Tom Usher wrote or added | "We do not privilege the statements by Jews, whether they are critics or supporters of the State of Israel, as most 'progressive' writers do. The pursuit of truth is not an 'ethnic science', an approach that smacks of Nazi and Zionist racial theories."
"The denial of the power of the ZPC [Zionist Power Confiruration] by seemingly 'progressive' and 'leftist' writers and journalists has been one of the principal obstacles undermining efforts to effectively counter US government support for Israeli war crimes, the expansion of colonial settlements in the West Bank and the military/sanctions policies toward Iran."
I believe the Khazaran aspect is wildly overstated, but the point is not without some merit.
Why does James Petras, a socialist (leftist) write against the Zionists while so many Jewish leftists are silent? Well, many Jewish leftists haven't brought themselves to the place where they've overcome their psychological attachment to Zionists (ethnic bigots). They haven't put the general welfare of humanity above the Zionists' imperial ambitions. They are stuck with "family" while failing to see their family that is humanity.
"During the Rosen-Weissman trial, numerous prominent Jewish leftist (including Democracy Now's Amy Goodman) publicly defended the procuring of confidential documents and their handing over to a foreign (Israeli) government as a matter of 'free speech' and 'freedom of the press'."
This view on Amy's part was extremely naive at best. She doesn't hold with the Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine, and why she's failed to connect the dots as to the fact that the espionage was in service to that ethnic-cleansing tells a great deal about the simplistic views often related on Democracy Now, which has done plenty of good work though. What Democracy Now should never be as it is now is a clearing house where anyone automatically agrees with everything that comes out from it. It's not as bad as Fox historically, but it does have its slant that excludes considering well-documented and well-reasoned questions – 9/11 not being the least of such.
"As a footnote to history, it is the first time that practically all Marxist journals, monthlies, bi-monthlies, quarterlies and annuals and their leading contributors have avoided a serious critique of the ZPC. On the contrary, the sparse articles which purport to deal with Middle East policies cover-up the role of the ZPC in shaping US policy."
"Zionists and their media camp followers always highlight 'Jewishness' and the disproportionate number of notable, successful scientists and public figures with whom the Zionists self-identify (even if the said individual have no identification with anything remotely 'Jewish' beyond some distant ancestry). In contrast, to highlight the 'Jewishness' (and Israel-centricity) of notorious swindlers, spies, warmongers, gangsters, drug or arms traffickers is be labeled anti-Semitic."
"Active membership in a powerful Zionist organization may protect the careers of lackluster, or even incompetent, performers in some academic or professional settings where the threat of a lawsuit charging anti-Semitism can ensure contract renewal." Oh, how true that is!
Now, I want to say that James here is also making the error of referring to religion as myth-based. He doesn't qualify his statements in that regard, not that I believe he believes in spirit over matter. I do not believe he does. It is though a complete error to suggest that spirit over matter has been disproved, even if to suggest it indirectly or by omitting that James is speaking directly about Talmudist allegations that are myth. James does though mention the Old Testament verbatim. It cannot be said conclusively from the current time lacking, God's perspective, that the whole of the Old Testament is myth. Certainly the literalist-only get themselves into difficulty, but figurativists do not necessarily. Jesus fulfilled the figurative prophecies while imparting his New Testament that is not myth but spiritually understood: truth of the highest order.
"There are equally important cracks in the Zionist monolith among North American Jews and former Zionist fellow travelers. The continued 'failure of the nerve' or 'intellectual treason'79 of the American left academics and their 'Marxist' journals to even discuss the role of the ZPC in making war policy has not stopped a breakthrough of Zionist critics, even in some mass media outlets."
"... the 16 major intelligence agencies issued a report on Iran's nuclear program in late 2007, which debunked the Israeli-Zionist claims of an active Iranian nuclear weapons program. Likewise a Pew Foundation Study of the Council on Foreign Relations, taken between October 2 — November 16, 2009, found that over two-thirds of its members (67 percent) believe the US favored Israel too much — yet the same percentages claimed Obama is 'striking the right balance' and 'Iran is a major threat to US interest'(Jeff Blankfort 'What the US Elite Really Thinks About Israel' Counterpunch 12/8/09). What is striking about these 'dissident' opinions within the policy elite is that they have had no impact on Obama's subservience to Israel on all major issues promoted by the ZPC."
"Right wing pro-capitalist politicians use patriotic rhetoric to deflect attention from the domestic failures of capitalism and the massive transfers of wealth to Goldman-Sachs and other Wall Street speculators. The devaluation of 'patriotism' is evident in the right wing's perverse manipulation of 'nationalism' to turn native born workers against immigrant workers, instead of against the ZPC's costly pro-Israel agenda. This, in turn, hinders the growth of a national popular movement against the Wall Street speculators at home and the wars for Israel and Empire abroad."
"Israeli hegemony, embedded in a Zion-centric cultural universe, has not been challenged by Anglo-America's flaccid intellectuals. Their intellectual cowardice is covered by a thin veneer of 'cosmopolitan' impotence. Their pusillanimous silence and even complicity is intended to 'protect the sensitivities' of their Zionist colleagues regarding any forthright critique of Zionist power in America." Wow! It's true.
"We should demand that Undersecretary of Treasury and Israel Firster Stuart Levey be investigated and prosecuted for gross malfeasance of office for his refusal to investigate the illegal billion-dollar money laundering operations by US Zionists in the funding of illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank...." Interesting! This was not front-page news, was it.
"We should oppose military and economic aid to Israel, especially when the average per capita income of Israeli's exceeds that of 40% of Americans." It's important to know that "the average per capita income of Israeli's exceeds that of 40% of Americans."
"We should support the class and popular struggle against finance, real estate and insurance billionaires (Wall Street) for their pillage of the American economy and exploitation of American workers and for their corruption of American politicians to serve their interests and US and Israeli war aims." I would say that he saved the best for last.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)