Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Speaking of anti-progressive 'progressives'

Speaking of anti-progressive 'progressives' chased out of the weeds by Gaza, the discussion on this posting led me here. As I keep saying, Zionism has destroyed American progressive politics. I wonder when progressive 'anti-Semitism' - the norm of progressive thinking in the first half of the 20th century until it was sidelined by the Holocaust - will return.

The smarter revisionists are finally starting to realize that revisionism is the best gift World Jewry has ever received (in a similar vein, I never believed the Mossad killed Haider, their best friend in all of Europe: no real threat to World Jewry, but a constant source of propaganda). Meanwhile, the responsibility-to-protect crowd (Samantha Power, Michael Ignatieff) - considered by people like me to be stooges for World Jewry - have gone missing (or worse, in the case of Ignatieff) on Gaza.

43 comments:

jr said...

The only thing 'progressive' blogs care about are gay rights and Amtrak. Pelosi's likudism is never mentioned on these blogs

Anonymous said...

Speaking of Pelosi:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_almyIcHiNmY/SVtCAlx4O7I/AAAAAAAACNE/Ke7Y7P_Hk0c/s320/pelrahm.jpg

nice find Xymphora:
http://homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24936408-12335,00.html

AN Irish politician refused today to apologise after a Jewish rights group expressed outrage over his comments comparing a Jewish colleague to a Nazi propagandist.

The Simon Wiesenthal Centre urged Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen "to publicly condemn" a remark by Aengus O'Snodaigh and to apologise to fellow lawmaker Alan Shatter, who is Jewish, on behalf of the Irish government.

US taxpayer

Anonymous said...

The point of revisionism is to discover the truth. If this helps the jew, great and if it doesn't that's cool too. A healthy society is a skeptical one. We don't have that today.

The Holocaust “remembrance” campaign is not so much a source of Jewish-Zionist power as it is an expression of it. For that reason, debunking the Holocaust will not shatter that power. - Correct, it won't shatter it but it will weaken it. The important thing is to sow the seeds of doubt. You don't have to raze the dam, you only have to weaken it and nature will take its course. Debunking the Spielberg version of history weakens jewish power. Sunlight is a great antiseptic.
Evie

Anonymous said...

That particular issue was, I'm almost sure, was responsible for my being banned from commenting at Mondoweiss.

That and my saying that it 'takes real effort not to see the glaring similarities between Israel and the German Nazis.'

Phil doesn't like comparisons with Nazis. It provokes 'feelings' he just doesn't like.

Oh well.

Anybody else not able to post over there?


stevieb

Ashleigh said...

Sorry - the last post was meant to be posted in the proceeding thread.

"Genocide"

Anonymous said...

The smarter revisionists are finally starting to realize that revisionism is the best gift World Jewry has ever received

"Strength is irrelevant, resistance is futile. We wish to improve ourselves. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service ours." -The Borg

I never believed the Mossad killed Haider, their best friend in all of Europe: no real threat to World Jewry, but a constant source of propaganda).

anyone not already submissive will be assimilated, as constant source of propaganda"

after all it's not based on investigation of facts but borg strategy.

#Borg or freedom*

Xenophile said...

You appointed Denis Ross and Martin Indyk and Rahm Emmanuel and many others; You, Barack Obama, are the quintessential anti-progressive progressive.

POTUS, thou are but a tool of your murderous shadows, a poor player, that struts and frets your hour upon the stage and then is heard no more; your democracy is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Rowan Berkeley said...

stevie, it is more likely you have got unable to post because of cookies with the egregious typepad comment engine, almost as bad as these ones.

Xeno: Caroline Glick sounds really rather scared by Obama, in her latest effort, which is called "Pictures of Victory" and is about stupid photo ops. She seems to fear that the Obama admin. will sell plucky little Israel down the river for a few photo ops. with Ahmadinejad and Assad.

Anonymous said...

Like in other sciences, the methods used by historians are to critically review the current views and to investigate documents and all evidence for historic developments. Then this one thing, the industrial murder of millions has to be investigated too, like any other murder, or is it a religious belief..
Mark Weber has good older articles about WW-2 but since he extorted a sum of money from Carto by a legal procedure, he has done almost no work (according to forward). Is that smart?
Xymphora by defaming historical science, which isn't a matter if it is a gift to these or those, shows he is part of a lobby that attacks science.. That is not smart.

FritznoBorg

Anonymous said...

Astounding Xymphora's claim, that "World-Jewry" (whatever he means by that) is regarding socalled "revisionism" as a gift.
But maybe a hidden Borg strategey - now after the orgy in Gaza is over (?) and the nazis keep on destroying world finance??

FritznoBorg

lobro said...

xymphora is peddling shrinkwrapped chomskian shit when he claims that looking for truth, aka revisionism serves jewish interests.

go on, xymph, kol nidre shall set you free.

Anonymous said...

This is the difference between one and the other kind of airline passenger.

Anonymous said...

is Hamas for real? where are all the dead shuhada from the Islamic resistance?

Anonymous said...

ah so, myself haven't read much Chomsky, that may have been useful at some time, but isn't anymore /to guess.
And already N.Finkelstein's "h..caust industry" demonstrates Xymph as a denier of that obvious business.
FritznoBorg

Anonymous said...

The Simon Wiesenthal Centre urged Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen "to publicly condemn" a remark by Aengus O'Snodaigh and to apologise to fellow lawmaker Alan Shatter, who is Jewish, on behalf of the Irish government.
US taxpayer
The comical thing re Alan Shatter is that Fintan O'Toole had a text selecting and numbering the whinges Israeli victims use and there on the letters page was a demonstration! Alan Shatter's letter!
jocelyn

Anonymous said...

ah, love this article:
http://atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/KA21Dj04.html

At his Grant Park victory speech, Obama endeared himself to the hundreds of millions of Americans who wouldn't know Tier 1 Capital from teardrop in-ground swimming pools by promising his daughters Sasha and Malia a new puppy for going through the travails of the campaign.

Instantly, the nation became obsessed with this issue; "Obama" and "puppy" return 11.5 million hits on a Google web search, 12 times more than "Obama" and "economic plan". But, as the Roman emperor Commodus' sister Lucilla (Connie Nielsen) said in the year 2000 movie Gladiator, "The mob is fickle, brother." Lately, the new US president has been feeling its sting.

and

How can he keep the country madly in love with him? Well, adopting a cute puppy that America falls in love with, then having the new president photographed walking it, playing Frisbee with it, maybe helping his daughters give it a bath, would help maintain and bolster his popularity with the public, pressure the Congress to do his (Obama's, not the dog's) bidding, and, in doing so, give immeasurable near-term assistance to the world economy.

Back in December, Obama said that, after New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson withdrew his name from consideration under an ethics cloud, a new puppy was proving harder to find than a new commerce secretary. Considering how much more important the puppy choice is proving to be for the new administration than that of commerce secretary, perhaps the relative difficulties in the two staffing decisions is nothing but a real illustration of the current state of the government's relationship to the governed.

But allow just a bit more from the cynic.

Early in the campaign, Republicans produced TV advertisements that called Obama "the Messiah", an obvious attempt to link the then still mostly unknown candidate to the hayseed backwoods millenarianism of the "Left Behind" theology, which, among other things, prophesized that the Antichrist would one day walk the Earth proclaiming ( "oh no! how evil! ") a message of peace.

In a certain manner, Americans are treating Obama as the Messiah, albeit as a secular, benevolent savior. Millions seem to think that all they have to do is vote for him, maybe watch him dance with his wife at the inaugural ball, perhaps even pick up a cheap commemorative inaugural dish towel holder, and all will be right with the nation.

It won't. America's problems are now far too grave to think that the country can be healed with how those under 40 years of age believe social action should be undertaken, through consumer products' choices.

In other words, you can't right America's wrongs just through the purchase of an Obama mug at Starbucks.

Fixing America will require an equal amount or more of the dedication and purpose that was displayed by Obama's vast army of volunteers. If not, control of the government will invariably soon revert to the big-money special-interest lobbyists who were given a free run of the kingdom under Bush. After all, by 2008, even Bush's most faithful allies in the Christian fundamentalist movement came to realize that all the pious bromides they liked hearing the president utter were just the elevator Muzak being played to cover up the sound of Bush's big money corporate and financial benefactors picking the middle classes' pockets.

Anonymous said...

Finklestien is just the newer model of Chompsky. From Rowan's link: Norman

Why do you think US media is so one-sided and so pro-Israeli?

I think it has two components. First of all, Israel serves American interests in the region and American media always give a free pass to those states that serve American interests.


When has Israel ever served the interests of the U.S.? There were no Israelis fighting in the first and second Gulf war. In fact we had to pay them to say out which was to their benefit in two ways. And I would argue that those wars were not in the U.S. interests but in ISRAEL'S. The U.S. is Israel's attack dog, NOT the other way around as hasbra would have us believe. I can't think of one time when Israel has been more of an asset to the U.S. then the U.S. has been to Israel. When the cold war was going on Saudi was more of a benefit to us the Israel ever was. The only thing Izzy has ever done for the U.S. is cost us money.

Evie

Anonymous said...

And it should be obvious to everyone now that Norm's ground breaking book "The H Industry" was just a new tack in the joo power system to head off criticism and true scrutinizing of the H event because revisionism was/is making progress in the search for truth. Normy elbowed his way to the front of the parade and made a lot of money to boot. To the 'liberal' joos he stands as an example of their honesty and integrity. As far as any social ostracism, pooh, he's published and spoken more now then he ever did or would have before his ground breaking book (GBB).

This is all just more joo slight of hand and bullshit.

Evie

moonkoon said...

I never took you to be a "stooge for World Jewry", can't imagine why someone would think that.
Maybe they feel that strident criticism somehow reinforces the Zionist's claims.
Who knows, perhaps it does reinforce the views of those who think that the Zionist narrative should not be questioned but, be that as it may, the criticism needs to be aired and confronted.
Does criticizing a narrative make you a revisionist?

I don't care if revisionism benefits the Zionists, I like to know the truth of a matter.
If revisionism will takes me along that road, then I'm for it.
I am sick of seeing the damage we do when we delude ourselves or somebody does it for us.
I don't want someone trying to shove some story down my neck at the same time demanding that I don't question it.
Doubt is my prerogative.

Rowan Berkeley said...

I agree that Finkster is in line with Chompster on the subsidiarity of Israel to US. In Finkelstein's case, and despite his denials, I feel he still has the values of a fairly consistent marxist, whereas Chomsky is a life-long professed anarchist, but I dare say they both share a general support for Wallerstein's "World System Theory", which is just a leninist analysis of the global geography of imperialism, but without the leninist labels. This sort of ambiguous alliance between supposed 'left anarchists' and marxists is very common in liberal academia.

lobro said...

my world is crumbling ... i was sure that attacking palestinian kids with white phosphorus, depleted uranium and tungsten micro-shrapnel was in our interest, just like the financial crisis which saw hundreds of billions carted off to israel (for safekeeping, they are bankers after all) was definitely in our interest.

and not to mention 9-11, iraq, afghanistan, renewal of cold war with russia in addition to hot war with islam, it is clear that america profited and jewsrael an innocent, suffering bystander, now pilloried for willingness to do the bidding of its rapture-hungry christian masters, people like bush, cheney, blair, brown, sarkozy, merkel, pope ben, ... ya want rapture, we'll give ya rapture with trainload of kristall meth thrown in for effect, cheap, only a few trillion + ft. knox.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Rowan.

stevieb

Anonymous said...

Rowan-

Your overall analysis vis Chomsky and Finkelstein is sound. I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase "ambiguous alliance" -- what exactly is ambiguous? The two perspectives are fairly similar, and certainly would be allied against, say, a George Bush's worldview.

World Systems Theory attempts to account for power relationships by positing an hierarchy within the means of production which channels profits up to financial and intellectual owners over resource producers and analyzing a countries position within that hierarchy. What is your critique, specifically? What theories hold more sway in your opinion?

Ken Hoop said...

Finklestein did not deny an important ethnic element.

And there is, of course, the secondary factor, which is the ethnic element. In many of these newspapers and the media in general, there is a large Jewish presence, and there is a sense of Jewish ethnic solidarity, which plays a role. But I think we have to qualify the secondary factor in two ways. We should not lose sight of the primary factor, which is Israel is the client state of US.

This is not clever opaqeness, nor is Weiss'(more uneven) slant. "Laurie" has not stumbled on anything pivotal. One party is effect says 60% broader Empire/
40% Jewish solidarity-but condemns the nation built on Jewish solidarity as insanely brutal.

The other party says 60% Jewish solidarity 40% Empire. And the low key Maenicheans play like conspiratological Inspector Clouseaus.

Let me burst your bubble, Laurie. Important elements of the non-Zionist wing of the Empire believe Israel is an ally, whether it is or not. Inertia, faulty analysis and "I bought this lemon, now I'm going to rationalize it until we both run off the road," not tricky Jewish supremacy which has fooled the Dick Cheneys of the world.

Anonymous said...

"non-Zionist wing of the Empire believe Israel is an ally" - The ones getting their palms greased or egos stroked, Jean Kirkpatrick and Bill Buckley for instance. I believe there is an important building in Israel named after Jean and Bill just hated to miss those NYC cocktail parties (emphasis on the cock).

Evie

Anonymous said...

I don't have a problem with ethnic based solidarity. But the jews aren't ethnic and more importantly they are the first to scream to high heaven about white supremacy. Who do you really think funds SPLC and the ACLU? These are the groups that constantly attack your white nationalism. I don't get where your head is at.

Evie

Ken Hoop said...

There are multifarious American military & political strategists who believe Israel is a strategic ally and who believe, independently from Jewish influence, that America should be a world policeman. This understanding as exemplified in his famous anti-war speech is why for example Charles Lindbergh was a political sophisticate and you are not.

Anonymous said...

One historian, found out, that pres.Wilson on the way to the "negotiations" for the dictate of Versailles (which he left early, or before) was so deluded to believe to bring salvation, and as some said, in the middle of the Atlantic wanted to go off the steamer, to walk on the water (joke probably)..
Though already then Baruch, Obermayer and other bankers (some jewish) were leading him, so to say. Because really he betrayed his promise of the 14 points, then during the truce, the British continued the hunger-blockade against Gernman people.
There is an element of this "being send" in Americans often, but as WW-2 was more important for the market liberalisation (globalism - imperial, and for corporations)
It gets complicated, and I'll read Kens article tomorrow about Lindbergh and that time (now at gnostic liberation front, as someone posted).-.
Fritz

Rowan Berkeley said...

my own account of the colonial capitalist world economy is discussed here with this israeli guy yaron:
http://niqnaq.wordpress.com/2009/01/19/another-old-berry-sakharof-song/#comment-3327
and here:
http://niqnaq.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/finkelstein-israel-is-a-satanic-state/#comment-3342

Rowan Berkeley said...

but to answer your first question, about the ambiguous alliance, I would say that 'left-anarchists' like Chomsky have a fundamentally depoliticising effect, because they resist rigorous class analysis of any problem and insist instead in catering to petit-bourgeois individualist tendencies among the masses, and to the divisive identity politics of minorities, and so forth.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Fritz, Ken forgot to give a link to Lindbergh's speech. I find it hard to believe that a man who said we had no business in WWII would believe the U.S. should police the world, a rather Empireish thing to do. So now Ken advocates policing the world and at the same time dismantling America. His sophistication has him chasing his tail.

Ken, what makes you think the multifarious American military & political strategists who believe Israel is a strategic ally are independent of Jewish influence?

Evie

Anonymous said...

Charles Lindbergh

Evie

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your answer, Rowan.

Ken Hoop said...

Berkeley

1:11 AM, January 22, 2009

Where does Petras fit in regards your "depoliticizing" --because he attacks more correctly than Chomsky/Finkelstein
the ethnic problem re US foreign policy but might be guilty of the same charge.

Ken Hoop said...

Laurie, you are really as careless
as was Salman with none of his excuse; I made no reference to Lindbergh being an imperialist so why would you conclude his anti-war speech was also a world-policing speech? Nor did I say non-Jewish American imperialists functioned independently from Jewish influence, just that they reached their imperialist conclusions without needing Jewish influence. If you believe without
Perle's opposition, American oiligarchs would have called for Arab nationalization of their ownings, bowed out of the Mideast and supported Ron Paul or Pat Buchanaan's bid for the presidency, you're a fool.

Rowan Berkeley said...

James Petras is really a good marxist-style anti-imperialist analyst. Most of his work seems to be on central and south america, where things sometimes seem a little clearer in that respect than elsewhere. He does not expect instant Che Guevaras to pop up everywhere, and is quite tolerant of mixed and even confused populist-leftist mixtures, which is fair enough.

Ken Hoop said...

Perhaps, but I believe he was letting Hugo Chavez have it a few months ago, as if HC was behaving like a reactionary sellout or something against the "true left" of Venezuala. Then he became a somewhat more conciliatory, seemingly, although I do not keep
close watch on these kind of disputes.

Hubris said...

Rowan said:

but to answer your first question, about the ambiguous alliance, I would say that 'left-anarchists' like Chomsky have a fundamentally depoliticising effect, because they resist rigorous class analysis of any problem and insist instead in catering to petit-bourgeois individualist tendencies among the masses, and to the divisive identity politics of minorities, and so forth.

Class analysis is almost useless in the modern society.

Caste -based analysis is what should replace it.

That way the roles of Tradition, Religion, and race though would not be as ignored as they are in Marxist thinking

Tradition, Religion, and race account for changes in human society far more than mere class-analysis allows. Though a human construct, are very real in the minds of many - we have after all been conditioned to think in those terms for millenia, so the neural pathways are already there - I look and see someone that looks like me - the human brain is more likely to label them 'friend' rather than 'foe', irrespective of any marxist conditioning

Hubris said...

For Example - many of the Muslims of the Indian Subcontinent (inc. modern Pak) are descended from members of the 'Untouchable' caste in Hindu society. The converted because Islam offered them a way to escape their caste-mandated place at the bottom of Indian society.

Hence the disdain with which they are regarded by Hindu fascists today

Anonymous said...

Just for the sake of fairness in reporting..
One example of many. Both views have sundry others, I'm sure.

http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2007/12/norway-pakistanis-and-caste-system.html

Rowan Berkeley said...

I think you just undermined your own argument, by means of your own example, hubris.

Rowan Berkeley said...

But, speaking more generally, I would say that caste is characteristic of pre-industrial and pre-urban societies. So, unless you are a neo-primitivist, a la Theodore Kaczynski, it's irrelevant, except as a reactionary fantasy.