[PAA-Discuss] From Cynthia McKinney: Why the Peace Movement Is NOT About Peace

[Bart Boyce]

Thanks Cynthia,

Gilad does hit this one out of the ballpark. In fact he's leading the league in 
HR's .
It is very difficult to discuss "controlled opposition" to the Peace Movement 
here in
Houston :  City of Peace .
 Kris and Robert are two of only a handful of people that have much idea about 
what
is really going on .....  and we have something like 4Mil human souls.
 Not a good idea .....  

As C.Lee Taylor says, " At the end of the day, we're all just doing the best we 
can."
Sadly, that doesn't seem to be enough.

We as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values.
Bart


Barton Comly Boyce

 




________________________________
From: HQ <hq2600 at gmail.com>
To: updates at lists.allthingscynthiamckinney.com
Sent: Fri, April 12, 2013 2:57:00 PM
Subject: [hq2600] From Cynthia McKinney: Why the Peace Movement Is NOT About 
Peace


I started highlighting, only to discover that the entire article should be 
highlighted.  Gilad hit this one out of the ballpark!

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/04/12/controlled-opposition/

Weekend Edition April 12-14, 2013 
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on google More Sharing Services 3 
From Goldstein to Soros and Beyond
Controlled Opposition
by GILAD ATZMON
In his new book, “The Invention of the Land of Israel”,  Israeli academic Shlomo 
Sand, manages to present conclusive evidence of  the far fetched nature of the 
Zionist historical narrative – that the  Jewish Exile is a myth as is the Jewish 
people and even the Land of  Israel.
Yet, Sand and many others fails to address the most important  question: If 
Zionism is based on myth, how do the Zionists manage to get  a way with their 
lies, and for so long?
If the Jewish ‘homecoming’ and the demand for a Jewish national  homeland cannot 
be historically substantiated, why has it been supported  by both Jews and the 
West for so long? How does the Jewish state manage  for so long to celebrate its 
racist expansionist ideology and at the  expense of the Palestinian and Arab 
peoples?
Jewish power is obviously one answer, but, what is Jewish power? Can  we ask 
this question without being accused of being Anti Semitic? Can we  ever discuss 
its meaning and scrutinize its politics? Is Jewish Power a  dark force, managed 
and maneuvered by some conspiratorial power? Is it  something of which Jews 
themselves are shy? Quite the opposite – Jewish  power, in most cases, is 
celebrated right in front of our eyes. As we  know, AIPAC is far from being 
quiet about its agenda, its practices or  its achievements. AIPAC, CFI in the UK 
and CRIF in France are operating  in the most open manner and often openly brag 
about their success.
Furthermore, we are by now accustomed to watch our democratically  elected 
leaders shamelessly queuing to kneel before their pay-masters.  Neocons 
certainly didn’t seem to feel the need to hide their close  Zionist 
affiliations. Abe Foxman’s Anti Defamation League (ADL) works  openly towards 
the Judification of the Western discourse, chasing and  harassing anyone who 
dares voice any kind of criticism of Israel or even  of Jewish choseness. And of 
course, the same applies to the media,  banking and Hollywood. We know about the 
many powerful Jews who are not  in the slightest bit shy about their bond with 
Israel and their  commitment to Israeli security, the Zionist ideology, the 
primacy of  Jewish suffering, Israeli expansionism and even outright Jewish  
exceptionalism.
But, as ubiquitous as they are, AIPAC, CFI, ADL, BernieMadoff, ‘liberator’ 
Bernard Henri-Levy, war-advocate David Aaronovitch, free  market prophet Milton 
Friedman, Steven Spielberg, Haim Saban, Lord Levy  and many other Zionist 
enthusiasts and Hasbara advocates are not  necessarily the core or the driving 
force behind Jewish power, but are  merely symptoms. Jewish power is actually 
far more sophisticated than  simply a list of Jewish lobbies or individuals 
performing highly  developed manipulative skills. Jewish power is the unique 
capacity to  stop us from discussing or even contemplating Jewish power. It is 
the  capacity to determine the boundaries of the political discourse and  
criticism in particular.
Contrary to popular belief, it is not ‘right wing’ Zionists who  facilitate 
Jewish power, It is actually the ‘good’, the ‘enlightened’  and the 
‘progressive’ who make Jewish power the most effective and  forceful power in 
the land. It is the ‘progressives’ who confound our  ability to identify the 
Judeocentric tribal politics at the heart of  Neoconservatism, American 
contemporary imperialism and foreign policy.  It is the so-called ‘anti’ Zionist 
who goes out of his or her way to  divert our attention from the fact that 
Israel defines itself as the  Jewish State and blinds us to the fact that its 
tanks are decorated with  Jewish symbols. It was the Jewish Left intellectuals 
who rushed to  denounce Professors Mersheimer and Walt, Jeff Blankfort and James  
Petras’ work on the Jewish Lobby. And it is no secret that Occupy AIPAC,  the 
campaign against the most dangerous political Lobby in America, is  dominated by 
a few righteous members of the chosen tribe. We need to  face up to the fact 
that our dissident voices is far from being free.  Quite the opposite, we are 
dealing here with an institutional case of  controlled opposition.
In George Orwell’s 1984, it is perhaps Emmanuel Goldstein who is the  pivotal 
character. Orwell’s Goldstein is a Jewish revolutionary, a  fictional Leon 
Trotsky. He is depicted as the head of a mysterious  anti-party organization 
called “The Brotherhood” and is also the author  of the most subversive 
revolutionary text (The Theory and Practice of  Oligarchical Collectivism). 
Goldstein is the ‘dissenting voice’, the one  who actually tells the truth. Yet, 
as we delve into Orwell’s text, we  find out from Party’s ‘Inner Circle’ O’Brien 
that Goldstein was actually  invented by Big Brother in a clear attempt to 
control the opposition  and the possible boundaries of dissidence.
Orwell’s personal account of the Spanish Civil War “Homage To  Catalonia” 
clearly presaged the creation of Emmanuel Goldstein. It was  what Orwell 
witnessed in Spain that, a decade later, matured into a  profound understanding 
of dissent as a form of controlled opposition. My  guess is that, by the late 
1940’s, Orwell had understood the depth of  intolerance, and tyrannical and 
conspiratorial tendencies that lay at  the heart of ‘Big Brother-ish’ Left 
politics and praxis.
Surprisingly enough, an attempt to examine our contemporaneous  controlled 
opposition within the Left and the Progressive reveal that it  is far from being 
a conspiratorial. Like in the case of the Jewish  Lobby, the so-called 
‘opposition’ hardly attempts to disguise its  ethno-centric tribal interests, 
spiritual and ideological orientation  and affiliation.
A brief examination of the list of organisations founded by George Soros’ Open 
Society Institute (OSI) presents a grim picture – pretty much the  entire 
American progressive network is funded, partially or largely by a  liberal 
Zionist, philanthropic billionaire who supports very many good  and important 
causes that are also very good for the Jews. And yet, like  staunch Zionist Haim 
Saban, Soros does not operate clandestinely. His  Open Society Institute proudly 
provides all the necessary information  regarding the vast amount of shekels it 
spreads on its good and important causes.
So one can’t accuse Soros or the Open Society Institute of any  sinister vetting 
the political discourse, stifling of free speech or  even to ‘controlling the 
opposition’. All Soros does is to support a  wide variety of ‘humanitarian 
causes’: Human Rights, Women’s Rights. Gay  Rights, equality, democracy, Arab 
‘Spring’, Arab Winter, the oppressed,  the oppressor, tolerance, intolerance, 
Palestine, Israel, anti war,  pro-war (only when really needed), and so on.
As with Orwell’s Big Brother that frames the boundaries of dissent by  means of 
control opposition, Soros’ Open Society also determines,  either consciously or 
unconsciously, the limits of critical thought.  Yet, unlike in 1984, where it is 
the Party that invents its own  opposition and write its texts, within our 
‘progressive’ discourse, it  is our own voices of dissent, willingly and 
consciously, that  compromises their principles.
Soros may have read Orwell – he clearly believes his message –  because from 
time to time he even supports opposing forces. For  instance, he funds the 
Zionist-lite J Street as well as Palestinian NGO  organisations. And guess what? 
It never takes long for the Palestinian  beneficiaries to, compromise their own, 
most precious principles so they fit nicely into their paymaster’s worldview.
The Visible Hand
The invisible hand of the market is a metaphor coined  by Adam Smith to describe 
the self-regulating behaviour of the  marketplace. In contemporary politics. The 
visible hand is a  similar metaphor which describes the self-regulating tendency 
of the  political-fund beneficiary, to fully integrate the world view of its  
benefactor into its political agenda.
Democracy Now, the most important American dissident outlet has never  discussed 
the Jewish Lobby with Mersheimer, Walt, Petras or Blankfort –  the four leading 
experts who could have informed the American people  about the USA’s foreign 
policy domination by the Jewish Lobby. For the  same reasons, Democracy Now 
wouldn’t explore the Neocon’s Judeo-centric  agenda nor would it ever discuss 
Jewish Identity politics with yours  truly. Democracy Now will host Noam Chomsky 
or Norman Finkelstein, it  may even let Finkelstein chew up Zionist caricature 
Alan Dershowitz –  all very good, but not good enough.
Is the fact that Democracy Now is heavily funded by Soros relevant? I’ll let you 
judge.
If I’m correct (and I think I am) we have a serious problem here. As  things 
stand, it is actually the progressive discourse, or at least  large part of it.  
that sustains Jewish Power. If this is indeed the  case, and I am convinced it 
is, then the occupied progressive discourse,  rather than Zionism, is the 
primary obstacle that must be confronted.
It is no coincidence that the ‘progressive’ take on ‘antisemitism’ is  
suspiciously similar to the Zionist one. Like Zionists, many  progressive 
institutes and activists adhere to the bizarre suggestion  that opposition to 
Jewish power is ‘racially motivated’ and embedded in  some ‘reactionary’ Goyish 
tendency. Consequently, Zionists are often  supported by some ‘progressives’ in 
their crusade against critics of  Israel and Jewish power. Is this peculiar 
alliance between these  allegedly opposing schools of thoughts, the outcome of a 
possible  ideological continuum between these two seemingly opposed political  
ideologies? Maybe, after all, progressiveness like Zionism is driven by a  
peculiar inclination towards ‘choseness’. After all, being progressive  somehow 
implies that someone else must be ‘reactionary’. It is those  self-centric 
elements of exceptionalism and choseness that have made  progressiveness so 
attractive to secular and emancipated Jews. But the  main reason the 
‘progressive’ adopted the Zionist take on antisemitism,  may well be because of 
the work of that visible hand that miraculously shapes the progressive take on 
race, racism and the primacy of Jewish suffering.
We may have to face up to the fact that the progressive discourse  effectively 
operates as Israel’s longest arm – it certainly acts as a  gatekeeper and as 
protection for Zionism and Jewish tribal interests. If  Israel and its 
supporters would ever be confronted with real opposition  it might lead to some 
long-overdue self-reflection. But at the moment,  Israel and Zionist lobbies 
meet only insipid, watered-down,  progressively-vetted resistance that, in 
practice, sustains Israeli  occupation, oppression and an endless list of human 
rights abuses.
Instead of mass opposition to the Jewish State and its aggressive  lobby, our 
‘resistance’ is reduced into a chain of badge-wearing,  keffiyeh-clad, 
placard-waving mini-gatherings with the occasional  tantrum from some neurotic 
Jewess while being videoed by another good  Jew. If anyone believes that a few 
badges, a load of amateur Youtube  clips celebrating Jewish righteousness are 
going to evolve into a mass  anti-Israel global movement, they are either naïve 
or stupid.
In fact, a recent Gallup poll revealed that current Americans’ sympathy for 
Israel has reached an All-Time High.  64% of Americans sympathise with the 
Jewish State, while only 12% feel  for the Palestinians. This is no surprise and 
our conclusion should be  clear. As far as Palestine is concerned,  
‘progressive’ ideology and  praxis have led us precisely nowhere. Rather than 
advance the  Palestinian cause, it only locates the ‘good’ Jew at the centre of 
the  solidarity discourse.
When was the last time a Palestinian freedom fighter appeared on your  TV 
screen? Twenty years ago the Palestinian were set to become the new  Che 
Guevaras. Okay, so the Palestinian freedom fighter didn’t  necessarily speak 
perfect English and wasn’t a graduate of an English  public school, but he was 
free, authentic and determined. He or she  spoke about their land being taken 
and of their willingness to give what  it takes to get it back. But now, the 
Palestinian has been ‘saved’, he  or she doesn’t have to fight for his or her 
their land, the  ‘progressive’ is taking care of it all.
This ‘progressive’ voice speaks on behalf of the Palestinian and, at  the same 
time, takes the opportunity to also push marginal politics,  fight ‘Islamism’ 
and ‘religious radicalisation’ and occasionally even  supports the odd 
interventionst war and, of course, always, always,  always fights antisemitism. 
The controlled opposition has turned the  Palestinian plight into just one more 
‘progressive’ commodity, lying on  the back shelf of its ever-growing 
‘good-cause’ campaign store.
For the Jewish progressive discourse, the purpose behind  pro-Palestinian 
support is clear. It is to present an impression of  pluralism within the Jewish 
community. It is there to suggest that not  all Jews are bad Zionists. Philip 
Weiss, the founder of the most popular  progressive pro-Palestinian blog was 
even brave enough to admit to me  that it is Jewish self -interests that stood 
at the core of his pro Palestinian activity.
Jewish self-love is a fascinating topic. But even more fascinating is  Jewish 
progressives loving themselves at the expense of the  Palestinians. With 
billionaires such as Soros maintaining the discourse,  solidarity is now an 
industry, concerned with profit and power rather  than ethics or values and it 
is a spectacle both amusing and tragic as  the Palestinians become a side issue 
within their own solidarity  discourse.
So, perhaps before we discuss the ‘liberation of Palestine’, we first may have 
to liberate ourselves.
Gilad Atzmon’s latest book is: The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity 
Politics

-- 

 ----------------------------------------------------------+
|    __o     CONTINENTAL CRITICAL MASS    
|  _`\;,_               come ride with me
| (*)/ (*) 
|                  Bike4PeaceAcross the USA                    
-----------------------------------------------------------+

Silence is the deadliest weapon of mass destruction.

"The Bush family has a political dynasty that the Kennedy family was not allowed 
to have." 

Steve Cokely

"We as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values."  Dr. Martin Luther 
King, Jr.


"The biggest weapon in the hands of the oppressors is the minds of the 
oppressed." Steve Biko

"Make your spirit flexible, and nothing will ever bend you out of shape."  
Wisdom by Taro Gold 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://paa-tx.org/pipermail/discuss_paa-tx.org/attachments/20130412/2b2659a2/attachment.htm>