An email today from the LNCC says:
Over the past couple of months, radio personality Glenn Beck has been talking on-air about at his dissatisfaction with Republicans and hinting at a real switch to Libertarianism. The Libertarian National Campaign Committee (LNCC) views this as major opportunity to grow the Libertarian Party and spread our message of limited government and individual liberty.
With his millions of daily listeners, viewers and readers, Mr. Beck has an army of politically inclined individuals. Imagine the positive impact his on-air conversion could have on Libertarian Party growth and engagement.
While Mr. Beck has traditionally been adverse to Libertarianism, taking a more NeoCon stance, his recent discussions and positions have been evolving towards Libertarian philosophy. But this evolution has been publicly met with criticism and suspicion from the Libertarian debate society.
In response to the criticism, the LNCC has sent a friendly letter to Mr. Beck. It is our desire to encourage Mr. Beck’s personal discovery of his true Libertarian nature and to encourage him to include articulate and educated Libertarians in his broadcasts.
The open letter begins:
Recently on your program, you’ve been openly stating your disdain and disenfranchisement with the Republican Party and a little more than hinting at your switch to Libertarianism. You’ve even acknowledging that you had scored at the top of the Libertarian quadrant on the World’s Smallest Political Quiz.
With that in mind and on behalf of the Libertarian National Campaign Committee (LNCC), I would like to welcome you to the Libertarian Party and to the movement to limit government and protect the individual right to personal and economic freedom.
Very few people come to Libertarianism with a “pure” Libertarian ideology. I for one came to the party still supporting the War on Terror. But after being involved with Libertarian campaigns and activist groups I had a moment of clarity. Through this period of self-discovery, I came to see the error in my previously held views on our country’s interventionist foreign policy. I drank the Kool-Aid and saw the light. Over time, you will too.
Here is John Stossel recently questioning Beck about his libertarian credentials:
There should be a one state solution, and it should be a Palestinian one. Recolonize the zionists to Antarctica.
Dave Terry 301:
**You have swallowed WAY too much agitprop, Bob. Part of the “land without people for a people without land baloney propagated by the Zionist need to justify their aggression.**
You say it’s “baloney”, but your sources are no doubt the many writers you’ve listed whose hatred of Israel has a lot more to do with Jew-hatred than anything else. Fact is there was LOTS of land in what became Israel that was quite vacant, and considered nearly worthless as agricultural land. There were lots of absentee landowners (numerous Muslims, and Arab Christians, and even one of the Rothschilds of Europe) from whom much land was purchased.
** As of 1914, Jews in Palestine (who were mostly persecuted European Jews) were under 8% of the total population and owned under 2% of the total land. At that time there were almost twice as many Christian Palestinians as Jewish citizens. **
Yeah, so? Why izzit that we’ve seen no Christian intafadas, or a CPLO for Christian Palestinian liberation?
Do all of the Christians thrown out of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, etc have a right-of-return movement? Just wondering.
**After 33 years and despite active British support for settling of even more persecuted European Jews in Palestine, as of 1947 Jews STILL constituted only 33% of the total population (almost half of which were illegals.)**
Hmmmm, it’s fairly well known that the Brits had a policy of running hot and cold regarding Jewish immigration to Palestine, requiring permission for only so many each year (they’d intern or turn back others), and even issued a revised White Paper that sought to curb the immigration in order to keep the Muslims in a majority and then give them legislative authority in the end.
** As for the so-called Syrians whom you claim immigrated to Palestine it wasn’t that simple.
Under the Ottoman Turks, it was normal for Arabs to travel freely across the Jordan River in both directions freely and without formality.**
No, they weren’t “so-called” Syrians. They were Syrians. Period. And I never said they were the only Muslims who relocated to areas where Jews were triggering much economic activity. I said that because of this economic activity (as opposed to desolate desert where nothing was happening), many, many Syrians relocated to the areas or communities where Jews were making lots of improvement both in agricultural and other commercial activities. Doesn’t matter of the Ottomans permitted this or not for the point in that they did relocate to the south in good numbers because there was an attraction there, unlike earlier. And these same people, or their descendents ratherm now claim “right of return” as if they are “Palestinians”. Like I said earlier, many of these so-called Palestinians had for many decades called themselves Southern Syrians, but now say Palestinian because it helps inflate the myth of the “Palestinians” who’d been in the area since the days of the Roman Empire. The other point was that had the non-Israeli part of Palestine (did that include some of old Judea? – Never mind) been handed over to Syrian, no Palestinain would claim to be occupied by the Syrians. Funny, that.
**This was interrupted by the French-Syrian War of 1920. Almost all immigration from Syria consisted of refugees from that war and was reduced to a trickle after the French divided Syria into several client states under the French Mandate of Syria and Lebanon.**
Oh wow, so now you’re trying to say that all or nearly all of this Syrian relocation was into Lebanon, and not Israel or the West Bank? And if you’re calling them war refugees, are you giving them a different status than you give Jewish refugees, i.e. the Syrians (Muslims) can stay, but not the Jews?
**Similarly the same occurred when Trans-Jordan was disconnected by the British and on June 3, 1922, all land east of the Jordan River was given to the Emir Abdullah by the British.**
Why don’t you call Jordan half of “Palestine”? It’s mostly a Palestinain nation, apparently. Note, too, that they threw out Jews and do not allow them in Jordan. There probably weren’t many, but that’s beside the point.
** The White Paper **
Which one?
** …included the statement that the British Government:… does not want Palestine to become “as Jewish as England is English”, rather should become “a center in which Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride.”**
Yeah, so? I thought you said that the Brits had no business stating such a policy, or any policy.
**Your statement that Syrian-Palestinian Arabs were attracted by Jewish commerce is totally disingenuous. It was ALWAYS the policy of the Zionists to eliminated Arabs in order to secure the state that they so fervently desired.**
Now you’re lying, or merely repeating lies from the already-mentioned Jew-hating writers who’ve pickled your brain with so much crap that you, like too many others, cannot tell the difference between Nazi Germany and the state of Israel. So sad. And while yopu may claim that some Zionists wanted no Arabs near them, that wasn’t the reality when you include all of the Jews there. Besides, if that were true, then you’ll have to explain why the Jewish “half” of the partition deal included loads and loads of Muslim Arabs, and why the Mostly Muslim half included lots and lots of Jews. The Jews accepted this deal, on their part.And if you deny the commercial activity as magnet aspect, then you are a total fool.
** I do NOT agree that an independent State of Palestine would inevitably be a Jew-Hating dictatorship. **
Big deal. That’s like saying that “I do not agree that if the Shah of Iran is overthrown that Iran will become an Islamic theocratic dictatorship”. Hee heee. Face it, Terry, there’s so much ingrained and indoctrinated Jew-hating among “Palestinians” that it’s impossible to turn off, and any Muslim Palestinian who doesn’t feel that way is in danger of being murdered which is what these people have been doing since the early 1900s. Again, people dominated by those who say that Israel has no right to exist are going to be problem even after they get their own state. Then what?
B Tiernan
KL: “Glenn thinks some libertarians are fascist”
Glenn is right, except it is phrased backward.
Actually SOME fascists THINK they are libertarian.
And some socialists THINK they are libertarian.
Libertarianism is above all a TWO dimensional
political philosophy. It has an economic side, in which case some strong fiscal “conservatives” with very unsavory personal liberties positions
see us as kindred spirits and allies.
On the other hand, many socialist “libertarians” with equally unsavory fiscal instincts think we are like them.
Anarchists are simply living in a never ending wet dream.
@302
I don’t see Glenn Beck as being a fraud. Do you have a case on his charlatan ways? I think that Root was clearly not to be trusted but I don’t think you can prejudge Beck as a betrayer in advance of him taking actions that would clearly put him in the same quadrant as Root.
Beck is what he is and I think he is rather clear as to how much (or little) an advocate of libertarianism he is.
“Less important than exactly where Beck grids out on the Nolan chart today, is the fact that he is so obviously a fraud and charlatan always looking for the next angle and ready to stab in the back. He is the Mormon Wayne Root.
We don’t need more of this type in the LP, and we need even less the morons who can’t see him for what he is.”
Yep.
You have swallowed WAY too much agitprop, Bob. Part of the “land without people for a people without land baloney propagated by the Zionist need to justify their aggression.
As of 1914, Jews in Palestine (who were mostly persecuted European Jews) were under 8% of the total population and owned under 2% of the total land. At that time there were almost twice as many Christian Palestinians as Jewish citizens.
After 33 years and despite active British support for settling of even more persecuted European Jews in Palestine, as of 1947 Jews STILL constituted only 33% of the total population (almost half of which were illegals.)
As for the so-called Syrians whom you claim immigrated to Palestine it wasn’t that simple.
Under the Ottoman Turks, it was normal for Arabs to travel freely across the Jordan River in both directions freely and without formality.
This was interrupted by the French-Syrian War of 1920. Almost all immigration from Syria consisted of refugees from that war and was reduced to a trickle after the French divided
Syria into several client states under the French Mandate of Syria and Lebanon.
1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the occupied remnants of the Ottoman Empire between France and Britain clearly became as problematic at the Balfour Declaration was.
Similarly the same occurred when Trans-Jordan was disconnected by the British and on June 3, 1922, all land east of the Jordan River was given to the Emir Abdullah by the British.
The White Paper included the statement that the British Government:… does not want Palestine to become “as Jewish as England is English”, rather should become “a center in which Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride.”
Exactly HOW this was to be accomplished, was not stated.
Your statement that Syrian-Palestinian Arabs were attracted by Jewish commerce is totally disingenuous. It was ALWAYS the policy of the Zionists to eliminated Arabs in order to secure the state that they so fervently desired.
BTW; I DID say that the Palestinians include the old Yeshuv (ie Jewish community) and those Christian Arabs as were there.
I do NOT agree that an independent State of Palestine would inevitably be a Jew-Hating dictatorship. Clearly commitments on BOTH sides must be taken in order for this to work.
When Britain divided it’s mandate and gave Trans-
Dave Terry 297:
BTW, I define Palestinian as those who have lived in the province of Palestine for more than three generations. (THAT includes the old Yeshuv) but NOT the European Ashkenazi colonists who came there to build the New Israel.
——————-
Well, that’s a start, sort of. At least you don’t think “Palestinians” are a people like, say, the Persians of old, or the Egyptians.
As for your other point, you forget that many of the “colonist” Jews have been there far longer than many of the Syrians and others who’ve been in the area only after the Jews started making their communities and surrounding areas vibrant with lots of economic activity. Many of these people (or their kids) now claim that right of return thing as if the families had been there since the days of Saladin.
You also did not address whether or not “Palestinians” could be Jews and Christians.
And oh by the way, do you agree that the desired State of Palestine, as in part two of the two state solution, will be just another Jew-hating Muslim dictatorship? Howcum you don’t call them Nazis, too?
Bob T
Less important than exactly where Beck grids out on the Nolan chart today, is the fact that he is so obviously a fraud and charlatan always looking for the next angle and ready to stab in the back. He is the Mormon Wayne Root.
We don’t need more of this type in the LP, and we need even less the morons who can’t see him for what he is.
I don’t have any time to discuss things on IPR any more, and I should have never wasted time on Dave Terry even when I did have it.
So Bob, are you saying that Mr. Stern is a leftist?
BTW, I define Palestinian as those who have lived in the province of Palestine for more than three generations. (THAT includes the old Yeshuv) but NOT the European Ashkenazi colonists who came there to build the New Israel.
I’d be completely supportive of them applying for Palestinian citizenship, IF they would pledge
to respect the property rights and civil liberties of the ‘original inhabitants’
(Hint; that is NOT the Israelites!
Dave Terry 291:
NOW, based on the information above, which of
these “incidents” was the MOST evil and which was the LEAST evil?
————————
Not enough info there, but of course for those who know more the least evil (if evil it was at all) was the Boston Massacre of 1770 for it was a simple case of soldiers who were not there to fire upon anyone but who eventually feared enough for their safety that they fired their weapons. Which is why John Adams defended them — because there was enough doubt.
As for the others, the Killeen shooting represented a solo killer who had some sort of mental disorder to do what he did.
That leaves the one with the Muslims. Those killings were tied to a global effort to kill many “infidels” as possible in defense of a certain religion. No mental illness is needed. Nor any immediate fear for one’s safety. So they kill lots and lots of people who have absolutely zero to do with them, except of course if you accept their own view that all infidels (including moderate Muslims) are valid targets.
Sounds like evil to me.
Bob T
Dave Terry 293:
Isn’t it ironic that Hitler’s Holocaust is almost always used as the measure of horrendous acts,
when both Stalin and Mao were guilty of killing many, many more.
WHY is that?
————————-
Because the left gives them sort of apass because their mass killings were not tied to (or obviously tied to) racism of any sort. So to the left they are, well, “cleaner”. You see, these lefties (like Pete Seeger and others) will ecuse mass murder if the alleged oblect is to make a society that if not more “fair”, at least tried to do away with the big bad flaws of “capitalism”. In attempting to accomplish that, they see a few million lives, or more, as what did they say, breaking eggs.
Bob T
“Glenn Beck is not anywhere close to being a libertarian, he will just distort the public image of what that means even more and it’s been distorted too much already. LP should stay far away from him.”
While it is possible that some day he will evolve to a fuller understanding of libertarianism, that hasn’t happened and may never happen. In the meantime, since he is prominent, some people will want to trumpet him as a or even “the” (L)ibertarian leader if he lets them. Thus I would agree in keeping some distance. I understand the rationale Evan explained above, but the LNCC outreach to Beck comes off as an LP endorsement of Beck, intended or not.
I know the hypothetical letter to Maher, which would be even more of a stretch, is supposed to counterbalance the one to Beck…but it’s only been talked about, no such letter has gone out (or at least not been put on their site) so far.
SK @ 292; “Duh!”
Duh?
So, are we to conclude that as long as the Zionists and/or Islamists kill LESS than 6 Million people, they get a free pass?
Isn’t it ironic that Hitler’s Holocaust is almost always used as the measure of horrendous acts,
when both Stalin and Mao were guilty of killing many, many more.
WHY is that?
“It’s simply ridiculous to say that killing a few hundred people is the same as the nazis. Evil, yes. Both the Jews and Palestinians have killed people, so they both rise to that level, but nowhere near to the nazi level of evil.”
Duh!
RS @ 279
“Nazi” has a specific meaning that goes beyond the terms you are using.”
Actually (N)azi is a specific term for the “National Socialist German Workers’ Party” ie
Hitler’ Regime, whereas (n)azi is any rigid or authoritarian principle, such as: “Rod Stern is a punctuation ‘nazi'”
I generally use the term “fascist” instead of the small ‘n’ nazi, since it does NOT imply racism or anti-Semitism (ie. Mussolini).
> “It’s simply ridiculous to say that killing a few hundred people is the same as the (N)azis. ”
On October 16, 1991, George Hennard shot and
killed 23 innocent victims, wounding another 20 at Luby’s cafeteria in Killeen, Texas.
On July 20, 2012 at a Century movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, James Holmes shot and killed 12 people and injured 58 others.
On Patriot’s Day in Boston, Massachusetts, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother alledgedly used a ‘weapon of mass destruction” that killed THREE people and wounding more than 180.
Ironically, the original “Boston Massacre”, known as the Incident on King Street by the British, was an incident on March 5, 1770, in which British Army soldiers killed five civilian men and injured six others.
NOW, based on the information above, which of
these “incidents” was the MOST evil and which was the LEAST evil?
Is there a “qualitative” difference between the most and least evil?
What is YOUR threshold?
It’s simply ridiculous to say that killing a few hundred people is the same as the nazis. Evil, yes. Both the Jews and Palestinians have killed people, so they both rise to that level, but nowhere near to the nazi level of evil.
Glenn Beck is not anywhere close to being a libertarian, he will just distort the public image of what that means even more and it’s been distorted too much already. LP should stay far away from him.
RS @ 288 “I don’t know, and despite what my participation in this thread that should have died a long time ago might lead you to believe I actually don’t care that much.
You’re a very sad excuse for a human being. It is a terrible thing when person become so ill from a degenerative disease like Nihilism, that the very existence of truth or certainty becomes an indictment & evidence of your own impotence.
Clearly no answer can ever be found, if you don’t look for it and also just as clearly, you won’t look for it if you believe it doesn’t exist.
Sad, VERY sad.
BTW I deliberately left out the “close quote” on your “last words”. Hopefully it will provide you with the ONLY part of reality that you seem to be able to focus on.
Wow, so Dave Terry finally got around to asking what I think instead of assuming and making up stuff about what he thinks I think.
“1. Why have you been arguing so vociferously
in it’s defense?”
I’ve said nothing whatsoever in its defense, just responded to very specific pieces of bullshit put out by you. The larger inferences were all drawn by you, not by anything I actually said, much less believe.
“2. What do YOU suggest as the solution to the current conflict?”
I have no suggestions. I’m glad I don’t live there, I think the US and other outside powers should butt out, and let the Israelis and Palestinians work it out themselves. I don’t think their problems are all that big or important compared to many other places in the world. I have no ethnic or religious interest in one side or the other, nor do I care much for any religion or ethnicity or nation state myself.
Ultimately, I don’t think nation-states, ethnically based or otherwise, should exist at all. As a practical matter they do exist, and I see no reason why Jews are less entitled to one than the French, Japanese, or whoever.
I don’t care if ethnic groups or religious groups or linguistic groups like to live in each other’s proximity. My personal preference is to live where there’s a mix of all those, but I understand most people have other preferences. I’m OK with that too.
Naturally, conflicts arise over land, especially when people have been displaced. Millions of people have been displaced in the wake of WWII and other wars, colonialism and its demise in Africa and Asia, tribal and nation-state conflicts all over the world – even in recent decades. The pretense that Israel and the Palestinians are unique in this regard is silly.
I understand why Jews wanted a nation state, given the history of the diaspora. I understand that there are now properties all over Israel that have been owned by Jews for several generations, where successive generations have lived and died, so that has to be taken into account.
But since the Arab states would prefer to perpetuate the conflict rather than put the same money into resettling the Palestinians elsewhere in the Arab world (much as Jews who used to live in Arab and Muslim nations have been resettled in Israel), there will probably continue to be conflict there.
To which I say to the world powers, stay out of it and let them deal with it; I’m glad it’s their problem and not mine, and if there’s a solution at all, it’s probably a long ways off, and probably hindered rather than helped by outside interference.
What makes people think there’s a perfect or even good solution to every problem, anyways? Some conflicts last for centuries and this may well be one of those. Maybe there is no solution, and the problem will be solved when they all kill each other. Or maybe it will work itself out in a few hundred thousand years when they finally get tired of fighting.
Maybe evolution will take care of it, or having to work together to fight an invasion by space aliens, or something like that. Maybe humans will become extinct, so the problem will be moot.
I don’t know, and despite what my participation in this thread that should have died a long time ago might lead you to believe I actually don’t care that much.
Thanks for finally asking, BTW.
Dave Terry 283:
“SO, you are saying that George Marshall was a Jew-Hating Anti-Semite?”
————–
No, I simply added that as a little tid-bit of a side-bar of history. The interest to me was that a five-star general admitted to never voting.
The rest of your comment made no sense at all.
By the way, can you answer a few questions now?
1) Define “Palestinian” for me.
2) During the Entebbe Operation, who were the bad guys?
3) We know that the Israelis often fire rubber bullets because they don’t always want to kill or put non-lethal holes in people. Did you ever hear of a PLO/Hamas/Hezbollah bomber using rubber shrapnel?
Bob T
RS @ 250; “Which has nothing to do with anything, since I don’t think Israel should exist and I’m not Muslim.
I can’t believe I missed this on the first read.
What I honestly CAN’T understand is IF you REALLY think that Israel should not exist;
1. Why have you been arguing so vociferously
in it’s defense?
2. What do YOU suggest as the solution to the current conflict?
Thomas Knapp 281:
Those seem to be two very different kinds of “genocides.” In fact, it seems that perhaps the Israelis aren’t actually engaging in genocide, or else that they aren’t very good at it.
——————–
Like I said earlier, it’s the strangest “genocide” I’ve evuh hoyd about. The Israelis invited Arafart back from exile in Tunisia to lead the Palestinian Muslims, and they even armed – ARMED – the Palestinian Authority police forces when it was created, and during one of those alleged “sieges” during the umpteenth intafada (one of those where the lefties said hundreds were dying but it turned out to be three or four), when Arafart was cut off from the only food he was able to eat (a special kind of bread), the Israelis kept him supplied with it. Did the Nazis send food into the Warsaw ghetto? Oh wait, this is where Terry says that the Jews probably sent in radioactive bread for Arafart. Who knows. Better than more money for that creep stole most of the money sent to the Muslim Palestinian people and put it in various bank accounts in his name so he and his wife could live the great life in Paris.
Anyway, press a leftie about the “genocide” and then they’ll say oh gee, what we really mean is that there’s a “genocide” of the “culture”. Oh, I see.
Bob T
“You are living in the distant past, Bob. ”
Oh? What makes you think that? There’s no shortage of current Palestinian, Arab etc. statements that Israel should be taken over completely.
Tiernan @277: “… when … George Marshall heard that Truman was going to recognize the state of Israel, he told Truman that if he were a voter, he’d vote against Truman in ’48.”
SO, you are saying that George Marshall was a Jew-Hating Anti-Semite?
BT> “you need to address the fact that the main hurdle is the side that doesn’t want to recognize a state of Israel even if it were the size of a postage stamp.”
You are living in the distant past, Bob. The very
inertia of the past 40 years demonstrates to the Palestinians the weakness of ‘intransigence’ AND unfortunately it demonstrates to Zionist the profit from THEIR perspective of this same intransigence. The ONLY people Netayahoo fears MORE than the Iranians are the Settlers in the WestBank!
Thanks, that makes sense. Now since Dave Terry keeps harping on this point what is his answer?
RS @ 280,
“One more time. Since you are insisting there is a threshold; what is it? You never answered. What’s the magic number?”
It might not be so much a number as a ratio/relationship.
To wit:
Genocide 1 — In the 12 years between the time Hitler took power and the time the Third Reich was destroyed, he killed 90% of European Jews.
Genocide 2 — in the 65 years since the founding of Israel, the population of Palestinian Arabs has not only continuously grown, but is now growing faster than the Jewish population of Israel.
Those seem to be two very different kinds of “genocides.” In fact, it seems that perhaps the Israelis aren’t actually engaging in genocide, or else that they aren’t very good at it.
One more time. Since you are insisting there is a threshold; what is it? You never answered. What’s the magic number?
Too late. I’ll respond now.
“Nazi” has a specific meaning that goes beyond the terms you are using. It’s simply ridiculous to say that killing a few hundred people is the same as the nazis. Evil, yes. Both the Jews and Palestinians have killed people, so they both rise to that level, but nowhere near to the nazi level of evil.
to RS @ 276;
There are MORE than one seat on this teeter-totter. Herr Stern!
It is unfortunate that you have the wrong side of the one-way mirror turned to ward you. But then like Snow White’s evil step-mother, you are very self-absorbed.
It is incredible that you use para-logic to try to prove the most illogical premises.
So, “killing even one person is wrong….and more wrong as more people are killed.” But apparently by this premise one has NOT yet reached to “threshold of evil”!!!!!!!!
If there is no “MAGIC” number, is there ANY number AT ALL? At WHAT point (going one way) does “wrong” become “evil, AND at what point (going the other way) does “evil” become just “wrong”
Can you reach ANY kind or logical, reasonable or rational definition?
BTW; don’t read this, you MIGHT be tempted to respond.
Dave Tery 275:
As I state earlierd, WHAT IS DONE IS DONE!
——————–
Of course it is, but that doesn’t mean you are accepting the inevitableness of a “Nazi” nation as you like to call it. Sorry, Dave, but if there are Nazis in the area they are the Islamists. I notice that you’ve yet to address some key points I made in previous comments, but I suppose the junky books you consult don’t deal with them. On the other hand, I’d be surprised if they don’t have talking point lies for everything.
By the way, when Sec of State George Marshall heard that Truman was going to recognize the state of Israel, he told Truman that if he were a voter, he’d vote against Truman in ’48. But he never voted, so he didn’t. Even so, Truman’s views on why he was recognizing the state of Israel are irrelevant.
By the way again, while you keep stating that you support a two-state solution, you need to address the fact that the main hurdle is the side that doesn’t want to recognize a state of Israel even if it were the size of a postage stamp. Sure, you can point to some Israelis who don’t want to see a Palestinian state, but they are few and far between and hardly in the establishment. In fact, one of the worst of these was Mier Kahane (who deserved what he got), but his party is banned by the Israelis. The fact is, and you ought to consider this, that if the PLO, Hammas, Hezbollah types decided to stop killing and put down their weapons, there’d be peace, but if all of the Israelis put down their weapons and dropped their guard, they’d all be killed.
Your side looks bad because they’ve rejected the homeland idea several times, and when they get close a few other times many among them start another intafada to get a response and a ha;lt to peace talks. Sure, one can quibble about the borders for such a state not being perfect, but under that rationale there’d be no Republic of Ireland. Fortunately for Irish population, their leaders (and a majority in a later vote) accepted a less than perfect plan with hopes to improve on it later, which they did in many ways, internally (i.e. complete independence rather than being part of the Commonwealth).
Why are the Palestinian Muslims, of all of the people in all of history, singled out as people who must have the perfect solution? Since they’ve murdered many or most of the reasonable Muslims, are there enough left to be able to accept a deal?
Bob T
“IF you serious DON’T know the “threshold of evil”
You believe there’s a magic number? No, killing even one person (except in self-defense or by their request) is wrong, but scale makes it more and more wrong as more people are killed. And neither Israel nor the Arabs are anywhere near the scale of the nazis.
Also, you have become exceedingly boring. Don’t you ever get tired of going in circles?
BT @ 253:
I ALSO believe in a two-state solution, BUT not because the Zionists who currently reside there (they don’t at this point), but because it takes into consideration those concurrent FACTS, which CANNOT be removed (a bell cannot be unrung) (unrang?) The British Government had no more “moral” authority to issue the Balfour declaration than Pope Alexander VI had to divide the world in half between Portugal and Spain (The Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494)
The FACT remains that it had the POWER to divide the spoils of war – AND IT DID!
Ironically, just as His Majesties Government began to see the error of it’s way, the Imperial government of the United State picked up the gauntlet and charged FSA into the realm of THE Imperial Power of the World (IPW).
The United States got the General Assembly to delay a vote ‘to gain time to bring certain Latin American republics into line with its own views.’…Some delegates charged U.S. officials with ‘diplomatic intimidation.’ Without ‘terrific pressure’ from the United States on ‘governments which cannot afford to risk American reprisals,’ said an anonymous editorial writer, the resolution ‘would never have passed.’” John Quigley, “Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice.”
Tellingly, when asked, point blank, why the U.S. was so insistant in it’s commitment to a State of Israel, President Truman answered in his usual candid way, “I am sorry gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I don’t have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents.”
As I state earlierd, WHAT IS DONE IS DONE!
But if the U.S. spent just 10% of the money it has on creating the problem to solving it, that PROBLEM is not insurmountable.
Hey Dave Terry, try comparing Israel with Hammas. Iran etc. If you were a Muslim woman, where would you prefer to live — Israel, or in a state run by the likes of Hamas or Hezbollah, or Iran?
Nuff said.
And you KNOW IT!!!!
Bob T
Rod Stern 260:
“Rather bizarre quote. I’d like to see it in context. When/where is it from?”
Sorry, but the most I can do for you today is refer you to Dershowitz’s “The Case For Peace: How the Arab-Israeli Conflict Can Be Resolved”, and check the footnote ref for this quote. I took many notes from this one like I do on many books I read now, so had the quote but not the name of the work in which Chumsky said/wrote this.
Dave terry 268:
“Oh yes, and by the way Noam Chomsky is also pro gun-control, but he isn’t as extreme as Derschowitz”
What you also forget is that Chumsky, who admitted to “being at home” in Communist countries like Cuba, considers his readl home, America, to be like Nazi Germany, too. So his comparisons of Israel and the Third Reich are, well, yaaawwnn.
Bob T
Rod Stern 268:
“I’m fairly cetain ‘Lead Head Stern’ @ 185 wasn’t a typo”
Well played!
B. T.
Dave Terry 263:
“Alan Derschowitz??? You mean left-wing socialist gun-grabbing Alan Derschowitz? Isn’t there any Dirt Bags that you don’t admire.”
Interesting that you’re discrediting this guy’s work on the Arab-Israeli issue w/o reading it, all based on your opinion of his views on the 2nd Amendment and his socialist leanings, all while adoring the stuff written by lying Jew-haters and Holocaust deniers. What are YOU doing in the LP?!?!?!
Bob T
Rod Stern 258:
Excuse or not, it would happen, just like before 1967.
——————
True, and I expect it to happen, but the point is that it will immediately discredit and expose as total crap the myth that the beef is about statehood when it’s 99 percent about Jew hatred.
When these idiots who’ve been teaching their kids to hate Jews the way the Nazis did (more so), by depicting them as hook-nosed caricatures and pigs etc, eating Arab babies, it’s pretty hard to turn that off.
Bob T
RS @ 270: “I don’t know that there’s a “threshold” but yes, scale matters.”
IF you serious DON’T know the “threshold of evil” and believe that scale is all that matters, you have lost ANY and ALL right to condemn ANY evil or injustice anywhere in the world at any time.
BT@255; ” I am addressing my comments to those who are using the term that way. They know it.
THAT is a LIE, Tiernan. You are addressing those comments to ME and I’m NOT using it that way.
AND YOU KNOW IT!
I don’t know that there’s a “threshold” but yes, scale matters. Palestinians and Arabs have carried out many massacres as well. Neither they, nor the Jews, are anywhere near the Nazis in the number of people they have killed, as far as I know.
So I guess you’d say that the Nanking Massacre of 300,000 of Chinese noncombatants by the Japanese is just another brick in the wall?
What is YOUR threshold for a true evil act.
If you weren’t MORE interesting in finding trivia to contest, you’d realize that it DOESN’T require 6million or 2million of 300,000 deaths
to demonize a movement.
I consider the deliberate murder of over 700 unarmed civilians at Deir Yassin Massacre as heinous and any other act of mass murder.
Sorry, that was a typo, and I hadn’t noticed it. I’m fairly certain “Lead Head Stern” @185 wasn’t a typo, so you have little room to speak on when it comes to mangling names. If I was in the regular habit of mismanaging your name, that would be an issue, like your frequent lack of endquotes. Everyone makes typos, myself included, even on missing endquotes from time to time – it’s only when it’s a frequent pattern that it becomes an issue.
RS @ 264:
Please do me the courtesy of capitalizing my last name. I realize it isn’t as important as putting closed quotes on sentences, but PLEASE humor me
Oh yes, and by the way Noam Chomsky is also pro gun-control, but he isn’t as extreme as Derschowitz
:>)
“What YOU can’t seem to get through YOUR bony head is that is is DEEDS that have demonized BOTH the NAZI regime AND the Zionist regime. ”
You actually think this is a valid comparison? You are completely insane.
BT 257: “What you can’t seem to get through your thick skull is that Israel has been so systematically demonized as part of a deliberate propaganda campaign that this has created an image of Israel as a Nazi-like fascist, genocide-engaging nation”
You mean like Nazi Germany was demonized?
What YOU can’t seem to get through YOUR bony head is that is is DEEDS that have demonized BOTH the NAZI regime AND the Zionist regime.
>” that it gets in the way of reasonable negotiations and discussions.”
What gets in the way is the fact the Israel has, thanks to the US, compliments of AIPAC and friends like you, Israel has most of the guns, most of the artillery, ALL of the Aircraft and is VERY disinterested in negotiating with any Arab.
So just to be clear, none of the authors David terry recommends are leftists and/or gun grabbers?
BT@261: “I’d suggest that people interested in more level-head works ….. read Alan Derschowitz’s two works “The Case For Israel”
and “The Case For Peace”
Alan Derschowitz??? You mean left-wing socialist gun-grabbing Alan Derschowitz? Isn’t there any Dirt Bags that you don’t admire.
What the hell are you doing in the LP anyway?
Read both and make up your own mind.
I’d suggest that people interested in more level-head works instead of the stuff that comes from hate-spewers and liars like Finklestein, Chomsky and Said out to read Alan Derschowitz’s two works “The Case For Israel”, and “The Case For Peace”, as well as Martin Gilbert’s history of Israel.
B. Tiernan
“Nobody believes there is an anti-semitic connotation to the denial of the holocaust – whether one believes it took place or not.”
Rather bizarre quote. I’d like to see it in context. When/where is it from?
Ron Stern, Yes, I may have over-stepped a bit regarding Chumsky, but still, he could say things like this: “Nobody believes there is an anti-semitic connotation to the denial of the holocaust – whether one believes it took place or not.”
So far as I’m concerned, Holocaust deniers are vile and disgusting people who have it in them to delight in the killing of Jews, and anyone who praises, works with, and supports them is just as bad.
This puke also praised Ward Churchill as one whose work is of “excellent, penetrating and of high scholarly quality”. I guess that includes Churchill’s views that 3,000 victims of 9/11 were “little Eichmanns”.
B. Tiernan
“But at the same time, when such a state comes into being (like it could have in 2000), there’ll be no excuse for the continued rocketing and shelling of Israeli schools and ice-cream parlors and so on”
Excuse or not, it would happen, just like before 1967.
Terry 253:
“Clearly, those TRULY interested in peace will seek out a solution that is both possible AND as
“just” as can be produced. The ONLY way to create peace is to provide as much justice as possible.”
What you can’t seem to get through your thick skull is that Israel has been so systematically demonized as part of a deliberate propaganda campaign that this has created an image of Israel as a Nazi-like fascist, genocide-engaging nation (a view you seem to foolishly embrace) that it gets in the way of reasonable negotiations and discussions.
Before we go on, you need to know my views as briefly as I can put them. I believe in a two-state solution, not because the Muslims of the disputed areas deserve it (they don’t at this point), but because it finished unfinished business from the post-WWI to late 40s period when the Ottoman Empire had been dissolved (as the Roman Empire over that area had been removed prior to the Ottomans), leaving large tracts of land that were not part of any formal countries. But unlike people like Terry, I don’t see the Muslim Palestinians through thick, rose-colored glasses. As one observer pointed out, if and when there is a nation of Palestine, the world will see just another Jew-hating Muslim police state. Gee, what a surprise. But at the same time, when such a state comes into being (like it could have in 2000), there’ll be no excuse for the continued rocketing and shelling of Israeli schools and ice-cream parlors and so on, and the world will see how the whole issue of creating a homeland has little to do with ending such violence. Far too many of the anti-Israel side are people who don’t even want Israel to exist. How does Dave Terry deal with that one?
He might reply by saying that pro-Israel people don’t want a Palestinian state. But that is nonsense. Almost all of them do, but the security needs to be worked out (which is why, despite what the Left says about a certain UN mandate, Israel is NOT in violation of it).
The problem could have been settled in 1947 had the Muslims accepted the two-state solution, but they (or their major allies) told them they could “get it all” if they reject the idea and then drive out the Jews. When this impasse brought things to a halt, and the UN could do little about it, the Israelites declared their independence. The Palestinian Muslims should have done the same, taking their share in the plan and telling the governments of Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia etc to let them alone.
Ever see a map of what the partition plan was like? Far from looking like the Israel of the early 50s, it was made up of chunks of Jewish-dominated land with little pockets (town-sized) of majority Jewish people surrounded by large tracts of mostly Muslim people, and with tiny pockets of Muslim people within the larger Jewish tracts. Not sure if this was going to work, but could have had the major Muslim players stayed out of it.
But earlier, when Jews were moving to the Ottoman Empire to join Jews already there (the Sabras, I believe), contrary to what you believe from the works of liars like Said and Finkleman and Chumsky, they saw vacant land and purchased it from absentee Muslim landowners who living in cities. They started improving the land and growing crops. The growing economic activity attracted many Muslims Arabs to the area to get jobs and they stayed there. Many of the idiotic “right of return” claims treat all of these people as if they were from families who’d been there for many centuries, when this is not the case.
That many Muslims got along with the Jews, regardless of who arrived when, says a lot, but so does the fact that these Muslims were murdered by the hardliners, the same way that the PLO types murder their own.
Interesting to note the way the Israel opponents see things. As Alan Derschwitz has pointed out, being pro-Israel does not mean being anti-Palestinian. Yet the pro-Palestinian side is an anti-Israel one. That’s why a book from a pro-Palestinian writer was entitled “The Case Against Israel” instead of “The Case For Palestine”.
Let’s lookat moderate Muslims of the area:
Abbas, in Jan 2005: “There has been significant progress in the talks. Our differences have diminished”. And this: “Palestinian-appointed mayor of Qalqilyah acknowledged that ‘things are definitely improving’ for Palestinians. But for advocates of boycotts, divestment, and continuing hate-speech against Israel, it is entirely irrelevant how the Palestinians themselves feel about the progress toward peace.”
Ever hear of Khaled Kasab Mohammed? He’s a Muslim citizen of Israel (a lawyer in Nazareth) who in 2005 opened the first Arabic-language Holocause museum. A fellow Muslim Israeli named Nazzir Majici (also a resident of Nazareth) led a group of 260 Israelis (half Muslim, half Jewish) to Auschwitz in 2003 “in an attempt to foster better understanding between Arab and Jewish citizens of Israel”. These two guys are the kind who your kind of Muslim wants to murder to make it appear as if there ire no moderate and liberal Arab-Muslim views regarding Israel.
On Nazism and “Zionism”:
A German professor named Frederick Toben said in 2003 that “When we compare the Zionists to the Nazis, we insult the Nazis.” Really, Dave Terry? Is this the side you want to be on? You disgust me.
The Double Standard:
Remember the UN World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance held in Durban in 2001?
Participating members as usual singled out Israel as “an aparthied, racist, and fascist state”. And, as usual, major rights abusers such as Iran, China, Saudi Arabia and Sudan were given a pass. Idiot college students are not being well-served by this kind of bias. Israel was compared to Nazi Germany by members as well as protesters nearby, including those who held signs that said, “Hitler should have finished the job”. As US Congressman Tom Lantos said at the time, “What you have here is the paradox of an anti-racism conference that is itself racist.” What also brainwashed too many westerners is the fact that the UN places crappy, terrorist-supporting non-democratic human rights abusers such as Syria on various councils from security to women’s rights issues. But not Israel. No wonder idiots in the west are such useful idiots to Jew-haters.
Bob T
@255 Hard to say which one David Terry is.
Thomas Knapp 251:
“Anti-Zionist is not the same thing as Anti-Jewish. They can certainly overlap, but they are not the same thing.”
The way many use the term, it is. I am addressing my comments to those who are using the term that way. They know it.
B. Tiernan
“but is disingenuous in ignoring the religious foundation upon which it depends”
It doesn’t depend on religious ideology. Many Zionists are atheists, some are Christians, etc. As you yourself acknowledged.
“Why, for example, are supposedly secular Zionists insistent on the idea that ‘Israel’ must be in ‘Eretz Ysrael” (ie. Palestine) ”
Well, as mentioned I’m not a Zionist, but that is where it is and where it has already been for 65 years (close to 100 if you include the British colonial period). What do you propose, moving it?
“I would suggest that my “Hypothetical” of a Jewish State established earlier and in a place other than Palestine would have been preferable to having x/million Jews murdered,”
Was (as you yourself admitted when you said you weren’t serious) ludicrous, because it was never a real possibility in the real world; thus couldn’t be preferable to anything.
“The ONLY thing registering was the “sacrilege” of suggesting another option”
No, completely wrong. What registered that it was a ridiculous hypothesis that would have never worked in the real world, nor permitted to happen by Stalin and Hitler who were fighting for control of that same territory, and the existing governments and non-Jewish populations of those same areas.
“His criticism of my comment about returning to 1967 borders rather is also duplicitous. It WOULD be nice to suggest we return to a time before the original “Partition” was issued, but
this would be as impossible of returning to 1491
before earlier Europeans began to rape the Western Hemisphere. ”
Why is 1967 any more realistic? That was 45 years ago. Your words, NOT mine, was that “returning to borders before most of those currently living there were born would be an injustice itself.” Well, 1967 was before most of those currently living there were born. Duh!
“This group includes die hard uncompromising Israel firsters as well as Islamist fanatics.”
Which has nothing to do with anything, since I don’t think Israel should exist and I’m not Muslim.
However, it remains true that the discussion is stale, because at this point all we are doing is going in circles and repeating what has already been said, because you or constantly contradicting yourself, because you have poor reading comprehension, and because you obviously argue in bad faith.
The ONLY thing that is “stale” is the repetitious examples of trite and discredited Zionist agitprop.
Stern IS correct that Zionism is primarily a “political ideology”, but is disingenuous in ignoring the religious foundation upon which it depends.
(it is possible that the inability to differentiate the aspirations of the Jews as an ethnic group from the expectations of fulfillment of Biblical
prophecy is ‘congenital’.)
Why, for example, are supposedly secular Zionists insistent on the idea that ‘Israel’ must be in ‘Eretz Ysrael” (ie. Palestine)
I would suggest that my “Hypothetical” of a Jewish State established earlier and in a place other than Palestine would have been preferable to having x/million Jews murdered,
fell on DEAF ears. The ONLY thing registering was the “sacrilege” of suggesting another option
than that adopted by the Zionist ‘apparatchiks’
His criticism of my comment about returning to
1967 borders rather is also duplicitous. It WOULD be nice to suggest we return to a time before the original “Partition” was issued, but
this would be as impossible of returning to 1491
before earlier Europeans began to rape the Western Hemisphere.
Clearly, those TRULY interested in peace will seek out a solution that is both possible AND as
“just” as can be produced. The ONLY way to create peace is to provide as much justice as possible.
Only Zealots and extremists can object to this!!!
There is a very salient point made by our LNC Chairman just a couple of days ago on this very subject: “Alas, this skepticism means that we attract people who are congenitally unable to believe anything, at a level that exceeds all reason.
This group includes die hard uncompromising Israel firsters as well as Islamist fanatics.
“Anti-Zionist is not the same thing as Anti-Jewish. They can certainly overlap, but they are not the same thing.”
Anti-Zionist can be completely legitimate, including many Jews. On the other hand it can be code for Anti-Jew, used by people who don’t want to lay the Anti-Jew card on the table.
“And, in point of fact, Jabotinsky’s “revisionist” Zionist faction explicitly modeled itself on Mussolini’s fascist regime in Italy, and apparently gave serious consideration to allying with Hitler in WWII in exchange for a Jewish homeland in Palestine (to be given them after they kicked the British out with Nazi assistance).”
True. However, Hitler was more interested in allying with the more numerous Arabs. IIRC later in the war he said he wished he had made a closer alliance with the Arabs earlier on.
BT @ 249,
“Utt-oh!! Here comes the Jew hating!!!”
Anti-Zionist is not the same thing as Anti-Jewish. They can certainly overlap, but they are not the same thing.
And, in point of fact, Jabotinsky’s “revisionist” Zionist faction explicitly modeled itself on Mussolini’s fascist regime in Italy, and apparently gave serious consideration to allying with Hitler in WWII in exchange for a Jewish homeland in Palestine (to be given them after they kicked the British out with Nazi assistance).
The debate has gotten stale. The original point that caused the tangent – David Terry’s insistence that the “only” definition of Zionism involves religion and is somehow different from other forms of nationalism (exempt from rules the rest of humankind lives by) – has long been demolished. So we his nonsense about a Jewish state in Eastern Europe (which he admitted wasn’t serious, but then kept defending anyway).
He even said “Further, returning to borders before most of those currently living there were born would be an injustice itself;” thus directly contradicting other statements he has made in this same thread. And then went on to contradict it yet again.
It’s no longer related to the original topic, nor is any progress being made with someone who so obviously debates in bad faith. Even his reading comprehension abilities are poor – the were either never well developed to begin with, or are deteriorating with age. Perhaps both.
What is the point of continuing this charade?
Dave Terry 247:
“Now that you mention it, there ARE some similarities”
Utt-oh!! Here comes the Jew hating!!!
“When used by people who don’t like authoritarian colonists who happen to be Jewish it is a term for authoritarians who happen to be Jewish.”
The problem here is your over-use of the term “authoritarian”. It’s quite a problem with those who hate Jews and Israel whether they want to feel good about themselves defending the PLO types despite double and triple standards, but I’ll tell you – the “Palestinians” are hardly in the same league with the Jews who were trapped in Nazi-occupied lands. The Left adopted a people unworthy of the sympathy they’ve given them for well over 40 years now (remember Munich ’72 by any chance? I bet you do. Typical of Lefty think is the screenwriter for the Spielberg mover who as a self-hating Jew wrote a screenplay in which the Israelis were the villains, not the pieces of garbage who murdered Olympic athletes while the games were going on!!!!)
But anyway, you really need to stop this “colonization” thing until you acknowledge that a good share of the Muslims in the area are also not descended from others who’d been there for centuries. Yes, you’ve already tried to point out this nomadic thing. Sure. Most people were in cities, not spread out in the uncultivated land which was a desert.
It’s also suspect that you repeat this stuff about “squatters”. Much of that land was vacant when the Jews came by, and they are the ones who cultivated it. Ever read Mark Twain’s “The Innocents Abroad” ? He travelled through the area (to Damascus, then south to Jerusalem and then to the coast at Jaffa) with a small party in 1867 and like anyone else in that period took note of the extreme lack of people there. Once in a while they passed a mule team with some people, but they weren’t moving to trade goods and were hardly farming or squatting.
He did some crop growing, or attempts at it, in the areas surrounding the cities like Damascus (which weren’t exactly heavily populated). Here’s an interesting observation which sounds just like what lots of people say today about the hindrance Islam is to progress (as Attaturk also acknowledged and tried to change):
“The plows [Arabs] use are simply a sharpened stick, such as Abraham plowed with, and they still winnow their wheat as he did — they pile it on the house-top, and then toss it by shovel-fulls into the air until the wind has blown all the chaff away. They never invent anything, never learn anything.”.
I like this one, too, regarding Jerusalem: “Rags, wretchedness, poverty and dirt, these signs and symbols that indicate the presence of Moslem rule more surely than the crescent-flag itself, abound.”
Funny thing, Dave Terry, that numerous Muslims who are citizens of Israel want nothing to do with a state run by Muslims, for they’ve realized that they have a lot to lose if that were to happen. Many of them (and they may be considered “infidels” for this) have actually learned to appreciate a good economy, and democracy that lasts for more than a sungle election, and the court system, and an open society where lots of progress is all around them.
Strange “genocide” going on there. Well, at least many in the Left have stopped spewing that lie and now simply say that well, it’s a genocide of a “culture”, and not a people. Whatever. What culture, by the way. There’s no distinct “Palestinian” culture to begin with. as opposed to Syrian or Lebanese or whatever.
“May I presume that when people don’t like Nazis they must be German-haters. Very revealing of you.”
Harr! Trouble is you have been using the term “Zionist” almost exclusively, making no distinction between you definition of Nazi-like “Zionists” and any (if any) Israelis or Jews who don’t share your definition of “Zionist”.
As for your latter remarks, you’ve side-stepped all of the history of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who spent most of WWII in Berlin spewing Nazi propaganda over the airwaves, as well as helping to recruit Muslim units to fight with the Nazis. He was a leader in pre-war “Palestine” who riled up the Moslems to start systematically murdering any fellow Muslim who dared to have views about living in peace with Jews (and Christians) in the area. As I’ve mentioned earlier, the severe lack of such Muslims now causes and caused idiot college students, past and present,
to think that the Jew-hatred among Muslims is overwhelming because, well, that’s how most of them see it (rather than acknowledging or even knowing that there were many, many not sharing that hatred who had been murdered from the 1920s onward, and who would have passed on such enlightened views to their kids and grandkids, but who were snuffed. Yes, Muslims kill far more Muslims than anyone else has, combined. But not if you listen to Said, and Finkledinkl;e, and Chumsky, and Zitt.
Bob T
“Once again (Dave Terry) failed to read properly (and it was simply written, too). ”
Seems to happen a lot with Mr. Terry. Early stages of dementia?
“That enough quote marks?”
No need for redundant quote marks, just consistent use of end quotes when replying to denote where the quoted section ends and your reply begins. You did better on your last series of replies; keep up the good work.
“Denying the Holocaust is such a despicable thing that one’s character can be judged by the company he keeps.”
I don’t put much stock in guilt by association. If you want to charge Chomsky with being a holocaust denier, please provide quotes from him indicating that he is one. Otherwise, you are smearing him unfairly. I do believe he was a Cambodian holocaust denier (IE made excuses for and/or minimized the crimes of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge) at one time; I’m not sure whether he ever admitted he was wrong about that. But none of the things you mention make him a WWII-era holocaust denier.
BT @ 229; “Yes, that was the Jews’ own term for a movement, but I’ve noted that the term (Zionist) is used now like saying ‘Nazi’,”
Now that you mention it, there ARE some similarities.
“and when used by people who do not like Israel it is a Jew-hating term.”
Very childish, Bob, when used by people who don’t like authoritarian colonists who happen to be Jewish it is a term for authoritarians who just
happen to be Jewish.
May I presume that when people don’t like Nazis
they must be German-haters. Very revealing of you.
“Gee, did I mention that the PLO’s predecessors were allied with the Nazis during WWII? They wanted the Germans to drive out the Brits so that they could kill every Jew they could get their dirty hands on. They were the only allies of the Axis powers who were offered a homeland after the war.”
You MUST have not did your homework that week, Bob. The fact is that “initially they wanted the Brits to lose so that they could not implement the Balfour Declaration.
WHY do you think they WERE offered a homeland after the war. Wasn’t it because they were promised a homeland by the British to help them against the Germans.
Rod Stern 238:
“What? When/where did Chomsky deny the holocaust?”
Denying the Holocaust is such a despicable thing that one’s character can be judged by the company he keeps. Chomsky works closely with, supports, and praises numerous Holocaust deniers such as Robert Faurisson. The latter insists that the Holocauset is a hoax, and that Anne Frank’s diary was a forgery, that there were no gas chambers in Germany, and so on.
French editions of Chomsky’s works are published by a neo-Nazi press, La Vieille Taupe.
Here’s a Chomsky nugget: “The Jews do not merit a ‘second homeland’ because they already have New York, with a huge Jewish population, Jewish-run media, a Jewish mayor, and domination of cultural and economic life.”
No wonder historian Arthur Schlesinger called him an “intellectual fraud.”
Do you like Norman Finklestein too, Dave Terry? That Jew-hater was once asked by someone why he never wrote a serious study with original research, interviewing people, etc. His reply: Why should I interview people?”
Finklestein’s books sell well in Germany and are distributed by neo-Nazi groups. This is the kind of “expert” Dave Terry gets his information from!
Bob Tiernan
RS @ 242; “Terry I wasn’t asking you, and learn to close your quotes already””””””””””””””””””””””””””
That enough quote marks?
I answered anyway, so sue me!
Dave Terry 214:
“The ONLY thing wrong in your discourse is the fact that the period of relative harmony between Jew and Muslim was the norm in PRE-Zionist Palestine but began to fall apart beginning in the 1890?s”.
Once again you failed to read properly (and it was simply written, too).
I never said that harmony broke out, or that it started when additional Jews emigrated to where Judea had once existed. I said that “Zionism” was not necessarily a Jews-only plan, as understood and practiced by many in the latter part of the 19th century and into the 20th.
Bob Tiernan
Confused @ 240: “I thought maybe this neocon LNCC outfit would have left with WARoot?”
I’m confused as to WHY you consider it a”neocon”
outfit.
@jc LNCC existed long before Root, and “neocon” is pushing things a bit far. Neocon? Really?
@Terry I wasn’t asking you, and learn to close your quotes already.
RS @ 238; “What? When/where did Chomsky deny the holocaust?
Chomsky must certainly NEVER denied that the holocaust occurred. He DID, however, criticize Zionist expropriation and exploitation of it for political advantage. He quotes the Zionist leader, Nachem Goldman, who was the President of the World Zionist Organization and who was detested towards the end because he was much too honest — they even refused to send a delegation to his burial, I believe, or a message. He’s one of the founders of the Jewish state and the Zionist movement and one of the elder statesmen, a very honest man, he — just before his death in 1982 or so — made a rather eloquent and unusual statement in which he said that it’s — he used the Hebrew word for “sacrilege” — he said it’s sacrilege to use the Holocaust as a justification for oppressing others. He was referring to something very real: exploitation of probably the world’s most horrifying atrocity in order to justify oppression of others. That kind of manipulation is really sick.
I thought maybe this neocon LNCC outfit would have left with WARoot? Why does it still exist?
BT @ 234: :What are ya gonna say next? That Hitlers’s enemies are to blame for WWII because of the Treaty of Versailles?
I’ve said something like this a dozen times on this and other lists. However, I wouldn’t use the phrase
“Hitler’s enemies”. Those who made it inevitable that some authoritarian, such as Hitler would arise to lead Germany are everyone’s enemy, but NOT Hitler.
Can you offer a guess WHY the U.S Senate refused to ratify the Versailles Treat and HAS, to this day?
“Holocaust deniers like Chomsky.”
What? When/where did Chomsky deny the holocaust?
Again, you are quite confused. Early onset dementia, perhaps?
Yes, nazis allowed Jewish emigration before the mass killing started. Yet that is far different than allowing a Jewish state in Eastern Europe, an area they had marked for Lebensraum. Nor were they willing to allow Jews a choice to be enslaved rather than killed. Perhaps you are unaware that the Jews who were being killed were already enslaved, or deemed worthless as slaves?
Yes, Stalin created Birobijan, and autonomous Jewish region, in a part of Siberia where very few people wanted to live. It was not an independent nation and very few Jews ever moved there. Look up for yourself how many people live in or have ever lived in Birobijan, much less Jews.
Read the link again. Read the rest of the page too while you are there. Stalin killed hundreds of thousands of Jews and lied about not specifically targeting them. Anyone here can follow the link and see for themselves. You can follow additional links from there.
“WHO is amazinglly ignorant???”
You are. You also seem to still have a problem with end quotations. It’s the two squiggles after your redundant question marks.
“It’s completely insane to believe either, let alone both, would allow a new Jewish state to come into existence in the very area they were fighting over.”
Of course it is. You even admitted you weren’t serious a few posts back.
“A differentiation, without a difference!”
There’s a big difference between your definition of Zionism and mine. I’m not a Zionist by either definition.
BT @219; “what else would one expect from someone who reads Edw Said and other Jew-hating liars”
I presume you would include such folks as;
1; Mahatma Gandhi: ““Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French…What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct…If they [the Jews] must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs… As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds.” quoted in “A Land of Two Peoples” ed. Mendes-Flohr.
OR 2, Israeli historian Benny Morris: ““While the Yishuv’s leadership formally accepted the 1947 Partition Resolution, large sections of Israel’s society — including…Ben-Gurion — were opposed to or extremely unhappy with partition and from early on viewed the war as an ideal opportunity to expand the new state’s borders beyond the UN earmarked partition boundaries and at the expense of the Palestinians” “Tikkun”, March/April 1998.
Or 3, Noam Chomsky; “…In 1948, Menachem Begin declared that: ‘The partition of the Homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. The signature of institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel (the land of Israel) will be restored to the people of Israel, All of it. And forever.” “The Fateful Triangle”
4? Simha Flapan, “For the entire day of April 9, 1948, Irgun and LEHI soldiers carried out the slaughter in a cold and premeditated fashion… The attackers ‘lined men, women and children up against the walls and shot them,’…The ruthlessness of the attack on Deir Yassin shocked Jewish and world opinion alike, drove fear and panic into the Arab population, and led to the flight of unarmed civilians from their homes all over the country.” “The Birth of Israel.”
5. Norman Finkelstein; “By 1948, the Jew was not only able to ‘defend himself’ but to commit massive atrocities as well. Indeed, according to the former director of the Israeli army archives, ‘in almost every village occupied by us during the War of Independence, acts were committed which are defined as war crimes, such as murders, massacres, and rapes’…Uri Milstein, the authoritative Israeli military historian of the 1948 war, goes one step further, maintaining that ‘every skirmish ended in a massacre of Arabs.”; “Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict.”
6. Benny Morris; ““Following the outbreak of 1936, no mainstream (Zionist) leader was able to conceive of future coexistence without a clear physical separation between the two peoples — achievable only by transfer and expulsion. Publicly they all continued to speak of coexistence and to attribute the violence to a small minority of zealots and agitators. But this was merely a public pose..Ben Gurion summed up: ‘With compulsory transfer we (would) have a vast area (for settlement)…I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see anything immoral in it,”; “Righteous Victims.”
Hmmm, “compulsory transfer”, WHERE have I heard that before?
7. Israel Shahak; ““The main danger which Israel, as a ‘Jewish state’, poses to its own people, to other Jews and to its neighbors, is its ideologically motivated pursuit of territorial expansion and the inevitable series of wars resulting from this aim…No zionist politician has ever repudiated Ben-Gurion’s idea that Israeli policies must be based (within the limits of practical considerations) on the restoration of Biblical borders as the borders of the Jewish state.” “Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3000 Years.”
8. “Albert Einstein — ‘I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish State. Apart from practical considerations, my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish State, with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power, no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain’…
9. “Professor Erich Fromm, a noted Jewish writer and thinker, [stated]…’In general international law, the principle holds true that no citizen loses his property or his rights of citizenship; and the citizenship right is de facto a right to which the Arabs in Israel have much more legitimacy than the Jews. Just because the Arabs fled? Since when is that punishable by confiscation of property, and by being barred from returning to the land on which a people’s forefathers have lived for generations? Thus, the claim of the Jews to the land of Israel cannot be a realistic claim. If all nations would suddenly claim territory in which their forefathers had lived two thousand years ago, this world would be a madhouse…I believe that, politically speaking, there is only one solution for Israel, namely, the unilateral acknowledgement of the obligation of the State towards the Arabs — not to use it as a bargaining point, but to acknowledge the complete moral obligation of the Israeli State to its former inhabitants of Palestine’…
10. “Nathan Chofshi — ‘Only an internal revolution can have the power to heal our people of their murderous sickness of causeless hatred…It is bound to bring complete ruin upon us. Only then will the old and young in our land realize how great was our responsibility to those miserable Arab refugees in whose towns we have settled Jews who were brought here from afar; whose homes we have inherited, whose fields we now sow and harvest; the fruits of whose gardens, orchards and vineyards we gather; and in whose cities that we robbed we put up houses of education, charity, and prayer, while we babble and rave about being the “People of the Book” and the “light of the nations”’…
11. Martin Buber on what Zionism should have been;
“The first fact is that at the time when we entered into an alliance (an alliance, I admit, that was not well defined) with a European state and we provided that state with a claim to rule over Palestine, we made no attempt to reach an agreement with the Arabs of this land regarding the basis and conditions for the continuation of Jewish settlement.
This negative approach caused those Arabs who thought about and were concerned about the future of their people to see us increasingly not as a group which desired to live in cooperation with their people but as something in the nature of uninvited guests and agents of foreign interests (at the time I explicitly pointed out this fact).
“The second fact is that we took hold of the key economic positions in the country without compensating the Arab population, that is to say without allowing their capital and their labor a share in our economic activity. Paying the large landowners for purchases made or paying compensation to tenants on the land is not the same as compensating a people. As a result, many of the more thoughtful Arabs viewed the advance of Jewish settlement as a kind of plot designed to dispossess future generations of their people of the land necessary for their existence and development. Only by means of a comprehensive and vigorous economic policy aimed at organizing and developing common interests would it have been possible to contend with this view and its inevitable consequences. This we did not do.
“The third fact is that when a possibility arose that the Mandate would soon be terminated, not only did we not propose to the Arab population of the country that a joint Jewish Arab administration be set up in its place, we went ahead and demanded rule over the whole country (the Biltmore program) as a fitting political sequel to the gains we had already made. By this step, we with our own hands provided our enemies in the Arab camp with aid and comfort of the most valuable sort — the support of public opinion — without which the military attack launched against us would not have been possible. For it now appears to the Arab populace that in carrying on the activities we have been engaged in for years, in acquiring land and in working and developing the land, we were systematically laying the ground work for gaining control of the whole country.” Martin Buber, quoted in “A Land of Two Peoples” ed. Mendes-Flohr
RS @ 224: ”
THIS is classic FARSE! Did you bother actually READING this webpage?
“Stalin wanted to conquer the whole world, or as much of it as he could, and your proposed Jewish state would take a chunk of the territory he controlled – and all of it was in territory he would come to control later.”
From the webpage:
1.”To offset the growing Jewish national and religious aspirations of Zionism and to successfully categorize Soviet Jews under Stalin’s nationality policy an alternative to the Land of Israel was established with the help of Komzet and OZET in 1928. The Jewish Autonomous Oblast with the center in Birobidzhan in the Russian Far East was to become a “Soviet Zion”. Yiddish, rather than “reactionary” Hebrew, would be the national language, and proletarian socialist literature and arts would replace Judaism as the quintessence of culture. Despite a massive domestic and international state propaganda campaign, the Jewish population there never reached 30% (Still better than Zionist Palestine
at the time)
2. “Although many of Great Purge victims were ethnic or religious Jews, they were not specifically targeted as an ethnic group during this campaign according to Mikhail Baitalsky[12], Gennady Kostyrchenko[13], David Priestland [14], Jeffrey Veidlinger [15], Roy Medvedev [16] and Edvard Radzinsky[17].
3. On Jan. 12, 1931, Stalin gave the following answer to an inquiry on the subject of the Soviet attitude toward antisemitism from the Jewish News Agency in the United States:
“ National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism.
Anti-semitism is of advantage to the exploiters as a lightning conductor that deflects the blows aimed by the working people at capitalism. Anti-semitism is dangerous for the working people as being a false path that leads them off the right road and lands them in the jungle. Hence Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable, sworn enemies of anti-semitism.
In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty.[10]
“And jailed, starved and killed how many between then and Stalin’s death? You are amazingly ignorant.
WHO is amazinglly ignorant???
Your own post refutes your stupid proposition.
> “It’s completely insane to believe either, let alone both, would allow a new Jewish state to come into existence in the very area they were fighting over.”
Do you STILL insist on spitting in the wind?
“I’m not a Zionist by any definition, including ones I have given.
A differentiation, without a difference!
Dave Terry 233:
Before the “Final Solution” was devised to kill all Jews under Nazi jurisdiction, the scheme the Nazis planned to rid their land of the Jews was forced emigration.
—————–
This falls under the category of “See, they weren’t as bad as you think!”.
Most of us know this part of the history, anyway.
What are ya gonna say next? That Hitler’s enemies are to blame for WWII because of the Treaty of Versailles?
Oh, shame on you for reading crap by Holocaust deniers like Chomsky.
Bob Tiernan
RS @ 228: “Where did you get the idea that I think Hitler was offering Jews a choice? I don’t, and he didn’t.”
Since it is clear that he did, I just assumed that you MUST know. I didn’t take into account your
total ignorance of the actual history of the period.
Before the “Final Solution” was devised to kill all Jews under Nazi jurisdiction, the scheme the Nazis planned to rid their land of the Jews was forced emigration. It wasn’t until October 23, 1941 that Heinrich Himmler issued an order down the Nazi chain of command which heralded a major change in Nazi policy with respect to the “Jewish problem.” Until then, the Nazis worked vigorously to encourage Jews to emigrate from Germany and its occupied lands.
It is at this point were the U.S and other western nations share a percentage of the blame with the Zionist Organizations.
1. On Saturday, May 13, 1939, the S.S. St. Louis left Hamburg, Germany for Havana, Cuba carrying 937 passengers, most of whom were Jews fleeing Nazi Germany. Most had applied for a visa to the U.S. and were planning on only staying in Cuba until able to legally enter the U.S. During the two weeks it took the St. Louis to cross the Atlantic, the political climate in Cuba changed drastically. These changes in Cuba caused the landing permits held by those aboard the St. Louis to become invalid.
Denied entry into Cuba, those aboard the St. Louis begged the United States and other countries to let them in. Although newspaper reports sympathized with the refugees, no non-European country would allow them entry. On June 7, 1939, the St. Louis headed back to Europe, delivering many of its Jewish passengers back into the hands of the Nazis.
2. In 1939, the quota allowed for 27,370 German citizens to immigrate to the United States. In 1938, more than 300,000 Germans-mostly Jewish refugees-had applied for U.S. visas (entry permits). A little over 20,000 applications were approved. Beyond the strict national quotas, the United States openly denied visas to any immigrant “likely to become a public charge.” This ruling proved to be a serious problem for many Jewish refugees. Most had lost everything when the Nazis took power, and they might need government assistance after they immigrated to the United States.
Shortly after she was appointed to the cabinet, Frances Perkins, President Roosevelt’s secretary of labor, proposed an executive order on refugees and immigration. Perkins suggested that the State Department should give priority to immigrants seeking refuge from racial or religious persecution. The State Department objected to this order because it would antagonize relations with Germany and alienate jobless American citizens. FDR never issued the order, and State Department officials in Europe continued to reject many visa applications from Jewish refugees.
Thus it is irrelevant what you find “clearly preferable.”
When did we stop discussing Beck and start comparing Muslims to Nazis?
Thomas L. Knapp @ 230:
“If by ‘talked into’ you mean ‘threatened with individual murder by the mufti if they accepted the deal, and then threatened with mass murder by the Arab states if they stayed and lived peacefully after the establishment of Israel,’ you’re absolutely right.
“If you mean actually reasoned with, maybe some of them.”
———–
You are absolutely correct. For almost a century, in fact, the more Nazi-like of the Muslims have been systematically murdering those Muslims who could be labeled as being tolerant. That hasn’t left much in the way of diverse opinions by those concerned.
Bob Tiernan
BT @ 209,
“They were interested in statehood in 1947 but rejected (or were talked into rejecting) the idea of a homeland for the Jews as part of the deal”
If by “talked into” you mean “threatened with individual murder by the mufti if they accepted the deal, and then threatened with mass murder by the Arab states if they stayed and lived peacefully after the establishment of Israel,” you’re absolutely right.
If you mean actually reasoned with, maybe some of them.
Dave Terry 223:
“You two are so paranoid that you jump at the chance to put down any suggestion that the Zionists are anything but perfect angels.”
Well now you’re making up stuff. I’ve yet to delve into the topic of what I actually think of Israel, and as for the so-called Palestinians (the Muslim ones, not the Jewish or Christian ones), I’ve not said everything yet.
By the way, it is interesting that you keep using the term “Zionists”. Yes, that was the Jews’ own term for a movement, but I’ve noted that the term is used now like saying “Nazi”, and when used by people who do not like Israel it is a Jew-hating term. Very revealing of you.
So no, I don’t think Israel is an angelic nation, but I’m smart enough to not fall into the trap of viewing the Muslim Palestinians as an oh-so-oppressed people similar to Jews in the Warsaw ghetto. That’s what the propagandists want all of the stupid young college students to think, and it has worked quite well. But I will not wear rose-colored glasses for people who are in many ways worse than the Nazis. Gee, did I mention that the PLO’s predecessors were allied with the Nazis during WWII? They wanted the Germans to drive out the Brits so that they could kill every Jew they could get their dirty hands on. They were the only allies of the Axis powers who were offered a homeland after the war.
Bob Tiernan
Mr. Terry,
Are you familiar with the end quote? Your writing is as muddled as your thinking.
Where did you get the idea that I think Hitler was offering Jews a choice? I don’t, and he didn’t. Thus it is irrelevant what you find “clearly preferable.”
RS @226: “How did you arrive at such a strange interpretation of what I said?
NOT strange, at all. It follows from your very cavalier presumption that those who were not exterminated would be enslaved. Clearly, being enslaved would be preferable. And IF those Jews who had previously lived on the invasion routes moved to other areas, their odds of survival would have been measurably enhanced.
THAT IS, if the Zionists did not put a kibosh on the plan like all the OTHER efforts to save Jews.
“Are you saying that Jews would be better off exterminated, than enslaved (temporarily)”
How did you arrive at such a strange interpretation of what I said?
Hitler’s plan was to enslave Slavs and exterminate Jews.
“Are you totally ignorant of the wide variance in death tolls among Jews in different parts of the continent?”
Dunno. Perhaps proximity to death camps or other factors having to do with the mechanics of rounding up and transporting large numbers of people? Perhaps which nazis were put in charge of administering various areas? Maybe some other factor(s)? I would guess he would have made his way to killing the rest given enough time, but he did not after all have unlimited resources, and there was this little war with a whole bunch of countries thing to distract him.
RS @222; “Hitler’s plan was to enslave those he didn’t exterminate. The fact that you would seriously entertain such rubbish shows how delusional you are.
Are you saying that Jews would be better off exterminated, than enslaved (temporarily)
Are you totally ignorant of the wide variance in death tolls among Jews in different parts of the continent?
Why did the Nazis kill 91% of Polish Jews, but only 27% of Austrian Jews? Why would they kill 85% of Lithuanian Jews, but only 22% of French Jews, OR 80% of Slovakian Jews and only1 % of Danish Jews?
Could it be, that it was because, for some reason
they were in the way?
“What makes you think that either of them gave a damn about it.”
Simple logic. Stalin wanted to conquer the whole world, or as much of it as he could, and your proposed Jewish state would take a chunk of the territory he controlled – and all of it was in territory he would come to control later.
Hitler wanted to enslave or exterminate, if not the whole world, certainly huge chunks of it. Eastern Europe was designated for “lebensraum” to allow the Germans (“Aryans” by his unsupported definition) to expand, and the Slavs were to be enslaved.
It’s completely insane to believe either, let alone both, would allow a new Jewish state to come into existence in the very area they were fighting over.
“Actually the Soviet Union had a serious flirtation with Jewish bolsheviks in the pre-20?s.”
And jailed, starved and killed how many between then and Stalin’s death? You are amazingly ignorant. Try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin_and_antisemitism#Great_Purge for starters.
“In any event, it could not have occurred without League of Nations sponsorship.”
It could not have occurred, period.
“I didn’t suggest that this was a real possibility, much less a serious consideration.”
Make up your mind, if you have any left.
” I simply suggested that it would have been considerably smarter than starting a 65 year war in the near east.”
If it wasn’t a real possibility (and it wasn’t) it’s not better than anything whatsoever. Duh!
“You two are so paranoid that you jump at the chance to put down any suggestion that the Zionists are anything but perfect angels.”
How did you leap to this unsupported conclusion? Please find where I have shared my own opinion on the existence of Israel in this or any other thread. I’ve discussed history, other people’s views, and so on. If you actually had any clue what my opinions are, which you clearly don’t, you might be very surprised.
First clue: I’m not a Zionist by any definition, including ones I have given.
RS @ 218″ ” If Hitler and Stalin wanted a Jewish state in Europe they would have set one up.
What makes you think that either of them gave a damn about it. Actually the Soviet Union had a serious flirtation with Jewish bolsheviks in the pre-20’s.
In any event, it could not have occurred without
League of Nations sponsorship. I didn’t suggest that this was a real possibility, much less a serious consideration. I simply suggested that it would have been considerably smarter than starting a 65 year war in the near east.
You two are so paranoid that you jump at the chance to put down any suggestion that the Zionists are anything but perfect angels.
Doesn’t matter what part of Europe it would have been, there were other people besides Jews living there, and even if there hadn’t been, it is simply ridiculous that Stalin and Hitler would have left them in peace. Both Stalin and Hitler conquered everything in their path. Hitler’s plan was to enslave those he didn’t exterminate. The fact that you would seriously entertain such rubbish shows how delusional you are.
BT @ 217: “No, I have a problem believing the idea that had Poland been a Jewish state (with all German Jews relocating there), that Hitler would have had no reason to invade that country.”
1. If you’d bother reading what I wrote and NOT what you WISH I had written, you might not look so lame. I did NOT suggest that Poland could have become a Jewish State. The Poles would never have agreed to that.
I did not draw a map, so everything you said is based TOTALLY on speculation. What I had in mind was an are in the very southeastern corner
of Poland the southwestern corner of Ukraine & a slice of northeastern Rumania to the Black Sea. As you can see if it safely tucked below the belt of the German-Polish-Russian midlands.
This, of course wouldn’t guarantee that it would not also be effected by the war, but certainly, not to the extent that being helpless hostages of the Third Reich.
>”More later. I’ll whip your fanny on this topic any day, any time, anywhere.”
Well, it’s going to take facts and logic, NOT canned Zionist cliche’s
“WOW, I’ve never seen anyone cram so MANY fallacies into ONE paragraph in my life!”
Terry meets and exceeds this benchmark on a regular basis.
Dave Terry 215:
“WOW, I’ve never seen anyone cram so MANY fallacies into ONE paragraph in my life!”
Harr!!! Try reading many of your own (what else would one expect from someone who reads Edw Said and other Jew-hating liars), or even a paragraph written by your buddy Burke.
More later (i.e. I’ll counter everything you’ve written in this here counter-argument you’ve made).
B. Tiernan
Dave Terry has never heard of “Lebensraum”? Yeah, Hitler and Stalin were going to allow a Jewish state in Europe…sure they were. How ludicrous! If Hitler and Stalin wanted a Jewish state in Europe they would have set one up. David Terry is at best a waste of time.
BT @ 211: “I can’t believe this!!!!
Dave Terry 216: “WHAT! You have a problem with Jewish refugees traveling hundreds of miles, instead of thousands?”
No, I have a problem believing the idea that had Poland been a Jewish state (with all German Jews relocating there), that Hitler would have had no reason to invade that country.
What did he have against Luxembourg, by the way? Well, for one, they were in-between Germany and a nation they wanted to invade, so why not invade it. After that, there was the population to deal with by occupation forces, and you know the rest. Or do you?
Your idea is as stupid as a German Jew asking a concentration camp official if he could go home because he’s just become an atheist.
Hey Dave – Sheesh!!!!
More later. I’ll whip your fanny on this topic any day, any time, anywhere.
Bob T
BT @ 211: “I can’t believe this!!!!
WHAT! You have a problem with Jewish refugees traveling hundreds of miles, instead of thousands?
Surely, you don’t believe that the Nazis existed for the SOLE purpose of exterminating Jews, OR that the Holocaust was the CA– USE of WWII!
I can readily see that many Jews MIGHT view it this way but clearly they were “collateral damage”.
FACT:
1. “In 1938 a thirty-one nation conference was held in Evian, France, on resettlement of the victims of Nazism. The World Zionist Organization refused to participate, fearing that resettlement of Jews in other states would reduce the number available for Palestine.”
John Quigley*, “Palestine and Israel: A
Challenge to Justice.”
*John B. Quigley is a professor of law at the Moritz College of Law at the Ohio State University, where he is the Presidents’ Club Professor of Law. In 1995 he was recipient of The Ohio State University Distinguished Scholar Award.
2. “It was summed up in the meeting [of the Jewish Agency’s Executive on June 26, 1938] that the Zionist thing to do ‘is belittle the [Evian] Conference as far as possible and to cause it to decide nothing…We are particularly worried that it would move Jewish organizations to collect large sums of money for aid to Jewish refugees, and these collections could interfere with our collection efforts’…Ben-Gurion’s statement at the same meeting: ‘No rationalization can turn the conference from a harmful to a useful one. What can and should be done is to limit the damage as far as possible.’”; Israeli author Boas Evron*, “Jewish State or Israeli Nation?”
*Israeli journalist and critic.[3] Evron was born in Jerusalem and attended Herzliya Hebrew High School and Hebrew University. Evron’s family had lived in Palestine since the early nineteenth century; he is the great-grandson of Yoel Moshe Salomon, one of the founders of Petah Tikva
3. “[Ben-Gurion stated] ‘If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, but only half of them by transporting them to Palestine, I would choose the second — because we face not only the reckoning of those children, but the historical reckoning of the Jewish people.’ In the wake of the Kristallnacht pogroms, Ben-Gurion commented that ‘the human conscience’ might bring various countries to open their doors to Jewish refugees from Germany. He saw this as a threat and warned: ‘Zionism is in danger.’” Israeli historian, Tom Segev*, “The Seventh Million.”;
*Tom Segev was born in Jerusalem. He studied history and political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and earned a doctorate in history from Boston University in the 1970s.
Clearly Ben Gurion and MANY of the early Zionists were MORE despicable than Hitler!
Much MORE historical evidence indicates that Hitler simply wanted the Jews GONE………NOT
necessarily dead. WHY do you suppose it was called, “THE FINAL SOLUTION”.
BT @ 209 wrote: “Oh nonsense. They were interested in statehood in 1947 but rejected (or were talked into rejecting) the idea of a homeland for the Jews as part of the deal, so I doubt that they were happy being “stateless” in unceded areas such as the West Bank from 47 to 52, and then the Jordanian-occupied West Bank for 15 years after that, and while living in parts of Syria (where many of them came from, anyway, since many called themselves Southern Syrians and they would have been happy as pigs in mud had a UN deal in 1947 resulted in an expansion of Syrian borders to include all of the disputed area other than the original Israeli borders).
WOW, I’ve never seen anyone cram so MANY fallacies into ONE paragraph in my life!
1. It is a fallacy that the Palestinians were just dying to have a “State”. They had never had one before. Neither had the hundreds of native American tribes before the white man came.
However, they CERTAINLY didn’t want have their land taken from them and have aliens tell them how to live. This is ALSO true of the Arab Palestinians. It is a BIG JUMP from a usufruct type land system and the European system.
As I noted earlier, this was also the view of the Jews who had lived there for hundreds of years.
Further, it is absurd to presume that all Palestinians were of one mind on this any more than that the Jews were. If ANY thing, factional ism among the Palestinians is their SECOND biggest problem.
2. That many Palestinians came from Syria is a Zionist lie (ie Joan Peters). 1.There WERE about 20,000 who came from Jordan to work, DURING THE BRITISH MANDATE, because the British paid decent wages (by Arab standards) and because the Jews either A. would not except those wages or B. were above manual labor.
2. Almost all of these “guest workers” returned to Jordan before WWII and would CERTAINLY
have returned or at least moved away from the new “State of Israel” since was POLICY of the Zionists to deny work to Arabs and hire only Jews.
3. It had been customary, during the Ottoman period for some residents of Palestine and Syria to move randomly back and forth as their needs
required. The Fellahin, however where generally
tied to the land they lived on and farmed. They are the true victims of the Zionist experiment.
In retrospect, I’m sure that most Palestinians, had they been able to predict the future WOULD have been, as you so eloquently said, “happy as pigs in mud” for an arrangement where they would retain control of all of the area
reserved for them by the UN “partition”.
(the fact that this partition was extremely over generous to the new Zionist state – by a factor of 2 – 1.), not withstanding!
B.Tiernan @ (207):
The ONLY thing wrong in your discourse is the fact that the period of relative harmony between Jew and Muslim was the norm in PRE-Zionist Palestine but began to fall apart beginning in the 1890’s;
Before the 20th century, most Jews in Palestine belonged to old Yishuv, or community, that had settled more for religious than for political reasons. There was little if any conflict between them and the Arab population. Tensions began after the first Zionist settlers arrived in the 1880’s…when [they] purchased land from absentee Turkish owners, leading to dispossession of the peasants who had cultivated it.
The indigenous Jews of Palestine also reacted negatively to Zionism. They did not see the need for a Jewish state in Palestine and did not want to exacerbate relations with the Arabs.” John Quigley, “Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice.”
Thomas Knapp 199:
“If the media accounts are true (I don’t assume that they are), the two appear to have been ‘assimilated Americans’ to a large degree…”
Well, hardly. One needs to do more than wear blue jeans and ball caps to be considered assimilated. That they had many problems with American culture (as they freely admitted) and couldn’t quite feel close to us (one said he had no American friends at all) means that they had not assimilated at all and probably were incapable of it at that point.
Now just remember what that Egyptian Muslim Mr. Qtub said in the late 1940’s regarding his couple of years living in the states. He saw “decadence” like women and men dancing together, and a barefoot woman working in the kitchen (as seen through an open door) while listening to music and seeming to enjoy herself. He hated America for such reasons. Nothing about foreign policy at all. of course, foreign policy could easily be used as the excuse because it’s more easily gobbled up by naive college students in the West. People like Edward Said knew what they were doing when writing for Western audiences.
Bob Tiernan
Rod Stern 208:
“Many Zionists were/are secular, so it is not solely defined by religion.”
Yes, that’s quite true. Many of the founders of the state of Israel were in fact quite secular and even non-practicing Jews who of course accepted the fact that everyone will think of them as Jews as if it was an ethnic group (someone earlier had asked why Jews did this, when I believe it’s more like everyone else will think of them as an ethnic group and therefore incapable of getting an “atheist” pass by those who wanted to hate or even kill them).
One of my first bosses (back in the late 70s) was an atheist who happened to be from a long line of Russian Jews and whose father came to the US in the early 1900s and whose grandfather had chosen Palestine instead. He was a great believer in the state of Israel yet it had zero to do with religion for him. He simply understood that many wanted to band together where they could protect themselves better than they were being protected by the czars, kaisers, and various kings.
The Zionist movement (and Israel of course) was also quite the quasi-socialist or collectivist one, in varying degrees in practice.
Bob Tiernan
Dave Terry 181:
“In 1933 there were over 6.5 Million Jews living relatively adjoining regions in Poland, Western Soviet Union and Romania. A homeland could have been carved out of this real estate making immigration much easier and very well could have avoided the Holocaust.”
I can’t believe this!!!!
BT
“Oh nonsense.”
That might as well be David Terry’s new name.
Dave Terry 176:
**Clearly, these latter day ‘natives’ have seen the writing on the wall and realize that they MUST
be congealed into a “political entity”, in order to protect themselves and operate independent of the statists that surround them. **
Me:
Oh nonsense. They were interested in statehood in 1947 but rejected (or were talked into rejecting) the idea of a homeland for the Jews as part of the deal, so I doubt that they were happy being “stateless” in unceded areas such as the West Bank from 47 to 52, and then the Jordanian-occupied West Bank for 15 years after that, and while living in parts of Syria (where many of them came from, anyway, since many called themselves Southern Syrians and they would have been happy as pigs in mud had a UN deal in 1947 resulted in an expansion of Syrian borders to include all of the disputed area other than the original Israeli borders).
So no, Dave Terry, I’m not going to accept your rationale that the so-called Palestinians (the Muslim Palestinians, not the Jewish or Christian Palestinians) never squawked about being “occupied” by either the UN, or Jordan, or Syria or whatever, until the Israelis took the disputed land that was being used as bases for attacks on Israelis. simply because they never cared about the formalities or idea of statehood until 1967.
Oh boo-hoo.
Bob Tiernan
“I’ve always understonnd the basic meaning of Zionism to be a belief by those members of that religion in moving to the area of the old kingdom of Judea, joining descendants of those from families who’d never left, and creating a safe haven for themselves whether there’s statehood or not. And Zionism included non-Jews who, were, well, tolerant (of which there were many).”
Many Zionists were/are secular, so it is not solely defined by religion.
Dave Terry 101: “There is only one definition; One who believes in ‘Jewish Exceptionalism’ ie; That a small group of human beings have been chosen by God as being above the rules that all other men are subject to.”
C’mon, that sounds like a definition made up for “The Protocols of Zion” (I hope you’ve never fallen for those fake books).
I’ve always understonnd the basic meaning of Zionism to be a belief by those members of that religion in moving to the area of the old kingdom of Judea, joining descendants of those from families who’d never left, and creating a safe haven for themselves whether there’s statehood or not. And Zionism included non-Jews who, were, well, tolerant (of which there were many).
Indeed, in the 1890s and for some decades thereafter one could find communities in which Jews and Muslims worked together and lived as neighbors, and that was not contrary to Zionism in practice by those who started it (rather than as defined by the liars who wrote “The Protocols of Zion”).
Bob Tiernan
“Isn’t it interesting how rats and imbeciles get vicious when they are cornered?”
No, it’s actually tedious and predictable how you do that.
Re; RS@204
Isn’t it interesting how rats and imbeciles get vicious when they are cornered?
Too late Stern, you’ve already passed Schmitz on your way down!
Dave Terry’s issue with Schmitz is that Terry wants to be the only one cornering the dumber than shit market here, and Schmitz is screwing that up for him 🙂
Sam Schmitz @ 196;
Just what we need, another Zionist plant!
If you are such, drop dead! If you aren’t, drop dead!
The cops may have run him over.
@199: I think that’s plausible. Another, similarly plausible idea in the same strain is that the older brother met an Islamist group back in the “home country”, got swept up by the seeming “authenticity” of the movement, and unlike most harmless movements that teenagers get involved in, the movement he stumbled into taught him how to make bombs and kill people.
Kind of the other side of the same coin, really.
Of course, we’ll never know since his brother ran him over with the getaway car.
OK, I’ll take hypothesis. As for Schmitz, I don’t think he rises even to that level.
RS @ 198,
Which theory are you asking about?
If you’re asking what “Sam Schmitz’s” theory is based on, it’s based on his deranged opinion that EVERYTHING is “the freakin’ JEWS!!!”
If you’re asking about my theory of involuntary recruitment, it’s entirely circumstantial.
If the media accounts are true (I don’t assume that they are), the two appear to have been “assimilated Americans” to a large degree prior to the elder brother’s visit to “the old country.”
The conventional narrative at the moment seems to be that that elder brother got caught up in radical Islam during and after that visit, which might or might not be the case.
An alternative theory is that if an Islamist group wanted to carry out an attack on American soil, it would be easier to extort someone already welcome on American soil, with convenient hostages at stake in an area where that group can easily reach them, to carry out that attack for them than to contrive to get its operators into the country.
My impression that that might be the case is heightened by the younger brother’s reported insistence that the pair acted independently.
Once again, the conventional narrative is “they radicalized themselves,” but given their backgrounds it just seems to fit better that it might have been something along the lines of “you carry out the attack, and you take the fall for carrying out the attack, or we dismember your mother,” etc.
Now let me step back and downgrade all that from “theory” to “hypothesis.” It’s explanatory, but I’m not sure how testable it is. And also, I’m not that committed to it because I’m not convinced that sense CAN be made of everything.
Theory…based on what?
There’s so much talk that there was a “drill” going on. Did they possibly think this was some kind of drill? I think that’s possible with the younger brother.
My own theory about the Boston bombing is that the elder Tsarnaev brother may have been involuntarily recruited — “if you don’t do this, your family back here will be harmed” — on his trip back to Russia.
Can’t say I’m one of them, but I’m sure you are correct.
I should have said: “I know some people would be thrilled to have him in the LP.”
“I know some people are thrilled to have him in the LP.”
What makes them think he’s in the LP?
“we just need to keep an eye on what he says and does re: being a Libertarian.”
I’ve heard zero from him about being big L. You?
I know some people are thrilled to have him in the LP. I’d say he’s a complicated man with his own agenda(s) and we just need to keep an eye on what he says and does re: being a Libertarian.
I listened to all 16 minutes. What Mr. Beck says certainly sounds possible, but it certainly doesn’t prove to me that the bombing was an “inside job”. If it’s true, it’s just more proof to ignore the mainstream media, and do your own research.
Lovely!
I found this on FB today.
http://youtu.be/BPaxX_6h-JE
“Whenever you …”
Who?
” is it true that …”
No relation. And I don’t approve of bigotry, ethnic or religious.
Should have known you being “done” was a falsehood, like most everything else you post.
RS@186; I see you FINALLY got it, but you don’t want to admit it. You wrote: ” That both are called Jewish (at least in our language) signifies nothing.
LOL! Au contraire, it signifies EVERYTHING!
Whenever you want to hide your racism, you can hide behind your religious beliefs and when you are criticized for you religious bigotry you can call your critics bigots for maligning your
ethnic background. Sweet schtick!
Tell me, is it true that you are a grandson of
Avraham Stern who directed the massacre at
Deir Yassin, where 100 people, half of them women and children, had been systematically murdered, on the eve of the end of the British Mandate?
“If my mother was a Hindu who was ethnically Indian, would I still be Hindu, if I became a Catholic?”
Don’t be dense (I know that’s asking a lot).
If you are ethnically Jewish and convert away from Judaism, you’re still ethnically Jewish but no longer an adherent of Judaism. That both are called Jewish (at least in our language) signifies nothing.
“LAST TRY! If you don’t get it THIS time, I GIVE UP!”
Is that a promise?
Lead Head Stern: @184
Why is it that you are TOTALLY unable to answer the questions I ask, rather than rephrasing them first.
MY question was If my mother was a Methodist, am I also a Methodist whether I practice that religion or not? For some strange reason, a Jew is still a Jew, even if he doesn’t practice Judaism.
You stated: “If your mother was a Hindu who is ethnically Indian, you are still an ethnic Indian if you become a Catholic.”
THAT is NOT the question at hand. THIS IS:
If my mother was a Hindu who was ethnically Indian, would I still be Hindu, if I became a Catholic?
LAST TRY! If you don’t get it THIS time, I GIVE UP!
“There are Sikh Indians, Hindu Indians, Buddhist Indians, Muslim Indians and atheist Indians. ”
And there are ethnic Jews adhering to all of those.
“If my mother was a Methodist, am I also called a Methodist whether I practice the religion or not? ”
If your mother was a Hindu who is ethnically Indian, you are still an ethnic Indian if you become a Catholic.
As for criticism, it all depends on the vociferousness. And again, you are far afield from your original claim.
“you might understand what we are talking about.”
You are the only one talking your brand of nonsense here.
Rod Stern @ 182
Is your understanding of logic so feeble that you can’t see that your own words prove MY point?
In Indians and ALL OTHER ethnic groups, there is a clear separation of their ethnicity and religion.
There are Sikh Indians, Hindu Indians, Buddhist
Indians, Muslim Indians and atheist Indians.
If I criticize Buddhism or Hinduism, those who subscribe to those faiths don’t go ballistic and call me anti-Aryan!
If I criticize the acts of the Indian government, public officials don’t call me anti-Hindu!
This is NOT the case with Jews; to paraphrase your own words; Ethnic Jews who are not religious Jews are still Jews. But on the other hand Non-ethnic Jews who convert to Judaism are also called Jews.
If my mother was a Methodist, am I also called a Methodist whether I practice the religion or not?
Maybe, if you ever graduate from Kindergarten
you might understand what we are talking about.
In 1933 there were over 6.5 Million Jews living relatively adjoining regions in Poland, Western Soviet Union and Romania. A homeland could have been carved out of this real estate making immigration much easier and very well could have avoided the Holocaust.
Yes, there was no one else living there besides Jews, and Stalin and Hitler would have left them alone…in your imagination. There’s nowhere in the world where an Israeli state would not have had a problem with its neighbors.
It is ONLY Jews who are STILL Jews even when they DON’T practice
Judaism. And ONLY practitioners of Judaism are “Jews” even if they are of Irish or Italian ethnicity. THAT was my POINT!
Ethnic Indians who are not Hindus are still Indians, and western converts to Hinduism are still Hindus, although Hinduism is the religion of most Indians and isn’t a major religion in any other ethnic group. Your point was again incorrect, as well as far afield from your original contention.
> so you are the one being disingenuous.
so YOU are the one being disingenuous!
Are you entering the kindergarten stage of your second childhood, Mr. Terry?
Rod Stern @ 180;
“So, an ethnic group that has been massively and systematically prosecuted throughout history and much reviled for being stateless wanted a nation- state just like other ethnic groups have, would be the actual motive.”
All of which begs the obvious question;
Why Palestine?
1. Palestine was not the only, or even preferred, destination of Jews facing persecution when the Zionist movement started?
“The pogroms of 1881-1884 forced many Jews to leave Russia. Societies known as ‘Lovers of Zion,’ which were forerunners of the Zionist organization, convinced some of the frightened emigrants to go to Palestine. There, it was argued, Jews would rebuild the ancient Jewish ‘Kingdom of David and Solomon,’ Most Russian Jews ignored their appeal and fled to Europe and the United States. By 1900, almost a million Jews had settled in the United States alone.”
By comparison, the “first aliyah” (1880-1900) brought slightly more than 20,000 Jews to Palestine and the “second aliyah” 1900-1914) about 40,000 more.
Clearly, “L’Shana Haba’a B’yerushalayim” (Next year in Jerusalem) was was not meant to be taken literally by most.
2. In 1933 there were over 6.5 Million Jews living relatively adjoining regions in Poland, Western Soviet Union and Romania. A homeland could have been carved out of this real estate making immigration much easier and very well could have avoided the Holocaust.
Both Germany and Russia could have rid themselves of the thorns in their sides and Jews would have had a homeland that didn’t acquire assimilation or conquest.
>”The Japanese religion is called Shintoism; it is unique to Japan and most Japanese adhere to it”
Per usual, your head is in that dark, dank place.
Most Japanese do not exclusively identify themselves as adherents of a single religion; rather, they incorporate elements of various religions in a syncretic fashion known as Shinbutsu sh?g? (????, amalgamation of kami and buddhas?). Shinbutsu Sh?g? officially ended with the Shinto and Buddhism Separation Order of 1886, but continues in practice. Shinto and Japanese Buddhism are therefore best understood not as two completely separate and competing faiths, but rather as a single, rather complex religious system
>” Hinduism is largely unique to India, and is the majority religion there.
And your point is?????
To ascribe a specific religious orientation to Indians is even more absurd than to do so of Japanese. India, known as the mother of spirituality and philosophy, was the birthplace of MANY religions, which still exist today in the world.
Around 500 BC two other religions developed in India, namely, Buddhism and Jainism. In ancient times Jainism and specially Buddhism were very popular in India. Indians who accepted Buddhist philosophy spread it not only within the Indian sub-continent but also to kingdoms east and north of India.
>”Ancient Egypt had its own religion.”
EVERY Ancient land had an ancient religion/or two. So WHAT?
ddddddddrum………….rollll……..
> “And not all Jews adhere to Judaism, nor are all adherents of Judaism ethnically Jewish,”
EXACTLY MY POINT!! It is ONLY Jews who are STILL Jews even when they DON’T practice
Judaism. And ONLY practitioners of Judaism are “Jews” even if they are of Irish or Italian ethnicity. THAT was my POINT!!!
ONLY Jews get to be BOTH a religion AND an ethnic group!
> so you are the one being disingenuous.
so YOU are the one being disingenuous!
Bob Tiernan @176: Good point.
David Terry @177: Your comment seems to have nothing to do with Bob Tiernan’s point, and there’s nothing inherently statist in having an ethnic identity.
David Terry @178:
“I never claimed that Zionists are MORE racist than other racists.”
Yes you did. That was the whole genesis of this argument. You wrote
“>”If not: what definition of Zionist are you using?”
There is only one definition; One who believes in “Jewish Exceptionalism” ie; That a small group of human beings have been chosen by God as being above the rules that all other men are subject to.”
This definition has been exposed as false both in the “chosen by God” and “above the rules all other men are subject to” aspects.
“Only that without the veneer of mystical mumbo jumbo their actual motives are exposed. ”
So, an ethnic group that has been massively and systematically prosecuted throughout history and much reviled for being stateless wanted a nation-state just like other ethnic groups have, would be the actual motive.
“Japanese is NOT a religion. Indian is NOT a religion and ALL Indians are NOT Hindu. Egyptian is NOT a religion either.”
The Japanese religion is called Shintoism; it is unique to Japan and most Japanese adhere to it. Hinduism is largely unique to India, and is the majority religion there. Ancient Egypt had its own religion. And not all Jews adhere to Judaism, nor are all adherents of Judaism ethnically Jewish, so you are the one being disingenuous.
Historically, tribes or nations having their own religion or pantheon was the rule, not the exception. It’s only in relatively recent times that a small handful of religions – Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and arguably Marxism – have been multinational, and there are still plenty of countries that don’t follow those.
” Only Jewish (sic)
has the luxury of being BOTH an ethnicity AND a religion”
False. Your error was already demonstrated, and repeating it does not make you any less wrong.
DT @179, it is you has trouble comprehending what Ghost in the Machine wrote, which contained no normative statements at all – that is absolutely nothing about “you would argue that we should turn the clocks back on civilization because…”
Neither Ghost in the Machine nor anyone else here made any such argument, and you are merely guessing (most likely incorrectly) that anyone here would make such an argument.
Ghost in the machine corrected your falsehood that zionism sets Jews “.. as being above the rules that all other men are subject to,” showing that those are in fact the rules all other men have been subject to for most of human history and continue to be now.
The question of whether those rules are wrong or right is completely separate from anything Ghost in the Machine discussed.
Thus, you are arguing against a strawman of your own construction when you bloviate “you would…because.”
RS @ 148; “Aside from the tortured sentence structure, you seem to think that someone here made such an argument, yet I saw no such argument being made.”
Some dude calling himself a ghost in a machine wrote: “Given that tribes, nation states and governments of all ethnicities and religions have been conquering each other all over the world throughout history, it’s beyond laughable to say that Zionists put Jews “above the rules that all other men are subject to.”
It seems not only MY writing is incomprehensible to you; you also have trouble reading OTHERS, as well.
RS @ 146; “Why are they any more or less racist than any other ethnic group that claims a homeland?
I never claimed that Zionists are MORE racist than other racists. Only that without the veneer of mystical mumbo jumbo their actual motives are exposed.
“Ever wondered why “Jewish” gets to be a ‘religion’ AND an ethnicity. Name one other single group in history with that privilege.”
“Japanese, Indians/Hindus, Romans, ancient Egyptians, and most tribes throughout history that had their own religion.”
You are being deliberately disingenuous; Japanese is NOT a religion. Indian is NOT a religion and ALL Indians are NOT Hindu. Egyptian is NOT a religion either. Only Jewish
has the luxury of being BOTH an ethnicity AND a religion; whichever is most advantageous at the moment.
BT @176
Clearly the Zionists/Statisist among us cannot conceive of any kind of human society outside the context of a “state/government'” or more to the point to an ‘ethnic identity’.
An earlier generation of white European racists were unable or UNWILLING to recognize the rights of indigenous people with similar racial or ethnic characteristics because they lived without the gratuitous apparatus and trappings of statehood.
Clearly, these latter day ‘natives’ have seen the writing on the wall and realize that they MUST
be congealed into a “political entity”, in order to protect themselves and operate independent of the statists that surround them.
After ‘statehood IS about “CONTROL”!!!
Stern: “Borders are one thing – property lines are another. BTW, 1967 is before most of those currently living there were born.”
Hmmmm, by 1967 the so-called West Bank was by that time in its 15th year of occupation/annexation by Jordan which grabbed it c.1952, yet in all that time no Muslims that I’ve read about (the ones who call themselves Palestinians even if they are Syrians etc.) said a frickin’ word about how it should be a homeland, or part of one. They didn’t even say that from 1948 thru the Jordanian grab year when it was a stateless piece of land apparently overseen by the UN. But then, statehood is all about Jew hatred.
Bob Tiernan
RS @ 174,
Well, I suppose it’s possible that Dave Terry is a “hasbara by counter-example” agent, sent to make Israel look good by making its opponents appear to be historically ignorant, mentally unstable and morally reprobate.
Or it could just be coincidence that he’s both anti-Israel and historically ignorant/mentally unstable/morally reprobate.
I really have no opinion on which of the two possibilities is the case.
Who are you accusing, and why?
It would seem Israeli agents as well as Glenn Beck’s Zionist operatives have infiltrated this thread.
Now, if only more libertarians infiltrated the LP, maybe in 20 or 30 years the LP could get someone elected to the House – that is if the U.S. government hasn’t collapsed under its own weight by then and is taken over by the Zionists or the Secret Muslims.
Further, returning to borders before most of those currently living there were born would be an injustice itself;
Borders are one thing – property lines are another. BTW, 1967 is before most of those currently living there were born. The average age pretty much anywhere is lower than 45.
Have you never heard of Southern Ontario and Quebec, Cuba, Germany, Japan, North Africa
Iraq?
Heard of all of them, been to a few.
When were any of those areas voluntarily given up by a nation that won them in war, not under any duress?
RS @ 156
“1. Remove ALL of the Settlements built in the Territories and the West Bank.”
This doesn’t address what you want to do with Israel proper, going by your logic about the Jews moving in post 1890 (or whatever date you are using).
” Fait Accompli”, OR if you will, the principle of “statute if limitations”. As a person of both Cherokee and Chickasaw heritage, I’d love to have the borders return to pre-1830 terms. (see;
Further, returning to borders before most of those currently living there were born would be an injustice itself; Plus uninforcible.
>”The US, nor any other nation besides Israel that I can think of, has ever voluntarily given anybody land back that it conquered in war.”
Have you never heard of Southern Ontario and Quebec, Cuba, Germany, Japan, North Africa
Iraq?
More about Jew Terrorism; READ and LEARN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cf9_1339114225
Jews Did 9/11 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://theinfounderground.com/smf/index.php?topic=5367.0
A @ 157; “The most dangerous kind of person is the person who does harm to others but who does not realize they are doing harm to others, and who even thinks that the harm they do to others is good.”
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
— C. S. Lewis
TK @ 144.
Spoken with the arrogance that only the ignorant can express. Perhaps, if you read anything on the subject, NOT written by Zionists
we might profit from it.
You MIGHT try;
1. “The Question of Palestine.” Edward Said
2. “Blaming The Victims”; Rashid Khalidi, ed. Said and Hitchens
3. “Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice.”
John Quigley
4. “The Arab-Israeli Dispute.” Don Peretz
5. “Bitter Harvest.”; Sami Hadawi
6. “Original Sins.”; Israeli author, Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi
7. “The Gun and the Olive Branch.”; David Hirst
8. “The Fateful Triangle.”; Noam Chomsky
9. “A Land of Two Peoples; ed. Mendes-Flohr.
10. “Anti Zionism”; ed. Teikener, Abed-Rabbo & Mezvinsky.
11. “Palestine, The Arabs and Israel.”; Henry Cattan,
12. “The Birth of Israel.”; Simha Flapan,
13. “Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict.”; Norman Finkelstein
14. “Righteous Victims.”; Benny Morris
15. “The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949”; Benny Morris,
16. “The Making of the Arab-Israel Conflict, 1947”; Ilan Pappe
17. “The Weight of 3000 Years.”; Israel Shahak
18. “Israel’s Sacred Terrorism.”; Livia Rokach,
Although it may be fashionable for you fringees to equate every act of terrorism with an actual war, they are not the same thing. The fact that “the Haganah joined Irgun and Lehi in an armed struggle against British rule. (when they weren’t shooting at each other)
Andy @ 165,
Exactly.
I’d expect “Israeli infiltration of the LP” to be something along the lines of an Israeli lobby or front organization identifying someone already in the LP, but pro-Israel and approachable, then asking that person to periodically report on what’s going on inside the party that might bear on their political concerns.
That wouldn’t surprise me, nor would I expect the Israelis to be the only ones doing it.
Thomas L. Knapp: “It’s not so much a matter of whether or not the LP is ‘important’ enough to rate this or that kind of attention from a foreign government. It’s a matter of there not being anything involved in infiltrating the LP that would require a Mossad skill set.”
The Libertarian Party would be easy to infiltrate. It would not take a highly skilled agent to pull it off (as in one who is trained in weapons or hand-to-hand combat or something like that).
a157: The most dangerous kind of person is the person who does harm to others but who does not realize they are doing harm to others, and who even thinks that the harm they do to others is good.
me: Yes, I’d say the Golden Rule is not optional. And yet I would say not a day goes by when most of us violate it in some form or another. It seems we have a “cruel” gene or something.
Government uses force, no matter what it does. But then the question becomes: Compared with what?
Rod Stern said: “In Root’s case the only two pieces of evidence you presented is that he was a long time Republican (and is one again) and that he is a zionist. Neither of those seems to make much of a case. Do you have more, or is that it?”
Wayne Root was brought into the Libertarian Party by Eric Dondero-Rittberg, an individual who has long been suspected of being a plant (in his case, an agent provocateur / saboteur). During his time in the Libertarian Party, Wayne Root ended up distancing himself from Eric Dondero-Rittberg, but this was just for show. I happen to know that Root buddied around with Dondero behind the scenes at the LP National Convention in 2010 in St. Louis. Dondero even kept his belongings in Wayne Root’s hotel room at the convention site. Root publicly distanced himself from Dondero not because of Dondero’s ideology, but rather because he knew that publicly associating with Dondero would be a political liability within the Libertarian Party.
Also, what about Root’s association with former (?) CIA agent and government prosecutor, Bob Barr? My sources told me that the plan for Barr and Root to team up was hatched before the LP National Convention in 2008. I suspect that this was a part of an on going operation to subvert the Libertarian Party, and that Barr and Root knew about it and participated willingly. What exactly did Root mean when he said that he wanted to “learn from the master” (referring to Bob Barr) from the stage at the LP National Convention in 2008? What exactly was it that Bob Barr thanked Shane Cory for from the convention stage?
Remember that Jim Duensing and family hosted that 9/11 Truth event at the LP National Convention site in 2008? One thing a lot of people may not remember is that Duensing had (has) a website called Libertarians for Justice, which questioned the official government story about 9/11, and that that website mysteriously got hacked during the LP National Convention in 2008. Who is it that hacked that website? Was it the same people who tried to prevent the Duensing’s from having the 9/11 Truth event at that same hotel as the LP National Convention? Why is it that none of the people in the LP who scoffed at 9/11 Truthers bothered to show up at the event to take part in the debate on 9/11 which I tried to set up? Why did anyone feel the need to try to shut the event down, even though it was just an exercise in free speech and the free exchange of ideas, and why did they continue to try to stop the event from happening even after the Duensing’s paid for a separate room for the 9/11 Truth event with their own money? Was it just a coincidence that the Libertarians for Justice site went down during the national convention (I’m not aware of the site having had any problems before or after the convention, and I remember talking to Jim Duensing about it and he said that the site got hacked)?
“It’s not like they’d be wandering around the hallways of the Watergate with silenced pistols waiting to abduct Carla Howell and interrogate her or something.”
LOL
I would not be surprised to learn that there are “Israeli agents” in the LP.
I would be surprised to learn that there were Mossad agents in the LP.
It’s not so much a matter of whether or not the LP is “important” enough to rate this or that kind of attention from a foreign government. It’s a matter of there not being anything involved in infiltrating the LP that would require a Mossad skill set. It’s not like they’d be wandering around the hallways of the Watergate with silenced pistols waiting to abduct Carla Howell and interrogate her or something.
“This is a totally NON-Libertarian position”
As I stipulated.
” and I’d call into question as to whether or not a person who espouses this view is actually a libertarian.”
I wouldn’t consider any one position by itself to be sufficient for that.
“This alone is not necessarily proof that anyone who espouses this view is an intentional saboteur, but if you can combine this with other pieces of evidence it certainly makes one wonder if an individual is an intentional saboteur.”
In Root’s case the only two pieces of evidence you presented is that he was a long time Republican (and is one again) and that he is a zionist. Neither of those seems to make much of a case. Do you have more, or is that it?
“It is already a documented fact that there have been (and likely are) Israeli Mossad agents operating within the USA. It is also a documented fact that there is an Israeli lobby which spends millions of dollars buying off American politicians. Is it really that much of a stretch to wonder if they send some agents into the Libertarian Party to subvert it?”
Not necessarily, although I don’t know why they would consider the LP to be worth their time and effort. Do you?
In any case, even if we suppose that there are Mossad agents in the LP, that doesn’t make zionism and former/future Republican affiliation sufficient to think that someone is a Mossad agent.
Rod Stern said: “But even among LP members there are some who do advocate tax subsides or military policy that is in favor of Israel. Granted this is not the LP position, but some individual LP members have those views.”
This is a totally NON-Libertarian position and I’d call into question as to whether or not a person who espouses this view is actually a libertarian.
“Enough to where it is hardly a proof that someone is an intentional saboteur if this is their view.”
This alone is not necessarily proof that anyone who espouses this view is an intentional saboteur, but if you can combine this with other pieces of evidence it certainly makes one wonder if an individual is an intentional saboteur.
It is already a documented fact that there have been (and likely are) Israeli Mossad agents operating within the USA. It is also a documented fact that there is an Israeli lobby which spends millions of dollars buying off American politicians. Is it really that much of a stretch to wonder if they send some agents into the Libertarian Party to subvert it?
“The vast majority of Libertarians support a non-interventionist foreign policy. Some of these Libertarians may offer Israel some kind of moral support, as in something like, “I wish them good luck,” but I do not call this “supporting” Israel in the same sense as one who lobbies for tax subsides or military policy that is in favor of Israel.”
Correct. I addressed that in my comment in a portion you did not quote.
But even among LP members there are some who do advocate tax subsides or military policy that is in favor of Israel. Granted this is not the LP position, but some individual LP members have those views. Enough to where it is hardly a proof that someone is an intentional saboteur if this is their view.
Robert Capozzi said: “We could ask government officials if they think that what they do is ‘thuggery,’ and my guess is they’d say they are not ‘thugs,’ but rather ‘public servants’ or somesuch”
The most dangerous kind of person is the person who does harm to others but who does not realize they are doing harm to others, and who even thinks that the harm they do to others is good.
“1. Remove ALL of the Settlements built in the Territories and the West Bank.”
This doesn’t address what you want to do with Israel proper, going by your logic about the Jews moving in post 1890 (or whatever date you are using).
“2. Return to the 1967 Borders”
Why 1967? Why not 1948 or 1915?
Even if Israel returned to 1967 borders, this would not address the other issues that were discussed. And anyone who supports Israel’s existence, even in pre-1967 borders, fits the most common definition of Zionist.
“and either return the property of those who lived there then OR pay restitution.”
Was there some large scale confiscation of individual property in 1967? Or was it just a change in government over that territory?
“Just like the U.S. did for the Japanese on the West Coast.”
The US, nor any other nation besides Israel that I can think of, has ever voluntarily given anybody land back that it conquered in war.
BTW:
Are you insisting on Muslim nations paying restitution to all the Jews that used to live in those countries and no longer do?
“Rod Stern // Apr 20, 2013 at 6:12 pm
‘I don’t think that that many Libertarians support Israel.’
I have met many that do. I would say most Libertarians support Israel’s right to exist, which fits one definition of Zionist. There are a fair number, although not necessarily a majority, of Libertarians that side with Israel against its neighbors. The LP platform, and probably most Libertarians, oppose US government aid to Israel, but that’s a separate question.”
The vast majority of Libertarians support a non-interventionist foreign policy. Some of these Libertarians may offer Israel some kind of moral support, as in something like, “I wish them good luck,” but I do not call this “supporting” Israel in the same sense as one who lobbies for tax subsides or military policy that is in favor of Israel.
>”But supposing all of it had been confiscated, > that would be the rule rather than the > exception throughout human history.
FINALLY! some HONESTY! But this is where we came in. We are not talking about the dark ages or the Fascists or Communists. We are talking about people who CLAIM to be upholding the highest standards.
Right. And directly contradiction your original spurious claim that “Zionists put Jews “above the rules that all other men are subject to,” which was all that was being challenged.
Who do those rules apply to, exactly? The Americans, Australians, Canadians, Brazilians, Argentinians, Mexicans, New Zealanders…?
Do they apply to all of the conquerors of the land that is now Israel all throughout history?
“By YOUR Logic, If all the Jews were anihilated it would be JUST another page in the history books!”
I don’t know whose logic that follows. Many people, including Jews quite a few times in history, have been conquered and subject to foreign rule or expelled from various parts of the world. But, yes, there have been times when tribes or ethnic groups were wiped out, so it is true that if this happened it would not be a historically unique occurrence.
“Robert Capozzi // Apr 19, 2013 at 9:10 pm
‘A 132: How does a gang of thugs initiating force and fraud have a ‘right’ to exist?’
me: Interesting question. My Inner Rothbard says that the gang itself DOES have a right to exist, they just don’t have a right to do their thuggery.”
The very nature of a coercive government IS thuggery.
“During April of 1948, prior to the end of the British Mandate” and BEFORE the Israeli declaration of independenc Zionist forces attacked thirteen Palestinian towns EIGHT of which were located in territory allocated by the mandate to the Palestinians.”
Arabs and Jews had attacked each other’s towns long before that. So what does this have to do with the preceding discussion?
“There were NO ATTACKS by ANY ARAB nation until after the May 15th withdrawal of British sovereignty (lest they start a war with the UK)”
No one said that there was. What’s your point here?
“Further no Arab forces ventured into the territory that had been awarded by the partition to the Jewish State. All military operations were contained within the Palestinian territory.”
Not very relevant. The Israelis offered to accept the partition borders; the Arabs made clear that they would not accept any Israeli state at all. The fact that they got stopped before reaching the tiny pieces of land granted by the partition to Israel does nothing to counter that.
“>”Other properties were honestly acquired > through commerce,”
WRONG! The Ottoman Land Code of 1858 required the registration in the name of individual owners of agricultural land, most of which had never previously been registered and which had formerly been treated according to traditional forms of land tenure, in the hill areas of Palestine generally masha’a, or communal usufruct. The new law meant that for the first time a peasant could be deprived not of title to his land, which he had rarely held before, but rather of the right to live on it, cultivate it and pass it on to his heirs, which had formerly been inalienable…Under the provisions of the 1858 law, communal rights of tenure were often ignored…Instead, members of the upper classes, adept at manipulating or circumventing the legal process, registered large areas of land as theirs…The fellahin [peasants] naturally considered the land to be theirs, and often discovered that they had ceased to be the legal owners only when the land was sold to Jewish settlers by an absentee landlord…Not only was the land being purchased; its Arab cultivators were being dispossessed and replaced by foreigners who had overt political objectives in Palestine.
Many of the Jews who leased the land from the
Jewish Land Fund (who purchased it from the Turks) were unaware that the land was already occupied until they showed up ready to move in to find what they considered “squatters” living and farming on “their” land. However, there is NO doubt that the Land Fund was aware of the swindle.”
Is your argument that NO land was honestly acquired through commerce? None of it at all? Unless you are making that argument, you are not arguing against the statement that “Other properties were honestly acquired through commerce.”
“In 1890, Palestine had about 532,000 people; roughly 81% were Muslims, 11% were Christians and 8% Jews;”
There are over 10 times as many people there now, and in 1890 many of the people who lived there were nomads who ranged over a territory that included, but extended far beyond, what is now Israel. In fact, many of the people who are now called Palestinians had no roots in what is now Israel before the 20th century; there was an Arab immigration into British Palestine as well.
“I don’t think that that many Libertarians support Israel.”
I have met many that do. I would say most Libertarians support Israel’s right to exist, which fits one definition of Zionist. There are a fair number, although not necessarily a majority, of Libertarians that side with Israel against its neighbors. The LP platform, and probably most Libertarians, oppose US government aid to Israel, but that’s a separate question.
“Speaking for myself, ”
Speaking for yourself is not the question here. The question was whether Root’s zionism is proof that he was an intentional saboteur. The fact is that many other LP members are former Republicans, many of whom return to that party, and many also support Israel. Thus, this is very weak evidence of being an intentional saboteur.
“I believe that Jews as people have a right to exist, just as I believe that all people have a right to exist, but I do not really believe that any coercive government has a right to exist.”
Most Libertarians are not anarchists, so how does a Libertarian believing that Israel has a right to exist indicate that this person is a saboteur sent to infiltrate the LP?
” Israel the government entity is a coercive state, and therefore it has no right to exist (watch somebody take this statement out of context:)), just as no other “gang of thugs” calling themselves a state/government has a “right” to exist, be it the governments of North Korea, China, the UK, France, or even the USA for that matter.”
Most Libertarians would say that all these governments have a right to exist, although some of them (or maybe even all of them) should have their present rulers overthrown. In the case of North Korea and perhaps China, many would be OK with doing so by force; a smaller number would be OK with doing so by force in the other countries you mentioned.
Thus, someone believing that Israel is among the nation states that should be allowed to exist is not exactly proof that this person is a saboteur.
Furthermore, even anarchists can support the concept of an ethnic homeland, so the question of anarchy is somewhat of a deflection here. The Book of Judges in the Bible describes a historical form of anarchic (non territorial monopoly) government in Israel, so there’s even a precedent in this case.
“How does a gang of thugs initiating force and fraud have a “right” to exist?”
Besides the point here, if you follow the question back to what was being discussed.
“What IS beyond laughable is that you would argue that we should turn the clocks back on civilization because we no long countenance such barbaric behavior because it discriminates against modern hoards and savage bestiality.”
Aside from the tortured sentence structure, you seem to think that someone here made such an argument, yet I saw no such argument being made.
There was no discussion of whether it is is or isn’t OK, or good, or moral; only of your bizarre claim that “Zionists put Jews “above the rules that all other men are subject to.”
In reality, it is anti-Zionists who want to make a special exception for the Jews, whereas migration of ethnic groups and conquest has been exceedingly common throughout history in all parts of the world.
Bringing up Hitler, as if he was the only one who ever engaged in such behavior, is also transparent.
“Yes, and isn’t it ludicrously ironic that they (Christian Zionists) are considered “friends of Israel”.”
Yes, it is.
“Correct, so THAT just makes them racists without even the veneer of “Judaism””
Why are they any more or less racist than any other ethnic group that claims a homeland?
Also, admitting that some Zionists don’t rely on the idea of God contradicts your earlier claim about the “one and only” definition of Zionism.
“Ever wondered why “Jewish” gets to be a ‘religion’ AND an ethnicity. Name one other single group in history with that privilege.”
Japanese, Indians/Hindus, Romans, ancient Egyptians, and most tribes throughout history that had their own religion. Most native/aboriginal ethnic groups in the world today.
wikipedia says:
After World War II, Britain found itself in fierce conflict with the Jewish community, as the Haganah joined Irgun and Lehi in an armed struggle against British rule. At the same time, hundreds of thousands of Jewish Holocaust survivors and refugees sought a new life far from their destroyed communities in Europe. The Yishuv attempted to bring these refugees to Palestine but many were turned away or rounded up and placed in detention camps in Atlit and Cyprus by the British. In 1947, the British government announced it would withdraw from Mandatory Palestine, stating it was unable to arrive at a solution acceptable to both Arabs and Jews.
DT@142,
I’m disappointed in you Terry. Why didn’t you crack open a fucking history book before making yourself look like an idiot?
Sorry, I intended to type @140!
@ 40;
I’m disappointed in you Knapp. Why didn’t you simply post a picture of yourself with thumbs in your ears and tongue extended? It would be as mature as what you wrote. :>(
@139 – I wonder if it will be like the “FEMA camp show” that he hyped only to say “we got nothin’ honey”
@138,
“In my imagination, there WAS no war between the Zionists and the British.”
There, fixed that for ya.
Only slightly off topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PODZaaMTwfg
Glen Beck claiming he has proof the federal government carried out the boston marathon bombing as a false flag opperation. He said that Obama has till monday to admit it or his show will reveal the evidence for his conspiracy theory!
PEACE
The spook in the dishwasher; @ 118: “and many Zionists are in fact atheist or agnostic.”
Correct, so THAT just makes them racists without even the veneer of “Judaism”
Ever wondered why “Jewish” gets to be a ‘religion’ AND an ethnicity. Name one other single group in history with that privilege.
> “Also, many Zionists are Christians who > support the existence of Israel due to their > interpretation of the Bible, which calls for > Jews to move to Israel so they can be nuked in > the Battle of Armaggedon and hasten the > return of Jesus.”
Yes, and isn’t it ludicrously ironic that they are considered “friends of Israel”.
> ” Given that tribes, nation states and > governments of all ethnicities and religions > have been conquering each other all over the > world throughout history, it’s beyond > laughable to say that Zionists put Jews “above > the rules that all other men are subject to.”
What IS beyond laughable is that you would argue that we should turn the clocks back on civilization because we no long countenance such barbaric behavior because it discriminates against modern hoards and savage bestiality.
How does one say, “If it was OK for Hitler, than it’s alright for us, in Hebrew? Too bad Pol Pot wasn’t a Jew!
> “Actually, Jews have lived in the land now > called Israel continuously throughout the > diaspora
Absolutely! There were a small number of Sephardic Jews who were thrown out of Spain at the same time the Muslims were. MOST of them migrated across north Africa to Egypt, Turkey, Palestine, et al at the same time the Muslims did.
Of the 235,000 Jews expelled from Spain, less
than 40,000 moved to Christian Europe. The rest settled in Islamic lands in north Africa and
the Middle East. There was, AT THAT TIME,
little of no conflict between Jew and Muslim.
In 1890, Palestine had about 532,000 people; roughly 81% were Muslims, 11% were Christians and 8% Jews;
Even in 1931, just prior to the European Exodus
there were over 1million inhabitants of Palestine
of which 72% were Muslim and 17% were Jews.
Clearly the idea that Palestine was a land without
people for a people without land was convenient lie!
>”Other properties were honestly acquired > through commerce,”
WRONG! The Ottoman Land Code of 1858 required the registration in the name of individual owners of agricultural land, most of which had never previously been registered and which had formerly been treated according to traditional forms of land tenure, in the hill areas of Palestine generally masha’a, or communal usufruct. The new law meant that for the first time a peasant could be deprived not of title to his land, which he had rarely held before, but rather of the right to live on it, cultivate it and pass it on to his heirs, which had formerly been inalienable…Under the provisions of the 1858 law, communal rights of tenure were often ignored…Instead, members of the upper classes, adept at manipulating or circumventing the legal process, registered large areas of land as theirs…The fellahin [peasants] naturally considered the land to be theirs, and often discovered that they had ceased to be the legal owners only when the land was sold to Jewish settlers by an absentee landlord…Not only was the land being purchased; its Arab cultivators were being dispossessed and replaced by foreigners who had overt political objectives in Palestine.
Many of the Jews who leased the land from the
Jewish Land Fund (who purchased it from the Turks) were unaware that the land was already occupied until they showed up ready to move in to find what they considered “squatters” living and farming on “their” land. However, there is NO doubt that the Land Fund was aware of the swindle.
> “while others yet were abandoned by > Palestinians who fled on their own accord > after Israel won a war of independence against > the British”
REALLY WRONG: There WAS no war between the Zionists and the British. In December 1947, the British announced that they would withdraw from Palestine by May 15, 1948. Palestinians in Jerusalem and Jaffa called a general strike against the partition.
During April of 1948, prior to the end of the British Mandate” and BEFORE the Israeli declaration of independenc Zionist forces attacked thirteen Palestinian towns EIGHT of which were located in territory allocated by the mandate to the Palestinians.
>” and fought off an Arab invasion from all > sides immediately afterwards.
There were NO ATTACKS by ANY ARAB nation until after the May 15th withdrawal of British sovereignty (lest they start a war with the UK) Further no Arab forces ventured into the territory that had been awarded by the partition to the Jewish State. All military operations were contained within the Palestinian territory.
>”But supposing all of it had been confiscated, > that would be the rule rather than the > exception throughout human history.
FINALLY! some HONESTY! But this is where we came in. We are not talking about the dark ages or the Fascists or Communists. We are talking about people who CLAIM to be upholding the highest standards.
By YOUR Logic, If all the Jews were anihilated it would be JUST another page in the history books!
>” What do you propose to do with it now? > Confiscate it from the Jews who have lived
> on it, in some cases for several generations?
1. Remove ALL of the Settlements built in the Territories and the West Bank.
2. Return to the 1967 Borders and either return the property of those who lived there then OR pay restitution. Just like the U.S. did for the Japanese on the West Coast.
THAT’S A START
A 132: How does a gang of thugs initiating force and fraud have a “right” to exist?
me: Interesting question. My Inner Rothbard says that the gang itself DOES have a right to exist, they just don’t have a right to do their thuggery. Where this gets tricky, though, is that the jurisprudential assumption underlying deontological L approach recognizes the notion of mens rea as valid. We could ask government officials if they think that what they do is “thuggery,” and my guess is they’d say they are not “thugs,” but rather “public servants” or somesuch.
If they don’t believe they are doing harm, the test then becomes can they be held responsible for making (serial) mistakes, again applying classic Rothbardian thinking. Their behavior is almost always backed by law, so again, it appears the “thugs” have an out.
A better case might be to say that they are behaving in an unconscious manner, perhaps in a criminally insane way.
Or am I missing something?
“Cody Quirk // Apr 18, 2013 at 9:52 pm
Andy- unlike Barr, Beck has a moral and ideological backbone.”
Does he? I’m not so sure as to whether this is a true statement or not.
The Ghost in the Machine said: “Also, many Zionists are Christians who support the existence of Israel due to their interpretation of the Bible, which calls for Jews to move to Israel so they can be nuked in the Battle of Armaggedon and hasten the return of Jesus.”
Yes, this is true. There are Christian Zionists out there that are also crazy and irrational.
“Thane Eichenauer // Apr 19, 2013 at 4:30 am
@125
I rather think that neither Glenn Jacobs (aka Kane) nor Penn Jillette nor Glenn Beck are likely to run for political office in the next 6 years. Those folks who are popular and productive in their chosen profession are unlikely to pursue politics.”
I asked Glenn Jacobs (aka-Kane) if he was interested in running for office when I met him in person and he said that while he would not rule it out, he said that leaned toward not running. He said that he does not like politicians so he is not wild about the idea of becoming one. I hope he changes his mind because Glenn Jacobs would make an excellent candidate. Don’t be fooled by his image, the guy is very articulate and is a really solid Libertarian who has done his homework on the issues. He’s also got fame, money (not enough to pour millions out of his own pocket into a campaign, but he’s well off), and charisma. He could be the Libertarian Party’s Jesse Ventura (in that he’s a wrestler, and would actually stand a good chance of getting elected to something).
“Kevin Knedler // Apr 19, 2013 at 6:37 am
Evan. SEND the letter to Bill Maher. Although he went off on Libertarians just last week on his show.”
Bill Maher is not any kind of libertarian. Fortunately he is no longer identifying himself as being one, but the fact that he called himself a libertarian years ago has actually caused some damage to the Libertarian Party and movement, because some people did not get the “memo” that Bill Maher is not and never really has been a libertarian, and having some people mistakenly thinking that Bill Maher is a libertarian has added to the misconceptions about what a libertarian is, and has turned some people off to the party / movement.
Rod Stern said: “You’d have to come up with more convincing proof that Root was a saboteur than the two facts that he came from and returned to the Republican party (Like many LP members) and supports Israel (also like many LP members).”
I don’t think that that many Libertarians support Israel.
Speaking for myself, I believe that Jews as people have a right to exist, just as I believe that all people have a right to exist, but I do not really believe that any coercive government has a right to exist. Israel the government entity is a coercive state, and therefore it has no right to exist (watch somebody take this statement out of context:)), just as no other “gang of thugs” calling themselves a state/government has a “right” to exist, be it the governments of North Korea, China, the UK, France, or even the USA for that matter.
How does a gang of thugs initiating force and fraud have a “right” to exist?
My advice to the people of Israel is to seek peace, but beyond this, I don’t really care about their squabbles with their Muslim neighbors. It is a shame to hear about people dying needlessly, but I think that it is a shame to hear about people dying in an earthquake or a hurricane.
Glenn Beck is a dangerous fraud. If a citizen’s introduction to Libertarian principles is through this weepy, fearmongering clown of a media whore, then that citizen has received a very poor introduction to Libertarian principles.
I do not agree that a big voice is always beneficial to an organization. “Famous” does not equal “respected.” Good principles don’t need Spongebob Squarepants to make them appealing. And Beck is loaded down with wackadoodle baggage and a lengthy consistent history of hawking rightwing dogma, and has flat-out stated that he doesn’t care about government and is only selling entertainment. I believe only a fool would trust him as a colleague or spokesman.
“I could give a flying crap about the political process,” he says, “We’re an entertainment company.” http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0426/entertainment-fox-news-simon-schuster-glenn-beck-inc.html
TK, rock n roll sex and drugs. These people I describe like edgy.
@127,
“The fairly quiet, unorganized, not-especially-political, suburban R voter, often swing voter, are also vaguely and moderately L-ish in attitude. Approach them with ‘2, 4, 6, 8, organize to smash the State,’ and they are sure remain default R voters. Come at them from an edgy place, with a credible program, and these folks can be had.”
What makes you think that “edgy” of any sort will be attractive to the demographic you’re describing?
Evan. SEND the letter to Bill Maher. Although he went off on Libertarians just last week on his show.
119 dt: one simply doesn’t see social tolerance much in the GOP.
me: Right. Agreed. Except. The fairly quiet, unorganized, not-especially-political, suburban R voter, often swing voter, are also vaguely and moderately L-ish in attitude. Approach them with “2, 4, 6, 8, organize to smash the State,” and they are sure remain default R voters. Come at them from an edgy place, with a credible program, and these folks can be had.
@125
I rather think that neither Glenn Jacobs (aka Kane) nor Penn Jillette nor Glenn Beck are likely to run for political office in the next 6 years. Those folks who are popular and productive in their chosen profession are unlikely to pursue politics.
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Writer-Bio-Page.htm?EditNo=186
Jacobs/Jillette 2016! 😀
(That’s Glenn and Penn, folks!)
McMahon @35:
“First, I would like for you to understand that the ire and outrage you’ve received in the past couple months from Libertarians comes not from some high-minded purity test or doubt in your sincerity. It swelled from the lack of any acknowledgment of how you have previously discussed and treated our Party’s philosophy, leadership, candidates and our dedicated activists.”
Beck @109:
”
“This guy wrote, and said if Glenn Beck wants to join our club — meaning Libertarianism — then he has to come and atone for his past transgressions, and I thought, ‘Is that you grand inquisitor?’ What is this, the Spanish Inquisition? You’re more Fascist than some of the Fascists that I’ve seen.”
And:
” I mean, who [will the Democrats] run next? Mao? Who do we run next on the Democrat Party? Che? Oh, geez, Chris Christie or Che?
“If that’s the only choice, I’m going to go with the Chris Christie again,” Beck said. “What do you say, right now, you put your sanctimonious, holier-than-thou, ‘See? I was right since I was two!’ … and when somebody wakes up you say, ‘Brother, we’ve been waiting for you.’”
“Rand Paul is your best shot,” Beck added. “Rand Paul could win!””
SRL: Still hopeful?
Evan @ 35:
I accept your explanation, and hope you are successful. Though admittedly I remain skeptical.
And maybe I should not jump to conclusions or run my mouth so quickly. But then I wouldn’t get any exercise.
PEACE
Evan @35: See KL @109
It seems to be a response to your letter, even if it was written before your letter.
Barfed in the ol’ mouth a bit.
There are just as many Democrats who are Democrats primarily due to the bad aspects of the Republican Party on which they agree with libertarians (theocracy, social repression, warmongering, excesses of the war on terror, police-prison-industrial complex, corporate-government collusion).
Many of these Democrats know or care little about economic issues, could be persuadable on economic issues if they are explained correctly, or actually even hold libertarian economic views, but consider them to be less important than social, civil liberties and foreign policy issues.
It’s true that these Democrats aren’t as well organized as the RLC, and haven’t elected as many politicians that profess or vote their views, but they do exist. I’ve met many of them myself.
RC @ 113: “The L-ish strain of Rs tend to be tolerant on social issues.”
The point I was making was that outside of the RLC and a certain percentage of Ron Paul Republicans, one simply doesn’t see social tolerance much in the GOP. Between neo-cons and evangelicals and other social conservatives there AREN’T a lot of libertarian oriented Republicans
Just as I said: a belief; “That a small group of human beings have been chosen by God as being above the rules that all other men are subject to.
Nothing in the idea that Jews should have a homeland implies a belief in God, and many Zionists are in fact atheist or agnostic.
Also, many Zionists are Christians who support the existence of Israel due to their interpretation of the Bible, which calls for Jews to move to Israel so they can be nuked in the Battle of Armaggedon and hasten the return of Jesus.
Given that tribes, nation states and governments of all ethnicities and religions have been conquering each other all over the world throughout history, it’s beyond laughable to say that Zionists put Jews “above the rules that all other men are subject to.” Actually, it is anti-Zionists who seek an exception for the Jews, claiming that it is somehow uniquely immoral for Jews to do what all other tribes and nation-states throughout all of human history have always done.
That this group is, for no apparent reason, entitled to confiscate the land and homes of thousands of ‘non-members that theyand their families have been occupying for over 1000 years.
Actually, Jews have lived in the land now called Israel continuously throughout the diaspora. Prior to the large scale immigration of diaspora Jews to what became Israel, much of the land they ended up living on was uninhabited, or sporadically inhabited by nomads. Other properties were honestly acquired through commerce, while others yet were abandoned by Palestinians who fled on their own accord after Israel won a war of independence against the British and fought off an Arab invasion from all sides immediately afterwards.
All sorts of other groups moved in and out of that piece of land in the last thousand years, some peacefully and quite a few not so peacefully.
It’s likely that some land was confiscated, although I think you vastly exaggerate the extent to which this happened. But supposing all of it had been confiscated, that would be the rule rather than the exception throughout human history.
What do you propose to do with it now? Confiscate it from the Jews who have lived on it, in some cases for several generations?
@96
“Glenn is too socially-conservative for the LP.”
If Glenn Beck is willing to share the label of libertarian with Penn Jillette and to interview him in person then I find it hard to agree with the above quote.
Penn Jillette often talks about Glenn Beck on his podcast show and seems to find him to be a very pleasant chap.
http://packedhead.net/2013/penns-sunday-school-who-is-more-libertarian-glenn-beck-or-a-colossal-squid/
If Glenn Beck and Penn Jillette both agree that they are both libertarians then I sure can. I’ll reserve judgement on Glenn Becks future actions but given how often he tells people to “Look it up yourself.” I just don’t see much need to worry. If people still think a colossal squid is more libertarian than Glenn Beck is I think that Beck will still sleep soundly and do a good job on the radio and the video screen the next day.
KL: Glenn thinks some libertarians are fascist
His mistake is sputtering “fascist” to mean “ideologically vindictive”.
KL, let he who eschews hyperbole cast the first stone at the hyperbolic.
RS @ 104; “Incorrect. Please consult a dictionary, or any of a number of references as to the definition of zionism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism
“Zionism (Hebrew: ???????, Tsiyonut) is a form of nationalism of Jews and Jewish culture that supports a Jewish nation state in the territory “DEFINED” as the Land of Israel” (Eretz Ysrael)
Just as I said: a belief; “That a small group of human beings have been chosen by God as being above the rules that all other men are subject to.
That this group is, for no apparent reason, entitled to confiscate the land and homes of thousands of ‘non-members that theyand their families have been occupying for over 1000 years.
@113 see http://mises.org/daily/2099 Rothbard’s “Left and Right”: Forty Years Later
by Roderick T. Long
42 DT: If you were gay, a recreational drug user or a woman who needs an abortion, you would probably see it much differently.
me: The L-ish strain of Rs tend to be tolerant on social issues. Even when these social issues come up, my sense is virtually all Ds take an L-ish sounding position, but still have a reflexive desire for government to DO SOMETHING as a default position, as an overarching attitude. Ds generally tend to lack a general skepticism of government power in most walks of life. They may carve out a few areas for non-interference, but even there, they like government to, for ex., subsidize abortions.
” Beck has a moral and ideological backbone.”
Optical illusion. That’s actually just his appendix.
Andy- unlike Barr, Beck has a moral and ideological backbone.
As I understand it, the feeling is mutual.
Glenn thinks some libertarians are fascist 🙂
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/22/why-is-libertarian-glenn-beck-using-nazis-fascist-to-describe-some-other-libertarians/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPFfxJVDdtI
“>”If not: what definition of Zionist are you using?”
There is only one definition; One who believes in “Jewish Exceptionalism” ie; That a small group of human beings have been chosen by God as being above the rules that all other men are subject to.”
Incorrect. Please consult a dictionary, or any of a number of references as to the definition of zionism.
”
“Cody Quirk // Apr 18, 2013 at 8:23 pm
Not going to happen, period.
Glenn is too socially-conservative for the LP.”
If Bob Barr and come in a do what he did than just about anyone can do it.”
This time Andy is correct.
Roger Stone is another recent example.
@97 Please point to where I claimed to be active in the LP, any state party, any other party, or to anything I have said that relies on specific knowledge or expertise that would make it matter who I am.
I’m here to discuss ideas, not personalities. If there is anything I said that would not be equally true or false if someone else said it, please explain what and why.
RS @89 “If so: Is this proof that he was sent in as a saboteur?”
NO, but it does prove that he was a square peg in a round hole.
>”If not: what definition of Zionist are you using?”
There is only one definition; One who believes in “Jewish Exceptionalism” ie; That a small group of human beings have been chosen by God as being above the rules that all other men are subject to.
That this group is, for no apparent reason, entitled to confiscate the land and homes of thousands of ‘non-members that theyand their families have been occupying for over 1000 years.
Another group of Europeans had a similar idea idea some 400 years ago and virtually exterminated the aboriginal population of North America.
“The fact that the a police department has a file on the Libertarian Party shows that we have a corrupt government that is rapidly descending into being a police state.”
It’s not exactly news that the government has files on, and agents in, all sorts of groups, and has for many decades. Is this supposed to be a revelation?
“most of the people in the party / movement who I suspect of being plants avoid the topic.”
Maybe you suspect the wrong people? 🙂
@93 There’s a whole (mostly Randian) wing of the libertarian movement and party that makes Root’s Zionism seem somewhat tame. Also, you may want to qualify the term Zionist with something like radical or extreme, since “Zionist” by itself just means someone who thinks Israel should be allowed to exist, period.
You’d have to come up with more convincing proof that Root was a saboteur than the two facts that he came from and returned to the Republican party (Like many LP members) and supports Israel (also like many LP members).
While it’s certainly plausible that he could have been a saboteur, it’s also completely plausible that he was someone who found the Republican Party to be too moderate on economic issues and too extreme on social issues, left in frustration to join the LP, then left the LP due to frustration with radical Libertarians as well as due to the fact that he thinks that Obama and the Democrats are so horrible that he can put up with the Republicans, no matter how much he dislikes their leadership.
Another possible explanation was that he believes he has more opportunity to actually win a major office such as US Senate as a Republican. He may be delusional about that, but it doesn’t mean he does not believe that.
Yet another explanation I’ve heard was that he needed more money due to his businesses not doing well and an expensive lifestyle, and got paid off to go back to the Republicans by a wealthy GOP supporter in Nevada.
I don’t know which of these explanations is true.
Maybe some combination. Maybe something else completely.
But what difference does it make? The result is the same in any case. If you focus on things that we actually know, rather than things we don’t (and unless you produce much more convincing proof, can’t) know, do you lose anything? It seems to me that focusing on these suspicions only misdirects your energies.
“Cody Quirk // Apr 18, 2013 at 8:23 pm
Not going to happen, period.
Glenn is too socially-conservative for the LP.”
If Bob Barr and come in a do what he did than just about anyone can do it.
While we are on the subject of paranoia, I’ve never heard of Rod Stern, and I’ve been in the party / movement for almost 17 years, and I know and know of a lot of people in the party / movement around the country. Which state party are you a member of Rod Stern, and how long have you been in the party?
I hate to sound like I’m insinuating anything by asking this, but I’m just asking because I’ve never heard of you.
Not going to happen, period.
Glenn is too socially-conservative for the LP.
Ron Stern said: “If I was a plant, I would want LP members to spend as much of their time looking for plants and talking about who all may be a plant as possible.”
That’s funny, because most of the people in the party / movement who I suspect of being plants avoid the topic.
“Rod Stern // Apr 18, 2013 at 8:17 pm
@90 Of course police departments keep files on potentially dissident groups. ”
The fact that the a police department has a file on the Libertarian Party shows that we have a corrupt government that is rapidly descending into being a police state.
Rod Stern: “You mean he supports the existence of Israel, rather than having it taken over by hostile Arab regimes…just like many libertarians and Libertarians?
If so: Is this proof that he was sent in as a saboteur?
If not: what definition of Zionist are you using?”
I mean that he actively supported the government of Israel, and that he supported, and donated money to candidates who supported a pro-Israel foreign policy (mostly Republicans, with the only exception that I’m aware of being that Root donated money to Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman).
I remember an article that was written by Root and was posted here a while ago where if you replaced the words “Jews” and “Jewish people” with whites and white people, that the article could have been written by David Duke. Maybe I will go back through the archives here and find the article and then re-post it replacing the words “Jews” and “Jewish people” with whites and white people. I bet if somebody did that and reposted the article somewhere and changed the name of the author that the author of the article would get labeled as racist. The same article with the words “whites” and “white people” replaced with “Jews” and “Jewish people” would probably be a hit on Stormfront or other white nationalist/racist sites.
I know that there are other people here who read the article and posted on the commented thread for it here. I didn’t mention it at the time, but I remember thinking that if somebody replaced the words “Jews” and “Jewish people” with whites and white people that they article would get labeled as racist.
@90 Of course police departments keep files on potentially dissident groups.
Again, your comment on this matter does not help us move policy in a pro-liberty direction in any way. Instead, it deflects our attention into a fruitless search for “plants” (as you yourself admitted they can be anyone and act like anything), make us look paranoid (crazy) even in those cases where we may be correct, and drives people away.
If I was a plant, I would want LP members to spend as much of their time looking for plants and talking about who all may be a plant as possible. I would know they would never find all the plants, even if they somehow stumbled on some; that they would make themselves look crazy to outsiders and casual libertarians (even if they aren’t); that they would tie themselves in knots looking for plants instead of doing anything useful to advance their cause; that at least some of the time they would cast the beam of suspicion at the wrong people and drive them out, as well as others who would not want to exist in an environment of mutual distrust; etc.
Fostering more such suspicion would aid my agenda as a plant. Which is not to say you are a plant, which of course you couldn’t be, since you told us you aren’t 🙂
“I also think that if more Libertarians/libertarians raised their level of skepticism, that more plants would be “outed” and run out of the party / movement.”
More likely, everyone would suspect everyone else and non-plants would leave due to the toxic atmosphere. Actual plants would remain since that is what they are paid, blackmailed or brainwashed to do.
“As I read this it looks exactly like a denunciation or an accusatory statement.”
In case I was unclear, the point was that libertarians can disapprove of any lifestyle or practice as long as they don’t send the agents of the state after it, and that some libertarians may be statist on any given issue, including but in no way limited to abortion, while remaining overall libertarian due to being libertarian on the vast majority of issues.
And, tracing this back to where abortion entered the argument, the fact that some libertarians are in favor of government intervention into abortion doesn’t in any way negate Gene Berkman’s comment that led to that response.
The article below is from 2002. The Denver Police Department got caught keeping files on various groups, including the Libertarian Party.
Denver Spy Files Target Libertarian Party
http://www.freecolorado.com/2002/09/spyfiles.html
How many other police departments out there have files on the Libertarian Party? How many other government agencies have files on the Libertarian Party?
” Wayne Root was a long time a Republican”
Like many Libertarians. Is this proof that he was sent in as a saboteur?
“and had a history of being a Zionist.”
You mean he supports the existence of Israel, rather than having it taken over by hostile Arab regimes…just like many libertarians and Libertarians?
If so: Is this proof that he was sent in as a saboteur?
If not: what definition of Zionist are you using?
@44, RS wrote; “Who said every libertarian MUST be pro-choice (or for that matter that every libertarian must morally approve of gay sex or what is currently illegal drug use)?”
As I read this it looks exactly like a denunciation or an accusatory statement. If I was mistaken, please accept my apology
I also think that if more Libertarians/libertarians raised their level of skepticism, that more plants would be “outed” and run out of the party / movement.
Rod Stern said: “Again, so what? It’s paranoia unless you have specific proof, and in none of the cases you have pointed to have you posted any such thing…only pointless speculation. Furthermore, regardless of whether any of the cases you suspect are actual instances of infiltration/sabotage, the result is the same. So I stand by my view that the speculation is a waste of time.”
I disagree. I think that the majority of people in the Libertarian Party and movement are good, sincere people. I just suspect that some of them have been and are being mislead by plants. I don’t think that this would happen as often if more Libertarians/libertarians were aware of this the real possibility of plants screwing up the party/movement. If more Libertarians had been more skeptical I don’t think that Barr / Root would have ever made it to the LNC, and neither would have made it to the Presidential ticket. There are too many Libertarians/libertarians who are naive.
Thane Eichenauer said: “I rather think that 99% of the benefit of having Glenn Beck being a libertarian (whether lower case, upper case or in air quotes) is his media company covering news from a libertarian viewpoint.”
Is Glenn Beck really covering the news from a libertarian perspective, or is he covering enough of it from a libertarian perspective to fool a lot of people, while ultimately leading people to the wrong solutions?
I saw some recent clips of Glenn Beck where he labeled anyone who does not agree with his version of “libertarian” as some kind of extremist kook/wacko, and I saw another clip where he attacked Alex Jones and called him a “fascist” (an absurd claim to make even if one does not like Alex Jones), and he labeled people who question official government stories where he does not agree with what they say as a bunch of kooks / wackos.
Given these facts, and given Glenn Becks past actions (such as endorsing Rick Santorum when he could have endorsed Ron Paul), I don’t still do not trust the guy.
Sure, it would be great if Glenn Beck was really a sincere libertarian, but I suspect that he may be a Judas Goat who is (mis)leading libertarians to slaughter.
“It is only paranoia if it is not true, or if it is a baseless accusation. It is already documented that the government has spied on libertarian groups, and I read an article not too long ago from 2002 about the Denver Police Department keeping files on the Libertarian Party. I will look for the link and post it here. How many other police departments out there have files on the Libertarian Party.”
Again, so what? It’s paranoia unless you have specific proof, and in none of the cases you have pointed to have you posted any such thing…only pointless speculation. Furthermore, regardless of whether any of the cases you suspect are actual instances of infiltration/sabotage, the result is the same. So I stand by my view that the speculation is a waste of time.
@80 If Barr could run as a Libertarian, why not Beck?
“I rather think that 99% of the benefit of having Glenn Beck being a libertarian (whether lower case, upper case or in air quotes) is his media company covering news from a libertarian viewpoint.”
If they actually cover the news from a libertarian viewpoint, rather than distorting what that viewpoint is, yes.
“76 Rod Stern // Apr 18, 2013 at 7:38 pm
Skepticism is fine, but paranoia is usually a waste of time. ”
It is only paranoia if it is not true, or if it is a baseless accusation. It is already documented that the government has spied on libertarian groups, and I read an article not too long ago from 2002 about the Denver Police Department keeping files on the Libertarian Party. I will look for the link and post it here. How many other police departments out there have files on the Libertarian Party.
I’m actually wondering right now if Rod Stern is a fake name.:)
” We do know that Barr was (is) a long time Republican, a former government prosecutor, and a former (?) CIA agent. Wayne Root was a long time a Republican and had a history of being a Zionist.”
None of which proves anything. And none of which changes the fact that regardless of whether your suspicion is correct or not results were the same..
I don’t think there is anything wrong with being a Beck skeptic. I rather think that Glenn Beck isn’t going to tolerate nor consider being nominated for any internal or internal party position (ever). I don’t think he will take any pledge that will allow other people to badger him to take a position he doesn’t already hold.
I rather think that 99% of the benefit of having Glenn Beck being a libertarian (whether lower case, upper case or in air quotes) is his media company covering news from a libertarian viewpoint. In my opinion that is something all advocates of freedom and responsibility should tolerate (and even encourage).
Um what?
“RS@44
Thanks guys; You just proved my point with your visceral, knee-jerk denunciation of aspects of liberty that fail to meet YOUR litmus test.”
Wrong! I said exactly the opposite. Re-read it again.
“I NEVER said that Libertarians MUST morally approve of ANY particular life style. but every Libertarian must be tolerant of those who do.”
My point exactly. So what exactly did I say that you disagree with it or leads you to the amazingly bizarre mischaracterization of my statements which you post @77?
“74 Rod Stern // Apr 18, 2013 at 7:33 pm
@73 My point exactly. Regardless of whether they acted on anyone’s orders or not the results were the same.”
Maybe, maybe not. We do know that Barr was (is) a long time Republican, a former government prosecutor, and a former (?) CIA agent. Wayne Root was a long time a Republican and had a history of being a Zionist.
KL@43 & RS@44
Thanks guys; You just proved my point with your visceral, knee-jerk denunciation of aspects of liberty that fail to meet YOUR litmus test.
I find it doubly ironic, that Ron even — USES the term “pro-CHOICE” in his tirade. If we Libertarians AREN”T in favor of individual “choice” we are not in favor of freedom.
I NEVER said that Libertarians MUST morally approve of ANY particular life style. but every Libertarian must be tolerant of those who do.
Skepticism is fine, but paranoia is usually a waste of time. Drawing the line and not giving it too much of your time is necessary if you want to appear and/or remain sane.
Rod Stern said: “If you want to go down the path of suspicion there is no end to it, but what does it accomplish?”
I think that it is better to keep an eye toward skepticism than to blindly assume that everyone who calls themselves a libertarian is really a libertarian, or has good intentions.
@73 My point exactly. Regardless of whether they acted on anyone’s orders or not the results were the same.
“Rod Stern // Apr 18, 2013 at 7:18 pm
‘They went as far as they could in the LP and then went back to their true colors. Mission accomplished (from their perspectives).’
This appears to be argument by assertion. While many of us may suspect how sincere Barr and Root ever were, I know of no non-circumstantial evidence that either or both were ever on a ‘mission’ of any sort.”
I don’t know for a fact if either Barr or Root were working for any organization to subvert the LP, but I’d say that at the very least, they were on a mission to promote themselves, and neither really cared much about the Libertarian Party or movement.
“Andy said: “And aside from their brand name partisan loyalties, all of these individuals have continued to perpetuate ideological confusion between conservatism and libertarianism. Glenn Beck promises to do more of the same.” ”
I said it first (at least here). But Andy is welcome to it, as is anyone else.
“Another who does this is Eric Dondero-Rittberg”
That guy is a bad joke. Does anyone take his half cocked rants seriously?
Andy said: “And aside from their brand name partisan loyalties, all of these individuals have continued to perpetuate ideological confusion between conservatism and libertarianism. Glenn Beck promises to do more of the same.”
Yes, causing brand/ideological confusion is likely a part of the operation to sabotage the Libertarian Party / movement.
Another who does this is Eric Dondero-Rittberg, whose recent activity has been running a blocking campaign in Arizona to prevent people from signing a petition to recall Republican Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Agent provocateur / saboteur Dondero-Rittberg was going around telling people that Libertarians support drug warrior and police state enforcer, Joe Arpaio, and that Libertarians support his blocking campaign. (Note that petition blocking is a tactic where opponents of a petition drive will send people out in the field to harass petition signature gatherers by shouting and otherwise interfering with their signature gathering, and they try to get them kicked out of locations by location managers, security guards, or the police. They also try to intimidate the public into not signing petitions, and they frequently shout out lies such as, “If you sign the petition your identity will be stolen!” and things of that nature. Blocking is a dirty and destructive tactic in my opinion.) Amazingly, the Libertarian Party employees Eric Dondero-Rittberg, in spite of him frequently misrepresenting the party, and lying about people who are actually Libertarians, and in spite of the fact that the Libertarian Party can get on the ballot without his “services” since there are other petitioners whom could be hired instead.
” They went as far as they could in the LP and then went back to their true colors. Mission accomplished (from their perspectives).”
This appears to be argument by assertion. While many of us may suspect how sincere Barr and Root ever were, I know of no non-circumstantial evidence that either or both were ever on a “mission” of any sort.
“Krzysztof Lesiak // Apr 18, 2013 at 6:54 pm
Don’t try inviting him so he can co-up the party like WAR and Barr tried to do.”
Barr and Root didn’t just “try” to co-opt the Libertarian Party, they DID co-opt the Libertarian Party. I’d call both of them getting on the LNC and getting the Presidential and Vice Presidential nomination to be signs of successful infiltration, not to mention the role that Root played in messing up the LP of Nevada.
“or however the candidate he endorses is. ”
Should read, “or whoever the candidate he endorses is.”
“Dennis // Apr 18, 2013 at 6:48 pm
I’ve got an idea! In 2016, Glenn Beck can run for president with the LP!”
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I FEAR! Either thins or that Glenn Beck will endorse some “mainstream” candidate who will come in and co-opt the Libertarian Party.
A lot of Libertarians – including a lot who are in fact sincere, hardcore Libertarians – are so enamored with fame and money and big promises that I bet that they’d vote for Glenn Beck or somebody who Glenn Beck endorses for the nomination, even if there are very real questions surrounding Glenn Beck or however the candidate he endorses is.
I will not vote for Glenn Beck for anything, and if he wants to have any chance of winning me over as someone who really believes that he’s a real libertarian activist, he’s got a lot to for which to atone.
Remember, this is a guy who was cheer leading the War on Terror and the police state measures taken in the name of the War on Terror. He never endorsed Ron Paul for President. He supported Rick Santorum for President at one time. He’s attacked Alex Jones (even though he’s borrowed material from him) and even went so far as calling Alex Jones a “fascist” (which is a completely ridiculous statement, even if one does not like Alex Jones for some reason, he’s certainly NOT a fascist, and if anything, the Glenn Beck is closer to being a fascist than Alex Jones, and certainly candidates who Glenn Beck has supported like George W. Bush and Rick Santorum are more accurately fascist), and he regularly attacks people who question official government stories on a variety of issues. Glenn Beck has also attacked radical/hardcore libertarians and referred to them (us) as “kooks” (and Glenn Beck’s definition of a hardcore or radical libertarian is more moderate than how this would be defined in the Libertarian Party).
I can see why some people think that it is nice that Glenn Beck is starting to sound more libertarian, but I’m just pointing out that there are still good reasons to not trust the guy.
Even McMahon:
“I’m also thinking about sending a very similar letter to Bill Maher.”
You mean this guy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9PezT3n4To
“I’ve got an idea! In 2016, Glenn Beck can run for president with the LP!
He can chose a completely polarizing and indefensibly racist running-mate, ”
You mean someone like former Lester Maddox speechwriter Neal Boortz?
I wouldn’t mind the pro-life part.
But I want to reiterate that Beck is not to be trusted. Don’t try inviting him so he can co-up the party like WAR and Barr tried to do.
“Rod Stern // Apr 18, 2013 at 6:46 pm
@57 And how does this affect anything?”
It’s part of the reason why the Libertarian Party has not been more successful. I think that some people in the party are naive. Look at Barr / Root. I was skeptical of both of them from the beginning, yet there were enough people in the party who supported them (a lot of whom were well meaning Libertarians) that both of them were able to get on the LNC and to capture the Presidential and Vice Presidential nomination. I was not surprised when they both left the party and endorsed mainstream Republicans. They went as far as they could in the LP and then went back to their true colors. Mission accomplished (from their perspectives).
I’d say 60-65% of LP members are pro-abortion
I’d say very few LP members are pro-abortion. Most LP members are pro-choice, which is not even close to being the same thing. Pro-abortion means viewing abortion as a positive thing that should be encouraged, not just allowed. Most pro-choice people are not pro-abortion, and that includes pro-choice libertarians.
A minority of LP members are pro-choice as well as “pro-life,” that is they oppose abortion but don’t believe the government should be involved. An even smaller minority of LP members are anti-abortion big government extremists, that is people who believe their anti-abortion views should be enforced by the state as soon as possible.
“However, in the overall libertarian movement I want to say that close to an even split exists.”
I wouldn’t. Most of the movement is pro-choice, other than the “paleo” winglet.
@ 58,
Adam Kokesh is pro-life?!?!
That is unexpected….
0_O
I’ve got an idea! In 2016, Glenn Beck can run for president with the LP!
He can chose a completely polarizing and indefensibly racist running-mate, lose their ballot access in most states, rewrite their platform to be pro-life, and make sure the convention is contested with another equally polarizing figure to neutralize both wings of the party—–oh wait, I just described what happened when the Reform Party invited Patrick Buchanan in 2000—Ooooooops.
@57 And how does this affect anything?
If it is proven that some people are plants, or that none are, does anything change? As you yourself said, plants could appear to be any type of libertarian – radical, moderate, active, inactive. In other words it simply does not matter whether whatever problems result are due to sabotage, incompetence or some mix of the two. The important thing is the result.
As for knowing that you are not a plant, unless you are recording yourself 24 hours a day, you can’t know it for a fact. From what I have read about the tactics employed, it is possible to create segmented memories so that even people who are being used in this manner may not be aware of it at other times. Some of this was explored in the Manchurian Candidate, as well as some non-fiction works.
And even if you are recording yourself at all times, you could suspect that the recordings are tampered with. If you want to go down the path of suspicion there is no end to it, but what does it accomplish?
I’d say 60-65% of LP members are pro-abortion but that is not scientific. I’d rather they just had not plank on it.
However, in the overall libertarian movement I want to say that close to an even split exists. Prominent pro-life libertarians include Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, Adam Kokesh, Julie Borowski, etc. Ludwig von Mises and FA Hayek were also pro-life.
If one thing has been proven over the last few years, it’s that the Libertarian Party is easy to hijack. Look at how easy it was for Bob Barr and Wayne Root to come in and get placed on the LNC and to become the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates. Come in with a little bit of name recognition and a whole lot of big talk and a lot of Libertarians will eat it up. I think that it is pretty apparent that neither guy was ever really serious about the Libertarian Party beyond using it.
I suspect that the Libertarian Party is infiltrated with plants who act as informants and/or saboteurs and/or provocateurs, and I suspect that it has been infiltrated for a long time, probably since the 1970’s.
I’ve been told that years ago there was a Freedom of Information Act request from the Libertarian Party of Kentucky and the Libertarian Party of California where they found out that the government was keeping files on them, and that they did in fact get a hold of files, but that much of it was blacked out. I’m not sure if any other LP affiliates have done this, or if it has ever been done nationally, but I’d sure like to find out what all reports various government agencies have on the Libertarian Party.
I know that a lot of this is speculation, but keep in mind that it is a documented fact that government entities spy on groups that they consider to be a “threat” to the government (which include anti-war groups), and it is also a documented fact that government entities have in fact sent plants into organizations (including anti-war groups). So what makes anyone think that the Libertarian Party would be immune to this?
I would not be a bit surprised if one of the reasons that the Libertarian Party has not been more successful has been due to intentional sabotage from people who are pretending to be Libertarians but are actually plants.
If there are any plants, they could be anyone. Some might be more obvious suspects, like perhaps Barr / Root, but others could be pretending to be “radical” or “hardcore” Libertarians, and they could even be the quite types that nobody would ever suspect.
Who are the people who seem to shoot down any progress? Who are the people who act like they are helping the party but who always seem to find some way to fuck things up, or to maybe get things done, but in a half ass manner? Who are the people who run away from debate when questioned? Who are the people who spend more time attacking fellow Libertarians, particularly those who are actually having success in growing party, than they do in building the party or movement themselves?
Does any of this stuff automatically mean that anyone is a plant? No, but it sure makes you wonder.
I do think that some of this stuff can be attributed to incompetence, or some other explanation, but given the fact that it is a documented fact that the government spies on organizations, and sends plants into organizations, it seems naive to me to assume that the Libertarian Party would be immune to this.
Who would a plant be working for? There are a lot of possibilities. The CIA. The FBI, The NSA, The Department of Homeland Security. The Republican Party or t he Democratic Party (since they are the “ruling” parties, they are basically arms of the state). I’d also suspect foreign entities like the Mossad or MI6, as well as non-governmental entities like the SPLC or the ADL. It could be something else, I don’t know.
This is a subject which likely makes a lot of people uncomfortable, but so what, I’m going to talk about it anyway.
Somebody may say, “Well how do you we know that you are not a plant?” I can say that I’m not a plant, and I don’t think that anyone who knows me would put me on a list of suspected plants, but ultimately, you don’t know that I’m not a plant for sure, so I think that the bottom line here is DTA, Don’t Trust Anybody.
Not all “pro-life” people are big government extremists, only those who want to use big government to force their minority view on the rest of us who disagree with them.
Most LP members agree with the pro-choice position. I don’t know the exact percentage, but it has been enough to beat back repeated attempts to delete that platform plank completely, even at the 2006 convention when most of the platform was deleted.
How many other LPers hold that view????
Because one question mark was insufficient?
@48
Pro-life people are Big Government extremists?
How many other LPers hold that view????
“Neal Boortz joined the Libertarian Party and asked people to vote for Libertarian Party candidates on the air for many years up through the 2008 elections. After the 2008 elections, Boortz asked people to vote for Republican Party candidates.”
Actually, he frequently went back and forth in endorsing and donating to parties and candidates. Likewise, Barr continued to run a PAC that donated to pro-war, big spending Republicans even while he was on the LNC (and probably even while he was an LP candidate). Root continued to implicitly endorse Republicans (past and present) while on the LNC.
And aside from their brand name partisan loyalties, all of these individuals have continued to perpetuate ideological confusion between conservatism and libertarianism. Glenn Beck promises to do more of the same.
Yes, we should embrace converts, but we shouldn’t immediately make them our spokespeople, candidates and leaders, and we should always aim to recruit in a balanced fashion that doesn’t gradually tilt the party so far to the right that it becomes indistinguishable from a far right flank of the GOP (which only aids “wasted vote” arguments). Too much of that has happened already.
If I disagreed with what you said, I would say so. In point of fact I agree with what you said. I do however disagree with the way you said it. In case the sarcasm was lost, ALL CAPS and multiple exclamation points (the latter, to your credit, not employed by you) are considered the online equivalent of yelling in a conversation. They are often employed by people who make bad arguments, and thus make good arguments look bad by association.
“Rod Stern // Apr 18, 2013 at 6:00 pm
ALL CAPS certainly makes any argument more persuasive. ”
I was just expressing my distrust of Glenn Beck. If you are going to attack what I say, how about sticking to the content of the message rather than the type set?
“17 Wes Benedict // Apr 18, 2013 at 10:26 am
Neal Boortz joined the Libertarian Party and asked people to vote for Libertarian Party candidates on the air for many years up through the 2008 elections. After the 2008 elections, Boortz asked people to vote for Republican Party candidates. While I had plenty of disagreements with Boortz, at least he did actually promote voting for Libertarian Party candidates for many years. Glenn Beck appears to be adopting more libertarian principles. If he tells people he is supporting Libertarian Party candidates, then he could be good for the Libertarian Party. If he tells people he has libertarian views, but then asks people with libertarian views to vote Republican across the board, that probably wouldn’t help the Libertarian Party.”
Neal Boortz was horrible for the Libertarian Party and I was glad when he finally got booted as a speaker at the 2008 LP National Convention. Boortz was always a phony.
If Glenn Beck joins the LP and acts like Neal Boortz did, then I think that the party would be better off without him.
ALL CAPS certainly makes any argument more persuasive. I think it is much underused on the internet, along with multiple exclamation points.
I STILL DO NOT TRUST GLENN BECK. I suspect that he may be pretending to be a libertarian in order to co-opt the movement, and move it away from striving toward real liberty.
Sure, it would be great if Glenn Beck really became a sincere libertarian, but there are still reasons to be skeptical about this guy.
If Glenn Beck decides to join the Libertarian Party, I STRONGLY URGE EVERYONE TO NOT NOMINATE HIM FOR ANY OFFICE, INCLUDING ANY INTERNAL PARTY OFFICES.
We can’t afford another Bob Barr / Wayne Root fiasco.
The problem is with the big government anti-abortion extremists bringing up that not all libertarians are pro-choice any time the subject is mentioned. Yes, we all know that not all libertarians are pro-choice, but most of us are and so is the LP platform plank (although not as strong as it once was).
It’s also true that not all libertarians are for a non-interventionist foreign policy, or indeed for any single libertarian plank. But that doesn’t mean we should not be able to mention all our libertarian positions, including pro-choice on abortion, and argue for smaller government on every single issue where there is an active public debate about the role of government…abortion included.
Please spare me the tired rhetoric about alleged fetal rights; I’ve heard it before and have no interest in wasting time refuting it. The question here is not who is right and who is wrong, but whether a minority of libertarians (big government anti-abortion extremists) should be able to dictate to the pro-choice libertarian majority that the issue can’t be mentioned as a libertarian position.
i think, that it is none of the governments business, government should neither ban nor fund abortion.
Ideally abortion should legal, safe and rarely used. If all the effort that went into fighting the issue, had been used for sex education and contraceptives, abortion would be a small issue.
Another “goy” (cattle) puppet of the Learned Elders of Zion, no one should be surprised. There can be no liberty under a foreign yoke.
Evan, if to his huge audience Beck is promoting northness on the Nolan Chart as an unalloyed virtue, then that sounds like a good thing. If anyone can point me to Beck doing this, I’d like to see/hear it for myself.
KL, the LP is “pro-choice on everything” — including on the question of whether to be pro-choice. 🙂 The right move for the LP here is to be ecumenical to those who advocate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evictionism.
Thread hijack in progress? 🙂
Who said every libertarian MUST be pro-choice (or for that matter that every libertarian must morally approve of gay sex or what is currently illegal drug use)? Re-read the actual statement. I think it speaks for itself, so there is no need to elaborate on it.
I would also add non-interventionist foreign policy to non-interventionist domestic policy, both social and economic. In all these areas, currently government does way too much.
@42
Goddamnit stop reinforcing the misconception that every libertarian MUST be pro-choice! Because that’s BS!!
RC @ 40; “But it’s no surprise to me that Ls tend to draw more from Rs than Ds. There’s long been a L-ish strain in the GOP, but I really don’t see such a tradition among Ds.
Two answers for this;
1. To the extent this IS true it is due (in my opinion) to the over-emphasis of economic issues relative to social issues. This has resulted in an imbalance which reinforces this “problem”
2. To a considerable extent it could be reflective of your own perspective. If you were gay, a recreational drug user or a woman who needs an abortion, you would probably see it much differently.
Yeah, the guy who called Ron Paul supporters terrorists.
C’mon LP. You can’t be serious, can you? This guy is totally fake and is just an opportunist.
33 WB: So I beat you with my bumper stickers alone.
me: So stipulated. In my case, I don’t view this as a contest, and there is no prize for “Most L.” If the activism you do gives you pleasure, I support your efforts.
I can’t say it’s been especially consequential, but I say that not as criticism of your specific efforts, which certainly appear well intentioned to me.
At this stage in the game, my interest is merely in asking questions – radical questions, especially when something isn’t working. Strike the root and all that.
I certainly agree that a L message should be balanced. But it’s no surprise to me that Ls tend to draw more from Rs than Ds. There’s long been a L-ish strain in the GOP, but I really don’t see such a tradition among Ds.
As one who toys with the notions of citizens dividends or negative income taxes myself, I could imagine a L message could great traction from the D, more “egalitarian” side of the populace IF the R/R/NAP-solutist orthodoxy were overturned/jettisoned as unserviceable.
I see no evidence of that happening any time soon.
Thanks for the clarification, Evan. Reading the entire letter gives a better picture than just the first part.
Also, Brian, thanks for posting this. I’m glad we’ve had the opportunity to discuss it.
BH @37 Beck was the one that claimed he and his staff scored high in L quadrant of the WSPQ. I’m using his words on his show to illustrate to him, and others, that he has said this.
EM @35 I believe IPR should do more excerpting, and less re-posting. I linked the open letter so anyone could easily read it. I don’t agree that excerpting constitutes a “glaring error”. The only error I see here is the letter’s claim that Beck “had scored at the top of the Libertarian quadrant on the World’s Smallest Political Quiz”. The drugs and sex laws questions on the WSPQ clearly preclude Beck from scoring “at the top”.
WB @36 the platform is pretty good the way it is now. Not perfect. But pretty good.
Totally agree.
Holtz says: Bob, the Platform wars are long over. Let it go.
Me: I think the platform is pretty good the way it is now. Not perfect. But pretty good.
My biggest problem with the platform right now is the font-size and the big white spaces between the paragraphs (LOL): https://www.lp.org/platform
First I would like to correct a glaring error… the OP only included the first have of the letter. I wont speculate on the intent of the omission, other than to say in the spirit of transparency and openness, the letter should have been posted in its entirety. Without the full letter, people are unable to grasp the full focus and message of the effort.
Here is the second half:
*******************************************
My open arms welcome comes with a couple of caveats, after all “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch“.
First, I would like for you to understand that the ire and outrage you’ve received in the past couple months from Libertarians comes not from some high-minded purity test or doubt in your sincerity. It swelled from the lack of any acknowledgment of how you have previously discussed and treated our Party’s philosophy, leadership, candidates and our dedicated activists.
Second, from one friend of Bill’s to another…I think you owe us some step work. It would go a long way with the Party and Libertarian activists if you did a politically themed 12th step with us.
I think a politically modified version of the 12th step would be the best way to show Libertarians that you are truly “with us”.
‘Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to Neocons and Statists, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.’
You have an awesome platform with which to reach millions of Americans. I ask that you use it to openly and honestly discuss Libertarian philosophy and the campaigns of our candidates. Giving us an equal and respectful footing will show the rest of the party that you are truly committed to embracing and sharing our unique message of less government and more freedom.
I encourage you to have a couple of our quality candidates and activists on your show. I know that the Libertarian National Campaign Committee Chairman, Mark Rutherford, would be more than happy to either come on your programs or help line up Libertarians to participate in your on-air discussions.
Together we can further spread the message of personal and economic freedom across the country.
Again, I am proud to welcome you to the Libertarian Party.
*******************************************
So, why did I pen and send this letter? Simple…
Glenn Beck has been increasing the amount of times he calls himself a Libertarian. While saying this, he continues to espouse NeoCon, Statist and Right-Wing dogma.
I wanted to call him out on this in a manner that could lend itself to Libertarians being part of his shows. These Libertarians could then refute his positions and further educate the audience at home.
I would like to see articulate and dedicated Libertarian candidates like Gov. Johnson, Steve Collett, John Jay Myers, Gigi Bowman, Andrew Horning and many others on his programs discussing Libertarianism. I would also work to have members of the LNC (to discuss policy and platform) and the LNCC (to discuss campaigning) on his program. With these people, and others, on the programs there is a chance that our message and candidates will build new allies and supporters. These conversations could even lend to Beck’s self-discovery and full adopting of the Libertarian philosophy.
I also wanted to acknowledge the fact that he COULD be evolving politically and to ensure him and others out there, that we are here to help. By help I strictly mean help the person find their way to accepting and sharing the Libertarian philosophy. By having positive conversations, like this letter, we aren’t turning them off and blocking their path on the road to Libertarianism.
This letter was no different from the other letters and statements to Mr. Beck made by other Libertarians and Liberty movement leaders. The only difference is that this letter isn’t directly bashing the man. Instead we used professionalism and a touch of understanding, in hopes that he will “see the light” if only just a little. It also has the distinction of being from the LNCC, which in the eyes of a few of you…makes it automatically evil.
I’m not inviting Beck to be the “Libertarian Spokesman”, run for office or even asking him to actually join the party… I’m asking him to acknowledge that he hasn’t been honestly expressing our philosophy, that there is room for him to “grow” and that having articulate Libertarians on for debate and discussion is the quickest way to get there.
I’m also thinking about sending a very similar letter to Bill Maher.
In Liberty,
Evan McMahon, Executive Director
Libertarian National Campaign Committee
I take that back. There was no message on the bumper stickers. But the door hangers–those had a message!
I just did a google search for “capozzi” site:www.independentpoliticalreport.com/
and see 12,100 results. So I beat you with my bumper stickers alone. –LOL
Capozzi wrote: Can you elaborate? The LP seems highly differentiated to me. It is, after all, the only party that challenges the “cult of the omnipotent state,” for starters. The brand seems far outside the Tea Party and Code Pink at the same time. How much MORE differentiation would you like to see?
Me: I don’t think you are describing the way most of the public sees the Libertarian brand. Many see libertarian as being very similar to conservative or Republican. I often hear people tell me they are libertarian, but vote Republican because they don’t want to waste their vote. I far less often hear people say, I’m libertarian, but vote Democrat because I don’t want to waste my vote.
I think Libertarians need to differentiate ourselves from the Republicans and Democrats. And I would like to see us emphasize issues in a way that attracts about equally from Democrats and Republicans (as well as also heavily from independents). I think we can do that while staying true to libertarian principles.
I think I did some of that actual branding work through LASPAC in 2012 with:
3,900 yard signs distributed
30,000 bumper stickers distributed
80,000 door hangers distributed
28,000 postcards mailed*
281,000 robocalls made
$167,798 in contributions from 916 contributors
33,527 YouTube video views
http://laspac.org/2012/11/27/laspac-final-report/
WB28, those slogans work because they are aspirational and positive. CotOS is neither and sounds looney to me and likely most IF they even catch the meaning and (poetic) intent. Sometimes, traditions that do not work are let go, like say teethers and blankees.
I don’t see “cult of the omnipotent state” as a problem for our brand. The artless part is not “cult”, but “omnipotent”. It would be smarter to say there is a cult of the benevolent state — just as the LP itself contains a cult of the omnimalevolent state.
Bob, the Platform wars are long over. Let it go.
Isn’t that pretty much everyone, in your view?
Only people who are naive, stupid, evil, or some combination of the above. I’ll leave it to you to figure out the exact percentage of the population that falls into one or more of those categories, but it’s certainly not 100%.
By the way, just because someone is not a supporter of libertarianism, that doesn’t mean they’re automatically an opponent of it. Many people are either unaware of the existence of the libertarian philosophy, or have no clear understanding of what it entails. Unfortunately, I fear this second problem may well be exacerbated by Mr. Beck’s “conversion”.
Capozzi said: “21 WB, it sounds are if you may agree that there IS NO “cult,” which I see as the sane view.”
Me: I don’t know if there is a cult and don’t feel like deciding whether I think there probably is or is not. I’ll let you occupy that worry space.
I think lots of people use and respond to what I call artsy-fartsy or poetic language. I like some artsy-fartsy poetic stuff myself–although I’m not an expert. When John Paul Jones said “I have not yet begin to fight”, I wonder if Great Great Great Grandpa Capozzi said “oh yes he has–that is a lie–Jones has begun to fight–lying is against Robert’s Rules of order. Jones should be removed from service for cause–Lying!”
Other examples are No Child Left Behind, Liberty in my Lifetime, Zero Defects, Have it your way!
Rejecting the cult of the omnipotent state is part of our Libertarian Party heritage. I think you are doing a great job of helping to preserve that heritage amongst the dozens who read here.
25 ES, still needs to sign the pledge. As a recent signatory, it would present a rich opportunity for the NAP-solutist set to give him the third degree…did he sign thinking it was simply a statement that he doesn’t support violent overthrow of the government OR is he a true believer that all aggression is “immoral” and that he DEMANDS that it all end tomorrow!!!?
19 L: Opponents of libertarianism.
me: Isn’t that pretty much everyone, in your view?
Twenty five bucks and he’s a member. His choice. If he shows up at meetings ask him how he is.
21 WB, it sounds are if you may agree that there IS NO “cult,” which I see as the sane view.
I’m not sure that the Statue is necessary the first branding element of the US, but I’d say that inscription was inartful and inaccurate as well.
Were it up to me, I’d lose both.
I’m still not clear what you think needs to be worked “hard” on.
My sense is that the “Pauls” and “libertarian” are the single largest branding of the L philosophy. My guess is one hears the word a LOT more in the past 6 years because of them.
The LP as a party has almost no brand name recognition, but of the millions that know the LP, there’s probably 3 camps: the largely agree camp; the I agree with Ls on some things camp; and they are fringy lunatics camp.
There COULD be a brand police that enforced the party line. Much like MNR’s hysteria in 1980 over EC’s use of the term “low-tax liberal,” perhaps the Purity Police subcommittee of the LNC could issue edicts denouncing non-Ls when they claim to be L, as Beck has done.
Is this what you have in mind?
If not, what?
Mr. Wendt is being as dogmatic and doctrinaire as those who would give Mr. Beck the keys to the inner-sanctum.
Come on folks! Leave your prejudices at the door and bring your open mind with you.
CONVERSIONS DO HAPPEN: No not often but YES! occasionally
Glenn Beck is to Libertarianism, as Mussolini was to Democracy. If Beck joins the LP officially, I’m sure alot of Libertarians (including myself) will bale on the party. Beck is at best a quasi-Fascist with delusions of grandure, and will corrupt the very principles this party holds dear.
Capozzi, of the millions of people who have probably heard of the Libertarian Party, I’m guessing less than 1% are aware of the “cult of the omnipotent state” phrase and its relationship to the Libertarian Party. So, I don’t see that phrase as occupying much of the Libertarian Party brand awareness space. But, I am fine keeping that phrase in the platform. I find it kind of artful like some of the language in the Declaration of Independence, the Bible, inscriptions on University monuments and statues, etc. Wouldn’t it be interesting if people refused to attend a University because a phrase in the charter or on the campus union sounded weird or had something technically infeasible?
Are you surprised anyone ever bothers to immigrate to the United States when it says right there on the statue of liberty “The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, “.
Really!? Wretched Refuse!! Who would come to America with all that talk about “Wretched Refuse”?
RC@18-” It is, after all, the only party that challenges the “cult of the omnipotent state,” for starters.
LOL! Which only goes to show that even some Libertarians are adept at using ‘non sequiturs’!
Does anyone REALLY promote this ‘omnistate’?
Both D’s and R’s want to use centralized power
to enforce their chosen dogmas and OPPOSE the
use of centralized powers that enforce dogmas they DON’T subscribe to.
ONLY Libertarians oppose the use of centralized
power to compel individuals to follow dogmas that ANY ONE subscribes to.
Our task is to stipulate and enumerate ALL of the liberties that individuals are rightfully possess in both economic AND social spheres!
L 16, who are “they”?
Opponents of libertarianism.
L 16, who are “they”?
WB 17: I do think the Libertarian Party needs to work hard to distinguish its brand from the Republicans and Democrats.
me: Can you elaborate? The LP seems highly differentiated to me. It is, after all, the only party that challenges the “cult of the omnipotent state,” for starters. The brand seems far outside the Tea Party and Code Pink at the same time. How much MORE differentiation would you like to see?
Neal Boortz joined the Libertarian Party and asked people to vote for Libertarian Party candidates on the air for many years up through the 2008 elections. After the 2008 elections, Boortz asked people to vote for Republican Party candidates. While I had plenty of disagreements with Boortz, at least he did actually promote voting for Libertarian Party candidates for many years. Glenn Beck appears to be adopting more libertarian principles. If he tells people he is supporting Libertarian Party candidates, then he could be good for the Libertarian Party. If he tells people he has libertarian views, but then asks people with libertarian views to vote Republican across the board, that probably wouldn’t help the Libertarian Party. I am interested to see if Glenn Beck will join the Libertarian Party and then ask others to vote for Libertarian Party candidates. My expectation is that he will be more like Ron Paul and Rand Paul, and will stay in the Republican Party fold. It is good overall to see he is changing is views in a more libertarian direction. Whether or not that will help the Libertarian Party grow remains to be seen. I do think the Libertarian Party needs to work hard to distinguish its brand from the Republicans and Democrats.
This strikes me as another attempt to co-opt a threatening movement by creating an unofficial spokesperson who can be counted on to parrot the establishment line when the chips are down.
It reminds me of when Michele Bachmann was appointed as the unofficial mouthpiece for the Tea Party movement, which proceeded to lose any element of radicalism that it ever had.
Oh well, the good news is that they don’t bother trying to sabotage you unless they perceive you as at least a minor threat, so I guess we should be flattered by this move.
I am with Fred on this. Is it possible we will see something else out of this? Perhaps the 2016 presidential candidate?
Count me amongst the skeptics.
I’m highly in favor of growing the party and everyone who wants to join should be welcomed. Celebrities (like Beck) can be a great asset in spreading the message but they can also be a great liability.
Beck’s past stances which seemed to be in favor or the wars, against immigration, and bordering on racist comments make me uncomfortable. Its not just about what we think of Beck that is an issue. Its also the message that others hear and believe to be the “libertarian message”
Beck is welcome to share his own opinions–I’m not enthusiastic that he will do a good job of conveying libertarian ideas to the public and I think he could do a lot of damage in our efforts to not be seen as “right of the Repulicans”
If our only growth is in Libertarian leaning neo-cons than we may end up with a party that no longer promotes the values that drew me to the party.
@2,
“I’ll admit that I’m somewhat skeptical myself, but the man sounds sincere so I say give him the benefit of the doubt. After the Barr-WAR fiasco, we can certainly afford to do that.”
Would be that be the same Barr-WAR fiasco in which Beck had Barr on his show as if he was already the nominee, before he was the nominee?
“Delayed” as in “impossible”? 😉
Incremental improvement will beat delayed perfection.
5bh: The LP should focus on promoting positions as libertarian, rather than people.
me: I see your point, but politics is all about personality, like it or not. Promoting positions in the abstract has its place, but politics also requires some personification.
GJ’s rise from handyman to successful businessman to governor made him interesting, and therefore a better, more effective exponent of liberty, for ex. He did have baggage, too, as do we all.
Beck has a world-full of baggage. I’m OK with Beck in some regards, but this looks like LNCC is making a big bet on Beck, and my gut reaction is: not a good move.
But we’ll see.
You may correctly infer that I do not view the invitation as a forward step.
They lost out of Root, now did they not?
Perhaps a betting pool on who or when will encourage Beck to run for our Presidential nomination is in order?
I’ve gotta say, I DO NOT LIKE GLENN BECK, but he made himself look pretty good here.
I’m concerned that the LNCC believes they can make this invitation in the name of the Libertarian Party. Shouldn’t something like this come from elected officers of the party? Oh well. It’s already done, so I hope Beck is sincere.
The LP should focus on promoting positions as libertarian, rather than people. The only people the LP should promote as “libertarian” are people like this:
SRL(3) “And the LNCC wouldn’t have made a news release of the matter.
The proof of the pudding is when we see whose name is on the check that pays his annual dues. :>)
I’m with DT @ 2. Skeptical.
I don’t have a problem with Glen Beck’s “Road to Damascus” conversion, nor even with the possibility of his joining the LP.
One problem in that eventuality is that he will become the spokesperson for the LP. Not a bad deal as long as he continues on his journey, but he obviously isn’t there yet. Not enough to be a spokesperson.
And make no mistake, this invitation really is an invitation to be the libertarian spokesperson. Otherwise they would merely have sent the stock membership forms.
And the LNCC wouldn’t have made a news release of the matter.
PEACE
Brian: surely you don’t maintain that a person must be 100 x 100 on the Nolan Chart, just because you and I ARE.
I’ll admit that I’m somewhat skeptical myself, but the man sounds sincere so I say give him the benefit of the doubt. After the Barr-WAR fiasco, we can certainly afford to do that.
I don’t believe the LNCC’s claim that Beck “scored at the top of the Libertarian quadrant on the World’s Smallest Political Quiz”. In the Stossel interview, Beck opposed legalizing prostitution, and was tepid about legalizing drugs.