American Dream wrote: We do need to tell the truth, we do need to be clearly principled in all we do- but we certainly do need to avoid the more egregious wacko and bigoted ideas, people and organizations.
This, once again, is what I would call basic common sense.[/size]
Why stop at Icke then? You allow yourself to post Friedman
I think it's pretty clear I have a strong critique of Friedman and I wouldn't post material that supports him with some strong criticism attached- or at minimum, several caveats...
ok if and when I post any Icke stuff i'll post a Caveat lector....will that be of solace to you?
btw I find Friedman way more dangerous than Icke....but I will defend your right to post him anytime anywhere, with or without caveats
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started. They could still get him out of office. But instead, they want mass death. Don’t forget that.
To quote me in context, it came after the exchange on this page, in which eyeno makes apologetics for white supremacists, thus demonstrating that he is both a white boy and really stupid: viewtopic.php?t=33985&p=447007
JackRiddler wrote:I don't need "the machine" to focus me. Fuck the racists you want to make friends with. When they give up their racism, then we can bridge our divide - maybe there won't even be one then. No compromise is possible on this point, white boy.
That's right, white boy, no compromise is possible on the point. You want truck with racists. You say so, consistently and explicitly, including on this thread. You also consistently disappoint us by failing to make good on your statements that you're out of here. It's too bad.
.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.
To Justice my maker from on high did incline: I am by virtue of its might divine, The highest Wisdom and the first Love.
.......still waiting for recognition of the Irish Holocaust, what's another century or two?
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started. They could still get him out of office. But instead, they want mass death. Don’t forget that.
American Dream wrote: We do need to tell the truth, we do need to be clearly principled in all we do- but we certainly do need to avoid the more egregious wacko and bigoted ideas, people and organizations.
This, once again, is what I would call basic common sense.[/size]
Why stop at Icke then? You allow yourself to post Friedman
I think it's pretty clear I have a strong critique of Friedman and I wouldn't post material that supports him with some strong criticism attached- or at minimum, several caveats...
ok if and when I post any Icke stuff i'll post a Caveat lector....will that be of solace to you?
btw I find Friedman way more dangerous than Icke....but I will defend your right to post him anytime anywhere, with or without caveats
Can we have a position on the validity of an article posted on the David Icke site of a conservative who was writing about an article criticizing Israeli influence on American foreign policy, an article that was written by Thomas Freidman?
Meanwhile Im gonna build a new front porch and assemble my own rocking chair and find a pipe and a fucking spitoon and as the sun goes down, as I rock I'll tell anyone who isnt in a bunfight <pit-ding! puff!> as I stare out into the Stygian gloom.
"Sweet Jebus! Ah been given the Gift of Prophecy" VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Last edited by Searcher08 on Mon Feb 27, 2012 1:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
American Dream wrote: We do need to tell the truth, we do need to be clearly principled in all we do- but we certainly do need to avoid the more egregious wacko and bigoted ideas, people and organizations.
This, once again, is what I would call basic common sense.[/size]
Why stop at Icke then? You allow yourself to post Friedman
I think it's pretty clear I have a strong critique of Friedman and I wouldn't post material that supports him with some strong criticism attached- or at minimum, several caveats...
ok if and when I post any Icke stuff i'll post a Caveat lector....will that be of solace to you?
btw I find Friedman way more dangerous than Icke....but I will defend your right to post him anytime anywhere, with or without caveats
slad- I don't think you understand my position- I wasn't saying "Post no Icke here"- I was- and am- saying that associating the most bigoted and unrigorous positions to actions and organizing in support of the movement for Justice for Palestine, would be very, very unhelpful, and that this is based on very real experiences attached to organizing and acting within that movement.
What do you think about those concerns?
Last edited by American Dream on Mon Feb 27, 2012 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Perhaps anyone interested in the Original Post can build on this - Alice?
Please be warned that the material posted below
was previously posted on a conservative site was contaminated by being posted on the David Icke site. must not be read in confined mental spaces.
It is possible that you may undergo neuronal meltdown as a result.
This article has not been assessed for the AlsoReadByFascists index. This article has been awarded a rating of DANGER, WILL ROBINSON.
Please play the short message contained in the video before reading.
The Media consensus on Israel is collapsing My Catbird Seat January 8, 2012 7
Across the political spectrum, once-taboo criticism is now common
by JORDAN MICHAELSMITH (Salon)
New critics of Israel: Roger Cohen, left, of New York Times; Paul Pillar former CIA bigwig.
With Hamas and Fatah meeting this week in Cairo, reconciliation between the rival Palestinian political parties is likely only a matter of time. Official U.S. policy holds that Hamas is only a terrorist entity, and any agreement between the two factions jeopardizes continued U.S. aid. There is reason to believe, however, that more flexible, productive positions will be expressed in the U.S. media. Slowly but unmistakably, space is opening up among the commentariat for new, critical ideas about Israel and its relationship to the United States.
Freedom of this sort was visible in the pages of the New York Times last week. Thomas Friedman, the paper’s foreign affairs columnist, wrote that American leaders were betraying the country by outsourcing their foreign policy to Israel. A standing ovation given to the Israeli prime minister by the U.S. Congress this year was “bought and paid for by the Israel lobby,” he wrote. Phrased bluntly as it was, Friedman’s sentence was startling. As the quintessential establishment columnist, Bill Clinton’s favorite pundit and a thrice Pulitzer Prize-winner, Friedman is often seen in the U.S. as authoritative on the Middle East and rivaled only perhaps by the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg in the influence of his writing on popular discussion.
Not surprisingly, Friedman’s piece elicited furor from those policing the conversation about Israel. The Israeli ambassador, American Jewish Committee, Jerusalem Post and even members of Congress gang-swarmed Friedman, accusing him of anti-Semitism and hatred of Israel. It was not the first time in recent months Friedman has been critical of Israel policy. In September, he wrote of the Obama government that the “powerful pro-Israel lobby in an election season can force the administration to defend Israel at the U.N., even when it knows Israel is pursuing policies not in its own interest or America’s.” A more damning critique of Israel and the lobby would be difficult to make.
Even so, Friedman is not the only Times-man to let go the pro-Netanyahu line. Columnist Roger Cohen is even more critical of Israel than is Friedman, and like Friedman he is notable for being a liberal supporter of the Iraq War — not exactly a radical, in other words. Cohen now regularly writes about Israel’s “illiberalism,” says U.S. foreign policy has been “Likudnized,” and calls opposing Israeli oppression of the Palestinians the most important task currently facing diaspora Jews.
Cohen believes the new conversations he has contributed to represent “changes going on in the U.S. Jewish community,” he said in a phone interview. “Jewish identity in postwar America was built very much on the Holocaust and support for Israel, and for younger American Jews that may have less resonance. There may be a rethinking of that form of attachment to Israel.”
J Street, the organization devoted to lobbying for Israel from a liberal perspective, is both reflective of, and a stimulant to, a more balanced conversation about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Cohen says. If he is right, J Street is performing its job well. Public discussion about the Mideast conflict is still nowhere near evenhanded in the United States, but it is more so than it used to be.
Three academics, Tony Judt, Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, deserve a lot of credit for expanding the permissible. Whatever one thinks of their analyses or prescriptions, they endured opprobrium and ostracism, to state the obvious: The unconditional U.S.-Israeli relationship is good for neither the U.S. nor Israel. Walt has an important perch at Foreign Policy’s website, which he uses to regularly espouse his once-radical views on Israel.
Criticism of the special relationship, once rare, is now frequent. Newsweek/Daily Beast’s Andrew Sullivan has become a regular source of attacks on the unqualified U.S. support for Israeli policy. Time magazine’s Joe Klein has been similarly outspoken. “If you don’t think that the Israel Lobby has an enormous influence on the Congress, you’re deluding yourself,” he wrote recently.
Peter Beinart, also of Newsweek/Daily Beast, inspired headlines with his critique of the “Failure of the American Jewish Establishment.” He has a forthcoming book sure to get a lot of attention called “The Crisis of Zionism.” Former New York Observer writer Philip Weiss has created a one-stop shop for critics of Israel and U.S. policy. And, of course, Salon’s own Glenn Greenwald regularly questions the bipartisan consensus on Israel.
As one would expect, these developments are causing a great deal of consternation from those determined that views favorable to the Palestinians never get a hearing. In 2006, the American Jewish Committee released its infamous report accusing these new critics of Israel of being simply anti-Semitic. Last year, Lee Smith of Tablet magazine made the odd charge that publications like the Atlantic and Salon encourage Jew-hating writers in the hopes of increasing page views. Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol has lamented that charging Israel’s critics with “anti-Semitism” doesn’t effectively silence them any longer. And this week Iran-Contra convict Elliott Abrams criticized Friedman and Klein because they exemplify the mainstreaming of Walt and Mearsheimer’s ideas.
But it isn’t only pundits and academics. Diplomats and the people who would be on the center-right of American politics (if such a thing still existed) have been vocal about their alienation from U.S. discussion of Israel. Bruce Riedel of the Brookings Institution, an advisor to three presidents on Middle East and South Asian issues, told me in an email that “Fear of angering extreme evangelicals and the old lobby still inhibit real debate about Israel in American politics.”
Paul Pillar, former CIA bigwig, has become a stark critic of Israel for the National Interest. He has defended the comparison of Israel’s occupation policies with apartheid South Africa, and says that he agrees with all of Walt and Mearsheimer’s analysis, including the most incendiary charge — that the Israel lobby was instrumental in pushing the U.S. to invade Iraq.
Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff for Colin Powell, has been similarly outspoken about the power of what he calls “the Jewish lobby.” Jack Matlock, Ronald Reagan’s ambassador to the Soviet Union, has written that by far the greatest threat to Israel’s security and well-being is the policies of its own government. And in 2009 longtime diplomat Chas Freeman blasted the Israel lobby for successfully ending his nomination to be chairman of the National Intelligence Council.
For all the discussion-widening in the chattering classes, official U.S. foreign policy has changed little, if at all. Obama has overseen unprecedented military deals between Israel and the United States, and all but abandoned the Palestinians in the international diplomatic arena. Newt Gingrich’s historically discredited claim that the Palestinians are an “invented people” shows that American politicians still take some of the most extreme positions in the Israeli polity as gospel.
Still, at the outset of his term Obama made the biggest rhetorical push against Israeli settlement policy that any U.S. president ever has, only to back down in the face of Israeli objections. The resulting animosity between Netanyahu and the administration is no secret. Democratic rank-and-file voters are also less supportive of Israel than they used to be, and less so than Republicans are now. The new conversation about Israel has yet to make its way into Congress and the executive branch, but that day may be coming.
Jordan Michael Smith is a writer living in Washington, D.C. He has written and blogged for numerous print and online publications, including the Huffington Post, the New Republic, the American Prospect, the American Conservative, In These Times and the Columbia Journalism Review. Born in Toronto, Canada, he holds a Master of Arts in Political Science from Carleton University in Ottawa; and a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and English from the University of Western Ontario. He has written for the New York Times, Boston Globe and Washington Post.
To quote me in context, it came after the exchange on this page, in which eyeno makes apologetics for white supremacists, thus demonstrating that he is both a white boy and really stupid: http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/view ... 5&p=447007
JackRiddler wrote:I don't need "the machine" to focus me. Fuck the racists you want to make friends with. When they give up their racism, then we can bridge our divide - maybe there won't even be one then. No compromise is possible on this point, white boy.
That's right, white boy, no compromise is possible on the point. You want truck with racists. You say so, consistently and explicitly, including on this thread. You also consistently disappoint us by failing to make good on your statements that you're out of here. It's too bad.
.
Perhaps I should clarify my position for you.
1. I don't seek fascist company. I don't enjoy fascist company. I do not hold fascist ideals.
2. As I stated some of the people in my community, even a couple of neighbors of mine, have impure thoughts. They are not perfect. Some, but not all of the things my neighbors say and think are stupid and ignorant.
I don't know any people that have perfectly pure thoughts. If I chose to engage in battle with or totally isolate every person I know with impure thoughts I would have to confine myself to a vacuum sealed bubble for fear of being contaminated by their terrible impurity.
I can think for myself. I know right from wrong. If I bump into a person with some impure thoughts I choose to attempt to educate that person instead of beat them for their impure thoughts. I also have my limits on this though. The skin head types can have their impure thoughts and I won't try to change them. In order to change a skin head I would have to seek one out because I don't know any. Since I refuse to seek them out I don't have to worry about that.
You throw repeated racial slurs at me and I have not responded in kind. Obviously you have some impure thoughts and some pent up anger. I recognize this and I am still being civil with you. See how that works?
Searcher08 wrote:The Media consensus on Israel is collapsing My Catbird Seat January 8, 2012 7
Across the political spectrum, once-taboo criticism is now common
I wish that this had happened back when it could have made a real difference. The cynical part of me wonders why it's only happening now, when Israel has exploited its dominance of the US to ethnically cleanse most of the West Bank, including Jerusalem, and populate it with hundreds of thousands of wacko, heavily-armed fanatics who couldn't care less what the goys think. And when the US has nearly outlived its usefulness to Israel anyway. The Iran thing is just the zionists trying to squeeze out the very last drop, but they're probably not getting that -- even if the spirit were willing, the flesh is weak, overstretched and worn out by the excesses of the past decade.
Still, I haven't given up hope, far from it. It's just that I long ago gave up hope that liberation for the Palestinians or the rest of us would come from the West. The revolutionary winds sweeping through the Arab world and beyond have the true potential, in my opinion, to be the ultimate game-changers. Israel's strength was never really its domination of the US government, but our weakness, an artificial weakness imposed upon us by our own corrupt, treasonous and stupid tyrants, whom we are now struggling mightily to throw into the dustbin of history. Then, and only then, will the illusion collapse, and things be shown in their true size. Israel is nothing, a terrible hoax, a scam for which we've all fallen for far too long.
I'm glad that you in the West are also starting to wake up out of your trance, not for our sake, but for yours. It's very late, maybe even too late, but hopefully something can be salvaged.
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
I'm glad that you in the West are also starting to wake up out of your trance, not for our sake, but for yours. It's very late, maybe even too late, but hopefully something can be salvaged.
We think the rich jews should just pay off the poor palestinians, but that would only work if they'd both of them stop being all mental about land and shit.
Your working group has now been infiltrated by the Bold Optimists of North America (BONA).
norton ash wrote:... Bold Optimists of North America (BONA) ...
LMFAO.
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
eyeno wrote:You throw repeated racial slurs at me and I have not responded in kind.
White boy is not a racial slur, it is the obvious state in which you find yourself, along with being a stupid, pompous ass who seeks to undermine clear language and make excuses for white supremacists on this board. Did I mention fuck you? And fuck you?
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.
To Justice my maker from on high did incline: I am by virtue of its might divine, The highest Wisdom and the first Love.
eyeno wrote:You throw repeated racial slurs at me and I have not responded in kind.
White boy is not a racial slur, it is the obvious state in which you find yourself, along with being a stupid, pompous ass who seeks to undermine clear language and make excuses for white supremacists on this board. Did I mention fuck you? And fuck you?
Keep the discussion issue-based. Any more personal attacks will result in suspension.
"Arrogance is experiential and environmental in cause. Human experience can make and unmake arrogance. Ours is about to get unmade."
Bruce Dazzling wrote:Keep the discussion issue-based. Any more personal attacks will result in suspension.
Hi Bruce. eyeno, whose posts regularly suggest we should tolerate Nazis, claims I'm making "racial slurs" against his sensitive white self. Whereas I believe merely to state the obvious. Can we have a ruling?
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.
To Justice my maker from on high did incline: I am by virtue of its might divine, The highest Wisdom and the first Love.
Bruce Dazzling wrote:Keep the discussion issue-based. Any more personal attacks will result in suspension.
Hi Bruce. eyeno, whose posts regularly suggest we should tolerate Nazis, claims I'm making "racial slurs" against his sensitive white self. Whereas I believe merely to state the obvious. Can we have a ruling?
The alleged "racial slur" is the least of the problems at the moment. Although I'd find it incredibly hard to believe that you weren't deliberately using it to wind him/her up, I don't believe that your use of "white boy" can be characterized as a racial slur in the context.
Just refrain from using personal attack terms such as "...stupid, pompous ass," and "fuck you" going forward.
And this goes for everyone who doesn't want a few days on the naughty chair.
As for this:
JackRiddler wrote:eyeno, whose posts regularly suggest we should tolerate Nazis...
If you've got specific examples that you'd like to bring to my attention, Jack, do so via PM and I'll evaluate them.
"Arrogance is experiential and environmental in cause. Human experience can make and unmake arrogance. Ours is about to get unmade."
Jack I am sorry that you don't understand my position. I never implied that you, I, or anyone else should condone nazi beliefs. Nazis are as dangerous to me as anybody on this planet and I wish they were not around.
My comments have nothing to do with organized hate groups, nazi groups, skin head types, or any other hate group. My comments are intended to define a group of people that do not belong such organized groups, which is the majority of the human population.
Even though most people do not belong to organized hate groups some of them still have some ignorant beliefs. Most of this same group would never join a hate group, they are simply ignorant. In my opinion it is worth trying to change racial ignorance in this world.
In my opinion it is worth trying to change a mind (the type I speak of) instead of engaging such a mind in battle. Battle closes a mind and nothing is learned. If I can change a person's mind maybe they will change other minds. If I engage that person in battle it will further cement their ignorance.
The big boys PTB can handle the organized groups. I won't try. I want nothing to do with them and their hatred.
This seems like common sense to me. I apologize if you are angry toward my passive approach to ignorance. It was not my intention to anger you.
