I was surprised at the reaction to the President’s Prayer Meeting comments this past week in which he related some of Christianity’s historic violence to contextualize what is likely an ephemeral eruption of Islamic extremism practiced by a much smaller percentage of that religion’s adherents than once found myriad and diverse cause to purvey violence under the umbrella of the Christian crusades. I thought his contention that bad people often use religion to do bad things, was at worst by turns both apt and innocuous rhetoric.
The overwhelming masses of self-identifying religious people have always gravitated to the doctrines of peace found in their respective manuscripts, rather than the few spastic calls to violence by God in (his?) fits of pique. It’s just in this age of technology and potent weapons, together with the force magnifier of instant universal media, a few fanatics or frauds, on either side, can parlay acts of barbarism inflicted on a few, or one, into a Potemkin Village of world-wide terror threat in order to serve or advance their respective objectives. If anything, the President may have been attempting to suggest that since the transition from the dark to the enlightened age, rational man’s penchant for religious conversion or acting as realtors for God by way of military conquest, may have assumed it’s more correct and appropriate aspect as secular ambition which simply employs religion to convince unthinking recruits they are cannon fodder for a “higher purpose”. The peaceful majority of rational humanity has come to understand from reason, and even scripture, that God’s mythical omnipotent lethal capability requires no human agency for His will to be done on earth. If he wants people killed, he is perfectly capable of doing it himself. Thus, by force of historic evidence it appears, as with politics, that all warfare is local, and is empirically entirely terrestrial. So, let’s put this “religious war” stuff to rest.
Monday, February 9, 2015
Sunday, February 1, 2015
Thomas Sowell and Questions
Although I have an on-going interest in the subject of 9/11, I recently quite accidentally stumbled across months old articles by Thomas Sowell, in which he asserted in one that the certitude of “facts” are being ignored by 9/11 Truther’s, and in the second that antipathy towards the torture regime illegally employed by our government must be mitigated by what ‘might’ have happened without it‘s saving grace.
I must admit to once admiring the intellectual audacity that made him an outlier academic in our black community. He attacked attitudes and beliefs which may possibly have been too routinely stipulated to by a thoughtless consensus suborned by what he calls “race hustlers”. The questioning of any philosophy or dogma that congeals for whatever reason into an authoritative creed, is always healthy. But Mr. Sowell, like other mortals are wont to do, has adopted an affinity for his own conclusions which seem to me to have been transmuted into the requirements of betrothed loyalty rather than the otherwise expected skepticism which might be called the mother of intellectual invention.
My intention today is not to read the role of anomalies that are undeniably part and parcel of the 9/11 scenario, but to inquire why a supposedly inquisitive academic can so blithely suggest that their existence [the anomalies] is so mundane and inevitable in a momentous event that their apportioned relevance to the official version of truth is, and must be, accessed as only ignoble and lunatic flotsam? Why wouldn’t any concerned citizen desire to assuage such nagging discomfort engendered by a scenario that has rendered so many unalienable constitutional expectations absolutely and fundamentally ‘conditional‘? What elocution or publication by government concerning the events of 9/11 meets any standard which can wear the garment called “proof”? No, when contemplated, our modern Council of Nicaea, like it’s predecessor, was never impaneled to conduct a process to ‘prove’ anything, but rather to ordain the acquiescence of a universal liturgy. Isn’t this procedurally and logically similar to Mr. Sowell’s other supposed “hustle”? And isn’t this post hoc syllogism molded from the proof-less liturgy and the awkward, hypocritical justification for our ‘good torture’?
Though not as old or as educated as Mr. Sowell I am nonetheless a “senior citizen”, and believe am as entitled as any other to opinionate on the peculiarities of human nature, of which I don’t see a special category for Americans. When confronted by the inane question, “Do you think our leaders would kill 3000 of our own citizens?”, I don’t believe I’m displaying any actionable mental impairment to speculate that those possessing an agenda propped up by the flimsy lies justifying the invasion of Iraq and the ensuing murder of millions of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children, don’t especially distinguish the value of a comparatively few American lives, even if circumspect for practical political reasons, in how they gamble them. They didn’t in the bloody, pointless, and as yet inadequately legitimized adventure in Vietnam, and they don’t now. If history teaches anything, there are always those who think their greatness and separation from the masses, their right to rule and lead, is sourced in a ruthless vision that can’t be comprehended, only mule-d along by “little people”. There is a different, indifferent morality for Supermen obviously not profitably serviced by the certitude of facts.
To this day I am baffled by the magnitude of the “terrorists” success and the total abjectness of our failure on 9/11. Unimpeded by a technologically and financially engorged security apparatus, and contrary to experience or practical imagination they allegedly destroyed big things with little things, and sowed widespread confusion in settled scientific disciplines. You’d think, regarding those holding positions of pertinent responsibility, such upset and failure would be perceived as an incentive to lie by those examiners familiar with human nature. But not by Mr. Sowell, who has repeatedly questioned orthodoxy on many other fronts.
What is this unusual force that prevents inquisitive people from being normally inquisitive? Why in a political culture constructed at its inception to mechanically encourage, if not force, the distrust of the tendencies of those borrowing government power, is there such fervent retreat from associating failed wars with questionable beginnings?
It may be that the continuity of reward for philosophical or ideological loyalties calcifies the ability to question those loyalties. Or so once spake Thomas Sowell.
I must admit to once admiring the intellectual audacity that made him an outlier academic in our black community. He attacked attitudes and beliefs which may possibly have been too routinely stipulated to by a thoughtless consensus suborned by what he calls “race hustlers”. The questioning of any philosophy or dogma that congeals for whatever reason into an authoritative creed, is always healthy. But Mr. Sowell, like other mortals are wont to do, has adopted an affinity for his own conclusions which seem to me to have been transmuted into the requirements of betrothed loyalty rather than the otherwise expected skepticism which might be called the mother of intellectual invention.
My intention today is not to read the role of anomalies that are undeniably part and parcel of the 9/11 scenario, but to inquire why a supposedly inquisitive academic can so blithely suggest that their existence [the anomalies] is so mundane and inevitable in a momentous event that their apportioned relevance to the official version of truth is, and must be, accessed as only ignoble and lunatic flotsam? Why wouldn’t any concerned citizen desire to assuage such nagging discomfort engendered by a scenario that has rendered so many unalienable constitutional expectations absolutely and fundamentally ‘conditional‘? What elocution or publication by government concerning the events of 9/11 meets any standard which can wear the garment called “proof”? No, when contemplated, our modern Council of Nicaea, like it’s predecessor, was never impaneled to conduct a process to ‘prove’ anything, but rather to ordain the acquiescence of a universal liturgy. Isn’t this procedurally and logically similar to Mr. Sowell’s other supposed “hustle”? And isn’t this post hoc syllogism molded from the proof-less liturgy and the awkward, hypocritical justification for our ‘good torture’?
Though not as old or as educated as Mr. Sowell I am nonetheless a “senior citizen”, and believe am as entitled as any other to opinionate on the peculiarities of human nature, of which I don’t see a special category for Americans. When confronted by the inane question, “Do you think our leaders would kill 3000 of our own citizens?”, I don’t believe I’m displaying any actionable mental impairment to speculate that those possessing an agenda propped up by the flimsy lies justifying the invasion of Iraq and the ensuing murder of millions of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children, don’t especially distinguish the value of a comparatively few American lives, even if circumspect for practical political reasons, in how they gamble them. They didn’t in the bloody, pointless, and as yet inadequately legitimized adventure in Vietnam, and they don’t now. If history teaches anything, there are always those who think their greatness and separation from the masses, their right to rule and lead, is sourced in a ruthless vision that can’t be comprehended, only mule-d along by “little people”. There is a different, indifferent morality for Supermen obviously not profitably serviced by the certitude of facts.
To this day I am baffled by the magnitude of the “terrorists” success and the total abjectness of our failure on 9/11. Unimpeded by a technologically and financially engorged security apparatus, and contrary to experience or practical imagination they allegedly destroyed big things with little things, and sowed widespread confusion in settled scientific disciplines. You’d think, regarding those holding positions of pertinent responsibility, such upset and failure would be perceived as an incentive to lie by those examiners familiar with human nature. But not by Mr. Sowell, who has repeatedly questioned orthodoxy on many other fronts.
What is this unusual force that prevents inquisitive people from being normally inquisitive? Why in a political culture constructed at its inception to mechanically encourage, if not force, the distrust of the tendencies of those borrowing government power, is there such fervent retreat from associating failed wars with questionable beginnings?
It may be that the continuity of reward for philosophical or ideological loyalties calcifies the ability to question those loyalties. Or so once spake Thomas Sowell.
Thursday, January 22, 2015
Sniping Our Minds
I have not seen the movie “American Sniper”, nor do I intend to. I’ve read several reviews and critiques and have noticed a particular congruence of opinion, that being it is a fine example of film-making as well as a pure fount of mythopeic propaganda designed to obfuscate the destructive evil of our illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq behind the necessarily Nietzschean simulacrum of heroism of a competitive killer “just doing his job”. The film’s director, Clint Eastwood, must have had a particular mindset to ferret out this heroic thread in a militaristic tapestry which viewed in it’s entirety depicts the mens rea of psychopathic imperialism.
It has been said that the film is “a character study” of a man, a soldier, required to isolate the innate goodness clothed within his uniform from the inexplicable malevolent resentment of a conquered people at having the un-wanted goodness foisted upon them - and then shoot them for their geopolitical temerity. It’s as if neither they nor us need to associate the head-exploding bullets to the man, the army, the armory, or the government which reasoned-out the trajectory and terminus of death-dealing in a land posing no threat to our domestic tranquility. We’re just supposed to appreciate the Zen-like focus on the controlled breathing of thoughtless patriotism.
Of course soldiers must suppress the luxury of deep thought. They (voluntarily) submit themselves as instruments to be wielded by plenipotent invisible hands. But what of the rest of us? Is our main obligation to “support the troops” or to assure they are properly, legally, and honorably used? This movie must, but doesn’t, from all I’ve heard, invoke this question. And unfortunately, for various commercial and fawning political reasons, I believe, it isn’t meant to.
It may be totally unfair to require a change of mindset of an eighty-four year old director who came of age during WWII and unquestioned American Exceptionalism. But the “most powerful” and most obscenely funded military in the world has not won any of several shooting conflicts with the postscript “war” since then. Why doesn’t artistic integrity reinforce and illuminate this fact instead of deluding the American mind with the deceptive numerators and denominators of “heroes” and body counts when the end product is the propagation of negative value?
I have read on-line of the exploits of the movie’s protagonist, Chris Kyle,. And no I do not intend to see the movie or monetarily contribute to the thematic bribe to our callow youths to interpret a virtuous silver lining to the ditheistic military-industrialism and imperialism they see subtlety ennobled on the silver screen.
Let’s instead make sure they understand Mr. Kyle and his skill were abused to implement the fantastical geopolitical visions of gold tower, comfortable, sociopathic theoreticians who have materially benefited even in our national failure
It has been said that the film is “a character study” of a man, a soldier, required to isolate the innate goodness clothed within his uniform from the inexplicable malevolent resentment of a conquered people at having the un-wanted goodness foisted upon them - and then shoot them for their geopolitical temerity. It’s as if neither they nor us need to associate the head-exploding bullets to the man, the army, the armory, or the government which reasoned-out the trajectory and terminus of death-dealing in a land posing no threat to our domestic tranquility. We’re just supposed to appreciate the Zen-like focus on the controlled breathing of thoughtless patriotism.
Of course soldiers must suppress the luxury of deep thought. They (voluntarily) submit themselves as instruments to be wielded by plenipotent invisible hands. But what of the rest of us? Is our main obligation to “support the troops” or to assure they are properly, legally, and honorably used? This movie must, but doesn’t, from all I’ve heard, invoke this question. And unfortunately, for various commercial and fawning political reasons, I believe, it isn’t meant to.
It may be totally unfair to require a change of mindset of an eighty-four year old director who came of age during WWII and unquestioned American Exceptionalism. But the “most powerful” and most obscenely funded military in the world has not won any of several shooting conflicts with the postscript “war” since then. Why doesn’t artistic integrity reinforce and illuminate this fact instead of deluding the American mind with the deceptive numerators and denominators of “heroes” and body counts when the end product is the propagation of negative value?
I have read on-line of the exploits of the movie’s protagonist, Chris Kyle,. And no I do not intend to see the movie or monetarily contribute to the thematic bribe to our callow youths to interpret a virtuous silver lining to the ditheistic military-industrialism and imperialism they see subtlety ennobled on the silver screen.
Let’s instead make sure they understand Mr. Kyle and his skill were abused to implement the fantastical geopolitical visions of gold tower, comfortable, sociopathic theoreticians who have materially benefited even in our national failure
Thursday, December 18, 2014
Our Tractable Media
The eunuch media is astounding in its passivity. Former Vice-President Dick Cheney was allowed by our lamestream media to molest our moral ideals and condemn succeeding generations of Americans to the same kinds of torture he didn’t even try to hide behind the bullshit scheme of ‘plausible deniability’ which sustains every other lie and crime the government chooses as policy.
His answer to the damning Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report was, “I’d do it again”. This is a rather stunning lack of contrition considering one of the main conclusions of the 528 page report is that our Exceptional American torture proved to be as ineffective at revealing truth or credible information as that practiced by other barbarians. Torturers and their victims usually come to a meeting of the minds, that being, an agreement to the script of the torturer. Apparently job securitization screws are turning causing so-called journalists to be “fair and balanced” about cruel and unusual punishment, which under the Geneva Convention to which the U.S. is a signatory says, “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification for torture”. Is that clause so irrelevant to our national self-image and world opinion that, “I’d do it again”, was enough validation of Mr. Cheney’s insane and ineffective indiscretion to accord him such gentle journalistic treatment very disproportionate to the magnitude of his legal and moral infraction, and the risks we are all now inescapably heir to?
It is, I suppose, just another of the litany of the bizarre anomalies that have materialized in our physical, moral, and legal universe since the morning of 9/11. Things that were torture and illegal before, and are torture and illegal now, still enjoy the special dispensation from logic and precedent so peculiar to the Bush/Cheney administration.
Why aren’t Americans frightened by our political leaders’ embrace and legalization of torture when these are the same authors of The Patriot Act which only requires a pointed finger to cause one to be disappeared into this Cheney-esque legal limbo from whose bourn you may never return?
They’re not frightened because our Fourth Estate is a watchdog that doesn’t bark.
His answer to the damning Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report was, “I’d do it again”. This is a rather stunning lack of contrition considering one of the main conclusions of the 528 page report is that our Exceptional American torture proved to be as ineffective at revealing truth or credible information as that practiced by other barbarians. Torturers and their victims usually come to a meeting of the minds, that being, an agreement to the script of the torturer. Apparently job securitization screws are turning causing so-called journalists to be “fair and balanced” about cruel and unusual punishment, which under the Geneva Convention to which the U.S. is a signatory says, “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification for torture”. Is that clause so irrelevant to our national self-image and world opinion that, “I’d do it again”, was enough validation of Mr. Cheney’s insane and ineffective indiscretion to accord him such gentle journalistic treatment very disproportionate to the magnitude of his legal and moral infraction, and the risks we are all now inescapably heir to?
It is, I suppose, just another of the litany of the bizarre anomalies that have materialized in our physical, moral, and legal universe since the morning of 9/11. Things that were torture and illegal before, and are torture and illegal now, still enjoy the special dispensation from logic and precedent so peculiar to the Bush/Cheney administration.
Why aren’t Americans frightened by our political leaders’ embrace and legalization of torture when these are the same authors of The Patriot Act which only requires a pointed finger to cause one to be disappeared into this Cheney-esque legal limbo from whose bourn you may never return?
They’re not frightened because our Fourth Estate is a watchdog that doesn’t bark.
Saturday, December 6, 2014
Again 9/11
Donte Stallworth, recently hired by the Huffington Post as a political fellow on national security, because the former NFL player, “has a quick mind, an insatiable curiosity and a passion for politics”, has posted a refutation of his misspent youth as a 9/11 Truther.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/02/donte-stallworth-911-conspiracy_n_6178556.html
Mr. Stallworth, as part of the generation that was victimized and duped by the Vietnam/Gulf of Tonkin LIE, and having experienced with your generation the Iraq LIE, I retain my ability to question the veracity of power. I understand, after years of the “Big Lie” taking root, it has acquired some legitimacy simply because of longevity. But I must remind you we still haven’t been given a truthful reason for our incursions into Vietnam or Iraq. After a while we just assume we know or have been told “why”. But if you search your mind you’ll only find a catalog of transparent lies that have just been shrugged off as the beat goes on. Still, we needn’t be helpless pawns and dupes.
As far as understanding 9/11 goes, if it is assumed that the U.S. is an imperialist nation (seemingly indicated by 1100 military bases worldwide) acting in accord with uber- capitalist motivation (considering the mineral and fossil fuel resources of theretofore geo-politically outlier nations), then unfortunately, the official narrative and resulting militaristic ramifications of 9/11 make sense. On the other hand, if we are a non-imperial , peaceful nation, whose primary goal is the promotion of freedom and democracy, then, I believe, the official narrative would almost certainly be undermined by a legitimate and objective scientific investigation of the actualities and anomalies occurring on that day.
To consider there may be defensible alternative hypotheses to a narrative which, lest we forget, was formulated and universally disseminated before any usual, typical, or thorough process to discern facts or proof was, or could have been, carried out - is not irrational. Some might say it’s an intellectual requirement. The years later dubious contribution to the historical record called The 9/11 Commission Report merely memorialized, almost verbatim, a seemingly pre-prepared narrative which sprang to public life fully formed as early as 9/12. The Oracle of Delphi couldn’t have generated a more accurate point by point prognostication.
It is doubly remarkable that this originally postulated narrative emerged as such an immaculate conception, without any knowledge of the numerous anomalies that would later surface, anomalies which are indisputably present and germane to any reasonable theory of the events, and any one of which might be expected to upset the original postulations, but didn’t, even in the final version rendered to the historical record years later by the Honorable 9/11 Commission, whom in the vast public discussion had been fully exposed to the anomalies by way of expert and intelligent inquiries, physical evidence, eyewitness testimonies, and elementary scientific calculations.
For the magically prescient original narrative to remain unaltered and unscathed after the huge excavation of subsequent knowledge and revelations, lends proof to the Orwellian truism that a sheepish, thoughtless citizenry will be more inclined to disbelieve ‘logic’ than to disbelieve Big Brother - the government.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/02/donte-stallworth-911-conspiracy_n_6178556.html
Mr. Stallworth, as part of the generation that was victimized and duped by the Vietnam/Gulf of Tonkin LIE, and having experienced with your generation the Iraq LIE, I retain my ability to question the veracity of power. I understand, after years of the “Big Lie” taking root, it has acquired some legitimacy simply because of longevity. But I must remind you we still haven’t been given a truthful reason for our incursions into Vietnam or Iraq. After a while we just assume we know or have been told “why”. But if you search your mind you’ll only find a catalog of transparent lies that have just been shrugged off as the beat goes on. Still, we needn’t be helpless pawns and dupes.
As far as understanding 9/11 goes, if it is assumed that the U.S. is an imperialist nation (seemingly indicated by 1100 military bases worldwide) acting in accord with uber- capitalist motivation (considering the mineral and fossil fuel resources of theretofore geo-politically outlier nations), then unfortunately, the official narrative and resulting militaristic ramifications of 9/11 make sense. On the other hand, if we are a non-imperial , peaceful nation, whose primary goal is the promotion of freedom and democracy, then, I believe, the official narrative would almost certainly be undermined by a legitimate and objective scientific investigation of the actualities and anomalies occurring on that day.
To consider there may be defensible alternative hypotheses to a narrative which, lest we forget, was formulated and universally disseminated before any usual, typical, or thorough process to discern facts or proof was, or could have been, carried out - is not irrational. Some might say it’s an intellectual requirement. The years later dubious contribution to the historical record called The 9/11 Commission Report merely memorialized, almost verbatim, a seemingly pre-prepared narrative which sprang to public life fully formed as early as 9/12. The Oracle of Delphi couldn’t have generated a more accurate point by point prognostication.
It is doubly remarkable that this originally postulated narrative emerged as such an immaculate conception, without any knowledge of the numerous anomalies that would later surface, anomalies which are indisputably present and germane to any reasonable theory of the events, and any one of which might be expected to upset the original postulations, but didn’t, even in the final version rendered to the historical record years later by the Honorable 9/11 Commission, whom in the vast public discussion had been fully exposed to the anomalies by way of expert and intelligent inquiries, physical evidence, eyewitness testimonies, and elementary scientific calculations.
For the magically prescient original narrative to remain unaltered and unscathed after the huge excavation of subsequent knowledge and revelations, lends proof to the Orwellian truism that a sheepish, thoughtless citizenry will be more inclined to disbelieve ‘logic’ than to disbelieve Big Brother - the government.
Monday, August 4, 2014
The Bell Curve of Racial Thought
Yesterday I posted an opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian crisis where I suggested that there is a racial component that may a more important part of the equation in the formation of our American official position than is generally considered. I viewed a morning newsette program a few minutes ago where the all-white panel reiterated the legitimate “self-defense” actions of the party which is by another once legitimate standard the invader and occupier of the land on which their presence has caused to be engulfed in bloodshed. Protests around the world where the hypocritical reversal of the David and Goliath scenario, in favor of Goliath, were characterized as “despicable anti-Semitism”. Considering that both parties engaged in the hostilities are ‘Semitic’, we are intellectually directed to differentiate between the good Semite and the bad. And I contend again that the hierarchy of needs of the white Semites, regardless of history, international law, or common decency, were given such overwhelming priority that I believe it is reasonable to question the organic racial origins of the thought processes of the panel rendering the opinion.
The Holocaust, often cited as the justification for the confiscation of Palestine from the Palestinians, was a European phenomena perpetrated by one set of Europeans on another set of Europeans. And it would seem a reasonable and legitimate query from the Palestinians seeking to discover why they must pay the bill for a debt generated in Europe. This is an especially appropriate question when the map of region they live in, and the entire African continent, is a testament to arbitrary lines drawn on maps by Europeans in total insensitivity to the cultures, history, ethnicity, or languages of the various peoples inhabiting the regions and summarily forced into artificial constructs that Europeans invented as nations. Why, a Palestinian might ask, wasn’t a portion of Germany, which was responsible for the Holocaust and the destruction of Europe, set aside for its victims. And why couldn’t the dominant U.S. recognize, within minutes, the establishment of a Jewish state there, and support and protect it similarly as it has done in appropriated Palestine? European guilt may have been a better assurance of the safety of a Jewish state than could or should be expected from Middle Eastern resentment.
Considering actual history, just about half of the history of the Jewish people occurred in the Middle East before any sort of Jewish political state came into being and/or accounting for brief and intermittent times when the Jewish people were sovereign in any part of the region, and the second half was primarily in Europe, it might be, from the Palestinian perspective appropriate for a Jewish state to be most correctly accommodated by Europe. But no, against reason, international law, or common decency, it was suddenly considered appropriate to politically legitimize a thousands of years old religious myth, much of which was de-legitimized by the Christian mythology of Europeans, and solve a white people’s problem by calculated disregard of the basic humanity of brown people. Apparently brown people have no rights white people are required to respect.
Am I obsessed with race? I would say no. But I am cognizant that the mentality of Europe and America, to the subconscious level, has been so deformed and mutated by racism, that even it the face of documented history they can’t accept or acknowledge the perversions of thought it has engendered - and continues to engender.
As a thought experiment, consider what might be the policy and position of the American government if the Palestinians were white and Mr. Netanyahu was brown. Who would be the terrorist then?
The Holocaust, often cited as the justification for the confiscation of Palestine from the Palestinians, was a European phenomena perpetrated by one set of Europeans on another set of Europeans. And it would seem a reasonable and legitimate query from the Palestinians seeking to discover why they must pay the bill for a debt generated in Europe. This is an especially appropriate question when the map of region they live in, and the entire African continent, is a testament to arbitrary lines drawn on maps by Europeans in total insensitivity to the cultures, history, ethnicity, or languages of the various peoples inhabiting the regions and summarily forced into artificial constructs that Europeans invented as nations. Why, a Palestinian might ask, wasn’t a portion of Germany, which was responsible for the Holocaust and the destruction of Europe, set aside for its victims. And why couldn’t the dominant U.S. recognize, within minutes, the establishment of a Jewish state there, and support and protect it similarly as it has done in appropriated Palestine? European guilt may have been a better assurance of the safety of a Jewish state than could or should be expected from Middle Eastern resentment.
Considering actual history, just about half of the history of the Jewish people occurred in the Middle East before any sort of Jewish political state came into being and/or accounting for brief and intermittent times when the Jewish people were sovereign in any part of the region, and the second half was primarily in Europe, it might be, from the Palestinian perspective appropriate for a Jewish state to be most correctly accommodated by Europe. But no, against reason, international law, or common decency, it was suddenly considered appropriate to politically legitimize a thousands of years old religious myth, much of which was de-legitimized by the Christian mythology of Europeans, and solve a white people’s problem by calculated disregard of the basic humanity of brown people. Apparently brown people have no rights white people are required to respect.
Am I obsessed with race? I would say no. But I am cognizant that the mentality of Europe and America, to the subconscious level, has been so deformed and mutated by racism, that even it the face of documented history they can’t accept or acknowledge the perversions of thought it has engendered - and continues to engender.
As a thought experiment, consider what might be the policy and position of the American government if the Palestinians were white and Mr. Netanyahu was brown. Who would be the terrorist then?
Sunday, August 3, 2014
Race? Of Course Not
The events in the Middle East are generating much discussion at present. As a matter of history, academic history, there can be no question that the Jews have no superior or un-debatable eternal exclusive claim of right to possess that geography. There can be no debate that the European holocaust, as horrific as it was, does not change the fact that the State of Israel began and continues as an act of pure conquest and usurpation. And in fact, as uncomfortable as it is, represents the continued historic trend of the last millennia, of white people taking stuff from brown people justified by their own self-serving, self-invented mythology.
Many will want to deny or discount the racial aspect embedded in the calculus of justifications, because to exclude this allows the other so-called “complexities” to render the debate “insoluble” via reason, or law, or common decency, and as always will resolve to the benefit of the party with the greatest military strength. Kareem Abdul Jabaar has recently and correctly observed that, “More white believe in the existence of ghosts than in the existence of racism”.
Still, why is it relevant to insert the “fabled” bogeyman of racism into a conflict that many would prefer to characterize as solely a political tussle, the conflicting prerogatives of political entities? It is relevant because the DNA of consciousness of European and Western powers have so mutated in the past several hundred years that there is an intractable subconscious belief that “white is right”. And that begs the question, have you ever seen an Israeli Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, Defense Minister, General or Ambassador who wasn’t bright white? It is a subtle convenience for the racist agenda to classify Europeans situated in Israel as Jews rather than white when the wrestle for wealth, power, or land is extramural rather than intramural. If the opponent or victims are brown, it is preferable not to have it thought of as a “white thing”.
But if a claim is being presented based on heritage and nativity to the region, why aren’t any other people native to the region “white”? How did the brown people ejected during the diaspora, fairly insular, prone to marry and reproduce within the tribe, turn white? For the purposes of this discussion the explanation of that phenomena is less important than the recognition of the phenomena, because I contend, that Europeans and Americans, religious beliefs notwithstanding and more appropriate for affairs in Heaven than on earth, and being largely ignorant of the actual history of the region, tend to reflexively grant superior moral and civil authority to other white people.
Is this an extreme argument? Well then, what rational process allows Americans particularly, supposedly reflected by acts and policies of their elected representatives, to so overwhelmingly concur that the Palestinians can’t and shouldn’t have a State and a homeland in the land where they have continuously resided since history, pre-Biblical, Biblical, and academic, was first writ?
Again, I contend, that if both the Israelis and the Palestinians were brown, the demands of rational fairness and intellectual honesty would mitigate American policy, and even the moral tenor of what is perceived as our strategic interest would reflect more political and philosophic balance than is presently exhibited in our bizarre, immoral and grossly lopsided preference for an entitled Israel.
If the effect of mirrored racism , to the degree it impacts the thoughts and decisions of our leaders, is ignored or ridiculed as fantasy, the ultimate prospects for justice and peace will fall victim to obvious injustice, and the dove of peace will not have a branch to rest upon.
Many will want to deny or discount the racial aspect embedded in the calculus of justifications, because to exclude this allows the other so-called “complexities” to render the debate “insoluble” via reason, or law, or common decency, and as always will resolve to the benefit of the party with the greatest military strength. Kareem Abdul Jabaar has recently and correctly observed that, “More white believe in the existence of ghosts than in the existence of racism”.
Still, why is it relevant to insert the “fabled” bogeyman of racism into a conflict that many would prefer to characterize as solely a political tussle, the conflicting prerogatives of political entities? It is relevant because the DNA of consciousness of European and Western powers have so mutated in the past several hundred years that there is an intractable subconscious belief that “white is right”. And that begs the question, have you ever seen an Israeli Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, Defense Minister, General or Ambassador who wasn’t bright white? It is a subtle convenience for the racist agenda to classify Europeans situated in Israel as Jews rather than white when the wrestle for wealth, power, or land is extramural rather than intramural. If the opponent or victims are brown, it is preferable not to have it thought of as a “white thing”.
But if a claim is being presented based on heritage and nativity to the region, why aren’t any other people native to the region “white”? How did the brown people ejected during the diaspora, fairly insular, prone to marry and reproduce within the tribe, turn white? For the purposes of this discussion the explanation of that phenomena is less important than the recognition of the phenomena, because I contend, that Europeans and Americans, religious beliefs notwithstanding and more appropriate for affairs in Heaven than on earth, and being largely ignorant of the actual history of the region, tend to reflexively grant superior moral and civil authority to other white people.
Is this an extreme argument? Well then, what rational process allows Americans particularly, supposedly reflected by acts and policies of their elected representatives, to so overwhelmingly concur that the Palestinians can’t and shouldn’t have a State and a homeland in the land where they have continuously resided since history, pre-Biblical, Biblical, and academic, was first writ?
Again, I contend, that if both the Israelis and the Palestinians were brown, the demands of rational fairness and intellectual honesty would mitigate American policy, and even the moral tenor of what is perceived as our strategic interest would reflect more political and philosophic balance than is presently exhibited in our bizarre, immoral and grossly lopsided preference for an entitled Israel.
If the effect of mirrored racism , to the degree it impacts the thoughts and decisions of our leaders, is ignored or ridiculed as fantasy, the ultimate prospects for justice and peace will fall victim to obvious injustice, and the dove of peace will not have a branch to rest upon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)