Antisemites and Zionists Agree Once Again

One thing super-Jews and Israelis (along with antisemites of course) are always doing is conflating Israel with Jews. That’s problematic, because Zionism is Jewish fascism and Israel is the fascist state of the Jews. Most American Jews are not particularly fascistic, or at least I hope they are not.

This is why attacking Israel is so problematic. Super Jews and Zionists always insist that every time we bash Israel, we are bashing all Jews. Unfortunately, much anti-Zionism is in fact antisemitic, but not all of it. In particular, Left anti-Zionism has always tried pretty hard to separate the two.

Zionists say when you attack Israel, you attack all Jews.
Antisemites attack Israel, but attack all Jews in the process. Antisemites agree that attacks on Israel are attacks on all Jews.

Once again, we see that Zionists and antisemites share so many things in common!

In Der Judenstaat, Herzl himself agreed that Jews can never live with Gentiles. Why? Because Jews suck, according to Herzl. So Herzl himself agreed with antisemites. This crap has a long tradition in Zionism.

Jewish Family Feuds

Repost from the old site.

This matter is actually quite complex, and for background please see this article here. This involves a feud between some anti-Zionist Jews mostly located in the UK. It involves a splinter Troskyidiot sect called the Socialist Workers Party. In brief, some of the anti-Zionist Leftist Jews have accused some of the other anti-Zionist Leftist Jews of being anti-Semites. Dumb, huh?

It’s just Jewish Family Feud, that’s all. On one side is Israel Shamir, Gilad Atzmon and Mary Rizzo, who runs a superb blog called Peace Palestine (the so-called anti-Semites). On the other side is the whole of the SWP, including most particularly persons such as Roland Rance, Tony Greenstein and the author of the Jews Sans Frontiers blog.

These Jews are sitting around arguing about what is the best way to “support the Palestinians”. Should we be anti-Semites about it or not? Supposedly the fate of the Palestinians hinges on the conclusion of this Jewish Family Feud. As in most cases of these sorts of intratribal conflicts, no one outside the tribe very much gives a fuck.

I’m sure the Palestinians could care less what a bunch of Jews outside Israel who aren’t trying to kill them think about them. They’ve got their own battles to wage. I’m more or less neutral on the whole affair, and I think everyone involved has a case of excessive self-importance going on.

Excessive self-importance is typical of Jewish Family Feuds. They act like the fate of Western Civilization hangs on the thread of these intra-Jewish conflicts, but the truth is that almost everyone who is not a Jew (and even most Jews) could give a flying fuck how it all turns out.

Neither Mary nor Atzmon are anti-Semites (surely not Mary), though Atzmon really pushes the envelope. Shamir is an anti-Semite sometimes, and other times he is not. He’s a real shit-stirrer. I think Shamir is a brilliant writer and thinker, and his anti-Semitism should just be ignored. His work is valuable and deserves a critical reading. I disagree that Shamir is a supporter White Power.

I do not agree that Atzmon is a Holocaust Denier. That is a feverish, absurd charge.

Bottom line is I think that anti-Palestinianism is a Hell of a lot more dangerous to Palestinians than anti-Semitism is to Jews these days. How many of the world’s 18 million Jews are getting killed per year by anti-Semites? Not too many. How many of the 4 million Palestinians in Palestine are getting injured or killed by anti-Palestinians every year. Way, way more. So who’s in greater danger?

The problems of the Palestinians are so massive, and the pro-Palestinian movement in the US and UK so pitiful that this whole spat boils down to a tempest in a teapot. Palestinians would do better to focus on how to resist Zionism, preferably with improved weaponry, in my opinion.

We should note that all parties mentioned above are Jewish.

Here is Tony Greenstein’s response to a previous article of mine on this rather obscure spat. In v., Tony says that my characterization of him as a ‘tribal and ethnocentric Leftist Jew’ is itself racist. Of course, I deny the charge.

i. The latest problems with the Peace Palestine site have nothing whatsoever to do with me. If the blog was described as a ‘spam blog’ that was entirely Google’s doing and in fact the same happened to the Azvsas blog which I help run.

ii. I have nothing to do with the Socialist Workers Party.

iii. My article on Socialist Unity and Azvsas on why Gilad Atzmon is a Holocaust Denier, and a number of other articles, demonstrates why he is not an anti-Zionist but is anti-Semitic.

iv. Mary Rizzo has worked alongside and defending Atzmon too long for some of it not to have rubbed off. That is why she was so effusive about The Radical Press (again see Socialist Unity/Azvsas) where she defended them against such accusation.

v. The term ‘tribal and ethnocentric Leftist Jews’ is itself racist. It presumes if someone speaks out because they are Jewish they represent or purport to represent others besides themselves as part of some Jewish power interest.

Criticism of Atzmon for advocating conspiracy theories, including his notion that it is irrelevant if the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is a forgery (The Times managed that one a mere 87 years ago) suggest deep anti-Semitism i.e. racism towards Jews.

vi. Yes life is complicated by those who associate my criticisms of Atzmon with that of a person known as Ibraham Av. Av supports the Israeli state, I don’t. I just happen to understand that indulging in puerile and childish accusations of conspiracy, seeing the hidden hand of Jews everywhere, including financing New Labour in Britain, isn’t the best way of supporting the Palestinians.

However the attacks were begun by Atzmon and his even more anti-Semitic White Power chum Israel Shamir. We responded, we didn’t initiate.

vii. If you think that anti-Semitism, Holocaust Denial, nonsense about ‘Jewish Power’ is going to help the Palestinians in any way, then fine. The irony is that whereas some of us are to the fore in the Boycott campaign, it is Atzmon who opposes that campaign whilst at the same time continually attacking Jewish Anti-Zionists.

viii. And why is he attacking Jewish anti-Zionists, which Atzmon says is automatically Zionist because to him being Jewish is to be a Zionist? Because Israel claims all sorts of things on our behalf and we reject them.

“Into the Fray: A Study in Self-Cannibalization,” by Martin Sherman

A very interesting article from the Jerusalem Post. The author is in all probability a Jew, as Sherman is a Jewish name. I don’t like the JP much, but the article is correct. I am by and large a political liberal, at least here in the US. Certainly I do not wish to see non-Muslim societies taken over by Muslims whereby Islamic Law is imposed. Sharia is completely opposed to my liberalism and even my Leftism. Even in a totalitarian Leftist state (dictatorship of the proletariat), I could not see putting in Islamic Law. Indeed, the USSR wiped out all traces of Sharia from its legal code, even in Republics and autonomous regions that were majority Muslim. China has also eliminated Sharia in its Muslim majority provinces.

Now, if Muslim states wish to live under Sharia, I think that is pretty terrible, but there is nothing that I can do about it. They can live however they want to in their sandboxes. However, when Muslims come to the West, they need to live under our secular laws. There is no place for Sharia for the Muslim minorities of the West. And importing large numbers of Muslims into the West seems to be a catastrophe. There have not been many problems here in the US yet, but there have been untold problems in Europe.

Finally, just because we on the Left don’t think that Islam or Sharia is good, does not mean that the Jews in Israel have a right to steal the Palestinians’ land and settle Jewish colonists on it. Muslims have a right to be protected from land theft and settler colonialism just like anyone else. On the other hand, I do not think that the Jews presently in Israel should have to be ruled by Muslims or live under Sharia or Muslim type laws. I don’t know what the solution is here.

Also, we Christians should keep in mind that 18% of the people that the Jews stole land from were us Christians.

Into the Fray: A Study in Self-Cannibalization

By Martin Sherman

Over a century ago, Churchill warned that Western civilization will face an existential challenge from the Muslim world. It is now upon us.

It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism, while the wolf remains of a different opinion.

- W. R. Inge, dean of St. Paul’s Cathedral, 1915

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

– Karl Popper, “On the Paradox of Tolerance,” in The Open Society and Its Enemies, 1945

Many Western Europeans, from the man on the street to the cop on the corner, from the politician in Parliament to the immigration official at the border, have long considered it their obligation… to tolerate intolerance.

– from “Tolerating Intolerance: The Challenge of Fundamentalist Islam in Western Europe,” Partisan Review, 2002.

Across the Western world today, political liberalism is undergoing a process of self-cannibalization. It is being devoured by the very values which made it into arguably the most successful and influential sociopolitical doctrine in modern history.

At the very minimum, it is being complicit in actively facilitating its own demise though an unrestrained and undiscerning compulsion to apply these values universally – even when such application is not only inappropriate but detrimental to those values.

Acknowledging Diversity Is…Diverse

Devotees of political liberalism fervently advocate – quite correctly – the need to acknowledge the diversity of humanity and to accept the existence of those different from us, i.e., the “Other.”

However, they then go on to advocate – with equal fervor – something that in effect empties the previous acknowledgment of all significance, i.e., that we relate to all the diverse “Others” as equals.

For what is the point of acknowledging diversity if we are called upon to ignore the possible ramifications of that diversity and to relate to those discernibly different from us as if they were essentially the same as us? Prima facie, this is absurdly self-contradictory.

For surely the awareness of difference raises the possibility that different attitudes (and actions) toward the “Other” may be called for.

Although acknowledging diversity necessarily negates equality, this does not a priori mean that “Ours” is morally superior to “Theirs” – although the plausible assumption is that “We” have a subjective preference for “Ours” over “Theirs.”

This, of course, might entail certain practical ramifications for the preservation of “Ours” lest it be consumed by “Theirs” – depending on “Their” appetites and aspirations.

‘Us’ As An Item On ‘Their’ Menu

As the foregoing citation from W.R. Inge underscores, it would be injudicious to relate to carnivores and herbivores with an undiscriminating sense of egalitarianism. Indeed, if one is not mindful of the differences between oneself and the “Other” (say with regard to dietary preferences or predatory predilections), disaster may well be unavoidable.

Note that making such a diagnosis of difference does not necessarily imply a value judgment as to the relative moral merits of eating flesh or eating grass. However, operationally, it is a distinction that is essential for the preservation of grass-grazers and – and no less pointedly – for the shepherd charged with their welfare.

For no matter how sympathetic to, or appreciative of, the untamed majesty of predators one might be, the fate of the flock is likely to be grim if it is left to graze in wolf frequented territory with nothing more coercive to protect it than an appeal for understanding.

Now while I do not wish to push Inge’s ovine-lupine analogy too far, those who would dismiss it as overly facile would do well to recall that political liberalism has faced several challenges in the last century from adversaries which could plausibly be viewed as predatory.

It has had to contend with ideologies that were totalitarian, expansionary and irreconcilably inimical to its core values of sociocultural tolerance and individual liberty.

The ‘Other’ As…‘Other’

There was, for example, the kinetic clash with Nazism and the ideological clash with Communism. Political liberalism withstood them and prevailed.

It is facing another fateful encounter in this century: The existential clash with Islamism – a foe not less totalitarian, no less expansionary and no less irreconcilably inimical to its core values.

It is far from certain that this time it will prevail.

The major source of peril today is the reluctance – indeed the resolute refusal – to acknowledge the emerging threat. True, there were sympathizers in the West for both the Nazi and Soviet causes, which although they viewed themselves as antithetically adversarial to each other, both strove to eliminate our democratic freedoms and way of life.

However, the denial we are witnessing today seems qualitatively different. Leading liberal opinion-makers in mainstream intellectual establishment appear totally incapable of conceiving (or at least, totally unwilling to acknowledge that they are capable of conceiving) of the “Other” as anything but a darker skin-toned version of themselves – with perhaps somewhat more exotic tastes in dress and a greater penchant for spicy food, but with essentially the same value system as theirs, or at least one not significantly incompatible with it.

Indeed, there seems to be an overriding inability to admit the possibility that the “Other” is in fact fundamentally different – i.e., genuinely “Other” – and may hold entirely different beliefs as to what is good and bad, what is legitimate and what is not.

A Catastrophic Corruption of the Discourse

It is of little practical consequence whether this is the product of an overbearing intellectual arrogance, which precludes the possibility of any alternative value system, or of an underlying moral cowardice, which precludes the will to defend the validity of one’s own value system.

The result is the ongoing retreat from the defense of liberty and tolerance in the face of an ever-emboldened, intolerant Muslim militancy – not only across the Islamic world but within the urban heart of many Western nations as well.

Even more serious, it has undermined the capacity for honest debate, for accurate assessment of strategic geopolitical shifts… and for formulating timely and effective responses to deal with them.

Take the Arab Spring, for example, which much of the mainstream media heralded as the dawning of a new spirit of freedom and enlightenment from the Maghreb to the Persian Gulf. Almost a year since it began, the results are hardly cause for optimism. In Tunisia and Libya, Islamist governments have been ensconced by popular vote. In other countries, such as in Egypt, the religious fundamentalists has been hugely empowered; in yet others, such as Syria and Bahrain, similar outcomes have only been avoided – so far – by wholesale massacres.

Nothing that has occurred – or been prevented from occurring – seems to vaguely justify the rosy forecast that accompanied the initial stages of revolt as to the imminent emergence of Arab regimes founded on values and systems analogous to those of Western democracy.

None of this should have been unexpected.

The facts were available for anyone willing to recognize them. On the verge of the Arab Spring (December 2011), the respected Pew Research Center conducted a survey of popular opinion in several Muslim countries.

The two countries included in the poll with relevance for the Arab Spring were Egypt and Jordan. In both, massive majorities (over 70 percent on average for Jordan and over 80% for Egypt) supported:

• execution by stoning for adultery;
• whippings or amputation of hands for theft and robbery;
• the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion.

This then was the broad-based value system of the masses who drove the popular uprisings across the Arab world, despite the external trappings of modernity, despite the tweets, the smart phones and the social network connections.

It is a safe bet that had such a poll been conducted in the EU, North America or Australasia, the findings would have been radically different.

So perhaps it is time that we begin to recognize that the “Other” really is the “Other.”

Orwellian Mind-control Tactics

The politically correct endeavor to shy away from harsh truths has introduced an almost Orwellian atmosphere of 1984 mind control into the debate on the ramifications of Islam for political liberalism.

Pronouncements almost on a par with the “War is Peace,” “Freedom is Slavery” and “Ignorance is Strength” employed by The Party to control the dystopian state of Oceania in George Orwell’s classic novel of pervasive dictatorship are emerging with disturbing frequency.

For example, US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in effect pronounced that “religious fundamentalism is secular” when he characterized the radical Muslim Brotherhood as an organization that is “largely secular.”

A similar instance of convoluted, nonsensical gobbledygook came from the Obama administration’s homeland security adviser James O. Brennan, when he made the astounding claim that accurately defining the threat would exacerbate it: “Nor do we describe our enemy as jihadists or Islamists, because jihad is a holy struggle. [C]haracterizing our adversaries this way would actually be counterproductive,” he said.

So by reorganizing the rhetoric we will somehow dispel the misperceptions, from which the planners/perpetrators of wholesale carnage in the name of Islam apparently suffer, as to the sources of their beliefs and the nature of their motivations?

But perhaps the pinnacle of Orwellian endeavor came from then-British home secretary Jacqui Smith, who took it upon herself to bring home to radicalized UK Muslims that they were not who they thought they were. In a breathtaking stroke of self-contradictory double talk, she presumed to dub the acts of terrorism perpetrated by Islamists in the name of Islam as “anti-Islamic activity.”

Her 2009 interview with Der Spiegel was shockingly reminiscent of the “mind control through language” policy employed by Orwell’s Big Brother and his omnipresent Party.

Clearly in an intellectual climate such as this – where truth is condemned and dismissed as politically incorrect hate speech – no effective response can be marshaled against the gathering storm facing Western civilization and the values of political liberalism that underpin it.

Menace of Muhammadanism: Prescient Premonitions

Such reticence and evasion was not always prevalent. In an era long before political correctness crippled the ability to articulate the truth in the public sphere, far-sighted men warned of the impending clash.

Thus seven decades ago, Hilaire Belloc, the prominent Anglo-French writer and historian, raised the trenchant question:

Will not perhaps the temporal power of Islam return and with it the menace of an armed Muhammadan world… reappear again as the prime enemy of our civilization? (The Great Heresies, 1938)

He was not alone in his sense of foreboding.

In the first edition of his The River War, published in 1899, Winston Churchill set out a withering critique of the effect Islam has on its followers, its debilitating effect on economies of nations that embrace it, and the enslavement of its luckless women.

While he admits that “individual Muslims may show splendid qualities,” he contrasts this with realities on collective level, where “the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.”

Few who page through the latest Arab Human Development Report sponsored by the United Nations Development Program and independently authored by intellectuals and scholars from Arab countries would dispute this today.

Churchill goes on to warn:

“No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Muhammadanism is a militant and proselytizing faith…and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science…the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”

But how long will the West remain “cradled in the strong arms of science?” Might this question not help concentrate minds over the latest IAEA report on Iran’s nuclear program?

Epilogue

Let me conclude with the observations of a gay intellectual regarding the propagation of Islam in Europe, where private Islamic academies – subsidized by European governments – “reinforce the Koran-based…morality learned at home that prescribes severe penalties for female adulterers and rape victims (though not necessarily for rapists), and that demands… that homosexuals be put to death.”

With some foreboding, he remarks:

If fundamentalist Muslims in Europe do not carry out these punishments, it is not because they’ve advanced beyond such thinking, but because they don’t have the power.

“Libya – Setback for Anti-Imperialist Struggle,” by Peter Tobin

Peter Tobin is a sometime contributor to this site. Unlike me, Peter is a real Communist through and through. Right now, he is in Nepal working with the Maoists there, spending much of his time at party headquarters. There is a lot going on there right now, but I have not been writing about it much.

Unlike Peter, I’m just a socialist. As Communists are part of the wide spectrum of the Left, we more or less support them, but we also support the rest of the Left too, all the way to social democracy and even US-style liberalism. I figure we are all one big happy family.

LIBYA – SETBACK FOR ANTI-IMPERIALIST STRUGGLE

Gaddafi, lynched like Saddam Hussein, whatever his twists and turns of the last ten years, redeemed himself at the end, by dying fighting imperialism. The record shows that over the 42 years of his regime, he used Libya’s oil wealth against Western Imperialism, led by the US and its local military outpost – the white Zionist colony, Israel.

He utilized ‘terrorist’ methods that Arab militants found was the only military avenue of resistance open to them, a position that no Communist would criticize; it is for oppressed people to choose their way of struggle, according to their circumstances.

Therefore Gaddafi’s Libya bank-rolled many Palestinian resistance groups, and for decades was the most militant Arab leader on the Palestinian question, among Saudi Arabian lip-servers, Jordanian vacillators, or outright Egyptian traitors like Sadat and Mubarak after him.
He also came to see the African dimension, and uniquely for an Arab leader substantially funded the Organization of African Unity (OAU); an act of solidarity with the peoples of sub-Saharan Africa, a recognition that their sufferings under Western imperialism were no different from those of the Arab masses – genocide, dispossession, theft of natural resources and brutal colonial or neo-colonial rule.

Gaddafi was also a strong financial and political supporter of the African National Congress (ANC) when the West labeled it a ‘Communist terror’ group. The fact that the first person Mandela visited outside South Africa was Gaddafi shows the depth of his, and the ANC’s, gratitude. He will be mourned there as a mark of their continuing respect.

ROMANTIC & RUTHLESS NATIONALIST

Gaddafi’s attempt, as a devout Muslim, to counter the cultural imperialism of the West led to a radical interpretation of the Koran, which saw the ‘Ummah” (the body of the striving faithful) as the Arab masses desiring/requiring socialism. Hence the ‘Jamayriah,’ proposed in the ‘Green Book’ – an Islamist parody, a riposte and rival to Mao’s ‘Little Red Book’ and ‘Red Revolution.’

He furthermore thought, until the millennium, at least, that he could build ‘Green socialism in one country,’ staving off imperialist designs on Libya’s oil wealth and the deadly enmity of all the pro-Western Arab regimes, led by Wahhabi Saudi Arabia. His state tried to mobilize the masses through popular devolving committees. However, he had no formal role within the power structure, acting as a last ‘adviser/guru’ issues and policy.

RESISTANCE HOME & ABROAD

Libyan society, with a population of around 4 million, has not moved very far beyond four major ethnic groups into a cohesive voluntary civil society. It never was a nation, but always a collection of disputatious tribes, unified by Islam, if little else.

Hence, it was easily overcome by the modern industrial Italian state, looking for its ‘place in the sun,’ building an overseas empire with a series of incursions into Libya and subsequently Abyssinia, and in the former achieving imperial status in 1934. (Like clan Ireland fell to Strongbow & Henry II in 1169/71, and Native Americans fell to the white European colonizers on the North-American continent.)

The urban centres, mainly Benghazi and Tripoli, have a substantial free-market private sector with bourgeois and petit-bourgeois strata swollen by subsidies from oil revenues, and a largely Western educated, professional, media and technological elite, many of whom are culturally and ideologically hegemonized by bourgeois ideas, mores, and values.

This class has been prominent in all imperialist backed populist movements of the last few years – Ukraine, Lebanon, Iran, Burma, to list a few. They hang their hats on the ‘Human Rights’ and ‘Democracy’ banners against media demonised, ‘authentic’ villains , straight from Holly/Bollywood central casting.

Well – Gaddafi, in this gallery of Western ‘baddies’ was the baddest of them all! When Bin Laden was still wondering which of his father’s wives was his mother, Muhammar was Number One hate figure in Western media circles.

ECCENTRICITIES & ENTHUSIASMS

Take his relations with UK governments; he became convinced in the 1980′s that the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) was fighting a struggle of national liberation against British imperialism in the six counties of Ulster, one that reignited in 1969. I don’t intend to go into the pros and cons of this issue here, but the result was Libya that provided the PIRA with guns and most importantly, the new advanced Czech, plastic dynamite – Semtex.

This was a key factor in keeping the war going for another decade. PIRA did not bomb the million Protestants, loyal to Britain, into a republic, but they did bomb them to the negotiating table, as was graphically demonstrated by the effect of the campaign launched against the British homeland; the biggest attack devastating the entire square mile of London’s financial centre and seriously shaking the morale of the British Establishment.

Adams and Morrison would not be sitting on the Northern Ireland Executive were it not for his decisive, practical assistance, and the Provisional Sein Fein, both political and military wings, are also in his debt and owe his family condolences.

Another example – a tiny Trotskyite sect – the Workers Revolutionary Party (WRP) convinced Gaddafi that it was the authentic voice of the British Revolution, and seizure of state power was certain within a few years. All that was needed was a propaganda machine to convey ‘Bolshevik-Leninist-Trotskyist truth’ to the awaiting proletarian masses, eager to get on with the revolution by sweeping away their existing ‘reformist,’ ‘Stalinist’ leadership!

Gaddafi gave these buffoons millions, enabling them to produce a glossy daily newspaper, Newsline, something the entire British left wing movement, vastly outnumbering this semi-religious playgroup, could only match with the CPGB’s revisionist, economist, humanist, peacenik, plodding ‘Morning Star’, itself topped up by Moscow money in all events.

I cite these to show the weakness of charismatic leader systems – individuals who can act impulsively, emotionally, quixotically, often misguidedly and with impunity.

BONAPARTISM IN ARAB SOCIETIES

Certainly the cult of personality plays a progressive role in certain situations, the cult around Gaddafi, that caused him to become such a hate-figure in Western ruling, and thence through to popular circles, was because he stood up to the Americans/Zionists in Palestine, their stooges in the Arab League, and the West via OPEC to secure better prices for oil producers.

When you are so reviled by the Evil Empires of the West, then you must be doing something right?

But the truth is that the steam ran out of his ‘Green Revolution’ years ago, a national identity was never truly forged, with rural remaining tribal, and urban compromised by the developed world’s bourgeois culture – ‘psychologically colonized’ – as Franz Fanon, the formidable Algerian Marxist, put it, an ideological comprador class.

This class encompasses those successfully duped into believing that Western bourgeois democracy and capitalism express universal human values, demonstrating such a circle of perfection, as to constitute, in the words of the right-wing American ideologue, Fukuyama, parodying Hegel, the ‘end of history’.

Whereas Communists argue that Western, specifically Anglo-Saxon, global command, is a purely transitory, historical contingency, a stage like feudalism to be transcended, as Mao said, in the dialectical ‘action and reaction’ that has marked human society from pre-history.

Make no mistake, from General Ataturk, (four years after he kicked the bejasus out of the British ANZAC Dardanelles invasion) and the Young Turk movement, establishing modern, secular Turkey in 1919 out of the ruins of the Ottoman Empire, to the Baathist secular socialist message of Aflaq in Syria, to the great Colonel Nasser, and also to the comparatively long-lived Baathist-type regimes of Syria, Algeria and Iraq – all were genuine anti-imperialists, who achieved much for their societies.

Syria is ‘last man standing’ and the next immediate target for the imperialists and Zionists. Where it not for these regimes, the Palestinian cause would have been completely lost, and Lebanon would have been Balkanized. That is why they have incurred the enmity of the American-led West; it is simply a question of settling geopolitical accounts hiding behind the flag of ‘Human Rights’ – ‘Liberty’ – ‘Freedom’ and ‘democracy’.

But, as with charismatic systems, military ones, however progressive, have limitations, as there is ultimately no authority, institutional or popular, to which they are answerable. The reason it occurred in the Arab world was because the army was the only modern institution in society, equipped, not only with access to superior killing equipment, but with modern linguistic, cultural and political influences.

From Lenin’s support for Ataturk, against the imperialist 1919 Versailles carve-up of the Middle East, Communists have supported these progressive anti-imperialist struggles, while recognizing the limitations outlined above, and their often explicit anti-Communism. The fact is these regimes have faded and crumbled, under the pressure from growing Western economic and military post-1945 superiority.

They have, and are, being picked off one-by-one. Gaddafi is just the latest, demonstrating that these forces can no longer carry forward the struggle against imperialism – the dog has barked, but the caravan has moved on. In this century, only revolutionary Communism can successfully challenge imperialism, because it is the only polity and ideology that recognizes the primacy of the people and unleashes their historical potential.

Like Baathism, of which he is a Islamist mutation, the road ran out for Gaddafi; his desperate attempts to make peace with Western imperialists, get rid of his ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction,’ accept responsibility for Lockerbie, etc and avoid Saddam’s fate, have come to naught.

That’s the flexibility of the bourgeois democratic system – one day Tony Blair will come and hug you, another day one of his replacements will come and kill you (and your children – for good measure).

His Libya, like Saddam’s Iraq, was trashed and bombed, only the lies and the military modalities were different – against the former – to save the world from ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction” and latter – to save civilians from being massacred by a ‘evil regime’, in the hands of a certifiable ‘lunatic.’ The euphemism ‘humanitarian mission’ covers military aggression and invasion.

Both were lies based on the strategy of ‘Liberal Interventionism,’ another euphemism, propounded following the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, that abandoned the prohibition enacted in the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia ending the Thirty Years War in Europe against invading countries whose regimes you do not approve in order to replace them with more amenable ones.

The UN mandate to ‘protect civilians’ by enforcing a ‘no-fly zone’ did not sanction regime change, arming opposition forces, giving those forces close air support or assassinating the Head of State. NATO’s decisive intervention even exceeded the bounds of trans-national bourgeois jurisprudence with, among others, Gareth Evans, the co-chair of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty condemning the aggression, stating it was not allowed for under the explicit legal terms of the mandate.

This time also, America agreed the job be sub-let out to its junior partners-in-crime; principally Britain and France. The Secret Services of all NATO states were active in promoting the civil war, by arming and financially supporting a plethora of tribal, Islamic and comprador opposition groups who have they have shown themselves to be such an undisciplined, murderous Quisling rabble that they would not have succeeded without the sustained brutal NATO air assault.

Even so, we will see if Libyan patriots take Colonel Muhammar Gaddafi’s death as the end of hostilities? We will see if Gaddfiism has left any deep roots in Libyan society, or whether, like his ashes, it is blown away into the desert sands. He is probably the last effective member of a tough breed of nationalist Arab Bonapartist leaders who made history in the 20th century. The specific circumstances under which this genus flourished no longer apply, because imperialism is extinguishing its conditions of existence.

Successful Arab resistance, however, does continue, as Hamas and Hezbollah have shown, and while they are nominally Muslim organizations, albeit of Sunni and Shiite dispensations respectively, they are nonetheless closer to being genuine mass movements drawn from their peoples, and they are giving the Zionist/fascist US/Israeli expansionists a military run for their money.

WAR CRIMES FOR OIL

Like Iraq, this is about oil; it is about securing a crucial natural resource, which enables a decadent, gluttonous, wasteful consumer-capitalist, commodity-obsessed, Western society to continue dancing on the edge of a volcano at the expense of the rest of the World.

To a secondary extent, it is about the constant need, in an economy with a huge military-industrial complex, to test rapidly evolving military equipment on a real enemy – the more defenceless the better. War is continuous under imperialism, and the US leads the way as chief warmonger. Now it is even a great video game for the militarily-minded armchair warrior retard.

The French philosopher Baudrillard said of the 1990 attack on Iraq, it was: “a virtual reality war” designed for a society, with a popular culture saturated by violent imagery and corrupted by generations of imperial slavery, genocide and brutality against the peoples outside the ‘First-World’ heartlands, and with the technological capacity to participate and gloat in the death and suffering of peoples in far-away lands, without in any way suffering retribution, or even the threat of it. (Drones watching Drones?)

The German Communist playwright Brecht in ‘The Three Penny Opera,’ has a policeman and a criminal reminisce about the great times they had serving in the British Army on the Indian sub-continent:

(German)                          (Eng. trans.)
“und es begegnete,                “and when they met
Inhnen ‘ne neue Rasse             a new race
‘ne braune oder blasé,            a brown, or a white one
Dann machen sie vielleicht        They’d probably make
Daraus ihr Beefsteak Tartar       Mincemeat outta them.”

NATO’s war crime against the Libyan people, however dressed up in modern ‘PR-speak,’ is another blood-soaked imperial adventure, driven by greed and treachery, where the flags of the NATO aggressors against the Libyan people are better described as butchers’ aprons, and the so-called ‘liberators’ of Libya are no more than imperialist running dogs, (with the exception among anti-Gaddafi forces being the Jihadists who have their own anti-Western combined Anti-Arab secularist/heretic agenda.)

Finally, Gaddafi’s brutal termination shows again that the default position against Western gangster imperialism, however and wherever it is manifest, is People’s War. Between the international proletariat and the bourgeoisie there can be stalemate, realignment, defeat or victory– but never compromise or agreement.

1) I have not discussed the events in Libya in relation to its distinct Maghreb identity within the Arab nation, comprising the states across North Africa; Morocco, Algeria, Libya and Tunisia. Even here, Gaddaffi’s Islamic faith make him stand out among the leaders who emerged in the anti-colonial struggles of mid-century. Ben Barka, Ben Bella, Bourguiba &c. were all secular cosmopolitan civilian politicians. The best authority on this is the Marxist-Leninist political economist Samir Amin.

2) There is no reference on the Libyan civil war in relation to the ‘Arab Spring’, because I do not think there is homogeneity among the recent regional upsurges. In this light, I think the Libyan situation is uniquely important (even from its next-door neighbor, Tunisia), as it closes a chapter on an historical period of resistance to imperialist hegemony in the Middle East. Communists can draw precise lessons from it.

Uncle Semite

Repost from the old site.

Subtitle, “Not Your Father’s Anti-Semitism”.

Ok, this site is pretty funny. I don’t think it’s really anti-Semitic at all, but I’m not sure. The whole thing is pretty much tongue in cheek, and after a while I thought it was another one of those fake anti-Semitic sites those hilarious Jewish comedians are always putting up.

According to recent studies by the Anti-Defamation League, anti-Semitism is on the rise in Europe, Russia, and the United States. In Arab media, diatribes against Jews are increasingly overt and commonplace, “the elevator music for the Arab world.” Much of this anti-Semitic expression is characterized by shrill rhetoric and old prejudices, leaving little room for fresh dialog on the subject.Uncle Semite seeks to elevate the conversation, moving the rhetorical, knee-jerk anti-Semitism of the past towards a progressive, “green” anti-Semitism, relevant in our time.

We hope you enjoy your stay with us at uncle-semite.com.* If this site displays improperly, please install the latest version of Fire Foxman, Sephardi, or your favourite web browser. Until this site can be fitted with a proper Content Management System, brief postings will be made below.

That’s actually pretty damn funny right there. Haha! As far as the articles go, it’s mostly leftwing anti-Zionist or at least anti-Israel stuff, pretty much like this blog.

I did read Shitler’s List, and that was pretty damn funny too.

Shilter’s List is an archive of the 120,000 people who signed the petition to have Jew-Watch removed from Google’s search engine, because when folks typed in “Jew”, the first link they got was Jew-Watch, which is run by some sort of anti-Semite Holocaust Denier type with a German name. Creepy!

I don’t really like Jew-Watch, but it’s one of my brother’s favorite sites. He never had anything against Jews until he sued the local cops for tasering him with stun guns just to torture someone for fun. The lawyer was some Jewish guy. Well, my brother found out and told my grandpa, who, bless his departed heart, was also an anti-Black racist and mild anti-Semite, but that’s what happens when you are born White in St. Louis in 1890 or so.

My grandpa made some cryptic comment about Jewish lawyers that meant Jewish lawyers were crooks, but I thought it meant they were the best to get you off the hook. Well, my brother repeated the comment and the lawyer went nuts, wanted to know all about our grandpa, wanted to know what kind of name my brother’s last name is (his last name is German, but he has a different last name than I do).

When he found out my brother had a German last name, he went totally psycho. My brother was just trying to apologize. Well, after that day, if you know Jews, things were never the same. My brother was an anti-Semite from an anti-Semitic German family. The lawyer quit trying to get a good deal and just sold out for peanuts and moved down to Mexico to retire. Plus, he sold out via a sweetheart deal with a Jewish judge.

Then my brother started developing some anti-Semitism and read all up on da Jews. Result is my brother is a good guy, and he’s brilliant, but he’s a bit of an anti-Semite, and it’s all cuz of some stupid Jewish lawyer with a persecution complex.

Anyway, if you go through Shitler’s List, it serves sort of like a WhoozaJew software program, because it is chock full of Jews! This is unfortunately important to know, as it’s important to try to figure out why some public figures act like they do and why some writers write what they do.

Jews are sneaky and tricky and use fancy hairstyles to cover up the horns on their head. They deviously change their names and take Gentile names, but almost never Christian or Christina.

Run the WhoozaJew program and uncover any suspicious dark-haired person’s deepest tribal connections.

I usually just go to Google and type “last name” + Jewish and try to go from there.

Keep in mind that a lot of Jewish names are also German names. As the Germans say, there’s a little bit of Jew in every German, which makes the Holocaust all the more poignant really, as it makes it seems suicidal.

Zionism Rots the Brain

Repost from the old site.

Once more, via my friend Joachim Martillo, another article, Zionism Rots the Brain. Martillo is a Jewish convert to Islam who lives in Boston. He is active in the Palestine Solidarity Movement. While somewhat monomaniacal, I find him worth reading because of his delectable prose style and the fact that he is one of the smartest guys I know. Zionists should be honored with such worthy and weighty opponents.

This article deals with a couple of things. First of all, some recent comments by actor Will Smith, which the US Jewish community has gone nuts over, calling them “pro-Hitler”. Whether they are or not depends on Smith’s state of mind.

I suspect that he had no anti-Semitic intentions in making that comment, which was: “I think he woke up in the morning and, using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was ‘good.’” That’s probably a correct analysis. Most modern leaders actually wish to do good and not evil.

The open desire on the part of prominent human beings to do evil is part of a Devil Worship Cult that became popular via Aleister Crowley in the early 1900′s. This gave rise to post-modernist artists such as William Burroughs (one of my favorite authors) who wallowed in the lowest perversities that man is capable of. The statement is a modification of a previous Western avant-garde artistic statement.

The prior statement was a rebuke of the Christian notion that man is elevated morally above the lower animals. These artists constructed a vision in which man’s behavior was just as low as any lowly and lower animal, an artistic vision that repelled conservatives and outraged extreme rightists like fascists who found it coarse, devolved and debased.

Much later in the 20th Century ( Naked Lunch – highly recommended – was published in 1959) the Western avant-garde took it one step further and began to portray man as not only as low as lower animals, but in fact lower than any lower animal! This is a profound statement about mankind and conservatives are still reeling from that one.

Anyway, from this corrupt modernist artistic vision has derived a cult that has taken pride in “being evil”, worshipping Satan, and whatnot. The point here is that this is basically a modern phenomenon in the civilized world. Especially among world leaders, those who have deliberately sought to do evil are probably few.

Analysis of the Nazi worldview is difficult, and many did reject Christianity and dabble in Occultist arcana, but still I doubt that Nazism was objectively some sort of devil-worshipping cult that sought to do evil. Instead and as usual, they saw themselves as good guys fighting evil Jews, Gypsies and Communists.

Aryan and White was good and glorious and Non-White, Jewish and Communist were dark and wicked and needed to be destroyed to bring about the Master Race World. So, yes, I suppose Hitler did think he was doing a good thing – getting rid of the worst evils on Earth – Communism and Jews – in a dual blow.

But lots of wicked people fashion themselves psychodefensively as good persons fighting evil, and not the admittedly perverse vice versa. So, as such, Smith’s comments are not obviously anti-Semitic and Jews are overreacting as usual. But maybe we can hardly blame them?

A good post along the lines discussed here from the interesting Overcoming Bias blog is Are Your Enemies Innately Evil ?

Martillo also discusses how the German Jewish community attacked a very sensible Jewish intellectual named Tony Judt, who has written on junking Zionism and setting up some sort of single state project in Israel – Palestine.

He was granted the Hannah Arendt Award in Bremen, Germany by Hannah Arendt Prize Committee, the Heinrich Böll Institute and the Bremen Senate, probably for his prose. The Arendt prize was particularly appropriate as the great Hannah Arendt was a non-Zionist or possibly even an anti-Zionist.

Just another case of Jews policing their own to get them into line. Kevin MacDonald discusses the brutal and very effective Jewish technique in dealing with “treasonous” dissidents in his Understanding Jewish Influence II: Zionism and the Internal Dynamics of Judaism Here is Part I and Part III. Highly recommended!

On December 22, 2007, actor Will Smith made the perfectly reasonable statement about Hitler, “I think he woke up in the morning and, using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was ‘good.’”

Throughout the media and blogosphere reports turned the statement into something of the order “Will Smith believes Hitler was basically a good person,” and Jewish groups demanded apologies.

ADL national director Abraham Foxman summarized the situation, “Unfortunately, in citing Hitler in what appears to be a positive context, Smith stirred up a hornet’s nest on the Internet, where hate groups and anti-Semites latched on to the remark and praised it.”

What positive context?

This stupidity of this controversy topped the recent nonsense in Bremen.

According to Lob und Tadel by Frank König in Jüdische Zeitung, Dezember 2007 (Martillo’s English translation of the German, amended by me, starts, followed by the original German text):

Judt, the Hannah Arendt Prize Committee, the Heinrich Böll Institute and the Bremen Senate were sharply criticized in an “open letter” from the Executive Committee of the Jewish Committee of Bremen. Because Judt injected an outspoken “anti-Israel” tendency in his essays in the last year, according to the Executive Committee, the Committee opposes the prize conferred on Judt by the three entities listed above.

In particular, an article that Judt published in 2003 in the New York Review of Books, as well as Judt’s later opinions, are “intolerable” for the Jewish Community of Bremen. Judt accuses Israel of propagating a form of state-nationalism, that makes it impossible to bring about a rational solution in the Middle East conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

Judt argues for a one-state and binational solution to the conflict. In making this stance, said the Committee in its “open letter”, Judt acts on behalf of “the official Palestinian, propaganda view of the history, while throwing in some invented and twisted facts as well as some anti-Israel vocabulary”.

Kritisiert werden Judt, die Hannah-Arendt-Preis-Jury, die Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung sowie der Bremer Senat besonders scharf in einem «offenen Brief» vom Präsidium der Jüdischen Gemeinde Bremen. Dass Judt in Aufsätzen der letzten Jahre eine ausgesprochen «antisraelische Haltung» lanciere, spreche nach Auffassung besagten Präsidiums keinesfalls dafür, einen solchen Preis zu erhalten.

Speziell ein Aufsatz, den Judt 2003 in der «New York Review of Books» publiziert hatte, sowie eine Auffassung Judts seien für die Jüdische Gemeinde Bremen «unerträglich». Judt werfe Israel vor, eine Art von staatlichem Nationalismus zu propagieren, der überhaupt nicht angemessen sei, um eine sinnvolle Lösung im Nahost-Konflikt zwischen Israelis und Palästinensern herbeizuführen.

Judt spricht sich für eine einstaatliche und binationale Lösung dieses Konflikts aus. Damit vertrete Judt «die offizielle palästinensische, propagandistische Sicht auf die Geschichte, samt der erfundenen und verdrehten Fakten sowie des antiisraelischen Vokabulars», wie es in dem «offenen Brief» heißt.

In other words the Bremen Jewish community attacked Judt just the way the American Jewish community attacked Arendt – for skepticism about Zionism and for proposing a one-state federated solution to the Middle East conflict. Finding a more appropriate recipient for the Hannah Arendt Prize would have been difficult.

I used to think the sort of Jewish behavior that characterized the Smith and Judt insanity resulted from Zionist/Holocaust brain-rot in combination with the arrogant belief that Jews are the moral arbitrators of everything, but the irrationalization of all discussion of Hitler, the Holocaust, Zionism and the State of Israel effectively prevents sensible debate over US and EU foreign policy in the Middle East.

I have even found evidence of the coordination between the Boston Jewish community and the German Jewish community over the last three years in ongoing projects to attack deviations from Zionist and Holocaust orthodoxy.

Aztlan and Zionism: Dueling Idiocies

Repost from the old site.

In this post, we will take a look at two nationalisms, Zionism, the movement to (re)create the ancient Jewish homeland in Palestine, and Aztlan, the Mexican and Chicano movement that says that part of the Western US is actually part of Mexico, and more importantly, was the homeland of the Aztec people.

As with most forms of ultra-nationalism, both movements are exercises in lying and nonsense. And both are similar in other ways, too.

Both propose that, because the area in question (Western US, Palestine) was the ancient homeland of the people some 2,000-5,000 years ago, that they have a right to move en mass into the region and even to annex it or possibly make their state there (the Aztlan movement is divided on whether Aztlan should be annexed to Mexico or whether it should be its own state).

Both are based on some highly questionable claims of ownership. There is serious question whether or not Aztlan (an area covering part of the Western US – map here) is actually the ancient homeland of the Aztecs, as this article claims, supposedly with authoritative sources.

Let us examine the article, by Patrisia Gonzales and Roberto Rodriguez, a writing team that somehow got UPI to syndicate their ultra-radical Chicano nationalist nonsense for many years.

The authors found a map in the National Archives in Washington from 1847 with a notation near the Four Corners Area in the US referring to The Ancient Homeland of the Aztecs.

This scribbling on a map somewhere by God knows who purportedly “proves incontrovertibly” that all Mexicans and all Central Americans have a right to move to the USA tomorrow, because the US Four Corners is their “ancient homeland”.

The authors also note a tradition of the US Pueblo, Hopi, and Lakota (!?) Indian tribes that Nahuatl speakers were their former relatives. There are major problems with this. How would these tribes describe these “Nahuatl” speaking people, since back then, there is no way that they called their language or themselves by that name?

Since they called themselves and their language something else, how did these tribes know that they were “Nahuatl”-speakers? And why the Lakota? They are located far from this fake homeland, way up in South Dakota.

Further, as one who worked with an Indian tribe on a government grant doing linguistic and anthropological field work, I assure you that Indian legends and oral history need to be taken with a gigantic grain of salt, to say the least!

The authors quote Cecelio Orozco, an education professor at my alma mater, California State University Fresno as saying this lines up with his research also putting the Aztec homeland in southern Utah. Professor Orozco has published two books of apparent pseudoarcheology on this subject.

Here is how Orozco discovered this homeland (try not to laugh when reading this):

Orozco said he came upon the site through a process called “archeo-astronomy.” He saw a photograph of four rivers in Utah in 1980, and based on previous research, recognized a mathematical formula in the photo that led him to believe that this was the place of origin of the Mexicas’ ancestors. Subsequent trips and research has confirmed his thesis… 

After reading this fascinating article on archaeoastronomy, I still do not see how that science relates to a photograph of four rivers in Utah. Does anyone have any idea how a photograph of four rivers anywhere on Earth contains some hidden mathematical formula?

He also found a painting on a wall in Utah from 500 BC that he says he claims corresponds to the the codec containing the Aztec calendar. Those of us familiar with the field realize that finds all over the world look like other finds, or resemble other peoples, or bear this or that passing resemblance to whatever. None of that usually proves anything; much more work needs to be done.

According to the article, because Aztecs have a homeland in Utah dating back 2500 BC, Mexicans and Central Americans are no longer foreigners or aliens or even immigrants in the US, but they are simply in their homeland.

By that lunatic thinking, all White Americans get emigrate back to Europe and live there, since that was our homeland at some point in the past. The Europeans have no right to stop us, and we can even call it Euroamland or whatever and carve out our own damn country out of several European countries, make English the official language and even sideline the several non-English European tongues spoken there.

Then we can demand to be united with the US across the sea or just up and make our own country, dissolving several European countries in the process.

It is this sort of nonsense that makes me wonder just how smart your average Mexican Reconquista type really is. On reflection, they are obviously bright people, it is just that ultranationalism, or even often just nationalism, damages people’s brains and makes them incapable of rational thought. It does this across the board to any ethnic group – there is no reason to single out Mexicans or Chicanos.

Let us examine some of the other insane suppositions of the Aztlan crowd. We have already delved into this a bit on this on an earlier post.

First of all, the Aztecs (Mexicas) had only taken over the Mexico City area about 200 years previous to the Spanish Conquest. The empire reached its peak only about 40 years before Cortes landed. Further, the Mexicas only lived in the area around Mexico City! That’s it. All of the rest of Mexico was not Mexica territory and the tribes (even those colonized by Mexicas) who lived there cannot be said to be Mexicas!

As an analogy, let us consider the Roman Empire. Its headquarters were in Rome. The rest of the empire were just colonies, conquered areas paying tribute to Rome. Can we say that everyone in the Roman Empire was a “Roman” or an “Italian”? By the same logic, do those residing in Rome today have a right to claim all of the former Roman Empire as their land?

This is what would happen if we applied “Aztlan”-logic to that situation. Do you see how stupid this Aztlan nonsense-lie is? The Aztecs did conquer quite a bit of land in the center of Mexico (map here), killing lots of folks and enslaving others.

As noted below, the homeland of the Nahua, according to prominent Mexican archaeologist Eduardo Matos Moctezuma was probably somewhere around Guanajuato, Jalisco, and Michoacán* . From this area, 2,000 years ago, various waves of Nahua speakers radiated out through Mexico and even Central America. This is why we have 28 living Aztec (or Nahuatl) languages today.

By the way, Wikipedia is wrong that these languages are almost dead. Most are quite vigorously used, and there are 1.5 million speakers of all Nahuatl languages.

27 of these 28 tribes are not, and were not, Mexicas, anymore than everyone speaking a Romance language today is a “Roman”. Follow?

A somewhat more rational take on the Aztlan lie can be found on the Reconquista site here. Apparently real anthropologists put the Aztec homeland somewhere around Nayarit on the west coast of Mexico. That’s a lot more reasonable, but it’s probably not true either. This comes from Mexican anthropologist Alfredo Chavero’s theory in 1887. Moctezuma’s locale is probably better.

The piece also argues that since Nahuatl is an Uto-Aztecan language and many Uto-Aztecans either lived in or traveled through “Aztlan”, that there is something to the Aztlan notion in that sense. Fair enough.

In fact, the homeland of the Uto-Aztecans in my opinion is in southern Arizona or northern Mexico. But all Native Americans traveled through Siberia on their way to the Americas. Does everyone with Indian blood in the Americas get to go back to Russia and take over the place because their ancestors strolled through it sometime in the past 20,000 years?

Looking at the linguistic contacts of pre-Nahuatl would be a good way of trying to find an Aztec homeland. We can see that they had contacts with languages spoken around Veracruz, on the east coast of Mexico. As you can see, the situation is complicated.

The authors in the first article make an even more ludicrous point. First, as usual, they conflate the “Aztecs” a single tribe called the Mexica, amongst Mexico’s over 200 tribes, that only lived around Mexico City, with all Mexicans.

According to idiot Chicano nationalists, all Mexicans with Indian blood are Mexica or part Mexica! That’s nuts. As noted, there were tribes all over the land, and the Mexica were only one of 200 or so. It’s as if one said that every Italian comes from Rome.

Next, they say that all of the tribes related to the Mexicas were “Mexicas” because they spoke Nahuatl languages. They certainly were not! It’s nonsense. Are all speakers of Indo-European languages the one and same group because they all came out the Indo-European homeland in Southern Ukraine 8,000 years ago?

Even worse, these fools claim that all Central Americans were Aztecs and get to go invade the USA because it’s home sweet home.

Ridiculous. There is only one tribe, the Pipil in El Salvador, that still speaks a Nahuatl language, and there are only 20 speakers left. There were a few other Nahuatl languages in Honduras, Panama and Guatemala, but these are long since extinct. They were not “Aztecs” anymore than English-speakers in the US are “Germans”.

However, the Pipil did come from the area around Mexico City around 1000 years ago; they were related to Olmecs, but also to the Nahuatl. In general, they were an Olmec grouping. Anyway, at that time, there were no such thing as Mexicas or Aztecs – that group came later. Another group of Pipil had come to Central America 5000 years ago and came under the influence of the Maya.

This is around the time when Proto-Uto-Aztecan itself was born in the southwest US. Both of these groups, by 1000 AD, became the Pipil, who came under even more Maya influence.

The Pipil are almost extinct culturally and linguistically today, an end result of the Matanza, when 10,000-30,000 Indians were slaughtered in only a few weeks in El Salvador in 1932, while US warships patrolled off the coast in case the victims of the genocide tried to fight back.

After that, most Salvadoran Indians took off their Indian clothes and quit speaking Indian languages, especially since Pipil was outlawed. They also intermarried heavily with non-Indians, so that to this day, only 1% of El Salvador’s population are Indians. The area of the Matanza became one of the most conservative, pro-government parts of El Salvador, little effected by the Civil War from 1980-1993.

The leader of the rebellion that set off the Matanza was Farabundo Marti, head of the Salvadoran Communist Party. The rebels that fought in the Civil War later on took their name, Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front, from him.

The cult surrounding Zionism is much the same as the Aztlan nonsense. True, Jews ruled the area long ago, but only for a brief time, similar to the Aztecs. Further, similar conflations are made about the Judean Empire and the Aztlan Empire, Judean language and religion and actual Jews and Jewish religion and the relevance of ancient Judean religion to the Jewish religion today.

Also similar is the outrageous notion that some group has a right to go back to its ancient homeland of 2000-5000 years ago, settle there at will, and even make a state there. Some of the radical Atzlanistas, similar to Zionists, also suggest throwing out the natives (in the case of the Aztlanistas the Whites, who came starting 400 years ago) since they are “invaders squatting on the true homeland”.

In this same nonsensical way, Zionists project their own invasion of Palestine and squatting on Palestinian land off onto the victim. The Arabs, who came 1450 years ago, are the “invaders”, who have been squatting on “Jewish land” since then. Never mind that the Jews left 2000 years ago. They owned Palestine in their hearts in the intervening 1900 years, and Zionism claims that that trumps a property deed!

Zionism’s proponents are Jews, the smartest folks on Earth, who ought to know better. But ultra-nationalism can easily make a fool of the finest man.

See Joachim Martillo’s site, Ethnic Ashkenazim Against Zionist Israel, for more. In particular, his superb Issues and Questions In the Historiography of Pre-State Zionism (90 pp.!), is a piece which deserves much wider reading. Martillo has some tendency towards fanaticism (but this also drives him to produce), can be an ideologue, and is sometimes guilty of trying to make facts fit theory as opposed to otherwise.

However, these (especially making the facts fit theory) are chronic problems with most all social scientists, as Kevin MacDonald has observed.

At the least, the brilliant Martillo should be more widely read, if only to subject his interesting theories to the critical light of peer review to separate wheat from chaff. And the 90 page link above is just sublime, in particular in the way that it takes apart the primordial nonsense of Zionism in the same way we attacked the similar primordialism of the Atzlanistas in this post.

*Eduardo Matos Moctezuma, The Great Temple of the Aztecs: Treasures of Tenochtitlan, New York: Thames and Hudson, 1988) 38.

The Position of the Left on Western Culture, Whites, Judeo-Christianity and Islam

A little debate here. The first quote is me defending secularism, the second one is Abiezer Coppe defending the Western Left against my charges. I reiterate after the blockquote with evidence from around the world.

It is sickening the way that the Left is sucking up to Islam. Stop it right now! It’s all because Muslims are fighting European Judeo-Christian “colonizer-imperialist” types in Israel and now in Iraq, Afghanistan and even in Europe. To the Left, European Judeo-Christian civilization is evil, and hence so are all Whites. Jews are considered White. We are all racist colonizer/imperialist slavers.

The dark Muslim noble savages are fighting evil White Euros, and the Left cheers.

The Left hates:

1. Euro Whites
2. Euro Christians
3. Euro Jews
4. The West

The dark Third Worldist oppressed darkies are fighting a holy war against all four, the West can’t get enough of it. I’m not sure if the Zionists ever mention this, but I think they are right. The Left even dislikes the Jews because now they are the ultimate expression of the White Judeo-Christian Western Euro colonizer.

No Robert, stop spreading lies about the Left. The Left aren’t that racial. You’re just spouting.

A sane Left will support Christian values as highly progressive. See Slavoj Zizek on Christianity.

Support for Islamism. The Maoists and Trots do it, and that’s about it. It’s third Worldist Idiotism…if you convert to Islam YOU CANNOT LEAVE. The penalty for leaving the Islamic religion in Pakistan is six months in prison, according to a commentator on Radio 4. Is this true?

Of course it is true. That’s if they don’t kill you.

I am talking about the Western Left.

The real existing Left, the one that matters, is not anti-West or anti-Christian.

The Latin American Left is pro-West and pro-Christian. Many of them are Christians. Even the leadership of Sendero Luminoso were Christians, including Abimael Guzman, who is still a Catholic! The Filipino Left is pro-West and pro-Christian.

This is the Liberation Theology Left, and I love it. Jesus was a Commie! In those countries, priests pray alongside the rebels and in some cases even serve in rebel armies. The Sandinistas had priests in their cabinet. Hugo Chavez is very much a Liberation Theologian; this is the best way to describe him. There is a lot of good theory coming out of Cuba nowadays since believers can join the party. They are calling themselves Christian Marxists. Even Fidel says Christianity is compatible with socialism and Communism.

The Indian and Nepalese Maoists don’t mind the West or Christianity. If there is a beef with anything, it’s Hinduism.

The real existing Left in all Muslim states is not too wild about Islam! The Left in the rest of the world cares nothing at all about Western culture or Christianity.

This anti-West, anti-European, anti-Judeo-Christian, anti-White shit is mostly just rebellion on the part of Western Leftists against their own eeeeeeevil religions and cultures.

Maoists in general are not too wild about Islam. The Iranian and Afghan Maoists are some of the most Islam-hostile groups in the Islamic world. They’ve basically had it up to here with Islam.

The Filipino Left has made alliance with Muslim separatists on a strategic basis and gets along with them well. The Indian Maoists support separatists in Kashmir.

Trots are always pro-Islam anymore, but they are irrelevant outside the West, which means they are irrelevant in the Real World.

Transcript of My Latest Interview July 7, 2010

Interview July 7, 2010 with Reason Radio Network. The comments at the end of the post are hostile, but the site’s audience and hosts tend to be some mixture of paleoconservatives, White nationalists and anti-Semites. That’s not exactly where I am coming from, but I will interview with anyone, and most of the Left won’t touch me with a 10-foot pole.

I’ve been looking over your blog, and we talked about these labels as in Left versus Right, and I know you were describing yourself as a liberal, but you’ve been getting people describing you as a Third Positionist. The 3rd Positionist movement is a nationalist movement, but it’s not necessarily ethnonationalism – it could just be putting your country first. But they reject both Communism and capitalism, but they could sometimes incorporate some Marxist ideas. What is your take on being described as a 3rd Positionist?

I don’t know, I’m totally confused about 3rd Positionism – I don’t really know what it is, I don’t know what they want. They’re Euros, but the 3rd Positionists of the past were fascists and Nazis. But clearly they are pretty sui generis, and they are hard to pigeonhole and understand.

It’s a difficult movement to define. They don’t have a figure like the Marxists have Karl Marx and the capitalists have Adam Smith. I know that the 3rd Positionists have been smeared by being described as fascists.

It isn’t necessarily fascism, but it is true that when the fascists came to power, they said that they were nationalists, and that they were against the Communists and the capitalists. But you could be a 3rd Positionist and you could be a civil libertarian or you could be very authoritarian. Even among 3rd Positionists, there are a lot of different nuances within the ideology.

3rd Positionism is about as hard to pin down as fascism. Fascism is hard to pin down too. The fascists said that they were against both capitalism and Communism, but they just said that to get people to go along with them. It’s always been a rightwing movement. It’s never been anti-capitalist. The Nazis had the Night of the Long Knives, and they killed all of the socialist and anti-capitalist Nazis. There was a Nazi guy who was a big 3rd Positionist hero, but I can’t remember his name (Note: Gregor Strasser).

Is it Godfrey Feder?

No.

He was their economist.

No, see, when Hitler first started out in 1921, they drafted this Set Of Principles, and they called themselves National Socialists, and they had a pretty socialist, anti-capitalist economic project. And they got a lot of support. There were people on the Left who were even going Nazi, and there people who were going back and forth between the Nazis and the Communists in the 1920’s during all of that turbulence.

And in the early 1930’s, the Nazis were getting funded by major German industrialists. They were getting funded by the corporations. This is what almost nobody knows. The German corporations were behind the Nazis all the way. That’s where they got their money.

But there were bankers funding Bolshevism too. Like Jacob Schiff helped finance the Bolshevik Revolution. So there definitely were industrialists financing both sides. But I think they just want to make a profit. War is one of the most profitable things.

Why would a banker finance Communism? The international bankers generally did not finance Communism. That’s simply not true. There’s no money in it for them! Communism is the biggest money loser in the whole world for capitalists.

But the government still needs to borrow money whether it’s Communist or capitalist. The other thing is that when the Czar was in power, he was more of an economic nationalist and he did not want to do business with these bankers, so the bankers did have some incentives for financing Bolshevism.

Those Jews like Schiff, they did not make any money at all off of Russia going Communist. It was a gigantic money loser. The whole thing with Schiff was all about Jewish ethnic politics.

Yes, because the Czar was anti-Jewish, so it was more an ethnic thing than an economic thing.

Believe me, that’s all it was – revenge on the Russians. And a lot of the Communists were Jews. It was just let’s get rid of these anti-Semites and put some pro-Jews in power. Schiff was not acting in his class interests by doing that. This whole idea of bankers funding Communism, well, hey, I’m kind of a Commie myself. I mean, I wish they would give us some money!

There weren’t any Gentile capitalists who financed Communism.

Why would they? There are a few rich people who are Communists, but that’s rare. If you study Marxism, then you understand class, and so many things that people do are based on their class interests. People have class interests. Why would a rich capitalist finance Communism? Why would I buy someone the guillotine that’s going to chop my head off? It’s totally operating against your class interests. There’s no point to it unless you’ve got some kind of ulterior motive.

They have an ulterior motive unless they are already in power. But there’s socialism in different forms. There is socialism that is directed against the rich and also it’s possible that the elites are using a form of socialism to keep down the middle class. That’s not true Marxism, but it’s selected socialism to target a different class.

I don’t agree with that sort of rightwing populism. That’s just crazy. The elites hate socialism period. But there are some elites who go against their class interests and ally with the poor because, well, maybe they grew up poor or maybe they’re just nice people. But they are basically supporting a project that is going to cut their income.

And why would they do that? I mean a few of them will, just because they’re good people or they are self-sacrificing. But in general, the rich pursue their class interests, which is to retain their wealth or increase it. And they certainly do not support projects that are going to decrease their wealth.

You don’t think that rich liberals have ulterior motives?

Rich liberals are just nice people. They’re just nice people who feel guilty, and they’re willing to give up their money and share it with others, and that’s all there is to it. They’re self-sacrificing people. They have no ulterior motives or any of that. The notion that they do is rightwing populism. It’s crazy.

But 3rd Positionism ties in with populism. You’ve heard of that label producerism is the idea, not so much Right or Left, that the middle class is being exploited on both ends by both big government and by big business, especially the banking elite.

Well…The middle class typically is exploited by the rich under capitalism. Studies have proven that under neoliberalism, which is radical capitalism, the bottom 80% of the population loses money, and the top 20% gains money. So historically the only middle classes that benefit from hardcore neoliberalism are the upper middle class. And the upper middle class typically aligns with the rich and the capitalists, the corporations.

A lot of the middle class people align with the rich, the capitalists and the corporations too, but they are not really acting in their class interests when they do that. The middle class does not understand their class interests. They want to be rich. They typically align with the rich. But it often doesn’t make much sense for them to do that.

But you said that the Left doesn’t really represent the middle class either mainly because the Left is for Open Borders. You wrote a recent article where you said both the Democrats and the Republicans, the Left and the Right, is one big Corporate Party.

In the US, that’s true because the Democratic Party isn’t really a Left party anymore. It’s sort of a rightwing party instead, and it’s all just corporate politics. They just represent the corporations, the rich and the upper middle class. The Democrats are sort of for the middle class to a greater extent than the Republicans are, but I don’t think either party is for the poor or low income people anymore. Supporting them is considered to be a total loser.

The Democrats used to be for the poor, the low income and the workers, but supposedly, that’s why they were losing elections, and that’s why they went to the DNC model. The corporate Democrats decided that this is the way to win elections – be pro-corporate, get the corporate money, beat the Republicans at their game. That’s the DNC – the Democratic National Committee, and that’s where they’re all coming out of now. Even Obama, he’s a DNC guy.

I noticed that you commented on the new American 3rd Position Party. We were discussing on our show about the pros and cons of explicit racial activism, but you mentioned on your site that the A3P is probably one of the most pro-worker and anti-corporate parties in the US.

I think that what’s interesting about that is it’s showing you that these labels about the Left and the Right don’t make a lot of sense because a lot of people might hear about the A3P and they might think of it as a rightwing party, but you were saying that you looked over their platform, and you agree with a lot of what they have to say.

Well…it’s just a sad statement on the state of affairs of the Western Left. It exemplifies the total failure of the Western Left to support the workers, especially White workers, or just workers period, the low income, the working class, the poor. Especially the Whites.

They are opposed to all of these people, and the Western Left pushes anti-White politics. They are pro-non-White. They’re pro-Hispanic, they’re pro-Black, and they’re anti-White. And when they are pushing mass immigration, that’s just a spear into the heart of the White worker…the low income, the poor and the working class Whites, who are my people…those are my people. It’s just a sad comment when these rightwingers, who are almost fascists…when the fascists are the only people who are standing up for workers anymore.

Hold on now, when you make a statement referring to them as fascists. Now you’re entitled to your opinion, but if you look at the platform, they say they’re for Constitutionalism. What specifically about the platform is fascist?

Well…I think they said something about encouraging non-White immigrants to go back to their countries. “We’ll even give them money to go home.” But there’s nothing much in there that’s specifically fascist. It’s a very moderated program. Yet they are calling themselves 3rd Positionists, and 3rd Positionist is fascist…And the A3P is explicitly pro-White in the US.

The leaders of the party are White Nationalists. Kevin MacDonald is a White Nationalist who is sympathetic to fascism and Nazism. The leader of the party (Note: William D. Johnson) is an explicit White Nationalist who called for throwing all non-Whites out of the country 20-30 years ago (Note: Book penned in 1985 under the pseudonym of James O. Pace). That’s where these people are coming from.

Those are their leaders – they are coming out of the White Supremacist movement, the White Nationalist movement, which is a pro-fascist movement in the United States. And that’s how they totally failed, because, in being pro-fascist, they have blown off the entire White racist, White supremacist – especially Southern White Supremacist – segment in the United States.

Most White racists and White Supremacists in the US of the old White Supremacist types – they hate fascism, they hate Nazism. They fought in WW2. The Southerners fought in WW2. They were slaughtered in WW2 by the Nazis.

Southerners are pro-British. Their roots are in the UK. Hitler attacked the UK. The pro-White movement in the US – the White nationalists, the White supremacists – they’re pro-Nazi, they’re pro-fascist! That is the biggest loser project! I know White people. Most White people want nothing to do with fascism or Nazism. Why does pro-White politics have to be fascist and Nazi? That’s no good. These people are losers. That’s the biggest failure in White politics right there.

The Left likes to link the Southern nationalist types with Nazism but most people don’t know this but along with Jews…White Southerners and Jews were the most gung-ho groups about fighting WW2.

My mother was present in that era and I asked her, “Well, those Southerners were racists. Wasn’t Hitler’s seen as a pro-White regime?” and she said, “Oh no! I lived during that era and everybody hated the Nazis.” There were more pro-Nazis in Pennsylvania than there were in the entire South! The only Americans who were pro-Nazi were ethnic Germans, and then after Pearl Harbor, they basically just disappeared or went underground or shut up. The Nazis had zero support in the South.

The Southern White Supremacists liked democracy. My Mom said that Americans hated the fascists because they were a dictatorship…and they were persecuting Jews. And Southerners didn’t really care anything about Jews back then. Who cares about Jews?

And the Nazis were not seen as pro-White at all. I mean every White person was pro-White back then. Why would you line up with Nazis? And the people that the Nazis were fighting were pro-White. France was pro-White. The UK was pro-White. Denmark, everyone in Europe was pro-White back in those days.

So being pro-White was the norm, but what happened was the Establishment took it up, and they tried to link being pro-White with being with Hitler. But it’s a psychological thing, because if your enemy is telling you that if you’re pro-White, you’re like Hitler, psychologically, you’re going to think, “Well, maybe Hitler wasn’t such a bad guy, and maybe I should be pro-Hitler.” Would you say that that’s the roots of it?

Well…I’m not sure, I don’t know why the pro-White movement has gotten into Nazis and fascists and all that, because I think that’s the biggest mistake they ever made. For instance, there are probably still a lot of White racists down in the South, but I don’t imagine that most of those people like Nazis or fascists.

I think it’s one faction of the White Nationalist movement that might be Nazi. But it’s a problem that it might be guilt by association because in the White Nationalist community, they are going to network together, and if one person is their friend…if they have a political associate who might say something pro-Hitler, it’s going to rub off. So you’re saying that that’s one of the biggest barriers, because groups like the ADL along with the media – they’re going to try to link anything that’s remotely pro-White with Nazism and fascism.

Well…that’s simply not true. The old White Supremacists in the South, the neo-Confederates, and there are still many, many, many Southerners who believe in this stuff, and there are even White racists all over the country who subscribe to that, and they don’t want anything to do with Nazism, and they don’t even like fascism either. So the White movement is simply insane. Why have they taken up Nazism and fascism? I don’t know.

But for 20 years after WW2, White Supremacism and White racism was going gung-ho all through 40’s, the 50’s and into the early 60’s the Civil Rights Movement. They weren’t waving Nazi flags or supporting fascism. They were pro-democracy, pro-American, pro-European, and they hated Nazis and fascists.

If you look at the A3P, they are pro-democracy and pro-Constitution, so I don’t want to smear that party because I agree with what they are doing, but you do make a legitimate point that through guilt by association…maybe someone is affiliated with someone who may have those views, but the party itself, the platform and agenda put out by the party, is a Constitutionalist party that’s for democracy and individual rights.

Yes, the A3P could hardly be called a fascist party. There’s not a whole lot of fascism around anymore. Even the European Right, the Hard Right in Europe, they’re not all that classically fascist anymore – the BNP, the British National Party – is not all that fascist, they’re democrats last time I checked. They support civil liberties. The old fascism of the 20’s, 30’s and 40’s – it isn’t really coming back.

You see, fascism mutates. Pinning down fascism is like pinning down a blob of mercury. Fascism is like a chameleon. It changes colors, it changes shapes, it can be anything. It will take on the forms of other things. Who’s that guy who wrote Babbitt? Sinclair Lewis?

He said that fascism, if it comes to the US, will be wrapped in a cross and an American flag.

Exactly. Fascism takes on whatever forms it needs to take on to get in. It’s this very weird movement that’s very, very difficult to study, to define. They’ve been studying it since the 1920’s, and there’s some really good literature coming out in recent years – a lot of it can be found on a blog called Orcinus. There are some excellent pieces there that talk about something called “pseudo-fascism.”

Some of the top research right now on fascism is coming out of Political Science departments. They are trying to exactly figure out…what it is! Because…nobody…really knows…what fascism is! And the fascists are experts are concealing their motives, at lying, at not calling themselves fascists, at calling themselves anti-fascists.

You talked about Sinclair Lewis, well, Huey Long, who was a popular political figure in the US in the 1930’s, he said that fascism will return to the US, but perhaps under the title of anti-fascism.

That’s what they do. I’ve seen fascists on the Net, and they called their enemies fascists! It’s really weird and confusing. If you hang around Usenet sites that have a lot of fascists, after a while, your mind starts spinning around, and you start wondering if you are a fascist yourself. And they try to convert you to their movement.

They are like these shape-shifting forms that change into these other things and say all this contradictory stuff, and they’re just all over the place. They’re sneaky, and they’re tricksters, and mainly they confuse you. They confuse people, and that’s how they get people to support their project because often people don’t really know what they are supporting. They’re not up front about their aims – that’s another aspect of fascism. It’s basically a popular movement against the Left.

And populism can be a good thing, but fascism, it is an ultra-authoritarian movement. So I don’t think that being a racist automatically makes you a fascist. Even if you are a White Supremacist, one aspect of fascism that is essential to it is a reliance on a totalitarian form of government.

Well…certainly that is true, and all of those old-style racists in the US, and especially in the South, they’re anti-fascists! They hate fascism, they hate Nazism, and this crazy pro-White movement has blown all these people off by cheering on fascists and Nazis. What’s the matter with them? I don’t get it. For some reason, Hitler is held up as a hero of the White race. No he wasn’t! Hitler probably killed more White people than anyone in the 20th Century. What kind of hero is that?

Hitler did kill millions of White people, possibly even more than Stalin. I don’t get it. I think it’s just psychological where the enemies of people who are pro-White, they keep labeling pro-Whites as Nazis, and then they end up taking that label. Because when someone keeps calling you something, psychologically, you take up that label.

Well…that might be part of it. You call a man a thief enough, and eventually he might start stealing. “Well, if you’re going to call me a thief anyway, I might as well just start stealing.” And with the White Supremacists, since the 60’s, there’s been a total war on White racism coming out of the anti-racist movement. And that’s one thing the anti-racists have done really well – we pathologized racism, in particular, White racism, because, well…White racism is nasty, it has a bad history, and most White people don’t want to be racists anymore!

I think most Whites are racist in minor ways, but hardcore White racism has been so pathologized that most Whites will not take extreme, explicit racist stances anymore. So the only people out there taking explicitly pro-White stances are people who are so crazy that they don’t even care.

So it further stigmatized it so there’s no room for a healthy or more moderate pro-White movement.

There are no moderate pro-White movements!

Well, Pat Buchanan, he seems to have the best model because he basically is pro-White. He writes in his book, Death to the West that he does have a strong preference for White culture, and he laments the demographic change. But he’s able to appeal to a lot of people that White Nationalists can’t, and he has a following among conservatives where even people who are not White can admire him.

Well…Buchanan is basically…White politics. White politics isn’t really White Nationalism. The Tea Parties are White politics. The Republican Party, increasingly, is White politics. But you know Buchanan is sort of pro-Nazi himself. That’s a real problem with him.

Well, he’s not really pro-Nazi. Instead, he takes the position that the conservatives around the time of WW2, they were not explicitly pro-Nazi, but instead, they took the position that the Communists were a lot worse than the Nazis, or that defeating the Nazis wasn’t really worth it because Eastern Europe fell to Communism and Western Europe fell to multiculturalism. So that’s sort of where Pat Buchanan is coming from.

Break

The conservative movement around WW2 was under a lot of pressure, and the conservatives later changed their position – some conservatives nowadays will say that the Nazis and Communists were equally evil – there are even some who go out of their way to say that the Nazis were worse. I saw Denis Prager speak several years ago, and he said that he thought that the Nazis were even worse than the Communists, and that’s usually the position that the Left took.

Isn’t he a Jew though?

Yes, he is, so that’s a logical position but part of it is this Jewish influence for the neoconservative movement that has had a huge impact on the conservative movement in the US.

Well…I’m coming out of the WW2 Left, and those are my heroes, my comrades. The fascists and the Nazis are my enemies. They killed my comrades. If they ever come back in power, they will kill me, and I have no sympathy at all for those guys. And it’s not even a question of overall who was worse. See, I don’t think Stalin killed 20, 40, 60 or 110 million. I think Stalin killed 2.5 million. I don’t agree with those figures. Those are Nazi lies as far as I’m concerned.

I don’t believe that that famine was a deliberate famine, you know, the Holodomor, that fake famine that the Ukrainians go on about? Do you know what that famine is? The Ukrainian famine, the Holodomor?

Yes, I know what you are talking about, but it’s important to note that there is definitely a double standard when it comes to Communist atrocities, there can be an open discussion. But if you debate the Nazi atrocities, if you’re in Germany, you can actually go to jail for that.

Well…you can still debate the Nazi atrocities. And the legitimate figures for how many Jews were killed ranges all the way down to 4.2 million. So you can say that there were no 6 million killed, there were only 4 million, and that doesn’t make you a Holocaust Denier. And there are people who say it was over 6 million.

Anyway, historians pretty much agree about the basics. The debate’s over about the Holocaust. They did kill anywhere from 4 million to over 6 million Jews. That’s just the bottom line. There’s no further discussion about it. And the Holocaust Revisionists and the Holocaust Deniers have an ulterior motive, which is to bring back Nazism and to do the Holocaust all over again, and this time do it right.

So you’re saying that people who try to downplay the Nazi atrocities, their goal is to bring back the Nazis.

That’s correct, exactly.

For European nationalism, the accusation of Nazism is used as a weapon to suppress that nationalism, to make it pathological. But the other argument with regard to Zionism, if you look at Norman Finkelstein. His parents were actually Holocaust survivors. He wrote that book, The Holocaust Industry. And Israel has long stood by that, and they’ve used as a shield to be immune from any criticism.

Well, yes, there’s a good argument about the Holocaust as a religion. And Finkelstein does a good job on that. Finkelstein is not a Denier or anything like that that he is accused of. That’s not true. The Dean of Holocaust Studies is a guy named Martin Gilbert. I think he’s dead by now, but he puts the figure at 5.1 million. I don’t think it was 6 million myself. I think it was 5.7 million. Just because you say there were no 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust doesn’t mean you’re a Denier. There is still a lot of debate on the issue. There’s no real debate on the basics.

But you think there are similarities…You were saying that Israel has been going in a fascist direction.

Right. Well, on the Left, we’ve always called Zionism fascism. We think it’s fascism for Jews. It’s been a fascist movement from Day One, from the very start. We on the Left don’t like any ethnonationalism.

The reason that the Left doesn’t like Zionism is because they see it as kind of a hyper ethnonationalist movement. But I think there is also an anti-Zionist Right. They see Zionism more as a form of internationalism.

Zionism? As a form of internationalism? See, that’s crazy though. That’s nuts. That’s just anti-Semitic whackery.

But they are occupying another people’s land.

It’s a colonial project. It’s a settler-colonial project. It’s an imperialist project. It’s an ethnonationalist project. It’s a fascist project. There’s nothing progressive or Left about it. Where’s the internationalism? Internationalists don’t persecute minorities in that fascist way like the Israelis do. That’s not what an internationalist does.

Well the thing is that the Israel Lobby is by far the most powerful lobby in the US.

It’s one of them. There’s actually another one that’s more powerful. I think that the Oil Lobby or the Military Lobby is bigger.

The Military-Industrial Complex.

They are the most powerful ethnic lobby, for sure. Our elections are all about Jewish money. And the whole pro-Israel thing is all about Jewish money. The Jews have the US Congress by the short hairs, and they control the US Congress and government on the Israel issue to a pretty significant extent.

I think that that is why the anti-Zionist Right says that Zionism is internationalist. Because they manage to simultaneously support things like multiculturalism and immigration and also Zionism. I think it’s this extreme double standard.

Well…They’re supporting fascism for Jews over there in their homeland. Fascism for Jews is good for Jews over in Israel, but on the other hand, there isn’t any fascism for Jews over here in the US. Fascism in the US, or anywhere else in the world, is bad for the Jews, always, and so is ethnonationalism, because it’s always going to turn on the Jews. So in the Diaspora, the Jews always promote multiculturalism and whatnot as a way of diluting their enemies and making the Diaspora societies more friendly to the Jews. It’s all about what’s good for the Jews.

That’s where you get that word “internationalist” that Henry Ford wrote about.

Henry Ford was a great man! I like Henry Ford. I think he’s unjustly maligned. The International Jew is a good book, and I like it. But he’s wrong about some things. See, the main thing is that back then, Jews were internationalists because they didn’t have roots to the land. They were internationalists in the sense that their only allegiance was to their international Jewish community.

They weren’t real true internationalists. It’s more that they weren’t nationalists. They were basically traitors! The Jews have always been traitors, and they still are to some extent nowadays because their primary loyalty is to their international Jewish community and not necessarily to their own homeland. And they will screw their own homeland if it’s good for the Jews. When it comes down to either supporting the homeland or supporting the Jews, they will support the Jews! And that’s the big problem with the Jews. That’s why the nationalists hate them.

Yes, it’s definitely the cause of anti-Semitism. You’re saying that you’re against anti-Semitism.

Right.

But you support rational criticism of the Jews.

Right.

But how do we deal with this? Because there is a flaw in anti-Semitism since the Jewish leadership relies on anti-Semitism to get their followers more radicalized and ethnocentric. But at the same time, I don’t want to give the Jews a free pass either. How do you propose that we deal with these issues?

Well…when you get into anti-Semitism, you are basically falling into the Jews’ trap because the Jews want you to be an anti-Semite! That’s the way I see it. Now, personally, I don’t think the Jews are very important!

The only people who think Jews are important are:

1. Jews.
2. Anti-Semites.

I don’t think that Jews deserve all this attention that we are giving them. They’re just this little pissant tribe, and I don’t think they are deserving of all this interest and obsession. When you go anti-Semite, you’re giving the Jews what they want. You’re telling the Jews that they are important, when they are not! And…anti-Semites created Israel!

You’re strengthening Zionism. Because the whole idea of anti-Zionism is that we anti-Zionists want the Jews to be able to live peacefully in the Diaspora. We don’t want them all running to Israel because of Diaspora anti-Semitism. If you’re an anti-Semite, you’re chasing them over to Israel!

It’s interesting because Helen Thomas was saying that Israel should be dismantled and they should all move here but if Israel was dismantled…I know some on the anti-Zionist Right who support returning that land to the Palestinians. But what would happen is that they would all move to Europe and the US. So I can sort of see what you are getting at.

Do the anti-Semites really want that? I know anti-Semites who support Israel. Their attitude is, “We sure as Hell don’t want the Jews in our country!”

I’m not sure if the BNP is anti-Semitic or not, but they support Israel.

The BNP has anti-Semitic roots, but they recently did a turnaround and now they are pro-Jewish, they are Judeophilic, they are pro-Israel, they are Zionists. And it’s all because they are anti-Islam. It’s all because they don’t like Muslims. The BNP doesn’t care that much about Jews. Jews are not that big of an issue in the UK anyway. The Jews in the UK are very well assimilated, and they don’t have a lot of power there.

The big problem in the UK is not the Jews, it’s the Muslims. They’re setting off bombs!

Well, with Europe and the US, we have to look at them differently because they do have very different issues. If you look at Europe, the Muslim issue is huge there. In the US, the Muslim community here is pretty small. With the Muslims, they try to stir up fears about Islam to get support for wars in the Middle East.

The Muslim community here is as big as the one in Britain! The ones in the UK are just not assimilated very well. They are Pakistanis from the former British possessions, and they are just not doing well. It’s more a question of assimilation rather than numbers. We are fortunate in the US to have such a well-behaved Muslim community…so far!

But you think there could be an issue here in the future.

Yes, definitely, definitely. I mean I would not want to allow millions more Muslims to flood into this country willy-nilly. No, not at all. And I think we need to be very careful about the Muslims that we let in here. We need to make them take things like loyalty tests. I don’t know, I don’t know. Muslim minorities in non-Muslim countries are not that great of a thing. They tend to get really agitated and radicalized. They tend to make demands for Sharia law.

They’re…they’re like the Jews! They’re not loyal! They have dual loyalty. Their primary loyalty is to the Ummah and barely, if at all, to the nation. They will actually set bombs against their own nation because the nation is fighting the Ummah. The Ummah is the Muslim community of the whole world. U-m-m-a-h.

You do think that they have an imperialist agenda too. We are being kind of imperialistic towards them in the Middle East, but they do want to spread their religion through demographics and move throughout the world and have as many kids as possible.

Islam is extremely imperialist! That’s a definite fact! One thing you can say about the Jews is they are not imperialist. They don’t want converts. They don’t want to take over. If you want to convert to Judaism, you go to a rabbi, and tell him you want to convert to Judaism, the first thing he’s going to ask you is, “Why? Why do you want to convert to Judaism? Why do you want to do that? What do you want to do that for?”

Do you think that is for racial purity reasons?

No…Jews just don’t convert. Religions either proselytize or they don’t. Jews used to proselytize and take a lot of converts, but they haven’t been doing it lately for some reason. Jews just don’t convert people. It’s not their thing. There are other religions like that too, especially in the Middle East. That philosophy has its roots in purity stuff, but it’s generally not a very good idea for your religion to not accept converts. It’s a way to make your religion go extinct – don’t accept converts.

I haven’t really studied Islam. I haven’t looked at the texts, so I don’t want to make claims about a religion if I haven’t studied it. But if you study the history of Islam, it’s definitely a pretty imperialist religion. With Europe, the Muslim leaders definitely have a goal to take over Europe.

Sure! And so do the ones in the US! If you read the statements of CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, it’s run by Islamists, and they say the same thing as the ones in Europe do – that their goal is a Muslim America. And that’s what’s scary about these people. I don’t think we should be letting a lot of them in. As long as they are only 2% of the population, what are they going to do? But what happens when they get to be 5%? 10%?

What is the level of growth in that community in the US?

Not that much in the US. They have a few converts here and there. Actually, a much greater problem in the West in terms of Islam is that a lot of Muslims leave Islam. In the UK, 15% of all Muslims are leaving Islam. In Africa, millions of Muslims are leaving Islam every year. In Russia, 100,000’s of Muslims are leaving Islam every year. It’s a problem for Islam that when Muslims are a minority, a lot of Muslims leave Islam. Especially in an Islamic-hostile country.

Has that happened in Europe at all?

In the UK, about 15% leave, yes. Pakistanis. They don’t like Islam. In a few cases, they try to kill them for leaving, but so many leave that there is only so much the radicals can do. It’s hard to be a Muslim in a Western society! There are all those temptations. Do you really want to be a Muslim? If you’re a woman, do you want to wear that bag? If you’re a guy, do you want to shine on chicks, not look at porn, not date women, be a virgin until you get married? I mean, Western culture is pretty fun!

Do you think it’s a motivation for terrorism to come from a sexually repressed culture, and they see the West as being sexually immoral. You’ve heard that argument. How much of a role do you think that plays?

Hmm…I’m not sure. They kill women for violating Islam, but they also kill men. In Muslim-majority countries, they will kill guys for leaving Islam. The thing about Islam is that, from the very start, Islam has not accepted people leaving their religion. They do not accept apostates! They kill them! They’ve always done this, from Day One.

I was talking to my Mom about that, and she just acted like, “Well, that’s just the way they are. Muslims don’t like that. They’ll kill you if you leave.” She didn’t say it like they’re evil, but more that this is just the way that they are. They’ve been this way for about 1,300 years. It’s the nature of their religion. But that’s their imperialist nature right there! Because they accept lots of converts, but they won’t let anybody leave! It’s like a house that’s an Open House. Anybody in the neighborhood can come in, but once you’re in there, they lock the doors, and you can never get out.

It would be like a country that took in all these immigrants, but will not let anyone leave the country.

Yes! Especially with the goal of, “We’re going to be the biggest country in the world and take over all the other countries.” And they have emissaries all over all the other countries in the world trying to make their Muslims dual citizens. It’s true that Islam has a world conquest agenda, and Al Qaeda and folks like that are absolutely explicit in their goals of taking over the world. I’ve read Al Qaeda’s statements. And I’ve been interviewed by the FBI too about Al Qaeda. Because I did some research on them.

Yes?

Yes I know something about Al Qaeda. It was funny, I called the FBI back one time, and I asked for the Bin Laden Division, because they’ve got this Bin Laden Task Force. And it was Friday night and they said, “Oh, they’re gone for the weekend!” I thought that was lame. I think the Bin Laden Task Force should be working 24-7. This FBI guy called me back and they did an interview with me. I didn’t really like it too much because they always treat you like you’re a suspected terrorist.

Yes, they think you’re a suspected terrorist if you’re going to them with information.

Yes, I don’t like to be interviewed by cops either. They always treat you like you’re a suspected criminal. That’s just their nature.

I don’t think that’s intentional, but it’s just what they are used to doing as part of their job.

Well, he wanted to find out if I was a Muslim! He was like, “Are you a Muslim?” I was like, “No way!” And he was breathing easier. I told him I was a Leftist, a Left-winger, and he was like, “Oh well, we’re not worried about you.” The FBI is worried about American Muslims, especially converts. White guys like me convert. And quite a few of those guys go super-radical. Because converts are often crazy.

They’re more radical than the people who are born into it because they joined just for that purpose, to embrace that belief system.

In many religions, even the converted Jews…the Jewish converts often go really nuts.

I’ve met Christians who converted to Judaism. They started out as Christian Zionists and that was their motivation for joining Judaism.

The Jews say that the Jewish converts are simply nuts in many cases. They’re like these fanatical Jews. And it’s interesting too, because the Jewish converts often take on a lot of these supposed “Jewish genetic tendencies.” They become extremely ethnocentric, they become paranoid of the Gentiles. These are not genetic tendencies! The ethnocentrism, the paranoia of the Gentiles, the tribalism.

Some people think that those traits are genetic.

Yes! I don’t agree with that.

But who’s been saying that it’s genetic? I think it’s cultural. Who’s been saying that?

Well, the Nazi thing was that there was something wrong with their genes.

Well, I see what you are saying. I know that way of thinking.

Kevin MacDonald has suggested that too, and boy is he wrong.

He has brought it up. I read his blog a lot, and I think that MacDonald’s main view is that it’s a culture, a political ideology. Do you think that he has mentioned the genetic aspect?

I think he mentions something about that. If you read his Trilogy of books, he suggested that Jewish character traits might be genetic. I think that’s crazy. Supposedly the Jews are really aggressive verbally and in business, and they can be rude.

Well, I think that’s cultural too, because the Jews are verbally and in business, extremely aggressive. But physically, Jews are not aggressive at all. Jewish guys have a reputation for being wimps. Jews commit almost no physical violence or violent crime. Jews are bad at sports. So…what did they inherit? Some sort of gene that made him extremely verbally aggressive but at the same time extremely non-aggressive as far as physical aggression goes? That doesn’t make any kind of sense.

Well, Jewish behavior is definitely cultural, since it also depends on where they grew up. If they grew up in New York or if they grew up in a small town in the Midwest is going to make a huge difference. I was reading about this story. There was this rabbi, he went to Peru and he got these Peruvian Indians and he took them to Israel and they turned into these fanatics after about 5 years.

Yes, they probably started acting more Jewish than Jews in New York that are 500 years Kosher. That shows you that one can take on those psychological tendencies of the Jews. It’s simply a cultural thing. I could be like that. I could be like that if I converted to Judaism. I could get really paranoid of the Gentiles and really hyperethnocentric, I could get really acquisitive, really verbally aggressive…

You grow up in a culture like that…and those people from around the Mediterranean, they tend to be that way anyway. They tend to be verbally aggressive, really emotionally expressive…They’re really into business too. Jews act a lot like Arabs, that’s the thing. They get in your face, but they’re really warm too, they embrace you, and when they’re talking to you, they’re like two inches away.

Israeli Scumbags

Just doin’ what comes naturally!

Fuck you, Israelis. And fuck all you idiots who support this shit. That includes the USraeli government and US Democratic Israeli Party and the US Republican Israeli Party. Fuck both of you Jewish-owned political parties and fuck the Jewish-owned US government. And fuck most US Jews, since the majority of US Jews support this crap. Fuck you, Jews.* I got some news for you arrogant weenies. This country’s called America, not Jewmerica. Got it, punks?

Honestly, it’s beyond me how any progressive person could support this sort of shit. It’s blatantly fascist behavior. Or at least rightwing behavior, since the Right generally supports colonialism and oppression of minorities. Only the Left has taken a principled, no-compromise stance against imperialism, colonialism and the oppression of minorities. We’ve even taken the most progressive stance on Earth in favor of oppressed minorities – in many cases, we grant them the right to self-determination.

The Israelis are arguing their usual crap in this case, that the Palestinians were in a “closed military zone” and had been ordered  to leave, but refused, so they got their asses bulldozed. Every time an Israeli official opens up his mouth, he’s probably lying. So listening to them is trying because you have to research every damn thing they say to figure out if it’s a lie or not.

Truth is that the “settlements” are only one part of the story. Israel owns and has jurisdiction over fully 60% of the West Bank. It’s defined as a “closed military zone.” So the Palestinians don’t even own 22% of Palestine anymore. They own 22% – 60% = 9%. And less than that if you include settlements.

In that “closed military zone” there are many thousands of Palestinians living there on their land, just as they have always lived on their land. But Israel conquered and illegally annexed and settled the conquered land in 1967, and that’s why it’s a “closed military zone.” So,  Palestinian homes in 60% of the West Bank are automatically “illegal.”

Same goes for many Bedouin villages inside Israel. After Israel conquered much of Palestine in 1949, 92% of the land was declared to be reserved only for the Jews. There were Arabs living on much or most of this land, as they had for decades to centuries. Automagically, all of these Arab structures became “illegal.” Entire villages and towns were declared “illegal.”

Even inside the 8% of Israel reserved for packing the Arabs in like sardines, the Arabs are hampered. Requests to build new homes or other structures are routinely denied. Arab villages and towns are not allowed to expand. Instead, elaborate and utterly fascist “Judaization” projects surround the Arab villages, towns and even cities in the Galilee and other places, in order to hem the Arabs in and surround them.

These projects are uncontroversial across the political spectrum, with even the Zionist “Left,” such as the Labor Party (a party with socialist roots) completely in favor of this racist crap. Even in the cities, Arabs are not allowed to build new buildings. They can’t even add on to their existing homes, so most Arabs simply build or expand illegally since this is the only way to build. These structures and add-ons are routinely torn down by Israel in what are once again uncontroversial activities, supported even by Labor.

This goes to show you that there is not a whole lot of moral space between the Israeli Right and the Israeli Left. Much of the Israeli political spectrum is devoted to frankly fascist parties of both the right and left. Only Meretz deserves some praise, though I’m not up on their project, and lately they’ve been losing elections. I’ve long been a fan of Hadash, the Israeli Communist Party, though.

*There are definitely some American Jews who most emphatically do not support this crap. For our dear humanist Jewish brothers and sisters, we throw a great big shout out.