I Confess. I’m a Mossad Honeytrap.

Oh Lordy. I should just let kerfuffles die on their own, but the last time I (sorta) did that, the kerfuffle lasted for two years. I’m writing this mainly for people who actually try to inform themselves before embarking on a Twitter crusade lasting a year or more.

In my last post, I approvingly cited Scott Creighton of American Everyman, for being among the few to publicly draw links between CISPA and The Freedom Act. I also said that his blog was largely dedicated to “sometimes overwrought but well-researched conspiracism” and that I didn’t share his interest in the “conspiracy” he sees behind maneuvers to get CISPA through. When I did this, I truly had no idea that “conspiracism” and “conspiracy” are pejoratives among people who think conspiracies happen and specialize in identifying them.

After a ridiculously frothy dressing down by one of Scott’s fans, I changed the language so that it would presumably give less offense. The spewing continued unabated. If I were a more suspicious person, I might suggest his truly bizarre frothing in ostensible “defense” of a blogger with whom I mostly agreed, was an attempt to change the subject from the Freedom Act to me. If that’s the case, he succeeded admirably both here and on Twitter.

In response to his rabid, truly odd frothing — most of which I’ve deleted — I hazarded an incorrect guess at his identity, someone I described as an “anti-semite” among other things, and who later showed up to speak for himself.  I have tended to identify his kind of extremely vehement, obsessive hatred for Israel — which basically makes it Empire’s Svengali — as anti-Semitic. Perhaps this is a mistake. Perhaps a foreign policy view that makes me Abe Foxman’s toady is simply wrong-headed.

Since I may be mistaken,  I have deleted that remark from the comment and will no longer call people anti-Semitic if the only evidence for it is crediting Israel with supernatural power over all things, including The United States.  However, I will not stop finding this guy and his ilk extremely obnoxious in their insistence that anyone who doesn’t see Israel quite the same way is a power-worshiping Zionist. For the record, I think the view of Israel as a run-of-the-mill U.S. client, that operates entirely in compliance with U.S. geopolitical requirements, is equally hard to embrace.

Elsewhere on this blog, I have defended conspiracism — or whatever I’m supposed to call it — but stated that I don’t share its emphasis on origin stories that we can never know. I tend to be concerned with effects, because they’re knowable — to an extent — and because I think our system has a capacity to improvise what are objectively Psy Ops without a lot of planning or deliberateness. Nevertheless, I think Scott Creighton is a smart guy. He and a lot of people in that realm are great researchers, and even if you don’t agree with them entirely on the false flags, psy ops and hoaxes they write about, they often provide good leads, source material, and political observations. In broad strokes, at least, they understand power better than the average liberal and they tend to be much better informed.

Often when I fail  to give 100% allegiance to some internet subcommunity or another, I am accused of softness on whatever nemesis preoccupies them. Perhaps even an agent for that nemesis. The evidence, of course, is always the same: the fact that I don’t write about this thing that preoccupies them far more than it does me. Or I criticize people that do. It should be enough to simply say how disgustingly childish it is to insist that everyone share your preoccupations in the exact same way you do. But I’ll also point out that this blog has a pretty narrow, and obvious, focus: I am interested in political discourse that left media critics from Chomsky onward self-servingly exempt from scrutiny and analysis.  I am now being condemned, not for the first time, for my allegedly deafening silence on Zionism. But Zionist propaganda does not figure prominently in the space I write about, and it’s a topic on which I can say nothing new, because there is no shortage of people who have said quite a lot already.

However I have mentioned it when it was germane to the topic, such as in this piece on Chris Hayes. I know how internet people really love hearing the things they believe said over and over again, but, though I repeat myself, I try to write, and repeat myself, about things that others mostly don’t. In the realm I contend with, covert fascism, white supremacism — as manifested in free speech absolutism, for example — imperialism and capitalism are much more pronounced than Zionism. In fact, many of the people I critique use anti-Zionism as a street credible substitute for a more thorough-going, coherent left politics. I know that some of the people who are now frothing about me think Greenwald is a shill for Israel. Hence, if I criticize Greenwald without mentioning that I must be some kind of fraud, when what it really means is that I simply don’t agree. For all his faults, I don’t think Greenwald is a covert Zionist. Sorry.

Anyway, do whatever you want with this info. These fights and the people who love them don’t interest me in the least. I hated Twitter crusades and crusaders long before I became a target for them, regardless of their political aim. If you think that’s because I fear your mighty laser-like Truth, you’re really not paying attention. There is not a person on earth I’m afraid of arguing with. I hate Twitter crusades because they are exceptionally attractive to the kinds of people I have spent my life avoiding: conformists, liars, social climbers, demagogues, moralists and witchhunters. People like this. But after the Glennbot fever, stirred up dipshits badmouthing me are like water off a duck’s back.  Don’t confuse my objections to being mischaracterized and lied about with giving a shit what you think. The Glennbots could never get their dim little heads around this. How about you give it a try, while we get back to the topic from which we were very painstakingly derailed.

UPDATE

“For the record, I call it ‘journalism’” — American Everyman blogger Scott Creighton, commenting here.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to I Confess. I’m a Mossad Honeytrap.

  1. Rob says:

    Well, I for one enjoy reading this blog. There’s little gain to be had arguing over things that cannot be proved one way or another in this kind of setting. Trolls are trolls perhaps because people aren’t face to face in a physical sense in a comments section, which seems to be a license to be rude for people who seem to not do well with their own private demons. I notice that people with comment sections most often respond to people that attack them, it’s a sure way of getting attention which may be the whole point of the attacks. In any case I ignore them for the most part as I come here because I’m interested in what you have to say, it’s usually very, very good. I’m not interested in the attacks as there are some very good comments being made that are lot more worthwhile than silly stuff trolls leave. The trolls just sap your energy, they’re not worth spending any time on. This is one of the best blogs I’ve come across.

    • Tarzie says:

      You’re right about them not being worth dealing with. What happens though is they get all stirred up and start telling lies on Twitter, which other people believe. So in response to that I just knocked that post out and that will be the end of it for me. Didn’t take long.

  2. mickstep says:

    If you take the view that you should not take information as it is presented to you, that view will inevitably have fall out.

    Where people arbitrarily draw the line at conspiracy is problematic though. I draw the line at when things become supernatural, and deem anything more plausible than that possible and worth considering.

    However by that point of view I rule most of humanity as conspiracists who are all to willing to believe all manner of ridiculous, supernatural, break fundamental laws of physics conpiracy theories are plausible, but scoff at the idea that their government might lie to them.

    Try to explain to the average Brit that the BBC is state funded media, and that having a convoluted system to fund it does not equate to independence and they will think something is wrong with you. No laws of physics have to be broken for the BBC to be a propaganda machine that toes the government line, yet this idea is deemed crazy, while all kinds of other nonsense like AGW being a hoax is well up for debate.

  3. jason says:

    before the election: “This is the most important election ever! We need to get [Hilary] in office to really change things!”-Agency
    after the election: “those awful pachyderms stampede everything our Savior tries to do!”-System.
    POTUS is the most powerful person in the world….who can’t do anything. Vote Hilary ’16!

    On conspiracism: i don’t need to get too into, e.g., 9-11 conspiracy theories b/c I saw Colin Powell sit at the UN with a vial of sugar telling me this was Iraqi anthrax. The open, announced criminal conspiracy of the iraq war (the effect) is far worse than any esoteric thing they could have been doing to cause or lead to the 9/11 attacks. I didn’t really need to know too much about the Gulf of Tonkin false flag to see villages napalmed & an almost Edenic country sprayed with agent orange. We should not be bothered by words like “conspiracy.” The State itself is a conspiracy.

    • Tarzie says:

      On conspiracism: i don’t need to get too into, e.g., 9-11 conspiracy theories…

      Oh ugh, Jason, boilerplate nonsense. Let me get this right: Gulf of Tonkin is insignificant because you’d already seen villages napalmed etc. But Jason dear, that Gulf of Tonkin false flag undeniably facilitated and prolonged what you’d seen with your very serious person eyes, and discovery of it provided useful information regarding the lengths to which the Ruling Class will go to mass-manipulate people. When any crime is committed, isn’t it just a good idea to try to know all the different people and acts that aided and abetted it? You’ve literally said the equivalent of, “I don’t have to know who murdered my spouse. I already saw her dead and the US is still in Afghanistan.”

      I guess the matter of whether it was communists or fascists pretending to be communists blowing people and shit up in Italy is pure trivia also. And who cares who toppled Allende or deliberately withheld treatment from Black men with syphillis? It won’t bring them back!!! And far worse shit is done all the time!

      Does it not occur to you how very suspect stigmas on inquiries into state violence are? People only say shit like what you’re saying in regard to conspiracy theories. Any other line of inquiry is up for grabs. There is less taboo on discussing racial differences in intelligence. But to the very serious person, conspiracies are ridiculous when they’re theories and banal when they’re confirmed. That you guys say this shit like it’s insightful and savvy and rooted in true compassion and better analysis as opposed to conformism and vanity is really rather gross. I’ll take Michael Parenti, thanks, because he talks about conspiracies in the same matter-of-fact way we discuss anything else.

      • jason says:

        at the time i learned of the gulf of tonkin (i did not live thru vietnam) it was kind of adding urine to a big shit sandwich. the crime itself requires a rationalizing/justifying event just as surveillance requires the normalization of law. when i learned of Tonkin at the time, why was i shocked or dismayed, as i was, to learn that criminals lie? did i think people running the Phoenix program are going to tell the truth about Tonkin?

        there are things about the rationalizing event of 9-11 that i am not competent to comment on. but whether it’s b/c there were explosives in tower 7 or because the cia remote piloted the planes or b/c these were jihadi recruits of uncle sam or ex-jihadi recruits who got off the reservation, the official story is bullshit & uncle sam is either immediately or proximately to blame.

        I don’t need to know which one of my 4 9-11 origin stories is true & the fact is i may never know. there aren’t any alternatives to uncle sam’s culpability. (I don’t mean to be arguing for ignorance here.) this fact compels me to develop other heuristics for evaluating the propaganda around 9-11. like its use in the run up to Iraq, inter alia.

        and what if the gulf of tonkin incident had occurred exactly as officially reported at the time? “them bastards attacked us!” and? so what? what’s uncle sam doing over there in the 1st place? at the time of the incident, the truth or falseness of tonkin at the time was irrelevant b/c it was unknowable to most everyone. hopefully, had i been there, that wouldn’t have stopped me. we were breathing official 9-11 nonsense for weeks & months in the run up to afghanistan. and? even if true, such narratives could never, ever justify what we’ve done in that country.

        anyway, i think this is somewhat metaphysical BS b/c, as in the case of Yemen & the GCC states, if you are bombing the poorest country, you are lying about why. no two ways about it. as far as i can tell, it’s impossible for that not to be the case. there are people who work in this stuff & more power to them. but i do not need to know much about Yemen to know that Saudi Arabia is full of shit.

      • Tarzie says:

        I am not a Truther — For me personally, that inquiry doesn’t warrant the trouble — but I think the four origin stories you mention are qualitatively different enough to warrant investigation if there is evidence for any of them. I think there is something to be said for knowing exactly how a criminal syndicate is operating and getting the full measure of what it’s capable of. There’s also just inherent value, I think, in understanding a major crime.

        Most of the arguments used against Truthers assert the utter impossibility that such a crime could be pulled off in secret, and that its absolutely nutso to think elements in the US ruling class are capable of such a horrible thing. They’re bad but they’re not that bad. Only fanatically religious darkies would do something like that! I don’t think either plank in this “argument” is indisputably correct. And since it’s an argument that whitewashes how bad the people who control our lives are, minimizes how competently they do so, and implicitly holds them up as racially superior to Arabs, I think there is some obvious merit in disputing it.

        But even if not, why all the overwrought distancing from this stuff? Is there any other line of inquiry on which you would spend so many paragraphs placing yourself above it? I think everyone feels this Chomsky-induced pull to be in the sensible crew. I really doubt you would approach any topic like this if there weren’t a stigma attached to it. If there were no taboo, all the different theories would be aired out; they’d be discussed on the news. Historical precedent would be looked at. if there was no resolution at the end of all this, we’d still all probably have a hunch about what happened and happily share it with each other from time to time. People don’t normally have to justify what they think and talk about in relation to patriotism on the right, and service to revolutionary “systemic analysis” on the Left. We wouldn’t variously call each other nuts or hold forth at length as you have on the utter inconsequentiality of it all, any more than we qualify all the other entirely inconsequential things we talk about.

        You seem to think that if there is anything worse happening out in the open, whatever’s happening in the shadows is trivial. But, by the same logic there are no grounds for examining anything after The Shoah. There’s something very self-centered also about your take here. You know how evil the ruling class is already so what do you care? But not everyone is in that place. And yes the Vietnamese would have been perfectly within their rights to blow up US ships. But they didn’t and a False Flag saying they did intensified the crime against them. I’m having trouble reconciling your keen empathy with the pain of the Vietnamese and indifference to a hoax that indisputably added to it.

      • jason says:

        tarzie, i’m going to let the rest of this conversation go. i think we are miscommunicating, for which i’ll take the blame. far be it from me to imply that knowing about operation gladio is not vital. there is a world of unlearning & learning to be done. where does a novice begin? i try to think in terms of some principles a newbie could use to think thru some of the propaganda. e.g., get out a globe & find 1) Crimea 2) the Spratley Islands 3) Russia 4) China and 5) the United States. what does this tell us? you gotta spin that globe a long ways to find only one of those countries/locations.

        thank you (& the commenter) for the M. Parenti stuff. However, there were millions killed or gulag-ed in the Stalinist show trials & purges, not hundreds as Parenti says in one of the 2 articles, but hundreds of thousands of old guard bolshies, incl. the officer corp of the red army (so Stalin was preparing for an invasion huh? no doubt, but i guess the cult of personality outweighed other concerns). Not a small error on Parenti’s part. he has a lot of good points in those articles (haven’t watched the video but i will) but it does make me wonder if he’s not whitewashing & maybe rationalizing other aspects of Stalinism. anywho, He doesn’t quite say this but the “victory narrative” we’ve imbibed here in the West is nothing less than than the belief that the strongest, most violent person/system is right. trial by ordeal, if i kill you, you must have been wrong. it’s the crudest worship of brute force.

      • Tarzie says:

        whitewashing & maybe rationalizing other aspects of Stalinism

        He may well be, which would suck, but I think his general analysis remains sound anyway. It is unseemly for someone like Chomsky to be unequivocally giddy over the switch from state communism to gangster capitalism. It is also a shit politics that discusses the failure of communism separate from all the interference to which it is invariably subject. But I do really hate when communists whitewash the bad stuff, often with a vulgar utilitarian calculation. Oh yeah, the gulags, but women were doctors! I think they would be more compelling if they owned it but made an analytical case that the atrocities are not baked in. I don’t consider myself a Marxist or state socialist, so I take some of that in Parenti with a grain of salt. But I think on the descriptive and analytical side, a good Marxist is extremely valuable, even if they’re authoritarian creeps on the prescriptive side.

    • jason says:

      yes. overall, lots of good stuff there despite the caveats. nice smack down of Chomsky in those articles & comments here. Foucault asked Chomsky in a debate if Chomsky tho’t any action that furthered the revolution was not also by its nature justice. this is the kind of thinking certain Marxists get into (i forget how Chomsky punted on that question but he did disagree). anyway, we must never forget that communism emerged from the capitalist order which has literally been trying to crucify it (or nuke it) ever since. This does not justify the crimes of Stalin but his paranoia is more understandable when seen in context, including the capitalist-ordered Great Depression & capitalist-mandated crisis in interwar Germany.

    • jason says:

      because of the stupid & virulent anti-communism here in the West, certain of communism’s defenders have found it easy to slip into glossing over the crimes of the USSR, esp. Stalin. a mistake. Parenti doesn’t mention the Ukraine famine in the articles either. Capitalists don’t talk about the Irish or Indian famines under the Brits. such dishonesty. Parenti may have glossed over the Ukraine famine thinking “everyone knows about that” but he shouldn’t have. (in the West, if you know anything about Stalin, you know about the famine). I am more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt than some court historian for Queen Victoria and/or her majesty’s PM’s.

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s