Since entering office, President Barack Obama has promised sweeping changes in three aspects of governance: transparency, law enforcement, and stewardship of American tax dollars. For a public weary of law enforcement forever prosecuting street but never elite crime, Obama's many statements about holding all individuals accountable under the law have been encouraging. He also called for government-agency compliance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in a White House mandate for transparency. Obama swore any bailouts of financial institutions and industries will hereafter avoid secretly funneling taxpayer funds into bloated Wall Street bonuses, executive junkets, and private jets.
But does Obama intend to follow these rules himself? Probably not. Obama's entire facade momentarily crumbled under a single withering question – "Do you know of any country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons?" – launched by veteran reporter Helen Thomas during the president's first evening press conference on Feb. 9, 2008.
Obama dodged the substance of the question:
"With respect to nuclear weapons, I don't want to speculate. What I know is this: that if we see a nuclear arms race in a region as volatile as the Middle East, everybody will be in danger. And one of my goals is to prevent nuclear proliferation generally, I think that it's important for the United States in concert with Russia to lead the way on this, and I've mentioned this in conversations with the Russian president, Mr. Medvedev, to let him know that it is important for us to restart the conversations about how we can start reducing our nuclear arsenals in an effective way, so that we then have the standing to go to other countries to start stitching back together the nonproliferation treaties that frankly have been weakened over the last several years."
The evasion inherent in Obama's reply coupled with actions already taken may reveal the new administration's true framework for Middle East policy: deception, wastefulness, and lawlessness.
Obama's policy, if honestly verbalized, may be the following: As your president, I will continue to deceive you about Israeli nuclear weapons, so that my administration can violate the Symington Amendment and deliver unwarranted amounts of taxpayer dollars to Israel. My administration will negotiate in bad faith with Iran while clandestinely attacking it, in order to preserve Israeli nuclear hegemony in the Middle East.
Source article here.
P.S. Will Obama break the law for Israel's sake? You betcha! Who's your daddy?
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Why Did Obama Diss Helen Thomas?
During the past eight years [Helen Thomas] was the only reporter who stood up to Bush, took on this rotten war, and, in general, acted like a journalist. Last night, the great hall looked like it was populated by a president, a reporter, and 11th graders from local high school newspapers. I think I saw a cub reporter from the Dillon, Texas high school paper. (sadly, not Lilah Garrity).
Ms. Thomas' moment came when she asked the president about nuclear proliferation. Her question ended with the query: does he know of any Middle Eastern state with nukes?
Why did she ask that? She asked it to see if Obama would refuse to respond as previous presidents have. The answer is Israel, of course. And everyone knows it. In fact, the State Department has published reams of material about JFK's concern about the Israeli bomb. Israeli politicians talk about it. Every Arab in the world knows about it. And Israel's nukes are its number one deterrent against attack by Iran -- and everyone knows that too.
But Israel has a policy of not talking about its nukes in any official capacity because acknowledging them might lead to Israel having to sign the NPT and opening itself up to nuclear inspection.
So Israeli Prime Ministers try (not always successfully) not to acknowledge that Israel has a nuclear arsenal while ensuring that everyone knows it does.
That may be a sensible policy...for Israel.
But why is it our policy? Why is the American president forbidden from being honest on such a critical subject. Answer: there is no reason, unless we are to believe that Israeli policy guidelines, by definition, apply here as well.
So why did Obama refuse to answer? Simple. Because if he did, the media would have reported it as a gaffe. Reporters either know nothing about the Middle East or, for the most part, have adopted Israel's perspective.
Had Obama spoken the truth, the media would have made his "blunder" the story of the night. He cannot afford that because, frankly, we have more important things to worry about, like rescuing the economy.
So I don't fault Obama. But I salute Helen Thomas. Next time she should ask how he felt about those pictures that came out of Gaza. As the father of those two precious girls, we all know how he felt. But it would help America in the eyes of the world if he'd just say it.
Source article from the Huffington Post.
P.S. Didn't the way our Mainstream Media talking heads ridicule Helen Thomas remind you how Rosie O'Donnel from The View was ridiculed for questioning the official fantastical version of the 9/11 attack? Didn't it highlight how utterly servicial America is to Israel? And isn't it becoming obvious that the most important things affecting Americans [9/11, Israel, Zionism] are the things our Mainstream Media talking heads aren't talking about?
Zionism? What is Zionism? Is that a new flavor of ice cream?
Ms. Thomas' moment came when she asked the president about nuclear proliferation. Her question ended with the query: does he know of any Middle Eastern state with nukes?
Why did she ask that? She asked it to see if Obama would refuse to respond as previous presidents have. The answer is Israel, of course. And everyone knows it. In fact, the State Department has published reams of material about JFK's concern about the Israeli bomb. Israeli politicians talk about it. Every Arab in the world knows about it. And Israel's nukes are its number one deterrent against attack by Iran -- and everyone knows that too.
But Israel has a policy of not talking about its nukes in any official capacity because acknowledging them might lead to Israel having to sign the NPT and opening itself up to nuclear inspection.
So Israeli Prime Ministers try (not always successfully) not to acknowledge that Israel has a nuclear arsenal while ensuring that everyone knows it does.
That may be a sensible policy...for Israel.
But why is it our policy? Why is the American president forbidden from being honest on such a critical subject. Answer: there is no reason, unless we are to believe that Israeli policy guidelines, by definition, apply here as well.
So why did Obama refuse to answer? Simple. Because if he did, the media would have reported it as a gaffe. Reporters either know nothing about the Middle East or, for the most part, have adopted Israel's perspective.
Had Obama spoken the truth, the media would have made his "blunder" the story of the night. He cannot afford that because, frankly, we have more important things to worry about, like rescuing the economy.
So I don't fault Obama. But I salute Helen Thomas. Next time she should ask how he felt about those pictures that came out of Gaza. As the father of those two precious girls, we all know how he felt. But it would help America in the eyes of the world if he'd just say it.
Source article from the Huffington Post.
P.S. Didn't the way our Mainstream Media talking heads ridicule Helen Thomas remind you how Rosie O'Donnel from The View was ridiculed for questioning the official fantastical version of the 9/11 attack? Didn't it highlight how utterly servicial America is to Israel? And isn't it becoming obvious that the most important things affecting Americans [9/11, Israel, Zionism] are the things our Mainstream Media talking heads aren't talking about?
Zionism? What is Zionism? Is that a new flavor of ice cream?
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Another Suckered by the Zionist-Peace Rockstar Finkelstein
Following is Robin Yassin-Kassab's recent article "Non-Violence? Finkelstein and Gandhi." Bracketed text are the blogger's comments.
When Western liberals call on the Palestinians to renounce violence and to adopt Gandhian passive resistance instead, I usually become enraged. My first response is, they've tried non-violence, and you failed to notice. For the first two decades after the original ethnic cleansing of 1947 and 48, almost all Palestinian resistance was non-violent. From 1967 until 1987 Palestinians resisted by organizing tax strikes, peaceful demonstrations, petitions, sit-down protests on confiscated lands and in houses condemned to demolition. The First Intifada was almost entirely non-violent on the Palestinian side; the new tactic of throwing stones at tanks (which some liberals consider violent) was almost entirely symbolic. In every case, the Palestinians were met with fanatical violence. Midnight arrest, beatings, and torture were the lot of most. Many were shot. Yitzhak Rabin ordered occupation troops to break the bones of the boys with stones. And despite all this sacrifice, Israeli Jews were not moved to recognize the injustice of occupation and dispossession, at least not enough to end it. The first weeks of the Second Intifada were also non-violent on the Palestinian side. Israel responded by murdering tens of unarmed civilians daily, and the US media blamed the victims. Then the Intifada was militarized.
Was it really, or only, non-violence which liberated India? In colonized India there were hundreds of thousands of Indians to each British officer, so the cause of independence had sheer numbers on its side as well as time. The British people certainly came to love Gandhi and to respect the moral courage of his non-violent strategy, but the British officials who counted could also see the tide of violent anti-imperialism rising behind Gandhi, a tide that would dominate if Gandhi’s method failed. Likewise in the American civil rights struggle: behind Martin Luther King stood Malcolm X. It’s a lot easier to deal with the nice guy when you see the nasty guy rolling up his sleeves.
My third point: I’ll listen to the call for non-violence if it comes from the mouth of a genuine pacifist. From someone who believes, as Ghandi did, that Nazism could have been better resisted non-violently. From someone who would himself engage only in peaceful action after seeing his own child killed, his own flat bombed. And of course from someone who realizes that Palestinian violence is as nothing when put next to the staggering violence of Zionism.
Another problem is that not all Palestinians are capable of suppressing their desire for revenge. I’m not insulting them; God knows that I, comfortable in front of my screen many miles away from the trouble, am thirsting for revenge. In the Palestinians’ circumstances, violence is natural. So if the Palestinians have to prove they deserve justice by acting nice, there will never be justice. We have to get beyond condemning the inevitable violence of a traumatized refugee population to condemning the causes of the violence – dispossession, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, occupation, massacre. [Finkelstein, the zionist-peace rockstar’s specialty is reporting the crimes of zionism while never condemning them and ultimately wooing his audience to understand and condone them. ‘Asking for the dismantling of Israel is equivalent to asking for the dismantling of the United States of America. Both are guilty of crimes; both need to live up to their founding principals.’ However, Finky, never talks about Israel’s founding principal: zionism. It's a 'conflictual' term.]
Norman Finkelstein’s reading of Gandhi (I’ve never read Gandhi, so I’ll have to trust Finkelstein) settles many of my reservations. Gandhi argues that violent resistance is acceptable by the conventional moral standards of our times. He says that an oppressed and humiliated population must resist its oppressors violently if it is incapable of non-violent resistance. According to Gandi, the worst of failures is to submit.
With specific reference to Palestine, Gandhi said this in 1938:
"Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French…What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct…If (the Jews) must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs…As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds."
In his lecture, Finkelstein suggests what could be done:
"A massive mobilization of Palestinians building on the non-cooperation tactics of the first intifada (commercial and tax strikes, popular committees) could again make the Israeli occupation ungovernable. Is it so far-fetched to imagine an "army" of Palestinian satyagrahis converging on the Wall, their sole "weapons" a pick in one hand and a copy of the ICJ opinion in the other? The ICJ stated that the Wall was illegal and must be dismantled. The Palestinians would only be doing what the world should already have done a long time ago. Who could fault them for enforcing the law? No doubt Israel would fire on Palestinians and many would be killed. But if their supporters in North America and Europe publicized the ICJ opinion, and if Palestinians found the inner wherewithal to persevere nonviolently, it seems probable that far, far fewer than 5,000 Palestinians would be killed before Israel were forced to desist. [Here the zionist-peace rockstar ignores the obstacle of working through media dominated by zionist control. Finky never acknowledges that zionist dominance. It's preposterous to suggest that it exists, according to the zionist-peace rockstar.] No one writing abroad from the comfort and safety of his study can in good conscience urge such a strategy that entails so much death. But Gandhi’s point nonetheless stands: if Palestinians have repeatedly shown a willingness to pay the ultimate price, doesn’t it make sense for them to pursue a strategy that has a better likelihood of success at a smaller human price?"
Dismantling the wall. Gazans dismantling the border fence. Marches of Return from the West Bank and Gaza and Jordan, Syria and Lebanon to the border fences and the Israeli bullets. The numbers would have to be huge, and the coordination with the world's official and alternative media incredibly efficient. [Again, the zionist-peace rockstar ignores the reality of zionist control of the media. This is no inconsequential matter, and the rockstar knows it.] It would require a mobilization that neither the corrupt and collaborative PA nor the hunted and secretive Hamas could command. It would take a concerted simultaneous effort by the Palestinian people and their supporters around the world to shine the light on Israel and on Palestinian history. As Palestinians marched and died, people in the West would have to boycott and divest. It seems farfetched in the present blood-soaked bitterness, but it's worth thinking about.
The latest massacre has changed things. Perhaps the world is ready to see now. Perhaps.
I don’t agree with Finkelstein’s desire to limit discussion to the two state solution, although I understand his tactics. For reasons that I will write of later, reasons of justice but more importantly of pragmatism, I am a supporter of some kind of one state solution. I speculate a world in which a non-violent campaign against the wall spawns a non-violent campaign for Israeli passports.
In any case, I support bringing injustice into the light. 94% of Israeli Jews supported the Gaza massacre. 40% – an incredible statistic – believe Jews were a majority in Palestine at the end of the 19th Century. We have to engage Israeli ignorance and paranoia, the dark products of Zionist indoctrination. The 6% of Israeli Jews who can think more critically could be our allies in this.
I continue to believe that Zionism is the enemy, but by Zionism I mean the Iron Wall Zionism of Jabotinsky that has come to determine the character of the mainstream, from the Labour Party to the openly fascist fringe. Those Zionists, however, who are interested in a cultural home and refuge in Palestine on terms of equality and brotherhood with the Palestinians – those could be allies. [Uhm, Mr. Yassin-Kassab, where are you finding "those zionists"? Zionism is Jewish supremacy, Jewish exceptionalism, Jewish apartheid.]
I feel something has snapped in mind and heart since December 27th. I’m trying to get beyond the snapping. I find the concluding paragraph of Finkelstein’s lecture both educative and humbling [Hey, Mr. Yassin-Hassab, you’re not alone. This is Finkelstein, the zionist-peace rockstar’s specialty.]:
"The Caribbean poet Aimé Césaire once wrote, "There’s room for everyone at the rendezvous of victory." Late in life, when his political horizons broadened out, Edward Said would often quote this line. We should make it our credo as well. We want to nurture a movement, not hatch a cult. The victory to which we aspire is inclusive, not exclusive; it is not at anyone’s expense. It is to be victorious without vanquishing. No one is a loser, and we all are gainers if together we stand by truth and justice. "I am not anti-English; I am not anti-British; I am not anti-any government," Gandhi insisted, "but I am anti-untruth—anti-humbug, and anti-injustice."(188) Shouldn’t we also say that we are not anti-Jewish, anti-Israel or, for that matter, anti-Zionist? The prize on which our eyes should be riveted is human rights, human dignity, human equality. What, really, is the point of ideological litmus tests such as, Are you now or have you ever been a Zionist? Indeed, it is Israel’s apologists who thrive on and cling to them, bogging down interlocutors in distracting and endless intellectual sideshows—What is a Jew? Are the Jews a nation? Don’t Jews have a right to national liberation? Shouldn’t we use a vocabulary that registers and resonates with the public conscience and the Jewish conscience [Fine conscience. 94% of Israeli Jews supported the Gaza massacre and the Jewish diaspora was mostly silent about it.], winning over the decent many while isolating the diehard few? Shouldn’t we instead be asking, Are you for or against ethnic cleansing, for or against torture, for or against house demolitions, for or against Jews-only roads and Jews-only settlements, for or against discriminatory laws? [Oops. The answer here of virtually all those identifying themselves as Jewish is "for." Finky, the zionist-peace rockstar would never bring this up.] And if the answer comes, against, against and against [the rockstar slips this one in knowing it’ll always be the reverse], shouldn’t we then say, Keep your ideology, whatever it might be—there’s room for everyone at the rendezvous of victory?
May we all, seekers of truth, fighters for justice, yet live to join the people of Palestine at the rendezvous of victory." [Sorry. There can be no peace without justice; there can be no peace with zionism. I know, I know, Finky’s an awfully nice guy and you wish it could be… for his sake, and the sake of all the other ‘good’ patronizing zionists that demonstrate they’re willing to treat Palestinians as their virtual equals as long as they can keep their stolen goods.]
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Of course I'm anti-Semitic. Aren't you?
Prior to 9/11/01 I was very much a typical American regarding Israel/Palestine. As I was conditioned, I knew virtually nothing about what was going on in Palestine and I was reluctant to look into the matter, thinking that it was much too complex for me to even to begin to understand. And reflecting my typical American conditioning, I was sympathetic to Jews, although I had never in fact met any Jewish people in person, being from a typical mid-western town. I definitely was not anti-Semitic.
Heck, I didn’t know any Jews so the opportunity for being labeled anti-Semitic never came up. That didn’t happen until after 9/11/01 [when I was 49].
As the 9/11 attack was happening, it occurred to me that the attack had to do with what was happening in the Middle East and it was time to learn what was happening there. I was behooved to work through my conditioned barrier of not wanting to look into the matter because it was much too complex to understand and find out for myself what was going on.
I learned that the Palestinians were being kicked off their land so that Jews from anywhere in the world could live there. I attended a Middle East committee meeting and said that I didn’t think this was fair, that it didn’t matter what happened in the past to the Jews, that two wrongs don’t make a right, etc. After that meeting, I was considered anti-Semitic by the experts that apply the label: the Jews that attended that meeting. Thereafter I was treated coolly by everyone associated with the parent anti-war organization. Word had gotten around.
Holy cow! I never would’ve imagined myself being considered anti-Semitic: [growing up] an altruistic Catholic boy who defended little kids every day on the playground from older bullies, the exemplary server boy, the choir boy, the kid that the nuns and teachers considered a role model for others.
But there I was. An anti-Semitic, for being concerned for justice and equal rights for the Palestinians. Little did I know that being labeled anti-Semitic was so easy. It is so easy. In fact here’s the formula: You become aware that Jews are responsible for doing something unfair, like kicking Palestinians off their land so that Jews from anywhere in the world can live there and, boom, you’re instantly anti-Semitic! You don’t even have to complain about it. The labelers just have to know you know about it. It is that easy.
I’m outraged that Palestinians are being methodically genocided for Jewish apartheid. I can’t shut up about it. In fact should a group representing the anti-Semitic labelers want to pay me a visit and hang me for being anti-Semitic, I’d hang them instead. On the other hand, should a group of angry Palestinians ever want to hang me for what I as an American have enabled and allowed to happen to Palestinians, I’d plead for mercy.
The way I look at it, if you’re aware of what’s happening to the Palestinians and you’re not considered anti-Semitic, then I question your humanity. If you don’t say anything about it, you’re an accomplice to genocide. What would you rather be, anti-Semitic or a genocider? For me, there’s no choice. Yes, of course I’m anti-Semitic. Aren’t you?
Heck, I didn’t know any Jews so the opportunity for being labeled anti-Semitic never came up. That didn’t happen until after 9/11/01 [when I was 49].
As the 9/11 attack was happening, it occurred to me that the attack had to do with what was happening in the Middle East and it was time to learn what was happening there. I was behooved to work through my conditioned barrier of not wanting to look into the matter because it was much too complex to understand and find out for myself what was going on.
I learned that the Palestinians were being kicked off their land so that Jews from anywhere in the world could live there. I attended a Middle East committee meeting and said that I didn’t think this was fair, that it didn’t matter what happened in the past to the Jews, that two wrongs don’t make a right, etc. After that meeting, I was considered anti-Semitic by the experts that apply the label: the Jews that attended that meeting. Thereafter I was treated coolly by everyone associated with the parent anti-war organization. Word had gotten around.
Holy cow! I never would’ve imagined myself being considered anti-Semitic: [growing up] an altruistic Catholic boy who defended little kids every day on the playground from older bullies, the exemplary server boy, the choir boy, the kid that the nuns and teachers considered a role model for others.
But there I was. An anti-Semitic, for being concerned for justice and equal rights for the Palestinians. Little did I know that being labeled anti-Semitic was so easy. It is so easy. In fact here’s the formula: You become aware that Jews are responsible for doing something unfair, like kicking Palestinians off their land so that Jews from anywhere in the world can live there and, boom, you’re instantly anti-Semitic! You don’t even have to complain about it. The labelers just have to know you know about it. It is that easy.
I’m outraged that Palestinians are being methodically genocided for Jewish apartheid. I can’t shut up about it. In fact should a group representing the anti-Semitic labelers want to pay me a visit and hang me for being anti-Semitic, I’d hang them instead. On the other hand, should a group of angry Palestinians ever want to hang me for what I as an American have enabled and allowed to happen to Palestinians, I’d plead for mercy.
The way I look at it, if you’re aware of what’s happening to the Palestinians and you’re not considered anti-Semitic, then I question your humanity. If you don’t say anything about it, you’re an accomplice to genocide. What would you rather be, anti-Semitic or a genocider? For me, there’s no choice. Yes, of course I’m anti-Semitic. Aren’t you?
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Assassins Called Out Playing Basketball
Assassins are called out while trying to feign normality playing organized basketball.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Jewish Law Institute Launched in D.C.
Jewish legal experts have created a new institute that will educate jurists and others about 2,000 years of Jewish law and promote the application of the teachings to contemporary legal disputes and other modern-day issues.
The launch of the Washington-based National Institute for Judaic Law was marked Tuesday night with a kosher dinner at the Supreme Court attended by 200 people, including three Supreme Court Justices - Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, and Antonin Scalia.
US President George W. Bush sent greetings and applauded the institute for promoting an "understanding of Judaism's rich tradition of legal thought."
The institute's first project, already underway, explores how Jewish law can be applied to modern-day issues surrounding corporate ethics, an idea spurred by the recent corporate scandals involving Enron and Worldcom.
Gurary, who teaches at the State University of New York at Buffalo, thought up the idea of the institute about nine months ago.
"By demonstrating the philosophy of Jewish law and its moral values, we can bring a little beacon of light in this world," Gurary said.
source article
P.S. Oh, that rule about stealing and killing with impunity and God loves you dearly only applies to Jewish people. Gentiles can steal and kill only if they're following orders of Jewish people, and of course, if they're not robbing and killing Jewish people.
The launch of the Washington-based National Institute for Judaic Law was marked Tuesday night with a kosher dinner at the Supreme Court attended by 200 people, including three Supreme Court Justices - Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, and Antonin Scalia.
US President George W. Bush sent greetings and applauded the institute for promoting an "understanding of Judaism's rich tradition of legal thought."
The institute's first project, already underway, explores how Jewish law can be applied to modern-day issues surrounding corporate ethics, an idea spurred by the recent corporate scandals involving Enron and Worldcom.
Gurary, who teaches at the State University of New York at Buffalo, thought up the idea of the institute about nine months ago.
"By demonstrating the philosophy of Jewish law and its moral values, we can bring a little beacon of light in this world," Gurary said.
source article
P.S. Oh, that rule about stealing and killing with impunity and God loves you dearly only applies to Jewish people. Gentiles can steal and kill only if they're following orders of Jewish people, and of course, if they're not robbing and killing Jewish people.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Oy vey! A Holocaust Revisionist is Not an Anti-Semite??
In the wake of a global furor triggered by Pope Benedict XVI’s decision to lift the excommunication of four traditionalist Catholic bishops, including one who cast doubt on the Holocaust, another leader in the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X has questioned whether the Nazis used gas chambers for anything other than “disinfection,” and said that people who hold revisionist views on the Holocaust are not anti-Semites.
Oy vey! Read the source article here.
Oy vey! Read the source article here.
The Emotional Violence of Jewish Advocacy
Gideon Levy a Ha’aretz newspaper reporter recently asked: “If Israelis were so sure of the rightness of their cause, why the violent intolerance they display toward everyone who tries to make a different case?”
In "Survival Instinct or Jewish Paranoia?" my favorite shrink, ex-Israeli Avigail Barbanel writes that, “The implications of seeing the conflict from within the lens of Jewish trauma are very serious. Can we really negotiate with this? Can we explain to Israelis that their perspective on life and on the conflict is seriously flawed? If we tried will they listen, and do the Palestinians have time to wait until they do?”
It seems that Americans are kind of in an abusive marriage situation with Israel, where because love and friendship are assumed to be there, the abused partner keeps feeling guilty and acting hyper-responsible, and tries even harder to please the abuser. Many Americans maintain friendships with pro-Israel Jews and simply decide not to discuss politics; however there is an emotional blackmail going on because if you did mention Israel or Jewish-American genocidalism, the relationship would be over. [End it already!]
A Gentile in America, even a child, is raised to accept a very heavy sense of personal responsibility that far exceeds anyone else's normal sense of personal responsibility. It creates a neurotic personality who is always feeling guilty and thus is too weak to stand up to Zionist criminal behavior and the comical, obviously non-factual Zionist ideology.
Jews in America are socially empowered to go way beyond the learned trauma of the Jewish experience that results in typical reactionary behavior. They actually participate in group behavior that is deliberately manipulative and abusive - aimed at punishing activists who stand up for human equality and justice. Over the years, US Jews have become increasingly nutty not only due to current events but due to the internet "alerts" coming to them from Jewish lobbyists, who solidify their brains in this self-righteous fantasy world where Hamas is a terrorist organization, where Israel has some kind of right to kill and rob non-Jews.
So we are dealing with not only dangerous reactions based on past trauma - actually learned trauma based on a glorified and fictionalized past - but American Jews are actually being trained since childhood to interact with non-Jews in a deceitful and arrogant manner, in coordination with each other, to emotionally destroy Gentiles and Israel critics, in addition to wrecking their careers and interfering with their social relationships. This is actually deliberate, wicked, planned behavior motivated by a narcissistic self-righteous fury.
American Jews tend to enforce blind conformity, bullying and shaming people into agreeing with a bogus sham written by a Polish immigrant funded indirectly by US taxpayers whose money was illegally laundered through the JCRC. Whatever happened to “Question Authority”?
So many Gentiles fall into this trap and start doing the work of the Zionists, attacking people if they deviate from political correctness. If we could focus on the emotional violence of Israel advocacy techniques we might be able to empower Gentiles to stand up to the psycho Zionists without enduring quite as much emotional pain.
The problem is that Gentiles are taught through emotional pressure and violence via the media and the school system to be very sensitive to Jewish suffering so when a Zionist becomes outraged at them for challenging their world view, the Gentile really has to fight against his own inner self in a huge battle against his "inner Jew" making him feel inadequate and intimidated. But the Jew doesn’t care how much he or she hurts others. Jews only care about what's good for the Jews.
The world needs to intervene to save Jews from their murderous selves, and to save the Palestinians [and all mankind!].
Intervention involves convincing world leaders to do the right thing, which seldom happens and does not empower us to action other than begging them.
What is possible and in fact quite easy is to find a way to deal with Zionist Jews in our local area, especially those who are involved in the organizational structures of Zionist organized racism.
Obviously, prosecuting Zionist organizations also requires convincing the establishment to define Zionism as a criminal ideology, like we do Nazism, and going after the leadership.
Many people deal with Zionists by making light talk and never discuss politics, but I think we should stop doing that since it normalizes their support for racist genocide.
Many Zionists don't call themselves Zionists but to me, a Zionist is someone who would deny Palestinians equal rights in order for the Jews to keep what they stole and call it Israel. [99.99 percent of those identifying themselves as Jewish are Zionists! Including good-guy Zionists, the likes of Chomsky and Finkelstein.] They are very brainwashed so it's usually not useful arguing with them. Jewish organizations and synagogues teach classes in linguistic martial arts tactics (how to confuse your opponent etc.) to deflect blame from Jews and Israel. It's extremely dishonest and manipulative. According to the David Project, an organization which teaches these Israel Advocacy techniques and also disseminates Islamophobic misinformation to the public, states that their goal is to diminish the impact of Israel's detractors.
Obviously, those Zionists who are simply ignorant, if they are willing to hear my point of view and to ask questions in a polite way, that's different. But normally they act manipulative and do everything to prevent a normal discussion on Jews/Israel. I once reduced a 50 year old man to hysterical sobbing tears because I told him gently and lovingly that Jews were not that unique. I just told him the Jews, like everyone else, have had good times and bad times. Times when they were slaughtered and other times when they slaughtered others. Just like everyone else. Guess what he did next. He emotionally abused me in an insulting way and then cut off all further communication. Jewish behavior is so predictable that it's truly scary.
Most of the Zionists claim to want a Palestinian State side by side an Israeli state, but as Israel Shamir points out in his book, Flowers of Galilee, it's a political maneuver: a bluff. They are simply taking advantage of your good faith to keep you engaged, to give Israel more time to steal more land.
The two-state Zionists show their true colors when the issue is cutting off US funding to Israel. They are very attached to the idea of a racist apartheid state for Jews paid for by non-Jews. If you mention cutting off the money or if you mention the possible compromise of living with Palestinians as equals in one state they become very angry and start using bullying tactics, unless they have some reason to fear you, in which case they shun you and complain about you to the authorities, try to get you arrested or try and destroy your career or social status through character assassination.
Zionists all believe in the myth of "1000 years of Jewish suffering" and feel that the world owes them compensation for their ancestors' "unique" suffering. It's a criminally insane viewpoint. They cope with the contradictions between their belief that they are the good guys and what Jews are actually doing to their neighbors, both in the Middle East and in the US, by developing mental health issues. Most Zionists are functional schizophrenics.
A few Zionists are not schizophrenic. If you say, "You stole their country," they just say, "Yeah, so? And what are you going to do about it?" I'm actually more willing to deal with those kind of Zionists because at least they are honest, and this does leave some room for discussion. But why. Just as Americans are not required to support Israel, we are not obliged to interact with racists. [In other words, Zionists that aren't schizophrenic are out-and-out racists!]
Every gentile, and Jew interested in being honest, should read the whole of this excellent article here.
P.S. Quite simply and obviously, Zionism needs to be outlawed.
In "Survival Instinct or Jewish Paranoia?" my favorite shrink, ex-Israeli Avigail Barbanel writes that, “The implications of seeing the conflict from within the lens of Jewish trauma are very serious. Can we really negotiate with this? Can we explain to Israelis that their perspective on life and on the conflict is seriously flawed? If we tried will they listen, and do the Palestinians have time to wait until they do?”
It seems that Americans are kind of in an abusive marriage situation with Israel, where because love and friendship are assumed to be there, the abused partner keeps feeling guilty and acting hyper-responsible, and tries even harder to please the abuser. Many Americans maintain friendships with pro-Israel Jews and simply decide not to discuss politics; however there is an emotional blackmail going on because if you did mention Israel or Jewish-American genocidalism, the relationship would be over. [End it already!]
A Gentile in America, even a child, is raised to accept a very heavy sense of personal responsibility that far exceeds anyone else's normal sense of personal responsibility. It creates a neurotic personality who is always feeling guilty and thus is too weak to stand up to Zionist criminal behavior and the comical, obviously non-factual Zionist ideology.
Jews in America are socially empowered to go way beyond the learned trauma of the Jewish experience that results in typical reactionary behavior. They actually participate in group behavior that is deliberately manipulative and abusive - aimed at punishing activists who stand up for human equality and justice. Over the years, US Jews have become increasingly nutty not only due to current events but due to the internet "alerts" coming to them from Jewish lobbyists, who solidify their brains in this self-righteous fantasy world where Hamas is a terrorist organization, where Israel has some kind of right to kill and rob non-Jews.
So we are dealing with not only dangerous reactions based on past trauma - actually learned trauma based on a glorified and fictionalized past - but American Jews are actually being trained since childhood to interact with non-Jews in a deceitful and arrogant manner, in coordination with each other, to emotionally destroy Gentiles and Israel critics, in addition to wrecking their careers and interfering with their social relationships. This is actually deliberate, wicked, planned behavior motivated by a narcissistic self-righteous fury.
American Jews tend to enforce blind conformity, bullying and shaming people into agreeing with a bogus sham written by a Polish immigrant funded indirectly by US taxpayers whose money was illegally laundered through the JCRC. Whatever happened to “Question Authority”?
So many Gentiles fall into this trap and start doing the work of the Zionists, attacking people if they deviate from political correctness. If we could focus on the emotional violence of Israel advocacy techniques we might be able to empower Gentiles to stand up to the psycho Zionists without enduring quite as much emotional pain.
The problem is that Gentiles are taught through emotional pressure and violence via the media and the school system to be very sensitive to Jewish suffering so when a Zionist becomes outraged at them for challenging their world view, the Gentile really has to fight against his own inner self in a huge battle against his "inner Jew" making him feel inadequate and intimidated. But the Jew doesn’t care how much he or she hurts others. Jews only care about what's good for the Jews.
The world needs to intervene to save Jews from their murderous selves, and to save the Palestinians [and all mankind!].
Intervention involves convincing world leaders to do the right thing, which seldom happens and does not empower us to action other than begging them.
What is possible and in fact quite easy is to find a way to deal with Zionist Jews in our local area, especially those who are involved in the organizational structures of Zionist organized racism.
Obviously, prosecuting Zionist organizations also requires convincing the establishment to define Zionism as a criminal ideology, like we do Nazism, and going after the leadership.
Many people deal with Zionists by making light talk and never discuss politics, but I think we should stop doing that since it normalizes their support for racist genocide.
Many Zionists don't call themselves Zionists but to me, a Zionist is someone who would deny Palestinians equal rights in order for the Jews to keep what they stole and call it Israel. [99.99 percent of those identifying themselves as Jewish are Zionists! Including good-guy Zionists, the likes of Chomsky and Finkelstein.] They are very brainwashed so it's usually not useful arguing with them. Jewish organizations and synagogues teach classes in linguistic martial arts tactics (how to confuse your opponent etc.) to deflect blame from Jews and Israel. It's extremely dishonest and manipulative. According to the David Project, an organization which teaches these Israel Advocacy techniques and also disseminates Islamophobic misinformation to the public, states that their goal is to diminish the impact of Israel's detractors.
Obviously, those Zionists who are simply ignorant, if they are willing to hear my point of view and to ask questions in a polite way, that's different. But normally they act manipulative and do everything to prevent a normal discussion on Jews/Israel. I once reduced a 50 year old man to hysterical sobbing tears because I told him gently and lovingly that Jews were not that unique. I just told him the Jews, like everyone else, have had good times and bad times. Times when they were slaughtered and other times when they slaughtered others. Just like everyone else. Guess what he did next. He emotionally abused me in an insulting way and then cut off all further communication. Jewish behavior is so predictable that it's truly scary.
Most of the Zionists claim to want a Palestinian State side by side an Israeli state, but as Israel Shamir points out in his book, Flowers of Galilee, it's a political maneuver: a bluff. They are simply taking advantage of your good faith to keep you engaged, to give Israel more time to steal more land.
The two-state Zionists show their true colors when the issue is cutting off US funding to Israel. They are very attached to the idea of a racist apartheid state for Jews paid for by non-Jews. If you mention cutting off the money or if you mention the possible compromise of living with Palestinians as equals in one state they become very angry and start using bullying tactics, unless they have some reason to fear you, in which case they shun you and complain about you to the authorities, try to get you arrested or try and destroy your career or social status through character assassination.
Zionists all believe in the myth of "1000 years of Jewish suffering" and feel that the world owes them compensation for their ancestors' "unique" suffering. It's a criminally insane viewpoint. They cope with the contradictions between their belief that they are the good guys and what Jews are actually doing to their neighbors, both in the Middle East and in the US, by developing mental health issues. Most Zionists are functional schizophrenics.
A few Zionists are not schizophrenic. If you say, "You stole their country," they just say, "Yeah, so? And what are you going to do about it?" I'm actually more willing to deal with those kind of Zionists because at least they are honest, and this does leave some room for discussion. But why. Just as Americans are not required to support Israel, we are not obliged to interact with racists. [In other words, Zionists that aren't schizophrenic are out-and-out racists!]
Every gentile, and Jew interested in being honest, should read the whole of this excellent article here.
P.S. Quite simply and obviously, Zionism needs to be outlawed.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Images of Palestine Before Zionism
Jaffa, Palestine: General view of the city from the sea looking east, pre-1914 (Matson Collection, 1898-1914).See more images here.
Monday, February 2, 2009
WW3 or Jewish Hegemony
James Petras has written a great piece describing the calculations now in play. He astutely describes what the Israeli strategists, and hopefully all of us, have learned from this catastrophe in Gaza.
Israel’s military victory in Gaza is a dress rehearsal for a full-scale military assault on Iran. In the course of their Gaza extermination campaign, Israeli political and military strategists gained a great deal of vital information about: (1) the levels of complicity and impotence of European, North American and Arab states; (2) the high degree and depth of material and political support obtainable from the United States government in pulverizing adversaries; (3) the high degree of internal support among the Jewish electorate for even the most brutal killing fields; (4) the massive unquestioning backing of an offensive war from all the biggest and most politically influential and wealthiest Jewish-Zionist organizations in the US and Western Europe; (5) the weakness and ineffectiveness of the United Nations and the incapacity of the entire range of humanitarian organizations to limit Israel’s extermination campaign directed at destroying the very existence of an entire people; (6) the unconditional backing of the entire mass media and news agencies in the US and most of the mass media in Europe and the rest of the world; (7) the willingness of the liberal critics to equally blame the victims of extermination and the exterminators for the ‘violence’, thus neutralizing any effective consequential condemnation of the Israeli state; and (8) the adaptation of practically all the journalists, writers, academics and politicians to the entire euphemistic vocabulary of the Israeli propaganda office.
They took their war machine for a spin, and it works great. He concludes that they will overreach after Netanyahu gets elected, unleashing the attack on Iran and triggering WW III.
Read the rest of "Hunching Toward Armageddon" here.
P.S. Israel doesn't have to kick off WW3. It can just hold it out as the obvious option opposed to accepting Jewish lordship over our lives. Americans can attest that Jewish lordship isn't all that bad. Nice Jewish people treat their gentile neighbors as virtual equals...well, up until now that is.
P.P.S. And I wasn't insulted with a moron for president, were you?
Israel’s military victory in Gaza is a dress rehearsal for a full-scale military assault on Iran. In the course of their Gaza extermination campaign, Israeli political and military strategists gained a great deal of vital information about: (1) the levels of complicity and impotence of European, North American and Arab states; (2) the high degree and depth of material and political support obtainable from the United States government in pulverizing adversaries; (3) the high degree of internal support among the Jewish electorate for even the most brutal killing fields; (4) the massive unquestioning backing of an offensive war from all the biggest and most politically influential and wealthiest Jewish-Zionist organizations in the US and Western Europe; (5) the weakness and ineffectiveness of the United Nations and the incapacity of the entire range of humanitarian organizations to limit Israel’s extermination campaign directed at destroying the very existence of an entire people; (6) the unconditional backing of the entire mass media and news agencies in the US and most of the mass media in Europe and the rest of the world; (7) the willingness of the liberal critics to equally blame the victims of extermination and the exterminators for the ‘violence’, thus neutralizing any effective consequential condemnation of the Israeli state; and (8) the adaptation of practically all the journalists, writers, academics and politicians to the entire euphemistic vocabulary of the Israeli propaganda office.
They took their war machine for a spin, and it works great. He concludes that they will overreach after Netanyahu gets elected, unleashing the attack on Iran and triggering WW III.
Read the rest of "Hunching Toward Armageddon" here.
P.S. Israel doesn't have to kick off WW3. It can just hold it out as the obvious option opposed to accepting Jewish lordship over our lives. Americans can attest that Jewish lordship isn't all that bad. Nice Jewish people treat their gentile neighbors as virtual equals...well, up until now that is.
P.P.S. And I wasn't insulted with a moron for president, were you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
