Comments on: cognitive dissonance on Jewish power

By: silencenolonger

silencenolonger — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 23:16:34 +0000

Its worth reading Evan’s book “The Rise of The Third Reich”. What most people in this country don’t recognize is that WW2 was a battle between State Sponsored Totalitarian systems. This was to be the future, Democracy had failed. On the right you has Nationalist State Totalitarianism of the Nationalists, Brownshirts, Steel Helmets and the Nazis, as the answer to a communist take over. Why would the Germans turn to Hitler, how about 30 million murdered by Stalin.
Who had put the Communist in power Marxism written by a Jew, promoted by another Trotsky, financed by Jacob Schiff, the Kuhn Loeb Bank and the Rothchilds all Jews. The head of the Socialist Parties in Germany were Jews. In 1919, a Bolshovik paid for coupd’etat in Munich was led by Jews. Put down by nationalists, whom Hitler joined and became their spokesperson. Then, there are the reparations that were pushed, as Lloyd George, the PM of England mentioned, by Bankers at the Treaty of Versailles (“there were more bankers than diplomats”)
Only now are historians (because of the opening of the Soviet Archives) filling in the blanks, and the lessons need to learned, especially in light of the recent Financial collapse

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 11:34:43 +0000

A couple prominent individuals condemn an offensive comment and you interpret that as “cognitive dissonance on Jewish power”?

How is that anything but an effort to establish ethnic quotas, official or just prejudicial?

By: RoHa

RoHa — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 04:26:44 +0000

But we do see films, books, etc., sympathising with the hard times of the French under occupation.

(And far fewer mentioning that the Free French forces under deGaulle included an awful lot heavily shaded-in characters – including (gasp!) Arabs – from France’s various colonies.)

By: hayate

hayate — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 17:07:22 +0000

An example “cognitive dissonance on Jewish power” at work:

Here are 2 articles on the zionist push for war against Iran. On can see the difference between the “chomsky” approach and that of someone less influenced by the zionist toxin.

In the first:

Lurching Toward War?
Iran Under Siege

By ANTHONY DiMAGGIO

link to counterpunch.org

Almost nothing is said about israeli or zionist influence behind the people pushing for war or tougher sanctions. It’s all american and the eu with the role of israel and zionists ignored completely. Reading this article, one would be lead to believe israel had no part in this push for war at all. It is all the usa’s and Europe’s doing.

That is the chomsky approach, where the role of israel, and Jewish zionists is left out of the analysis and all discussion uses their puppets as the final decision makers without the strings noted. Without even noting the obvious anydimwit could see just from reading the zionist run western corporate media about israeli/zionist involvement. Every day one of these zionist elements is spouting off on the need to attack Iran.

Now look at a more reasonable analysis:

Neocon Nutballs Ramp Up Campaign
Bomb Iran?

By GARETH PORTER

link to counterpunch.org

He details the zionist/neocon/israeli players ramping up the attack Iran propaganda. Describes their connections to each other and israel. Describes the israeli lobby role and their role in having the u.s. congress declare it’s loyalty to israeli interests about Iran. What you get here is a much more realistic understanding of who is behind this warmongering and how they are going about laying the groundwork for public approval of the war.

This is a huge difference from the crypto-zionist “chomsky” style of the dimaggio piece where the role of zionists and israel is cleverly hidden behind that of their puppet’s roles.

By: potsherd

potsherd — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 14:10:32 +0000

The French are now belatedly expressing annoyance that their towns were bombed during WWII by the Allies, for whom their fate was not a prime consideration.

By: potsherd

potsherd — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 14:08:38 +0000

Foreign aid is the only sector that the majority of Americans agree should be cut.

By: Citizen

Citizen — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 13:24:37 +0000

Time to put this cognitive dissonance in context of the current US domestic economic situation, for example our huge debt in the trillions and our 17.5 % unemployment
rate (including all those who have been unemployed for more than a year, written off the official unemployment books during the Clinton era). Israel’s unemployment rate is about 5% and Israel has national health insurance. Both the donkeys and the elephants agree we need to cut and/or cap some programs, e.g. Medicare. Why is nobody talking about cutting welfare checks to the foreign state that gets the largest dole and is the least grateful? Americans don’t need that money? For example, the WIC program concentrates on aiding the nutrition of our poor mothers and their babies (73% of black American moms are single mothers; 53% of Latino mothers; and 33% of white moms). This federal program costs American taxpayers 7.7 million per year. That’s also how much we give Israel to cover two year of (merely the direct) welfare to Israel. Further, we pay interest on that aid to Israel and their is no accounting of it. In contrast, every month WIC has to justify every penny it gets every month.
According to federal government stats, we gave Israel 100 billion to Israel from 1949 to 2000. In the last decade all that money is earmarked for military aid to Israel. Current budget allocation by contract with Israel is 30 billion to 2018 to arm Israel, which is a 25% historical increase. During Shub’s regime, from 1/01 to 11/08, the weapons we paid for killed 2,000
Palestinians who were not engaging in any hostile activities. How about Obama’s “change we can believe in?” During 3/09, two months after OP Cast Lead, Obama shipped 300 containers of weapons to Israel. The 2010 budget gives Israel 2,775 billion in military aid to Israel and, as already stated, the 2011 budget calls for 3 billion per year for 10 years. Why does it not matter that this dole is against existing US law? The Arms Export Control Act forbids arming an occupying power so engaged in war crimes.
The Foreign Assistance Act forbids such aid because there is a gross pattern of human rights violations. And the Leahy Law, which is part of our federal budget process, forbids such aid to countries engaged in human rights violations. Can’t we use this money at home? You can go to aidtoisrael.org and plug in your geographical local to find out what it’s percentage of taxpayer money could pay for if spent at home locally. An example, St Louis MO: That city’s portion of the 30 billion allocated to Israel for the next ten years would equal 78 million destined to pay for
IDF weapons and gear. This sum would pay for 955 low income housing vouchers or to retrain the unemployed, or to support 23000 at risk students. The same sum would pay health care for 64000 who have no health insurance. link to endtheoccupation.org

By: Citizen

Citizen — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:33:13 +0000

Yeah, just go to Philip Roth’s what-if novel about that nasty antisemite Lindberg, the Plot Against America, and you get the real scoop.

By: RoHa

RoHa — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 05:57:28 +0000

Little quiz for everyone.

During WW2, foreign armies fought back and forth through North Africa. Not merely in picturesque deserts (see Ice Cold In Alex – probably the best WW2 film ever made) but also through cities, farms, orchards and oases.

How many times have you seen a suggestion, in books, films, TV shows, or anywhere else, that this might have occasioned a teensy bit of inconvenience for the locals?

By: RoHa

RoHa — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 05:45:56 +0000

But what has he done for Israel lately?