Dehumanizing Nature of False Accusations of Anti-Semitism

[American Dream]

So are there objective standards which put Atzmon and Icke on the good side and yet relegate Shamir, Carto, Hoffman and Springmeier to the bad end of things?

Because if so, I think we'd all benefit from hearing about those principles...

Look at the language - you are saying
I put Atzmon and Icke on the good side and
'relegate' the Stormfronter to the bad end of things.

This is putting *your* value judgement onto my distinctions.
I assert I am doing nothing of the sort - i am creating more distinctions than 'good' or 'bad' and saying just try looking at those as structures for how this conflict exists.

Surely making an appeal to 'objective standards' implies the same measurable criteria as software bug per thousand line of code or rejects per batches of cloth. To me, this is mistaking descriptions for physical realities - a systemic description (like these five classes) is still just my perception, my model, a way of thinking - I put it forward as a means of understanding the conflict there is here.

Let me be really clear - the work in showing up the Stormfronters is not something I minimise. I very carefully used the work 'Class' , rather than 'Level' as I do NOT consider the model hierarchical. I have mates in Greece, know about the shits of the Golden Dawn, I am aware that my model is NOT generalised across time and place.
Certainly I am also aware for example of people like Zundel deliberately using paraculture as a cover for race hate (admitting to writing books about UBoats under the antartic ice as a recuiting tool).

The purpose of a system is what it does, so when I look at the 'Icke system' or the 'Atzmon system' I look at what it does, because large numbers of people are involved around them. I see them as 'large scale information providers'
You put them and Ron Paul and Alex Jones and the Zeitgeist movement (and now Thrive??) in the Class 5 Anti-semites bubble, I dont.

I regard Phil Weiss as a pretty good guy - so seeing that there are similar intense multi-faceted debates across a wide range of people from USA, EU, Israel around Atzmon to me is worthwhile. I regard Icke and Jones as populists that often seem to have the effect of educating / sharing / communicating important information that others then run with - eg Icke re Savile; Jones re Aaron Russo
I would also include in this people like Joe Rogan, who bring information about entheogens out to so many people. Icke has had multiple experiences of ayahuasca and his descriptions of them and their impact was very similar to Graham Hancocks, full of respect and humility - and these experiences are absolutely informing what they are doing as a life path.

I'd still like to hear some objective criteria for differentiating Icke and Atzmon from the others because they seem to share a lot of similarly fucked-up ideas to me...

Objective to whom? and by what standard? You seem to be operating from a 'checklist' and ICke and Atzmon tick your 'Class 5: AntiSemitic shits' boxes

I am not doing an 'hard edged' ANALYSIS, I'm doing a System Map, because I consider it an ecosystem, not a machine.
I gave you detailed information on how I differentiate them and after all that you just say
"But they are Class 5: Antisemitic shits"

At this point, the only Jewish joke from Northern Ireland.
"The Rabbi wa on his way to Belfast's only synagogue when he was suddenly surrounded by a thug.
"Are ye Protestant, or are ye Catholic?" howled the thug
After a pause... the Rabbi said "I'm Jewish"
For a full minute, the black and white thinking of the thug struggled with this before he asked hesitatingly "Uhhh.. are ye a Protestant Jew, or a Catholic Jew?...

So, what I'm getting at is that since they all indulge in world jewish conspiracy theories- I know you will say they are just against Rothschild zionists or Illuminati- what makes Icke and Atzmon so special- how specifically are they different and better than Makow or Shamir by a consistent standard that we can use to assess people? Because I see lots of racism and bs in all of them...

I dont perceive either Atzmon or Icke as racist or anti-Semitic at all.
I think Atzmon is raising very difficult and provocative issues in a bolshy manner, but the manner of the responses to what he raises I consider appalling black-balling and personally I want nothing to do with people who behave like that. It is like the Medieval Catholic Church practicing 'excommunication'. My thoughts are very similar to this chaps
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/01/the-case-of-gilad-atzmon/ which is the most cogent, clear evenhanded and sharp unpicking of both Atzmon's book and the 'Granting no quarter' statement.
As for Icke, I dont think anything I say about him will make any difference to you opinion - as by your criteria he is already a raving racist anti-Semite, by mine he is not.
So we have different criteria for what constitutes raving racist anti-Semites. In my world I have been literally eyeball to eyeball with those - and am confident of knowing one from the other.

I also am concerned about the enterprise of judging people against a set of criteria to then know how to treat them. That is like the worst excesses of Randian Objectivism - the thing with that is that we all screw up against standards - I 'judge' people by how I see them treat others who come into their circle and by what they do.

The other aspect of this is (from my ruff system model)
Class 2: people / organisations like AIPAC, JINSA, Feinstein, Pelosi, Blankfein, Summers

I see these as FAR more powerful / influential in the existing system than ADL / SPLC / Dershowitz etc

I would say we probably have pretty similar thinking on
Class 1 ELites; Class 5 Stormfr3nters - you dont say anything AFAIK about the Class 2, so I dont know; we probably have a lot in common re Class 3 ADL etc

I think by far our biggest difference is Class 4 vs Class 5

But aren't your classes purely subjective constructs? Is putting Icke, Atzmon, Lerner, Rense et al in one (positive) group, and placing Shamir, Carto, Hoffman and Springmeier in one (negative) group based on anything other than the unaccountable tastes of Searcher08? In other words is there any intellectual accountability for these claims at all?

[seemslikeadream]

and the front runner so far is

Shamir - with 24 mentions

following in 2nd place

Carto - with 17 mentions

tied for 3rd place are

Hoffman - 16 mentions

Springmeier - 16 mentions

trailing behind is

Atzmon - 13 mentions

2nd to last place

Icke - with a 12 mentions

and in LAST place....who'd believe it?

Rense with a measly 11 mentions


keep it classy AD....you are the best of the best


I'm trying to figure what these names and the amount of times they are mentioned in the 5 page thread have ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE OP

Dehumanizing Nature of False Accusations of Anti-Semitis

[seemslikeadream]

[American Dream]

I'm trying to figure what these names and the amount of times they are mentioned in the 5 page thread have ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE OP

Dehumanizing Nature of False Accusations of Anti-Semitis

It has to do with the idea that there are people unfairly accused of Judeophobia, especially as it relates to Palestine/Israel, and that there are others who really do perpetuate anti-Semitism in that regard.

This is an essential distinction-and getting it as clear as possible helps us to advance the struggle- to make Justice and to shun Injustice. This is important for all concerned.

[seemslikeadream]

I'm trying to figure what these names and the amount of times they are mentioned in the 5 page thread have ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE OP

Dehumanizing Nature of False Accusations of Anti-Semitis

It has to do with the idea that there are people unfairly accused of Judeophobia, especially as it relates to Palestine/Israel, and that there are others who really do perpetuate anti-Semitism in that regard.

This is an essential distinction-and getting it as clear as possible helps us to advance the struggle- to make Justice and to shun Injustice. This is important for all concerned.

Then start your OWN JUDEOPHOBIA THREAD and quit spamming my thread with those names over and over and over again

[American Dream]

I'm trying to figure what these names and the amount of times they are mentioned in the 5 page thread have ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE OP

Dehumanizing Nature of False Accusations of Anti-Semitis

It has to do with the idea that there are people unfairly accused of Judeophobia, especially as it relates to Palestine/Israel, and that there are others who really do perpetuate anti-Semitism in that regard.

This is an essential distinction-and getting it as clear as possible helps us to advance the struggle- to make Justice and to shun Injustice. This is important for all concerned.

Then start your OWN JUDEOPHOBIA THREAD and quit spamming my thread with those names over and over and over again

My posts are 1,000 times more meaningful than the sorts of spamming you repeatedly inflict on me. Maybe later- tomorrow or another day soon- it will be possible to talk about setting some sort of mutual agreement about respecting these threads. Sorry but I can't really see that through in this moment but I am open to doing it...

[seemslikeadream]

[seemslikeadream]

I'm trying to figure what these names and the amount of times they are mentioned in the 5 page thread have ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE OP

Dehumanizing Nature of False Accusations of Anti-Semitis

It has to do with the idea that there are people unfairly accused of Judeophobia, especially as it relates to Palestine/Israel, and that there are others who really do perpetuate anti-Semitism in that regard.

This is an essential distinction-and getting it as clear as possible helps us to advance the struggle- to make Justice and to shun Injustice. This is important for all concerned.

Then start your OWN JUDEOPHOBIA THREAD and quit spamming my thread with those names over and over and over again

My posts are 1,000 times more meaningful than the sorts of spamming you repeatedly inflict on me. Maybe later- tomorrow or another day soon- it will be possible to talk about setting some sort of mutual agreement about respecting these threads. Sorry but I can't really see that through in this moment but I am open to doing it...

Spam away AD spam away...mentioning DI's name 1,000 times is so like you....I'm keeping count cause you are so in love with him can't quit him ...can you AD? 57 times in the other thread

DI couldn't buy that kind of publicity

[seemslikeadream]

[seemslikeadream]

[jlaw172364]

I think what irritates me the most as a nominal Jew regarding criticism of Israel, is that people living in the Western Imperial countries with long records of atrocities against developing nations focus so much of their anger on just Israel, as opposed to a system shared by all the wealthy nations that Israel bought into. While they gripe about Israel, their own countries are committing various atrocities all over the globe, including within their own borders, none of which have ANYTHING to do with Israel, Jews, Judaism, Zionism, etc., and all of which are readily discoverable online, and reveal a wider, truer pattern of the strong exploiting and killing the weak. They sit in their countries enjoying the fruits of oppression, and then denounce one country as uniquely oppressive out of all context. I have the same problem with people who denounce Cuba, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or even North Korea as uniquely bad, because nobody looks at the larger context of why bad things happen in those countries. And every time their are human rights violations in some country, then it can be used a pretext for bombing, or an invasion, etc. You can make a case for toppling just about any modern government, if you look hard enough and dig deep enough. It's just that people aren't sufficiently motivated if the country is wealthy and can buy itself good PR. I mean, I can go online, pick a country, and then go through the online media all day and build a case that the country is nothing more than a den for criminality. You could make the case for any of the so-called "peaceful" socialist Scandanavian countries, even. Maybe even Iceland. I think people should focus on fixing the problems within their own borders. Nobody who lives under the United States or United Kingdom governments has any moral authority to criticize Israel. Take the fricking beam out of your own eye first.

Another thing, the Jews, but especially the Israelis know they're engaged in a horrible hypocrisy. That they do it because they think it will help them survive doesn't make the knowledge any less painful, which is of course, cold comfort to their victims. But nobody likes being told that they are the villain. If the rest of the world actually gave a shit, they'd do what the rest of the world for the most part didn't do for the Jews during the Holocaust and repatriate all the Palestinians to get them away from the oppression. Then Israel's security state would either implode from lack of an internal enemy to oppress or be drawn into a war with its neighbors.

[American Dream]

Alexander Cockburn had his problems too...

The political devolution of Alexander Cockburn

It's taken me a day to get over the initial shock of reading Alexander Cockburn's advice to Cherokee activist/scholar Ward Churchill's who is preoccupied with genocide against the North American Indian. Churchill states in his "A Little Matter of Genocide" that there were an estimated 15 million Indians at the time of Columbus, and only 250,000 counted in a census taken in 1890, which by his reckoning, would make this the worst genocide in modern history. And Cockburn's advice? He says that Churchill should "Get over it" because gambling casinos have reinvigorated the American Indian. What in the world could have gotten into this famous radical journalist to come up with such an insensitive and reactionary comment?

Part of the problem would seem to be the inability of superstar leftists like Cockburn, Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore to rely on feedback from other leftists. Unlike Doug Henwood, they don't expose themselves to the rude and rowdy Internet. When Chomsky makes a gaffe, he never acknowledges it. His stubborn pride would be the only explanation for refusing to admit his error in judgment in writing the preface to a book by holocaust denier Faurisson. Instead of admitting that he was wrong, he came up with grotesque arguments about the need to defend free speech. Moore went out on a limb not too long ago when he wrote in the Nation Magazine that leftists cared more about Nicaraguan peasants than American blue-collar workers in the 1980s. It was obvious that he didn't know too much about the grass-roots movement when he wrote this, since it was obviously wrong. Moore had obviously become rather isolated from ordinary radicals in his pursuit of a big-time television career. When he made the same criticisms at a recent Socialist Scholars Conference, veteran activists roasted his ass.

Up until recently, Cockburn has had unerring instincts when it comes to the sensitivities and values of rank-and-file leftists. In 1979, shortly after I had left the Trotskyist movement, I moved to NYC in order to continue with my programming career and try my hand at novel writing. When I began reading the Village Voice to find out about interesting movies and concerts, I stumbled across Cockburn's columns, which rekindled my interest in politics. His passionate criticisms of US warmongering in Central America convinced me to join CISPES and then to help form Tecnica, a project that sent programmers and other skilled professionals to Nicaragua and southern Africa.

Of course, there were some things about Cockburn's politics back then that I always found a bit troubling. He supported the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan on the basis that it was a lesser evil to the misogynist fundamentalism of the village chieftains. He probably was influenced on this score by the CP politics of his father, another famous journalist, Claude Cockburn. But Alex was not a plain vanilla Stalinist. He also extolled the newspaper of the Trotskyist Spartacist League. This I found much more disturbing than his old-line Red Army apologetics. The Sparts, who also supported Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, were--to put it bluntly--nuts. During the Vietnam war, they raised the slogan "Drive the GI's into the sea!" As somebody who had leafleted draftees and knew how important tactful formulations were, I would found have found this slogan an invitation to a broken nose.

I have always been puzzled by the appeal of the Spart newspaper to otherwise intelligent journalists like Cockburn and Doug Henwood. I suppose to a degree it is a function of the workerist self-destruction of my own group, the SWP. When the Militant began running bizarre articles about "worker-Bolsheviks" (in reality, recent college graduates who were slumming in a factory or mine), I suppose it was inevitable that some radicals would turn to the Sparts for inspiration. Part of the appeal of the Sparts no doubt lies in their libertarianism. They would mix in appeals for smokers' rights with cheerleading for the Red Army in Afghanistan. Both Cockburn and Henwood are susceptible to nicotine militancy. I guess it has something to do with the natural contrariness of the radical journalist. Although I have to admit that I don't recall John Reed caring too much about cigarette smoking on demand. He was more into free love.

After the Central American revolution was stopped in its tracks in the late 1980s, socialism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe started to unravel. This had an enormously disorienting effect on most radicals. Some began to accommodate to the "end of history" mystique. To Cockburn's credit, he remained adamantly anticapitalist. The only sign that something weird was going on was his flirtation with the militias. Some people have a crude economic determinist explanation for this. They take note that Cockburn was having big trouble with the IRS and surmised that the militia's hatred for all federal agencies, including the IRS, must have seduced him. This could be correct, but I wouldn't rule out as an additional factor his coming out as rustic misanthrope in the Robinson Jeffers mold. There is a hoary tradition in the US of backwoods lunacy. It tends to occur with most overeducated people who become hermits, with Henry David Thoreau the notable exception.

Cockburn's most infamous article on the militias likened them to the Zapatistas. He couldn't seem to understand why leftists in the US were willing to solidarize with Mayan peasants fighting for land reform and democracy, but held the American militias at arm's length. Any fool could have explained to Cockburn what the problem was. The American militias were primarily composed of xenophobes, who not only hated the federal government but blacks, American Indians and immigrants as well. Their goal was to return the US to its constitutional roots, a dubious prospect for all those disenfranchised peoples that the founding fathers had little use for, including the slaves and the indigenous peoples. One could only wonder where Cockburn would be going next with this glorification of rural neopopulism. Would the Ku Klux Klan be the next group to be eulogized as "misunderstood white workers"?

http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/am ... ckburn.htm

[Searcher08]

I disagree that it is focused JUST on Israel. For example even during The Troubles, the Brits did not use fighter planes to rain white phosphorous down on 'rebel' districts, practice systematic area punishing, practice creating a malnourished population, introduce de-facto apartheid, restrict movement and association - even when said 'rebels' were turning innocent civilians into bomb shredded messes that required shovels and plastic bags for remains recovery.
I'm not into the Chinese-style 'mind your own doing-business' approach, because it is a lowest common denominator approach.
Unlike Norway, Israel is a nuclear power, with a stated Samson option. The Norwegians these days dont build walls around Lapland, invade Sweden, threaten to start WW3 or treat nutjob Qatari jihadi mercs, yes?
And yes, to your point about there being plenty of Earth activity that is deeply fucked.
I think an alternative to your suggestion is move all the Israelis to Nevada and or Florida and or Baja California. Then the Sunnis and Shia will probably fight each other into dust.

I think what irritates me the most as a nominal Jew regarding criticism of Israel, is that people living in the Western Imperial countries with long records of atrocities against developing nations focus so much of their anger on just Israel, as opposed to a system shared by all the wealthy nations that Israel bought into. While they gripe about Israel, their own countries are committing various atrocities all over the globe, including within their own borders, none of which have ANYTHING to do with Israel, Jews, Judaism, Zionism, etc., and all of which are readily discoverable online, and reveal a wider, truer pattern of the strong exploiting and killing the weak. They sit in their countries enjoying the fruits of oppression, and then denounce one country as uniquely oppressive out of all context. I have the same problem with people who denounce Cuba, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or even North Korea as uniquely bad, because nobody looks at the larger context of why bad things happen in those countries. And every time their are human rights violations in some country, then it can be used a pretext for bombing, or an invasion, etc. You can make a case for toppling just about any modern government, if you look hard enough and dig deep enough. It's just that people aren't sufficiently motivated if the country is wealthy and can buy itself good PR. I mean, I can go online, pick a country, and then go through the online media all day and build a case that the country is nothing more than a den for criminality. You could make the case for any of the so-called "peaceful" socialist Scandanavian countries, even. Maybe even Iceland. I think people should focus on fixing the problems within their own borders. Nobody who lives under the United States or United Kingdom governments has any moral authority to criticize Israel. Take the fricking beam out of your own eye first.

Another thing, the Jews, but especially the Israelis know they're engaged in a horrible hypocrisy. That they do it because they think it will help them survive doesn't make the knowledge any less painful, which is of course, cold comfort to their victims. But nobody likes being told that they are the villain. If the rest of the world actually gave a shit, they'd do what the rest of the world for the most part didn't do for the Jews during the Holocaust and repatriate all the Palestinians to get them away from the oppression. Then Israel's security state would either implode from lack of an internal enemy to oppress or be drawn into a war with its neighbors.

[seemslikeadream]

actually I like to blame the brits for everything

[Iamwhomiam]

I think what irritates me the most as a nominal Jew regarding criticism of Israel, is that people living in the Western Imperial countries with long records of atrocities against developing nations focus so much of their anger on just Israel, as opposed to a system shared by all the wealthy nations that Israel bought into. While they gripe about Israel, their own countries are committing various atrocities all over the globe, including within their own borders, none of which have ANYTHING to do with Israel, Jews, Judaism, Zionism, etc., and all of which are readily discoverable online, and reveal a wider, truer pattern of the strong exploiting and killing the weak. They sit in their countries enjoying the fruits of oppression, and then denounce one country as uniquely oppressive out of all context. I have the same problem with people who denounce Cuba, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or even North Korea as uniquely bad, because nobody looks at the larger context of why bad things happen in those countries. And every time their are human rights violations in some country, then it can be used a pretext for bombing, or an invasion, etc. You can make a case for toppling just about any modern government, if you look hard enough and dig deep enough. It's just that people aren't sufficiently motivated if the country is wealthy and can buy itself good PR. I mean, I can go online, pick a country, and then go through the online media all day and build a case that the country is nothing more than a den for criminality. You could make the case for any of the so-called "peaceful" socialist Scandanavian countries, even. Maybe even Iceland. I think people should focus on fixing the problems within their own borders. Nobody who lives under the United States or United Kingdom governments has any moral authority to criticize Israel. Take the fricking beam out of your own eye first.

Another thing, the Jews, but especially the Israelis know they're engaged in a horrible hypocrisy. That they do it because they think it will help them survive doesn't make the knowledge any less painful, which is of course, cold comfort to their victims. But nobody likes being told that they are the villain. If the rest of the world actually gave a shit, they'd do what the rest of the world for the most part didn't do for the Jews during the Holocaust and repatriate all the Palestinians to get them away from the oppression. Then Israel's security state would either implode from lack of an internal enemy to oppress or be drawn into a war with its neighbors.

Thank you for sharing your views on this, Jlaw. But You can't really mean this, "If the rest of the world actually gave a shit, they'd do what the rest of the world for the most part didn't do for the Jews during the Holocaust and repatriate all the Palestinians to get them away from the oppression," do you?

If the Palestinians were to be repatriated, the State of Israel would no longer exist, like it never did before 1948. The "world" took the land from the Palestinians and gave it to the surviving displaced Jews of Europe, so I'd say instead that the 'world' didn't give a shit about the Palestinians and cared enough for the Jewish plight to give them someone else's homeland.

So let me ask this of you as a Jewish man, are you an American citizen or an Israeli citizen?

My children could be both. But one must choose an allegiance to one over the other, should push come to shove, so which do you consider yourself?