Postcolonial Theory, Whiteness & Palestine
by Gilad Atzmon
Friday, May 18th, 2012
By Gilad Atzmon
Postcolonial, feminist and gay studies share many similarities to the extent that some academics regard these fields as theoretically and ideologically complementary. These fields of study are primarily concerned with politics, the structure of hegemony, the oppressed and the mechanism that brings about injustice. It is only natural then, that these realms of thought, primarily concerned with prejudice and injustice, would become key instruments in our understanding of Zionism and Israeli oppression.
Without questioning the intellectual validity and the theoretical substance of the postcolonial spectrum of thought, it is clear that some contemporary leading trends within this realm of studies emphasize the role of ‘White male’ and the ‘phallus’ as being at the core of contemporary Western society’s malaise. So the next question is almost inevitable –Where does it leave the ‘White male’? Or more anecdotally, am I, a person who happens to be wrapped in pale skin and is also attached to a white phallic organ, do I bear responsibility for centuries of European genocides? Would my responsibility lessen once I decide to chop my male organ off? Am I, or any other White male, left with any authentic ethical role? Or are we biologically doomed to be the epitome of every wrongdoing of the Western society for generations? The astute postcolonial theorist may suggest that ‘Masculinity’, ‘Whiteness’ and the ‘Phallus’ are mere symbolic representations rather than ‘things in themselves’.
Some postcolonial and feminist theoreticians would argue that imperialism, like patriarchy is, after all, a ‘phallo-centric’, ‘supremacist’, ‘White’ ideology that subjugates and dominates its subjects. This is an interesting and even intriguing statement, yet I am not so sure that it is valid or at all relevant to our understanding of Zionism and the crimes committed by the Jewish state. Zionism and Israel are clearly supremacist ideologies, yet is AIPAC’s push for a war against Iran ‘phallo-centric’? Is the Zionist appetite for Palestinian land ‘patriarchal’, or inspired by any form of ‘phallic’ enthusiasm or even ‘Whiteness’? Is the ‘War against Terror’ that left about one and a half million fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan, ‘phallicly’ orientated or is it the White male again?
Let’s face it, Zionism, Israeli politics and Jewish Lobbying are not particularly ‘phallo-centric’ or ‘patriarchal’. They also have little to do with ‘Whiteness’. Zionism, and Israel are actually primarily ‘Judeo-centric’ to the bone. They are racially driven and fuelled by a particular supremacist culture that is inspired by some aspects of Talmudic Goy hating and some sporadic (and false) Old Testament (false) interpretations. But this is exactly the verdict the postcolonial scholar attempts to prevent us from reaching. It is especially embarrassing because Israelis and Zionists openly draw their inspiration and expansionist enthusiasm from Jewish culture and texts, which they interpret in a very particular self-serving manner.
In spite of the fact that this discourse, in its current form, is pretty much, irrelevant to our understanding of Zionism and Israel, this postcolonial discourse is still, very popular amongst some anti Zionists and in particular, Jewish anti Zionists. The reason is pretty simple; it is effective in diverting attention from the real issues; it disguises the magnitude of Jewish power, Jewish politics, the inherent ‘Jewish’ nature of the ‘Jewish State’ and Jewish intellectual hegemony within the west and the Left in particular. Within the realm of the postcolonial discourse we are not even allowed to mention the ‘J word’, let alone criticise Jewish lobbying or Jewish power structures.
In fact, the postcolonial discourse, allows its acolytes to talk endlessly and passionately about Israel and Zionism without saying anything meaningful. It allows the Left to refer to Zionism as ‘settler colonialism’ in spite of the embarrassing fact that no one actually knows where or what exactly is the Jewish ‘mother state’ is[1]. Postcolonial scholars also encourage us to refer to Israel as an Apartheid state in spite of the fact that Apartheid is a racially driven system of exploitation of the indigenous. The Postcolonial enthusiast would obviously turn a blind eye to the fact that Israel is not interested in exploitation of the Palestinians. It prefers to see them gone. Hence, since it aims to get rid of the indigenous, Israel should be realised as an avid follower of the Lebensraum (Living-space) philosophy. From that perspective at least, Israel should be equated with Nazi Germany rather than with South Africa.
The postcolonial discourse, in its current form, allows its anti Zionist enthusiasts to spin endlessly. They can refer to Israel and Zionism without actually disturbing, hurting or even touching Israelis, Zionists and Jewish political structures. The postcolonial theorist is basically engaged in an attack on an imaginary phantasmic construction that has zero relevance to Zionist ideology or Israeli politics whatsoever. It is basically an advanced form of an intellectual onanism.
Like Rabbinical Judaism and Stalinism, the postcolonial discourse is extremely intolerant towards dissent and criticism. It surrounds itself with a defense wall, operates as an intellectual ghetto. In fact, it also invented political correctness just to police and curtail, by means of self-censorship, any freedom of expression.
Arab and Palestinian Postcolonial Scholarship
One of the most influential postcolonial thinkers was Palestinian- American literary theorist Edward Said. Said’s polemic, Orientalism (1979) was a deeply profound attempt to grasp the West’s vision of the Orient, the colony and Islam. The term Orientalism, as coined by Said, covers three interrelated meanings. First, it names the academic study of the Orient. Secondly, it is a form of deliberation that constitutes the Arab as the ‘other’. Thirdly, it is the structures that maintain Western domination over the Orient.
Being an outstanding creative intellect, Said engaged in a vast examination of a multitude of Orientalist discourse. His writings refer to political and historical texts as well as literature and media. Said obviously realised the immense importance of cultural criticism and cultural studies.
Confusingly, some of Edward Said’s Palestinian and Arab successors seem to oppose the very field of study Said championed. For example, as much as Said was immersed in deep cultural examination and discourse analysis, Palestinian activist and academic Ali Abunimah recently claimed the following. “We should be very clear in condemning explanations which try to blame a culture or a religion for a political situation.“ Abunimah basically believes that culture doesn’t explain ‘anything at all’. It seems to me that Abunimah, who often integrates the term ‘Orientalism’ into his political statements and tweets, is apparently unfamiliar with the intellectual core of Edward Said’s thought and methodology.
Zionist orientalism has always targeted Orthodox Jews, which it sees as an enemy that should’ve been left in the shtetel.
— Ali Abunimah (@AliAbunimah) May 8, 2012
Ali Abunimah is not happy at all with my reading of the conflict. This is understandable and totally legitimate and furthermore, he is not alone. Other exiled Palestinians seem also to be very concerned. Their outrage at my argument that Israel is not a European style colonial state implies that they fear the end to a discourse in which they have invested so much. Some of those Palestinians were very happy to add their names to the list of book burners who demanded my disavowal. This was indeed a very sad turn – futile, yet, at the same time both revealing and predictable. Though those Arab and Palestinian scholars criticized my work for being ‘racist’ without providing a single racist comment by me, it was disappointing to discover that, it was in fact their writing that was actually saturated with biological determinist comments and peppered with blunt racism.
Recently we came across a video of cultural BDS leader Omar Barghouti exploring some ‘postcolonial’ ideas. He for instance, insisted that “the white race is the most violent in the history of mankind.” This is an outrageous sweeping generalization especially since , Barghouti surely knows that Zionism is Judeo-centric and has very little to do with Whiteness. It is not the degree of ‘Whiteness’ that constitutes the racist element within the Israeli legal system, it is rather the ‘degree of Jewishness’ that makes an Arab Jew privileged in comparison to a Palestinian with a very similar skin colour. Omar Barghouti is studying in a ‘Zionist’ Tel Aviv university (while asking the rest of us to boycott the same university). Seemingly, he has internalised the Zionist academic postcolonial jargon and has integrated and implemented some biological determinist and racist ideas into his pro-Palestinian political thinking.
And Omar Barghouti is not alone. Assad Abu Khalil, AKA The Angry Arab, is another postcolonial enthusiast who also engages in a similar racially driven approach. In his blog post White Man and Paul Newman, Angry AbuKhalil writes “the White Man is not a racial category–or it is not merely a racial category but also a political and epistemological category.” Not only does Angry Arab agree that the ‘White Man’ is partially a racial category, he even goes as far as linking skin colour with a political stand and even epistemology.[2]
Of course, I realise that being an Arab academic in a Zionised American or British university is a tough mission. I guess that for some time the postcolonial discourse was the only possible template that allowed a criticism of Israel and Zionism. But the time is ripe to move on. We’d better now call a spade a spade. It is time to call Israel what it is, namely “The Jewish State”. The time has come to ask what the Jewish State is all about and what is the true meaning of the Jewish symbols that decorate Israeli tanks and airplanes? The time has come for us to grasp that the Jewish Lobby is a primary threat to world peace.
But can we do it all while being thought-policed by the rigid boundaries of the postcolonial realm? Can we talk about Jewish identity politics while some prominent Palestinians activists attempt – to block any discussion on Jewish culture & power? My answer is yes we can, and we’d better make every possible effort to liberate our discourse from the Judeo-centric postcolonial grip.
Whiteness, The Jew & The Queer
In the last few weeks I have wondered why Omar Barghouti attacks the ‘White race’? Is it really necessary? Couldn’t he just refer to the ‘West’, America, Orientalism or the ‘British Empire’? Why does Angry Arab fight the White man? Is it really an elementary political category? Does the introduction of racial categories and biological determinism serve the Palestinian cause or Arab liberation? I decided to jump into the water and immersed myself in some contemporary texts about whiteness and postcolonial theory. I thought that it may help me to understand the emergence of such thoughts.
Following the recommendation of my friend and musical partner Sarah Gillespie, one of the first texts I picked was Richard Dyer’s ‘White’. Dyer is a respected film scholar and a leading writer on the topic. It didn’t take more than five pages before I stumbled upon a very interesting passage that opened my eyes. In the next few lines Dyer speaks about his childhood friendship with a Jewish pal and the impact it had on him.
“The key figure here was a Jewish boy at school, whom I’ll call Danny Marker. I used to visit him and his family in Golders Green, a Jewish neighbourhood of London. I knew by then that I was a homosexual and I envied Danny and his family-they too were an oppressed minority, whom, like queers, you could not always spot; but, unlike us, they had this wonderful, warm community and culture and the wrongfulness of their oppression was socially recognised. I now believe that there are intellectual and political problems with making and analogy between Jews and queers, between ethnic and sexual discrimination, but I am trying to say how it felt then. I envied Danny’s ethnicity and wanted to be part of it, indeed, felt at home with it.” (White, Richard Dyer, White Pg 5)
In The Wandering Who, I wrote extensively about the clear ideological and theoretical continuum between Zionism and other marginal thoughts. I explored the deep ideological similarity between Queer theory and the Jewish national aspiration. On the one hand we notice a legitimate and reasonable call against injustice – the Zionist and the Queer theorist demand to become ‘people like other people’ a call obviously understood and supported by many. But on the other hand, we also detect another forceful demand – to maintain and preserve uniqueness and differentiation. As one can imagine, the humanist call for equality can easily clash with the forceful self-centric, clannish demand for preservation (especially when celebrated on the expense of others).
However, Richard Dyer explores here another special affinity between the queer and the Jew. As a homosexual he expresses a clear and innocent envy of his Jewish schoolmate’s social landscape. Dyer notices that in spite of being oppressed, the Jews have managed to form a “warm and wonderful community and culture.” Dyer’s feeling at home within the Jewish family nest may explain why Tel Aviv has become a Gay capital. It explains why some prominent Queer activists feel so strongly and positively about the Jewish State, Zionism, Jewish culture and Jewishness in general. But it also may explain why some Arab and exiled Palestinian secular academics, feel some affinity to the Jewish dominated anti Zionist postcolonial nest. Operating as an intellectual ghetto, it may also retain some Jewish characteristics, it is probably a ‘warm community’ as Dyer describes it. It may even be that some Palestinian postcolonial secular academics would feel more comfortable in Tel Aviv University than in Al-Azhar University in Gaza.
I obviously understand it and I am far from being judgmental. But am I naïve to expect Palestinian activists and intellectuals to ensure that the, ‘wrongfulness of Palestinian oppression’ be widely and ‘socially recognised’ by the masses, rather than by a few postcolonial Jewish Anti Zionists? It is time for our discourse to leave the ghetto.
I guess that in order to achieve such a goal, we must transcend the decaying postcolonial discourse or else completely revise it. We must drift away from any form of marginal ideology. We must be able to deconstruct Jewish texts and Jewish cultural discourse with the same vigor that Edward Said deconstructed the European canon, whether it was Charles Dickens or Lord Balfour. We actually better locate the issue of Palestine at the forefront of the battle for a better world, humanity and humanism.
We should engage in an inclusive, open intellectual debate that welcomes all oppressed (queers, gays, Arabs, Muslims, people of colour and so on) and oppressors too. At the end of the day, with 50 million Americans living in deep poverty watching 30.000 drones fly over their heads, Gaza is now in Detroit, Newark and Philadelphia. Our solidarity with Palestine can now become a true force of genuine empathy. We don’t now just put ourselves in the shoes of the Palestinians, we actually wear them. We all strive for the same liberty. We are one.
[1] If Israel is the Jewish ‘Settler State’ we better be informed at last where is the Jewish ‘mother state’ for colonialism is defined by a clear material, cultural and spiritual exchange between a mother and a settler states.
[2] It would be wrong not to mention professor Joseph Massad of Columbia University. Following his Mentor Edward Said, Massad also writes about the role of colonialism, its structure, its impact and the scars it left behind. Like Barghouti and Abu Khalil, Massad also refers occasionally to skin colour. Yet, unlike Barghouti and Abu Khalil, Massad seems to be far more carful and astute. Rather than falling into the banal biological determinist trap, he seems to critically refer and examine the role of skin colour from structural, social, cultural and political perspectives.
Posted by Gilad Atzmon
on May 18, 2012. Filed under Ideology.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
49 Responses to Postcolonial Theory, Whiteness & Palestine
You must be logged in to post a comment Login
Ariadna Theokopoulos
May 18, 2012 at 1:50 pm
Eagerly awaited since promised and badly needed, this is an excellent in-depth examination of the ‘marginal discourse’ sketched in The Wandering Who?”
–Advocating separate recognition/rights by groups is not militating for human rights but for entitlements.
–The marginal discourse does not pursue equality but the status of elevated segregation.
–Not Gilad, nor anyone else expresses this more poignantly and accurately than Israel itself did in the enacted parable of the high chairs:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34825873/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/israel-snubs-turkish-ambassador-public/
At the table of nations, Israel, contending that it wants to be “a nation like all the others” demands in fact to sit on higher chairs.
Gilad Atzmon
May 18, 2012 at 2:03 pm
Hello Ariadna,,, it is so great to see you liked it,, it took me a few days to spit it out… the incident you point at is indeed very significant in every possible level. culturally, spiritually and symbolically.. I wrote about it at the time. I think that it is time to point at the entire power structure that killed intellectual exchange.. I think that Deliberation will have a significant role here…
Ariadna Theokopoulos
May 18, 2012 at 2:11 pm
“I think that Deliberation will have a significant role here…”
I would edit that to read:
I think that Deliberation will CONTINUE TO have a significant role here…
Gilad Atzmon
May 18, 2012 at 3:09 pm
Correct, I said ‘will’ just because we are young.. According to Alexa we are already one of the most popular sites in Britain. I guess that we are pushing the discourse forward. We can now leave the PSC to Harry Place, the JC and the AZZ..:)
searching
May 18, 2012 at 2:09 pm
Very good and needed article.
“The marginal discourse does not pursue equality but the status of elevated segregation”
Exactly. They try to create a new set of “Holy Cows” that a forced Political Corectness ,( a new form a Stalin-like censorship),exempts from the slightest form of criticism.
The newly created “Holy Cows caste ” claims that they deserve a special privileges and entitlements, since they were ,supposedly, the ones who were oppressed. So now THEY want to become the opressors. Of course they won’t say it outright and openly. But that’s their final goal.
searching
May 18, 2012 at 2:21 pm
“If Israel is the Jewish ‘Settler State’ we better be informed at last where is the Jewish ‘mother state’ for colonialism is defined by a clear material, cultural and spiritual exchange between a mother and a settler states”
Jewish “mother” state is everywhere, where the Jewish Power Elite is.
Which basically means almost everywhere.
They supply material, financial, medial, cultural and spiritual, etc. means to help sustain the “Settler state” of Israel.
But I think their ultimate goal is, for this small “Settler state, to become some kind of a Global Power State that will be Enlighting and Illuminating, whatever is left from the rest of the world.
Majority of the people here , at deliberation, forget about one, major, probalbly The biggest hidden Power that initiates and directs a majority of the events that take place within the last few centuries. Big mistake.
Gilad Atzmon
May 18, 2012 at 3:16 pm
Searching: Jewish “mother” state is everywhere, where the Jewish Power Elite is.
G: I can live with it.. but then, the ‘mother State’ should be opposed as an ‘oppressive colonial/imerial powers’,, this would entail clear opposition to ‘J power’. Yet, this is exactly what the Left and the postcolonial dicourse try to avoid. In short they are either confused or part of the problem!!!
searching
May 18, 2012 at 3:48 pm
I think it’s the known problem of having a cookie ,and eating it at the same time.
I think Left wants to be perceived as the one that “fights with the Zionist’s opression and injustice”, but.. at the same time they are afraid of losing its special status quo that is being supported by …. Zionists.
Zionists support many movements that further divide the humanity, they support globalism, anti-nationalism, muti culti agenda etc..
Anything that weakens the culture of so called white man . Zionists want it to be weak, and and the same time they want , ultimately control the whole humankind.
So in many aspects the LEFT goes along with the Zionism. Hand in hand. They feed off each other.
That’s why anti-Zionists are so afraid of attacking the Real problem/issue.
It would be like cutting off the hand that feeds them.
And who wants to do that???
They are connected to the “Moter state” more than they realise. They are afriad of cutting of a umbilical cord, because that would mean learning how to start to breathe completely on their own. No “ADL, J Power etc. “mommy to protect.
And the world is full of big, bad goyim wolves
Gilad Atzmon
May 18, 2012 at 4:28 pm
It is hard for me to write about the Left,,, because what is left out of the Left has very little to do with dialectic culture. The Left must liberate itself, can it liberate itself? i ain’t sure..
Jay Knott
May 18, 2012 at 3:08 pm
Great stuff. I’ve been looking into the same issue for a while. Trying to answer the question – if the political left managed to prompt Western societies into abolishing the most egregious examples of white racism (apartheid, segregation…), why has it been so spectacularly unsuccessful in undermining the West’s uncritical support for the only state left in its family based on overt racial supremacy?
Why do the academic fields of ‘hate studies’ and ‘critical race theory’ exaggerate white racism and downsize the Jewish variant?
I’ve submitted a paper examining this issue to one of the journals dedicated to this task. I doubt if they’ll publish it, but then I’ll just put it on the internet, alongside my previous contributions to the discussion:
http://bit.ly/JoMTx0 http://bit.ly/JCwnhg
Gilad Atzmon
May 18, 2012 at 3:21 pm
In fact, Jay, the Left has zero political power. Its only contribution to Western politics is the invention of political correctness. The Left, in its current from, operates as a thought police. It is there to maintain the current hegemony and structures. Left must reinvent itself ASAP//.
searching
May 18, 2012 at 4:58 pm
“Its only contribution to Western politics is the invention of political correctness. The Left, in its current from, operates as a thought police. ”
))
Beautiful
Those two sentences should be shouted from all the roof tops.
High five from me to you for that
and a song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fXaC07X5M8&feature=related
Chester
May 18, 2012 at 10:18 pm
If you look at what the left stood for a century ago – and I am thinking here primarily of the Second International – it stood for the universality of the working class, or “proletarian internationalism”. This was destroyed by first, the First World War, in which the socialist parties largely emasculated themselves by supporting national governments and second, the bolshevik coup, which destroyed the left from within by putting a “leftist” government at the head of a nation state.
Since then the left has been at the service of capital – precisely as you say, its role is to maintain the current hegemony by channeling discontent and opposition into safe channels such as “anti-racism”, anti-colonialism, gay rights and feminism and single-issue politics. Capitalism has embraced this and the left does indeed function as its thought police. It shuts down discussion in the same way Zionism does by seeking to limit the boundaries of discourse.
I don’t think leftism is worth reinventing even if that is possible. Instead a new universalism must arise that asserts its autonomy from the current hegemony.
There are stirrings already in southern Europe, which has been hardest hit by the financial crisis. Leftism will be the capitalism’s last hope of containing the anger felt by millions of people who are asked to pay for a crisis they did not create.
Roy Bard
May 18, 2012 at 3:57 pm
“Why do the academic fields of ‘hate studies’ and ‘critical race theory’ exaggerate white racism and downsize the Jewish variant?”
Sharmine Narwani offers a clue as to the latter part of your question:
searching
May 18, 2012 at 4:08 pm
The fact that all those bogus, phoney “hate studies” and some other fuzzy “academical” disputes exaggerate “white racism and downsize the Jewish variant” shows exactly WHO controls it.
The invention of those new “academic fields”
is done , again, in order to undermine goyim influence or input , and push the Jewish Power Elite agenda on the public.
And, unfortunately, much of the public falls in this trap.
Gilad Atzmon
May 18, 2012 at 4:25 pm
But then the next Q is why Pls want to engage in it at all?
searching
May 18, 2012 at 4:45 pm
You mean all Pls or some Pls??
It is a very good question though.
Why instead of pointing a finger precisely where it should be poinintg ,they (some Pls)prefer beating around the bush, and accuse “white race and intolerant white man organ ” of all the wrongdoings of the planet.
Some would say: “If we don’t why then we can tell money is involved.”
Corruption, opportunism,servilism are as old as a human kind. Nihil novi sub sole.
Some people instead hitting at the core of the problem prefer to create new ones.
Then the core of the problem is protected.
I think we can call it diversion/deception. Through the means of deception we will carry our battles, and we are planning to win ,as the people very easily fall into prepared traps, especially if they are presented in an easy to swallow packages.
searching
May 18, 2012 at 5:14 pm
part of the pushing “blame the white race for all the world’s evil” agenda is to divide.
And we all know well how the “divide and conquer” strategy works.
It usually benefits the party that does all the dividing.
An interesting thing about Omar B. is that even though he happily blamed ‘the White Race’ for all…blah and blah… he made sure that NO ONE dares to blame Jewish identity/religion/culture for the hell that Israel prepared Palestinians.
No, no let’s not go there my dear marxists/socialist friends. Let’s just blame the new bogeyman instead: “the White Race”, the source of all earthly evil.
Thank you my dear friends for all the rounds of applause, I knew you are an easy bunch of people to fall in that kind of crap, I mean trap. I mean I know I could count on your lack of understanding, hm.. I mean understanding of the issue.
Gilad Atzmon
May 18, 2012 at 4:23 pm
YES Roy, this is incredible.. we start to see it all … what a Judeo centric network…
Sheldon Richman
May 18, 2012 at 5:10 pm
I am impressed!
Sheldon Richman
May 18, 2012 at 5:02 pm
Excellent and so badly needed! Thanks!
Gilad Atzmon
May 18, 2012 at 5:48 pm
Tx so much Sheldon
who_me
May 18, 2012 at 6:15 pm
Gilad Atzmon
that’s an interesting analysis, but it could be taken further. what zionists are doing to these movements is classic divide and conquer war strategy.
as the oligarchical capitalist supporting, zionist jews moved into the left, took it over, and replaced leftwing values with a mishmash of covert rightwing support, they neutralised the left with divisive tactics designed to break down the solidarity those on the left had with each other, and with those who would be their natural allies.
these same people work diligently to keep people of different races apart and have maintained a segregationist society in the usa despite the gains made by the civil rights movement. mostly this is done through their dominance of the major media, making sure examples of divisiveness remain the prominent story. white against black, muslim vs christian and jewish, israel (and likewise, the israeli colony the story is being produced in to influence) being oppressed by the world, etc. us vs them.
feminist and gay movements have been similarly lucky to have attracted zionist jewish attention. what does one usually hear from them now? divisiveness. us vs them rhetoric.
the first rule of conquest in a war of the weak attempting to dominate the strong is one needs to divide ones opponents and keep them at each others throats. that way they stay distracted while they are being defeated in detail. to understand what zionist jews do, one need only study classic divide and conquer war theory, because this is what they are doing. all the cultural and psychological stuff is marketing and group manipulation to make sure the different herds under their control play their designed roles as clueless, disinformed and divided pawns.
when seeking to understand how jewish zionists proceed, one should always remember their motto:
“by way of deception, we shall do war”
israel and jewish zionists are literally at war with everyone who isn’t israeli or 100% loyal to them. they think of themselves as fighting a war against the world. they act with this in mind. everything they do is done with that in mind. the deception aspect is the morality of the criminal, that of preying upon others using deceit and other back door methods, rather than fighting them up front and out in the open. this is the mentality and morality of extreme cowards.
Gilad Atzmon
May 18, 2012 at 9:31 pm
I would say here that if we are concerned, like postcolonial ‘theorists’ in hegemony and discourses that maintain hegemony,,the Zio-marginal-academia-AZZ continuum should be the next place to go..
it is pretty obvious…
who_me
May 19, 2012 at 2:33 am
“the Zio-marginal-academia-AZZ continuum should be the next place to go..”
dominate the those in power and do the same with the opposition. full spectrum dominance.
Lasse Wilhelmson
May 18, 2012 at 10:09 pm
Thanks for this one Gilad, it is absolutely groundbraking, even if a lot have been said in u articles earlier and in your book. This article is taking everyting further.by conecting the dots.
The Jews have a 2-sided strategi for surviving and power. A Jewish national state for Jews only (Jewish national socialism) and no states for Goyim (marxism/international socislism). It was there already from the beginning with Moses Hess and Karl Marx, backed up/initiated by Rotchild banking and later by control of production of ideology.
What is bad for goyim is god for the jews – always.
peace
Lasse
searching
May 18, 2012 at 10:17 pm
You are correct.
Many people are so thoroughly brainwashed by MSM that that don’t realise that they are being manipulated into digging their own grave.
Most of the whole popular western culture is soaked with lies, manipulations, deception, turning morals upside down,censorship of anything valuable, honest, ethical. Majority of the people don’t realise it, another big part don’t care. That’s why is so easy to continue to do it.
…..
“The most powerful and deadly weapon of World War II was capable of bringing about the complete obedience of millions of people without firing a single shot. That weapon was propaganda and it revolutionized the way in which wars were fought then and now.”
http://polishgreatness.blogspot.com/2012/02/ww2-propaganda-war-of-words-part-4.html
Gilad Atzmon
May 18, 2012 at 10:24 pm
Tx Lasse, I also think that it one of my most important papers,,, I guess that there is enough meat there for a book.. It is basically an expose of an institutional deceit
searching
May 18, 2012 at 10:41 pm
William Norman Grigg “A method to the Madness”
grigghttp://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=792045&page=1
“….The success of the Gramscian cultural assault upon America was attested to by Michael Walzer in the Winter 1996 issue of the Marxist journal Dissent.
As evidence that the revolutionary left is winning the “Gramscian ‘war of position,’ ” Walzer approvingly cited, among other developments: “The visible impact of feminism.” “The effects of affirmative action.” “The emergence of gay rights politics, and … the attention paid to it in the media.” “The acceptance of cultural pluralism.” “The transformation of family life,” including “rising divorce rates, changing sexual mores, new household arrangements — and, again, the portrayal of all this in the media.”
“The progress of secularization; the fading of religion in general and Christianity in particular from the public sphere — classrooms, textbooks, legal codes, holidays, and so on.” “The virtual abolition of capital punishment.” “The legalization of abortion.” “The first successes in the effort to regulate and limit the private ownership of guns.”
All of these developments, Walzer admitted, were imposed upon our society by “liberal elites,” rather than being driven “by the pressure of a mass movement or a majoritarian party.” These changes, Walzer observed, “reflect the leftism or liberalism of lawyers, judges, federal bureaucrats, professors, school teachers, social workers, journalists, television and screen writers — not the population at large.”
“Left Wing of the Ruling Class”
The “elites” referred to Walzer also include major tax-exempt foundations that have generously underwritten subversive “change agents” in the United States for decades.
Such foundations are the conduits that link “silk-hat” revolutionaries with street-level radicals in a common assault upon middle-class America.
Great care has been taken by the architects of the cultural war to make it appear that the onslaught is a spontaneous revolution arising from the masses.
However, the most radical changes in American society are being imposed from the top down, are lavishly underwritten by the Establishment.
It is through this two-pronged “scissors strategy” of pressure from above and pressure from below that the assault on America’s cultural institutions has done the most damage….”
Gilad Atzmon
May 19, 2012 at 12:31 am
Yes, it is a valid criticism that marginal groups within Western discourse are often amongst the privileged, this fact alone explains Left emerging detachment…
searching
May 18, 2012 at 10:44 pm
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=792045&page=1
“……..The uprooting of traditional family institutions is also a goal of the homosexual revolution, which — like the feminist movement — has its origins in the Marxist Left and has been nurtured by the power elite.
The American “gay rights” movement was inaugurated by the Mattachine Society, founded in the 1950s by Marxists Harry Hay and Rudi Gernreich.
The ongoing and shockingly successful campaign to normalize homosexuality is the product of a cunning strategy that uses the mass media, especially entertainment, and other Establishment-controlled institutions to re-educate the public in favor of the unmentionable vice.
That strategy was outlined, with stunning candor, in After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ’90′s, by homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen.
Taking a page from Gramsci (and Goebbels), the authors urged that the Lavender Lobby mount a full-scale propaganda war to bring about the “conversion” of America through a “planned psychological attack.” Through such means, the authors predicted, Americans would be “cured” of their opposition to homosexual perversion, “whether they like it or not……..”
Deadbeat
May 18, 2012 at 11:55 pm
searching what you are writing is misleading and disinformation regarding Marxist concepts of family. Engels clarified that in The Principles of Communism
The idea is that family is NOT a property relationship nor is it the purview of the state. Spend a day in divorce court to understand what the “traditional family” truly means. The whole “gay marriage” is yet another way to expand state power and intrusion into privacy. This is going to be a boon for lawyers.
who_me
May 19, 2012 at 3:13 am
Deadbeat
the main difference between rightwing and leftwing views that I’ve been able to separate is that of personal relationships.
with the left, advancement and gain are a collective endevour. one doesn’t exploit the weaknesses of ones people to get ahead, one helps bolster up those weaknesses so all can do well. gaining at the expense of associated fellows is anathema to the left. the family is not regarded as a social group to defend against a hostile world, but as a microcosm of society as a whole. the strength exploited by the left is not that of ruthless individuals taking advantage of those around them, but the strength people have when acting together for all of their benefit.
the right view others as a means for personal advancement. their loss is ones gain and how people should proceed. the fellow who best takes advantage of others is the one looked up to. oddly, standard rightwing views hold the family sacred, and exempt from this preying upon others to advance. in fact, much of the right views family relations the way the left views relationships of people in society. one should work together to benefit the family as a whole. the dysfunctional family is considered one where members prey upon each other, they way they prey upon non-family members. this creates a problem among those on the right that has never been satisfactorily resolved.
how can one treat their family differently, using a different morality, than others, and not become a schizo. one set of rules for the home and another (or even several sets) for those outside the home is inconsistent. it creates hypocrisy, hierarchy, class and all sorts of other dual personality traits among those who practice this.
it’s like the soldier, raised from birth to think killing human beings is murder, and the ultimate wrong, who is then trained to go out and kill. it creates a mental conflict that can be devastating to the killer’s sanity. this duality of rightwing thinking that it is ok to exploit some people, but not others creates a similar personality conflict. in order for people to justify this hypocrisy to themselves, they must be convinced those they exploit are less worthy than themselves and their group. this is where class, slavery and all the other forms of one group dominating another originate from.
as with all things where multiple rule sets prevail, the split personalities these create are not always able to separate the folks these different rules apply to from each other. the result is they apply the “wrong” rules occasionally to some people. where this includes family members, this is usually recognised as abuse now, where one family member ruthlessly dominates the rest. but the further to the right one goes, the more this separation of family from other disappears.
ultimately, at the extreme end of rightwing “philosophy”, carried through to its logical conclusions, is the dysfunctional family with a single ruthless head, and all the other members suitably stratified in their roles beneath, who prey upon each other’s weaknesses to gain a better position in the family. the family them becomes the same thing to these people as every one else.
Deadbeat
May 20, 2012 at 1:08 am
Thank you who_me for your clarification and explanations. Your explanation mirrors my interpretations of the differences between the Left and the Right. Unfortunately I’m more clumsy in my expression.
I believe that the Left needs to be critique especially the pseudo-Left and the phonies who co-opt those tenants in order to serve their own nefarious agendas. But the critique, IMO should properly and accurately communicate the true tenants of the Left and not misreport them.
What expose the Right, as you point out, are their contradictions. The Right’s embraces social competition that leads to all sorts of contradictions and dysfunction. This is what eventually breaks down societies. The role of the pseudo-Left is to do its best to conceal and deflect away this kind of analysis.
who_me
May 20, 2012 at 1:38 am
Deadbeat
“The Right’s embraces social competition that leads to all sorts of contradictions and dysfunction. This is what eventually breaks down societies. The role of the pseudo-Left is to do its best to conceal and deflect away this kind of analysis.”
yup, the pseudo left is like this lot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_12E1EN6fs
when things look down, they charge in to the rescue, but one ends up more powerless and despondent than before they appeared. unfortunately, they are not the ones who top themselves. they stand by with sympathetic looks while those who looked up to them take their advice and top themselves. then the cryptos saunter over to the nearest jewish zionist owned bank and cash their checks.
Deadbeat
May 20, 2012 at 2:50 am
when things look down, they charge in to the rescue, but one ends up more powerless and despondent than before they appeared.
Exactly! That pretty much sums up my experience with the pseudo-Left during the 2004 Nader campaign/Green Party experience. The Greens had the best chance of becoming a viable 3rd party challenge to the Democrats and then the pseudo’s entered with their “Anybody but Bush” mantra torpedoing the once in a lifetime opportunity. Their actions left the Greens damaged, weak, disrupted and ineffective. Apparently from my reading they’ve done the same to the Palestine Solidarity Movement as well.
then the cryptos saunter over to the nearest jewish zionist owned bank and cash their checks.
This is why none of the Left-wing journals that I once frequently read ever mentioned anything about fractional reserve banking nor every spoke about usury. I noticed that Paul Krugman was interviewed on Democracy Now this week promoting his new book conflating deficits with “spending” and advocating the government borrow more money to stimulate the economy. What he fails mention what government borrowing is essentially workers paying rich jewish financiers to lend the government money at interest for exploitative jobs. What a racket!
who_me
May 20, 2012 at 3:16 am
Deadbeat
“and then the pseudo’s entered with their “Anybody but Bush” mantra torpedoing the once in a lifetime opportunity.”
they needed a new slogan, and that’s what they came up with.
i used to listen to pacifica back during the 80′s and 90′s and they would use similar tactics to push democrats. between elections, they would cover independents, but near election time, they would stop that, and put the majority of their coverage on the democrats and republicans. the mantra then was the independent has no hope of winning, so people must vote the lesser of two evils. at the time, i didn’t know what had happened at pacifica during the 80′s, but they had been taken over by zionists and corporate allied stooges. it was done slowly, and behind the scenes. a character named david salniker was the tool used to bring pacifica under the ziofascist umbrella.
what was done to nader by the zionist “left” is now being done to paul by the zionist right. an interesting commentary by raimondo on this recently:
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/05/17/what-does-ron-paul-want/
Ariadna Theokopoulos
May 20, 2012 at 3:34 am
I see some merits in Paul: calls for bringing the troops home, has educated many Americans on The Fed and the banksters, opposes supporting Israel or indeed sending “aid” to various client/vassal states, but I can’t say I’d like to live in his dog-eat-dog world of ‘rugged individualism.’
Deadbeat
May 20, 2012 at 8:16 am
I have to agree with you Ariadna regarding Paul. I supported Paul up until I saw his budget proposal and then withdrew my support. While he planed to cut the military budget by 28% his cuts to vital social programs where larger in the 35% range. In addition he planed to zero out the inheritance tax which would lead to massive dynastic fortunes and gross inequality as if that’s not bad already. So yes you are right to be suspect regarding Paul’s economic philosophy.
However I do agree that Paul primary contribution has been educating the public about the Federal Reserve.
Gilad Atzmon
May 19, 2012 at 12:36 am
I guess that sooner or later we ll see a growing split between gay movement (political identification) and homosexuals (sexual preference).
Being a musician in London I work occasionally with gays,, and i have already come across more than one ‘proud self hating gay’. They obviously hate the politics.
it is all very interesting…
searching
May 18, 2012 at 10:46 pm
“….To Create a Soviet America, it would be necessary to eradicate the traditional family and to supplant the family with the state.
Karl Marx called for the “abolition of the family” in the Communist Manifesto. “Marx was on to something more profound than he knew when he observed that the family contained within itself in embryo all the antagonisms that later develop on a wider scale within the society and the state,” wrote Friedan’s disciple Shulamith Firestone in her 1970 tract The Dialectic of Sex. “[U]nless revolution uproots the basic organization, the biological family … the tapeworm of exploitation will never be annihilated.”
“Feminism is not just an issue or a group of issues,” wrote feminist revolutionary Ellen Willis in the November 14, 1981 issue of The Nation. “It is the cutting edge of a revolution in cultural and moral values. … The objective of every feminist reform, from legal abortion … to child-care programs, is to undermine traditional family values. …”
Gilad Atzmon
May 19, 2012 at 12:40 am
I agree, we have to differentiate between traditional Left thinking that is dialectical and ideological and contemporary left that is indeed an amalgam of lame postcolonial nonsense submerged in badges and scarves..
Deadbeat
May 20, 2012 at 1:30 pm
This is why I use the designation “pseudo-Left”. Feminist icon, Gloria Steinum was a CIA operative who spent most of her feminist years dating spooks.
searching
May 18, 2012 at 10:48 pm
“…Myth of Inevitability
Many of the problems afflicting America do not reflect the march of impersonal, irreversible “social progress,” or the process of irresistible social decay. Instead, they reflect the destructive accomplishments of a long-term conspiracy against American society — a Gramscian assault upon all of the vital institutions that prevent the erection of the total state. Gramsci referred to these institutions as “fortresses and earthworks” to be overcome. However, those who love freedom should consider these besieged institutions — the family, traditional religion, [Helleno-Christian] morality — as “layers of strength” that have remarkable resiliency and must be restored. But the work of restoration cannot be effective unless a sufficient number of [people who care] come to understand the conspiratorial origins of our culture war.
Such an understanding helps dispel the despair that besets good people when they succumb to the illusion that our cultural decline is somehow pre-ordained, and that nothing can be done to arrest it. Understanding the covert machinations of our enemies is also necessary in order to anticipate their moves and organize effective resistance — and it is only through organized, principled defense of our heritage of liberty that the culture war can ultimately be won.”
searching
May 18, 2012 at 11:10 pm
what we see right now is almost the end of this very destructive ,global, propaganda war on nations and societies. They won.
The incredible damage is done.
Can we reverse it???
We should try but we will pay a tremendous price for years of ignorance and deception.
The demoralisation that is done especially to the kids and youth is mind breaking.
What is offered to them through so-called pop culture is pure filth, occultysm and lack of any moral values. It is a very sad ,scary world that our children are facing.
http://vigilantcitizen.com/moviesandtv/the-hunger-games-a-glimpse-at-the-new-world-order/
Deadbeat
May 20, 2012 at 12:44 am
This is an excellent analysis. I found this paragraph most enlightening…
In fact, the postcolonial discourse, allows its acolytes to talk endlessly and passionately about Israel and Zionism without saying anything meaningful.
This sentence pretty much defines the Left today and their diatribes. My access to Information Clearing House because I challenged the moderators defense of John Pilger who was labelled a “gatekeeper” by a fellow respondent. But it does get awful tiring constantly seeing articles from a “journalist” who seem to miss the real story of Zionist power and dominance. Zionism is not limited to Israel’s undeclared boarders but to its dominance of the Western governments (especially the United States) who uses its citizen’s blood and treasure to back Israel hegemony and furtherance of Zionist aims. Pilger, like many pseudo-Leftist tend to “isolate” the problem as an Israeli matter rather than an integral part of international Zionism.
My rebuttal to the ICH’s moderator, was to post the YouTube video of Greg Felton’s Host and Parasite lecture at the Vancouver Public Library to contrast someone who can go beyond the walls set up by the pseudo-Left. Thus the natural question to ask is that if Felton can go beyond the gates why can’t a “journalist” of Pilger’s alleged stature. For my candidness, my IP address to ICH has been block. Naturally I can circumvent that annoyance but why even bother.
Apparently the “Left” can’t handle the truthfulness and would rather spin incessantly while Zionism power and reach continue to grow and expand.
Another question that I have to ask is why if Dyer wanted to understand “Whiteness” did he go to a Jewish community and not spend time amongst Blacks. It would seem a natural place to start in order to understand “Whiteness”. The reason I suggest this is that from my understanding, it was “Blackness” that was initially defined in the Talmud via its racial interpretation of the Curse of Ham.
In other words “Whiteness” is really an outgrowth of the wretched interpretation of “Blackness” and is not really “biological determinism” but a political tool used not only as a supremacist justification but one to justify profit derived from the slave trade. Therefore if the concept of “Blackness” was form out of an illegitimate justification of supremacy then then so too is “Whiteness”. The question then to ask is why do we still give legitimacy to ideas borne out of illegitimacy?
Ariadna Theokopoulos
May 20, 2012 at 2:20 am
“My rebuttal to the ICH’s moderator, was to post the YouTube video of Greg Felton’s Host and Parasite lecture at the Vancouver Public Library…”
which deserves as wide a viewership as possible:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSwMgLUkOt0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tclPNuurEjk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfnoevvP7nk&feature=relmfu
attack on Greg Felton in the Q & A portion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueYwAHBztnE&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fciGuTYMXyc&feature=relmfu
Ariadna Theokopoulos
May 20, 2012 at 5:57 pm
The postcolonial discourse while Palestine is being screwed aims at enabling Israel to have the last word: the postcoital discourse.
Chester
May 21, 2012 at 2:04 pm
Good article touching on these themes here by Jon Pilger:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4017816.html