“They are Messianic Jewish supremacists, racists, of the worst kind”

6 thoughts on ““They are Messianic Jewish supremacists, racists, of the worst kind””

1. I have so much pent up anger over this. I read about Peter Dutton and Tony Abbott pushing this ultra Zionist line to the Australian public. I see the right wing press defending Israels actions as if it were their patriotic duty.

   Then we have these Labor leaders trying to condemn Palestinians for hijacking this day. Even the Guardian published an opinion piece that tried to gas-light us into thinking that this was all a medieval blood libel against Jewish people. I cannot imagine what The Guardian journalists who have written about Palestine must have thought to see their work being denigrated?

   The continual criminalisation of Palestinian sympathy continues. A concert pianist given his marching orders by the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra adds to the list of people losing their jobs and artistic expression for speaking up for Palestine. Universities being made to apologise for not breaking up protests that made some Jewish students feel uncomfortable?

   Our federal government tries to walk a middle path, but at times it seems that such a path is not viable. The ‘right to defend themselves’ no longer makes any sense in this context, when it now means to right to commit genocide. What about the Palestinian right to defend themselves – it is called terrorism?

   Peter Dutton has made it clear that he considers support of Palestine as a criminal offence. I wonder how far he will go in this? Are the federal police already collecting evidence against us?

   Yes, I am paranoid, I am getting scared for what Zion-fascism is doing to us. It is distorting our morality into some sort of perverse ideology that is blind to evil.

   In all this, I would give credit to the Jewish Council of Australia who have spoken up on behalf decent Jewish Australians even if it has led to them being called ‘self-haters’ and ‘anti-semitic’. I would also give credit to the few Christian groups who spoken up against the Zionist superstition, and of course the Muslim Australians who have never stopped calling for justice for Palestine. Then there is us “Agnostic Heretics”, we must stand in solidarity with our religious brothers and sisters who seek peace!

   Reply

   1. I feel funny and nervously awkward saying this, but I wonder if there is some hope for change not too far ahead. Towards the end of that interview, Ehud Barak referred to his sensing some vibe for change in American attitude towards the state of Israel. I was reminded of the “tipping point” in public opinion as I read it in George Monbiot’s and Peter Hutchison’s new book The Invisible Doctrine where they say the “power of persuasion” is vastly over-rated and that societies change their views collectively when only around 25% of the population changes their minds:

      It has happened many times before: sudden, sweeping changes have taken place, though they seemed unimaginable shortly before they happened. Think of smoking. Not long ago, smoking in public places was acceptable almost everywhere. When people spoke of decisions being made in “smoke-filled rooms,” they were not exaggerating. Public buildings, offices, trains, buses, airplanes, theaters, pubs, bars, school bathrooms, and teachers’ lounges—even restaurants—were filled with a suffocating fug. It seemed to just be “the way things were”: a high proportion of the population smoked, and politicians didn’t have the guts to do anything about it, for fear of the votes and taxes they might lose. Today, the few remaining smokers linger in alleyways near the dumpster, furtively taking a hasty drag as if they were still in high school. The situation has changed entirely, in a remarkably short space of time.

      We can see similar effects in other aspects of social change, such as sexual liberation and marriage equality. How did these shifts happen? Advocates and campaigners gradually expanded the concentric circles of people who were committed to new beliefs and practices, until they reached a critical threshold, at which point change cascaded suddenly and unstoppably

      We now have a good idea of where such thresholds might lie. Both observational and experimental data suggest that once roughly 25 percent of the population is committed to change, most of the rest of society quickly joins them. In one experiment, between 72 percent and 100 percent of people swung around, once the critical threshold had been reached, reversing the group’s social norms. As the paper reporting this research notes, a large body of work suggests that “the power of small groups comes not from their authority or wealth, but from their commitment to the cause.

      This social tipping happens partly as a result of the inherent dynamics of a complex system and partly because we are such social mammals. A critical threshold is reached when a certain proportion of the population changes its views. When others sense that the wind has changed, they tack around to catch it. The majority doesn’t need to be persuaded to change—they just don’t want to be left behind. We might not even be conscious of making the shift: it simply becomes the new common sense. Even those who were once opposed to bans on smoking in public places, or the idea that gay people should have the same rights to marry as straight people, fall into line with the new social consensus. Some will go on to claim, and to believe, that they always supported such shifts. Time and again, on issues ranging from racial equality, to LGBTQ+ rights, to traditional gender roles and family structures, to mental-health awareness, to sexual harassment and assault, to marijuana legalization—we’ve seen these shifts in collective perception. After the War, everyone became a member of the Resistance.

      (Excerpt From Invisible Doctrine – Kindle version)

      Reply

      1. I noticed that you did not mention the role of the media and academia, where it comes to influencing “public opinion”. I think awakened folks could easily come to terms with the inevitable truth that “those who control the flow of information, can exert a profound influence on what the public perceive”.
         Now when you have the media and academia in agreement with the narrative that governments wish to promote to the populace, then is it not also a natural consequence that it is precisely that narrative that the public is most likely to accept as truth? Would this not also have a marked effect of “swinging” a fair-sized portion of the public into accepting this narrative?
         This is also understood as “perception management”, which is something that virtually all political systems utilize for their own benefit and to maintain the “aura of credibility and authority”, as well as the appearance of “popularity” of the prevailing narrative.

         Reply

         1. Fortunately the media and academia do not speak with a single voice so alternative views are available. Similarly with political representatives. They are not united in countries like Australia. Even in Israel there is diversity of opinion — some say moreso than in the US — though recent censuring of Haaretz by the Netanyahu government is not welcome, of course.

            At a recent pro-Palestinian rally in Brisbane where I live the focus of the march and speeches was directed at our “independent” national broadcaster, the ABC, for the terminology and framing it applied to Israel’s current destruction of Gaza. The ABC was loudly critiqued for supinely falling in with the official government line (which as a subimperial power is obedient to the US line). On the news that night the ABC did cover that demonstration but failed to hint to its audience that the main thrust of the speeches was critical of the ABC. So that is one example of the kind of thing you are speaking about.

            Reply

            1. Well,

               The “two-sides” of any issue; Just as controlled.

               Yo may also notice that much ado about the pro-Palestinian resistance movements is also purposed to paint them as “anti-semitic”, and violent extremists. Though there are some who willingly use such occasions as this, to engage in violent acts, this is not necessarily the rule.

               What I see is the “left-leaning” media promoting this as about human rights, but also remaining silent about the violent elements within these movements, and the “right-leaning” alt-media using the violence as a means of furthering the support of “Jewish” Israel in the light of that violence, and proclaiming pro-Palestinian causes as being “anti-semitic”. So the real message that needs to be taken from all this, is lost in “the fog of war” [as in: “the war of minds”].

               Either way,

               It all further cements the message that “Jews/Israel are once again the victims, and those who do not support them fully – are hateful anti-semites”. – BOTH “sides” of the media and the politics end up reinforcing this corrosive message.

               So, as in many cases of politics and public perception, YES – there is the appearance of two differing sides to the issues.

               What is especially tragic, here in these united states of America,

               Is that events like these are being used as justification for supporting the passage of additional “laws” – which will end up making any criticism and/or disagreement about the happenings of today’s Jewish power and Israel criminal! YES. Even articles like this one we are discussing, will eventually be utterly outlawed with the USA, as it may already be in other Western countries.

               THERE is where my greatest angst lies: When our right to even discuss and dissect these particular issues the way we do becomes a criminal act, then NO ONE is safe!

               So, there is indeed a LOT of “narrative control” going on right now, from both the so-called “left” AND the so-called “right”, be it “media”, academia, politics, or any other branch or offshoot which plays a significant role in “shaping public opinions”.

               Reply

2. Back in the 1990s Barak said openly that had he been born a Palestinian he would have become a terrorist. Probably the most honest take I have ever heard.

   Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.