dinsdag 19 februari 2019

The Zionist Lobby is The Deep State


The Israeli Lobby Is the Deep State

By Jason Charles on 2/13/2019 (6 days ago) Israel/Zionism
This week the Intercept reported on the firestorm created by Rep. Ilhan Omar when she audaciously cited the AIPAC lobby as being behind a political smear campaign against her. The Intercept reported,
“…Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., responded sharply to reports that Republican leader Kevin McCarthy was targeting both Omar and fellow Muslim Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat from Michigan. 
Omar quoted rap lyrics — “It’s all about the Benjamins baby” — to suggest McCarthy’s move was driven by the lobby’s prolific spending. Asked specifically who she was referring to, Omar responded, “AIPAC!” (The Intercept)

In this report they also linked to numerous undercover investigations that produced audio and video tapes of AIPAC political operatives funneling money to Israeli friendly politicians and government insiders as a means to sway national opinion. The report quotes a conversation on the tapes as follows,
“David Ochs, founder of HaLev, which helps send young people to American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s annual conference, described for the reporter how AIPAC and its donors organize fundraisers outside the official umbrella of the organization, so that the money doesn’t show up on disclosures as coming specifically from AIPAC. He describes one group that organizes fundraisers in both Washington and New York. “This is the biggest ad hoc political group, definitely the wealthiest, in D.C.,” Ochs says, adding that it has no official name, but is clearly tied to AIPAC. “It’s the AIPAC group. It makes a difference; it really, really does. It’s the best bang for your buck, and the networking is phenomenal.” (Ochs and AIPAC did not immediately return The Intercept’s requests for comment.)
Without spending money, Ochs argues, the pro-Israel lobby isn’t able to enact its agenda. “Congressmen and senators don’t do anything unless you pressure them. They kick the can down the road, unless you pressure them, and the only way to do that is with money,” he explains.” (The Intercept)
Just so we are clear, an Israeli lobbyist and AIPAC organizer stated on video that AIPAC, through shadow funding has become the biggestwealthiestnetworking group in D.C.
The influence alluded to by AIPAC in these statements should be alarming. Politicians are being bribed to be political attack dogs for Israel.

Trump is Green Like the Swamp Thing
So, I am curious, what AIPAC’s going rate for a congressman is, relative to what the going rate for say…President Trump might be? It was Trump who went further than anyone saying that Rep. Omar should resign for her statements on AIPAC, he was quoted as saying,
“Critics -- both Democratic and Republican -- said Omar's tweets evoked anti-Semitic tropes. House Democratic leadership called on her to apologize, and the freshman congresswoman then released a statement where she "unequivocally" apologized.
Omar's statement reads, "Anti-Semitism is real and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes. My intention is never to offend my constituents or Jewish Americans as a whole. We have to always be willing to step back and think through criticism, just as I expect people to hear me when others attack me for my identity. This is why I unequivocally apologize."
"At the same time," Omar continued, "I reaffirm the problematic role of lobbyists in our politics, whether it be AIPAC, the NRA or the fossil fuel industry. It's gone on too long and we must be willing to address it."
Trump said at the Cabinet meeting, "What (Omar) said is so deep seated in her heart that her lame apology -- and that's what it was, it was lame and she didn't mean a word of it -- was just not appropriate. I think she should resign from Congress, frankly.” (CNN)

"The Jews have endured terrible persecution, and you know that, we've all read it: We've studied it. They've gone through a lot and those seeking their destruction…we will seek their destruction." (American Thinker)

So, Trump the Destroyer, making good on his promise to Netanyahu jumps right into the fray calling for the resignation of a politician over her complaints of foreign influence in American politics.
Trump, who campaigned on draining the swamp and ending foreign wars abroad, has quite literally done an about face on his promises and inextricably tied himself to Netanyahu and the Zionist war machine that controls American politics.
AIPAC is the swamp.
Everyone and I mean everyone wants to cozy up to the money in D.C., Trump included. As David Ochs, stated above AIPAC is the richest, most influential lobby in Washington.
It is Israeli interests that utilize their vast network of compromised political elite and the Israeli dual-citizen Neocons controlling the Pentagon to drag us into perpetual war on their behalf. It is this Israeli loyal contingent that is the Deep State swamp in U.S. politics who are running the show.

Rep. Omar statements should be applauded. Constitutionally speaking she is more in line with the founders than Trump, who has completely entangled himself with these Zionist foreign operatives.
Didn’t Founder and President George Washington tell us to be wary of foreign entanglements? He wanted us to stay clear of foreign alliances as a national policy,
"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world." -Farewell Address to the People of the United States | Monday, September 19, 1796

If Trump was going to sell out to anything, of course it would be to money. Big surprise, the guy that plates his mansions in gold sells out to the vast empire of Zionist wealth. Someone with his kind of money can only be envious of the groups that have more money than him, which for the last 200 years is the Zionist Rothschilds who own Israel. So, when we hear someone like David Ochs talk about the AIPAC funding network, in reality he is talking about the Rothschilds who literally own stakes in the biggest financial institutions on the planet. That is the funding network spoken about, that is why so many want AIPAC money, because it brings them that much closer to those who own the world.
When Baron Edmond De Rothschild set out to establish a Zionist state in Israel back in the late 1800’s that was not some pet project of the family, it was their entire End Game. Israel is the most important thing to this family and they will drag the world into the fires of hell to make sure their vision of a Greater Israel is made manifest.
If you want to find the ancient dragon, then follow the money and that money leads back to Israel, who in turn leads back to the Rothschild's controlling interest in the region.
AIPAC is the monied Deep State and Trump is one of their many swamp creatures that are playing his blinded Christian Zionist supporters better than Obama, the Bush’s, the Clintons could do combined. He is truly the perfect Zionist operative.
All we get out of this Trump deal is war, cultural division, unyielding debt, more war, a police state, and to be called antisemitic when we point out who is really pulling the strings in the Deep State of Washington Politics.
Trump has proven himself to be the ultimate Judas goat betrayer. Christians need to wake up to the fact that the devil, not God is running the show on this planet and that includes the Rothschild State of Israel. The second Temple was called Herod’s Temple, and Jesus cursed it and predicted its collapse, the 3rd Temple in Jerusalem will undoubtedly be called the Rothschild Temple once built, it doesn’t take a genius to see where all this madness is headed, but it does take the entire blinded Christian Zionist establishment to fall for this ungodly lie and support it for it to play out like Revelation indicates it will. Even the elect will be decieved Jesus told us, well we're living it right now.
Paul when calling out the Jewish betrayers in his day asked this of the Galatians “So have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?” No doubt, Trump and his Zionist handlers will weaponize the antisemitism rhetoric and turn it against all of us that are telling the Truth about Zionist influence in our government, in our day. History repeats itself because the devil is always up to his old tricks.

Ian Buruma's Gebrek aan Logica 24

Op The World’s Opinion Page van 6 februari 2019 laat Ian Buruma naar aanleidingvan Brexit de wereld weten dat in de Britse ‘sophisticated democratic society’:

Neo-Trotskyists on the left, including Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the main opposition Labour Party, seem to think that catastrophe will spur the British people to demand true socialism at last…

The main figures behind a hard Brexit — the likes of Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, and Jacob Rees-Mogg — will probably be fine. But it will be no use blaming only them. It is the people who knew better, but didn’t do enough to stop it, who should be most ashamed.

Maar als dit laatste waar zou zijn dan zou de Westerse elite geen mainstream-opiniemakers als Buruma nodig hebben. De technocratie — het bewind van deskundigen of van degenen die de deskundigen in dienst kunnen nemen — heeft evenwel om een volgzame massa te scheppen een ongecompliceerde beeldcultuur geschapen, die de meningen en daarmee de handelingen van de massamens bepalen. Die moet immers permanent gemobiliseerd blijven via geconditioneerde reflexen, en zeker niet via weloverwogen bespiegelingen. Kunst speelt daarin geen enkele rol. De joods-Britse auteur John Berger wees erop dat in het Verenigd Koninkrijk:

als gevolg van de grootscheepse culturele deprivatie... er grote delen van de… arbeiders en middenklasse bestaan die zich niet helder kunnen uitdrukken. De middelen om datgene wat ze weten te vertalen in gedachten is hen ontnomen… Ze bezitten geen voorbeelden die ze kunnen volgen, waarbij woorden ervaringen duidelijk maken. 

Een avondje televisie kijken en men weet wat Berger bedoeld. Terecht merkte de van origine joodse Oostenrijkse auteur George Steiner eerder al op:

Wat kan er, uitgezonderd halve waarheden, grove simplificaties of onbenulligheden, overgebracht worden aan dat half-geletterde massale gehoor, dat… overal de voorstelling mag bijwonen?

Iemand of een bepaalde groep hiervan de schuld geven is ronduit simplistische demagogie. Of dit nu ‘Neo-Trotskyists’ zijn ‘including Jeremy Corbyn,’ of ‘the likes of Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, and Jacob Rees-Mogg.’ Een consumptiecultuur kan niet niet voortdurend inspelen op de meest grove impulsen van de mens om hem zodoende aan het consumeren te houden, en vervolgens verwachten dat hij belangstelling toont voor de subtiliteiten van de kunst. Bovendien: wat kan men van Buruma’s ‘urban elites’ uit de middenklasse verwachten wanneer deze opiniemaker zijn publiek kan wijsmaken dat Rusland en China niets anders zijn dan ‘mafia societies’? En hoe kan Groot Brittanië een ‘sophisticated democratic society’ zijn als daar ‘[m]ore than 14 million people, including 4.5 million children, are living below the breadline, with more than half trapped in poverty for years’? Wat is er zo ‘sophisticated’ aan het feit dat miljoenen Britten in Buruma's ‘democratische samenleving’ in bittere armoede leven, en de ‘[i]nequality between the richest 1% and the rest of the country is continuing to rise’? Het is duidelijk welke graadmeter Buruma gebruikt voor het bepalen dat het Verenigd Koninkrijk een ‘sophisticated democratic society’ is, namelijk de mate van onverschilligheid tegenover de medemens. 

Het meest angstwekkend is dat de geschoolde klasse moeiteloos deze propaganda slikt, en dat Buruma onweersproken kan verkondigen dat in totaal ruim anderhalf miljard mensen in maatschappijen leven die alle kenmerken vertonen van de Cosa Nostra. Voor dit soort cultureel gedepriveerd gezwets wordt mijn oude vriend, namens het Nederlandstalig establishment, ook nog eens beloond met zowel de Erasmusprijsals De Gouden Ganzenveer. Kortom, na millennia-lang door het manicheïsme van het joods-christelijke geloof te zijn geïndoctrineerd, wordt de postmoderne staatsburger nu bestookt met simplistische bellicose zwart-wit beelden. Deze ontwikkeling is deels te verklaren door datgene wat Buruma zelf ‘bizarre vergeetachtigheid’ noemt, maar in werkelijkheid cognitieve dissonantie is, een fenomeen dat ontstaat zodra er zich een onoverbrugbare leemte voordoet tussen theorie en praktijk. Voor een ander deel komt Buruma’s manicheïsme voort uit wat de auteur Milan Kundera als volgt heeft verwoord:

De mens wenst zich een wereld waarin het goed en het kwaad duidelijk van elkaar te onderscheiden zijn, want in hem huist het ingeschapen en ontembare verlangen te oordelen alvorens te begrijpen.

Bovendien speelt er nog iets anders mee, dat veel complexer is, en in 1987 door de Franse filosoof Roger Garaudy als volgt werd verwoord:

For the first time in human history, since what the occidentals call their ‘renaissance' — that is, the simultaneous birth of capitalism and colonialism — science has been separated from wisdom and a technique has been developed for techniques. 

Science has been separated from wisdom in the sense that the organization of means has become independent of the reflection on ends. In all other cultures, for example in those of India, China, Islam (so far as Asia is concerned), one recognized two uses of reason; one proceeded from cause to effect and permitted adaptation to nature, and the other proceeded from ends to ends, from intermediate ends to higher ends, and gave direction to life. Western thought has let the second use of reason atrophy. Cut off from wisdom, occidental reason has become infirm, mutilated and monstrous, indifferent to all human finality.

Wat betreft ‘het atrofiëren van de rede,’ schreef de Amerikaanse socioloog C. Wright Mills:

Great and rational organization — in brief, bureaucracies — have indeed increased, but the substantive (wezenlijke. svh) reason of the individual at large has not. 

Caught in the limited milieux of their everyday lives, ordinary men often cannot reason about the great structures — rational and irrational  — of which their milieux are subordinate parts. Accordingly, they often carry out series of apparently rational actions without any ideas of the ends they serve, and there is the increasing suspicion that those at the top as well — like Tolstoy’s generals — only pretend they know. The growth of such organizations, within an increasing division of labor, sets up more and more spheres of life, work, and leisure, in which reasoning is difficult or impossible. The soldier, for example, 'carries out an entire series of functionally rational actions accurately without having any idea as to the ultimate end of this action’ or the function of each act within the whole (Mannheim, Man and Society, 1940). Even men of technically supreme intelligence may efficiently perform their assigned work and yet not know what it is to result in the first atom bomb,

zoals daadwerkelijk het geval was tijdens de ontwikkeling van het  Amerikaanse kernwapen. De nucleaire wapenwedloop is misschien wel het duidelijkste voorbeeld van  rationaliteit zonder rede. Een ander voorbeeld is de kapitalistische ideologie van de eeuwige groei, die in een eindige wereld per definitie onmogelijk is, en die inmiddels de mensheid heeft opgezadeld met een kolossale milieuvervuiling en -vernietiging. Nog een voorbeeld is het neoliberalisme, een ideologie die ervoor heeft gezorgd dat anno 2019 ‘World's 26 richest people own as much as poorest 50%.’ Tegelijkertijd overtuigt mainstream-opiniemaker Ian Buruma zijn publiek met uitspraken als dat de ‘[w]esterse samenlevingen nu democratischer dan ooit [zijn],’ waarmee opnieuw bewezen wordt dat de ‘vrije pers’ en haar middenklasse publiek niet beseffen dat zij in een cultuur leven beheerst door een ‘rationality without reason.’ Nogmaals een fragment van C. Wright Mills uit zijn invloedrijke studie The Sociological Imagination (1959):

Science, it turns out, is not a technological Second Coming. That its techniques and its rationality are given a central place in a society does not mean that men live reasonably and without myth, fraud, and superstition. Universal education may lead to technological idiocy and nationalist provinciality — rather than to the informed and independent intelligence. 

Wanneer Ian Buruma het Verenigd Koninkrijk karakteriseert als ‘a sophisticated democratic society’ die ‘knowingly walks into a predictable and avoidable national disaster,’ dan verraadt hij daarmee niet te weten dat een Amerikaanse geleerde als onder andere Mills al bijna zes decennia geleden ervoor waarschuwde dat de westerse democratieën onmogelijk democratisch kunnen zijn, omdat de burgers er onderworpen zijn aan ‘uncontrolled and irrational forces,’ het onvermijdelijke resultaat van de ‘increasing rationalization of society, the contradiction between such rationality and reason, the collapse of the assumed coincidence of reason and freedom.' Hun geconditioneerde reflexen  betekenen niet dat zij ‘necessary unintelligent’ zijn, zelfs niet, aldus C. Wright Mills,

after they have lived and worked and played in such circumstances for quite some time. Karl Mannheim (joods-Hongaarse filosoof, wiens sociologische opvattingen verwantschap vertonen met de Frankfurter Schule. svh) has made the point in a clear way by speaking of ‘self rationalization,’ which refers to the way in which an individual, caught in the limited segments of great, rational organizations, comes systematically to regulate his impulses and his aspirations, his manner of life and his ways of thought, in rather strict accordance with ‘the rules and regulations of the organization.’ The rational organization is thus an alienating organization: the guiding principles of conduct and reflection, and in due course of emotion as well, are not seated in the individual conscience of the Reformation man, or in the independent reason of the Cartesian man. The guiding principles, in fact, are alien to and in contradiction with all that has been historically understood as individuality. It is not too much to say that in the extreme development the chance to reason of most men is destroyed, as rationality increases and its locus, its control, is moved from the individual to the big-scale organization. There is then rationality without reason. Such rationality is not commensurate  with freedom but the destroyer of it. 

Daardoor voelt de massamens zich: 

increasingly uneasy. It is in terms of this type of man that the contemporary problem of freedom is best stated. Yet such trends and suspicions are often not formulated as problems, and they are certainly not widely acknowledged as issues or felt as a set of troubles. Indeed, it is the fact of its unrecognized character, its lack of formulation, that is the most important feature of the contemporary problem of freedom and reason.

Een treffend voorbeeld van het feit dat het ‘belangrijkste kenmerk van het huidige probleem met vrijheid en rede’ nog steeds ‘niet erkend’ wordt, is Ian Buruma’s stellige bewering dat het Verenigd Koninkrijk ‘a sophisticated democratic society’is, en dat ‘[w]esterse samenlevingen nu democratischer dan ooit [zijn],’ medewaardoor ‘we’ in Europa ‘must share America's dirty work.’ Daarentegen wees ook Garaudy er terecht op dat wat ‘het Westen “vooruitgang” noemt,’ in feite de overmatige toepassing is van ‘rationality without reason,’ dat 

as Descartes wrote, 'makes us masters and possessors of nature.' The only criterion and only value are those of efficacy (doeltreffendheid. svh). Linear progress, as conceived in the West, is growing efficacy in the destruction of nature and of people.’ 

Desondanks blijft Buruma beweren dat het ‘Verlichtingsproject’ de mens heeft verlost van pijn en onderdrukking, en dat het daarom het model bij uitstek is voor de rest van de wereld, ook al betekent dit dat ‘wij,’ net als de VS, ‘dirty work’ moeten verrichten, en de consequenties moeten accepteren dat ‘wij,’ vervolgens vanwege oorlogsmisdaden en misdaden tegen de menselijkheid, voor het International Criminal Court worden gedaagd. De onuitgesproken veronderstelling hierachter is dat aangezien ‘wij’ goed zijn en ‘onze’ vijanden slecht, ook ‘wij’ slecht mogen zijn. Dit is een ander voorbeeld van ‘rationality without reason.’ Kenmerkend is tevens dat het establisment dit soort oproepen tot massale terreur beloont met allerlei prestigieus geachte prijzen. 

Wanneer de lezer de nauwelijks verhulde aannames van de ‘vrije pers’ analyseert dan stuit hij/zij al snel op talloze voorbeelden van onderhuids racisme in het beschaafde Westen. Bloedbaden heten ‘collateral damage,’ oftewel ‘bijkomende schade,’ agressieoorlogen -- waarvoor de nazi-top tijdens de Processen van Neurenberg ter dood werd veroordeeld -- worden vandaag de dag ‘responsibility to protect’ of ‘humanitair ingrijpen’ betiteld, hetzes tegen landen die weigeren te gehoorzamen aan de dictaten van Washington en Wall Street heten perscampagnes tegen agressieve vijanden die interveniëren in ‘democratische’ verkiezingen.  Roger Garaudy:

the Western model of growth is characterized by blind production of more and more, faster and faster, no matter what; things useful, useless or even lethal (for instance,  armaments). Such ‘ growth’ began with the genocide of American Indians, continued with the trade of African slaves, and in Asia with the oopium war and the bomb on Hiroshima. This ‘growth’ led, in 1980, to the starvation death of fifty-five million human beings in the so-called underdeveloped countries, the same year that the West's politics of armaments has ended in placing four tonnes of explosives on the head of each inhabitant of the planet.

‘Underdevelopment' is not a phenomenon of backwardness; it has been created by the growth of the West. The growth of some countries and the underdevelopment of others are only two faces of the same planetary maldevelopment. The first consequence, a theoretical one, of this reckoning is to denounce the falsehood which is involved in proposing to the ‘underdeveloped’ countries that they should imitate the Western model of development, because, by definition, a system where the growth of some countries demands the pillage and underdevelopment of three-fourths of the world is not applicable to the entire universe.

En dit westerse model veroorzaakt nu, zelfs in democratieën, een toenemende kloof tussen geprivilegieerden en gemarginaliseerden, terwijl de middenklasse almaar krimpt, zoals uit gedegen onderzoek blijkt. Garaudy:

The Western countries are sick — with their blind economic growth and underdeveloped culture, wisdom and faith — which in turn breeds violence and pointless lives, incapable of proposing and realizing human ends. The deceived countries are those made to believe that their future lies in imitating the sick countries.

The principal obstacle to the necessary change is that the West, after four centuries of unshared domination during which it has exercised a disastrous impact on the planet, imposes not only its economic, political and military ‘order,’ but also the form of culture and history which justifies it, as if the historical trajectory followed by the West was the only possible one, exemplary and universal. 

The West has confiscated the universal. Starting from there it pretends to place all others on its own trajectory (a country is considered the more developed the more it resembles the West)… There cannot be a new world economic order without a new cultural order. A new world cultural order will be the transition from the Western hegemony to a planetary planning for a human project. The dialogue of civilizations has become a necessity, urgent and unexceptionable. A question of survival. 

Daarom is het centrale vraagstuk in onze tijd of de mens een alternatief perspectief weet te ontwerpen voor de moderne repressie, zeker nu ‘the West continues to pretend that it has a monopoly of the truth, even though it has lost the taste for researching the significance of life,’ aldus wijlen Garaudy. Dit laatste is het onderwerp van de fascinerende essaybunel Traditions, Tyranny, and Utopias. Essays in the Politics of Awareness (1987), geschreven door de Indiase klinisch psycholoog Ashish Nandy. Met het oog op de langdurige wereldwijde vernietiging van ‘traditions and cultural continuities’ door ‘the homogeneity that the modern world imposes in the name of universalism,’ stelt hij dat:

Older, tired and wiser, we can now take courage to affirm that the main civilizational problem is not with irrational, self-contradicting superstitions but with ways of thinking associated with the modern concept of rationality; that modern science has already built a structure of near-total isolation where human beings themselves — including all their suffering and moral experience — have been objectified as things and processes, to be vivisected, manipulated or corrected. According to this view, the irrationality of rationality — as Herbert Marcuse (van origine joods-Duitse socioloog. svh) might have described the pathology — in organized normal science — as Thomas Kuhn (joods-Amerikaanse wetenschapsfilosoof. svh)might have described the system — is no longer a mere slogan. It is threatening to take over all of human life, including every interstice (opening. svh) of culture and every form of individuality. We now have scientific training in modern sports and recreations; our everyday social relations and social activism are more and more guided by pseudo-sciences like management and social work and by pseudo-technologies… 

Our future is being conceptualized and shaped by the modern witchcraft called the science of economics. If we do not love such a future, scientific child-rearing and scientific pedagogy are waiting to cure us of such false values, and the various schools of scientific psychotherapy are ever-ready to certify us as dangerous neurotics. Another set of modern witch-doctors has taken over the responsibility of making even the revolutionaries among us scientific. In fact, the scientific study of poverty has become more important than poverty itself. Even in bed, our performance is now judged according to the objective criteria of some highly scientific, how-to-do-it manuals on sex. 

Such a process has continuously justified our ability to freeze or fix a subject for study and to place it at a distance to evaluate. Those acquainted with Bettelheim's (Bruno Bettelheim, in Oostenrijk geboren joodse auteur, filosoof, en kinderpsycholoog die Dachau en Buchenwald overleefde. svh) account of human beings facing arbitrary torture and murder will know why I have used the word 'distance' here. Distancing is a psychological device which both the victim and his oppressor have to use, one to ward off the reality of his fate and the other to reduce his victim into an object.

It is the second use which is pertinent to my argument here. It is the use which prompts Aimé Césaire (invloedrijke zwarte intellectueel. svh) to write the quaint formula: 'colonization = thingification.’ In its extreme form such objectification becomes necrophilia, the passion to kill so as to freeze, place at a distance, and love.

Het objectiveren van de wetenschap, waarbij alles in de wereld tot een object wordt gereduceerd, is buitengewoon succesvol geweest, maar heeft tegelijkertijd de werkelijkheid dermate ontzield, dat het rationalisme volstrekt irrationeel is geworden, zoals het kernwapenarsenaal laat zien. Niets in de natuur spreekt nog in zijn eigen taal met ons. De westerling ziet de werkelijkheid alleen nog door een filter van nut en efficiency. Wat niet aan deze criteria voldoet, ziet en hoort hij niet. Vandaar dat Ian Buruma zonder enige wroeging kan beweren dat ‘we must share America's dirty work.’ 

Vervreemd van de werkelijkheid, of, zoals Nandy het noemt door het mentaal ‘op een afstand houden’ kan mijn oude vriend het gekerm van de gewonden niet horen, en is hij daarom niet in staat de gewonden en het intense verdriet van de nabestaanden waar te nemen. De doden ziet hij al helemaal niet. Zij zijn tot ‘collateral damage’gereduceerd, net als voor de SS-bureaucraat Adolf Eichmann joodse slachtoffers niet bestonden, die door zijn kadaverdiscipline naar vernietigingskampen werden gedeporteerd. Hun leed blijft door de vervreemding onzichtbaar, de slachtoffers zijn immers gereduceerd tot een object. Toen Eichmann tijdens zijn proces in Jeruzalem gevraagd werd of hij ‘Mein Kampf’ had bestudeerd, antwoordde de oorlogsmisdadiger dat hij Hitler’s boek had ‘angelesen,’ oftewel: er doorheen had gebladerd. Een ‘Schreibtisch-Mörder’ heeft geen ideologie nodig om anderen het ‘dirty work’ te laten verrichten; slechts een pathologisch verlangen naar een succesvolle carrière is voldoende. De invloedrijke joodse politiek theoretica Hannah Arendt was tijdens het proces tegen Eichmann verbijsterd over het feit dat de aangeklaagde een gewone, tamelijk aimabele bureaucraat was, die ‘neither perverted nor sadistic,’ bleek te zijn, maar ‘terrifyingly normal’ overkwam. De Amerikaanse publicist Thomas White schreef in verband hiermee:

He acted without any motive other than to diligently advance his career in the Nazi bureaucracy. Eichmann was not an amoral monster, she (Arendt. svh) concluded in her study of the case, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (1963). Instead, he performed evil deeds without evil intentions, a fact connected to his ‘thoughtlessness,’ a disengagement from the reality of his evil acts. Eichmann ‘never realized what he was doing’ due to an ‘inability… to think from the standpoint of somebody else.’ Lacking this particular cognitive ability, he ‘commit[ted] crimes under circumstances that made it well-nigh impossible for him to know or to feel that he [was] doing wrong.’

Arendt dubbed these collective characteristics of Eichmann ‘the banality of evil’: he was not inherently evil, but merely shallow and clueless, a ‘joiner,’ in the words of one contemporary interpreter of Arendt’s thesis: he was a man who drifted into the Nazi Party, in search of purpose and direction, not out of deep ideological belief. In Arendt’s telling, Eichmann reminds us of the protagonist in Albert Camus’s novel The Stranger (1942), who randomly and casually kills a man, but then afterwards feels no remorse. There was no particular intention or obvious evil motive: the deed just ‘happened.’

Op zijn beurt waarschuwde joods-Nederlandse auteur Harry Mulisch in zijn onvolprezen boek De Zaak 40/61:

Eichmann is definitief geschiedenis geworden. Waar praat ik nog over? Mensen bedreigen mensen met een vernietiging, waarnaast de jodenmoord een bagatel zal worden, een herinnering uit de goede oude tijd. En geen Amerikaan of Rus die, komt het bevel, zal weigeren de bommen in het zachte vlees van hele volkeren te werpen — zo min als Eichmann weigerde. Wat hebben wij eigenlijk over Eichmann te beweren? Wij, die zelfs de ongeborenen bedreigen: en die oorlog tegen ons nageslacht is al (sinds Hiroshima) zestien jaar aan de gang! Maar zoiets heet geen 'oorlog' meer, dat heet een vervloeking. Hier vervloekt de mens zichzelf, zijn eigen kindskinderen, hieruit spreekt een haat zo fundamenteel, dat wij wel moeten vrezen, de mens nog altijd overschat te hebben.

De ‘banaliteit van het kwaad’ vergezelt nog steeds de postmoderne mens, waardoor de conclusie is gerechtvaardigd dat hij zelfs van de recente geschiedenis niets heeft geleerd, zoals ondermeer blijkt uit opiniemaker Ian Buruma’s oproep aan Europa om een deel van het Amerikaanse ‘smerige werk’ op ‘ons’ te nemen, inclusief het risico daarvoor veroordeeld te worden door het Internationaal Strafhof in Den Haag, de stad waar hijzelf zes jaar na de Tweede Wereldoorlog geboren werd als zoon van een advocaat van een internationaal opererend kantoor, die in 1941, tijdens de nazi-bezetting, rechten ging studeren, terwijl joodse studenten werden geweerd. Ashis Nandy maakte in dit verband de lezers van Traditions, Tyranny, and Utopias opmerkzaam op het volgende:

The warning against the rationality from which the objectification derives is best given in the words of Fromm (Erich Fromm. van origine joods-Duitse sociaal psycholoog. svh):

‘Logical thought is not rational if it is merely logical… (Paranoid thinking is characterized by the fact that it can be completely logical… Logic does not exclude madness). On the other hand, not only thinking but also emotions can be rational…

Reason flows from the blending of rational thought and feeling. If the two functions are torn apart, thinking deteriorates into schizoid intellectual  activity,   and  feeling  deteriorates  into  neurotic  life-damaging passions. 

The split between thought and affect leads to a sickness, to a low-grade chronic schizophrenia, from which the new man of the technetronic (veranderingen teweeggebracht door de ontwikkelingen in technologie en communicatiemiddelen. svh) age begins to suffer… There are low-grade chronic forms of psychoses which can be shared by millions of people.’ 

Fromm here endorses, with the help of nosological (classificatie van ziekten. svh)entities similar to the ones I have used, the social analyses which nervously view a growing number of societies getting structurally and morally reorganized to meet the needs of organized science. He in the process unwittingly provides another reason why criticisms of modern science from within the scientific worldview cannot go very far. 

The importance of the other position which insists that the social problems created by modern science cannot be handled within the culture of modern science, has also grown because the idea of more science to cure the ills of science seems especially to enthuse (in extase brengen. svh) normal scientists and the political spokesmen of the scientific estate.

Vanzelfsprekend kan meer van hetzelfde nooit de oplossing zijn voor fundamentele problemen die eigen zijn aan het wetenschappelijk mens- en wereldbeeld. Feit is dat: 

if modern science claims the right to criticize other systems, it should give the right to criticize science if not to other systems at least to its own victims, that it should grant that a part of the ethical restraint on modern science may now have to come from outside science, from the totality of human experience confronting science. 

Any idea of external control on science, however, sounds like a denial of free thought to many. Discredited by the clumsy, sometimes tragic battle waged against science by the medieval church, the idea of external control seems dangerous even now, when science rules the world. But could it be that the church in its obscurantism was expressing its fears of a system of knowledge freed from the restraints of ethics and social conscience, however faulty that ethics and however rigid that conscience? The answer may be less unfriendly to the church today when modern science is a part of the global establishment, when most faiths have become defensive and all organized faiths are seeking endorsement from science. Today the issue is: which pathology has become more unsafe for human survival, that of scientific rationality or that of its 'irrational' subjects?  

Een actuele vraag wanneer bijvoorbeeld een hoogleraar ‘Human Rights and Journalism’ en ‘an award-winning journalist and writer’ als Ian Buruma publiekelijk oproept om ‘dirty work’ te verrichten, en dit als een academisch verantwoorde visie moet worden gezien. Terecht merkt de socioloog Ashis Nandy dan ook op:

The moral that emerges is that modern science can no longer be an ally against authoritarianism. Today it has an in-built tendency to be an ally of authoritarianism. We must now look elsewhere in the society to find support for democratic values. 

Why has something which began as a movement of protest become part of the Establisment? Why do the moderns continue to view science as a cornered voice of dissent fighting powerful opponents when it all to visibly owns the world? Why do even the radical critics of society exercise restraint when criticizing science?

Any answer to these questions must begin with the admission that modern science is both a social institution and a search for new meanings and aesthetics. During its first two centuries, it was the second aspect of modern science which predominated. In Europe till the eighteenth century the scientist was claiming the right to search for another truth and adopt another mode of reaching it. But that philosophical quest was a hangover from the days of classical science and the scientists recovered from it soon enough to produce, by the end of the nineteenth century, a formidable organization and strong links with that other child of seventeenth-century Europe, the modern nation-state system. In another five decades, the scientist has become the main author of the Establishment cosmology. He is now the orthodoxy; he is now the Establishment. So much so that to perceive him still as a weak, unorganized fighter against authority can spell disaster for all of  us. 

When science was primarily a philosophical venture, it allowed for more plurality. In the days of organized science there is little scope for a scientist to protect his individuality as a scientist. Over-organized science has managed to do the impossible: it has become a market-place and a vested interest at the same time. It has an organizational logic independent of the creativity of the individual scientist but dependent on — and subserving — his material interests. Thus, there is an inner incentive for the scientists — for even the most creative among hem — to orient their creativity to the dominant culture of science. The scientist can fully encash (verwerkelijken. svh)  his creativity in the market-place of science only if he plays according to the existing organizational rules of modern science and, better still, if he remains unconscious of the rules in the fashion of what George Lukacs calls the silent species. 

De Hongaarse marxistische filosoof Georg Lukács, geboren in een gefortuneerd joods bankiersgezin, zette in zijn boek History & Class Consciousness (1923) uiteen dat:

rational objectification conceals above all the immediate — qualitative and material — character of things as things… As Marx observes:

'Private property alienates not only the individuality of men, but also of things. The ground and the earth have nothing to do with ground-rent, machines have nothing to do with profit. For the landowner ground and earth mean nothing but ground-rent; he lets his land to tenants and receives the rent — a quality which the ground can lose without losing any of its inherent qualities such as its fertility; it is a quality whose magnitude and indeed existence depends on social relations that are created and abolished without any intervention by the landowner. Likewise with the machine.’

Thus even the individual object which man confronts directly, either as producer or consumer, is distorted in its objectivity by its commodity character.

Alles is een product geworden, inclusief de mens, een product zonder intrinsieke waarde, omdat de waarde van het product, dus inclusief die van de mens, bepaald wordt door de markt van vraag en aanbod. Nogmaals professor Ashish Nandy:

This depoliticization is camouflaged by a special brand of pseudo-politics. The normal scientist, who could be defined as the practitioner of Thomas Kuhn’s normal science, is expected  to be politically involved, but he is expected to operate as if the pathology of modern science lay only in its context. He can shout himself hoarse over nuclear armaments — as a pacifist, a liberal or as a Marxist — but he cannot say that violence lies at the heart of modern science. He may speak of the origin of science in superstitions, prejudices and myths; he can speak of the persistence of these in the individual scientist; but he cannot speak of their persistence in the text of science. In other words, there is now a standard officially-sponsored model of political dissent for the scientists. If a normal scientist follows that model, science rewards him handsomely, otherwise he is valued not as an eccentric professor but as a lunatic who has missed the professional bus. It is this cultural twist which has pre-empted basic internal criticism in science.

Een voorbeeld hiervan is professor Ian Buruma’s bewering dat twee kritische, door mij geïnterviewde en regelmatig geciteerde joodse hoogleraren, Noam Chomsky en Howard Zinn, afkomstig zijn uit ‘een wat ouderwetse Amerikaanse hoek,’ die ‘door een oudere generatie serieus werden genomen,’ maar die vandaag de dag door Buruma en zijn mainstream-publiek niet langer meer serieus genomen worden, inclusief de feiten die beide geleerden aanvoerden. Zo benadrukt Chomsky in het eerste hoofdstuk The Responsibility of Intellectuals, Redux van zijn boek Who Rules the World? (2016) dat:

The pattern of praise and punishment is a familiar one throughout history: those who line up in the service of the state are typically praised by the general intellectual community, and those who refuse to line up in service of the state are punished. 

Het is verhelderend te weten dat dergelijke opvattingen van Chomsky en Zinn door Buruma worden gekwalificeerd als ‘ouderwets,’ die alleen  ‘door een oudere generatie serieus werden genomen,’ maar nu als lachwekkende absurditeiten terzijde moeten worden geschoven. Even belachelijk is kennelijk Chomsky’s zienswijze dat

the responsibility of intellectuals refers to their moral responsibility as decent human beings in a position to use their privilege and status to advance the causes of freedom, justice, mercy, and peace — and to speak out not simply about the abuses of our enemies but, far more significantly, about the crimes in which we are implicated and which we can ameliorate or terminate if we choose,

En in de ogen van Buruma moet het dieptepunt van intellectuele brutaliteit wel Noam Chomsky’s constatering zijn dat:

it seems to be close go a historical universal that conformist intellectuals, the one who support official aims and ignore or rationalize official crimes, are honored and privileged in their own societies, while the value-oriented are punished in one way or another. The pattern goeds back to the earliest records. It was the man accused of corrupting the youth of Athens who drank the hemlock, much as the Dreyfusards were accused of ‘corrupting souls, and, in due course, society as a whole’ and the value-oriented intellectuals of the 1960s were charged with interference with ‘indoctrination of the young.’ In the Hebrew scriptures there are figures who by contemporary standards are dissident intellectuals, called ‘prophets’ in the English translation. They bitterly angered the establishment with their critical geopolitical analysis, their condemnation of the crimes of the powerful, their calls for justice and concern for the poor and suffering. King Ahab, the most evil of the kings, denounced the Prophet Elijah as a hater of Israel, the first ‘self-hating Jew’ or ‘anti-American’ in the modern counterparts. The prophets were treated harshly, unlike the flatterers at the court, who were later condemned as false prophets. The pattern is understandable. It would be surprising if it were otherwise.

As for the responsibility of intellectuals, there does not seem to me to be much to say beyond some simple truths. Intellectuals are typically privileged — merely an observation about usage of the term. Privilege yields opportunity, and opportunity confers responsibilities. An individual then has choices.

Helaas heeft een streber, wiens pathologische ambitie hem dwingt koste wat kost vooruit te komen en daar alles voor doet, geen keuze. Hij kan zijn eigen verantwoordelijkheid nooit accepteren. Het zou zijn einde betekenen. Juist in dit opzicht lijken de Buruma’s van de ‘vrije pers’ op de Eichmannen, allen worden voortgedreven door de banaliteit van een onverzadigbare ambitie. 

The Zionist Lobby is The Deep State

The Israeli Lobby Is the Deep State By  Jason Charles  on 2/13/2019 (6 days ago)  Israel/Zionism This week the Intercept reported ...