← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Okiereddust

Thread 5742

Thread ID: 5742 | Posts: 18 | Started: 2003-03-23

Wayback Archive

Okiereddust [OP]

2003-03-23 02:08 | User Profile

[url=http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_news&Number=513847#Post513847]FrontPage.Com-Liberty Forum[/url]

What Raimondo Really Meant
What Raimondo Really Meant By Stephen Schwartz FrontPageMagazine.com | March 21, 2003

Dennis “Justin” Raimondo, proprietor of the “antiwar.com” website, has reveled in his status, after September 11, as America’s most exquisite Jew-baiter. This was the individual who, almost single-handedly, conflated a mass of disconnected rumors into the theory that Israel stood behind the atrocities of that terrible day.  Since then, this Dennis-the-wannabe-Menace has remained best known for selling that product, while traveling back and forth across a no-man’s-land of neofascist bizarrerie.  He also has enjoyed a brief notoriety as an inciter to mutiny in the armed forces, warning that American soldiers should not “die for Israel.”


Fascism and, especially, Jew-baiting, are distinguished from other political phenomena by their unvarying banality. There are no new forms of Jew-hatred, and its purveyors must therefore endlessly troll through the dustbin of history, seeking castoffs to recycle. Dennis Raimondo has added to this the role of historical vampire, digging up long-buried corpses with names like John T. Flynn and Garet Garrett – justifiably forgotten partisans of American defeat in World War II – hoping to breathe the semblance of life into them to further his career as the rescusitator of the “America First” cult. Necrophilia is his eroticism of choice.


But he engages in numerous other forms of perverse political quackery. One fairly recent example was his attempt to exploit the past writings of the historian Ronald Radosh on isolationism, while denouncing Radosh as a “Bolshevik,” even though Radosh departed from the radical left a quarter century ago.  Another, in which he has numerous imitators (including his mentor Patrick Buchanan and Buchanan’s longtime companion Robert Novak) consists in the mendacious use of a brief and essentially innocuous 1996 document on Israeli security, “A Clean Break,” claiming it is a virtual blueprint for the U.S. effort against Saddam. Note that Raimondo never actually quotes from the document, because “A Clean Break” deals with Iraq in a complicated context that does not lend itself to slurs against the Bush administration. 


“A Clean Break” recommended action against Iraq to affect outcomes in Syria and Lebanon. Syria, although ruled by a totalitarian dictatorship, maintains diplomatic relations with the U.S. and has forcefully assisted us in the fight against al-Qaida.  The Lebanese threat to Israel diminished considerably after the Jewish state withdrew its forces from the south of that country in 2000. Nevertheless, Raimondo and other conspiracy junkies continue to spout about “A Clean Break,” and even falsely assert that deputy defense secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz coauthored it, although his name does not appear there.


Dennis Raimondo is not an intellectual, or a journalist, or even much of a writer. He seems to consider himself a revolutionary, who believes he can gain the attention he craves, and the mass adulation he dreams of, by imitating the most repellent methods of the Stalinists. These consist of reducing everything to the lowest personal innuendoes and insults, and promoting obscure figures like Murray Rothbard, as canonical sources. This method dates back to the epoch when the followers of Joseph Stalin defamed their leftwing critics by labeling Trotsky an agent of Hitler and Mikado. I will deal lightly, for now, with such other Raimondian habits as the amalgam of Milosevic, mass killer of Muslims, and Saddam, purported champion of Muslims, in his pinup catalogue of beefcake brutes, or his incessant use of “Trotskyite” as a slur.  I am a former Trotskyist, and would rather be known as a “Trotskyite” than a Saddamite, any day of the week.


Dennis Raimondo has refined political and moral inconsistency, if not pure hypocrisy, to a level that is almost unique. He has smeared me for being a neoconservative and, at the same time, a defender of unions, but the neoconservative movement always included union leaders. I have never defended strikebreaking, and cannot be accused of ever supporting union-busters. By contrast, Dennis sees nothing peculiar in being a flamboyant gay liberationist while fronting for Buchanan, one of America’s loudest gay-bashers.  He has attacked me many times for having become a Sufi, and acquired a Muslim name.  Yet I do not use my Islamic name publicly or deceptively, while he calls himself “Justin” even though he is really Dennis, for reasons that need not be elaborated.


Dennis Raimondo and his cohort would like Americans to believe that their affection for people like Milosevic and Saddam has nothing to do with their own natures. That is, they claim to merely oppose “empire,” and stand for an America that stays out of other nations’ business.  But Raimondo seems particularly obsessed with protecting the sovereignty of the enemies of Israel.


In his slow-dance with destiny, Dennis has tripped over his own feet, with notable consequences. 


A column he wrote a mere month before September 11th has come back to haunt him. Under the repellent title, “Hiroshima Mon Amour: Why Americans Are Barbarians,” posted to his site on August 8, 2001, Raimondo declared, with his customary modesty and decency, “the idea that America is, in any sense, a civilized country is easily dispelled.” Of course, one wonders how a person who holds such an opinion, especially one from the ultra-sensitive side of the psychological spectrum can stand living in this country, much less posturing as a patriot of the United States.  One motive of his rage is transparent: admiration for Japanese militarism in World War II, and resentment that America won that conflict. As shocking as this must seem to normal folks, Dennis has spelled it right out: he believes “the wrong side won the war in the Pacific.”


He continues, “Just think: if we all woke up one day living in some alternate history, as in Phillip (sic) K. Dick’s The Man in the High Castle, our cultural malaise would disappear overnight. Instead of listening to the latest loutish lyrics of Eminem, American teenagers would be contemplating the subtle beauty of the Japanese tea ceremony. If contemporary Japan is any clue… the literacy rate would skyrocket. Certainly everyone’s manners would improve. All in all, life would be far more civilized.”


Numerous ordinary Americans denounced Dennis for these grotesque comments. We cannot expect much in the way of erudition from Raimondo, whose idea of acute political commentary consists of repeating, “What’s up with that?”  But this is a text that justifies a much closer reading. A number of points immediately cry out to someone who knows something more about Japan and its culture than clichés about the tea ceremony. I have visited Japan, and I studied its culture under one of the greatest of the Western Japanologists, Professor George DeVos of the University of California, Berkeley.  Before that, I was a disciple of the poet Kenneth Rexroth, who introduced Japanese poetry and Buddhism to the U.S. almost single-handedly, and can even boast that I was taught to read the *Prajnaparamita* or Heart Sutra, an essential text of Mahayana Buddhism, by Gary Snyder, the successor to Rexroth as promoter of Buddhist culture in America.  I have written on Korean Zen, and Korean recitation of *Prajnaparamita* is a precious spiritual resource for me.


Japan is not all cherry blossoms and the tea ceremony is not all sipping in kimonos. Indeed, the Japanese are probably the most chauvinist, racist, and ethnocentric people on the planet. Professor DeVos pioneered the ethnological investigation of the status of *eta* or *burakumin*, the “untouchables” in Japanese society. *Eta* means “filth,” while *burakumin*, derived from the Portuguese *buraco* or *hole*, means “people who live in holes or hamlets,” i.e. in ghettoes. If you want to embarrass a Japanese, ask him or her about the *eta*. These unfortunate folk have been the object of gross discrimination in Japan for a long, long time. They are considered unclean because, among other things, they deal with hides and leather – and in contemporary Japan many of them are shoe salesmen.  I once saw a customer in a Kobe shoe store kick a salesman on the shoulder to indicate rejection of a product, because the employee was presumed to be *eta*. 


But I also learned some 35 years ago about a phenomenon few have discussed until recently: the role of the Japanese Zen sect, and other Buddhist adherents, in the promotion of Japanese militarism.  A shibboleth repeated widely in Western media, holding that Japanese imperialism was mainly supported by the Shinto religion, serves to exempt Buddhists from criticism.  But recent publications in Western languages reveal the horrific promotion of Japanese atrocities in Korea, China, and elsewhere by Zen and other Buddhist figures, including none other than Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki, the main commentator on Zen to the West. 


I seriously doubt Dennis Raimondo has ever gone anywhere near a Japanese tea ceremony, although he may have eaten a few fortune cookies at the Japanese Tea Garden in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park, or had some tea while eating sushi. Suzuki, who tried to blame the crimes of Japanese imperialism on Shinto, wrote, on the tea ceremony, “Had the art of tea and Zen something to contribute to the presence of a certain democratic spirit in the social life of Japan? In spite of the strict social hierarchy established during her feudal days, the idea of equality and fraternity persists among the people. In the tearoom, ten feet square, guests of various social grades are entertained with no discrimination; for, once therein, the commoner's knees touch those of the nobleman…. In Zen, of course, no earthly distinctions are allowed, and its monks have free approach to all classes of society and are at home with them all… We, therefore, always welcome every opportunity for this kind of liberation.”


But Suzuki also wrote, of the role of Zen in the Japanese order, “Religion should, first of all, seek to preserve the existence of the state.”   A really shocking quote comes from Suzuki’s own master, Shaku Soen: “Even though the Buddha forbade the taking of life, he also taught that until all sentient beings are united together through the exercise of infinite compassion, there will never be peace. Therefore, as a means of bringing into harmony those things which are incompatible, killing and war are necessary.”  There is, simply, no difference whatever between this frightful assertion, used to justify the massacre of the Koreans and Chinese by the Imperial Japanese army, and the arguments advanced by Nazi mystics who acclaimed genocide as a means of improving humanity, or by Saudi-backed Wahhabis who recruit for suicide terrorism by promising that mass murder will lead the world to embrace a purified Islam. 


This illuminating topic has been thoroughly discussed in *Zen at War*, by Brian A. Victoria, the kind of demanding volume we may be sure Dennis Raimondo will never pick up, no matter how labored his picture-postcard musings on Japan. After all, a person like Dennis, who refuses to contemplate the Serbian atrocities at Srebrenica, cannot be expected to take a serious attitude toward the ideological underpinning of the Rape of Nanking.   In that 1937 incident, Japanese troops, over a period of six weeks, murdered hundreds of thousands of Chinese civilians and raped tens of thousands of women. Or would Dennis-the-wannabe-Menace argue that in that, too, Israel was complicit?


Knowing Japanese culture as I do, I would also point out that the country suffers quite a bit of cultural malaise all its own. Obscene *manga* comics are a part of the Japanese cultural environment that owe nothing to the West, and are not unique.  The 1976 movie *In the Realm of the Senses*, which includes a castration, was not conceived as a Japanese Western.  While Japan may have a higher literacy rate than the U.S., it is well known that its authoritarian educational system encourages cheating, superficial command of a subject, and suicides. Many Japanese who study English for years in their schools never learn the language at all, succeeding only in cramming for tests, and then quickly forgetting what they have acquired.


The idea that life in Japan is more mannerly or civilized than in the United States would provoke laughter from anyone who actually knows the culture, but it returns us to the obvious question: if such is true, why doesn’t Dennis go there to live?   But the real gem in Raimondo’s article is his evocation of Philip Dick’s *Man in the High Castle*. Again, I will claim seniority as a commentator. I researched the life of Dick for decades, and his biography is a central topic in my book *From West to East: California and the Making of the American Mind*.   Here also I entertain serious doubts about Dennis’s bluffing. Had he actually read the book I doubt he would talk about it as he does.


*The Man in the High Castle *is an alternate-universe yarn based on what America might look like if we had lost World War II.  But the country and culture it describes are hardly something for which we would yearn. Much of it, unsurprisingly, replicates the California beat/hippie subculture of the 1950s and 1960s.  In the book, Americans smoke legal marijuana and use the *I Ching* for divination; are these really the values Dennis expects the majority of American patriots to share today?   American culture has survived only in the form of pop memorabilia, such as Mickey Mouse watches, which fetch high prices from Japanese collectors. So far, one might see in Dick’s novel a mirror of our own time, presented satirically.


But there are other, more sinister features of the America, and the world, portrayed in the book that Dennis Raimondo says excites him.  America is divided between German and Japanese occupiers, who rule through puppet governments.  The American South is a nightmare of institutionalized white supremacy, tied to the Nazi state.   As for the rest of the world, the protagonist, known as Frank Frink, muses “about Africa, and the Nazi experiment there. And the blood stopped in his veins, hesitated, at last went on.”  


Frank Frink is the key here, of course.  The main character in *The* *Man in the High Castle* is a Jew, a very distinguished Jew, as a survivor. In the alternate universe, Jews have vanished from the North American continent.


Whether he actually read it, or just skimmed it in a bookstore, that is what Dennis really meant when he wrote, “Just think: if we all woke up one day living in some alternate history, as in Phillip (sic) K. Dick’s *The Man in the High Castle.*”  This poseur dreams of waking up in an America prostrate, segregated, and from which all Jews have been removed, in which he can play the role he must have imagined from about the time he decided it was better to be “Justin” than “Dennis:” that of a collaborationist functionary in a fascist occupation regime. Thank God war was waged to prevent such a nightmare from descending upon us. Thank God war will be waged anew to prevent its realization by other fascists, and that while Dennis is still talking only a handful of misguided American conservatives and communists are listening to him.

Okiereddust

2003-03-23 02:19 | User Profile

Amazing smear. Schwartz, while whining about the use of the label Trotskyite, amazingly cannot separate himself from Trotskyite methods of apologetics, calling Raimondo's tactics "Stalinist" and comparing Raimondo's attacks on him to those of Stalin against Trotsky and his followers.

I suspect the Trotskyites must have a journal like the Communist World Marxist Review. I suspect this article reads exactly like anything else in there.

Okiereddust

2003-03-23 02:24 | User Profile

Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Mar 23 2003, 02:21 ** Does anybody care to count the number of times Schwartz uses the meaningless smear-word "fascist" in his article? **

I think Comrade Sandalio would say you are using classic Stalinist-fascist tactics of character assassination. :D

madrussian

2003-03-23 03:05 | User Profile

Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Mar 22 2003, 19:28 PS - For more of Schwartz flaunting his psychosis...

A psychotic zhid? That's a first :lol:

Okiereddust

2003-03-23 03:55 | User Profile

Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Mar 23 2003, 02:28 It's tempting to laugh at Schwartz and to dismiss him as the mentally unstable clown that he is, but the fact is that he's fast becoming a farce (spelling intentional) to be reckoned with. In a matter of weeks, he was cast from the status of a completely marginal figure to top columns at FrontPageMagazine, The Weekly Standard and National Review Online. It couldn't be a little bit of tribal nepotism and promotion at work here, could it? All of these new neo "rising stars" do seem to just slither up from nowhere.

**

It agree its tempting to laugh at comrade Sandalio. Schwartz's completely unguarded and open embrace of Trotskyite rhetorical techniques, and the brazen way the neo's have elevated this unknown to star status in such a short time however, seems to me perhaps to unlikely be just an accident.

As has been noted elsewhere, the neo's and the rest of the Jewish establishment seem at times to be abandoning their habitual crypsis or semi-crypsis and starting to openly flex their muscles and flaunt their political power. I'm sure it has something to do with their euphoria of victory in the Middle East.

The message to journalists wavering in their committment is sort of like that brazen fist the British journalist Parris talks about. "See we elevated an unknown to star status overnight. If you guys don't continue to play the role of the dutiful shabbas goy remember, we can do the same thing in reverse."

It also seems to be a not so subtle flaunting of their Trotskyite roots, to their fellow brethren. "See we have to go along with a little conservative sounding rhetoric for the useful goy, but our policis can easily be reconciled with a lot of our Trotskyite principles".

darkeddy

2003-03-23 04:53 | User Profile

--Japanese culture has a class of 'untouchables,' therefore a hypothetical, victorious Japanese culture is obviously not superior to American culture.

--Someone mentioned the Man in the High Castle as involving the idea of an alternate universe where we lost WWII, therefore they want everything that is described as occuring in the alternate universe of that book. In particular, they hate Jews.

Frontpage magazine was once an interesting voice. Now it is a joke. That National Review Online publishes this mental case is incredible to me -- obviously, NRO is vile, but I have to assume that they simply haven't taken the time to look in to Schwart's weirdness, as even NRO has one or two standards left.

Okiereddust

2003-03-23 05:19 | User Profile

Originally posted by darkeddy@Mar 23 2003, 04:53 **--Japanese culture has a class of 'untouchables,' therefore a hypothetical, victorious Japanese culture is obviously not superior to American culture.

--Someone mentioned the Man in the High Castle as involving the idea of an alternate universe where we lost WWII, therefore they want everything that is described as occuring in the alternate universe of that book.  In particular, they hate Jews.**

I really did not get into this part of Schwartz's essay. It seems to require a familarity with the subject matter. Someone did forward me a link to Justin/Dennis's original article. Schwartz's article really is so full of very nasty juvenile polemics and insults, I don't think his opinions are worth bothering with seriously, but I'll post it so someone can make their own judgements.

[url=http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j080801.html]HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR - Why Americans Are Barbarians[/url]

Frontpage magazine was once an interesting voice.  Now it is a joke.  That National Review Online publishes this mental case is incredible to me -- obviously, NRO is vile, but I have to assume that they simply haven't taken the time to look in to Schwart's weirdness, as even NRO has one or two standards left.

I dunno. Get us to [u]Ass[/u]ume something, as a friend said, and you make an [u]ass[/u]es out of you and me. Alot of good people have ended their careers by falsely expecting some good judgement to come out of NR management.

Since you are the perpetual optimist DarkEddy, and think perhaps something might be salvageable out of NR and NRonline, maybe you could take it upon yourself to write NRonline and ask them yourself. Tell them you aren't one of those "nuts" boy Jonah always raves about, and see for yourself what they have to say for themselves.

darkeddy

2003-03-23 06:11 | User Profile

--I have had some correspondence with NRO folk over the years, but I gave up once I realized that caning Goldberg wasn't really having a noticeably positive influence on the publication. Likewise, I traded NR for Chronicles.

I don't think there is anything salvageable at NRO. It is just that I think they do not tend to publish obvious nutters -- aside from Goldberg, on the grounds that they think he appeals to teenagers -- while Horowitz has clearly gone mad, and has become some sort of Nazi-Zionist who is just laughable in his judgment.

--I am not sure what you mean by knowledge of the subject matter. Schwartz's argument fail on their own terms, and reading Raimondo's essay only confirms this, while also showing thay Schwartz's has done a smear job on Raimondo. 'The great horror is that this heinous deed was committed against Japan, a civilization as far removed from our own as the streets of New York are from the African savannas. It's at times like these that I tend to believe the wrong side won the war in the Pacific.' (Raimondo) This Schwartz translates as: 'As shocking as this must seem to normal folks, Dennis has spelled it right out: he believes “the wrong side won the war in the Pacific.” Schwartz is an evil little creature. Thanks for the link.

darkeddy

2003-03-23 06:14 | User Profile

PS Schwartz's ranting has inspired me to come up with a term (that is at least new for me): goy-phobic. Schwartz, Frum, Horowitz, Goldberg, et al are all goy-phobes. Scwartz wins as the prototype for the hysterical goy-phobe.

Okiereddust

2003-03-23 06:50 | User Profile

Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Mar 23 2003, 02:21 **With paranoid lunacy such as the following, it is only a matter of time before Sandalio becomes the official "house intellectual" over at Free Republic and every other neocon stronghold:

This poseur dreams of waking up in an America prostrate, segregated, and from which all Jews have been removed, in which he can play the role he must have imagined from about the time he decided it was better to be “Justin” than “Dennis:” that of a collaborationist functionary in a fascist occupation regime. Thank God war was waged to prevent such a nightmare from descending upon us. Thank God war will be waged anew to prevent its realization by other fascists

While we're on the subject, does anybody care to count the number of times Schwartz uses the meaningless smear-word "fascist" in his article? The fact that his favorite labels are "Stalinist" and "fascist" (which can be used to describe anyone from Saddam Hussein to Murray Rothbard) tells us all we need to know about Comrade Sandalio's Trotskyite and Frankfurt school roots, does it not?**

In the staid world of NR conservativism, it is not often when something really weird pops up, like Stephen Schwartz and passages like these which you are so good at highlighting. Occasionally I need to do a little double-take and try to make another shot at what Schwartz is getting at, why he's suddenly appeared, what it's all about in the scheme of neoconservative politics and how it relates to us.

I think Schwartz's writings may only seem to be the paranoid lunacy of a mentally unstable mind, at least in a sense that is unusual in the neocon scheme of things. They actually represent a very key element in the neocon war strategy, the attempt to enlist, or at least forestall the active opposition, of the moderate left to the war effort against Iraq by describing it in leftist terms.

To do so in a conservative magazine requires a certain amount of bravado and chutzpah - you can't just expect to whisper quietly and expect the left to hear. That's where Schwartz comes in obviously in. The terms he used stand out in screaming letters to anyone familiar with the left, but are unfamiliar enough to uneducated rightists so as to slide by if put in a fairly "conservative" sounding context.

In perspective, what really makes it funny is Frum's griping about how the anti-war right is supposedly making common cause with the anti-war left, when the neocons themselves are so obviously trying to make common cause with even the extreme-left with pro-war arguments, to if not win them over to at least mute their resistance. That obviously for instance is behind the support of moderate leftist organizations like Tony Blair and the American liberal establishment.

darkeddy

2003-03-23 07:04 | User Profile

Schwartz is not a lunatic because he's closet leftist? Sorry, that's not much of a defense. True, many on the left are mentally unstable, but that doesn't excuse the rantings of a quasi-leftist. Moreover, there are non-mad leftists in academia to whom we can compare Schwartz, which belies the notion that left-wing thought tout court is being confused with lunacy.

Sisyfos

2003-03-23 07:57 | User Profile

Wintermute,

You work much too hard for no gain. So I see that western dictionaries are catching up with what linguistic norms of Eurasia take for granted. Hurrah! Stick with zhid and you’ll never be misunderstood. It is the proper noun in most Slavic languages and has the added benefit of being sufficiently radioactive in all. The General is a frequent employer and few are more stringent.

BTW, your choice of signature is a classic. Pity that script cannot convey the tone the words carried when spoken. A revelation to be met with either resignation or fury like only a woman has. If only our racial gene pool were blessed so: "By the thousand sons of Hicks!" And "by the nine daughters of Ripley!"

Okiereddust

2003-03-23 07:59 | User Profile

Originally posted by darkeddy@Mar 23 2003, 07:04 **Schwartz is not a lunatic because he's closet leftist?  Sorry, that's not much of a defense.  True, many on the left are mentally unstable, but that doesn't excuse the rantings of a quasi-leftist.  **

I'm not a psychiatrist so I'm not going to try to psychoanalyze( that good Jewish discipline)Schwarz's writings. I was saying, perhaps though, that you are misreading the significance of Schwartz's juvenile antics, like we similarly misread the antics of the stupid campus PC. Like Horkheimer said, "they're juvenile because they're supposed to be"

I think what he meant by that is that their seemingly bizzare rhetorical methodology should not obscure the possibility of their very tangible, substantative, and logical purpose. Schwartz was brought in for a purpose, I think. The people that hired him knew what they're doing, and its no accident. Probably they brought in someone slightly crazy sounding so they could distance themselves from him if necessary.

As AntiYuppie said, half in jest I think, but I think its more plausible and serious now, the neocons may be probing with the idea of putting forth their leftist parts of their ideology quite a bit more obstentatiously.

Who knows, instead of "Goldberg Review", we may not too long in the future betalking of "Schwartz Review" .

darkeddy

2003-03-23 17:45 | User Profile

Yes, I agree that there is much purpose behind bringing in Schwartz. But, of course, the psychotic also has purposes: killing his sister, molesting children, etc., etc.

Okiereddust

2003-03-23 21:58 | User Profile

Originally posted by darkeddy@Mar 23 2003, 17:45 Yes, I agree that there is much purpose behind bringing in Schwartz.  But, of course, the psychotic also has purposes:  killing his sister........

Killing his sister? The question of the relevent purpose in this case is not that of the psychotic but the one who turns him loose. Which I think you meant to point to.

I agree Schwartz's writings seem so bizzare for someone writing in a conservative journal it is difficult to give him the main credit for the strategy they are to be put into service for. NR has printed neoconservatives like Dick Morris, who are just the purist ideological chameleons and opportunists, but with the polished skills of such can write articles that sound as sensible and logical as anyone else at NR. (Admittidly that is not a terribly stiff challenge).

Schwartz is completely different, a one shot wonder with only one trick up his sleave - Trotsky uber alles. Whoever hired him had to have known exactly what they would be getting and wanted it badly. The neocon cliche stands rather transparently open in its scheming.

Franco

2003-03-24 01:22 | User Profile

Oh!! You mean that AntiWar's Justin Raimondo -- 1/4 Jewish, libertarian -- is a Fascist Jew-baiter??

Oh!! Well! I'm calling my Congressman! He'll put a stop to that!!

il ragno

2003-03-28 17:51 | User Profile

...the very word "Jew" is now so deeply radioactive that even euphemisms like 'person of Jewish descent' are now officially recognized as offensive.

I'd noticed this years ago. Unless you are using it in the context of a) fulsome praise; or B ) calling some non-Jew [or group of same] Nazis, anti-Semites, etc.....goyishe writers and speakers may not publicly utter the word "Jew" w/o a signed permission slip.

This is why David Horowitz can cite FBI crime figures about black-on-white crime in a book called "Hating Whitey" and it's 'lively' & 'controversial'...but David Duke citing the very same numbers is 'hate'. And this is hardly restricted to Horowitz. If a HandRubberâ„¢ wants instant conservative cachet, he merely has to initiate a 'frank dialogue' on racism: this is accomplished by paying obsequious lip-service to a dead black leader like King or Malcolm X or Booker T, sob a few crocodile tears over the innocents shot in drive-bys, and then plunge gleefully into the thicket of Pointing Out Leroy Is A Savage, usually followed by spitballing a few social-engineering schemes (such as Boy Jonah's RX for Africa: the US invading and colonizing the joint.)

Oddly enough, such 'frank dialogues' never get around to tackling the Jews. Even the occasional mea-culpa Jew will restrict his criticisms for the Israelis. Chomsky is a bear on the topic of Palestinians, but I have yet to read his monograph alerting America to the insane perils it risks entrusting nearly 100% of its conduits of public information-flow to a tiny, tiny ethnic minority who always have at least two agendas in place simultaneously. Don Feder has never demanded that Israel allow extradition for the many Jewish swindlers who abscond with their ill-gotten gains to the Semitic safehouse of Israel. Andrea Dworkin rails against pornography in book after book but has never connected the dots between "Jews"and "pornography as a cash business", let alone who is responsible for the mainstreaming of smut into the everyday culture. So many 'brave', 'probing', 'seeking' minds, and all with the same curious blind spot.

Now imagine the career-trajectory of any gentile with the cheek to raise such topics. The same writers who have paid the bills for two decades using the most caustic rhetoric imaginable in whipping up a moral frenzy against Kurt Waldheim, Slobodan Milosevic, FW deClerk - or any gentile who fails the white-glove test - dare not call Sharon a murderer. So what chance is there you're likely to see any of them getting around to calling our domestic-variety of Jew to account? Their heartrate triples simply typing the word "Jew" as it is.

askel5

2003-04-06 04:52 | User Profile

Originally posted by Okiereddust@Mar 22 2003, 21:55 **It agree its tempting to laugh at comrade Sandalio. 

**

Me too ... but only in the same way it's tempting to laugh at Ann Coulter or any other Art of the Snap journalist.

Originally posted by Okiereddust@Mar 22 2003, 21:55 It also seems to be a not so subtle flaunting of their Trotskyite roots, to their fellow brethren. "See we have to go along with a little conservative sounding rhetoric for the useful goy, but our policis can easily be reconciled with a lot of our Trotskyite principles".

I'm trying to decide whether this is more honorable or less honorable than Whoreowitz's habit of scoring shots on his former comrades to establish his "former radical" bona fides.