by Roger Tucker
The following essay was inspired by a recent article in the Jewish magazine ‘The Tablet’ entitled “Thinking the Unthinkable: A Lamentation for the State of Israel.” A good, well written example of what is fast becoming a genre bemoaning the rapidly disappearing notion held by liberal Zionist Jews that a Jewish State in Palestine could be ‘both Jewish and Democratic.’ Mr. Rosenbaum’s strained but passionate elegy to what was never more than a wish-fulfillment fantasy provides an opening for a more penetrating look at the prevailing debate between One State and Two States. The former proposal has been slowly but surely gaining adherents over the years, as can be seen here.
I posted the following comment on the site (they actually published it, to my great surprise):
I am the publisher/editor of the “ One Democratic State “ website, which I have been maintaining for 15 years. For the last year or so I have realized that I no longer believe in the One State Solution as it is generally understood. I no longer believe that the Israelis and the Palestinians could co-exist peacefully in the same polity. It would be no problem for the great majority of Palestinians, but there is a problem with at least 90% of the Jewish Israelis. Three or four generations of ZioNazi [see Zionism and Nazism: Is there a difference that makes a difference?] brainwashing have rendered them unfit for sharing the land with others. The attachment to national and/or ethnic and/or religious fascism – all three in many cases [see ‘Us vs. Them: On the Meaning of Fascism’] is too deeply embedded in their consciousness.
It would take a further 3 to 4 generations to reeducate them in the fundamental guidelines– starting with the grandaddy of them all, the Golden Rule – accepted as the lodestone of political wisdom by the (relatively) sane, great majority of human beings. Yes, Israelis could learn how to live in peace with others, but long before this process could work itself out, they – fervently assisted by the Zionists in the diaspora – would have started the next world war and there would be nothing left to fight over. Therefore I conclude that the only viable solution to the problem is for the Jews to leave Palestine, voluntarily or involuntarily. A small minority, less than 5%, might be able to successfully petition to stay, but such details would be up to the new Palestinian administration to work out – and they would be preoccupied with the far more urgent task of resettling the millions of returning Palestinians who choose to come. The reconstruction and recovery of Gaza itself would be a monumental task.
Furthermore, this would not only finally solve the “Israeli/Palestinian Conflict” – it would provide at least a glimmer of hope that sanity and justice might eventually prevail and even that the spiraling of the biosphere into imminent anthropogenic suicide could be turned around. I remain an optimist. Anything’s possible. But I must admit that the odds are against us
As there was a 400 word limit on comments, much had to be left unsaid, so I’m fleshing it out a bit more here..
The Two State notion has been the conventional wisdom ever since Yasser Arafat adopted it as part of the US led “Peace Process” in 1993. It has been accepted by all nation states since then as the optimal outcome, even Israel until Netanyahu’s withdrawal of what was merely rhetorical assent anyway, in his infamous last electioneering campaign. Israeli politicians have from time to time pretended to endorse the idea, but only on condition that the Palestinian “State” be constituted in such an emasculated and dependent form that it would in reality be nothing more than a disconnected archipelago of small, helpless Bantustans subject to the whims of a surrounding and all-powerful Israel. In addition, the Right of Return, a right enshrined in international law (for what that’s worth), would not have applied in the now uncontested Jewish State consisting of about 80% of historic Palestine. This was what Arafat had no choice but to reject at the famous Camp David meeting in 2000.
All serious, impartial observers since then have declared the Two State Solution dead. The principal argument against it has been that the Israelis would never accept the establishment of a viable Palestinian state, which is certainly true – not to mention the other argument, what Jeff Halper referred to as the construction of an overwhelming ‘Matrix of Control,’ by now a fait accompli. What is so interesting though is that it is also the principal argument against the One State Solution as well. A naïve observer, similar to the boy who imprudently pointed out that the Emperor was naked, might say “So what!” So what indeed. That observer might well be ignorant of the immense power wielded by organized Jewry in the West, particularly in the US, without which there would have been no Jewish State in the first place nor could it remain viable even now for more than a month or two without such tenacious support. Anyone doubting this phenomenon need only look at the candidates for US President of both political parties groveling at the feet of a few Jewish billionaires. It leads one to wonder which country these people intend to serve once they have taken the oath. For further background one should read ‘The Israel Lobby,’ the classic essay by Mearsheimer and Walt.
This brings us to the crux of the matter. If we look at the power wielded by tribal Jewry in the Western democracies, not only in the English speaking Old Testament besotten cultures, but in France, Germany etc., we are always impressed that a mere 2% of the population, more or less – in some cases considerably less – has managed to wrest de facto control of the political, economic, media and educational spheres. All of this power is focused on fanatical support of the State of Israel. It is not that the majority of Jews wield this sword – most of them just go along to get along, particularly as they are constantly being bombarded with tribal propaganda and it so psychologically satisfying to seem to be, at least, part of an exclusive club. But the small number of wealthy, influential, dedicated Zionist Jews and the rest of the ZPC (Zionist Power Configuration) who actually run the show may finally be losing their grip, albeit just a little bit. The traditional progressivism of young Jews has begun to surface again, and they are flocking to Palestinian support groups and the BDS movement.
In the context of the struggle in Palestine itself the indigenous people have nothing left, seemingly no hope whatsoever. This is the ground of the current Intifada. But, to haul out an old saw, it’s always darkest just before dawn. The stench that emanates from the malignant tumor called Israel is beginning to arouse revulsion from the majority of people all over the world. Gradually, Israel’s impunity from the norms of civilized behavior will be challenged more and more. This is inevitable – recently several writers have referred to Israel as “beyond redemption.” This is an ersatz “country” that is morally, ethically and spiritually bankrupt.
Soon the Palestinians are going to have pull themselves together and decide as a group how to move forward. When the day comes that Sumud is rewarded by a major swing of the pendulum, it is my hope that they will be cognizant of how a few Jews in the West can control the whole extended USraeli Empire, which includes all of the Western democracies. If they give in to the pressure that will be applied, as it was in South Africa, to accept their new status – nominally at least – as equal partners in the new, half-Jewish Palestine while leaving the colonizers, by default, in de facto control, then I guarantee that they will wind up screwed, blued and tattooed. There would be seductive calls for “peace and reconciliation,” for moving forward shoulder to shoulder, etc. ad nauseum. It is of the utmost importance that they allow only Israeli Jews who can clearly demonstrate their long-standing anti-Zionist credentials to remain. Even so, as we have discussed, 5% might be far too much. It will be for the Palestinians to decide, but I would advise extreme caution.
As to where the Israelis could go, those with the means would head for the States or another Western country. No problem – they already have passports. For those for whom this would be difficult I’m sure the Russians could be persuaded to allow them to settle in Birobidzhan, already designated as the Autonomous Jewish Region. With the construction of the New Silk Road this area will be booming.The Rothschild family by themselves could easily and painlessly fund the whole project (they are reputed to be worth upwards of 30 trillion dollars), and there are more trillions in the hands of other Jewish billionaires..
We should not fool ourselves into thinking that such a fortuitous outcome would solve all the fundamental problems bedeviling the Middle East. After all, the Empire has other motivations for continuing to inflict chaos and destabilization in this resource rich area – fossil fuels will remain the principal source of the world’s energy supplies well into the foreseeable future and the temptation to apply the tried and true strategy of divide and rule isn’t going away. Furthermore, the Empire is dying, in much the same way that the Roman Empire flamed out. But this time it won’t just be a gradual decay as the lights are turned out one by one. No, Amerika is acting like an enraged, blinded Cyclops, confusedly striking out in each and every direction, its political elites hell bent on starting the next world war. The Israelis have their Samson Option, while there are numerous American good old boys who would dearly love to reprise the end of Stanley Kubrick’s film ‘Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Love the Bomb,’ ready to lasso and mount a nuclear warhead aimed at Moscow. Hoo Yah! These are parlous times, my friends, and I ain’t a-lyin.
And, not to forget, the ZPC would remain essentially intact, albeit with some of the wind let out of their sails – the ancient but still very potent “Jewish Problem” isn’t going away any time soon. For the best introduction to and concise analysis of this subject I highly recommend Gilad Atzmon’s short book “The Wandering Who?”
N.B.: All departing Israelis should be cautioned not to look back, lest they turn into a pillar of frozen cottage cheese..
One Democratic State
December 16, 2015
Hard questions, hard answers. The problem is even bigger…
” On one thing am I clear: that is the influence which the Jews have gained upon our mental life, as displayed in the deflection and falsification of our highest culture-tendencies. Whether the downfall of our culture can be arrested by a violent rejection of the destructive alien element, I am unable to decide, since that would require forces with whose existence I am unacquainted.”
Judaism in Music,
Please keep in mind the true meaning of Jew is one from the royal tribe of Judah. Jacob had tweleve sons and one daughter. His son Joseph had two sons Ehpraim and Menessa adopted by Jacob.
Until you can account for all the lost tribes of Israel you have an empty conversation.
The bible does supply clues about the various tribes of Israel. You have a small piece of the puzzle as
Khazar Jews it has been said are converts to so called todays Judiasm. Happy reading.
Oh, this is funny. Have you noticed where all the woes of Israel come from?
“Oh, yes, 2,000 years of Christian anti-Semitism does more to pave the way for this than radical Islam which basically parrots the worst blood libels of Christian anti-Semitism from Mein Kampf to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (cited approvingly in the Hamas charter).” Oy, vey!
And why all the Jeremiads? Because the Rabbis have emitted the 614th mitzvah, the post-Holocaust commandment:
“Thou shall give to Hitler no posthumous victories”.
“And yet Hitler is on the verge of a posthumous victory”. Christian Antisemitism is back! The Wandering will start again. Where to go?
And there is a 615th mitzvah: “Thou shall give to Stalin no posthumous victory”. What is that? Well, actually they let the cat out of the bag. Birobidzhan! That was the victory of Stalin against the Crimean Jewish Soviet Republic!
What you mean by christian antisemitism ? I am a christian i am not against the existence of jews, i am not against them having their own land, i disapprove their religious views yes, and i disaprove some israel policies yes, their is no antisemitism in the bible or the creeds and confessions, christian antisemitism does not exist.
The Jews put the name to the game: Patriarchy.
Patriarchy is rule by men, rule over women, animals and earth itself.
Patriarchs rule with power and propaganda.
Patriarchs acquired their power by killing animals and later sacrificing humans on the altar of war.
Patriarchy maintains its power by meat-eating and pet-keeping whereby humans make meat and pets of themselves for their master, Patriarchy.
The logical connections of the free mind must be destroyed by patriarchy in the first of all wars: information.
Meat-eaters and pet-keepers are the Empire’s first line defense of misinformation even in vineyards.
In the Old Testament the Patriarch in Chief demanded animal sacrifices and threatened to kill the son of a patriarch chieftain. In the New Testament God did sacrifice his own son, setting the pattern for all fathers and sons.
The Semite Jews gave the name to the game; the Khazar Jews gave the game to the name. The former spelled power and the latter spelled money.
None of this makes a bit of sense to the addicts of patriarchy so thorough has been the brainwashing.
Russia and Israel have an understanding that the multi-patriarchal world is coming. The unknown is who will sit where at the table. Anyone who wants to eat from the table dare not question the table of elements.
I do dare to question the table at thelovegovernment.com. In fact, I don’t need a table in a vineyard. I sit on the ground in a womam’s circle and drink the nectar of lovers Dionysia style.
If I really am in that vineyard womam’s circle I need not fear a uni-polar or multi-polar Empire because empires are just submarines in the desert. The super-polar oasis of love tells the Empire it has no clothes or sunscreen but who’s listening to a child anyway?
Back to Matriarchy then. Pussy Riot, Femen, they all come from the Amazons area. Drink the nectar of lovers Dionysia style, dripping from the chicken inserted up the #@*t instead of the hated “symbol of patriarchy” (the phallus, not the penis).
Excerpt from “Who Pulls the Strings of Femen & Pussy Riot?
“Like Femen, the key Pussy Riot motivating force seems to be a demented hatred of Christianity in general and the Orthodox Church in particular. But It was the writer Israel Shamir who first pointed out that Pussy Riot’s prominent supporters from the Russian arts and media are overwhelmingly Jewish.
These include satirist and cartoonist Viktor Shenderovich, sociologist Igor Eidman, art gallery owner Marat Gelman, socialite and TV presenter Xenia Sobchak and TV station owner Alexey Venediktov.
Pussy Riot’s cause has also been aggressively taken up by a leading anti-Putin opposition group called the Union of Solidarity with Political Prisoners which is led by another two high-profile Jews, Garry Kasparov and Boris Nemtsov.
And yet another Jewish promoter and thought-leader, Alek D. Epstein, has celebrated them in a publication called “Art on the barricades: ‘Pussy Riot’, the ‘Bus Exhibit’ and the protest art-activism.”
“None of them is a practicing Jew,” wrote Shamir “but they apparently inherited their hatred to the Church from their forefathers.” Russian allegations that both feminist groups are effectively Jewish sock-puppets have been met with the usual spluttering outrage.
All of which has moved Israel Shamir to make the acid comment. “Russians proved that they care for Christ as much as the French care for Auschwitz, and this shocked the Europeans who apparently thought ‘hate laws’ may be applied only to protect Jews and gays. The Western governments call for more freedom for the anti-Christian Russians, while denying it for holocaust revisionists in their midst.”
Carmel by the Sea
Thank you very much, Carmel, for reminding us what is obvious, but always treated with somewhat timidity. “Non-religious Jews”, “non-practicing Jews”, “agnostic Jews”, “atheistic Jews”. They just “apparently” inherited their hatred to the Church from their forefathers. It was just a coincidence that the “revolutionaries” who destroyed churches, burnt icons, executed thousands of priests, monks and simple Christians who wage a relentless war for the eradication of Christianity and found the atheist society, were Jews (in Russia as well as in the enlightened West)!
You can’t be an atheist and a Jew at the same time-Not in a religious fashion. So this Bolshevik Jew Business is nonsense. Putin has 90% approval rate in Russia-what proportion of these are also Jews? Or are the 10% dissenter’s the “Jews” World Jewry has to speak up against Zionist Israel, and many Orthodox Jews believe Israel is an abomination and protest against it’s very existence.
As to how the Jews captured the financial sector-look to history. Aristocratic Christian’s believed dealing in Finance was profane and beneath them. Their offspring were to be lawyers, men of letters, Philosophers or Priests-dirty commerce was given to the “lowly Jew” to perform. That is how they captured the financial system-we gave it to them to run.
There is a lot of truth in what you said. The problem is that unlike most religions “Judaism” or a “Jew” is considered by some (many or maybe most people) wrongfully as “both” a religious and an ethnic group. So they are considered to be able to be non-religious and still be “Jews”. As an example most of the early zionists and Communist leadership were considered (certainly by themselves at least) as “Jews”. But they neither one believed in the religion of Judaism. It used to be similar in Christianity and Islam as well. One you joined those faiths you were considered to be “family”. Hence terms like Christendom or Ummah ,that spoke of the whole group. The ties between each other superseded ethnic ties in these faiths. That began to change in the Christian and Muslim Worlds over the years. But it never changed in Judaism. And over time, they began to be considered as one ethnic group by many (though looks alone ,if nothing else shows that’s an error).
As to the Jews in Communism,yes the early Communist parties were heavily Jewish staffed. A list of their leaders is an easy way to show that fact. Jews were attracted to Communism because its ideology was open to all peoples. And since with the rise of nationalism in the World. Many of the states that Jews lived in had become “nation states” of the majority populations. And denied Jews an equal place in their political systems. Communism was certainly attractive for the reason it rejected that. On the other side of that,Jews were attractive to the Communists (both Jewish and non-Jewish Communists) because of their lack of loyalty to the other populations. So in those early days they were recruited heavily into the secret police,intelligence,party bureaucracy. Again,checking lists of names of those people easily prove that point. All that began to change with two events. One the rise of Stalin. He was more than willing to use Jews in his system. But not to give any special privileges to them. They had,like all others,to “toe the line”. And those not willing to were eliminated. Because there were so many Jews in the system,percentages of Jews eliminated was higher than other groups (not in numbers,but in percentages of the population). A fact used by zionists and the West to paint him as “anti-Jewish”. The other event was the rise of the zionists and the State of Israel. The biggest attraction ,as I said for the Communists to use Jews in the movements was their lack of loyalty to local,or to foreign interests. But with zionism and Israel,there went that loyalty. Many Jews became devoted to zionism and the “ideal” of an Israel. So the Communists couldn’t “be sure” of their loyalty anymore. The Communist governments in Eastern Europe at that time were even more “Jewish” than the government in the USSR. Poland,Hungary,Czechoslovakia,and even Romania,were a “whose who” of Jewish names. So the Communists conducted massive purges in those countries (and smaller in the USSR) to eliminate them in the main. And replace them with “native” elements. Again ,used by the West as an “example” of Communists being anti-Jewish. While in reality it was an example of them being “anti-zionist”.
As to the comment on banking. You are absolutely right. The prominence today of Jews in the World’s financial businesses started out because of the Christian and Muslim religions disdain for “usury”. And it falling to the “outsiders”,mainly Jews to take those careers. In Europe in those days there were only some careers legally open to Jews to work at. And that was one of them. From that over the centuries we have the situation we are in today.
WizOz on December 22, 2015 · at 3:42 am UTC or maybe the Church played it’s traditional reactionary role and encourage the believer’s to side with the Whitle Russian Monarchical Rule!
LIke maybe the Kulak’s wanted to keep all that they produced hoarded it and starved out the peasants and worker’s in the towns and cities…Like just maybe eh? Wonder whose side the Church was on in these struggles. I can’t imagine.
@Wonder whose side the Church was on in these struggles
Poor Bolsheviks, how the “traditional reactionary” Church (did you forget to mention that it was ‘antisemitic’ also?) forced them to kill priests and laymen because they sided with the Kulaks who hid their crops from the Jewish Commissars (Kaganovitch) and with the White Monarchical Rule (who was antisemitic, wasn’t it?). Well, a bit of retribution was well deserved! How would you get rid of the past otherwise, can you tell me? Not only the past, can’t you see that even today the (Orthodox) Church sided with “butchers of their own people” like Assad (must go!).
Don’t usually comment, but prolific, especially coming from an x priest, and elderly person. Rachel
“Patriarchy is rule by men, rule over women, animals and earth itself.”
LOL, if only those straight men would disappear and get out of our way…
“Meat-eaters and pet-keepers are the Empire’s first line defense of misinformation even in vineyards.”
I’m don’t keep pets as much as they keep me (including the garage cats), and they are obligatory carnivores. I can’t say I’m any better than they are when it comes to eating meat (as do bacteria and fungi, birds, various mammals, reptiles, bugs, fish, and even some plants). I didn’t design this predatory world, and don’t much like it, but I’m stuck in it and it’s all I have at the moment, so I’m very limited in how much change I can make in it. Humans are omnivores (so are chimps) and the social system we have enforces that to a fair degree (unless you have a fair bit of money), so I eat what I can both afford and digest (not that it has to be done in a cruel way, however).
I have to choose my battles, and I’d rather eat milk, eggs, and fish and an occasional piece of meat than give up on trying on to stop wars and fascism, and I don’t see that that is so closely connected.
Incontrovertible: New 9/11 Documentary
BY TONY ROOKE
Anonymous, thanks I’ll look at it. You really must look at this one; it covers much more than its title indicates. The end is especially impressive.
http://www.monsangelorum.net/?p=23505 You have to scroll down past the pygmies to get to it.
I almost shudder, but comment nevertheless. In regards to the-problem-that-shall-not-be-named, imagine a society that values merit, law and transparency, an open society. Next, imagine a tribe within said society who while espousing law and said values for those outside their clique– the mass of humanity– stand themselves outside the law, the exception, embodying sovereignty.
Such an arrangement seems reasonable (to me), but it just might be my peculiar worldview. It may have been Richard Feynman who said: If there is no solution, there is no problem.
Soros’ “Open Society Foundations”.
I should have wrote “assessment” instead of “arrangement” in the second to last sentence. I also should have added something about trying to stand outside norms and standards (law) because they aren’t entirely successful.
Where to send those 95% of Israelis who are zionazis? Good question. It’s essentially a question about how to dispose of toxic waste without hurting the environment further.
Excellent article, the sort of which needs to be made mainstream. We will never be able to solve the endless warring, the gross inequalities of every sort, the institutionalized crime and corruption that represent the mainstay of capitalist society in the west without confronting and dismantling the ZPC aspect. The ZPC is the glue holding western fascism together.
ZPC is zionist power configuration. A term coined by James Petras to describe zionazi/Jewish supremacist power in the capitalist oligarchic west.
That’s exactly why it was created as a sanctuary with sharp teeth.
So go ahead. Do it.
Those who have committed crimes against humanity should stand trial. If found guilty go to jail or be hung or face firing squad. This goes for any oppressor.
That is JUSTICE. No Justice! No Peace!
An excellent article. When you think about the horror that the MENA has gone through because of the Balfour Declaration and the 1948 Founding of Israel. It beggars the imagination,its that bad. It destroyed the lives of millions,both Arabs and Jews. And continues to this day in destroying lives.
Well, I guess the Zionazi part of the mess that is the MENA started with the Balfour Declaration. But not the surrounding mess, of which Israel is now an integral part and player,
I am currently reading The Arabs, by Peter Mansfield. Excellent background, and extremely readable. Published in 1976, which is good because it isn’t the “current mess” filter.
I recommend that those who are interested read the chapter “The West Invades.” You will get an education in the ungraspable hubris and cupidity of the Western powers toward the whole MENA starting in the late seventeenth century. And how the stance toward Russia fit (and still fits) in. There is nothing new going on now. The Age of Exploration and the Portuguese started a lot of the movement and intervention that became the imperial/colonial project in the MENA. Israel is just the latest twitch. Much valuable information on the role of Syrians in particular in the development of ideas of Arab nationalism.
I won’t go on except, again, to highly recommend. Just one more point:
The French have so much blood on their hands in NOrth Africa, especially, but also the Levant. Yet they seem to give themselves a free pass now and embrace the victim role. And teh world embraces with them. I alsmot think they are worse than the Yanks vis-a-vis teh Native Americans. It beggar belief. But take a look at the Mansfield book. You will want to continue reading. An excellent backgrouind for all, includilng ehr ealationship between teh Arabs and the TUrks.And among different groups of the MENA, both religious and ethnic. Fascinating and very enlightening. ONe almost (!!!) feels a glimmer of empathy for the ISIS project. When one looks at the history of Turkish oppression of Arabs within the Ottoman Empire.
It is a good book. I think I read it in the late 1980’s or early 90’s. I’ve read so many books on different nations,peoples,and cultures,that its hard to keep track. But I remember being very impressed by it. And that the author wrote it with a sense of respect for his subject. That sometimes is lacking in books about the MENA.
Thanks for the confirmation. Perhaps more Vineyarders will be moved to read it having read your recommendation.
It gets top reviews at amazon, many reviewers pointing out its value to deepening understanding of current developments.
Welcome back Denis!
Was about to ask where you had gone!
Indeed. Who ‘is listening to the child’? Perhaps he has too much faith – still – in human nature?
* * *
(hands on hips )
You two – (WizOz and Tak)
1. The likes of Femen and Riot are patriarchal creations. They are anything but ‘matriarchal’ in their content, style or objectives. I am surprised you don’t get that Wiz.
2. Well Vot. What is so zio ‘gay’ about a matriarchal ideal (leaving aside it’s practical shortcomings)? It’s the very antithesis of homofascism – a male supremacist cult. The Gaytriarch is even worse than the Patriarch – at least the latter doesn’t deny the gestalt of women through the co-opting of language (transgender men claiming they are women.)
A pro-natal culture would never allow reproductive control to be concentrated into male hands, much less destroy and deny natural motherhood by treating women as cattle (egg-extraction and womb-prostitution (surrogacy). What do you think the re-definition of marriage was really about?
Please no attacks on other commenters … extraneous lines removed — mod-hs
Where did I mention matriarchy above? I think you are getting a little carried away here.
But since you brought it up, do you know what “archy” means at the end of words like patriarchy and matriarchy? It means “ruled by” or “government made up of”. Look up the definition. I’m no more enthusiastic about being ruled by matrons as I am by patrons.
To tell the truth, I’ve no desire to be ruled by any one.
Why even divide males and females by using such rigid and artificial definitions of what females and males represent in society? Why sow new divisions among them in such manner?
The zionazis/nazis running western societies specialize in divisive tactics to keep people apart from each other, why should we make their job easier for them?
I came to appreciate Matriarchy as many indigenous people in North America were organized along Matriarchal lines. When a woman was tired of her mate-he would have to return to his clan-property and children remained with the female sex. It was also not a mortal sin of any kind to choose another mate-or have a change in relationships. Mind you this “property” was not private but communal…..I like what Engels and Morgan had to say about the origins of Private Property, The State and Patriarchy…It should also be noted that what is termed the Ancient Russian Spirit of Community is imbricated in the consciousness of all of humankind. As we lived in Communal fashion for eons. Virtually all cultures also speak of a Golden Age in the Past and look forward to getting back to it in the future. Let’s hope this never dies. Cooperation and Adaptation are the key elements to millions of years of evolution. Mind you the human personality is very malleable. One hundred years of social practice can give rise to a whole new human personality and outlook. WE should design our societies to produce the kind of human beings we want to see humanity thriving. This can all be based on science hard and soft-this should determine social policy. To allow for the development of our many sided talents. Much has been lost in assembly line production where human beings have become appendages to a machine or simply to intellectual labour without actually bringing this labour to fruition with their own hands. The separation of the head and the hand has not been good for our all round development. This is why guilds were so protective of their skills in early production-this is the knowledge the “Free Masons” would not give to the “KING” for free in building his castles-big conspiracy about these original unions continue to this day. Not a coincidence is it. Back to Patriarchy-the institution of private property played a large role in destroying Matriarchal societies and still does. After all a man wants to ensure that “his” property goes to his off-spring and not some “Bastard” Chastity belts, Victorian Morals were all a part of the development of capitalism-this economic structure atomizes people into individual producers and consumers. It rallies against the family-perhaps the last “communal” structure we have left and this is really breaking down with woman’s capacity to control their reproductive functions and the sexual division of labour disappears. All this nonsense about cultural Marxism-look at the atomizing effects of capitalism if you want to know what is destroying “norms” in society. It is not Liberalism which has an egalitarian aspect that one never hears of…oh no that would be to radical-but that was also a part of the Enlightenment Thinking that is dismissed by so many today. These emancipatory projects are exactly what we need now more than ever-especially in America as nothing short of a socialist revolution will allow America to live up to it’s democratic ideals prevent the mutual ruination of the contending classes and also prevent world war 3. To bad Stalin dissolved the Comintern-to bad Trotsky could not reforge the Fourth International. People in America would have the intellectual and programmatic tools they need to defeat their capitalist masters. Warren Buffet he is not a Jew is he? Rockefeller Jew. Buffet said their is a CLASS WAR going on and HIS side is Winning. Not a coincidence that disparaging Marx became a cottage industry in American Academia in spite of all the nonsense about Academia being “leftist” No more than 10% of Marxists ever got tenure in American.
Matriarchal societies were much more democratic and egalitarian. A sexual division of labour existed to an extent largely due to reproductive roles-however property was communal and woman had more freedom and equality.
Soon, in sha’ Allah!
Do me a favor: define fascism.
These three Israeli Jews and American Jew define it for you in these videos:
And his satire, from Israel Channel 2 show “Eretz Nehederet” (“Wonderful Country” )
Wonderful?!?! Lord have mercy!!!
Carmel by the Sea
Trying to nail fascism in one sentence:
Rule by money (via corporations) instead of rule by law.
Political economy….capitalist production gives you capitalist rule of law. These things are not separate entities. The class struggle is about mitigation and elimination of this rule. The transition to a post capitalist world is not only long over due, it is necessary for the survival of the species.
I took a shot at it in my essay ‘Us vs. Them: On the Meaning of Fascism.’
Fascism is the complete destruction of organized labour, the atomization of the working class on behalf of capitalism in crisis. Above all, this is what fascism is all about.
Look at the tendencies the world is undergoing today-a race to the bottom, loss of civil liberties, police states….destruction of unions…people need a good hit in the head I think.
Yeah, but in Birobidzhan would they be allowed to exterminate the goyim or would they be expected to coexist with them? If the latter, it wouldn’t be much like dear old defunct Israel!
They would be subject to the oversight of Russia, and the Russians have ample experience dealing with the chosen ones.
I thought you such a reasonable person until I got to the bit about anthropogenic suicide. I have not yet found a single person who holds this view for whom it is not a “religious” view, clung to only by dint of excluding science. The media, as you know, is not a viable source for information, nor are the activists who have imbibed it. The same people who control the oil, the media and the US govt are pushing the warmist indoctrination; it is not an alternative position, but one pushed by the power structure. That should alert you to the necessity for due diligence in examining it. Surely you know, for example, that you have only to search “97% of scientists hoax” or “ocean acidification hoax” to unmask these particular lies. I know that when you see the same thing repeated everywhere that you are very likely to believe it, but you of all people know about brainwashing. Do please listen to the scientists below.
I leave you with a text link, based on the Greenland ice cores, written by a glacier scientist. http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783
And audio links by scientists: http://itsrainmakingtime.com/robert-felix-joe-daleo-dr-tim-ball-true-inquiry-climate-and-weather/ Listen, hours, a whole series
I have great regard for the rest of what you have written, and for the sense of loss you must feel at the failure to build a democratic state. It is courageous of you to look reality in the face.
Penelope – it was probably a bad choice of words, as most people would interpret it the same way you did. What I was trying to refer to was all the other damage to the biosphere resulting in species destruction, the devastation of the land, pollution and so forth – not global warming. In that respect I’m a skeptic like yourself.
Roger, Thanks for the clarification. We could surely do w/o fracking and the nano-aluminum & barium that they are spraying as geo-engineering– not to mention the failure to clean up Fukushima. I think the worst polluters of all are the military and the cell phone towers. But then there is so much wrong that it’s hard to choose what’s worse.
I’m no fan of the State of Israel (or any state, for that matter,) but how can you justify the forced expulsion of Israeli Jews, without invoking some form of collectivist terror, ala Stalin’s pogroms? Two wrongs do not make a right. Israeli society exists, whether you like it or not, and it will give the Palestinians their due when the situation requires it. With the imminent collapse of the American Empire, Israel will lose its monetary subsidies which have been forcibly extracted from the American people. Thus the Zio-fanatics will be deposed and a Palestinian state will come to be by way of compromise, not warfare. There will be no need for the continued evil of ethnic cleansing.
” Israeli society exists, whether you like it or not, and it will give the Palestinians their due when the situation requires it.”
When the situation requires it??? After the expulsion of a million Palestinians (now grown into 5 million people). And the repression, near slavery,and random killing of dissenters among the almost 5 million more Palestinians still left in their homeland.Going on for over 68 years. Just “when” do you think that “requirement” might be due.
Personally,I think that large numbers of Israelis would leave the country if Israel/Palestine was free of apartheid rule. They couldn’t stand having to live as equals in a non-Jewish dominated society. Its ironic that Jews for the entire 19th Century were rightfully intent on pressing for secular equal societies throughout Europe (that way they wouldn’t be discriminated in them). And then spent most of the 20th Century,and these years of the 21st Century, trying to create an exclusive apartheid Jewish state for themselves in Palestine. What they found horrible when directed at them.They have no problem with directing at others. So expulsions probably wouldn’t happen. Almost half of Israelis have foreign passports already (just in case). So I’m guessing those people and others ,would return to the countries they or their parents and grandparents left from (or at least the countries they have passports from,or that will give them passports to). Leaving those willing to live in an equal secular Palestine. There are around 6 million Jews in current Israel. Of those around 25% are ex-Soviet Jews (not counting others with deeper ex-Soviet ancestry). Many of them have current ties in those countries. Most would probably return there. Probably a million or more have other Western roots. And Western connections and passports. They would probably return to those countries. And no doubt,a huge number would leave for North America. Many have relatives or connections there. Those willing to remain would be those will real Palestinian roots. Or those willing to live with their former victims. It could be done. Even in Eastern Europe after WW2 there were several million Germans that remained there.
You have a point about some non-native Jews leaving Israel in case the political situation changed and they were no longer the dominant ethnic group. Sure, we all know it is them who caused the problem in the first place. I still like the approach offered by Arizona An-cap, it makes sense to work with normal peace-loving and reasonable Israelis rather than to make enemies of all Jews.
Quite frankly, this general anti-jewish sentiment that seems to be going around is counterproductive and it only serves to further the right wing forces in Israel and therefore reinforce their dominance over regular Israelis who just want peace and enjoy their strolls along the beach.
And this is not a “give peace a chance” appeal from me by any means. It is an appeal to reason and logic. Israel is not going anywhere and countries have to work with them. The masks are slowly coming off (thanks to Lavrov and Putin) and the Washington DC establishment and their Lobbyists are slowly being rendered less effective. It is a matter of time before Rome falls. And believe me, I will be the first to dance on their graves.
Israel is a land based air craft carrier. Those who rule it do so for money. Those who financially support it do so for the same reason. There cannot be a Jewish State of Israel as Israel does not speak for world Jewry. Such a state is an abomination to many of the Jewish persuasion. Palestine was not always divided by faith-co-existence was the norm. Is this not correct?
No ruling class should be allowed to escape JUSTICE from Bush to Obama to Netanyahu….these people need to stand trial. That is how we do things is it not?
Sadly,no it’s not how we do things. It should be though,but its not.
If their only other choice is to live under an Arab majority in a bi-national state, I am sure that a majority of Israeli Jews will (as Mitt Romney might put it) ‘self-deport’.
I have finished reading your links & intend to order Gilan Atzmon’s book, but I am having a difficult time connecting any part of what I’m reading with my Jewish friends in New York City where I lived for years. I was in the extended circle of Ayn Rand and of Alan Greenspan’s former business partners. My Jewish friends were a couple of lawyers, a doctor, students at university and small business owners for whom my typesetting company was a supplier. I dated a Jewish college professor.
I knew of only one person who bore a grudge against the nonJewish world, an older woman who detested Christianity and who was offended when the names of the banking families were raised in criticism.
I also knew a young man from a Jewish family who was required to put in many hours studying religious books. He rebelled against it and was becoming estranged from his family.
Among my Jewish contacts the only common factor was intellectualism; we were all greatly interested in philosophy, politics, physics, etc. Ethics was of sufficient interest that some of us were quite critical of Rand’s distaste for altruism.
You seem to be saying that the Zionist beliefs which have permitted Israel to commit its own holocaust against the Palestinians are widespread among non-Israeli Jews, too. You are not the first person whom I have come across with this opinion, so that I remain baffled as to why my experience should indicate something so different.
Thank you for a thought-provoking article; I will continue to consider the matter.
Penelope, there is no such thing as “the Jews” or “the Jewish people.” These are abstractions/generalizations impossible to define with any calrity, like “the Christians” or “Christianity.” They may be of some use in communication but they mislead as often as they clarify. Another good book for you would be Shlomo Sand’s “The Invention of the Jewish People.” The root of the problem is solidification of concepts (aka reification). At a deeper level, we buddhists speak of the lack of self-nature, particularly the mistaken belief in ego. Nothing and no one exists except in relation to everything else – Thich Nhat Hahn refers to it as “interbeing.” The equivalent of ego in the political sphere is group identity. I talk about that in my essay ‘Us vs. Them: On the Meaning of Fascism.’
So, with respect to what we might call the Jewish world, we can distinguish what I refer to as Tribal Jewry from everyone else classifiable as Jewish. My experience growing up Jewish in an upper middle class largely Jewish suburb was similar to yours – very much the same kind of people. That was then, this is now. The adoption of Zionism as the preferred Jewish political ideology, not to mention the Holycause
as the new Jewish religion, has made slow but steady progress over the decades. At this point these belief systems have been wholly adopted by tribal Jewry, with so-called liberal or progressive Jews gatekeeping the left flank.
Interesting that you were involved with Ayn Rand – I consider her the High Priestess of the Religion of the Ego. Egotism, individualism, atheism, supremacism, exceptionalism, materialism, capitalism – she virtually deified the whole stinking mess. I can understand its attraction for adolescent boys but have always found it inexplicable that otherwise highly intelligent, sophisticated people would have had anything to do with her. And she was Jewish, not coincidentally.
There is no such thing as Roger Tucker. He is an abstraction, an “invention”. Why does he tell us that he is Jewish?
Rand was attractive because she was able to enunciate a complete defense of rationality and creativity and its sources. She defended and romanticized accomplishment, which strikes a sympathetic note with the very young who are looking for their plan and their place.
She was not all evil, but there were certainly parts of a normal psyche which were missing. She defined words in odd ways, especially altruism, which she equated with self-sacrifice– her example was giving up the career you wanted for the one your father wanted you to pursue.
But of course altruism needn’t be defined in such a way, and idealism and compassion are expressions of the self. The brochures on intellectual subjects were often quite helpful, but there was always that twist about selfishness– truly something pathological there.
Thanks for the response. I’ll read the other references.
Rand was a screaming Russophobe as a results of the Revolution – her family property in St Petersburg was confiscated. So destroying her assured future as a an upper-middle class Russian Jewish princess.
She never forgave and she never forgot. Her writings on the subject were clearly bitter and so untrustworthy.
Her mother sacrificed much personal comfort to finance Rand’s America journey, and to keep her financed. Everything was arranged for her, relatives contacted, regular packages sent and all the while she herself could barely keep alive, or feed both her other daughter and her depressed and suicidal husband.
A socialite and lady of leisure before the Revolution, she demonstrated remarkable resilience in its aftermath. Seems she was made of sterner stuff than her supposedly resilient and self-starting daughter.
Rand never lifted a finger to help her when she later had the means to do so. It was a subject of major conflict between her and her sister.
Perhaps she feared her mother would explode her self-mythology.
So she was a pathologically selfish creature long before she developed it into a quasi- ‘philosophy’ . She spent her life simply rationalizing her own retarded development.
She used Ego to rationalize Id when she effectively established a cult circle around her ‘teachings.’ She persuaded an acolyte – a psychology student -to support Rand’|s planned seduction of her fiancee, a good lookin guy thirty years younger than her.
She was ‘exceptional’ so any opposition to her desires would demonstrate intellectual limitations , betraying the ’cause’ for human ‘advancement’ – hers. What would a young student from the mid-west understand of such European ‘sophistications’ and ‘intellectual subtleties’? Or fail to understand the importance of ‘demonstrable’ loyalty? (Lots of ‘demonstrations.)’
Essentially, it was psychological/economic blackmail: good looking young guy she fancied had to ‘service’ her if both he and his future wife wanted to avoid expulsion from her circle and if he wanted to keep his job with her foundation.
The strain of being essentially her male pro pushed him into alcoholism and destroyed his relationship with his fiancee.
Rand’s own husband was a weak-willed, non-challenging Irishman she effectively manipulated into marriage through financial support and emotionally blackmailed by playing on her ‘personal tragedy’ (her flight from Russia). She used with relentless public flattery tactically , while undermining his self-respect privately with various petty humiliations designed to demonstrate his ineptness and dependancy on her.
He seemed to have tried many times to escape the Kooky Monster, but sank into alcoholism instead. His addiction and reliance on her money – and in advanced middle age with little prospect of escape – how could he support himself with a severe alcohol problem? – drove him likewise into drink-compounded depression.
She was a Midas in reverse – everyone she touched disintegrated.
Eventually, her narcissism could not handle increasing age (and corresponding decline in cultural interest). Her later years revealed naked megalomania, with much denouncing of ‘traitors’ as her circle contracted and she failed to replenish her youthful ‘stock’ of acolytes.
Amazing how this dysfunctional sociopath became a cultural icon.
Something is very wrong in a culture that celebrates such psychotoxicity.
eimar, I’d like to publish your comment on my site. I would write a little intro. Rand has had a resurgence of popularity recently – tea party types mostly – and people would be interested in knowing more.
Penelope, maybe you could add something from your personal experience.
Roger and Eimar,
Nathaniel Branden was Barbara’s husband, not her fiance. Seems misguided to me to imagine that the man in the matter was Rand’s victim. We all make choices. If he chose to stay in the relationship for the financial reason of wanting to remain associated with the foundation that promulgated Ayn Rand’s philosophy, then that was his choice. The affair wasn’t hidden between the four of them, but was agreed upon, including by Ayn’s husband Frank. The relationship broke up when a pair of beautiful twins became interested in the philosophy and Branden became involved w one of them, too. When Rand discovered this the relationship, both intimate and professional, was ended by bitterness on both sides– a not uncommon sequel in human relations.
Most people became interested in Rand’s philosophy thru her extraordinarily popular and powerful novels, which were anti-authoritarian and anti-collectivist and recognized the importance of individualism, creativity & achievement– as I indicated in the post above. I think it was the systemization of these into an epistemological and metaphysical structure that was so unique.
When we learned that there was an institute offering lectures on her philosophy by professors of philosophy, economics, and psychology, many of us attended these in the evening. The institute was located on the lower level of the Empire State Building. The people whom the lectures attracted were first-rate, although some of the young ones were only “true believers.” (I am reminded of today’s believers that Putin’s espousing a multipolar world means that he wants nations with sovereign monetary and trade systems.)
The younger people there were prone to uncritical acceptance and parroting of the opinions stated there. I would say that the number one error committed by followers was rationalism, wherein one inadvertently defines concepts in terms of one another– hence building a cage of words which prevents one’s actually testing the concepts against the real, exterior world. This error was especially prominent in economics; I think it was attractive to those who were defensive about their intellectual power because it comprises such a vast oversimplification. For them it wasn’t necessary to wrestle with any of the great questions. One simply created a noncontradictory inner world of committed generalizations (one’s “principles”). Data from the exterior world were then categorized according to the resident generalizations. That way it was never necessary to look at the RESULT of a policy or program, or its effect upon people.
Rand herself was without a doubt the most brilliant person I have ever heard speak. And it was coupled with an enormous passion. But there was some degree of mental imbalance; she was DRIVEN by the concepts and structure of belief that flooded her mind. If there was ever a person who had a need for peers to expose her fallacies and to keep up with her intellectual flights, it was Ayn Rand. She was a genius who could not supply herself with mental balance in a vacuum. Without peers, her psychological needs simply took over and ran her. It was a great pity.
Many today caricature her & say she would be pleased with “unbridled” capitalism, but this is incorrect. The capitalism she espoused was free enterprise and innovation; she identified with inventors, not with parasitical looters. She said that power is a leash, with a loop at both ends. Her brutal criticism of what she called “the power-lusters” is prominent in her novels and other writings.
She saw capitalism as the expression of the innovators, and altruism as the ethical blackmail to bring about collectivism as the only alternative. She worshiped independence without limit or context– and so contradicted her own insight that “knowledge is contextual.” In the absence of an ability to self-regulate only a peer could have renovated that intellect and have made it available to the real problems that beset us.
Oops, sorry, I keep forgetting to enter “Penelope”. The last two Anonymous about Rand were mine. –Penelope
PS About Alan Greenspan: He was briefly married to Joan Mitchell (not the painter), who introduced him to Ayn Rand. Don’t know that that influenced him. Joan later married Allan Blumenthal, a psychologist, who had a private counseling practice plus gave seminars on psychology from the point of view of Objectivism, the name of Rand’s philosophy. He may have been related to Branden, who had changed his name from Blumenthal. I think Dr. Peikoff who lectured on philosophy may also have been from Canada.
Eimar: Regarding your comment that there’s something wrong w a culture that likes Rand, I remind you that the public’s only knowledge of her is her novels. Even I who lived in NYC didn’t know anything of what you relate.
Aw, c’mon Mod!
I only told them to ‘run along and play’ and to ‘be nice to their sisters.’ I was ‘playing’ the ‘
matriarch’ for the duration of the post.
I happen to like both those posters !! I guess my at times dry humour doesn’t carry..
Vot tak – I always enjoy your posts, even if I don’t quite agree with your assumptions. Much of what you write I do agree with, and appreciate your geolpolitical ‘radar’ – often very astute .
But you haven’t really gotten what the extreme promotion of LGBT ‘culture’ is really about – the destruction of motherhood and the natural family .
I was sticking up for Denis, who I believe understands this war implicitly if not explicitly.
Archetypes like the Matriarch are a way of stripping complexities to essentials in the interests of communication – not disregarding them.
LGBT ‘rights’ is now a full blown male supremacist cult sponsored mainly by wealthy eugenics/biotech industrialists. The Matriarch,is the archetype of The Mother – and they have declared war on Her.
When a gay man like David Furnish (Elton John’s ‘husband’ can claim legally to the mother of a child, while the woman who actually gave birth is demoted to ‘surrogate’, it’s obvious motherhood has lost all meaning, and with it the natural rights that come with pregnancy, labour and delivery to be acknowledged as the mother of children born of your body.
I feel even more strongly about what this vile practice does to the children.
I have written about it before , so not going into it here.
I doubt you are a Christian, but merry Christmas anyway :)
Sure Roger. And feel free to correct my dodgey grammar :)
Your article is great. Its good to see the long and honourable tradition of Jewish (or ‘Jewish’ as you might have it :) dissent upheld: reminds me there is much to like outside of virulent Zionism/mindless tribalism.
I am plumping for the State of Palestine with a semi-autonomous Judean Protectorate.
Now, how to get those non-Zionist Israeli Jews to identify as Palestinian?
Syspheus surely had it easier…
Eimar – send me an email if you’d like to discuss this further. Seems like Penelope would be agreeable to adding something from her experience. I have her email address now, so we could begin a discussion if you’re agreeable and maybe something beneficial could emerge from that.
I sent something but I may have put it in the wrong place. Just wanted to remind you that I was asking for your email address..
I post from an old and very buggy phone – my other two I don’t use on the net. So I am not surprised you had trouble with the email – my box is full of spam and god knows what else.
Thanks for your interest. I will check out your site soon, and hopefully will be able to join this little group. I would certainly like to.
Meanwhile, its Christmas Eve here and I’ve just finished (some) of the prep for tomorrow and peeked in at the Vineyard. So it will be at least a week maybe more before I establish contact.
Whether or not you Roger and all th Vineyard folk celebrate Christmas – we sure do here!! – have a good holiday. :)
Ps Would just like to send a little earth notelet to Kat Kan – wherever she is.
Gone, but not forgotten.
Eimar, I came across this on the net.
Thank you so much for this great post on Rand. I had no idea.
I always enjoy your posts immensely and learn from them. Thanks again for the lesson on Rand.
Carmel by the Sea
I’ve wanted to make this comment for a while .But haven’t had the right spot for it until now. But with this discussion on Israel I think its the right time. Not only do I despise zionism for what they’ve done to generations of Palestinians and other peoples in the MENA. But equally if not more for what they’ve done to Jews.
For two thousand years the Jews of the World (especially in Europe and the MENA) had wanted to be accepted in the countries they lived it. Certainly,they wanted to keep their religion and Jewish customs. But to be accepted as full citizens with a different faith in those lands. Over those centuries the mingling of blood through conversions and intermarriage had “outwardly” make them mostly unnoticeable as being very different (yes,in some countries,dress and hairstyles among some Jews singled them out. But if dressed the same and haircuts the same.there would be little difference.). A fact proved by how hard it was in many countries for the nazis to round up all the Jews by looks alone. By the middle of the 19th Century they were well on the path of equality in almost all Europe and the MENA. Mass discrimination and anti-Jewish laws were mostly gone. Then the zionist movement was started (yes,I know the story of the Dreyfus affair,and how zionists say it got started. But that was a “burp” in the progress being made. And wasn’t the only real cause.). It eventually undid all the advances made on assimilation. And in my personal opinion was a huge cause of the nazis ability to generate the anti-Jewish hatred needed for their crimes. Zionism preached “apartness” and that Jews shouldn’t be loyal to the countries they were citizens of. But instead should only care about being Jews. And leave those countries to make a new Jewish only state in Palestine. That allowed those old and fading anti-Jewish hate groups a whole new rebirth in the World. It allowed those radical groups to point to Jews as the “other” and say “see,like we told you they aren’t loyal Germans,etc,etc,etc.”. Which in turn helped the zionists to recruit more Jews to their cause. The zionists willingness to work in the early years with the nazis is a case in point. They both gained in an “unholy alliance”. The nazis wanted to get rid of the Jews,and the zionists wanted the Jews out as well. They wanted them to go to Palestine. So it was a “marriage made in hell”. Until the nazis decided that a “Final Solution” was quicker. And the zionists then realized (too late) their “pardners” weren’t going to give them the Jews.
There was throughout the late 19th and early to middle 20th Centuries a “civil war” in the Jewish World. Between the zionist groups,and the much larger (at that time) assimilationist groups. With the nazi movement and then WW2,the zionists “won” that war. Very,very,many of the assimilationist leaders and followers were killed in the war. And many of the survivors came over to the zionist thinking. Many of them immigrating to Israel. With the aftermath of the brutal founding of Israel and the dispossession of the Palestinians. Anger in the Islamic World because of that,and the fear among Jews in the MENA (along with tricks and propaganda by the zionists feeding that fear) led to the end of thousands of years of Jewish communities throughout the MENA. With those people either immigrating to Israel (the majority) or to other areas in the World (the US and France in particular).
Along with that, the “birth” of Israel led to permanent war in Palestine and neighboring countries. And another “unholy alliance” between the “new” zionist state,and the West (especially the US). With the vast majority of the Jews in the World using their influence as a propaganda (and financial ) arm of the zionist state. While today there are some Jews that realize Israel is not the nation they were told it was. And are turning against it. The vast majority still buy into the zionist propaganda. There is a deep “cult of death” (similar to the nazi one I’ve mentioned before,”go figure”.) in the zionist thinking. A Masada complex, if you will. It allows the zionists to dismiss any evil they commit as acceptable if it serves their purposes. From the beginnings of zionist Israel the use of lies, terror, murders, has been considered as only normal actions of state policy. Carried to an extreme,their possession of nuclear weapons. And their threats in the past to use them, show the lengths they would go to if they thought they “needed” to. I don’t know the best solution to the evil the zionists have created. But I don’t feel it will end well.
Uncle Bob, I’d like to include you in this whatever it is that I’m cooking up in my mind. I think that the basic idea is that a small group of highly intelligent, articulate people who are more or less on the same page just might have a positive effect on a world that seems to be spinning out of control.So, if this interests you at all, please send me your email address.
Again, mine is [email protected]
By the way, I have an Uncle Bob, a delightful guy, about 90 but still full of humor and good cheer.
Hi Roger,I’d like to know more,it sounds interesting. I’ll send you my email address,thanks.
“Therefore I conclude that the only viable solution to the problem is for the Jews to leave Palestine”
I say to the writer: BULL!
Arabs don’t want the majority of the Israeli citizens to leave, they are educated, urban, professional, modern and secular and God knows the Arabs are nowadays lacking greatly such people.
If the Israeli leave the middle east it would suffer a regression similar to what Spain underwent when the Jews and the Muslims left it, it would be even worse.
The Arabs of the middle east, don’t care two bits about the Arabs who lived in Palestine (that’s what a Palestinian is, like a New Yorker or a Texan); the whole struggle is about Jerusalem and the fact that Israel is an agent of imperialism, solve these two issues and everything else is manageable.
Forget about integrating the “Palestinian” into Israel, think how the Israeli can be integrated into a greater Sham (Syria+Lebanon+Palestine+Israel+parts of Jordan), that’s the only way forward.
Nemo – thank you so much for illustrating my point. Yours is exactly the argument that would be made by very persuasive Israelis and Zionists and their supporters everywhere. I wrote the piece to provide an antidote against just such pleas for “reason” when and if it becomes relevant.
Most of what I have to say about it I already said above. I should also note that “reasonable” Israelis would leave or would have already left, unless of course they were able to con the Palestinians into a deal similar to the one de Klerk made with the ANC. One Man One Vote, sure. Much better to be covertly rather than overtly in charge,
And here is an example of what the new government would have to deal with – these people are taking over. Ten years ago the Kach movement was outlawed. They are now rapidly taking over.
Removed. Inappropriate for this site.Mod TR
Since,I can’t see what you posted I’ll guess it concerned terrorist attacks. I think that is a subject almost totally missing in the MSM and Western understanding about the zionists. From their early days,before the “birth” of Israel the zionists have been nose-deep in terrorism. Today,we think (rightly) of Israel as an example of “state terrorism”. But in those pre-1948 years the zionists were some of the World’s main terrorist groups. Most of the people in today’s World have only heard about terrorism in the World for the last 30-50 years. And if asked would only be able to think of “Islamic” or “IRA'” or maybe some “Latin American” groups involved in non-state terrorism. But in reality the zionists were “pioneers” of the terrorist movements.
During the 1930’s and 1940’s they were the “Daesh” and “al-Qeada’s” of that time. Groups like Haganah (white-washed today as “moderate terrorist”),Irgun (the al-Qeada lookalike),and Lehi (the Daesh twin). Those terrorized Palestine during that period. Also at times extending their terror to other areas. Murdering the British Ambassador in Egypt in 1944,as one example. Trying to get the nazis to ally with them against the British at the beginning of WW2 (1941) ,as another. Setting off bombs against civilian and British army soldiers throughout those days. Murdering the UN peace envoy and his aides during the 1948 war. The lists of their terror activities is a long and bloody one.
After Israel became a state they were merged into Israels military,police,and intelligence services (which should explain a lot about Israel’s readiness to use state terror as a normal option.) . And two of their most infamous leaders became Israeli PM’s. Can you imagine the horror and outrage in the World if Osama Bin Ladin had been made the Saudi or Afghan PM. With the zionist and US control over the MSM you hear little about those people and the crimes they committed. But a search in history will show them.
Here are only a few links about them and their crimes:
Yes, the article was about Israeli terrorism. It was in today’s postings from Mondoweiss. How an article at Mondoweiss could possibly be “Inappropriate for this site” is beyond me.
I agree. In my comment I listed some of the pre-1948 Israeli zionist terrorist crimes. But since then they have gone “on steroids” with their criminal actions. Yes,the “settler movements” are a huge danger in themselves. They are the beginnings of an Israeli version of the Latin American government supported “death squads”. So far their murders are on the “low burner”. But I suspect they are only waiting their “right” opportunity to turn up the flames.
“he argument that would be made by very persuasive Israelis and Zionists and their supporters everywhere.”
clearly you haven’t read my comment thoroughly (I don’t blame you, such is the nature of online discussion!), but I am the total opposite of those people and what I am saying is essentially different than any formulation they such people might ever conceive; note that I said integrate “Israelis” and not “Israel” into a greater Syria (Sham).
All the best and happy holidays :)
I’ve always thought that the division of “Syria” ( all of Palestine,Jordan, Lebanon,and current Syria ,plus Hatay) was artificial. During much of history they formed a cultural (and many times political whole). The polities there almost always overlapped with each other. And the best solution would have been a Union,a Federal State,or Confederation there. Strangely,there was an Israeli political party in the 1950’s that thought that as well. Though I think they intended for Israel to be the leader of it. While in my opinion it should not have a “leader”. But be a freely based union of regions ruled by a secular government elected by all the peoples living there.With equal rights for all the peoples. And the free exercise of their religions.Possibly along the lines of a Switzerland of the MENA. Taken as a whole the region is quite diverse. With all the major MENA religions,and sub-groups,represented there. It also is the most educated and modern minded area in the MENA as a group (even if you didn’t count the Israelis).
I see. Well, your solution might seem more realistic, humane and democratic than mine. However, following your logic, it might actually exacerbate the problem by providing an even larger political sphere for an extremely fascist segment of tribal Jewry to dominate.
In could never work if Israel as it is existed. Only when Palestine was free and those Israelis not willing to live together with their neighbors in an equal society were gone might it be viable. But the key to anything along those lines is that the state created would have to be secular and open to all its diverse peoples.
Why the h*** are you posting this?
The author is openly calling for ethnic cleansing (leave Palestine … involuntarily). In practice this would mean another genocide.
The Arab-Israeli war has seen people being expelled or fleeing in both directions. Arabs can’t go back to Palestine/Israel, while jews can’t go back to the countries that have been occupied and settled by arabs for the past 1400 years.
In Israel muslims and christians are among the citizens. They can even vote. But in the areas controlled by the palestian authority not a single jew is allowed to live or even to enter. Anyone who would try would probably be killed. Even within israel, there have been terrorist attacks on peaceful civilians almost every single day for the last three months – perpetrated by muslims.
Why don’t you do a reality check: Put on a hat and take a walk in East Jerusalem?