Jeff wrote:About a year and a half ago I suspended your account for a week. Then it was over the "international bankers" who, y'know.
Mistakes were made. I'm suspending your account again. This time, I don't know for how long. You can think about whether this is really a place you want to be, and I can think about that too.
That's pretty lousy. So, this is a "deep politics" and "anti-fascist" site, we're all supposedly trying to look behind the curtain to find out who's really calling the shots, what tricks they use to shock and awe the rest of us, and what their agenda is. But the questions of who actually runs the banking and media industries, who wields real political power and whether or not they are affiliated to the ideological interests of a foreign state, are off-limits. Only those facts that support the "safe" conclusions are allowed -- dangerous facts are to be suppressed and those who refer to them must be banned. Right?
Some of us believe that theories should be shaped in accordance with the available facts, rather than vice versa.
Some of us -- call us "the crazies" -- are very concerned that, for example, the corporate media in the U.S. and elsewhere, on which most citizens in the imperial heartland depend in learning about the world, appears to reflect an overwhelmingly zionist perspective, and, especially in movies and 'news' coverage of the Middle East, acts more like a propaganda arm of MOSSAD than the supposedly free, "fair and balanced, independent eyes, ears and voice of 'the people'. This consistent abuse of the media's incredible power has been empirically demonstrated, not only in the
U.S. and
Canada, but also in other 'Western' countries, such as the
U.K., other countries in Europe and even
Australia.
Furthermore, it's useless to discuss power as a vague concept, without discussing the precise mechanisms by which this power is exercised: for example, "private" agencies like the Federal Reserve indeed wield enormous power in the U.S. economy, with global implications. But so do the IMF and the World Bank; arguably, they have more power over entire countries than those countries' own governments. Political organizations which channel money and positive media spin to certain politicians and not others, are another important mechanism for wielding power, especially in countries like the U.S., Canada and in the E.U., but to a lesser extent, they exist in less powerful states.
Who, specifically holds the real power in these agencies? How did they attain their positions? How do they exercise their power and to what or whom are they loyal?
I'm guessing that you, Jeff, would probably say something like, "the media and other powerful agencies are run by 'business elites' in a way that promotes their 'business elite' interests." In that case, you would be saying that most media owners are powerful businessmen who promote their own ideology through their media. You might even mention that these businessmen are overwhelmingly White Anglo-Saxon males, and that they promote a world-view that is biased towards White Anglo-Saxon males. So far, so good -- there's ample evidence to support your views, so you feel you've 'peeked behind the curtain', with the added bonus that you haven't strayed beyond the safe side of the red, flashing line.
Hugh and others might say that the media is used by the CIA and the Pentagon as a powerful mechanism for programming the population in a way that promotes CIA and Pentagon interests. That's fine, too. They can even name names and point to the CIA affiliations of prominent and influential people in the media. The media's dominant themes can be scrutinized for the many ways these are associated with elite CIA and Pentagon interests. Again, so far, so good: we "know" more than the misguided fools who trust the media to be their source of unbiased information, but we're still in the "safe" zone.
But if you allow yourself to notice something else about these White Anglo Saxon males who own and control these multi-national corporate bodies, i.e. that they are predominantly Jewish, then all hell breaks loose. Pointing out the disproportionate ratio of White Anglo-Saxons, that's ok. The fact that they're overwhelmingly male can 'safely' be pointed out as evidence that there still exists a dominant male culture at the highest levels of effective power.
But Jewish people form less than 2.5% of the population in the U.S., and less in Europe. Globally, 20-30 million people out of a world population of around 5 billion works out to...I'm really bad at math, but I think it works out to at most .0006% of the world's population. Are Jews indeed disproportionately represented at the highest levels of policy-making, through agencies and corporations that virtually shape our world? And even if so, why should anybody care?
Obviously, knowing that someone is White does not necessarily mean that he or she identifies with White Nationalism, or with "White" interests. Being a woman is not evidence that one is a man-hater, or even a feminist. Being German does not mean that one is a Nazi. Being Black does not mean that one is a Black Power radical. Being Muslim does not mean that one is a Salafist. Being male does not make someone a male chauvinist, and so on. In the same way, being Jewish does not mean that one is a Zionist Jewish supremacist.
But if an enormously disproportionate number of powerful German bankers and media owners can be demonstrated to have Nazi links and sympathies, would it be wrong to point that out?
If a small number of Muslims with hard-line fundamentalist views were demonstrably over-represented at the most powerful levels in global finance, media and political decision-making, should that be suppressed as well?
The question of whether or not this is the case when it comes to Zionists -- Jews and non-Jews -- should not be a taboo, any more than it should be for any other ideologically-driven group, when this ideology has severe implications for the safety and rights of so much of the world's population.
Obviously, I have my own views about this -- driven not by "hatred" towards anyone, but by a strong concern for those whose rights and lives are being trampled. I do not identify with the silk-suited executive who condemns an entire country to starvation with a stroke of his Mont Blanc. I identify with the mother who is forced to watch her children waste away in agony and can do nothing to help them, and the man who is dragged away in the middle of the night to be stripped and sadistically humiliated and tortured.
The suffering I learn about sometimes does make me crazy, I'll admit it. I sometimes feel so emotionally overwhelmed by the horrors deliberately inflicted on so many people that I feel like my soul is bleeding.
At the very least, I want to know who is responsible and why they are doing this. I want specific names, and I want to know what made them into what they are. I want to see them exposed, so that no amount of expensive cologne can hide the stench that follows them wherever they go. I want to strip bare their self-serving lies, their hypocritical claims of morality and deconstruct the ugly propaganda that they use to legitimize their crimes and hide the suffering of their victims; above all, I want us to scrutinize the current global system and highlight the structural weaknesses that allow so few to wield such catastrophic power.
If I'm mistaken about something, I want someone to calmly and rationally explain where I've gone wrong, and where I've made errors in facts and logic. I promise you that unlike some people, I will be grateful to learn if and how my own perceptions have been distorted. I suspect that there are many others who would also appreciate the opportunity to grow in knowledge and wisdom.
But Jeff, though this site is a gold-mine of important information and intelligent, sometimes brilliant analysis, you've declared any debate of zionist conspiracy, no matter how well-documented and rationally discussed, to be off-limits, seeded with land-mines so that any poster who strays into it eventually gets banned. Banning people for posting the 'wrong' facts or for analysis that does not comply with your own indicates that you feel incapable of effectively responding with counter-arguments and evidence to support your own views. But even if you can't, there are surely others among the many well-informed, intelligent posters here, who can. Otherwise, if nobody can mount an effective, rational counter-argument, then perhaps, just perhaps, that's because there is none to be made.
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
