Sean McBride
Santorum Calls for ‘Long War’ to ‘Eradicate’ Islam « Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place (Recent Flashback) - http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_o...
Santorum Calls for ‘Long War’ to ‘Eradicate’ Islam « Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place (Recent Flashback)
"Max Blumenthal has dug up a speech (transcript) delivered by Rick Santorum at David Horowitz’s invitation in 2007, in which he stated that Islam was a religion that had to be “eradicated” in a “long war:”" - Sean McBride from Bookmarklet
And here’s the kicker: “What must we do to win [against Islam]? We must educate, engage, evangelize and ERADICATE.” - Sean McBride
"Americans need to ask themselves if they want a president, or even a presidential candidate who’s talked dead-seriously about engaging in a holy war with an entire religion consisting of hundreds of millions of adherents. Is this really what they want? Endless war against Islam? And for what? Republicans who like what they’re hearing from Santorum these days because he’s a family values guy should think whether these are the sort of family values they want their president to espouse." - Sean McBride
Bet there are a lot of faux leftists and progressives really pissed off at Santorum. Look what he's done. He's spilled the beans completely. Now every time one of these hasbaralites claims these wars are about oil, not Israel, zionist hegemony and Jewish bigotry, one just has to point to what Israel's most obvious lap dog just proposed - genocidal war against Muslims till they are all "eradicated". Many who've built their pundit careers on the "war for oil" canard are going to have a tougher time selling their Israeli defense now. They might have to find real jobs. - mark e
mark e -- Chomskyites want to blame zealots like Rick Santorum on the vague conceptual construct of American capitalism and imperialism. But he is clearly a religious extremist who is driven by a crackbrained ideology. Many Zionists are ethnic and/or religious ideologues and extremists -- not remotely on the same page with most Fortune 500 CEOs, who are pragmatic rationalists. Often one gets the impression that Chomsky and his disciples are are trying to protect these emotional Zionists from scrutiny. Quite curious. - Sean McBride
Sean - I think a lot of that fanatical religious stuff that comes from the Santorums and the various evangelical blowhards is all show. They are running a con. While this fanaticism has existed in the USA for a long time, it was the Israelis and their Jewish homeboys in the USA who got this crap going in the 70's. It was dying out before then, much like neonazism and white supremacy were (another fascist movement the zionists pumped new life into so they could make use of their services). The Jewish zionists got behind a few of these preachers and essentially took this movement over. They then highly inflated it, via their media and money, vastly increasing fundy Christian visibility, influence and giving what was widely recognized as a laughable group of superstitious cultists much increased legitimacy. The main purpose of this was to get control of a large section of the American populace who were hostile to Israel or indifferent to it. The zionists already owned the "liberals", but they didn't control enough of the "conservatives" to totally dominate the USA. Taking over, and in reality creating, this Christian fundy segment gave them that total control. Full spectrum dominance. - mark e
Continuing. Chomsky cant address this control because it would undermine his covering for the zionists. He has to keep his criticism to a "faceless" rich class who have no loyalty to anything but themselves and their own greed. If he starts getting into their groupings and divisions, he'd have to admit some were zionists who acted together to further their own power over the rest of the super rich. That would them lead to scrutiny of zionist machinations, like the Jewish lobby and these endless wars that really only benefit Israel in the long run. Another problem with Chomsky is the way he addresses history. And this is probably connected to his zionist loyalty. He portrays history in a structuralist manner. This description from Parenti describes structuralism: next post. - mark e
Parenti - "A structural analysis, as I understand it, maintains that events are determined by the larger configurations of power and interest and not by the whims of happenstance or the connivance of a few incidental political actors. There is no denying that larger structural trends impose limits on policy and exert strong pressures on leaders. But this does not mean that all important policy is predetermined. Short of betraying fundamental class interests, different leaders can pursue different courses, the effects of which are not inconsequential to the lives of millions of people. Thus, it was not foreordained that the B-52 carpet bombing of Cambodia and Laos conducted by Nixon would have happened if Kennedy, or even Johnson or Humphrey, had been president. If left critics think these things make no difference in the long run, they better not tell that to the millions of Indochinese who grieve for their lost ones and for their own shattered lives." - mark e
Continuing. Because Chomsky uses this structuralist approach, he discounts the influence and role of individual actors in the power play and claims its "the system". So in Chomsky's work, you don't see much continuity in documenting history. He'll quote individuals to make a point, but he doesn't follow their specific roles much beyond a few simple quotes. He concentrates on the role of their class instead. What one ends up coming away with after reading or listening to Chomsky is a big picture of a corporate class always working to maintain control over the rest of us, but absolutely no understanding of who the individuals players are and what sequence of acts they did to keep their class in control. This is a major failing of Chomsky because it is disempowering. People get overwhelmed at facing some faceless giant force (corporate power) which they have no way of combating. If one doesn't know who one's enemy is, one can not effectively fight back. This is why American progressives have been so ineffective at opposing fascism (above and beyond the deliberate zionist internal neutralization they have endured). The left and progressives in the USA do not know who their individual enemies are. - mark e
Has Noam Chomsky dealt with the founding of Israel at all? Whether the indigenous people should not have had the right to self determination over their lives and land, including controlling immigration? Its interesting that Jewish commentators don't feel the least bit hesitant to appear as though their motivations are ethnic nationalist, including the self-styled goodie goodies like Peter Beinart. - Berthe
Re Santorum --- would be interesting to see a poll on what percentage of Americans see him as "evil." - Berthe
mark e -- great comment -- I agree with all your points. 1. Christian Zionism is largely a Likud/neocon op, which has been engineered and stage managed by Commentary neocons like Irving Kristol, William Kristol, Elliott Abrams, etc. in combination with Israeli prime ministers and Mossad heads like Menachem Begin, Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu, Isser Harel, etc. 2. I find myself increasingly laughing outright at Chomskyites -- the combination of intellectual pretension, intellectual vacuity, self-importance and easily wounded feelings strikes me as funny. None of them are first-rate historians. They pay little attention to empirical facts. I can learn more about contemporary American politics from a few crisp and fact-based Jim Lobe articles than from dozens of long-winded and vague Chomskyan essays. Sometimes I wonder if the mission of Noam Chomsky and his cult followers isn't to protect the Israel lobby from effective opposition from the left. There are dozens of writers who are much more lucid on Mideast politics than Noam Chomsky. - Sean McBride
mark e -- smart of you to break up your post into individual comments instead of posting a huge wall of unreadable text. I hope everyone follows your example -- usually a comment per paragraph works well. (I should have divided my previous comment into two comments. :)) - Sean McBride
Berthe - "Has Noam Chomsky dealt with the founding of Israel at all?" I don't know. I cant remember seeing anything by him that goes into any detail on Israel or Palestine. - mark e
See "The Fateful Triangle." - Sean McBride
Sean - thanks. I agree about Chomsky and his fan club. Their avoidance of the elephant in the room leads to some very silly looking intellectual yoga positions. I don't understand how they can tolerate the cramps these must generate. :) - mark e
Classical signs of cult psychology -- seriously. - Sean McBride
Berthe - "Santorum --- would be interesting to see a poll on what percentage of Americans see him as "evil." I don't know about "evil", but this article shows some of the ways he is considered extreme even among American extremists: "How Rick Santorum's views compare to the rest of America's on birth control, working women, gays in military" http://www.pennlive.com/midstat... I suspect a lot of his sudden "popularity" is the usual zionist media hype of something that doesn't really exist anywhere near to the extent they are portraying. - mark e
The Republicans seem intent on following Santorum's brand of rightist purity into regional obscurity. Soon to be a majority party only in the old confederacy and Utah... And israel of course - WarLord
Santorum is a classifiable asshole and ignoramus. - MRW
Maybe people are voting him in so that the choice between Obama and Santorum is stark. Nah. Americans couldn’t be that smart. - MRW