American Dream » Thu Sep 05, 2013 12:44 am wrote:Searcher08 » Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:07 pm wrote:American Dream » Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:40 pm wrote:Searcher08 » Wed Sep 04, 2013 5:36 pm wrote:American Dream » Wed Sep 04, 2013 4:56 pm wrote: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...
We disagree that Icke and Atzmon promote world jewish conspiracy theories. Atzmon communicates with me through his music, especially with Sarah Gillespie as well as his writing.
His persona as well as his writing is provocative and as I mentioned before, created a lot of debate here and at Mondoweiss. The arguments I have read against him just dont stand up - especially the dismissive - and the dreadful witch-hunt approach even less. I totally disagree with the assessments of him as in any way racist or against people born Jewish. As I said before, I am against ostracizing or shunning of people because they say things one doesnt like.
If some Irish author decided that Irish culture is full of shit and Irish so-called culture is a myth created to cover over complicity in a national self harm fetish, I would think "Wow, that sounds interesting "- no doubt there would be arise Tony O'Greenstein complaining about this anti-Celtic nonsense and try to save the rest of us from reading it.
I want to address this quote of yours
how specifically are they different and better than Makow or Shamir by a consistent standard that we can use to assess people?
(My bolden)
This implies that we want to 'assess people'.
Why? What is the purpose of assessing people?
When you talk of 'consistent measures that we can use to assess people', it leaves out FOR WHAT END?
WHAT IS THAT END???
Who decides what is a 'consistent standard' ?
You are still talking about one person being 'BETTER' than another - that language as I said before is absolutely alien to me.
It is like saying "how can we assess if Elvis better than elfismiles", which to me just doesnt grok.
I am talking about a totality of DIFFERENCE, that isnt just from what they write, but from how they speak, interact with people, respond to challenges. I have a mental map of each of them.
I find it very uncomfortable and actually ironically at the root of extremely racist thinking - the 'consistent standards' used by Nazis to assess how 'Aryan' people were, or the Boers used to assess 'whiteness' - like the nonsense of measuring ones head with callipers.
