Wonkers and Israel

[Alexis Jacobi]

You just may be deceiving yourself as far as who is demanding what, given all the pro-Terrorist demonstrations going on throughout the world right now in defense of the Terroristic atrocities that were specifically targeting children, women, the elderly, and done with the purpose of shocking the world and instigating a retaliation by Israel.

My suggestion is to examine your framing.

We begin this process through an examination of your sources. The primary one seems to be Mark Levin who is, unless I am incorrect, an ultra-Neoconservative. (Levin may not be your only source but he is an illustrative one). This is not intended as a calumny but as a way to locate Lavin within a specific camp, with a specific set of justifications and explanations for those actions that have embroiled the US in Israel's politics and ideological struggles. And here we now have two topics: Levin's neoconservatism and the ideological struggles of Israel. Levin is (to put it a bit boldly) an American agent for Israel's policies and (as I say) its machinations. And here we have a third topic: to become aware of what machination entails.

However, I do agree that is wise to start from a position of realization that one is being deceived; that one is deceivable. And there another topic is opened up for examination: our tendency to participate, and perpetuate, those narratives that somehow resonate with us and with which we ally ourselves. A psychological dimension opens up here.

It appears to be your assertion that all the worldwide demonstrations are pro-terrorism. That expresses a binary interpretive structure. In your view, and certainly in Israel's and many (though not all) Jewish views, to demonstrate in favor of the Palestinian side and against Israel is ipso facto an indication of being on the wrong side. Israel presents itself as being Sons of Light and therefore any opposition received can only come from Sons of Darkness. I assume you are unaware of how this (essentially biblical) metaphysical framing is employed? The *real facts* of the situation, and an analytical stance to examine it, is overshadowed by a mythological imposition.

There are likely a range of reasons why people worldwide respond to the conditions of the Palestinians. These can be looked at with a fair mind.

In your view, the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank -- indeed the Palestinians of the region -- have no valid case. You seem to have taken any right to have a case and a cause. I gather that in your view they must submit and accept their condition as fate.

You just may be deceiving yourself as to what is relevant in this situation, and it ain't the Crusades, Freedom Fighter.

I think this is a good time to ask you to define and explain what is relevant in this situation that I am missing.

[Age]

There are many Jews minutely categorized.

Hamas wants them all dead.

And WHY would a 'group of human beings' WANT "another group of human beings' ALL DEAD?

Because of irrational bigotry, prejudice, and ignorance, and a healthy dose of arrogance that self-justifies murder.

Because they think they should have the planetary space that the other group is wasting just because they exist, and because they think the other group is going to be the end of everyone.

They think these things because they’ve been indoctrinated to hatefully deceive themselves from the cradle to the grave, and project bushels of bullshit to self-justify their evil ways.

There are probably a few more reasons.

Okay. Thanks for explaining some of the reasons why groups of 'you', human beings, were formed and are forming wanting groups of 'you', "other" human beings, ALL DEAD.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Yitzhak Shamir (prime minister of Israel 1986-1992) wrote:

“Neither Jewish ethics or Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat. We are very far from having any moral qualms as far as our national war goes. We have before us the command of the Torah, whose morality surpasses that of any other body of laws in the world: ‘Ye shall blot them out to the last man’.”

[promethean75]

Just keep in mind that the jewish people who matter - the jewish working class - don't know or care about any of that nonsense the jewish 'leaders' cook up until it's fed to em. So don't comdemn the people, condemn the system that puts and keeps the leaders in power. I bet u can guess what that system is. Hint: it doesn't begin with an M.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Just keep in mind that the jewish people who matter - the jewish working class - don't know or care about any of that nonsense the jewish 'leaders' cook up until it's fed to em. So don't comdemn the people, condemn the system that puts and keeps the leaders in power. I bet u can guess what that system is. Hint: it doesn't begin with an M.

If you believe that, if that is your understanding, then I must point out that you do not know what a *Jew* is. That is, that you are not aware of the instructions, if you will, that a believing and practicing Jew receives through liturgy, but through religious instruction and acculturation. And you are not aware that only recently has that cultural and historical Jew been modified through the general European assimilation.

The Jew who is, to one degree or another, a free agent is something quite new. And free agency is just another step toward assimilation.

It is true though that Jewish belief in all its aspects was handled and is still handled by an elite (formerly priestly and now rabbinical), but you do not seem aware of the degree to which general believers adopt the belief-system. Specifically, I refer you to the religious, and semi-religious, settler movement and many of the extra-religious (Haredi). I acknowledge a non-religious class of people with a superficial understanding of Judaism, Jewish history, and the present politics. And I acknowledge that they are not a determining class in Israel today.

I venture to state that your Marxian analysis cannot provide enough of a viewing lens to understand and appreciate the enormous complexity of what is NOW going on in the region.

All of these topics are complex and they require detailed exposition. I will do this but it will take place over days, weeks and months.

I hope to be able to discourse on The Dancing Israelis soon. I mean the dancing Israelis stoned on psychedelic drugs and dancing under the statue of the Buddha before the emissaries of the God Yahweh mowed them down.

It has an odd tie-in here.

[promethean75]

"That is, that you are not aware of the instructions, if you will, that a believing and practicing Jew receives through liturgy, but through religious instruction and acculturation"

Recall i said "until it's fed to em".

If u gave me a 'jewish' child at birth i could turn him into an eskimo buddhist.

There is nothing intrinsically sinister about a jew. Everything they believe is learned.

[Peter Kropotkin]

promethean75: Everything they believe is learned.

K: and we get to a truth.. everything, everyone has believed, is learned..
all knowledge is learned... your education is the teaching of what
beliefs are deemed necessary by the family, the state, the society, the
media, the church.... the point of education is to teach you the beliefs
you are supposed to hold... the indoctrinations of childhood....

and being an adult, is to overcome that education, those indoctrinations
and have beliefs that you hold, not that were indoctrinated into you,
but that you hold..... and Nietzsche lead the way for us.. to overcome
our education/indoctrinations....

Kropotkin

[Alexis Jacobi]

There is nothing intrinsically sinister about a Jew. Everything they believe is learned.

What is sinister — I hope to develop my ideas in the context of the Israel situation — is in the nature of the defined God Yahweh.

And sure, everything about that God is learned.

That god-concept is sinister. Beyond all doubt.

[promethean75]

Oh no doubt. It's batshit crazy nonsense. And even if it were true, one should be so appalled by the nature of this god that they'd get as far away from it as possible.

[Walker]

WHO are 'they' here who ought to be listened to, EXACTLY, "gary childress"?

He's always getting excited about some guy named Chompsky. Probably that guy.

Okay. Thank you "walker".

Are you now listening to Chompsky because you have been told that you ought to, and if not, why?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Are you now listening to Chompsky because you have been told that you ought to, and if not, why?

Have you read any of Chomsky's works? Who is he and what does he advocate for?

[Immanuel Can]

Are you now listening to Chompsky because you have been told that you ought to, and if not, why?

Have you read any of Chomsky's works? Who is he and what does he advocate for?

Chomsky was really a grammarian or linguist of great significance, but a political amateur and philosophically not among the important voices. He is, to this day, a very retro kind of liberal Leftist. At one time, he was sort of the darling of the Lefist intellectual elite, but nowadays they regard him as yesterday's man...too old, too conventional and not politically radical enough to please them, as they see it. He's fighting yesterday's battles with the weapons of conventional Leftist rhetoric, and never grew beyond that. That's why they so rarely cite him nowadays, and he's really out of the political limelight.

He's like Bernie, really...sort of that generation and that mindset. And like Bernie, the Left is waiting for him to pass on, at which time they'll praise and use his memory to advance a more radical agenda than he ever thought of, for a short time, then forget him.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You fail to really see him. Chomsky — in my view — is a type of Machiavellian analyst. He sees very trenchantly into power-systems and exposes what really is going on. It seems to me that that is his greatest strength.

On Power & Ideology: The Managua Lectures is quite interesting and useful in this sense: he is explaining how the US power-system actually works to those outside of it.

But in one sense he’s a “one trick pony” because he iterates and reiterates the same basic idea.

His Year 501: The Conquest Continues had and has a strong effect on my view of power-relations in Latin America. But he does not know how to propose a way forward since, to do so, involves cooperation with existing systems.

What are your favorite Chomsky works Immanuel? Read any cover-to-cover?

[Age]

He's always getting excited about some guy named Chompsky. Probably that guy.

Okay. Thank you "walker".

Are you now listening to Chompsky because you have been told that you ought to, and if not, why?

No.

Besides NEVER being told that I ought to listen to 'that guy', (whoever 'that guy' even is), the main reason I am not now listening to 'that guy' is because I have NO clue whatsoever who 'that guy' is and because I have absolutely NO interest NOR desire to listen to 'that guy'.

I was ONLY just thanking you for CLARIFYING my QUESTION ASKED, FOR CLARIFICATION.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Start here, m’boy.