119 thoughts on “Bolt

  1. Chris – to be fair, there’s a common understanding of anti-Semitism which diverges from its etymological meaning. We all know what’s being talked about here.

    Furthermore, the right-wing Israel lobby finds it exceedingly convenient to conflate the whole gamut of race, national identity, and militancy, for obvious reasons.

  2. The Zionists conflate criticism of Israel’s multitudinous crimes against humanity with ‘antisemitism’ for one reason only. They are attempting to silence that criticism, by vilification, intimidation, and, in countries like Canada, where the Harper regime is entirely controlled by the local Zionist Lobby, by the threat of legal action. The criminalisation of criticism of Israel and its crimes doesn’t seem to get the Rightwing ‘free speech’ crowd upset, at all. How can that be? Of course Western critics of Israel’s crimes against humanity won’t be tortured or lynched, as is Israel’s preferred modus operandi when dealing with restive ‘two-legged animals’ amongst the Palestinians, but who knows where it will all end? After all Israel today is run by a devoted disciple of Jabotinsky, whose motto was ‘We’ll kill anyone who gets in our way’, and Israel has certainly lived up to that credo ever since.

  3. JQ If you do not agree with some of the comments here about Israel and the Zionist lobby, perhaps you should say so. I am not suggesting that you ban or remove the comments, but there seems to be a widely accepted view that commentors set the character of a blog as much as the posters (see “Catallaxians”, passim) and it would be useful to know where you and your blog places itself on these issues.

  4. Dan – I do not believe Israel has committed “multitudinous crimes against humanity”.
    Nor do I believe that criticism of Israel should be criminalised.

  5. My guess is that JQ has similar views to mine – I would like him to say so, in his own words.

  6. ken n :
    Dan – I do not believe Israel has committed “multitudinous crimes against humanity”.
    Nor do I believe that criticism of Israel should be criminalised.

    Israel was born out of crimes against humanity – the Stern Gang antics, extolling terrorism, were all crimes against humanity.

    Israel’s covert development of nuclear weapons is also a crime against humanity in-waiting.

    The whole political stance of Israel w.r.t. occupied territories is a crime against humanity.

    All religions that divide society between ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’ who are then allocated different social rights, are potential crimes against humanity.

  7. Chris – I’m not going to debate the subject, and certainly not on JQ’s real estate.
    I just thought a rough and ready headcount of regular visitors might be interesting.
    So far, leaving me out because I’m not a regular, that’s 2-0 against Israel

  8. @Dan

    We need to stand against Israel in the occupied territories and to support the need to restore Arab property to the rightful owners inside Israel itself.

    Israel only exists as a fait accompli constructed by military might provided by outsiders.

    Israel provoked war, is still provoking war, and pleads peace to protect ill-gotten gains. It will have to live in the conditions in has created for the next 1,000 years.

  9. For the record, one can argue that anyone who favours the “two state solution” can be called a “Zionist” of sorts. One is after all, supporting a homeland for those identifying as Jews

    Of course, where the boundaries of that state are, one’s attitude to “right of return” of Palestinians, the privileging of identifying Jews in immigration policy, attitudes the theocratic rule within Israel are very significant questions, and probably, in the minds of most, more important than whether one qualifies as a Zionist or not.

    As I’ve said on a number of occasions, whatever attitude one might have had to the state of Israel in 1947, it seems to me that it cannot now be wholly unmade without creating at least as much misery as such a move might abate, and on that basis, there is little good alternative for those of us whose primary interest is in the welfare of working humanity but to accept that the state of Israel is a legitimate sovereign entity.

    In a world rather closer to the ideal than the one we have, there would be a “one-state” solution — a multi-community state covering the old British mandate in which no community was relatively privileged, and in which those displaced could return. That seems politically improbable however, at least in the short term. So with some reluctance I believe the most practicable solution would seem to focus on a return to the pre-1967 war borders, removal of the settlements in occupied territory, East Jerusalem as a capital and so forth.

    Demilitarisation should follow.

  10. Yes, the return to some UN General Assembly accepted borders would go along way to easing tension.

    However Israel is such a recalcitrant entity, that we may need to rewrite the Old Testament first.

  11. “Isn’t one enough?”

    You said “shops“.

    “it’s a bit harsh to characterise my comment as dog whistling. What sort of racist am I supposedly calling out to?”

    Dog-whistling isn’t necessarily about calling to racists. You probably think it’s about racists because that was the kind of dog-whistling that Howard did (and that’s when the term became popular). In fact it is making statements to a general audience that imply something to which a sub-group will respond as if it had been explicitly stated. Without coming right out and saying it, your statement heavily implied that the protesters outside Max Brenner were being antisemitic at the very least, if not akin to Nazis.

    “The Max Brenner protests have been roundly condemned across the political spectrum.”

    Sure, but only the nasty kind of critics make reference to spurious antisemitism, and I had thought you would be among the principled critics that can condemn the protests for legitimate reasons. That’s why I reacted badly to your statement, and was probably more harsh than I would like.

    “p.s. Jarrah – where do you stand on free speech?”

    My record is impeccable on that score. For elaboration, check out the Bolt threads on Catallaxy.

  12. Jarrah – thanks for the qualification. Yes we were operating with different definitions of the term. However I wasn’t trying to send cryptic codes to anybody. Rather I was trying to be blunt.

  13. To deny that Israel has committed ‘multitudinous’ crimes against humanity requires, I believe, one of two dispositions. First, an all-time favourite of the Right, is simple denial. That way the dispossession, humiliation, murder, torture, etc that have been rained down on the Palestinians and the Lebanese and other unfortunates for over sixty years, simply disappear down the ‘memory hole’. That’s ‘standard operating procedure’ in the West, in media and politics, because Jewish money power controls these spheres. That, too, naturally, is denied, and those who speak this simple truth are reviled as ‘antisemites’ in order to shut them up by intimidation. The second disposition is to agree with the Zionist Right, that the victims of Israel’s recidivist brutality are non-human, or at least a lower order of humanity. The Zionist lexicon of terms of abuse for the Palestinians, ‘two-legged animals’, ‘drugged cockroaches in a bottle’, ‘lice’,’human cancer’, ‘human dust’, etc, give this game away.
    We need only contemplate the words of Rabbi Kook the Elder, the former Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi of Palestine, and still a revered figure on the Israeli Right, to see that attitude made plain. As he said, ‘There is a greater difference between the soul of a Jew and a non-Jew… than there is between the soul of a non-Jew and that of an animal’. As that plainly is the worldview of the Israel theocratic-fascist Right, why are we surprised at the depth, extent and sheer sadism of Israel’s brutality, and its utter contempt for global opinion?

  14. Bolt dispenses with truth in order to server Higher Truth.
    His Higher Truth is the protection of society from Left/Green dictatorship.

    Towards that goal any and all propaganist techniques are permissible including the publication of deliberate untruths. This lesson Bolt learnt while an employee of Graham Richardson.

    Because TEH LEFT wages its wars through ideas, the minds of Australians must be fortified with correct (Bolt-derived, Right-derived) ideas in order that they may reject the evil Leftist propaganda. Since TEH Left are evil they do not deserve the courtesies of fair play, respect or truthul interaction. Thus lies are permissible in the defence of Higher Truth.

    Bolt therefore poisons the minds of Australians in order to save and protect their minds.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s