Natasha of Haaretz: "American Jews eye Obama’s anti-Israel appointees",:
Every appointee to the American government must endure a thorough background check by the American Jewish community.
Piece is about efforts to block Chuck Hagel, the former Neb senator, to an intelligence position. Confession: A few weeks back I put ‘Zog’ (Zionist occupied government) in a headline and a friend said it was anti-Semitic and I sheepishly removed it.
No updating of the activities that inspired the protocols:
Exec pleads guilty to bribing NY pension officials
link to google.com
Rothstein, Facing Fraud Charges, Surrenders Assets
link to bloomberg.com
AF – your comment not only crosses the anti-Semitism line, it is irrelevant to the VERY IMPORTANT point being made by Phil. You totally fail to understand this distinction and make it more difficult for people like Phil to say what needs to be said.
Whether “ZOG’s” warmongering, or swindling billions, or performing lewd acts on stage, it’s all part of the same phenomenon: pervasive hostility to gentiles.
Are Jews the only people who are shading when it comes to finance?
No, but for avid followers of this aspect of news, they sure are prevalent; history shows how it came to be that while they were often victims in other area of (what is now known as ) civil rights; in the areas of banking, finance, usury, they were given a privileged position; they’ve made the most of it since at least the Middle Ages.
Just like the mafia, they are using RICO laws, which means others will follow.
link to sun-sentinel.com
RICO, an acronym for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, is a federal law enacted in 1970. Violating the statute is one of five federal crimes Rothstein is now charged with.
Its intended use was to prosecute the Mafia and organized crime. Now it is more broadly applied to corporations, politicians, unions, terrorist organizations and even professional baseball and some dioceses of the Roman Catholic Church. RICO is a double-barreled charge because anyone found guilty of it is liable not only to enhanced jail time but must forfeit all ill-gotten gains.
Also, many USA states have their version of RICO acts. It’s double criminal exposure, like the new Hate Crimes bill that Obama signed recently. A way to get around the constitutional bar against double criminal exp0sure–”double jeopardy.” Check out
the Obama-signed Hate Crime bill.
It would be nice if RICO could be used against The Lobby. AIPAC and its affiliated PACs are much worse than the Five Families of NY.
Believe me, that is not the full Rothstein story!
The Miami Herald printed it Dec 1, then promptly yanked it. This is the only link where you will not only find this incredible story, but see the original optional edits. Read to the end And this guy is walking around without being charged.
link to individual.com
Optional trim, unbelievable! Reminds me of how the 9/11 Israeli art students story was optionally trimmed into oblivion by Fox News.
Actually, America First, Fox News didn’t trim it. Abe Foxman was in the Fox offices by the end of the week of the series and threatened to remove every shred of advertising. The series is still available here:
link to informationclearinghouse.info
You can use zamzar.com to download each part for you for free in any format you need. MP4 is best for historical purposes.
This is dangerous. And we have no one to blame but ourselves for not screaming to the rafters at having AIPAC, et al, replace elected members of Congress in setting domestic and foreign policy by determining, vetting, and approving policy officials to act in their narrow interests.
Meanwhile, leading gentile neocon turns against Af-Pak crusade:
Afghan Rebuttal and Surrebuttal on the Right
By Tony Blankley
link to realclearpolitics.com
Note the timing: it’s now on the Democrats’ watch. This supports the notion that the gentiles are just along for the political ride, for the Jews it’s much more.
why realclear? do they imagine their readers will doubt what they say and so insist up front how reliable they are, how real clear?
Like Fox’s no-spin zone?
Is the acronym ZOG more, or less revealing, than other shorthand for reality? Is it a sure sign of hatred towards all Jews simply because they were born as Jews, or is it an insightful entry into the intellectual thought analysis support for a powerful strand of thought
trotted out endlessly to support status quo USA foreign policy?
We can all imagine the result if the implemented NAZI model had won; the issue is, can we imagine
the result if the implemented ZIONIST model wins? How much more imagination will it take, given say the last forty plus years?
We’re not talking about a dozen German years here.
“sheepishly removed it”.
What is your actual backbone? Do you think it is anti-semitic, or is even anti-semitic in common usage, thereby giving validity to anti-semitism?
The article and the more important, the clarifying comments by Mearsheimer in particular in Q & A following, were conspiratorial in tone.
You didn’t see that?
You didn’t see how the article and book were used in practice, that you personally encouraged in indirect and direct ways?
Please, speak the truth.
Yes Witty, keep distracting us from the supposition as reported that you don’t win a position in the American government unless you pledge allegiance to Zionism. I’m sure everybody’s just tripping over themselves to fall for it, because watching you twist the knife you stuck in your friend’s back is oh-so-inspiring.
When I see Witty side-step the point of the article and continue on brow-beating Phil with rhetoric to work out guilt and appeal to the terrible attack of collective ‘self’ loathing (as if Jews need to think one way on the issue), I think of conversations like the one below
Witty: Please, speak the truth. If you’re such a good friend of Phil’s, why aren’t you writing these constant harangues to Phil in an email? He’s obviously not answering you here, so why dont you take it outside and get some satisfaction.
==========================
Let me introduce you to a great definition of anti-semitism by Jeffrey Blankfort:
A good definition to work from rather than the torture you put yourself through looking for it it under every plate, rock, and dissected paragraph.
Rather than ask me what he means, or second-guessing him, listen to how Blankfort describes it here at 19:30 min for a few minutes in an interview with Stephen Zunes:
link to pulsemedia.org
Also tune in around 27:00 min. for 3 min, and at 37:30 when Blankfort calls people who worry about the boogeyman of anti-semitism the first refuge of a scoundrel, because they are not addressing the real issue of Jewish money and whats its influence is doing to our political process and constitutional life in America..
correction: …calls worrying about the boogeyman of anti-semitism the first refuge of a scoundrel, because people are not addressing…
What do you want to bet Witty was the “friend” who goaded Mr. Weiss to remove it? Wouldn’t that put this into perspective.
I’ll take that bet.
$1000?
It was a rhetorical flourish. I already if you’re going to be hypocritical, you’re not going to hide it — you have no qualms about putting it in right out in the open. Hell, you can make a post merely two sentences long, and still manage to squeeze in a blatant contradiction. Or am I imagining too much, and not imagining enough? I suppose that’s what I get for having specific heroes that are too vague to identify.
Given your ahem situation, you’ll need to put that cash on the table before anyone takes your action.
How about a bet that there is not one statement on this blog that you have made which is not Zionist (negative or positive in orientation blatantly or suggestively) in orientation or supportive of Israel?
“……a friend said it was anti-Semitic and I sheepishly removed it”.
RW, you are a coward. I have read this blog for some years now. I try to think of it as a light in a world of darkness. You seem to encourage people to stand up to the destructive pressures to silence criticism of Zionist misdeeds here and abroad. Do you have any idea – at all – what the price can be for a person of principle who takes your overture to heart?? Lost associations, lost “friends”, cold stares for the rest of one’s life, etc. And you??!! The FOUL breath of the weapon of Jewish evil – the hint of “anti-semitism” – and you fold your tent and run! Coward.
These issues are not black and white, and the use of accusations of antisemitism as a political weapon is I suspect a relatively recent development. Many Jews may not be fully cognizant of the frequency and effectiveness of its misuse. It is natural that they would be wary of antisemitic ‘code words’, and perhaps err on the side of caution in evaluating suspect labels. You are WILDLY overreacting.
JOG would be antisemitic. ZOG, while an exaggeration, is in my opinion merely anti-Zionist. Antisemites might use the term, but that in and of itself does not make it antisemitic.
anti-Zionism ≠ antiSemitism
Zionists, like any group engaged in a struggle for hearts and minds, naturally seek to determine the language acceptable for discourse. We ought not let them remain rhetorically unopposed.
Phil is not as naive as you to imagine that the term ZOG is not a generations-long anti-semitic code used by organized fascists to convey “Hitler should have finished the job”.
For him to “jokingly” use the term, and then defend it, paints him very badly. It is not insignificant. (Its just a word.)
ZOG is a term to enlightened the masses that the tail is wagging the dog. It’s a big dog, the biggest in the world since the collapse of the USSR. Hence the tail is something to
closely watch–when you watch it, and if you say anything about what you see, be ready to be tar-brushed as an ant-semite or self-hating jew. In the USA this means
your career will be severely damaged; in places like Germany, it means you will be tossed in jail.
Just yesterday I passed a rundown Baptist church in a tiny town, that is at least 90 miles from the nearest synagogue, with a sign advertising the special guest speaker Rabbi Solomon. There are no Jews in the area, so interfaith dialogue isn’t an issue. My guess is thatRabbi Solomon is another in a long line of Israel activists who visit local Protestant churches to shill for Israel. I remember a few years back when Israeli officials visited local churches to drum up support, and this is an area where congressmen and senators are largely unseen even during election years.
I might even show up for the Rabbi’s performance just to see what is going on.
Todd,
Record it if you can.
If I can’t make it to this performance, I’ll try and find out what it was all about.
I really am quite sick of watching Zionists use other Jews as human shields, rhetorical or otherwise.
I didn’t know the term was in popular usage among antisemitic extremists, but I have found enough reasonably reliable information to convince me that such allegations have merit, and that the usage of the term by some is meant to literally indicate Jewish (not just Zionist) control over the whole government, not just the actual reality of the focused efforts that the Israeli Lobby makes to dominate American foreign and defense policies to benefit the pro-colonization faction in Israel. I saw the term ‘occupied government’ as the most abbreviated abstraction of the far more complex reality of varying degrees of influence among the subset of federal agencies that deal with the formulation and implementation of foreign and defense policies. However, it appears that the term carries too much baggage to be usefully co-opted by anti-Zionists who specifically want a change in American government policy, but don’t buy into the ‘Jews are out to conquer the world’ nonsense.
However, there is no way that Zionists who work against the best interests of America and the American people, especially those who cross the line into treason, e.g., Paul Wolfowitz, or conspiracy to corrupt our judicial system on behalf of a foreign power,e.g. Jane Harman and the individual with whom she was talking (IIRC identified only as an Israeli agent), should be rhetorically let off the hook. Accommodation to legitimate sensitivity is warranted, but no attempt to constrain the debate should be tolerated. I can understand that Jews can be suspicious of the motivation and intent of those who use words or phrases that they themselves deem antisemitic. You should understand that anti-Zionists are also suspicious of attempts to control the terms of the debate with the use of false charges or insinuations of antisemitism.
The problem with catchy phrases is that they have to be highly abstract to be short enough to be effective. ‘CZOFP’ for colonial-Zionist-occupied-foreign-policy is an example. It is accurate, specifying the perps, pro-colonization Zionists, and (broadly) the arena of their criminal activity, foreign policy. Unfortunately, initialisms like CZOFP obviously doesn’t have quite the same simplicity rolling off one’s tongue or mind’s ear as acronyms like ZOG.
Acronym and initialism
We commenters should have an informal competition to come up with a better acronym than ZOG.
Colin Murray, I don’t know you or in what circles you move. Notwithstanding all the many issues that this site bravely airs, I seriously doubt that many Jewish readers (or those who move in circles predominantly Jewish) grasp the overwhelming grass-roots success of the Jewish-establishment weapon of the “anti-Semitism” suggestion. I have lived it many times, and not only from Jews…. in fact, mostly not from Jews – rather than from thoroughly scared non-Jews who fear being in the company of anyone candid enough about the topics discussed at length in this blog. “Oh, so you’re a Jew-hater” was the response of a non-Jew to my remark that Israeli-Zionist pressures on Congress even existed. “Be careful what you say” said another cowed non-Jew American. A senior citizen discussion group to which I once belonged – boasting itself as a democratic and scholarly organization – prohibited mention of “Israel” in its current affairs discussion program after a Jewish woman complained that she found it “disturbing” to hear discussion about Israel. So 35 senior citizens could no longer talk about Israel and Israel-related issues as part of US current affairs (without being thought of as obsessively “anti-semitic). I quit the group, not out of protest, but because health-wise I couldn’t afford the anger level associated with its hypocritical censorship. I could keep on going…. the non-Jewish “friend” who dropped me because my position on Israeli behaviors made me anethma to him (You are known by the company you keep). Project these and many other experiences like this, onto a landscape where the cowardice and groveling of scared members of MY AMERICAN Congress, scared reporters, scared organizations that promote the arts, etc. etc. is objectively observable and (thanks to this site and others) is increasingly aired. But the repressive consequences of this fear of “anti-semitism” slander are severe, effective, and triumphed among Jewish power-holders…… and THEN, on top of it all, to see the sponsor of this site curl his tail and run like all these other scared ones, is a re-enforcement of my darkest thoughts ….. that the threat of being regarded as “anti-semitic” is per se so evilly potent and so inspiring of utter FEAR, that even a proven hero like RW in one struggle for human decency, sheaths his sword at its hint. Over-reaction??? Nuts to you. Maybe you don’t know enough non-Jews, who recoil at the entire Jewish-Zionist-Israeli scenario vis-a-vis the Palestinians, who are driven by nothing more than an indiscriminate passion for “life, liberty and the pursuit of justice” as their analytical standard for the behaviors of their fellow humans. Weren’t we taught that ABC of enlightenment as children? Are we supposed to forget it as adults?
You only need to forget the ABCs of enlightenment as it pertains to Israel’s conduct.
It’s called PEP. Every congress person and our executive branch has internalized it (except for a couple, like Baird, Kucininch, Paul). When you vote next time around,
you can be sure whomever gets elected will keep the faith: Israel First.
American political discourse about conspiracies and conspiracy theories is irrational.
Both should be subjects for rational study and analysis:
1. [wvns] money power’s war on islam
2. [wvns] PRECURSORS TO THE PROTOCOLS OF ZION.
I talk a little about The Turner Diaries by William Franklin Pierce in Islamophobia: the Zionism of Fools.
The Turner Diaries is part of the literature in which the term ZOG appears.
I agree. It often seems that all one has to do to discredit an idea is to call it a conspiracy theory or revisionist history.
I thought the ABC read ‘life, liberty and pursuit of happiness’ (not ‘of justice’) – a formulation which could be a little ambiguous in its impact on those outsiders who stand in the way of our happiness – an ambiguity which may trouble settlers and colonists in many lands quite seriously.
I don’t see how we can avoid, if we think that the terms of the Western debate about Palestine are loaded in favour of Zionism, mainly as a result of massive determination by organisations with massive support among Jews, at least somewhat echoing the complaints made in the terrifying Protocols. Very few of us share the wilder fantasies of this document but how can we deny that we are somehow keeping dangerous company? That we may be tempted to use terms like ZOG or at least to understand the temptation tells us something too, don’t you think?
My view is that it’s best to avoid language which smacks of abuse hurled either by ignorant semi-literates or by crazed intellectuals and which suggests that we have little time for rational debate. But fastidiousness about language may not the same as purity of thought.
I started to discuss the ME question from a ‘peace and goodwill’ point of view, thinking that the Taba proposals, now all but forgotten, were a good idea, perhaps with a few more concessions by Israel. What I ran into was not so much refusal to consider any concessions but refusal to agree that there was a moral rather than a practical reason for concessions. This refusal rested on the idea that the moral case for Zionism is very strong. I came to see that I disagreed with every aspect of that case that I was or am aware of. Others have come to this position too, have even written books. They all firmly separate themselves from anti-Semitism and all its works, no doubt including the outrageous ideas of the Protocols. But is rejecting the ideas that are outrageous enough? Isn’t it necessary to reject all their ideas and every similar idea? And if I am distressed at the terms of the current debate and horrible words used about, just as about the horrible treatment visited on, the Palestinians can I still manage this rejection?
The thing about the Protocols was that they were lies. Jews didn’t kidnap Christian children to make blood matzot. They didn’t constitute a secret cabal that ruled all governments from secret. None of it was true.
The difference now is that many of the things that people say about Jews, about the Israel Lobby’s control over US mid east policy, are not lies. They are true. But they happen to resemble some of the old lies.
Zionists in particular use this resemblance to discredit the truth, to keep it from being told. It is as if the truth being told would somehow make people believe that the old lies were also true. Perhaps some do believe this, but I think for the most part it is merely cynical manipulation of old fears in order to quash the truth.
My own position is firm – Truth, above all.