lot of your concerns and opinions here, as is often the case.

        • CuChulainn says:

          the jewish obsession–for or against–is just another manifestation of the refusal to think about capitalism critically that seems to circumscribe the conversation here at BFP, which comes back to the fundamental passivity of life in the spectacle.

          judeophiles who go around wielding the blood libel charge of “antisemitism” to police discourse and drawing “out the Hitler apologists and holocaust deniers…” are no different in kind from judeophobes (or, quite often, jews who posing as such) who attribute all the worlds evils to jewish machinations–both fetishize judaism, for or against it.

          judeophobes whose obsessions are evident to relatively healthy people are not likely to do much harm; their anger shows an inability to understand what is going on in the world, an inability fostered by the ongoing omertà of critical thinking; they often become witting or unwitting accomplices of the powers that be, with their unattractive and caricatural behavior, and often are in the pay of the spectacle’s owners, as with Pravy Sektor in Ukraine.

          more harmful are policemen of discourse real (in the mainstream media) or aspiring (Tom Secker here at BFP)

          that grown men are not embarrassed to play these roles is a good barometer of the feminization of public discourse especially in English-speaking countries, where there are rewards, financial or social, for this kind of behavior; the spectacle, after all, is a monopoly on discourse.

          Jim Petras is an old man now, he remembers a time when the Left, for all its faults, was a place where sectarian, religious, and racial identities were not fetishized but subjected to rational and historical examination.

          • CuChulainn,

            I value Tom’s critique here and I have a pretty hard time understanding the underlying framework which is being used to justify his positions in your eyes as being part of some sort of establishment gatekeeper apologist. Your comments about the “feminisation” of the “English-speaking” are a pretty cheap and self-righteous sounding attack, which I think negates some of the more critical points you made before that. Clearly this has been going back and forth between you guys for a while, but I hope both of you figure out a way to cut the crap with this tit-for-tat personal attacks as I feel it certainly detracts from the quality of the otherwise insightful contributions each of you typically make here.

            Jim Petras is an old man now, he remembers a time when the Left, for all its faults, was a place where sectarian, religious, and racial identities were not fetishized but subjected to rational and historical examination.

            I’m not sure how you’re defining the “left”, but I see his work as a prime example of “fetishized” religious ranting which is only about as dignified as an old man not feeling the need to be embarrassed or apologize for farting at the dinner table. We can resent the PC cleanliness and self-censorship in the discourse all day, but if we can’t acknowledge a few components or “norms” within contemporary discourse, as long as they don’t dilute the concept and underlying message, then in reality the “left” as you seem to be characterizing it here seems to be a nostalgia for an era of ineffectual intellectually masterbatory self isolationist cypher, which favors ideological militancy and self marginalization over a perceived weakness and inferiority with even the slightest form of pragmatism.

            You frequently share compelling, well articulated, insights here at BFP CuChu. Why rope off the cypher? Perhaps I’m not be fair. But I definitely don’t feel your comment towards Tom was fair. I guess that’s the main thing.

          • CuChulainn says:

            Benny, thank you baby, i’m drowning
            i don’t have “personal” issues with Tom (or with anyone, for that matter–except maybe Sibel which might explain why i still hang out here)–i listen to his podcasts when i have time and have learned from them. my issue is with his efforts to police the conversation, as explained above, and frankly, as “A Name” pointed out, you seem to have a similar tendency, albeit bathed in politeness

          • CuChu & All,

            Differences of opinion, sometimes vehement/heated, is one of the greatest qualities of this website. We can agree to disagree and engage in a healthy debate without resorting to ‘labeling.’ I happen to like and respect Petras. I’ve been always open and outspoken about my disdain/intense hatred of Israel lobby & pretty much everything the Zionist State of Israel stands for (Personally speaking: I do not even recognize it as a state.). With that said: I cringe when the wording/expression revolves around the religious side. I don’t agree with (or approve of) using the religion-label to address actions/stands. This applies as much for ‘Islamist’ & ‘Muslim’ this and that, as it does to ‘Jewish’ or ‘Hindu’ that and this. It ends up giving ammunition to those who use (and overuse) anti-Semite label to censor/suffocate all valid (and justified) criticism of Israel & Zionist lobby-movement-gangs. Same thing applies to use of ‘Muslim-Islam’ words, which gets to be used by puppet-terrorists to make it a proof of ‘ A Crusade against Muslims & Islam.

            I have to say, as a person who’s been viciously attacked by the ‘force’ as anti-Semite: The usage, overuse, of this weapon (immediately calling/labeling/accusing with ‘anti-Semitism’) has rendered it ineffective. Even justified ones now gets to be perceived as ‘Here they go, bringing out ‘anti-Semite’ guns.’

            I believe we can all agree on daily atrocities being committed by Israel (for nearly half a century), all of which with 100% immunity, with 100% unconditional support of the Western World, thanks to their lobby, gangs and playing the ‘Anti-Semite’ card effectively for a long long time. Imagine of Extremist Islamists had such reach, influence and lobby power? Or Hindus? Or Buddhists? Or Blacks? Think of it, it is unprecedented. While I agree with the existence of other supremacists with power, I have never seen such power held for such a long time by a very small percentage of the world population.

            I know with whatever I say I will be getting boos from some, and applause from others. That is a proof of saying ‘something.’ When we say something and get all applause or nothing, we haven’t said a thing. Knowing this: I’d never run for office or get a sales job, that’s for sure. Thankfully, I’m not looking for either.

            P.S.- There are times I publish certain work by our partner producers, while I cringe (and moan) with intense disagreement. Afterwards, I congratulate myself for swallowing and tolerating disagreement, differences of opinion. To this date: I have never tried to stop, modify or discourage a single work by a single partner. They have 100% guaranteed editorial freedom. Each voice is original, independent and unique. And this independence won’t last or be preserved without all of us recognizing and appreciating ‘independence.’

          • CuChu,

            Thanks for the reply and your thoughts. Not that it “matters”, but I’m glad I’m merely overreading into the back and forth between you and Tom.

            I would agree with your assertion that both Tom and I have a tendency to “police” the conversations as you put it (hopefully, I’m not as bad as Tom ;-), but I think, at least in my case, my aim is to provide a contrasting opinion and some context where it appears to be lacking on certain topics and in certain situations. I’m not looking to tell people what they should or shouldn’t do or say, but I figure as someone who usually shares a similar perspective or attitude on certain topics as other BFP members, a contrasting view or personal reflection coming from me and not just some Zionist PC Bot (or whatever else may apply) may have a positive impact in shedding some light on an element I feel like I’m alone in seeing here, but recognize it would be glaringly obvious by others, perhaps unfairly so.

            I guess this topic is one that I tend to get bent out of shape over, because there are elements which I take away which I think are difficult for others to appreciate. My aim isn’t to stifle debate and A Name’s point was well taken that I need to be extremely judicious in the way I address things like Holocaust research if I want to avoid becoming a parody of the stifling influence of Zionist intimidation and false accusations, which are more of primary concern.

            More to say, but I’ll leave it there for now. =]

          • Benny B,

            You have never ‘stifled’ any issue/topics. I want to make sure each member, every member, feels completely free and independent, and speaks her/his mind without having to worry about some ‘general consensus.’ None of us is going to bend, twist and squeeze to fit in. In fact we are hallenging the entire notion of ‘fitting.’ As I know we at BFP are the inhabitants of the Island of misfits:-)

          • Sibel,

            I just wanted to say that even though I’ve had a problem with Petras’ work, for reasons I’ve expressed here and elsewhere, I still respect your editorial discretion and admire your integrity for letting the contributors speak freely without censorship. I think this is unique and commendable. As I stated, I haven’t felt that this article or others have been “inappropriate” or in poor taste to be featured at BFP, more that I felt, again for reasons hopefully I adequately explained, that they had more of a negative effect that a positive one.

            I’ll add a second revision to my assessment of the value of this article and say that it seems the article has had a positive effect here in the comments, as it’s opened up the floor for us to have an important conversation about subject matter which is critical to wrestle with. Due to the quality of the conversation here I, for one, at least feel that I’ve had a good opportunity to address some of my concerns in a space where, whether or not others see any value in them, I feel that I’ve been treated with respect and listened to.

            So thanks again for doing what you do here. Much respect 😉

            ~B

          • CuChulainn says:

            Sibel, thanks for that, i appreciate your commitment to free and open discussion on this website.
            critical thinking? that’s a function of the people who contribute and comment here. there is a lot of useful information about current events but discussion takes place as though Hegel, Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, Pannekoek, Bordiga, Mattick, Debord had never existed. which is fine and to be expected from latter-day anglophones, but doesn’t look to me like critical thinking about the world we live in.

        • Tom,

          Thanks for your input. I think it does add value to the conversation and I appreciate the fact that your comments on the subject matter always, in my opinion, avoid backsliding into apologetics for Israel or Zionism, thus negating their value. As is the case with many things discussed here it’s important to be able to look introspectively at the larger ecosystem our discourse takes place and stop every now and then to considering whether our discourse is counteracting a problem or narrative we wish to combat, or whether allowing ourselves to unwittingly support what we wish to combat through less obvious or less conclusive means. On that note, A Name made a good comment in response to something I said that holds true to this line of inquiry which I’ll attempt to address.

        • Tom – that’s one of the most cogent and well-phrased commentaries on the matter I’ve ever seen articulated in such a short space. Nice work.

          It’s remarkable how often you see otherwise accurate (or, as in the case of Mein Kampf or other flailing ravings that occasionally hit somewhere near the mark) critiques of the international banking order constantly refer to this structure as somehow monolithically Jewish, even when that’s obviously not the case, even going back to the Middle Ages. That it has historically seemed disproportionately so doesn’t seem terribly difficult to explain when the Jews of medieval Europe were denied titles, land, chattels, naturally any place in the Church, and all the other trappings of ruling-class power – clearly the most ambitious and ruthless among them would be drawn to finance as the most enticing ladder of advancement, because what else is left, really.

          Further, to Sibel – the ‘totally unprecedented’ influence of the Zionist lobby over US foreign policy really isn’t that totally unprecedented – immediately prior to the Israel Lobby, we had the China Lobby of the ‘Nationalist’ government-in-exile, which for some time dominated US policy in that region, employing rather fewer moving parts than AIPAC et al. It even manufactured broad consent with just the same tactic – winning the minds of evangelical Christians, who wrung their hands over all the (totally ineffectual) missionary efforts that would be ‘lost’ if China went Communist or we admitted that China *had* gone Communist. I’d be shocked if the Israel Lobby didn’t deliberately copy much of their playbook from Wellington Koo and company.

          Re: this stream of hyperbolic accusations vs. Tom – I’d love to see a future Disinfowars episode dealing in some more depth with the wave of enthusiasm one sees in European circles for right-wing nativism and its enthusiastic partisans (why has Red Ice Radio spent two years talking about almost nothing else, for instance?) as a reaction to forced multiculturalism. I enjoyed “Neonazism and the Truth Movement” on Spy Culture, but I feel like there’s much more to explore on the subject. First speculation that comes to mind – while in America these things take a distinctly Christian Dominionist flavor, Christianity is just so dead and buried throughout most of Europe that these kinds of energies have nowhere else to go but racism and nationalism.

          • Anarcardo,

            That’s certainly a good suggestion for a topic that would no doubt cause a good argument, and I think your point is sound.

      • Further – you, Benny, seem to bend over backwards to be nice and inclusive to people. Hardly anybody I’d label a ‘gatekeeper.’ The only criticism I’d make of Tom’s tone / style is that, by his own description, he’s been, for lack of a better term, ‘awake’ for a long, long time – took in complete cynicism wrt political pronouncements with his mother’s milk as far as I know – and finds it difficult to understand people who don’t come to the alternative movement with that same kind of veteran’s perspective. ‘Waking up’ is an incredibly shocking, disorienting experience for most people – it was bad enough for me, being a relatively recent graduate to the alternative media, and I think the only reason it wasn’t worse is that I’d been personally prepared for it years earlier by some truly devastating personal experiences with psychopathy / pseudopsychopathy. I’ve known more than one person who basically went mad for a while when they were truly, bone-deeply convinced that “9/11 was an inside job,” for instance. Tom sometimes seems to find it truly difficult to understand how people ever found themselves that deep inside the Matrix in the first place, to which I can only shrug and say – conditioning’s a bitch and a half, man. “Mate,’ if that’s his preferred parlance.

        • Anacardo,

          Perhaps not as early as ‘with my mother’s milk’ but certainly I was brought up by parents who taught me not to take authority figures at face value. Plus I learned pretty quickly that teachers/schools were incapable or unwilling to treat disciplinary issues with anything approaching a consistent or careful manner. This in turn gave me a healthy scepticism of the justice system. Basically, I didn’t like spending 14 years of my life in an institution 5 days a week.

          What you term ‘waking up’ I term ‘trying to grow up’. The desire to find an authority figure to tell you what is what in the world is childish – naturally people look to their parents when they are young and there’s nothing wrong with that. But then when they grow up their parents are replaced by newsreaders, politicians, their bosses at work and so on. For someone who has always had an authority figure to realise that most of those figures are actually only in that position because of their ability to be dishonest – yes, this is quite jarring, even traumatic for some.

          Where I get frustrated is that about 95% of people who come to that realisation (or something approximating it) then just flee from the responsibility that comes with it. They look for a new authority figure to trust – Ron Paul, Alex Jones, whatever – and just latch onto them and become avid followers in just the same way they were before. It’s like those people who were brought up in some really strict Catholic environment and then escape and realise the limits and problems of that strict Catholic upbringing, and then become a scientologist.

          The other 5% are the sorts of people who largely make up the crowd here at BFP – a bunch of misfits and iconoclasts who have actually taken on the responsibility of educating themselves and trying to come to complex opinions on things rather than just looking for a new ideology and authority to replace the old one with.

          So, from where I’m sitting, it is not the people who never ‘wake up’ who I struggle to relate to. It is the people who insist they’ve woken up but are just as dogmatic and disciplinarian (if not more so) than the people they denigrate. Because to me that all seems to be a psychological-social process, not a political-philosophical one. And I’m into this for the political-philosophical implications and opportunities rather than to make new friends with whom I can bitch about my old friends.

  15. Considering how manipulated history has been I find it strange that anyone could be berated for questioning it. History is a powerful tool and it is always prone to corruption. We see it every day in the news.

    I have no idea on the whole numbers theory and actually prefer to think that as many as possible got it as bad as possible so that I can point to Germany as an example of the effects a compliant, stupid, authority worshiping and boot licking public can have on the world. But to get sensitive when people distrust something issomehwat antithetical to the purpose of any site similar to this. I could understand if you get sensitive when people say the whole thing is some evilJew conspiracy and then get all ” jiws ist evils, OMFG” on things, but to get upset because they question something is kind of ridiculous.

    There comes a point when politeness looses its value and becomes something perverse. And that point is when you use it to control how other people think. Any place and any people who are willing to question anything and everything should be seen as a good thing, not a threat.

    You can say anti jew fanaticism is wrong. You can say that questioning the official story can be used by such lunatics, but you can never reasonably say that questioning anything is in itself wrong. And yet you just dis in this particular case, which disturbs me.

    Remember that it was a sense of victimization that thrust Germany upon its Nazi stage about 80 years ago. Using that sense of victimization to control speech is not acceptable.

    • A Name,

      I appreciate your observation and critique of my taking issue with the number counting and fact checking nature of Holocaust research. I’m absolutely against the restriction of any investigation of historical narratives and this certainly applies to the Holocaust. I forget what his name is, but there’s a French academic who’s researched the authenticity of the “official” statistics cited, such as the six million deaths, use of the gas chambers, etc, who’s been the victim of serious physical assaults and death threats in response to his studies. I find this and laws that outlaw questioning of the historical accuracy of accounts of the Holocaust under the blanket of “Holocaust denial” far more sinister and indeed counterproductive than any of the research itself. I would even go as far as to say that this plays into what I refer to as the current status of Jewish/Zionist fascism.

      Still, there’s something inescapably spiteful and offensive that I consistently find about the language used and the themes that come up in discussions along these lines of research which I have a hard time reconciling with my opinions on free speech and the concept that no line of historic inquiry should be restricted. I have yet to find a way to express my thoughts on the matter in a way which reconciles these two positions. But I still feel the need to present the argument as someone who’s exceptionally clear about not being part of the phony alarmist false-accusation of anti-Semitism types, that even just clinical discussion refuting death statistics from the Holocaust is legitimately offensive.

      It seems like the purpose or at least the flavor in which this research always seems to come across comes from a place of resentment about the way in which the Holocaust is used in politically perverse and nefarious ways (which I agree with), but with the added insinuation that Jews are somehow so powerful that they’ve managed to fabricate a tragedy of epic proportions for personal gain. I’ve never heard this line of inquiry being expressed in a conversation which seems to fail to tip its hand regarding an anti-Zionist, anti-Israel sentiment which, like Petras’ work has at best a murky boundary between these concepts and general anti-Semitism.

      I don’t want to try to block people from doing this research and having these discussions, but I’d like to see a better understanding among those who do it that trivializing the statistics of a tragedy of any sort, particularly when there’s a pretty firmly embedded implication that the victims are part of the group responsible for fabricating the statistics to generate sympathy, is deeply offensive in a way which is difficult to express. I shouldn’t have to feel so reluctant to use the word “victims” in a case where this accurately describes much of European Jewry’s experience during the second world war. This, I definitely blame Zionism for though. Still, that exploitation shouldn’t be the grounds to negate the legitimacy. I’m stating my own response here to be honest and explain that I understand a lot of what it is that seems to fuel the fire and, for reasons that I understand and feel in certain ways, create resentment.

      As far as the concept of placing “blame” for the Holocaust on one group or another (aside from the Nazis themselves) is concerned, I think if there is a uniting sentiment among Jews, including the worst Zionists, banksters, etc, it’s not that any specific group should be held “accountable” for what happened, but that people should be willing to recognize that it did happened and what happened was cruel and sick and attempts to minimize this is cruel and dehumanizing. I don’t think the Holocaust deserves to be singled out as an entirely “unique” example of cruelty and genocide, but if there is one way in which it seems to be unique in my experience, it’s that it’s an instance of genocide which is denied or contested in ways that I haven’t seen elsewhere.

      The way the Holocaust has been and continues to be exploited is an absolute travesty. Holocaust revisionism (or whatever the word is) ought to take into consideration the fact that this work plays directly into the hands of those who are responsible for this exploitation. As I stated, I’m opposed on principal to restrictions on free speech and academic inquiry, but a consideration between trivial pursuit for personal gain, versus unwittingly supporting an agenda of collective punishment it would seem to me is worthwhile if one wishes to push back against the destructive manifestations of this agenda.

      • Keep in mind that they way the Holocaust is used to generate sympathy is also unique. We dont see the same for the native americans or Palestinians or the blacks of Africa or latin america or any other group. The Holocaust is used and propogandized unlike any other atrocity in history.

        It is a horror that HAS been abused to excuse horror. Imagine if blacks and natives were to go about killing and bulldozing anyone in their way while playing the victims cards that they have earned.

        Also not that you muddy the waters in ways I cannot well describe with words so I will tell you my interpretation of your stance. Your wording is not as clear as Secker’s.

        Interpretation:

        1) You do not like holocaust “revisionists”, they way they are used by bigots, and see their endeavors as meaningless except in a bigoted venue.

        2) You say you want people to speak freely.

        3) Yet you shame them for doing so, an example being your demands for politeness in the face of any questioning of the holocaust numbers.

        4) You do not like lumping all memebers claiming to belong to a singular group together.

        5) Part if you, a part you are unwilling to admit the existence of does actually want to stifle speach to precent offense.

        Considerations regarding my perspective (some of this is probably hipocritical but that does not make it wrong):

        1) When one is part of a group one has a responsibility in directing and giving form to that group. In my view the Germans were not victims of big bad Hitler, but were instead his supporters and admirers who came to regret their position and attempt to distance themselves from it by claiming to be victims of the mascot of their own vile qualities. Same thing goes for the US population in relation to its projections of power and pride. Jews are no different. If someone usurps the the dialogue you wished for a group you belong to to create and directs it toward something vile, then you must stand up and speak out, not berate others outside your group, when they do speak up, with insinuations that they are wrongful in their criticisms to the point they must shut up lest they be deemed bigots, or with, from my perspective, whiney demands that they speak about it in such a way as not to offend, this way as yet remaining undefined, lest they be deemed bigoted or vile in some way.

        Question: Just how exactly would you critique the Zionist movement without offending. Perhaps you and Secker should write article on this issue and submit them for publication here thereby adding domain and range to the convereation instead of demanding politeness.

        Assertion:

        You made a good point in the over generalization direction of things. Perhaps some articles weaving a clear path through the divisions within the Jewish community could help seperate the Jews who do not wish to be part of the “Bulldozer Jew” movement from the current narative which is controlled by the “Bulldozer Jews”. Nowadays when people see “Jew” they do not think peaceful people who wish to do good, they thing about those f-ers who sit on a couch on the hill cheering as the people beneath them are murdered and their homes destoryed. The “Real Jew” must be seperated from the “Bulldozer Jew”. You, Secker, and “Real Jews” sit in the pilot seat on this issue whether you like it or not. It is not the oassengers faults for pointing out the plane is crashing with “f yous” and other foul language. Such a situation is not fixed with demands for respect and politeness. It is the pilot’s duty to right the plane in order to stop the vitriol. When real jews speak out against bulldozer jews they change the face of what judaism is seen as. When jews demand politness and silence they only add to the monolith.

        On that note, and this REALLY needs to be covered, is the whole rocket blasting into Israel and the stabbings and such, are these false flags by the “Bulldozer Jews”? And why is bulldozing palestinians seen as good and how did the bulldozing start? It would be nice to have all that laid out nice and neat. Is the bulldozing right or wrong and what was the original justification?

        Also:

        I like this article from the infowars website. It is actually a good article IMO. And very relevant to what is going on in the world. Keep in mind that the abuse of victimization to villainize others unjustly will create this backlash. If the Jews keep letting others, others they say have this awful anti semitic tone and undercurrent to their writings, do all the work against bulldozing judaism, then what exactly can they expect to happen when their own silence adds to the voice of the bulldozer jews? If you dont like the way Petras talks about it, then do your own damned talking about and hijack the dialogue. Few will have any real care for weak and ridiculous demands for politeness, especially when those demands amount to being a nice way of saying STFU.

        “Did You Know America Now Similar to 1930s Germany?
        The parallels between 2015 America and 1933 Germany are shocking
        Did You Know America Now Similar to 1930s Germany?

        by Illinois Mike | Infowars.com | September 30, 2015
        Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on Twitter321Share on Google+0Email this to someonePrint this page
        If you think the things that have been done in this country under the current administration are bad, it’s what is yet to come that we need to keep our eyes on.

        Ultimately it will be “the People” as a whole who will choose between stopping or participating in the demise of this country.

        All of perversion and anti-American activity that is being pushed and displayed to the population is being done with a purpose; if we look back just 70 years ago we can see exactly why.

        In Germany prior to the adoption of National Socialism the country was comprised of 2/3rd Protestant and 1/3rd Catholic; Germany was essentially a Christian nation.

        Coming into the 1930s and before the rise of Adolf Hitler, Germany was considered the most socially progressive country in Europe: open homosexuality, transgendered persons and the whole cabaret culture was adopted by and thrust upon the population by the types of people we would call “liberals” today; in fact the first recorded male-to-female gender reassignment surgery occurred in Berlin in 1931.

        This type of activity and behavior was hefted upon the average German who was tolerant of it because of their Christian foundations, initially having a “live and let live” attitude toward the other members of their society. However, because they saw it destroying their traditional value system and were watching it being thrust upon their children, it was essentially grinding on the underlying psyche of the average German citizen; much like the United States today.

        Then suddenly a tough-talking man comes on the scene, speaking in populist language about restoring the greatness of Germany, knowing this was exactly the average citizen greatly desired.

        One of the first actions taken to “return Germany to greatness” was the Reichstag Fire Decree which modified their constitution to allow restrictions on personal liberty, especially the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, the right of assembly and the right of association.

        There were also restrictions on privacy in postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on private property.

        This was followed by the book burning which was the purging of German society of the “literature of perversion;” literally the burning of pornography and associated materials and text books that were viewed as the source of the perversion they were seeing all around them. This quickly evolved into burning all sorts of things that challenged the agenda of the Nazi party.

        Then the round ups began.

        In Milton Mayer’s 1955 book They Thought They Were Free, the poem by Martin Niemoller’s that is often quoted regarding the rounding up of persons can be found.

        First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a socialist.

        Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist.

        Then they came for the jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a jew.

        Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.

        More accurately, they first came for the gypsies and “perverts” who had “tainted German society” and those people who had “come out” and “proudly identified themselves” during the tolerant period.

        You can see this as the catalyst that helped to spin things out of control in order to “purify and restore the greatness of Germany.

        Once the concentration in the ghetto’s and round ups began, the ignorant brow beaten population was now effectively scared into submission. Their submission and worship of God was transformed into the submission and worship of the state and the groundwork was laid for all hell to break loose.

        So, as scary as the shift is that has occurred under the current political leadership in America, it is the rapid and extreme movement in the other direction that we should all be aware and afraid of.

        The people are ready to support anyone who is willing to “get the job done” and this is the point where “…decades can happen in weeks” (to quote Vladimir Lenin) swinging this country so far in the other direction that we will find ourselves quickly on the wrong side of history.

        We have a stunningly ignorant, brow-beaten population crying out for a strong leader to restore the greatness of America.

        We have the legal frame work of control in place.

        We have dozens of groups from “preppers” and “patriots” to “transgendered persons” who have arrogantly identified themselves thanks to pop culture encouragement.

        We have the surveillance structure Germany didn’t have, with everyone and their predispositions and social associations carefully catalogued through the technology they haven’t been effectively encouraged to avoid.

        We have religious, ethnic and other minorities that are being blamed for every ill possible proudly identifying themselves.

        We have “leaders” emerging, who are pitching a populist message with a “get it done” attitude who pledges to restore and prove the greatness of the United States.

        Everything is in place, we just need the “right leader” and another catalyst event and we’re all going to be in deep trouble.

        One has to ask themselves, if for instance the Republican “tough guy” candidate with populist rhetoric were to be elected and he and his “get it done” attitude wanted to “round up” and “deport” ethnic and religious minorities like the Hispanics and Muslims, how many people in today’s society would really oppose it? Where would it go from there? How could the voice of reason ever stop it once it starts?

        The bottom line is one man is not going to fix this mess and will only act to lead you to your own demise; the only way to fix this is that the people are going to have to find it in their gut to stand up and speak out.”

        • “Also not that you muddy”

          not should be note

          “precent offense”

          precent should be prevent

          “they way they are used by bigots”

          should be “the way they are used by bigots”

          “5) Part if you”

          should be “part of you”

  16. Also, consider that one should be thankful for criticism. Earlier you spoke of situations that backed the wave pattern of that logic. Denying criticism any right to be considered is to embrace a form of totalitarian megalomaniacal dialoge which does severe damage to character of those who would think they profit from it. It also presents a target for the disgruntled to attack by creating a stupid dialectic with a black and white quality to it. This in turn only breeds distrust and opposing forms of bigotry.

    Be careful of the politeness you seek. People forced to say things which they doubt grow resentful as they see something presented as what it is not.

    Politeness demanded is a methid of controlling dialogue and should only he allowed sway over the most superficial qualities of a dialogue, if any at all. When that demand for politeness is made in an attempt to skew the dialogue on more weighty matters it causes bigotry and distrust to form on all sides. Distrust can be a very good thing, but not when paired with a limited and therefore bigoted dialectic.

  17. I recently read an article wherein it was noted that Germany was progressive much like the modern US. Then as Hitler came along a backlash grew against minorities, gays, and the like.

    I am thinking something but as always have a hard time wording it.

    The severity of the dialogue, the desperation in a dialectic, the clawing against one another through that dialogue in an attempt to hold power… That is what creates the tension that leads to conflict.

    Let people question what they wish. If you have a problem with the beliefs they form from what they know or think they know, do not address this problem with an attempt to use demand for politeness to clamp down on their speech, for that will do nothing but make them more suspucious. Instead add to the dialogue and present new information to refute their beliefs. If you address their doubts instead of attempting to suppress their doubts with demands for politeness, then I think you will stand a much higher chance of getting through thwir defensive barriers, as dismissing a person’s right to question, think, and speak can only be seen as an injustice which any sane person will become resentful and defensive against.

  18. Over the last week I have met a number of people who were besides themselves with rage at the stabbings and killings that have been taking place in Israel. Not one of them had one thought about why the Palestinians are also outraged. They uniformly spoke of the Palestinians as if they were subhuman, completely undeserving of any consideration, much less compassion. This is not so dissimilar to how Jews were viewed in Nazi Germany. Despite the great differences in the situations – in Germany it was ideological and today it began with a takeover of another’s homeland – the underlying crime is the same, the failure to honor others’ humanity, which may be the universal crime. In any case, the invective is about to ratchet up bigtime. Add in the US furnishing arms including antiaircraft, tanks and ammo to help those who the Russians are bombing creating a proxy war with Russia, and the spectacle is about to amp up.

    • Mandela,

      I agree. I know an Israeli Jew, who’s not a bad guy, but it’s abundantly clear to me that, particularly as an Israeli, he lives within a realm of propaganda which is so detached from a concept of what the reality of a “Jewish state” actually means for non-Jews living in Historical Palestine, particularly those living conditions within the occupied territories which defy the limits of the imagination, that it’s virtually impossible for him to appreciate how predictable and understandable, if not justifiable, a violent response is.

  19. I think Zionism and the creation of Israel are probably the most foolish and costly Jewish initiative since the Bar Kokhba revolt, which ended in the utter annihilation the Jewish population living in Judea and their subsequent expulsion from “the holy land”.

    Israel’s behavior and the scope of the Zionist/Israeli lobby has done more to legitimately foster hatred towards Jews than any anti-Semitic propaganda could ever dream of. Just about everything these entities do generates a sense of hatred within me that often feels physically overwhelming. So, trust me, I have no objections to the ways in which people express similar feelings on this subject matter. The lobby preys on a legitimate inherited fear of persecution to con Jews, particularly Israelis, as seeing Israel as a necessary safeguard against the kind of social upheaval which lead to catastrophe for certain Jewish communities in the past.

    Even though I’m not religious I feel that I have a somewhat vested interest or moral obligation in doing what I can to bridge the gap for people who might not be able to appreciate legitimate social obstacles which create a schism between Jews who’s common sense and historical precedent ought to inform the basis of solidarity in joining others who reject racist barbarism that’s been an inseparable component of the creation and upholding of this Jewish state.

    The extent the Zionist/Pro-Israel lobby uses money, bullying, and an extensive array of infuriating tactics leads to justified resentment. But there’s plenty of unjustified resentment and hatred for Jews which already existed and one of my primary goals is not to let that fuel the tone and angle of the criticism. Not because I don’t want my feelings hurt or to be offended, that’s BS. It’s because I want people who care about fighting against Zionism and its components to reflect on the concept that they can more effectively support this cause by avoiding language and concepts which are legitimately sensitive and alienating to Jews who feel that their solidarity isn’t enough to sway an inherent disdain for their religious background. This is what ends up being so easily exploited by Zionism.

    In the end people are entitled to feel however they want about Jews. The only reason it really matters to me has to do with the fact that a failure to reconcile unnecessary rhetorical provocation prolongs the suffering of those who pay the consequence for the maintenance of the status quo.

    Hopefully I’ve provided some context which will shed some light on what I’m at least trying to do here.

  20. The status quo is not maintained by provocations such as holocaust revisionism and those who would use such things as ways to herd people on either side of the fencd.

    It is maintained by a lack of perspicacity and that perspicacity is fostered and maintained by limited and stupid dialogue. People’s tendency to tip toe around things being one of the main contributing forces. The force from which this is derived being the control of dialoge through peer pressure and group think. There is more to this and how dialectics are controlled I am finding the words beyond my reach.

  21. and that LACK OF perspicacity is fostered and maintained

  22. Here’s a comment I posted in response to an article on James Corbett’s website, which discussed the situation with the Saudi military assault on Yemen. (I’d post the link, but it was the subscriber newsletter).

    Nobody responded there and, as you’ll see, it’s certainly relevant to the conversation here, so I’ll post it here and see if any of you guys have thoughts on the matter.
    ========================================
    It would be interesting to do a critical analysis noting the similarities and key differences between the current Saudi bombardment of Yemen and Israel’s past bombardments of Gaza. It seems like even though the same sort of free pass on indiscriminate, disproportionate brutality, and war crimes provided by western media, particularly the US has been provided for both the Saudis and the Israelis, the more recent Israeli assaults haven’t managed to go under the radar in the same way as the Saudi campaign. With Israel, the MSM does the typical gymnastics to justify the use of force and vilify Hamas, but as noted in the article here, updates on the Saudi campaign are only mentioned in passing, with an occasional hint that there “might” be a human rights catastrophe.

    The silence in the alt-media is equally deafening overall and I’d be interested in understanding why this is the case with Saudi Arabia when, at least in the case of Israel, much of the alt-media rightly spent a significant amount of time focusing on the injustice and brutality being inflicted on the Palestinians by the Israelis in recent assaults, such as the horrific operation “protective edge”. Even in myself, I recognize that, while I think what’s going on with the Saudis in Yemen is a sickening catastrophe, I’m nowhere near the kind of rage I’ve felt when the Israelis have been doing the same sort of thing. It’s interesting to reflect on and I’m really not sure why this is the case.

    All of us respond to injustice and militaristic barbarism in different ways even in instances where the violence is proportionate. This is a spur of the moment speculation/idea on my part, but I wonder whether, despite the chearleeding that goes on in the US media in particular every time Israel goes to “war”, that there’s an underlying ulterior motive where a certain amount of outrage towards Israel is actually intended by certain figures within the deep state for the purpose of implementing some sort of policy shift in the US/NATO relationship with Israel which would require a far more sophisticated level of psychological diplomacy given the complex incestuous relationship between the US and Israel than would be the case for just about any other ally.

    • What are you talking about, man, it’s clearly just one more chess move by the ELDERS OF ZION to bring about their SHEMITAH NEW WORLD ORDER.

      But seriously folks… it’s an interesting idea. Who would you think those players are (or what faction would you imagine they represent) and what would their ultimate goal be? The fact that Israel is, what, somewhere between the world’s #4 and #6(ish?) nuclear power certainly makes the situation dicey indeed.

      • Perhaps this comment is proof that I’ve failed present an outline a hypothesis which surpasses a Stratego For Kids level of diplomatic plausibility, so I’ll elaborate a bit. 😉

        Israel’s policy roughly aligns with the general US/NATO foreign policy with the excessive stage of coziness in the relationship between the US and Israel really came more significantly into play, following the “Six Day War” where Israel made a decisive military victory (illegally capturing more land in the process) and proved its competence which would turn it more towards a regional strategic and capable military outpost in the region. Since that time and even before, in cases such as the attack on the USS Liberty, which some of us have discussed elsewhere here at BFP, Israel has attained a status and influence which I would argue is unmatched and unprecedented in US politics, as Sibel also stated. This relationship leaves it with a certain amount of autonomy to pursuit its own policies, which may or not meet the explicit level of approval from the state department etc, at least not %100 of the time.

        The United States’ only interest in the “peace process” has been to come up with something like what exists in the West Bank where the PA manages society on Israel’s behalf. Israel has failed so far to beat Hamas into submission and Israeli belligerence in the face of this stalemate has led to the kinds of escalations, particularly since operation “Cast Lead” in 2008-2009 which have reached proportions that it seems the world can no longer ignore (unlike the current Saudi campaign which hopefully we can revisit).

        Even though the “peace process” was a charade to begin with there was still conceivably land which could be used to be designated as being “under the control” (sort of) of the Palestinians. An unconditional rejection of allowing the Palestinians an actual “state” has been part of the founding doctrine starting with the right wing Likud Party, founded in 1973 and brought into power under the hardline uncompromising leadership of Menachem Begin in 1977.

        John Kerry famously warned that the option for a two state “solution” was slipping away and here I think lies a sincere concern that the Israelis are going to blow the chance for a West Bank style Palestinian ghetto, which the United States can cite as a triumph where they’re no longer obligated mediate. My hypothesis is roughly that the United States is realizing that the extent they’ve let Israel run wild off the leash and pursue its own separate agenda is becoming a liability, particularly at a time when there are a lot of moving pieces with what’s centered around Syria at the moment.

        The reason I suggested that the media was being “allowed” (or however I put it) to report a bit more (?) on what Israel is doing in these operations, even if the coverage in the MSM is almost unanimously supporting “Israel’s right to defend itself”, if compared to the media blackout with Saudi Arabia, could potentially be interpreted as a subtle means to shorten the leash on Israel’s actions without daring to yank the dog too aggressively in front of Israel’s die hard fans, particularly the Evangelical Christians, who are the largest constituency by numbers who support Israel unconditionally and who fundamentally oppose giving up any land whatsoever, as this would prolong the return of the lord, according to their doctrine. (Check out Christians United For Israel if you don’t believe me.)

        The big guns financially are the hardcore neocon Zionists who write the checks and are more concerned with regional domination than fulfilling religious prophecy, but it’s a multifold dance between domestic politics both in the United States and Israel and long term strategic regional interests where I’m willing to bet Israel will learn the United States “bonds” are not necessarily “unbreakable” if you become an obstacle to long term goals and strategic positioning.

        There’s my long form attempt at define the speculation I previously suggested and it’s no more than that, but hopefully it will lay the groundwork for a potential topic to discuss here, even if I’m more personally interested in my main comment which hopefully is at least more self-explanatory.

        Okay, getting tired time to catch some rest hopefully what I just wrote won’t too heavily reflect that 😉

        • Re: Christian Zionism – oh, believe you me, I live in the buckle of the Bible Belt and know alllll about it. It’s a fascinating topic – a doctrine that starts out about as anti-Semitic as it gets (we *need* the Jews to get all of Israel so they can hurry up and burn in the lake of fire!) that shifts seamlessly post 9/11 into that Revelations-ending bit getting waaay downplayed – the whole thing is now IMO mostly a veiled way to say “anybody killing Muslims is just fine by us.”

          Again, I’d point out – this is very similar to how the Nationalist China Lobby ran back in the day. Skull & Bones Henry Luce was (I think) born in China, the son of Christian missionaries, put the Generalissimo on the cover of LIFE several times, and pimped his regime to Charlie & Christie Church shamelessly. It’s funny that I never hear the alt-media discuss the China Lobby, because when couple this with recent alt-media research into Mao’s Yale in China ties, the OSS training of Maoist fighters, etc. and a whole picture emerges that’s just another example of the Powers That Shouldn’t Be hedging their bets and funding both sides.

          Returning to your topic, though – what do you see as some possible potential consequences/reactions from the Israeli end of things, wrt the US-Israel alliance getting weaker/frostier?

          • anacardo,

            I think the cozy relationship the United States has with Israel is superficial even from the perspective of the neocon Zionists at the top of the food chain. My guess is that the top level Israeli figures, despite their arrogance and bravado, understand that the strength of the United States’ “unbreakable bond” is only really as strong as Israel’s strategic value in the region. I’d also suspect that a lot of the hooping and hollering about the Iran deal, at least in part, has to do with an understanding on the part of the Israelis that the biggest “threat” that a nuclear deal with Iran plays is that it could be seen a softening of tensions between Iran and the West, which in turn makes Israel’s role as military outpost for Western control over the region less critical. For the record, I think this ‘softening of tensions’ is purely pragmatic and expedient diplomacy, but it’s still enough surely to frighten Israeli officials.

            Even though Israel has practiced a reckless and cavalier attitude since day one (in fact well before that if you factor the pre-Statehood Mandatory period) and they have nuclear weapons, I think the fact that the partnership between Israel and the United States is as tightly intertwined as it is means that threats of actually using these nuclear weapons without approval at the absolute highest levels means that, much to the disappointment of Christian Zionists, besides barking, snarling, and generally scaring the crap out of the world, Israel (IMO) won’t end up biting (i.e. going nuclear).

            The only real power the Israeli lobby has is financial and political (basically the same thing). The Christian Zionist position is the most stubborn about making concessions of any sort for “peace”, since the concern is seeing that the Jews return to Israel not that they (or the rest of the world for that matter) survive beyond that ingathering. These are Republican votes, thus some of the most extravagant, anti-Iran, pro-Israel love sermons seem to come from the right side of the isle. The hardcore conservative American Jews are part of the voting and financial blocks here too.

            Also, just more speculation on my part, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the provocative announcements of new settlements that seem to coincide with “peace talks” have been a sort of wink, wink, nod, nod, on the part of the Israeli political class as an overture of reassurance to the group mentioned above that indeed, they have no intention of making any concessions whatsoever. This assures continued financial support to the JNF (Jewish National Fund) which purchases land for Jewish settlement and otherwise encourages settlement and Jewish emigration in other ways.

            The American Jewish demographic, to the best of my knowledge, are mainly left leaning Democrat voters. Many of them, such as some in my extended family, are what you could refer to as “PEPs”: Progressive Except on Palestine. Jews who don’t necessarily support Israel wholeheartedly, but believe there’s some sort of soft cozy form of Zionism which can exist if a “peace” agreement prevails. Fortunately though, it seems even this demographic has realized that Israel’s been about as committed to peace as Bill Cosby’s been committed to prevention of sexual assault against women.

            The more conservative wealthy Jewish Democrats who still need to be appeased by politicians and institutions to make sure they won’t abandon Israel (not that any of them seem interested in living there) will use their money to choose whether or not to support politicians, organizations, universities, etc. Like the rest of the wealthy though, I think it’s safe to say that their love affair with Israel could turn sour if Israel begins to take actions which lead to “instability” (aka: threaten market interests).

            My hypothesis is more or less that figures in this arena have realized that continuing to let Israel run off the rails could have negative longterm market consequences, therefore “allowing” more attention to be paid to operations such as “protective edge” could be seen as a diplomatically safer way to allow the United States (should they decide to do so) to say; “look Israel, we support you all the way, but it’s getting harder for us to shield you from criticism and we need to ease some of that tension. Can you make some very, very, minor changes in policy so we can maintain our special relationship?”

            Okay, I think I’ve put it as explicitly as I can here. That’s all for now.

    • Could also be that most people have no idea what Yemen is. We hear about Israel and Palestine all the time. But Yemen is more like a WTF is that kinda thing. Why are they bombing Yemen anyway? I mean, what exactly would they hope to gain? To me it is like they decided to go out an bomb some people that were already basically living in antiquated and impotent terms, so how exactly are they a threat?

  23. So, Benny – I’ve been sort of toying around with a spoof “Illuminati hip-hop” anthem in which the MC’s inability to score some ass, getting busted for weed, installation of an inferior hydraulics package on their ride, etc. is interpreted as a series of Zionist false flags, y’know, just like all the rest of ’em. Any interest in co-authoring?

  24. 344thBrother says:

    With reluctance:

    I have no dog in this fight but I will say this; I’m sick to death hearing over and over about the holocaust, the 6 million Jews who were murdered and everything that not overtly pro-Jewish is suspiciously anti-Semitic.

    Plenty of people were murdered in WW2 and under Stalinist and Bolshevik Russia too, millions of them were murdered by Jewish NKVD and CHEKA officers, somehow this doesn’t make it into the narrative. And yes I’m sure to some people I’m an anti-Semite for just pointing that simple historic fact out. I don’t apologize.

    I think it’s perfectly natural for any “People” to be proud of the achievements of their tribe, I’m cool with it.

    The anti-Semite card has been played so many times that it’s become meaningless, and it’s been used to excuse a lot of bad behavior. The facts speak for themselves. Where I have a huge problem is the over-representation at the highest levels of American politics, banking military intelligence, (Neo-cons), Dual-citizen politicians… memory fails. It’s intrusive and the fact that a small percentage of the population has such a large percentage of influence (And the influence is by in large not to the benefit of the average American) is problematic. I for one would like to see the laws on dual-citizenship changed.

    Not looking for a debate here, just my 2 cents.
    p
    d

    • Brother,

      I agree with everything you said here. Those who would try to label you as an anti-Semite are missing the point. Zionism is like a wolf in a yarmulke. It’s an appropriation of Judaism and the Holocaust used to justify the worst policies and behavior, just as you said. If there’s any bright side to this overuse, I think more Jews, particularly younger generations (at least those living outside of Israel) are going to stop getting conned into the accepting the propaganda and start calling a wolf a wolf(owitz;) Zionism is a betrayal to Judaism, theologically and ethically and it’s ample proof that Jews are no less susceptible to being manipulated into accepting and participation in the false appropriation of religion to justify the worst policies and behavior.

      Here’s an interesting quote from Einstein, which certainly applies to the topic at hand:

      “For me the unaltered Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most primitive superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them.”

      Zionism is a cancer which has metastasized in the wake of the second world war. There’s a kneejerk reaction on the part of many Jews, particularly in the United States, to react to criticism of Israel specifically, and more broadly, Zionism, defensively as anti-Semitism, based on the propaganda, but the vast majority of Jews, especially Israelis (even if they don’t realize it), are adversely affected by Zionism, just like the vast majority of non-Jews. It’s time to accept the side effects of the chemotherapy and if there’s a role that I can play personally, based on my Jewish background, it’s to see if there’s a way to administer the treatment in a way which doesn’t cause unnecessary sickness.

      Nevermind the kicking and squealing, Brother, I see nothing wrong with your treatment plan 😉

Speak Your Mind