< HOME  Saturday, October 21, 2006

where do we go from here?

You know what's moving about Kevin Tillman's piece? It's based on love. It's angry and it's highly intelligent in its criticism, but the energy comes from love --for a brother and for something Kevin still believes in in America.

That energy is missing in a lot of the blogosphere I frequent. What I see instead is anger, rejection and doomsday crying. All of that is justified, but if it doesnt ride on a base of love, or belief in something bigger than the moment, it just comes out as defeatism.

I love the blog Stop Me Before I Vote Again (what a great title!), and it's viewpoint that the Democratic party is useless (and worse) is undisputable. But where do you go from there? The frequent commenters on that blog mainly echo the disgust of the bloggers, but have nothing to say about how to get to something different. It comes across as defeatism.

Let me put it this way: if the US is going to launch a war that ends the world, there's probably nothing we here can do about it. If Israel starts something, well, it's probably sayonara to Israel, and maybe sayonara to the global economy. The US certainly looks fascist at times, but we're not quite to the Nazi German level, yet. Even if they start rounding us up and throwing us into the detention centers, it's not all over, yet. Some of the best writing from the Soviet Union , and Poland, was done under much more repressive conditions than we will ever see. Even Shakespeare, the greatest poet of the western world, wrote in a bloodier, scarier time than we do, and created such life-affirming characters as Falstaff, such heroes as Hamlet and Cleopatra, such sublime comedies as Midsummer Night's Dream and the Tempest.

My S.O. is always arguing we should leave the country, go to Spain, before it's too late. I say, I'm not going to leave as long as Michael Moore, Ray McGovern, Cindy Sheehan, Daniel Ellsburg, Sermour Hersch, Amy Goodman, Juan Cole, Noam Chomsky, Scott Ritter, John Conyers, Cynthia McKinney, Tavis Smiley and countless others like them are staying. If you've got a mind and a heart, stay and use it. Fight back. Dont give in to end-times fears. I think that's Kevin's message. Will you listen?


At Saturday, October 21, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My inaugural address at the Great White Throne Judgment of the Dead, after I have raptured out billions!
Read My Inaugural Address
My Site=http://www.angelfire.com/crazy/spaceman

At Saturday, October 21, 2006, Blogger Brook said...

Michael Moore: Are you kidding me?
Scott Ritter: A sex offender who supports the official story of 911. I've read a lot of claims by him that he doesn't work for Israel. What is up with that? Why are people accusing him of being a spy?

What exactly is it about Noam Chomsky that you are so impressed with? I'm unimpressed with his refusal to address zionism and the holocaust. He seems to invoke anti-semitism and Nazi Germany a lot for someone who is here to help us.

Seymour Hersh collaborates with sex offender and official 911 story supporter Scott Ritter.

Amy Goodman: I'm very disappointed with her actions in addressing zionism. I'd like to see some links of anyone has them but all I've seen from her is diverting questions away from zionism and even criticizing someone for wanting to list zionism in the top 10 hate mongers at the state department. I think a "hate monger list" is stupid but the guy was making a point that Zionism was a major hate monger. That and I really don't trust democracynow.org.

I feel somewhat OK about Ray McGovern but anyone that was in a deception organization for 27 years... Well I just take what he says with a pretty large dose of salt.

I really don't have much to say about the others presently. Like McKinney. I'm trying to figure out what is going on with her. Supposedly she represents a lot of issues and is a super great person. But she has done so much ridiculous crap I'm almost lead to believe she is there to make all of the causes that she represents look ludicrous. Kind of like the sites that associate govt conspiracy with UFOs like rense.com (at least you didn't list Jeff Rense). In Georgia McKinney seems to be mostly known as a hotheaded, pompous, pretentious ass.

I think I understand where you're coming from now. You seem to speak a bit about Israel being an issue, but you seem mostly wrapped up in the commentary of people who are popular for trying to divert all blame for all of our issues onto Bush and his appointees. Don't get me wrong, Bush is a criminal that needs to go to prison and he deserves some blame for issues that he is attached to. But some of the people you listed seem to exist to divert all the blame onto Bush and deceive us into thinking that impeaching Bush and a few of the people surrounding him will fix the situation. I don't know whether or not you believe that, but people that you promote are suggesting it.

At Saturday, October 21, 2006, Blogger bobw said...

The difference between you and me is that I don't believe everything begins and ends with Israel. Israel is a factor, for sure, but not more than the neocons under Bush are. I believe people (in the establishment) are waking up to the liability of being Israel's supporter and policy could change. Israel is only our client because of oil, and now it begins to look like if we want the oil, we'll have to dump Israel.

I disagree with QRS that the truth of 9-11 will ever come out, so I dont spend time haranguing people about it. I'm ok with believing some things that other people dont, when i dont think they're ready to accept them.

That's my attitude about radical change, too, by the way. I believe you dont talk about that until you have a plan, and the "balance of forces" is right.

Chomsky has taught me more about US empire over the years than anyone else, so I will always honor him. On a lower level, the same with Amy Goodman. Who else can you turn on five days a week at 6AM and actually learn something? And anyone else who forcefully speaks out against this war gets my support, whatever their other views. Paul Craig Roberts, one of the best, is a conservative economist, for god's sake! Anyway, I appreciate your trying to sort out what I said. It was a bit stream of conscious, written too late at night.

At Saturday, October 21, 2006, Blogger Brook said...

Do you support David Duke then because of his opinion on Iraq?
I think David Duke is a trap people often fall in when they get on the criticize Israel path. But someone could get caught up in his

I will never support a sex offender who appears to be a puppet by way of blackmail just because he says we shouldn't be in Iraq. Agree with them that we shouldn't be in Iraq, sure, but support and *promote* them? No way.

Here's a nice scenario. How about a really great politician shows up who promises to get us out of Iraq. Well fantastic. I know people would immediately divert their intent to vote to this person. But what about if this person has beenboot licking to AIPAC? What if this person supports the official version of 911? Do I need to add in whether this person has fealty to Israel, possibly is a dual citizen Israeli, has investments in Israeli companies ran by previous Mossad operatives, has oil company investments, has military industrial complex investments, voted for the USA PATRIOT Act, voted for the torture act, and on and on and on. At what point do you stop supporting someone? My support is definitely gone once they hit sex offender, especially when they are pushing commentary that benefits zionism. If not only because sex offenders are OBVIOUSLY people that should NOT be trusted, we have a bad habit of having sex related blackmailing of politicians in this country.

And no I don't think everything begins and ends with Israel. Israel is just another Zionist tool. I believe zionists create the neocons and is it not clear that neocons answer to zionists? The leadership of the neocons is ran by people with fealty to zionism... There's a lot more different in our opinion than just what we think about Israel.

You said the neocons under Bush are a bigger problem than Israel and that *I* claim that Israel is THE problem. Well to start off with, I never said Israel was the problem. I think Zionism is the problem. Zionism is not Israel. Second, you are clearly claiming that Bush is a bigger problem than the neocons, thus basically meaning that Bush runs the neocons. Or is that not what you intended with that wording? If it is what you meant then it's just straight down all those other people's logic who think that impeaching Bush will fix the world. I know it's easy to make that conclusion though. The mass of the left blames everything on Bush and sometimes on the neocons. I'm not saying you are a member of the left, I'm just saying that there is a huge body of media and influence to tell us that Bush and the neocons are THE problem. The neocons have a website showing their plans and basically laying it out plain and clear for everyone almost as obviously as: "WE ARE THE PROBLEM. BLAME US". Given all of that, how could it not possibly be them that we need to punish to fix everything right?

Just make it clear to me. Do you think Bush runs the Neocons? Do you think he is a bigger problem than the Neocons and a bigger problem than the Zionists?


At Saturday, October 21, 2006, Blogger LanceThruster said...

Despite diversions from the main point, it is absolutely correct that the options are to remain in the fetal position while you get kicked to death, or do something about it (other than complain about it).

Remember that part of what Kevin Tillman is railing against is that they used/are using his brother's corpse in an attempt to feed more service personnel into the meat grinder. Kevin Tillman is also sounding a battle cry for those elements most worth preserving. If people can't fight for them when it most counts, do we deserve to have them? That's how the shysters in the GOP put it except they're targetting the wrong enemy.

Thanks to "Wake Up From Your Slumber" for speaking the truth and boiling things down to their essential argument.

At Sunday, October 22, 2006, Blogger Michael Price said...

The truth is that Bush was pushed by the neocons - namely Wolfowitz, Perle, Libby, and others (probably including Henry Kissinger) - into going to war in Iraq.
It is no coincidence that all of these men are Jewish and, of course, all of them are Zionists.
Neoconservatism is a Zionist political group - in other words, it is a group within Zionism. Not all Zionists are neocons, but all neocons are Zionists. Central to neoconservatism is unconditional support for Israel.
A neoconservative can either be Jewish, or a evangelical Christian who unconditionally supports Israel because of a foolish misinterpretation of the Bible. Associated with the Jewish neocons are some Christian Zionists, who seem to me to be the most stupid people on earth.
The war in Iraq was agreed upon by people in the Bush administration for several reasons, by it was mainly neoconservative Zionist Jews like Perle, Libby and Wolfowitz that wanted it most.
What Michael Moore and others refuse to acknowledge is the Zionist connection, and that the ones who benefited most from the war in Iraq were the Israelis. The Iraq war was and is primarily a war for Israel. Controlling the oilfields may have been a consideration, and I am certain that non-Jewish interests in the armaments industry (possibly connected to Cheney) wanted to go to war as well. And I think Bush wanted to finish off his father's old enemy, Saddam.
But don't ignore the obvious - the war's main purpose was to eliminate Israel's strongest Arab enemy, the only country that still stongly supported the Palestinians.
And yes, you need to really understand Zionist Jews in America to know that they have no loyalty to anyone than to other Zionist Jews, and no loyalty to any country other than Israel.
Zionism is a racist, Jewish supremacist idealogy.

Never be afraid of being accused of being anti-Semitic. It takes courage to write of speak the truth, I think anyone who has never been accused of anti-Semitism is a coward, afraid to be 100% truthful.
And by the way, I really appreciate Qrswave's posts. There is more truth on this website than almost anywhere.

At Sunday, October 22, 2006, Blogger Brook said...

Guess I screwed up when I cut and paste this:

"But someone could get caught up in his opinions about things that seem really valid and end up getting dragged into his other opinions. At the very least they get associated with someone who is known as a neo-nazi."

At Sunday, October 22, 2006, Blogger Michael Price said...

To bobw:

You wrote
"Israel is only our client because of oil"

Israel does not export any oil nor hardly anything else to the US. It would have been in the US best interests to have supported the Arab countries over the years, because some of those nations do supply lots of oil, and have by times (such as in 1973-74)increased the price of oil exports because of US support for Israel, and so driven up the price of gas in the US and so caused lots of hardship for poorer Americans.

America gives Israel some SIX BILLION dollars a year because the Zionist political elite in the US has decided so.

America also gives Egypt some 2 billion per year, not for oil, but because it is the only Arab country strong enough to be a threat to Israel (so to buy its peaceful attitude toward Israel).

At Sunday, October 22, 2006, Blogger bobw said...

Lancethruster gets the main point I was making in the piece on Tillman, before it was diverted into a rant-war on Israel.
I agree with most of what Michael price says about neocons and the administration. And I agree with the comment that US support for israel is primarily because of the electorally important Jewish population in the US, which was recognized as early as Truman.
But arming Israel to the extent we have was not necessary to protect Israel, but was to control the region, which is about oil.

At Sunday, October 22, 2006, Blogger Michael Price said...

bobw, I appreciate your comments, but I want to clarify this: its not that the Jews are "electorally important" - in fact they constitute only a tiny percentage of voters. However, they are the wealthiest, most important and most powerful political elite in America. Any politician can win without the Jewish votes, what they fear is the Jewish owned and controlled media, which manipulates public opinion, and can make or break any politician. As well, those who defy the Jewish Supremacists have been assassinated (JFK) set up and impeached (Nixon) and disgraced (Clinton - it was no coincidence that Monica Lewinsky is Jewish).

The Zionists in America act like a criminal organization, and will do anything to support Israel. It's not mainly about oil, although that is important to some. It's
mainly about what's in the interests of Jewish- supremacist Zionists and their racist apartheid little Israel.

At Sunday, October 22, 2006, Blogger Brook said...

When someone replies to something that you specifically wrote in your article, you shouldn't give the impression that they shouldn't discuss it.

Otherwise it would be ok to do this:

"Main point: We really need to get out of Iraq.
blah blah blah
Oh, and btw, I'm not leaving this country as long as people like Hitler and Stalin are staying."

At Monday, October 23, 2006, Blogger LanceThruster said...

To add to what Michael Price has said, I think the media control has shown to be more important than the funneling of cash in swaying the masses. The propaganda outline crafted by Hitler is being used today in numerous media outlets. Furthermore, the Hasbara manual has a 7-point propaganda guideline that mirrors exactly how such issues are addressed. The ones that struck me were the ones dealing with 'change the subject, push emotional buttons' when in a tight situation and 'attack the person'. I had a disagreement with someone in a leadership position of a Jewish advocacy group, and right out of the starting block he was comparing my observations to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I had pointed out the depth of Israeli misinformation when he made a big deal about the added smoke in the Beirut bombing photos. He was essentially going down the list of the Hasbara techniques.

At Tuesday, October 24, 2006, Blogger qrswave said...

"He was essentially going down the list of the Hasbara techniques "

unfortunately, most people fall for these devious, baseless techniques - and avoid its consequences by remaining silent.

IN this respect a counter-hasbara manual would be VERY useful.

At Tuesday, October 24, 2006, Blogger LanceThruster said...

I'm not sure how that would be accomplished as part of what makes it effective is it bypasses logic and intellect. To use the same tactics might be effective but they essentially "win" by short-changing the truth. What needs to be done (if it were possible) would be to educate people on the techniques of manipulation, but as Hitler and others observed, there are not enough "intellectuals" to make a difference; he said to go for the masses (and the lowest common demoninator at that). It has to be an "argument" that works but is not too challenging in its attempt to sway. As it stands, the Hasbara methodology is just based on ignoring or obfuscating the facts. It seems hard to win by *not* lying when people look for any excuse not to rethink their firmly held misconceptions.

At Tuesday, October 24, 2006, Blogger qrswave said...

What I mean by a counter-hasbara manual is one in which each hasbara tactic is quickly and effectively exposed for the false propaganda that it is.

It would NOT bypass logic or reason. it would merely condense it into effective bite size morsels for those who have little time, intellect or patience to withstand a longwinded rebuttal.

At Tuesday, October 24, 2006, Blogger LanceThruster said...

I am in agreement but felt it needed to be pointed out that it is a daunting task for the reasons I cited. You hit on the key issue I feel that it cannot be BS of a different stripe. Dr. Norman Finkelstein in his lectures has often commented that we should maintain our optimism because we have the truth on our side. The pessimist in me recognizes that advantage is regularly negated. I think the strongest weapon in our arsenal is credibility. Though AH wrote about the short memories of the masses, it's always reassuring when even the most inattentive observer notices that they've been played for the fool. I've written to those involved in the gatekeeping where I'm employed (I'm a staff member in a non-academic dept at an educational institution) that in debates and discusions, it's not the stronger argument that wins, but who has the power to declare which argument is to be seen as the stronger one. This is a formidable obstacle to be sure.

At Tuesday, October 24, 2006, Blogger LanceThruster said...

The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. ~George Bernard Shaw


Post a Comment

<< Home