Bruce Wolman urges me to stop talking about Jeffrey Goldberg. He says that Goldberg "willfully ignores material counterfactuals to maintain his narrative" and suggests that my perseveration will bring me down to Goldberg's boxcutter level. I'm not convinced. Goldberg is glib, entertaining, and alive--great qualities in a journalist--and, while I would agree that his thinking is always undone by an emotional narrative of Jewish powerlessness, the most important thing is that Goldberg's been elected. He's the most powerful Jewish journo in the world not thru some freak but because Jewish people/editors have elected him. It was said during his New Yorker days that Goldberg was editor David Remnick's id (a now-archaic Freudian word meaning Iraq). That wisdom is reflected in this story that Wolman tells me:
The questions were mainly about Iraq, Abu Ghraib and the Nixon
era, but at a certain point Goldberg tried to raise Israel-Palestine,
basically parroting the Clinton/Barak narrative in his question.
Hersh laughed and replied, "I'd rather run through the streets naked
than talk about Israel and the Palestinians." I was the only one in the
audience who saw the humor in Hersh's reply, and then Hersh
followed up by saying "all you need to know about the issue can be
found in Ha'aretz, the Israel newspaper." Since I had been reading
Ha'aretz every day for exactly that reason, I let out an expression
of approval which Hersh acknowledged. This endeared me to Hersh,
but not to the rest of the audience.
After the talk, there was a reception. The crowd gathered around
Hersh and Goldberg asking questions. I must say that Hersh
patiently stood around answering every question posed to him,
even from those people who were kind of hostile and in
disagreement with him. He was a perfect mensch.
I went up to Goldberg and asked him if he had read Clayton
Swisher's "The Truth About Camp David," a book which I had
just finished. He said he had seen it, and then added "what
about it?" I replied, "you may not agree with it, but it was very
well sourced and it seems to me you have to at least respond
to his facts if you are going to support the Clinton/Barak claims
that it was all Arafat's fault." He snarled back, "What, just because
you think a book is important, I have to? President Clinton, himself,
told me that Arafat was the reason the peace talks failed and the
President's word is all the proof I need."
Well, I was astonished. What kind of journalistic ethic was that?
Bill Clinton may have many strengths, but truthfulness when
it goes against his self-interest is not one of them. Moreover, his
wife was now a Senator from New York, so would anyone expect
Bill to defend the Palestinians? Besides, Swisher actually started
his research with a view opposite from his conclusions. As a former
security guard for Madeleine Albright, he was able to get access
to many of the key players from all sides. The book, although
mostly ignored, was an important contribution to the discussion.
I was so pissed at Goldberg, I responded with something like,
"that's just about the most elitist attitude I've heard. What kind
of journalism is that" and then walked away to hear Hersh
continue to answer questions.
Goldberg tried to move away and even drag Hersh with him.
He disappeared for some minutes. Answering questions
from the masses was not for Goldberg.
I must say I couldn't stand the guy from that point on. I even
kept a file of his articles, which I found more and more
outrageous.
But I was wrong about him. He is not elitist. He is adolescent.
A propagandist masquerading as a reporter.
Phil you seem to attack writers,like Breindel and Goldberg who disagree with your view of the world and are much more successful than you. It couldn't be that you are Jealous?
Julian, when you're brutish and nasty, you seem to have a propensity to repeat yourself.
every single comment Julian has posted, he has posted twice. He is either incredibly stupd with the computer, or this is some fiendish new form of elitist strategy. :-)
besides, the personalisation tactic is so threadbare, it hardly merits attention from the targets any more. It's rote-mechanical.
"Answering questions from the masses was not for Goldberg."
Jewish Zionists living in the diaspora seem to be incredibly compartmentalized people. They put their fascist identity in a box and only take it out when the issue of Israel, or Jewry vis-à-vis the gentile world comes up. This fascist box they carry around inside them tends to make them incredibly prickly and pompous. Rahm Emanuel, for example, appears to be the same way.
Bill Clinton was compartmentalized, too, but didn't have a fascist box, but rather a lecherous one.
Compartmentalization makes for real head cases. They can behave one way in one instant, and completely the opposite the next on another issue, and see no hypocrisy or inconsistency whatsoever.
I suspect compartmentalization is the way deceptive minds psychologically find to live with themselves, a kind of coping mechanism. Otherwise, if one is engaged in perpetual chicanery, the psychological burden becomes overbearing.
A post so nice he posted twice!
Come to think of it, PEP is a psychological phenomenon of compartmentalization, which means that it is somewhat endemic in the Jewish community.
Maybe what these diaspora Zionists mostly need is a one way ticket to Israel, or a good shrink.
Bruce Wolman's comment that J. Goldberg is adolescent is, unfortunately, spot-on. Look at this Goldberg post on Hezbollah media: he provides puerile guilt-by-assocation snark, gloating that Hezbollah's site provides links to "such figures as Roger Cohen and John Mearsheimer.":
Julien has an evil twin that follows him everywhere he goes. Yet another Zionist head case.
Thank goodness Phil sees journalistic integrity and the ability to support/defend his positions/arguments as the true measure of success.
One might be envious of the paycheck a particular hack/mouthpiece can earn, but what is the price you'd be willing to sell your soul for? I imagine for many, the price would be quite cheap.
There's a phenomena wherein, when one enters a dark space, one's surroundings seem hidden from sight for a brief span of time. Gradually, as the eye adapts, sight returns. I think of it often, when I think about Goldberg. I checked a couple of the links in his montage above the remarks about Cohen and Mersheimer. One linked to a site discussing the making of videos in support of Hizbollah. His description of the person creating the videos was the epitome of snide. He was so engrossed in his intent to degrade that he failed to recognize how sympathetic his subject might appear to others (a sympathy increased by one's response to his derogatory adjectives,) as was true of another of the subjects.
He's clever, but clever without heart aint much fun to live with, in global terms.
The types Phil discusses are just salesmen. Today they have to sell Lewts so they bring up all the pros of Lewts, and ignore the cons relative to competitive products. Tomorrow, suddenly they are canned from Lewt, so they get a job selling Hoovers. Suddenly all the pros for Lewts are gone in their minds, and the cons surface, as if out of nowhere, as they sell the cons of Hoovers at the door.
All they want is their commission.
Of course here we are not talking about vacuum cleaners, but life and death.
Sadly, often the commission still comes into play. Selling Israel right or wrong is very lucrative, as well as being soul-satisfying, providing you have no moral integrity.
When I see Goldberg's articles in magazines like the New Yorker and Atlantic, I become quite cynical, thinking the fix is in. That propagandists like Goldberg are given such prominence is an indication of the powerlessness of citizens to drive ethical policy.
Goldberg is a retard.
And Julian is the same douche who kept trumpeting the fact that Mearsh and Carter hadn't debate Alan Dershowitz.
Isn't it funny that Dershowitz, like the fraud Goldberg, both used this line?
""What, just because you think a book is important, I have to? President Clinton, himself, told me that Arafat was the reason the peace talks failed and the President's word is all the proof I need."
Dershowitz said the same thing in a debate with Chomsky in 2005.
Julian, R. Kelly is more successful than you. He's a millionaire and a popular singer. Definitely more "successful".
Oh but he's a pedophile.
But Julian, according to your shallow perspective on pretty much everything (and in this case, success), R. Kelly the pedophile is more successful than you, Julian, a douchebag Zionist trolling Phil's blog.
Success is relative. When we look at someone's 'success' in the most superficial way, we can only draw equally superficial conclusions.
What kind of journalist makes it into the mainstream? How many Sy Hersh's are there? How many Goldbergs are there?
Is making it into the mainstream a litmus test for success?
What does that success even mean? Who deems it a sucess? Meaning, who applauds a Goldberg? If Goldberg is in the mainstream but despised by the public, is that still success?
People should ask these sort of questions and then draw your conclusions when it comes to 'success'.
You're too much of a fucking idiot though so I wouldn't bet on it.
it's remnick i want someone to go after.
agreed.
remnick has run the new yorker into the ground.
sad.
"I suspect compartmentalization is the way deceptive minds psychologically find to live with themselves,"
Like the ones who know exactly what mixture makes a true American culture? Guys like that, Ed? Rea;, as you say, head cases.
Ed, that comment on compartmentalization as a necessary psychological tool is highly perceptive. if i may generalize – I see that as the mechanism that allows guys-who-occasionally-do-bad-things to think of themselves as basically good. In other words – it's all of us, humans, the difference being the size of the box (to use a not-entirely -appropriate physical imagery). We do that by putting the "bad" part in a box so it's not staring at us while they are in the "good" mode. For most of us, the bad-in-a-box is about small stuff that affects mostly our personal lives and interelations. For others, the box contains stuff that belongs to many others. Think bernie madoff and what allowed him to continue to operate. And, on the flip side, OJ Simpson. I bet that for the longest time Madoff thought of himself as one of the good guys. All it took is to put some toxic stuff in a "Ponzi Box" then shove it in the attic, to be opened only intermittently, as the need arises. And OJ still denies to himself 99% of the time that he actually did murder those people ((if I did it, that's how…).
An even better example of the bad-in-a- box are the Israelis who say theirs is the most moral army in the world. True enough, as long as a few odds and ends are in a box, labeled "aberrations'.
BTW, I think that it's when the box starts to leak that we get a situation known as "cognitive dissonance", and Phil in his blog is helping highlight that for the increasingly "leaky" box many American jewish zionists carry with themselves. many are people who previously never even acknowledged that they had such a box in their personal attic. Toxic leaks have a way of smelling up the joint until they can no longer be ignored, which is a topic I'm currently writing a little essay about (I love fluid analogs….they are so rich in chemical imagery).
“>link to jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com
They do seem to fail in thoughtful discourse.
@ dana: "Toxic leaks have a way of smelling up the joint until they can no longer be ignored"
And Zionism is really starting to stink. The elephant in the living room is really a carcass. The Americans that continue to ignore it are the ones with the problem, not us. What kind of people live with a carcass in their living rooms and pretend it's not there, anyway? Now THAT'S compartmentalization. It's even more endemic than I previously stated, and among all demographics.
Ed's 1000% right. Why blame the Zionists? They will act as they always have.
Cold water on the face: it's our own damn fault. We're complaining to the wrong people. Time to attack our government. Time to take on the toothless Christian-Zio crazies for their militaristic and violent reading of the Christian Bible.
I keep forgetting that Begin made Israel's strategy to get into bed with the Evangelicals. He did this in the late 70s. He used hatred of homosexuality as a bridge to Jerry Falwell etc and from there it was a hop and a skip to Reagan. Reagan never knew what hit him, but the career civil servants underneath him, the Israel-Firsters, did. His campaign boys just thought they were getting the Evangelical vote.
Is it time to get on the holy-roller blogs? Without the support of the Christian Zionists in this country, the real Zionists have no platform! Check it out. And if you want to see what a long-standing strategy it's been for the European Zionists to go after American Christians and get them on their side, do a google search for "We Hold These Truths" and watch the AV about the changes to the Bible in the 20th C. Eye-opening. I spent about nine months checking into that info and the guy who owns the site, a previous Evangelical, is telling the truth.
One more thing…
John Hagee likes to brag that he has 70 million evangelicals believing his Christians United for Israel shit. What if Israel didn't have that support?
But how do we reason with those folks? I've seen the arguments about the annotated Scofield bible etc., and how it distorted Christianity in favor of Zionism and it makes sense. But dialoging with those folks is hard. Especially if you yourself don't believe any of the religious doctrines and you're looking at it from a detached, purely hypothetical perspective.
If only the American public knew half as much about zionism as the regulars here… How in the world can they be educated?
There's nothing like national bankruptcy to educate the masses.
#
One more thing…
John Hagee likes to brag that he has 70 million evangelicals believing his Christians United for Israel shit. What if Israel didn't have that support?
Posted by: MRW. | April 02, 2009 at 05:55 PM>>>>>>>>>
This reminds me of something….several years ago a well known investigative reporter(whose name escapes me at the moment) did a report on his month long infiltration of the evangelical community that I believe was in the WP and a few other publications.
He also attended the big evangelical conference that was held in DC and reported on it.
One thing that stood out in his write up of that conference was
when a woman evangelical TV personality, Kaye?, somebody named Kaye? talked about Israel and said their first loyalty and committment must be to Israel….he said when she made that staement a "current of "unease" ran thru the audience".
The evangelicals are crazy and also simple minded…but their simple mindedness is such that when the Israel craziness threatens their "basics", their way of life or own country they will drop Israel like a hot potatoe. Count on it.
Let me just add that living in the South I know some of the evangelical types ..they are as I said very simple and basic people, not overly educated..God, Family and Country, that's it. I have also seen them drop or change their religous views the minute it hurts their family…like their views on stem cell research issues when a family member is stricken with something that would benefit from it.
If I were the zionist I wouldn't put my money on them being up for a US war with Iran..or even for the US providing money to Israel for a war with Iran. They are simple but they aren't completely stupid and the next thing to God among the Southern evangelicals is Country. That's one reason they all have those shtogun racks in their trucks. LOL
BTW…on this
"President Clinton, himself, told me that Arafat was the reason the peace talks failed and the President's word is all the proof I need."
I read in Harretz an account of the agreement between Clinton and Barak…it seems Barak was up for a election shortly afterward?…or something political of that type and Clinton agreed to give him a hand by not placing any blame on him regarding Camp David. What Bubba Clinton got for trashing Afarat was staying in the good graces of the zionist money men and NY jews for Hillary's political plans.
If you want to the straight poop on anything read Harretz. You sure as hell won't get it in the US press.
American makes some very good points. I consider millenial dispensationalism a detestable heresy (as did, well…most every major Christian theologian), and I am very disappointed that the spineless mainline churches have not spoken out against it.
On the other hand, the Evangelicals are generally very patriotic people with good values. Their rhetoric is very different from that of most Jewish Zionists. There are Christian Palestinians in Gaza and Christian relief missions, and the horrors of Cast Lead have not been lost on them.
Here's a recent article from Christianity Today. It's striking how humane and balanced the coverage of Gaza is compared to that of the Zionist press.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/march/1.13.html
I'm really not sure what direction the Evangelical movement will take. As American said, they are absolutely USA-first in their politics, and also seem very concerned about the killing of noncombatants. Their support for the Israeli government may not be as unconditional as many Zionists think.
ALL military efforts are +/-, meaning that in order to accomplish the mission (stopping Hamas shelling, which has occurred), there are inevitably failures and in almost every respect, tangible and intangible (integrity, money, goodwill, morale, public opinion).
Its the nature of bold action to have "do the ends justify the means" questions, including BDS.
David, dispensationalism was invented by the UK's original Plymouth Brother,John Nelson Darby. Like many northern Irish Anglican clerics, he was not only a mystical Calvinist, but probably a Freemason too. Your man, Cyrus Scofield, merely popularised it, with the help of hefty subventions (and protection from bigamy charges) from the Jewish financier and noted zionist, Samuel Untermeyer (the same guy who blackmailed Woodrow Wilson).
Hamas has stopped shelling? Since when.
Hamas has managed to shell more now than it was shelling before the ceasefire was broken in November
I wouldn't call those things 'shells'.
Hamas has managed to shell more now than it was shelling before the ceasefire was broken in November
That's because Hamas didn't shell from June to November. Israel broke the truce on our election day.