Contact
LifestreamKalle Lasn’s rather inflammatory article over at Adbusters magazine, dissecting the Neocon school, seems to be far from the end of the matter. His article, entitled Why won’t anyone say they are Jewish?, has sparked a great deal of controversy and a flood of responses since. Here is a short snippet for those that missed it:
.. and ..
Here at Adbusters, we decided to tackle the issue head on and came up with a carefully researched list of who appear to be the 50 most influential neocons in the US (see above). Deciding exactly who is a neocon is difficult since some neocons reject the term while others embrace it. Some shape policy from within the White House, while others are more peripheral, exacting influence indirectly as journalists, academics and think tank policy wonks. What they all share is the view that the US is a benevolent hyper power that must protect itself by reshaping the rest of the world into its morally superior image. And half of the them are Jewish.
There are so many thing to comment about, I do not know where to begin. I think the most startling revelation is not that 50% of the most influential Neocons are jewish but that people seem to have taken the article really badly. The article raises important questions, but critics jump up and down and scream “anti-Semite”, which doesn’t really help anyone. The very fact that there is so much resistance and slander leads me to believe that there might actually be something to this. Especially given the latest developments in US - Israeli collaboration, where a US president (for the first time ever) endorses the occupation of Palestinian territory and fails to slap even a wrist at the sight of political assassination. Well, I guess the US too have its fair share of assassination and occupation. And after characterizing countries like Honduras strong allies, I guess Israel is a dream come true. Both countries are in a position where they need each other. And Israel is probably needed more today than in decades, perhaps ever.
One could also go on forever, defining what being jewish really means. But for the most part I agree with Lasn. It doesn’t matter if they are religious or not. Just the fact that such a large number of people have the same background and have been raised and schooled by similar values is alarming. No matter if they work for Israel or not. It is of course also alarming that these Neocons are mostly caucasian males. Remember the Bay of Pigs. Same thing almost happened in Iraq. A homogenous group of people couldn’t see beyond their own limiting views and spread a myth among themselves and to the public. A myth that Iraq for example had WMDs, that Iraq directly supported so called terrorism in general and that the US would be greeted with open arms as liberators.
All in all the worst possible setup for dealing with biased opinions and developing a sound policy. And if they work to back a foreign country it is bad for everyone. Especially the american people who assume that their government is working for them and not Israel.
Have you seen this? http://www.adbusters.org/in…
What a crock!
If they weren’t so ineffectual, they would be dangerous. Extremism of the left is MORE dangerous than extremism of the right.
No I hadn’t
Whoa, that was some socialist cliché propaganda image. Believe it or not but there used to be images just like that on the hallways of the cafeteria as I was in primary - high school.
I would have hoped that Adbusters was nonpolitical. Who knows really. The text is as uninformative as it could be. I think they’re making a mistake in selling that image of themselves. Even if people get the idea right away and everyone thinks “socialist revolution”. Methinks they should be less melodramatic and set realistic goals. I know the feeling exactly. I’m constantly doing the same mistake.
Personally I do my best to stay clear of politics as such. Or at least I do not affiliate myself with any organization. My goal too is to “topple existing power structures”, especially in the sense of politics. Maybe these people can be of some use. But as it stands they are far too “flower power”.
All that notwithstanding, the heart of the article still stands. I do not question the motifs when there is something bigger to uncover. Personally I couldn’t care less about actual political orientation. People’s actions are more important than who they are (which is also true, and really the point of the article).
As if leftist extremism is more dangerous. Perhaps. It usually rallies more people. But if enough people rise to the call is it really extremism in the same way? When does it borderline democracy?
I know that socialism isn’t (and has never been) very popular in the US. Over here it’s a part of our lives, no matter how far out right you think you are.
Here in the US too the schools are the shaping force of political thought. They start ‘propagandizing’ children at a very early age. Its a wonder that there is a second view at all.
My view is that adbusters, by their stated feelings, corrupt anything they say about anything. Their aim is not illumination, its to further their goal.
I like the term ‘Flower Power’. I grew up in the 60s. “Tune In, Turn On, Drop Out”. Fortunately I lived through those times but they were fun.
I think you should examine the effect of your goal to topple existing power structures. One of my favorite things to read about is the unintended consequences of actions. My favorite recent one is how giving food to starving Africans actually has the opposite effect. The sudden availability of free food causes the price of locally produced foods to crash. Subsistance farmers (most of the population) then can’t buy anything.
My definition of political left and right is that the left believes that government is the solution while the right believes that government is the problem. I think that here in the US both major political parties are leftist. The left-right difference between the two is small. I suppose that the Republican party is more right.
Jewish people are no less (or more) moral than any other people. Counting jews in a particular part of US government without looking at their concentration in general isn’t valid. Even that they may be concentrated in a particular part of government may not be statistically significant. Jewish people in the US are generally thought to be in the left part of the political spectrum. I would think that they would be that way in government too.
The Israeli/Palestinian problem in the middle east is, I believe, just a part of the larger western/muslim conflict in the world today. Many thinkers in the US today believe that peace can only come with victory. I think that too.
The reason I say that leftist extremism is more dangerous is that it inevitably leads to larger and larger government. Rightist extremism leads to less government. More government will eventually collapse. Less government will just kill off some people. I think that more people will die if the government collapses than the other way.
I’d be interested in your views and your definition of political left/right.
Ok, first of all, obviously, the entire basis for the article and my ranting is that you DON’T approve of what the US and Israel is doing in the middle east. If you believe everything is peachy then you will not question the US government, thus not the Neocons and thus not the fact that the ethnic makeup of these advisors could constitute a partiality.
I am aware of this triggering opinion and that it too could be considered a bias. But that is just the way it is. We all have opinions and the best way to deal with it is to question them from time to time and stand up for them and debate it in a sensible way. As you and I are doing now.
Good point with the unintended consequences of supplying food. It is surprising how often good intentions go bad. So obviously prudence applies. And I didn’t exactly present a plan to accomplish anything. For now I’m content with voicing my opinion and pointing to the deficiencies and moral wrongs that I see. Don’t hold your breath for actual revolution. I’m long on promises, but short on delivering as they say
I say peace can only come through going home and sitting on your ass so to speak. I really don’t see the point of continuing conflict in the middle east. Apart from Israel there is nothing to protect. Oil? Well, something tells me you’re gonna be able to buy that anyway. It’s not like they’re gonna sit on it just to spite you. They need the income more badly than you need the oil.
But, again, pulling out (and not just from Iraq) and changing policy is perceived as losing face by some. It does involve sacrifices that are far from the noble image of waving the Star-Spangled Banner over another country’s capital. It will not be prime time material. Not will it be easy ideological or politically. But no one would ever dare call it cowardly. And I believe it is as close to “victory” as the US will ever get.
As I’ve said before, armed forces is a blunt tool. Why not use more delicate weapons such as economic might and cultural influence?
I guess the term “cycle of violence” is a tad cliche but it still goes. Victory on the battlefield will only truly come if you eradicate every muslim country on earth, to the last man, woman and child. And when you’re done with that you’re gonna have to fight the rest of us just because of the crimes committed. That is the grim future I see when I close my eyes.
About left-right:
I guess it is all highly speculative. And I’m not a political theorist either so all I can do is look upon it from my point of view.
I agree that left-wing governments are generally more extensive. And even if the core is not larger, then the logical extension, the public sector will be. Just look at Sweden. Tax pressure is staggering. Health care and other services are easily the biggest employer and massive amounts of money are lost through inefficiency and corruption. Government also controls infrastructure and is slowly letting go. But I’d hardly describe it as dangerous. Then again, we have no real extremist views. I guess we aren’t talking about Sweden here either, but it is the only country I can really speak for in terms of leftist views. I wish I had more first hand experience from real socialist or communist countries.
The fact still remains that I feel that the US is moving towards an extremist position. And while moving to the right is preferred (I couldn’t really predict) to the left, any type of extremism can be dangerous. So I don’t believe it justifies the Neocon ideology or anything like that.
I’m not so worried about the actual collapse of states. I’m more concerned about what they do while they are in full bloom. Any type of collapse risks to be bloody.
I also think that maybe we haven’t had a “really good” right-wing extremist state to deter us in quite some time. While we on the other hand have the failures of communist countries fresh in memory. Think Francisco Franco, Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler. All forerunners of fascism of some sort. You can of course split hairs, but fascism according to my Princeton dictionary, is:
“A political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)”
Since then we haven’t had many blatantly fascist states. And I think people should consider where one CAN end up when moving right on a political scale. It’s not like eating ice-cream
You can get too far to the political right. But yes, any extremism is bad and generally shows a lack of argumentation ability and security.
Ehh, btw. Did you make a typo when saying that both parties are “leftist”? I’m confused and can’t agree to that from my point of view. I think you maybe focusing on issues, but generally both are pretty far “right”, right?
Sorry that I can’t define right and left in more precise terms. The hour is getting late. But maybe we can sort out some issues from the repertoire to measure right and left? What do you see as significant?