Dear Israel Lobby, We Give Up

[American Dream]

Googling "Icke Rothschild" will yield a ton of, um, "[i]information[/i]"...

Why do you seem to be chafing as to a thread discussing who they really were?

I think that's your projection- although it is true that I hate all the stupid shit that comes up in conspiracy culture...

[Searcher08]

Googling "Icke Rothschild" will yield a ton of, um, "[i]information[/i]"...

Why do you seem to be chafing as to a thread discussing who they really were?

I think that's your projection- although it is true that I hate all the stupid shit that comes up in conspiracy culture...

When I referred to sacred cow tipping, that applies very much to conspiracy culture itself and I think that an RI exploration of them could possibly be quite a revealing mirror for our own (ie board members) hidden assumptions. For example

Number of Rothschild family members in the Council on Foreign Relations = ZERO
http://www.cfr.org/about/membership/ros ... l?letter=R

Number of Rothschild family members in the Trilateral Commission = ZERO
http://www.augustforecast.com/wp-conten ... rs2011.pdf

Number of Rothschild family members in the Bilderberg = ZERO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bi ... rticipants

[American Dream]

When I referred to sacred cow tipping, that applies very much to conspiracy culture itself and I think that an RI exploration of them could possibly be quite a revealing mirror for our own (ie board members) hidden assumptions. For example

Number of Rothschild family members in the Council on Foreign Relations = ZERO
http://www.cfr.org/about/membership/ros ... l?letter=R

Number of Rothschild family members in the Trilateral Commission = ZERO
http://www.augustforecast.com/wp-conten ... rs2011.pdf

Number of Rothschild family members in the Bilderberg = ZERO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bi ... rticipants

Exploring and verifying Rothschild Theory could help bring more rigor into what we do here.

For example:

What are the underlying assumptions and the overall model we are attempting to prove?

Do the facts marshalled make for a compelling argument that this is really so?


Et cetera...

[Searcher08]

I don't have a model that I am seeking to validate and I reject the term "Rothschild Theory" as I am interested in facts rather than abstractions in this - personally just presenting information like the above examples and avoiding judgement. You are imposing an argumentation / critical thinking framework on it.
Doing it at this stage will stifle creative thinking, looking at alternatives.

I think it would be more interesting and fun to explore, with a Beginner's Mind approach.

[American Dream]

I don't have a model that I am seeking to validate and I reject the term "Rothschild Theory" as I am interested in facts rather than abstractions in this - personally just presenting information like the above examples and avoiding judgement. You are imposing an argumentation / critical thinking framework on it.
Doing it at this stage will stifle creative thinking, looking at alternatives.

I think it would be more interesting and fun to explore, with a Beginner's Mind approach.

Beginner's mind is a great ideal but it is usually a kind of rebirth- very few of us are completely naive. I haven't gotten the impression that most of the people here have no opinion, no biases.

Then again, I wouldn't assume that most of the people here think this, that, or the other because we haven't exactly said...

[American Dream]

http://www.pmpress.org/content/article. ... 3134720823

Keep a sharp eye out!

by Noel Ignatiev


In a speech delivered in Boston on April 12, 1852, Wendell Phillips declared, “I do not believe that, if we should live to the longest period Providence ever allots to the life of a human being, we shall see the total abolition of slavery, unless it comes in some critical conjuncture of national affairs, when the slave, taking advantage of a crisis in the fate of his masters, shall dictate his own terms.”[1]

History followed the course predicted by Phillips, when during the crisis precipitated by the contest between the lords of the lash and the lords of the loom over who would be dominant in the American Republic, one side was forced to enlist the aid of the slaves to defeat its rivals, and the slaves, seizing their opportunity, withdrew their labor-power from the plantation and transferred it to the Union, thus delivering the decisive blow that toppled the Confederacy. Without the division among the propertied classes, the slaves could not have won their freedom, as the experience of Nat Turner, Denmark Vesey and Gabriel Prosser among others had shown; given that division, all things became possible. Phillips’s career illustrates the point: urged in 1861 to go into hiding from the Boston mob that blamed him for the breakup of the Union, barely one year later he was welcomed to the Senate chamber by the Vice President of the United States, invited to dinner by the Speaker of the House, and received by the President as a guest at the White House. It was not the Abolitionists, dedicated and courageous though they were, that won the northern population to abolition, but the change in circumstances that compelled millions to take seriously a measure—immediate, unconditional, uncompensated emancipation on the soil—which they had previously dismissed as the wildest radicalism, and transformed the Abolitionists from an isolated sect into the vanguard of the nation, hailed for having pointed the way the country would have to follow.

It has never been otherwise. Revolutionaries have never succeeded by “winning over” the masses through word or deed, but by taking advantage of, and in some cases precipitating, a division among the rulers such that the course they advocated came to be seen as the only realistic one. It is a strategy of creative provocation. Its greatest exemplar in American history was John Brown, who, in Phillips’s words “startled the South into madness,” pushing the country over the brink to civil war. But had the contest between two wings of the propertied classes not reached the stage of “irrepressible conflict,” his act would have had little effect.

Is it possible to foresee fissures within the ruling class that could offer revolutionaries the opportunity to step into the breach the way the Abolitionists did? I can think of two:

(1) Race. As Ted Allen taught, the hallmark of racial oppression was the reduction of the most exalted member of the oppressed group to a status beneath that of any member of the oppressing group. It allowed the most degraded white man—Huck Finn’s Pap—to push W.E.B. DuBois off the sidewalk. Malcolm X captured its essence in his famous question, What does a white bigot call a black PhD? Answer: n----r. The globalist, neoliberal wing of the ruling class, represented today by Clinton and Obama, has enlisted some black Americans as full partners in the affairs of capital and the state (while consigning the bottom layer of the black population, and increasingly the white as well, to misery and early death). The promotion of some black Americans into the ruling group, not as traitors to their race but as the class enemy—marks the end of racial oppression (though not the end of the oppression of black people).

While neoliberalism appears to have triumphed and become official policy, there are forces in American life that are unreconciled to these changes. In parts of the country there are still churches in which the ministers preach every Sunday that Obama is the Anti-Christ. So far such thoughts are confined to the lowest layers of white America, the people who have watched their only possession, the white skin, depreciate in value. Could one or another sector of capital, feeling its position eroded within ruling circles, take advantage of the white racial resentment that simmers beneath the surface of American life, and use it to forge a coalition that would allow it to gain ascendancy? No one who knows this country and its traditions can rule out that possibility.[2]

If such a thing happened, how would the neoliberals respond? Similarly to the way the Party of industry and wage capital did to the slaveholders—stall as long as they could, seek to compromise, and then, facing defeat, reach out to the black folk and their supporters as possible allies.[3]

On a smaller, perhaps trivial, scale: Back in the days when we were publishing Race Traitor, I used to wonder at the favorable attention we were receiving from diversity mongers and National Public Radio types, who I knew did not take seriously our view that an assault on the privileges of whiteness was part of a strategy for proletarian revolution. I figured that they were using us to beat up on their enemies; and the question was, who would use whom?[4]

(2) Zionism. In spite of the denials of Noam Chomsky and a few others, who insist in the face of the evidence that US Middle East policy is determined by oil and imperial power, it is obvious that it does not serve the rational interests of capital. US policy was hijacked by a coalition of gentile radical nationalists and Jewish neo-conservatives who interpret US and Israeli interests as permanent, joint war on and occupation of the region. The rising tide of democratic reform in the Arab world will inevitably clash with this design, and makes the Zionist fixation of US policy even more ominous.[5]

US Middle East policy has provoked grumbling and opposition from various quarters, including powerful sectors of capital, especially the oil companies, represented by Bush I, Baker, Brzezinski et al. The gentile radical nationalists have departed and the neocons are out of power, but their successors are unable or unwilling to break with their policy. Obama, who gave evidence before he came to office of entertaining some sympathy for the Palestinians, bowed to Zionist power by appointing Rahm Emmanuel as his chief of staff and a whole bunch of other Zionist agents to high positions. After appealing in the mildest terms to Netanyahu to exercise restraint, he backed down ignominiously, thus becoming the latest in a series of Presidents whose heads have been mounted on the Zionist wall.

The Zionists have sunk their roots deep into the American political body, and will not be easily dislodged. A powerful lobby versus a few dedicated activists isn't much of a contest for someone running for national office. Is it possible that sectors of capital who believe that US Middle East policy is a disaster, might seek to overturn the Zionocracy? If so, where would they turn for support? One answer is the Army. General Petraeus made waves last year when he said that unequivocal support for Israel was endangering the lives of American soldiers. (Read that as endangering US domination in the Middle East.) Let no one forget that Senator McCarthy appeared unstoppable until he made the mistake of taking on the Army, which may be the only institution in American life today capable of going toe-to-toe with the Zionocracy.

Such a conflict within the ruling circles, if it unfolded, would necessarily spill over into a larger arena. It would transform Middle East policy from a question of interest only to those who feel a tie to the region plus antiwar activists and a few individuals of conscience into a concern of millions. It could even lead to a crisis on the scale that Phillips (and Lenin) spoke about. It would also pose opportunities (and dangers) for those who seek to promote proletarian revolution. It would throw them into strange company, from traditional paleo-conservatives to ideological anti-Semites who would also be fishing in those waters. (Sooner or later someone would suggest that the American Jewish community is acting as a foreign agent.) It would require serious thought and careful tactics on the part of revolutionaries. But that is a subject for another discussion.

For the moment, keep a sharp eye out!



Notes

[1] He anticipated Lenin: “Revolution is impossible without a nation-wide crisis (affecting both the exploited and the exploiters)…. The ruling classes should be going through a governmental crisis, which… weakens the government, and makes it possible for the revolutionaries to rapidly overthrow it.” Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder (1920)

[2] Alfred Sohn-Rethel, in The Economy and Structure of German Fascism, recounts how a sector of German capital, the old iron, steel and coal complex, seeing its weight within the ruling class decline relative to new globally-oriented sectors represented by the Siemens corporation, supported Nazism as a way to restore its former dominance. American history shows that under the right circumstances issues that seem to have nothing to do with the bottom line on the ledger can become political factors which one or another sector of the ruling group can utilize to gain ascendancy. Examples of this from the past and present are Anti-Masonry, Know-Nothingism and anti-immigrant sentiment, temperance and Prohibition, the teaching of evolution, prayer in public schools and the controversies surrounding abortion and homosexual rights. While individuals from any social class may entertain various opinions on these and other matters, no sector of capital has a material interest in whether people who like to have sex with members of their own sex be allowed to marry or whether it be legal for women to terminate unwanted pregnancies; yet these issues provoke intense popular feelings and play a large role in shaping contemporary political alliances.

[3] I read somewhere that in the spring of 1860, before Lincoln had secured the Republican nomination, his law partner, “Billy” Herndon, paid a visit to William Lloyd Garrison at Garrison’s Boston print shop. I take that as a sign that, while Herndon, Lincoln and the people they represented were not ready to support the Abolitionists, they were not unhappy that they existed. Carl Oglesby, former SDS President, reported in 1969 that he had been approached by influential members of the ruling class who encouraged him and SDS to continue their work against the Vietnam War; those elements sought to change US policy and saw SDS street actions as an aid in doing so.

[4] We know now that industrial capital was able to use the movement of the slaves and their supporters to overturn their rivals and establish their dominance; having done so, they discarded them. But things did not have to happen that way; as DuBois pointed out, the decisive element was the attitude of white labor.

[5] A similar process, involving rightwing Cuban exiles and refugees from leftist regimes in Nicaragua, Venezuela and elsewhere, shapes U.S. Caribbean policy—against rational imperialist interests.

[American Dream]

.


"Criticism of the Fed seems fair enough. However, the call to abolish the Federal Reserve and central banking entirely has come solely from the far-right of the American political spectrum. As we know, with right-wing extremism comes violence and racism. Unfortunately, the general public is not familiar with convoluted economic issues, and less informed Occupy protestors have been duped into supporting this pro-elite red herring. To fight this, word needs to be spread about the dark history of the “END THE FED” movement, one sprinkled with anti-Semitism, neo-Nazis, anti-government militia extremists, and even domestic terrorists. We need more awareness of the violent and racist elements that “END THE FED” brings to OWS."



“END THE FED” supporter brings assault rifle to Occupy rally:



Surprise! He’s a white supremacist neo-Nazi:





Man crashes plane into IRS building, praised by “END THE FED” supporter:

http://www.alternet.org/news/145734/man ... k_fan_page)/?page=2


“It wasn't long after its creation under Woodrow Wilson that the Federal Reserve System became a central fixture in the world of right-wing conspiracy […] No one did more to promote anti-Fed hysteria in the early years than automobile magnate Henry Ford, who in the 1920s penned a multi-volume, anti-Semitic conspiracy opus called The International Jew, in which the Fed plays a starring role.”

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/i ... t-paranoia


This “END THE FED” supporter was protesting in the name of Occupy, and set a building on fire:

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/20 ... i-war.html


David Duke hates the Federal Reserve, too.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/i ... -klux-klan


“We Are Change” member charged with making terrorist threats:

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2010/09/0 ... ist-image/


Neo-Nazi murderer “arrested in the nation’s capital in December 1981 after carrying a sawed-off shotgun, a pistol and a hunting knife into the Federal Reserve":

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/i ... fore-trial


Anti-government extremist Ronald L. Struve caught with 44 machine guns, 2 grenade launchers, 54 high explosive grenades, 6 blocks of plastic explosives, 12 silencers, 25 feet of detonator cord, and 7 blasting caps, a Russian sniper rifle, an AK-47 assault rifle, and an “END THE FED” bumper sticker:

http://www.redcrayons.net/?p=128


“Faithful Word Baptist Church” calls for death penalty for gays, abolishing the Federal Reserve:

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/i ... ard-liners

[Simulist]

Well, I'm for abolishing the Fed. And I'm not for killing gays.

The first seems like common sense; the second would be suicidal.

[American Dream]

Well, I'm for abolishing the Fed. And I'm not for killing gays.

The first seems like common sense; the second would be suicidal.

I'm definitely for major financial reforms and have no sympathy for the Federal Reserve at all. However, I do think that infiltration of far right ideas and movements into the world of conspiracy research and popular activism deserves great attention most especially for those of us who are clear that we do not support: homophobia, white supremacy, real anti-Semitism, immigrant-bashing, islamophobia, and all the other crap that goes along with that Far Right...

[Simulist]

Well, I'm for abolishing the Fed. And I'm not for killing gays.

The first seems like common sense; the second would be suicidal.

I'm definitely for major financial reforms and have no sympathy for the Federal Reserve at all. However, I do think that infiltration of Far Right ideas and movements into the world of conspiracy research and popular activism deserves great attention most especially for those of us who are clear that we do not support: homophobia, white supremacy, real anti-Semitism, immigrant-bashing, islamophobia, and all the other crap that goes along with these sorts of Far Right forces...

I agree that great attention should be paid. Still, just because X believes "this," and Y believes "that," doesn't persuade me either way.

(I suppose David Duke may eat Corn Flakes for breakfast, too — but I that's not why I don't eat Corn Flakes. I don't eat them because it's shitty cereal.)

[slimmouse]

I'm definitely for major financial reforms and have no sympathy for the Federal Reserve at all. However, I do think that infiltration of Far Right ideas and movements into the world of conspiracy research and popular activism deserves great attention most especially for those of us who are clear that we do not support: homophobia, white supremacy, real anti-Semitism, immigrant-bashing, islamophobia, and all the other crap that goes along with these sorts of Far Right forces...

I dont believe you.

[Sounder]

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/24 ... nevitable/

by Alan Hart

The Gentile me believes this question needs to be addressed because there is a very real danger that the rising, global tide of anti-Israelism, which is being provoked by Israel’s terrifying arrogance of power and sickening self-righteousness, will be transformed into anti-Semitism unless two things happen.

The notion that anti-Israelism could be transformed into anti-Semitism is not new. In his book Israel’s Fateful Hour, published in 1986, Yehoshafat Harkabi, Israel’s longest serving Director of Military Intelligence, gave this warning:

“Israel is the criterion according to which all Jews will tend to be judged. Israel as a Jewish state is an example of the Jewish character, which finds free and concentrated expression within it. Anti-Semitism has deep and historical roots. Nevertheless, any flaw in Israeli conduct, which initially is cited as anti-Israelism, is likely to be transformed into empirical proof of the validity of anti-Semitism. It would be a tragic irony if the Jewish state, which was intended to solve the problem of anti-Semitism, was to become a factor in the rise of anti-Semitism. Israelis must be aware that the price of their misconduct is paid not only by them but also Jews throughout the world.”

The fact that (pre-1967) Israel is a Zionist not a Jewish state – how could it be a Jewish state when a quarter of its citizens are Muslims (mainly) and Christians? – in no way diminishes Harkabi’s message.

He was, in fact, treading a quite well worn path. Prior to the obscenity of the Nazi holocaust, and as I document in my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, most Jews, eminent American and British Jews especially, were opposed to Zionism’s enterprise in Palestine. They believed it to be morally wrong.

They feared it would lead to unending conflict with the Arab and wider Muslim world. But most of all they feared that if Zionism was allowed by the major powers to have its way, it would one day provoke anti-Semitism.

[American Dream]

Well, I'm for abolishing the Fed. And I'm not for killing gays.

The first seems like common sense; the second would be suicidal.

I'm definitely for major financial reforms and have no sympathy for the Federal Reserve at all. However, I do think that infiltration of Far Right ideas and movements into the world of conspiracy research and popular activism deserves great attention most especially for those of us who are clear that we do not support: homophobia, white supremacy, real anti-Semitism, immigrant-bashing, islamophobia, and all the other crap that goes along with these sorts of Far Right forces...

I agree that great attention should be paid. Still, just because X believes "this," and Y believes "that," doesn't persuade me either way.

(I suppose David Duke may eat Corn Flakes for breakfast, too — but I that's not why I don't eat Corn Flakes. I don't eat them because it's shitty cereal.)

Oh very much agreed- still, can we even envision a movement without all the "white supremacy, real anti-Semitism, immigrant-bashing, islamophobia, and all the other crap that goes along with that Far Right".

If so, how could we go about creating such a movement?

That is my biggest concern!

[Simulist]

You're right, AD. Absolutely I can envision it, which is one reason I associate with all you good people — here.

(When critical mass is reached, we know where we are. Of course, so do the proverbial "them.")

[Searcher08]

Well, I'm for abolishing the Fed. And I'm not for killing gays.

The first seems like common sense; the second would be suicidal.

I'm definitely for major financial reforms and have no sympathy for the Federal Reserve at all. However, I do think that infiltration of Far Right ideas and movements into the world of conspiracy research and popular activism deserves great attention most especially for those of us who are clear that we do not support: homophobia, white supremacy, real anti-Semitism, immigrant-bashing, islamophobia, and all the other crap that goes along with these sorts of Far Right forces...

I agree that great attention should be paid. Still, just because X believes "this," and Y believes "that," doesn't persuade me either way.

(I suppose David Duke may eat Corn Flakes for breakfast, too — but I that's not why I don't eat Corn Flakes. I don't eat them because it's shitty cereal.)

Oh very much agreed- still, can we even envision a movement without all the "white supremacy, real anti-Semitism, immigrant-bashing, islamophobia, and all the other crap that goes along with that Far Right".

If so, how could we go about creating such a movement?

That is my biggest concern!

My biggest political concern right now is an AngloAmericanIsraeli / Iranian War, which I think is
a less than stellar idea.

I think the conversation about creating that movement would be a very good thing to have and (like the enigmatic Rothschilds), deserves a thread of it's own. Such a movement might require completely new forms of organisation, which have yet to be invented.
For example, I think there are so many spectra of opinion involved (I would be happy to dialogue with David Icke, very unhappy about 'dialogue' with Aryan Nations) - but doing a 'calculus of involvement' is extremely difficult.

I see it as a perfect example of The Centipede's Dilemma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centipede%27s_dilemma

"The Centipede's Dilemma" is a short poem which has given its name to an effect in psychology: the centipede effect (or centipede syndrome). This is when a normally automatic or unconscious activity is disrupted by consciousness of it or reflection on it. For example a golfer thinking too closely about her swing or someone thinking too much about how they knot their tie may find their performance of the task impaired. The effect is also known as hyper-reflection or Humphrey's law[1] after the English psychologist George Humphrey (1889-1966) who propounded it in 1923. As he wrote of the poem, "This is a most psychological rhyme. It contains a profound truth which is illustrated daily in the lives of all of us".
The version in the article is as follows:

A centipede was happy – quite!
Until a toad in fun
Said, "Pray, which leg moves after which?"
This raised her doubts to such a pitch,
She fell exhausted in the ditch
Not knowing how to run.

Modern versions of the poem often recast it in verse as a fable of a spider (or other protagonist) who found a clever way to avoid being eaten:

"How do you keep all those legs coordinated?" the spider asked.
The centipede replied, "I don't know. I'd never thought about it before."
At this point, the spider ran off, and the centipede tried to give chase, but was unable to because he couldn't make his legs walk properly, and he could never move again.

[edit] In psychology and philosophy

The psychologist George Humphrey referred to the tale in his 1923 book The story of man's mind:[5] "No man skilled at a trade needs to put his constant attention on the routine work," he wrote. "If he does, the job is apt to be spoiled." He went on to recount the centipede's story, commenting, "This is a most psychological rhyme. It contains a profound truth which is illustrated daily in the lives of all of us, for exactly the same thing happens if we pay conscious attention to any well-formed habit, such as walking." Thus, the eponymous "Humphrey's law" states that once performance of a task has become automatized, conscious thought about the task, while performing it, impairs performance.[6] Whereas habit diminishes and then eliminates the attention required for routine tasks, this automaticity is disrupted by attention to a normally unconscious competence.