Are you a leftist who opposed US invasion of Iraq? Then, explain your defense of the 'right of Israel to exist'?

[andrea_f...@live.com]

Though Hussein was a scumbag, a good argument could be made against
the invasion. One could argue that Iraq didn't attack the US, was no
threat to the US, and was not involved in 9/11. (By the way,
moveon.org went one better and even opposed the invasion of
afghanistan because, in its warped anti-neo-imperialst worldview--
typically chomskyite--, any group that hates or attacks the US is
motivated by American domination of the world through global
capitalism. This argument is funny since it really amounts to a new
form of anti-semitsm. The most important agents and champions of
globalism are American Jews, most of them liberals. Of course, neocons
are also for globalism, but they've been much at odd with Paleocons
who tend not to be Jewish and prefer national capitalism over
globalist capitalism. Anyway, if US economic 'domination' is
imperialist, the villains are mostly American Jews. It's not the
dimwit Southern white baptists, negroes, Hispanic lettuce pickers, or
South Dakotans who manage and reap huge rewards from the global
economy. Sure, there is Walmart but much of its business operations
are run and managed by liberal Jews. And, look at Hollywood and US
media with worldwide influence and control. They are mostly Jewish-
owned. Even Fox is an hononary Jewish company because Murdoch is a
neocon pro-Zionist and has hired mostly super liberal Jews to run the
entertainment departments. It's not Mormons, hicks, or Midwestern
Swedes who own and run Hollywood. So, if globalism dominated by the
US is indeed imperialist, neo-imperialism is controlled by Jews since
Jews control the US. So, anti-Americanism has become the new anti-
semitism, which explains why Godard's anti-American sentiments cannot
be disassociated with his anti-Jewish sentiments. Many leftists feel
betrayed because the holocaust was supposed to have taught the Jews a
lesson once and for all; Jews were supposed to be noble saints and
lovable victims for all time, but most Jews turned out to be 'greedy'
capitalists or imperialists--over the Palestinians. So, it's awful
frustrating to people like Godard. He's sorry that cinema didn't stop
the Holocaust--come to think of it, it didn't stop the Great Famine in
Ukraine, the Great Leap Forward in China, and the Killing Fields in
Cambodia either, but I guess they matter less. He dutifully obsesses
over the horror of the Holocaust. But, the very people he wants to
embrace and sympathize with are now the richest and the most powerful
people on Earth. Jews run Hollywood and have commited 'cultural
genocide' the world over. Jews have manipulated US political and
military power to make trouble in the middle east. Jews, with the
help of the US, has crushed Palestinians and gotten away with
murder.)

Since Iraq didn't attack the US, what right did the US to invade
Iraq? Every one of the pro-war arguments could be dismissed as bogus.
One was that Iraq had WMD. It turned out that Iraq didn't, but even
if it did, was the invasion justified? After all, China is a non-
democratic nation with WMD. Russia too. And, whole bunch of other
nations. So, why pick on Iraq?
There was the argument that the middle east was important because of
oil, and a man like hussein shouldn't control all that wealth--which
he may use to cause trouble, as when he invaded Kuwait. Okay, but US
pushed Iraq out of Kuwait. Weren't there ways to check Hussein's
power without actually invading the country?
And, a whole host of other arguments could be made against the
invasion, all legitimate--though legitimate reasons could be made for
the war too.

But, let's suppose the invasion of Iraq was wrong, violated
international laws, was unprecedented(for the US in relatively recent
times anyway), and didn't serve the interests of the US.
And, it must be said that opposition to the war came from the right as
well from the left. Paleocons and libertarians generally denounced the
war as the doing of ex-trotskyite neocon jews. Many on the right
denounced the invasion as radical democratic fundamentalism and/or
zionism controlling US foreign policy. The left has denounced the war
as neo-imperialism. (I must say I'm a bit confused by this. Again, the
world economy is pretty much run by Jews, most of whom are liberal.
The most powerful leftists are also Jews. So, are Leftist Jews
attacking Liberal Jews for global neo-imperialism? Perhaps, but it's
never stated this way. Leftist Jews blame ALL of America for global
capitalism when most ethnic groups in the US are not the masters of
the world economy. Take Alaskans like the Palins. They are national
capitalists who fish and drill for oil for fellow Americans. Or, take
them bible thumping hick farmers down sooooouth. They never been
travelin' around the world and makin' deals. Their entire world is
their smalltown community. The masters of the global economy are
mostly the Jews in the US. So, you'd think leftist Jews would attack
liberal capitalist Jews by name--like the Wall Street Jews who took
bad loans and sold them all over the world and has sunk the economy of
places like Iceland. But no, leftist Jews blame ALL of AMERICA as
though all Americans are equally to blame. The fact is that though
Jews make up only 2% of US population, they own more than 40% of the
wealth. 35% of donations to the Republican campaign came from Jews.
70% of donations to the Democrats came from Jews. This is JewSa. So,
why do leftist Jews blame ALL of America for neo-imperialism when the
masters of this world order are the liberal and neocon Jews? Also,
even your average Marxist-leaning Leftist Jew is significantly richer
than your average conservative 'greedy' goy. Lawyers, professors,
academics, and even rich businessmen are leftwing Jews. Just look at
Hollywood with its many billionaire left-leaning Jews. They sell
cultural sewage all over the world, buy huge mansions, bang shikse
bimbos left and right, and then put on airs as progressive saints who
care about humanity. Is it any wonder why anti-semitism has been a
worldwide phenomenon? Not only are Jews pretty gross, they are awful
hypocritical.)

Anyway, to get back to the original point. why so many liberal and
leftist goyim--who got their worldview from reading the books of more
intelligent leftwing Jews--support Israel while attacking the invasion
of Iraq? Wasn't the creation of Israel worse than the invasion of
Iraq?
Iraq wasn't invaded for keeps. US sought only to remove Hussein, put
in a better regime, and then pull out. But, when Western imperialists
allowed Jews to settle in Israel, it was for keeps. The people who'd
lived on that land--the Pallies--would be dispossessed forever.
Suppose US had invaded Iraq with the intention of dispossessing
Iraqis, pushing most of them out of the territory and then settling
non-Arabs to create a new nation. Wouldn't that have been far worse
than merely invading a nation to bring about regime change?
That is what happened in Palestine which was turned into Israel.
Western imperialists allowed European Jews to arrive in ever larger
numbers, push out the original inhabitants, and set up a new nation.
Today, Palestinians are living in utter squalor. They are hungry,
diseased, poor, and dehumanized by the Jewish controlled media in the
US--worse than how Jews were dehumanized by Nazi propaganda. Now,
don't get me wrong. I'm not romantic about the Pallies. They are a
bunch of sand negroes as far as I'm concerned. But, they are people too
(and still better than actual negroes, not to mention them rascally
Jews.)

What I wanna know is why American progressives who bitch and whine
about the American invasion of Iraq are okay with the fact that Israel
was created and continues to crush the Pallies? Why are they far more
offended by the Iraq invasion than the Jewish invasion of Palestine
under the cover of Western Imperialism?
I've heard the arguments before. Jews got burned in the holocaust and
so deserved a land of their own. Then, why not give Jews a piece of
land in Europe since Europeans killed the Jews?
Some argue Palestinians had colluded with the Nazis and therefore
deserved to be punished. But, Italy and Japan were closer to Nazi
Germany. So, why not give a chunk of Japan or Italy to the Jews
instead? Besides, so what if some Palestinians had been chummy with
Nazi Germany. They were merely playing power politics since the
Middle East was dominated by British and French imperialists. And,
didn't US and UK side with mass murderer Stalin?
Some have argued that Palestine was the homeland of the ancient Jews,
but if we wanna send everyone back to their ancestral homelands going
back centuries or millennia ago, expect there to be WWIII, IV, V,
etc.

So, I want all your progressive jerkoffs to explain why you oppose the
invasion of Iraq but agree that "Israel has the right to exist"?
Don't you see that Israel's right to exist negates the right of
Palestine to exist? You will say, 'give West Bank and Gaza to the
Pallies and call that Palestine'. But, does that make sense? Suppose
the chinese invade US, create New China and drive Americans to
California and Florida. Suppose the chinese demand the 'right of new
china to exist' and are willing to compromise by allowing california
and florida to be america. So, does that mean America too can exist
alongside New China? What American would swallow his pride and fall
for this shit? When a little island was attacked in 1941, US totally
bombed Japan and killed millions. Yet, this nation--created by killing
and taking land from the red man--is now lecturing, at the behest of
Jews, to Palestinians about peace. You'd think Palestinians are the
aggressors because they cannot accept the idea of 'right of israel to
exist'. But, Palestinians have nothing against the idea of a Jewish
homeland. They just don't want it on top of their own homeland.
Similarly, Americans have no problems with chinese having their China.
Americans just don't want New China on American Soil. It's bad enough
that US is turning into JewSA at the top and negroland on the bottom
and spreading wider and wider.

So, why are progressives okay with Israel? Allow me to venture to
guess. It's because Jews taught us history where they've always been
saintly victims and noble folks all throughout history. And, we've
been taught that ONLY Jews--and negroes--suffered and know pain. We've
all been drummed day in and day out in schools, tv, hollywood, etc,
etc about the holocaust--though we know next to nothing about 100
million killed by communism(much of it dominated by Jews. Chomsky and
other leftist intellectuals in the US did everything to help khmer
rouge come to power in cambodia, but he hasn't been hounded out of the
academia like James Watts who only spoke the truth about race.)

Also, I believe there is a natural worship or admiration of all things
Jewish since so many of our intellectuals, artists, writers, etc, are
Jewish. I think it happens like this. Suppose you dig Dylan or Norman
Mailer. You look up to them, admire them, and wanna be liked by them.
Even though they don' t now you and you don't know them personally, a
part of you is like Rupert Pupkin in "King of Comedy". You want to win
the approval of those Great Guys--if only in fantasy. I think the
rise of acceptance of gayness also has to do with the fact that so
many gays are in culture, arts, and entertainment. Why, it's so
unhip, uncool, and un-smart not to bend over for the gay agenda(Clay
Aikin and Ellen Degenerate)!

Suppose Arab-Americans were a lot smarter than Jews. Suppose most of
our intellectuals, artists, writers, and movie makers were Arabs for a
free Palestine and opposed to Zionism. I'll bet most of the
progressives in this country would be anti-Zionist.
So, a kind of cult-of-personality operates here. Perhaps, one could
call it a cult-of-nationality. Jews are not only seen as the saint
victims of history but as the ultimate cool, intellectual, smart,
talented, creative, and brilliant people. So, sucking up to Jews is
prerequisite for being cool, progressive, and etc since Jewish artists
and intellectual determine and define what is 'intelligent', 'cutting
edge', 'brilliant', and 'genius'.

This may also be true with blacks as well. If blacks weren't so good
at pop music, dance, and sports, there may be less sympathy for them.
But, because of the power of cult-of-nationality, even when blacks
riot and go crazy, progressives go out of their way to make excuses
for the 'cool' negroes.

This must be true. We need only consider the case of Edward Said.
Recall that prior to Said, most of the compassion and sympathy were
with the brilliant, smart, and original Jews. But, Said in the 1970s
wrote a book called "Orientalism" which has come to be considered one
of the most brilliant books ever written. Said became admired,
revered, worshipped, and dick-sucked by many. He was said to be the
most insightful, radical, daring, and blah blah thinker ever. (I read
the book. It sucks.)
Said's celebrity had a huge impact on the Israeli-Palestinian
equation, at least in the academic setting(which is signficant because
academic trends eventually ripple outwards.) Those who came to admire
Said's brilliance also came to agree with his positions. So,
admiration of brilliance leads to adherence to commitment(of the
brilliant personage). There is a conceit in the intellectual
community that something brilliantly argued must be truer than
something dumbly argued--even if the dumbly argued position is true or
true. This is the conceit of brilliantism and accounts for the appeal
of Marxism. Had Marx not been so brilliant, his positions wouldn't
have amounted to much. But, people who came to admire his Moses-like
aura and intelligence couldn't help but think that a man so
intelligent must be true. Same goes for the sheep of Ayn Rand. Rand,
though a nut, brilliantly argued her case and suckers fell for it.
Jews, because of their high intelligence, have a way of making even
falsehoods sound true. Take a show like Seinfeld or Curb Your
Enthusiasm. It's about nothing and annoying as hell; but they are
addictive to many people because they are brilliant. Jews can even
make nothing look valuable. If women(and men) have fallen for Woody
Allen for his wit, this is all very understandable!

Anyway, my point is Jews will control much of our intellectual culture
because many people look upon them as the smartest, most talented,
most creative, and most original. So, we feel this emotional need to
be in good graces with such Great People; so, our admiration of their
artistic and intellectual talent leads us to sympathy with their
political and social positions as well.
But, notice how a single brilliant Palestinian challenged the equation
significantly. Said wrote one brilliant book, influenced a whole
generation of academics, and there is now a good amount of anti-
zionism on campuses. There had long been anti-zionism among Pallies
before, but it was Said who made it intellectually respectable.
The most powerful weapon is the pen, not the sword. If Pallies produce
more Saids, Jews will really be in trouble.

In a way, Jews too had been blinded by brilliantism in the 19th and
20th centuries. Many Jews loved and even worshipped French and German
culture. Though many of the great artists were anti-semitic, Jews were
blinded by brilliantism. Consider the fact that the Jew Mahler wept
and wailed out in the streets when Wagner died. He screamed, 'the
master is dead, the master is dead'. And, this is why so many Jews
never woke up from their doldrums when the political landscape was
changing fast in the 20th century. Many French Jews, so deeply in
love with French culture, shared the French prejudice against Eastern
European Jews. And, many German Jews refused to believe that something
terrible would happen in a land that had created Bach, Beethoven,
Goethe, and Rilke. Today, many honkeys refuse to believe in the
dangers of negroes because they are so enamoured of jazz and blues and
etc. And, consider the film "Last Samurai". It's so fascinated and
amazed by Japanese aesthetic and culture that it fails to see the dark
side of the samurai order.

This applies to our sympathy for victims too. For all their professed
egalitarianism and brotherhood-of-man-ism, even leftists have their
favorite victims. Jews are favored because we feel that a Jew is more
capable of greatness than a goy. When we hear of 10 million
Ukraianians killed by Stalin( and his Jewish henchmen), we have this
picture of a whole bunch of dirty, illiterate, dimwitted peasants
dying. But, when we hear of a single murdered Jew, we wonder, 'could
it have been another Einstein, another Dylan, another Mailer, another
Don Rickles'?

In our imagination, some nationalities have a face, a voice, a mind--a
personality. Even if we don't actually know them intimately or
directly, we feel a certain kinship or admiration or reverence through
the personality of the nationality. Perception-through-personality
shapes nationality. Consider the effectiveness of Aung Sung Suchi and
Dalai Lama. Without them, stories of Tibetans and Burmese would merely
be faceless sad stories--dime-a-dozen on BBC. But, because we know
their faces and heard their voices, we feel greater sadness when we
hear of oppression in Tibet or Burma; we visualize the saddened or
anguished faces of Dalai Lama or Aung Sung Suchi, individual
personalities we've come to regard as 'friends' or 'teachers' or
'gurus' or 'heroes'. Anne Frank did much the same for the Jews. She
added a face to the 6 million dead.

In today's public perception, Jews have a lot more faces and
personalities than Palestinians. This may be why Hollywood is eager to
suppress the rise of Arab or Muslim actors or film folks. When an Arab
or Muslim American seeks a role in Hollywood, the Jews only offer
roles of evil terrorists. Jews in Hollywood know that if Arab and
Muslim Americans become more famous and liked, their possibly anti-
Zionist causes too will be more popular and acceptable.
Of course, none of this is rational, but humans are like this. Ever
since we've had more gay celebs, more and more Americans are for 'gay
marriage'. Ingmar Bergman was right. The Face is the key.