Comment on this article |
Email this article |
Your Human Right to Hate
by The Devil's Advocate
15 Feb 2007
You have a human and animal right to hatred. Man has been described by philosophers and anthropologists as a creature somewhere between an angel and an ape. But irrespective of how idealistic and divine some people and groups think mankind is capable—the fact is we, Homo sapiens, are creatures of animal impulse and ego defensiveness. You have a right to be who you are—a creature of feelings and thoughts and attitudes. Or to put it another way, you have a right to be a “sentient” being which includes the right to experience hatred.
Your Human Right to Hate
By The Devil’s Advocate
You have a human and animal right to hatred. Man has been described by philosophers and anthropologists as a creature somewhere between an angel and an ape. But irrespective of how idealistic and divine some people and groups think mankind is capable—the fact is we, Homo sapiens, are creatures of animal impulse and ego defensiveness.
You have a right to be who you are—a creature of feelings and thoughts and attitudes. Or to put it another way, you have a right to be a “sentient” being which includes the right to experience hatred.
Any human not brain-dead inevitably makes judgments—both those considered positive as well as negative in value judgment. Judgments are based on feelings, attitudes, and values and not just thoughts. We are not machines even if too often we act like programmed robots.
More so we are encouraged to do make value judgments (and as often as not within the context of living we are forced to do so).
Even professional propagandists, such as newspaper editorialists and columnists, depend on readers’ “emotional” reactions toward their rhetorical styles of persuasion. (Or why would people read anything if there was not some potential for active and emotional engagement?)
Attitudes consist of emotional components and value judgments that are part and parcel of the human dynamics of life. It is impossible, as living creatures in a dynamic and contentious world, to not be judgmental and to not have attitudes laden with feelings. This simply is part of the human condition.
Therefore the political position to condemn “hatred” (as attitude) is, at best, political naiveté and/ or supercilious snobbery. (But there are insidious reasons as well which we will explore in some depth.)
Therefore you have a natural right to emotionally exist within, or temporarily transverse, various states of feeling and thought such as enmity (like other attitudes).
However for this argument’s sake to exist at a mature level, it is necessary to distinguish between attitudes of hatred (feelings and thoughts of enmity or hostility) and any criminal or antisocial behaviors that may be motivated by such attitudes.
Think about it—one can transgress into, or exist within, an attitudinal state of hostility without necessarily committing crimes motivated by such feelings or attitudes. People do it all the time. It is part of what we presume to be emotional and social maturity. It is part of dealing with frustration and personal adjustment (what some might call spiritual adaptation).
As a society, we need to distinguish the important difference between attitude and behavior—because not all feelings or verbalized expressions of hostility are equal to committing crimes of illegal transgress (nor should they be stultifyingly categorized as “terrorist” situations).
Crimes, per se, however motivated, are already outlawed. If I attack someone because I hate him well I’ve committed a crime already on the books. Our criminal ancestry is pretty well established—do we really need activist special interests demanding more laws and bureaucracy about hate laws?
It does not follow that feelings of extreme dislike automatically or invariably turn into illegal acts towards objects of enmity.
Many people experiencing feelings of enmity towards various ideas and objects without committing crimes towards such perceived objects or persons of hate.
Granted the veneer of civility can, and does, break down at times, as is particularly true in reference to prejudices of sorts in times of conflict and crisis. For example, take the recent case of the multiplicity of hatreds by Americans, and our military personnel torturing Muslims, that has ensued due partly because of both false intelligence manipulation in Washington D.C. (and false accusations that Iraqis struck the world towers) via right wing news media and radio propaganda demagoguing for attitudes of hatred and fear against anything and everything Arab or Muslim.
We as a society do need identify all the real propaganda and lies that fosters hatred and crime—not just that against certain selected groups that have some egocentric and ethnocentric belief that they are the end-and-be-all of discrimination and hostility.
But to the point—all feelings, sentiments, and attitudes and expressions of frustration and resentment have a place in the cosmic order of humanity (even if we do not allow for crimes motivated by some attitudes and feelings).
To the point of this case (or reason for this essay), currently a potentially re-introduced law to Congress seems to have a covert motive—a deliberate attempt to quell free and harsh criticism of right wing Zionism—that is to banish criticism perceived as “inimical” to Israel’s roguish politics.
This last month of January of 2007 there have been reports on the Internet that the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is re-introducing a federal hate law called the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
This Jewish instigated law, Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, despite it’s “seeming” well meaning is designed to attempt to suppress criticism of Israel’s right wing politics.
Yet not so surprisingly, many people, including “numerous” outspoken Jews, have already been subjects to various attempts of sabotage and name calling and intimidation because they criticized Zionism and right wing authoritarian Israeli policy.
In fact within the last couple of years there built up a big movement, by some Jewish organizations, to harass professors at United States campuses. And this censorship is certainly not limited to campuses.
The fact is that America needs some real debate about how various organizations and individuals are attempting, or have attempted, to quell free speech on U.S. campuses, and especially in national discourse, when it “especially” comes to free discussion on politics of the Middle East.
As we equally need to entertain the question of whether there is not some kind of “covert” hatred attitude that motivates this overt hatred law? More than a few think so.
So despite pretense regarding the reputation of the Anti-Defamation League as being some kind of “neutral” non-profit organization it is not. The ADL, at least here in the U.S., has operated as a “political” organization, primarily acting in a manner that protects Israel’s perceived interests and those that advocate their right wing agenda—even at a cost of violating the true interests of the United States. (Some “hate” such opinions but this is a major issue in the minds of many here in America and around the world.)
And this re-proposed law by this highly political organization is a perfect example of their special interest politics now attempting to severely lessen our American rights of free speech—for the blind sake of the foreign militaristic Israel. The recently invaded lands (historically) of Israel by outside Jews are their main loyalty—not defamation of all people on an equal basis (or how come they are not terribly concerned about left wing Jews who criticize Israel’s right wing politics?).
More importantly what “kind” of Israel are people willing to support and be loyal toward? Why would anyone accept the authoritarian condition, that because one is Jewish, that one must have a love for Israel or whatever right wing Zionists decree is presented?
Undoubtedly many reasonable people would agree that there exist serious anti-Semitism in this world. Further many people would agree that there exists vile rhetoric that is biased, distorted, mean, and hateful, etc., of Jews and Zionists. But this proposed legislation is “much” over-reach—and the question is why?
Furthermore we as a nation, and equally Israel, need to ask the more pertinent question: “What are we doing within our politics that is contributing to hatred against Israel and Jews (as well as Americans)?” What are the “real” causes of deep seated resentment and insurgency against us? Where is honest analysis than rhetoric like: “They hate us because we are Jews!” or “They hate us because we have and love freedom!” or other stabs at rationalizations?
What is the real motive driving Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act? Is it a real fear of “legitimate” criticism of Israeli politics—such as accusations of genocide against Palestinians? And if so how would such a law decrease anti-Semitism here or abroad?
Would it not in fact increase it—merely by resentment that one could not even voice one’s opinion? And is that not what goes on in Palestine today—suppression of organizing and free speech? How does the stifling of opinion create democratic condition and process? Is such suppression of free speech (even if hated) healthy and in our best interests?
Here within the United States American Jews need to debate this issue—and not just because they are Americans too but because we all have a major stake in these matters here and abroad because things are becoming more corrupt and it is already very corrupt—intellectually, morally, politically, etc.
But more importantly American Jews, as world Jewry in general, are definitely not all on the same page. In fact much of the dissent against Zionism and right wing authoritarianism of Israel is within various Jewish communities—even if dominate organizations pretend that such dissent is mostly from the outside. The truth is in America the greatest awareness of the hypocrisy and criminality is awareness by Jews themselves.
For example the last days of the Al Franken show on Air America he aired comments of a serious resentment toward the s right wingers who manipulated us into war with Iraq.
But let us recognize a spade a spade for a change in this nation—the camp in Washington D.C. is very “much” a right wing “Jewish” enterprise operates as if it is far more loyal to Israel then to the United States. If you do your homework you will find this to be true—despite the fact that there are other right-wing s who are not Jewish (to a great extent they are supporting the same agenda).
But getting back to our discussion of hatred in general, anyone who has the slightest familiarity with the human psyche (or psychology) knows that human nature hates in similar propensity that human nature loves. Feelings laden to thought or attitude are part of what it means to be human and establish values.
Or should we equally condemn all feelings such as love and affection so as to create a world of absurdity and banality? (Remember that Arendt moment on the banality of evil?) This law is meant to stifle the soul.
Self-righteous people who condemn “hatred” in the broad stroke of the concept—a word especially overloaded with emotional prejudice—are exactly that—prejudiced or naive zealots whose motives should be examined.
They are attempting to “stultify” what it means to be emotionally and mentally alive—as well as what it means to be authentic human beings. Authentic beings recognize their feelings—however composed. They do not chase them into the shallows.
Here again then comes a less-than-wise attempt to crush anything untamed, undomesticated, and seemingly irrational—that is to say the human capacity for emotional response.
Ironically if this law would have been a white male conspiracy (read Anglo-Saxon)—it would be labeled as such unmitigatedly. But it is not. In fact the “rainbow” coalition (seemingly everyone not white and male) seems to conceitedly pride itself on it’s various hues of “emotional superiority” to white men? Yet what do they have to say about it now?
Rather this law is meant to outlaw (as repression) free speech and criticism—particularly in respect of those in power, or those who wield influence on the sidelines—regulating and squelching speech “they” do not like.
And ironically they already do a hell of a job of it. Look at how many newspapers in America are owned and managed by American Jews and look how many editorial pages are dominated by syndicated Jews who maintain the debate within their control? Editorial pages are dominated by their perspective (or other minorities)—like the Law and Order tv show that casts male investigators as Jewish or black and women of all background—no wonder women feel they are less racists).
This is not a racist argument—this newspaper dominance thing is a fact. And it is not just in the news industry. Do you think if I wanted to start a film career in Hollywood as a non-minority I would get as easily hired? Do you think if I wanted to publish a book I would as easily get published? One wonders. Let us start talking about reverse discrimination a bit.
If ADL people get their way, harsh criticism of certain groups, no matter how justifiable or necessary, will be against the law. This is completely at odds with the legal concept of equity in which all individuals, as well as groups, are judged and criticized equally.
Still it sounds so “noble” to espouse protection of vulnerable groups that some “rednecks” find hateful, such as homosexuals, or Jews, or other minorities of sorts (while few seldom acknowledge the reverse hatred of those thought the majority—white men)? But who would ever think to question this proposed law as a Trojan Horse? Who would venture to be politically incorrect when our entire Congress is afraid to make the mildest criticism of anything Israel? Look how far they were running from affiliation of Carter?
True we need to recognize that there exists vulnerability and excess hatred for certain groups as real issue. One can understand and empathize with paranoia for groups historically violated. Yet we need to go beyond the clichés about victimization and special interests that attempt to over blow current situations—and to look at the real issues of those frustrated and looking for scapegoats.
Because to condemn “hate speech”, which seems the truer reason for this legislation, will further harm civil liberties of free speech that are especially needed more than ever (especially if the U.S. manipulates itself into more war for dubious reasons and declares martial law here at home).
In fact greater opportunity of free and fearless speech should be more practiced. Our American problem is that we do not have enough outspoken dissent—that we are already too cowed as sheeple.
Or “who” (that is what group) is to draw the line as to when free speech becomes hate speech? Or is it similar to pornography—“I know it when I see it!” But even standards of pornography have consideration for artistic, literary, political and scientific values. Whereas, some news people have “already” been fired because they criticized sacred cow ideas that angered certain Jews.
Granted, that people do not act only as individuals—that they also act as aggregate group entities sharing common attributes and work toward specific goals and strategies. And surely discrimination and hatred is filtered through such lens as attributes of perceived insiders and outsiders groups such as various ethnicities or nationalities.
Some groups do need special consideration as objects of discrimination and prejudice—this most we not disagree. They also have a right to advocate for their integrity and safety—IN A FREE MARKET PLACE OF IDEAS.
There has been exploitation of victim status here in the U.S. There has been exploitation of privilege. Some, who operate considerable political clout, have espoused political strategies that sacrificed United States’ national security for the sake of Israel’s national security. Prominent neo-conservatives in Washington D.C. have done exactly this when they played a major role in manipulating us into this disastrous Iraq War—and they did so “knowing” there was a conflict of interest regarding America’s best national interests versus Israel’s.
In the broader perspective there were various motives for going to war with Iraq. Oil was and is very much a key reason. Financial profiteering was a “huge” reason. Equally strategic domination of the greater Central Asia area played a Brzezinski reality. Hussein’s changing to the Euro to sell oil did not entice friendship. Still it was very much the active manipulations of s and Israelis that catalyzed this war to actually happen—a disaster that is ruinous to our nation. (And corporate media played a equally significant and active part in making this Iraq war a reality.)
For example ’s covert attempts to create “alternative”
intelligence, at then newly created Office of Special Plans of the Pentagon, to justify war with Iraq, was the work of Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz (right wing Jewish NeoCons). They worked closely with military attaches directly from Israel.
In fact no people salivated more with propaganda to see Saddam Hussein destroyed (their recent Hitler) than right wing Jews in Israel as well as some in America.
Now even and especially “liberal” corporate media is doing a tremendous job blaming Bush (and need I say “hating” Bush), as “thee” figurehead of contempt irrespective of how much he has cowered to Israel and their wishes—but the fact is that the machine that pushed this war from behind the scenes was very much a right wing NeoCon Jewish reality—no matter how much media people attempt to cover their tracks by focusing on goyim in the top administration.
And they are not satisfied. Now they and some media are doing everything to provoke a war with Iran because they have a capacity for hysteria and they have Bush and Cheney in their hands. (And even if Bush says we are not going to war with Iran America has consistently engaged lies and false flag operations to start wars with various provocations).
So before these same Neo-Con-Artists (or their equivalents within mainstream media and lobby hegemonies like AIPAC) can manipulate us in war with Iran (with more lies and false evidence) we need to shed much light on the truth about the “extensive” manipulation of American foreign policy (at a serious cost to Americans’ national revenues and reputation) for the “presumed” benefit to Israel.
The fact is that our foreign policy would be much saner and healthier if we did not have constant siding with Israel against Muslims or Arabs—irrespective of what policies and practices Israelis engage. (Of course the bunk is that Israel is our strategic partner that we need them to police the Middle East—but the fact is things could have been a hell of lot easier and much less expensive without their thorn.)
The level of prevalence of Israeli opportunism via our government is beyond astounding. They have insinuated themselves in every practically crevice of power. Meanwhile we have mostly goy troops dying for their manipulated interests (and their share of the millionaire and billionaire investments in industries that are profiteering) as they further arm twist and gamble our involvement into a nuclear WW3 by attacking Iran.
If anything we need to “open” up debate about this relationship between Israel and the United States—not shut it off with fascist laws. We need loud and obstreperous dialogue.
More so because there is a fact that needs recognition, namely that most Jews belong to various different ideological camps, and most think as individuals, (despite extreme pressure on them to be of the same obeisant camp). They especially need this debate—in a big way.
We all need to stop lying about the negligibility of Israel’s lobbyists and the U.S. media’s right wing influence—because it is beyond huge—despite wanting to blame Bush for everything the White House decides.
In fact it could well be Bush II is being blackmailed or he is delusionally in touch with God’s directions? Also why was Bill Clinton campaign for Joseph Leiberman when most democrats, by en large, were against the man’s traitorous attitudes if the Clintons too are not under AIPAC pressure?
In respect to “their” hate law (and why do some Jews think and act like they are the experts on prejudice?), let us also keep in mind the fact that there is plenty of hatred and hostility acted out (as behaviors and policies) toward people, and groups, without much emotional contrivance or fanfare. Seemingly mundane dispositions can equally be harmful or more so. Whereas, intense dislike and vocalized dissent or anger does not of itself violate human rights or laws—at least not in this supposedly free society.
There is something seriously wrong in this country when Jews, who presume themselves to be so educated and articulate, and who already have so much clout in U.S. media have to “hide” behind a censor laws that condemn people who speak out against them as a minority. (They may be a minority but they command enormous wealth and clout in this country—so in a relative sense they are not really a minority.) (Just like they fact that they have enormous military might in the Near East including something like 200 nuclear warheads or more plus other weapons of mass destruction (and they do not sign “any” non-proliferation treaty—yet they want to complain about every other “threat” real or imagined).
For many years we Americans have received news stories that deliberately lacked honesty when portraying various realities of Palestinians (as a form of “institutionalized” hatred on the part of the media).
Is there any intent that this ADL hate law is going to direct attention to this reality of issues being played down or distorted by American mainstream news that censors the intensity of brutality and fascism inflicted on Palestinians? And is this censorship law not a form of “hardened” hatred to the misinformed, as well as one that more or less emanates presumptions about ethnic superiority?
Or should “our” Congress make a law against deliberate attempts to distort news about the Middle East as a crime? Perhaps they should?
Nevertheless in our country news stories about Near East politics and conflict are often spun in relation to a nuanced semantics via the enormous clout some right-wing American Jews and right-wing Christians wield in this country’s mainstream media—and as well as “corporate” clout. (Because power here is financial and corporate power.)
What about their attitude of disdain for the public’s right to know the truth—is there not some kind of unspoken hatred actuated by deceiving the public on highly important and moral issues?
It certainly seems a kind of contempt for the American public’s intelligence to frame Iraq’s home based freedom fighters by what our media and government has dubbed “terrorists” or “insurgents”? Who started the war? Who lied about the war? Who destroyed which nation’s infrastructure? Who created a living hell? Who was responsible for years of economic sanctions and its effects (was that not a form of hatred)? Who killed uncounted civilians in battle and by air dropped bombs? Who poisoned their land by depleted uranium? And yet we government and news people keep talking like the Iraqis do not appreciate what we have done or sacrificed? We get perplexed because the situation on the ground does not fall in line with our wishes or naiveté’s.
Hatred, like anger, can be a source of useful energy, which can be used to motivate people towards useful and constructive purpose. Feelings of enmity can be used to mobilize useful and constructive outcome—including legitimate and necessary criticism (no matter how uncomfortable it make some feel).
Just because certain groups “hate” certain opinions or sets of facts doesn’t mean such opinions or arguments should be suppressed in a free society? We are free or we are not—what is it and who contributes to the reality?
And yet isn’t that what the “noble” claim is all about—the democratic freedom of free speech for all?
So what if some groups feel bad, or act of offended, or fall prey to their routines of histrionic crybaby demands or bully tactics to stop others from verbalizing forms of criticism? Is humanity best served by attempting to suppress strong or poignant criticism (which is sometimes referred to as constructive criticism—imagine that).
Or when is a critic not knee jerked in some fashion for criticizing Israel’s politics—or how is it that so many Jewish critics have been labeled “self-hating” Jews? (Yet we do not talk about Hitler that way—why?)
There is “much” fear of criticizing Israel and Israel’s propaganda machines that operate here within the U.S. (irrespective of who is doing the criticizing). This is the reality.
Something else that should be mentioned is that ADL is rumored to create and maintain dossiers on critics of Israel’s politics—irrespective of whether any real hatred is involved—how’s that for magnanimity? Whereas if they had strong cases for what they advocate as legitimate arguments they would not need to create files on people to use as lists to black ball people (or for whatever reasons secret files are used and kept).
Forceful and straight forward criticism may be the best or only manner when addressing issues of repressed conflict—no matter how many angels fear to tread (and now matter that one can expect flak and “hate” mail or worse).
Or how does one broach subjects deemed too taboo by a large majority of sheeple if not by strong and direct honesty? Where is the lobby for assertiveness?
Whereas some manners of propaganda, equally obstreperous, but severely more devious, are relatively clear cases of demagoguery composed of falsehoods and propaganda meant to create feelings of prejudice, hatred, and animosity. Yes there are certain styles of demagoguery that are meant to stir up prejudice and hate and are often composed of lies and personal attacks. These types of expression should be held under close scrutiny and given ample counter criticism in the public forum. (That is the ideas themselves—not mere attempts to attack the persons who airs such views (as in changing the subject because the views themselves too well stand).
So while addressing anti-Semitism in a broader light, there has been much decried this early 21st century about prejudice against Jews, while simultaneously too little stated about the amount of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim racism conjured up in U.S. media (pundits and cartoonists—several that are syndicated columnists) (as well as Hollywood depictions over the years that used negative stereotypes to depict Arabs as barbaric and simplistic people). It seems that there needs to be more commentary on such “stereotyping” of Muslims. But can we expect the ADL to have much interest in researching this anti-Semitic prejudice?
We can not even have a newly elected U.S. representative of the house swore in a Koran while stating he intends to protect the interests of Americans—not without revulsion because many of us have been mislead by much xenophobic conditioning to believe that there is something inherently terrorist about the Islamic religion (as our naiveté has been played out far more than we think to extremist forms of interpretation that can be found in Christian and Hebrew groups as well). How did this come to be?
The “anti-Semite” term then should include hatred of all people traditionally from the Near East as they were historically of the Semitic race—even more so then many of the seemingly “Caucasoid” Ashkenazim, Khazar, and Russian Jews (to name a few), that have hardly a drop of Near Eastern genetics in their blood and most likely can trace “no” lineage to any bloodline that ever lived anywhere in the Levant—any more so than most Mormons of Salt Lake City who equally name their local townships after Hebrew namesakes. (Perhaps the skin difference is one reason for the blatant racism in Israel between imported Caucasian Jews and swarthier Arab Palestinians?) Or does those who write for the Weekly Standard or Commentary have much in the way of true Semitic blood? (Maybe that’s what they mean by self-hating Jews?)
What percentage of cases does the ADL plan to work that attempts to protect non-Jewish Semites from racism and hatred (including hate speech)? Or can one kind of guess the intent on this?
Nevertheless religions, like other forms of dogma, do at one time or another, contribute to various schools of naiveté. In plenty case interpretations of Judeo-Christianity has participated in making it seem that some human feelings and attitudes are evil and should be shunned accordingly as “evil”.
But feelings and attitudes are not “evil” of themselves—even if they consist of feelings of animosity or contempt. Anger, hostility, resentment, etc., does not automatically turn into Nazi fascism, terrorism, or suicidal bombers. It generally takes a lot of frustration, humiliation, and hopelessness for such extremes to manifest.
We Americans need to get past an idea that so-called “base” attitudes (as perceived negatively) are somehow a disease. Life is composed of both the ying and the yang (thank the Great Spirit for some Eastern philosophy that is not so egotistical and authoritarian).
Any worthy psychologist will tell you that all our feelings are forms of personal information and as such are potentially healthy. Nor should people attempt to suppress feelings and awareness about them as somehow of negative consequence.
People need to become “more” aware of their feelings and attitudes—rather than buy simplistic and dogmatic guilt-trips like certain human feelings and thoughts, by themselves, are condemnable.
Harboring the attitude that certain “hateful” attitudes are somehow inhuman can only motivate the psyche to reject uncomfortable thoughts as politically inconvenient. Hence the proliferation of defense mechanisms, rationalizations, and phony pretenses of being what one is not.
Moreover feelings and attitudes can not be outlawed (or such laws would be ineffectual). Nor should there be some norm imposed from the outside that one is never to discuss or communicate to others what is bothering the self.
We are a social species and we have a right to communicate our attitudes and thoughts. And this is even more so when there exist conflict or potential conflict (as when the stakes are high).
It is ridiculous to legislate norms of phony respect or pretentious pseudo-respect: (“If you can not say anything positive don’t say anything at all”.) Such presumptions are not always the best solution and are too often the opposite of being assertive. They merely delay the responsibility of confrontation.
True integrity only can come from recognizing and operating from a sense of true authenticity—not imposed politically correct pseudo-morality. Conflict is a human reality. To pretend otherwise is naiveté at best.
And yes this is the thrust—can people argue or disagree respectfully? Not always. But where do you draw the line when people in power refuse to discuss issues—or suppress at every turn?
If people have issues with others that are important they ought to address them—and to do so in a way that communicates the essence of the truth—not beat around the bush. We need to stop mollycoddling every minority that abuses “victim” status and start treating them as equals.
Pretenders of a phony magnanimity (such as endless tolerance) may get some social approval by co-cowards and oppressors—but such cowards are not truly respectable—nor should they be thought so. In fact too much of what is thought civil is merely stifled impulse to not be the authentic and assertive self. It is an excess of compromise.
Was not America’s claim to fame that of the personal liberty to exercise free speech and “association” (or what good is association if one can not say what one truly needs or wants to say because some law says you can choose to interpret opinion as hate)?
Could one, rather should one, declare that feelings and attitudes of hostility and enmity have their legitimate place in the arsenal of human consciousness and debate—no matter how “hated” such expression of ideas may be?
And is not this “anti-hate” law really a hatred-against-criticism ploy?
And is it wrong to hate activities that are unjust—especially when such activities or policies are terribly so? Is it not appropriate to hate what is legitimately deemed hateful?
Few people it seems have a problem with the concept of justice, especially goals of retribution, as when people arrested and tried for crimes? Yet goals of the criminal justices system also include rehabilitation. So how will a censor law work toward such that end? How does it provide for justice—traditionally justice was known in our Western heritage as a virtue?
Maybe free peoples ought have more pro-contrarian and pro-contentional laws that encourage people to speak out more against what they do not like? It seems we need more debate on real issues in this country—not the same old covert-hate motivated right-wing talk show propaganda we have been much inundated?
But yet would it not “seem” nice, as in a naive, utopian dream (like some Garden of Eden fantasy that did not recognize all life forms compete and die and suffer from disease), if all propagandists that deliberately attempted to distort issues or engaged in red herrings and conspiracies were banned altogether? That alone would get rid of many egomania, media personnel would it not?
But let us give them the benefit of the doubt (after all they are merely human and not God or too terribly divine)—that people like Bill O’Reilly have brains that are wired differently—that is they can’t help themselves in how distortedly and stupidly they think—it is somehow just part of their deluded and marginal personalities.
But most importantly some of these wing-nuts have more than a few legitimate arguments that “should” be heard by the entire spectrum of possible positions—no matter if we don’t like what we hear. There positions and concerns are part of the social universe.
This tolerance is an important point—because no group or school of thought has all the best answers, nor have they asked all the important questions. Both sides of the human debate have strong points and weak points—all have good and snide qualities. To outright one side, even if obnoxious, is an act of inhumanity.
Strong and healthy societies need real debate on important issues—including the contention of emotional depth that goes with them. It takes all kinds to make the world go around—and there are plenty of us who feel our resources need to be spent elsewhere than war—like battling our pollution issues.
It takes a trust in mankind that most people, who do some research and soul searching, can come to somewhat sane conclusions—far from where much of Washington D.C. and Wall Street, as elitist states, are today.
Hatred then is not the issue. It is a symptom. As an umbrella concept for all things perceived inimical, it gets bad rap. It is blamed as blatant and “immoral”. But this would be like arguing that all argumentation should be banned because it gets heated and anger may scare people. But how would a ban on argumentation make a community healthier? No it would not. ADL and much self-righteous company then need to get real.
Or should Americans equally outlaw all manifestation of every synonym to hatred? Should it be “illegal” to “dislike” a person or group or some of their ideas, attitudes or behaviors—as if ostracism somehow produced respect and love? Should it now inappropriate to shun or hold a grudge?
And what about all those truer, but unpopular heroes, who stood out against the mob’s mentality to speak truth that few wanted to hear or understand? Surely they should be the first to be arrested and imprisoned? Because we are really talking about is an anti-dissent law are we not? (Lets get rid of America’s too few who find it hard to acquiesce and conform to the general mediocrity of the mass culture mind. That is how totalitarians like it. (Nothing Hitlerian or authoritarian here—huh?)
To examine this calumny (false or malicious statement) a bit more, is it not true that some within certain groups have been too quick to feel victimized (or those with allegiance to such a group)? Are there not those who feel they can get away with hackneyed whining about racism and discrimination because they can play such a card? Are there not times when some, within a minority, facing criticism of sorts, are quick to counter with “racism” so as to negate any originating accusation—no matter how legitimate—by implying that the instigator is motivated primarily by discrimination and not otherwise?
This racism canard seems too convenient for some to play—as a veritable habit of vice by others—in this case a relatively “small” part of the Jewish community (that pretends to speak for the greater and mixed Jewish communities, as well as those that don’t feel they are in a knit Jewish community). Certain dominate groups have attempted to counter any criticism of Israel’s Zionist politics with their well-oiled and effective guilt-tripping machine (including the herding of their own in close stricture).
Meanwhile we Americans, who are often thought to be endlessly naive and gullible, are basically being told that “nice” people do not get angry, or irritated, or critical, or judgmental, or adamant within our politically cosmetic make-ups. (At least not us white bread people—who are not surprisingly on other occasions belittled as having little in the way of hot blooded soul—rather we are stereotyped as emotionally and mentally anemic like mall manikins. That is we don’t take seriously enough that which we should—had we emotional integrity). In fact isn’t that a conceit of some Mediterranean types and people of color? That white folk are not really all that expressive? That we are kind of milksop and lily-livered? No not at all?
A generally recognized fact of human nature is that whenever there are perceived stakes of consequence within the dynamics of life—there are going to be strong feelings. To say that we should outlaw hatred is the equivalent to saying: “No one should take nothing serious—except those in power.” Rather the masses should pretend that it is all good. How paternalistic from organizations that works primarily for a foreign country that just happens to get billions of dollars of financial and military aid from the U.S. and yet this anomaly called Israel eternally demands to call the shots while deliberately sabotaging our too good will?
This anti-bill-of-rights law introduced by “front” organizations for Israel, namely the Anti-Defamation League, AIPAC, etc., is being billed as pro-liberty. But it is not pro-liberty. We goyim Americans as well as dissident Jews are being pushed even further to pretend that any policies of Israel are the “exception” to normative values of judgment—that is humanity (Jew and non-Jew alike) can not use the same criteria when judging Israel and Jews today as when judging other peoples, cultures, ethnicities, etc. Is this not a form of racism and elitism?
Instead they present an attitude that the sacred cow of Israel, and the Jewish people (those are alive today, and we can only deal with the here and now) get an eternal grace period because of what has happened to Jews in the past. They then have come to presume they should have a independent home land at all costs (no matter what values they violate or who and what gets destroyed in the process) because they have been historically victimized. Thus their bully and blackmail victim politics claims they should not be judged like others, or like how they, themselves, judge the rest of humanity.
Yet to be judged like an equal is the exact opposite of racism—it is equality in the true sense. But not all like it to be judged as equals. They like their “special” status no matter how concocted. They like their clichés like the “The Arabs want to chase us into the sea!!” (meanwhile their own operate like bully thugs).
Eternal exceptionalism, which is racist, seems to be what they expect—and for how long? There seems to be a cultivated attitude (some call it Holocaust mania of guilt tripping Christians and American Jews cause we did not do enough in earlier part of last century and we did not allow for more immigration here). What happened in the past was truly devastating and our country should carry some shame. But that is water over the damn as far as guilt-trip material. Politics today does not afford continuous exemption from criticism to current policies and issues.
Your people “chose” to immigrate back into Palestine. You chose to push the people living there for centuries off their homelands. You chose to destroy their homes and agricultural ways of life. You chose to treat them like animals. These are Israeli choices. In today’s post-Nazi world you do not get free reign to act like Nazis and then crybaby when the world condemns.
Once born Jewish one presumes some automatic sacred card to scream about hundreds of years of victimization (that most people who live today played no part in). No matte how wealthy the neighborhood or professional the family, being Jewish today, supposedly (if tolerated) gives one some privilege of eternal sanctimoniousness about how shallow and corruptible are other kinds of people.
But we who live today (for example Anglo-Saxons in America) are “not” guilty or what other people have done in the past. We are not guilty of the entire history of world’s injustice—and we do not have to be burdened with guilt-trips about other historical time frames. Just like every Jew born today is now automatically a victim of the past.
Nevertheless there is a guilt trip card that seems to be so effective—but apparently the dike is leaking and so you need laws that outlaw free speech? To what extent to you plan on going? Israel is already a criminal society (as is the U.S.).
So is still legitimate for many American Jews who live here in the U.S. to pretend that they are mostly “victims” of the long past history of Jews as oppressed class? The fact is the Zionist movement happened before WW2 and before Hitler. Discrimination against Jews has a long history. But it is the Holocaust that is the mirror that they will not release on which to measure all action.
Is it not a stretched conceit to suggest that because “my” grand parents, or great grandparents as Jews in the old world, were violated by “your” white people’s ancestors (guilt by association), or ancestry of Christianity (guilt by religious or ancestral similarity), that you should pay us grand children, who only know the horror from hearsay, endless contrition?
This is a form of reverse racism—to say well you’re white and Christian and you seem and act like proto-Nazis therefore we are going to guilt trip you for whatever feelings we can manipulate—if you oppose today’s issues in Israel. (And is this not the truth of what is emotionally happening here in the states? Is there not in fact some blackmail going on here?)
Or what then really all the hysteria against Holocaust deniers—if not so citizens of the world do not examine any “current” manipulation of victim status of Israel’s current politics? Is it really just because a “few” extremists want to completely deny the Holocaust? Or could it be that there are forms of genocide going on today that don’t get attention—besides the finger pointing toward the south to Darfur and more Muslims?
Let us get real—there very much seems to be a form of racism practiced within Israel’s current Zionism that does not stand up to the scrutiny of American pluralism and equality. This is fact—and it has a very difficult time standing in the light of day. Perhaps this is why Israel’s critics are so much ignored or attacked?
Because if you study the intertwined politics of Israel and United States closely, you can see that there is a wake of much resentment in the way that the U.S. and Israel plays politics in the Middle East.
Many people in “many” countries “hate” the lies, hypocrisy and deceit of the U.S./ Israeli diplomacy. Equally many people within the United States, including the D.C. beltway and Congress, hate the way Israel’s lobbies here manipulated our foreign policy.
Israel’s crimes of humanity, with our collusion, have severely hurt our relationship with many other countries and people (and this statement recognizes that the U.S. is far from honorable in many respects regarding foreign policy in general because the U.S. deserves as much criticism and reproach as any country about a lot of things). The sad truth is that one of greatest commonalities between the U.S. and Israel is that we are both corrupt nations with corrupt national characters.
So there is a lot of denial going on—as controlled corporate media and Congress are in collusion. Almost everyone has been afraid to speak out.
And should we just never mind that Israel does “not” treat, nor act, as if the United States is really a friend or partner of equal worth. Rather practically every move on their part is “ethno-centrically” centered on Israel, with little, if any, concern for U.S. interests.
Whereas Aristotle stated that in order to have real friendship one needed to be virtuous. Therefore such requirements obviate both Israel and the United States from such a capacity as having friends—which says something about the “mental” and “ethical” status of both countries. But what has transpires between us over time certainly is not any semblance to friendship or respect for a partner (and a lot American Jews and goyim know this to be true). How much longer are we going to deny it and to what detriment?
Rather it seems that too many Israelis (and some American Jews) secretly act as if, deep down, they hate the rest of us Americans (or at least hold us in contempt). They certainly do not respect us (nor am I suggesting that based on our national character that they should—nor we them). If you study the politics between our two countries honestly this is what bears to witness—that it is “not” a good relationship—that is if you are open-minded enough to perceive the realities beyond the propaganda machines. Is this what hate law proposals are meant to deny?
What kind of friend or partner would say: “You can not criticize my politics but give me your money and weapons (and don’t mind if we steal some)?” Only a bully or tyrant would think to impose such demands.
Recently the New York Times News Service carried a story that Israel “possibly” broke an agreement with the U.S. when it recently used cluster bombs in Southern Lebanon. Yet the only thing unusual about this story is the fact that this bastion of American Jewish controlled news of record would publish such a supposition—because Israelis often violate agreements with the U.S. It is nothing new.
After all which politicians lied to the Kennedy Administration about developing nuclear bombs and weapons of mass destruction in the first place? The answer is Israel. Then Israelis manipulated inspections of their nuclear facilities to evade U.S. detection of their nuclear bomb ambitions (while we still maintained suspicions). Their leaders lied to our leaders when Reagan was president about the extent of their aggression during their Lebanese invasion back in ‘82. They lied about using billions of our tax dollars loan guarantees were not suppose to be used to build their iron curtain. Begin lied to Carter about his sincerity of creating a Palestinian state, etc.
So why should any skeptical and sane person trust Israeli diplomats and lobbyists on anything they say? How much longer are we, the American public, going to suck-up to this con game? They especially lied to us on negotiating settlements and returning land. We will judge these people by what they do—not what they say. They even go so far as to twist words in agreements to their manipulative favor (“We will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons ... blah blah).
Their long term attitude and behavior continues to say that they do not care one iota what the rest of the world wants. Instead they say and do whatever they think they can get away with for “autistic” Israel. Their superiority and independence complex is really a form bankruptcy.
Since when has our relationship been a friendship or partnership? (When they first used terrorist bombs to scare the English into doubts?) Is this a kind of partnership America needs? “Gimme, gimme, gimme, and we don’t listen to anybody?” “What is a few spies cracking your operations—and so what if we sell a few national secrets?” “We didn’t mean to kill those Americans—really.” “No we were not harassing your soldiers.” So proud of their long ancestry—yet forever in need of a Messiah.
Yet behind all the politics, bravado, and smoke screen hysteria (including their U.S. media’s deliberate distortion of Ahmadinejad’s words and meanings) is a broken baby called a defiant and egotistical Israel. Constantly crying. Constantly wanting his and her spoiled and self-centered way. Bullying when crying does not work and visa versa. There is nothing noble behind all this pretense and crime. It is moral and political bankruptcy.
We American citizens need to be more honest about the difference between being partners and being enemies because there is little to suggest that Israel gives even the smallest consideration for our concerns or needs.
Now they want us to go to war with Iran—for them—not for us. If you examine the true advocacy of bombing Iran it is from Israel and the same stumping game of “their” political machines.
They are using the same kinds of fabrications they used to push us into the current war with Iraq. All they need is a concocted fabrication which is their forte. And we should “not” feel some kind of “hostility” or as if we are not being betrayed?
As an example of their bash-up machine is how “their” media initially inundated with us with negative propaganda about former President Carter’s recent book. Immediately Abraham Foxman (of ADL no less) was calling it bigoted and outrageous. He raises the “conspiracy theory” of Jewish control of the media, Congress, and the U.S. government (and of course got printed in it).
Mr. Foxman is not some straight shooter or why would even Ralph Nader (also Jewish) be writing him letters accusing him otherwise (you can find letter on the web dated Aug. 5, 2004 and Oct. 12, 2004)?
At least The Nation came through with Chris Hedges “Get Carter” January 8, 2007 issue, when he wrote stuff worth reading, such as “... The assault against Carter, rather, says more about the failings of the American media ...” And “... if there is a failing in Carter’s stance, it is that he is too kind to the Israelis, bending over backward to assert that he is only writing about the occupied territories...” (implying that Israel itself is a true democracy). And “... The Israel lobby in the U.S. does not serve Israel or the Jewish community—it serves the interests of the Israeli extreme right wing.”
There is usually a well coordinated attack on anyone who dares to speak out competently against “the” lobby—and everyone knows who the lobby is—AIPAC (as umbrella organization for many American Jews who influence our news and politics).
To them—the truth can not be known. Americans are not suppose to know how much they have been played a sucker and financially strain our tax dollars. Is this why they now need a so called Hate Law (read anti-speech law) because there ruses have run thin?
And get this—since it is a accepted psychological principle that episodes of humiliation are correlated to violence and the more and longer duration leads to more violence. Then ask yourself why do Israelis deliberately attempt to humiliate the Palestinians so much and for so long? Do they cynically need American money and resource so much that they deliberately create conditions that effect violence? That is they need crisis and disorder and therefore crisis management?
Or consider how much open and “honest” or extensive debate was there in respect to professor Stephen M. Walt of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and John J. Mearsheimer, a professor at the University of Chicago, report that argued the American Israel lobby has pushed policies that are not in the United States' best interests and in fact often encourage Israel to engage in self-destructive behavior? Damn little. Should we then suggest that these censors from debate were acting within an attitude of “disdain” or “hate” against these two distinguished professors as well as the masses?
If American right wing Jews, who have enormous influence in American news and Washington, don’t like the discussion they ignore, suppress, or disparage the critical information. Sometimes they intimidate, harass, etc. The fact is that the police state of Israel is moving over here to the United States.
Yet to put this in perspective, we must recognize that many of the harshest critics of Israel and Zionism are Jews themselves, including Rabbis all around the world.
It is unfair to pigeonhole Jews, or American Jews, in one camp. They are all over the map on issues—but too many are silent when it comes to reconciling differences between the U.S. and Israel especially since their attack dogs target them equally as well with great “hostility”.
In all probability the reason the anti-war movement has been so lukewarm in America is because right-wing Jews pushed us into this war with Iraq and the left is intimidated. What “strings” do non-profits who donate money to activist organizations and political campaigns make as far as stipulations? Is there truth that Rahm Emanuel, who chaired the Democratic Congressional campaign Committee, deliberatively chose not to fund candidates that wanted a quick withdrawal from Iraq? Why have so many Democrats in leadership position shunned the anti-war movement?
Nor must we forget to mention the now disreputable and inveterate propagandist and plagiarizer Alan Dershowitz as he wanted to debate Carter’s recent book. Here is a prime example of the propaganda machine’s answer to American democracy—he who shows his warped loyalty by demonizing and ostracizing anyone who does not agree with the “purity” of Zionist motives—while calling himself an objective American and professional lawyer. Has any Israeli ever acted inappropriately in Dershowitz’s assessment without a ton of mitigating excuses? And how can a supposedly prestigious college like Harvard continue to employ a man who does not live the basic standards of Academia? (He may debate well but he is not an honest or sincere polemist.)
Many Americans, including many Jewish Americans (not to mention billions of citizens of the world) are tired of the Israel-centric bias (and deliberate distortion of supposed informative news). They are all especially tired of the unconscionable ways of repression acted out against the Palestinians. Any why should any true blooded American we want any part of what is in fact “anti-American” values? Real Americans believe in equal opportunity for “all” people.
Israelis (especially on the right and pseudo-left) would do themselves a favor and stop presuming they were intellectually superior to everyone else.
The constant complaining about anti-Semitism is also a “front” for a latent attitude of Jewish-supremacy. Or do you not get the impression, despite a once Aryan supremacy doctrinaire instigated by Hitler (also a Jew), that some Jews seem to think themselves better, and more important, than others?
Or who really knows what it is was that Mel Gibson said when he was arrested for being under the influence? Does even he? More importantly why is he so much more smeared by American Zionists, as a serious anti-Semite, than say the Jewish comedian and film maker—Sacha Boron Cohen and his anti-Semitic Borat: Cultural Learning of America ...? Is it because Cohen is Jewish and he, who deliberately and calculatingly portrayed anti-Semitism in his film, is given kid gloves?
Gibson was inebriated and his thoughts and statements could have been misconstrued or misunderstood. Whereas Cohen’s portrayal of the “simple-mindedness” of goyim American life across the Bible Belts of the U.S. was secretly applauded. (Yes Cohen’s movie was funny with a flippant and creative audacity—but it was also a kind of middle finger saying “up-yours” stupid Americans (who don’t even know what Khazakstan is). The film was founded on a preconception that masses of Americans are vulgar, simplistic and anti-Semitic (entertaining the conceit that citified Jewish life is so much more intelligent and sophisticated). No reverse racist attitude here huh?). Maybe Cohen and his ilk has a little more cultural learning to do—if he thinks all Americans are idiots and bigots.
And let us be real here—do you really believe that many Jews in this country and elsewhere truly respect the intelligence and political savvy of the average American? I suspect they do not.
But get this—as reported in the news—Mr. Sacha Cohen is interpreted by the ADL (!!!) as using “satire” to expose anti-Semitism (but they are afraid that some will not be sophisticated enough to get the joke!).
The blatancy of his in-your-face humor was obvious—but what about this reverse racism where they implied Americans—are all pretty much red necks, religious fundamentalists (read bigots), hoods talking shit, or just kind of retardedly non-intellectual—no double entendre ambiguity here—just simple joking around? No wonder Jewish film critics loved it even while they maintained ambiguous feelings about the “anti-Semitism part as they never mentioned any recognition of reverse stereotyping toward the rest of American cultural.
You see it is “always” about anti-Semitism—isn’t it? No ethno-centricity here? It is never about how some Jews might harbor racism or resentment towards others?
Recently the super journalist of opportunism, namely Rupert Murdock, signed on to do a Borat II since it was so funny (and yes it was funny because there was truth to the movie’s humor) Yes the fundamentalists and religious fanatics (that they are not too proud to milk for political cooperation even while they secretly disdain them) are out there. But how apropos that Mr. Yellow journalism would sign on to having a laugh on the masses of the U.S. since few men are more responsible for everything that has happened since we invaded Iraq—including the torture and civilians deaths.
Furthermore despite this conceited satire by Cohen, Jews are just as responsible for the “character” of this country as any other group—their influence has helped mold this nation. For example their employment in Hollywood and the music industry has helped promote the reverse racism of black music dominance and all things that honor “hommie” and prison mentality. American Jews are just as responsible for the education system and the mentality of self-centered consumerism.
So the laugh is on all. Foxman and Rupert and others missed the real joke—that this movie that went overboard to portray an anti-Semitism ruse—was really anti-Goyim America. The overly obvious anti-Semitism was a build up to say: “This is what I think of the rest of you Americans only I’m going to do it with laughs so you don’t get it” (Cause you are to stupid to take an insult while too many American Jews are too ethnocentric to see their own projections).
And although one can choose to interpret art in multiple ways (like film critics have never been arbitrary) there is more to humor than mere laughable matter—often enough there was serious psychological content to examine. Perhaps it is time to ask the smoke scream of anti-Semitism: “Why so many Semites prejudiced against Americans (or seem to think they are other than or better than Americans)?”
But more to the point—the real reason Gibson was pounced on, at least it intuitively seems, is not because of the wording he reputedly spoke: “Jews are behind all the wars”, as the reality that Israel, AIPAC, the Israel loyalists of the s did do “much” significant activity to push the United States into this disastrous war in Iraq (even while their own propaganda machines spearheads the way to now blaming the goyim team of Bush, Chenny, Rumsfeld and Rice).
More likely on Gibson’s mind, like on a lot of peoples’ minds, is whether s will continue to try to twist our arm into “another” disastrous war with Iran (even when so many Americans are opposed).
This seems to be the reason why Mel Gibson was so smeared over and over by so many in the media and Hollywood—not because he chose his words poorly while drinking—but rather that he was pointing to a deeper truth that too many American Jews in the United States and Government and Media with clout are trying to suppress—that some loyalists here will sacrifice America’s real national security and resources to their own ends—and if necessary they will destroy our civil rights in the process as well.
So let us get real. The human gene pool is at least 95% similar to that of other primates (all of our identities are primarily animal). No one is strictly Jewish or Muslim or of Christian in identity. In fact most Jews in America have mixed genes from a multiplicity of cultures. Furthermore much of our cultural learning has been from other peoples and cultures, such as ancient Greece, Renaissance Italy, Enlightment France, Scottish Intellectual life, scientific discovery world wide, etc. We are “all” a combination of identities and values. No one is just an Israeli or an American or otherwise. We are all individuals and some are committed to world justice and universal principles.
Furthermore many animals of sorts are territorial but they do not pick or fight for their “chosen” territory on mere ideological or ancestral reason—they do so for practical reason looking for areas with adequate water. Nor do they claim God gave them a peace of the universe for eternity and expect everyone to buy it.
Equally, if you really do your history Abraham was an outsider John-Come-Lately from the east area of Iran way back when as there were already people living there indigenously so long ago it is hard to imagine. Your people did not spring from some boundary. Sorry but you are just as simian as the rest of us (like it or not). Join the modern world.
Judaism of old was a religion of war and revenge. It was an authoritarian religion that was intolerant to other deities (as it still is). What is the big deal? What type of people need to identify with the past so much that they can not carve out an identity in the present? Any cultural could have created elaborate myth about one’s greatness had they the written language to do so. Seems like journalists can even get the truth on contemporary times.
It is time for all Americans to decide which values they intend to respect to national values—the current Apartheid of Zionism or the equal opportunity.
Here is the rub—the Palestine issue is part of the overall Middle East issue and the whole world seems to understand it. Saddam Hussein, despite his criminality, cared about the Palestinians. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, despite his perspectives and his country’s legal rights of sovereignty, also cares about the Palestinians. And believe it or not some of us Americans and even some Israelis do as well. So you can kill all the Muslims you want and wipe out all the leaders you “hate” but the fact remains—the Palestinian issue still awaits—unless nuclear or technological war destroys in great mass proportion. “Hate” as subject matter should be addressed—with some depth. And if you choose to do nuclear war do it when the wind blows in your own neighborhood. Please I have other reading that isn’t about you.
This work is in the public domain