I grew up when Roger Waters was up and coming and arrived with Pink Floyd. It may sound like sacrilege to some of my generation and ilk at the time, but I didn't know Roger Waters' name until he started standing up against Apartheid Israel. My friends had Pink Floyd albums and played them. I did not. It wasn't a conscious decision. Pink Floyd simply wasn't my cup of tea.
Anyway, I heard Roger on the Palestinians. I read some of his stuff on it too. He rattled off pretty much everything I'd say or write (and have said and written). He was trashed for it by the "always look the other way" campaigning Jews. Yes, they are a type. They get their way because of money. Jews who don't go along, and especially those without money, have to struggle mightily not to be disappeared in the media. Most, nearly all, have been. Who's fault is that?
So, Roger Waters keeps showing up one way or the other in the Internet circles in which I run, so to speak, and I ran into his song, "What God Wants," apparently "Part 1." I haven't looked for part 2 yet.
The music is quite good. Roger's voice is still not my cup of tea, though depending upon the lyrics, etc., I could take that in as part of the whole package. After all, Bob Dylan's voice perplexed me when I first started listening to him when I was just a kid. With enough listening and thinking, I understood why his voice worked. It fit. Older people made that connection more readily, especially those with more exposure to acoustic folk. By the way, I didn't know going electric was a sin until after I already like Bob's electric too. That was a benefit of youth and having an older sister who didn't take marching orders from folk aficionados. That was a benefit of genes.
What about Roger's song and lyrics? I thought, what the hell is his religion? "What God wants, God gets." Conflicted God? What theological school is that? I'd thought about it before but never put a name to it. What I had always concluded is that, that's transferring our confusion unto God because ... God can do anything. So, why not? It's certainly not the result of the long night of the soul struggling with the Gospels. What God wanted, God got, but there's wanting and then there's wanting.
Jesus came. He knew what he had to do, to go through: no choice if consistent. However, he wanted them all to hear him. He simply knew they wouldn't. Was he conflicted? Were it that simple.
Well, I looked for Roger's stated religion, if any. I'm informed he's an atheist. Therefore, his song feels like protesting. How can he and I agree so closely on Israel while being so different? It's not a mystery. It's a question of how far one has gone down the road searching and down which roads.
In my searching about Roger, I ran into "The Occupation of the American Mind," which appears to be the subject of the New Censorship. The New Censorship is not shutting a thing down but rather simply not linking to it, not allowing it to exist within the domain, whichever domain that is, such as the US corporate mass media dominated by the "always look the other way" campaigning Jews, who call anything and everything that doesn't look the other way, anti-Semitic.
Those "always look the other way" campaigning Jews were losing and losing big not too long ago. They put their collective wealthy minds together and concluded that it was time to make a huge push to marginalize all sources that had been making so much gain with the BDS campaign and to marginalize all sources that had been making so much gain telling Russia's side of the various stories (unsubstantiated allegations). Yep, the two issues are inextricably intertwined in the minds of the "always look the other way" campaigning Jews.
If you say it's their money that gives them that power, they call it anti-Semitism and claim there is no such collective moneyed-interest giving the "always look the other way" campaigning Jews any such power. Well, if those "always look the other way" campaigning Jews were right, then how does one explain the marginalization of everything those "always look the other way" campaigning Jews don't like?
One day, the BDS campaign is making inroads into the mainstream reaching old folks who turn to old style TV for their info. The next day, the utterly ridiculous PropOrNot is rolled out everywhere and everything has been different ever since. All of the major "news" and social media platforms have been totally reeled in by the "always look the other way" campaigning Jews.
Sure, there are, and always have been, plenty of non-Jews aiding and abetting the neocon project and the right-wing Zionist project, but that does not explain away the evil of those projects and their fixation on always looking the other way when it comes to "Jewishness" supremacy in Israel and Palestine, including even over Gaza, which the Jews vacated so Israel could bomb Gaza without fear of hitting illegal Jewish "settlers."
It's just an endless stream of excuses and diversions (look the other way).
Roger knows this very well. It shows clearly in his article: "Roger Waters to Jon Bon Jovi: 'You stand shoulder to shoulder with the settler who burned the baby.'" ("Salon exclusive: “The dead can’t remind you of the crimes you’ve ignored,” writes Waters, challenging Tel Aviv show.")
What's to be done? I tried getting out the word to the real Progressive Movement that, that movement needs to come together and form a non-profit search, social, and news network in order to not remain marginalized. I've heard cricket so far; however, I was marginalized years before PropOrNot was even a thought. Also, I don't conform to the PC of the non-economically focused "left."
We'll see if it finally catches on. Naturally, that network would have to avoid falling to the same sins of the Zionist controlled media. It would have to allow debate. Yes, there would have to be rules; but, those rules would have to avoid the "identity police" problem where political-correctness of a certain type advocated by the mainstream has been drummed in and used to obfuscate the economic issues and the lack of real democracy issue (the lack of real democracy and the lack of proper economics being one and the same).