by Steve Kramer
One of my readers asked for help in answering friends who have been “awakened” to anti-Zionism by Antony Lerman, who recently wrote, “The End of Liberal Zionism” (8/22/14) in The NY Times Sunday Review.
.
Lerman is a British writer who on the subjects of anti-Semitism, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, multiculturalism, and the place of religion in society. From 2006 to early 2009, he was Director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research think tank. Lerman has publicly advocated for pro-Arab/anti-Israel initiatives, often writing op-ed pieces in the notoriously anti-Zionist Guardian newspaper.
.
What is Liberal Zionism anyway? Wikipedia defines it as a strong trend in Israeli politics advocating free market principles, democracy and adherence to human rights. If that’s what it is, it doesn’t sound to me what Lerman described in his article. Let me say what I think Lerman is talking about. His “Liberal Zionist” is someone who may live in Israel but probably doesn’t. That person doesn’t want to get his or her hands dirty with the nitty-gritty aspects of life in Israel. Lerman’s Liberal Zionist lives comfortably in some other place, perhaps, Manhattan, Washington, D.C., or London.
Israel’s neighbors don’t even vaguely resemble Canada or Mexico, Scotland or France. Israel’s neighbors either want to destroy Israel or have a very frigid peace with it. Consequently, Israelis who expect the Arabs to be rational and reasonable are few and far between; their champion is Shimon Peres. The rest of us have learned that there is no significant peace movement among the Arabs. It exists, of course, but its impact is negligible.
.
From afar, it’s easy to be a “Zionist” of some stripe. The committed ones often make Aliyah or buy a second home here. Others donate money or fund Zionist projects. Still others, such as Lerman describes, undermine Israel, some purposefully and others unwittingly. Below I will try to counter some of Lerman’s contentions.
.
Antony Lerman: “‘Never do liberal Zionists feel more torn than when Israel is at war,’ wrote Jonathan Freedland, The Guardian’s opinion editor and a leading British Liberal Zionist, for ‘The New York Review of Books’ last month. He’s not alone. Columnists like Jonathan Chait, Roger Cohen and Thomas L. Friedman have all riffed in recent weeks on the theme that what Israel is doing can’t be reconciled with their humanism.”
.
Steve Kramer: It’s a shame about Thomas Friedman and others’ “humanism.” They don’t agree with Israel’s tactics in defending itself against thousands of mortars, rockets, and missiles. They probably think that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s battle strategy is too harsh. That’s ironic, because most Israelis have the opposite opinion and we are the ones on the receiving end of Hamas’ attacks. For some reason, Israelis object to our lives being turned upside down by the Arabs in Gaza, just because they want to replace Israel with a caliphate.
.
A.L.: “But it’s not just Gaza, and the latest episode of ‘shock and awe’ militarism. The romantic Zionist ideal, to which Jewish liberals — and I was one, once — subscribed for so many decades, has been tarnished by the reality of modern Israel. The [1] attacks on freedom of speech and human rights organizations in Israel, [2] the land-grabbing settler movement, [3] a growing strain of anti-Arab and anti-immigrant racism, [4] extremist politics, and a [5] powerful, intolerant religious right — this mixture has pushed liberal Zionism to the brink.”
.
S.K.: Ah, yes, the “reality of modern Israel.”
.
1. Freedom of speech/human rights: There is a cacophony of free speech in Israel, up to and including the Supreme Court allowing Muslim Members of Knesset (!) to praise an enemy of Israel during wartime. All Israelis are accorded human rights, regardless of race or religion. Israeli Muslims, for example, have more human rights in Israel than in any Arab country. They refuse to even consider giving up their Israeli citizenship to become citizens of “Palestine.”
.
2. land-grabbing: the Arabs are occupying Judea and Samaria, more than the other way around. Jews certainly have no less right to live on the land than the Arabs, and by my reckoning, much more right. This is because borders are defined by the victors in nearly all existing states, including the United States and Britain. Capsule history: (Putting aside all the religious and historical/legal arguments) Israel conquered Judea and Samaria during the defensive Six Day War of 1967. This is the land which the Arabs declared to be the “West Bank” only a few years after Transjordan conquered it during Israel’s 1948 War of Independence. The Arabs (soon to be renamed Jordanians) ethnically cleansed all the Jewish residents at the start of their 19-year period of rule over Judea and Samaria.
.
3. racism: Unfortunately, racism exists throughout the world. It is no more prevalent in Israel than in the United States or Britain. In comparison to Muslim countries, which allow no Jewish residents (with a few small exceptions), Israel is a human rights paradise.
.
4. extremist politics: These also exist throughout the world. In Israel, however, there are no prominent and rapidly growing parties like the racist/xenophobic Jobbik in Hungary and Golden Dawn in Greece.
.
5. religious right: Yes, there are religious parties in Israel. They run the gamut from nationalist right to anti-Zionist Ultra-Orthodox. They are an example of Israel’s right of free speech.
.
A.L.: “J Street in America and Yachad in Britain, founded in 2008 and 2011 respectively, describe themselves as ‘pro-Israel and pro-peace’ and have attracted significant numbers of people who seek a more critical engagement with Israel.”
.
S.K.: Sorry to say, but J-Street undermines Israel. (I don’t know anything about Yachad.) Critical is one thing, but encouraging groups such as college Hillel chapters to be inclusive by promoting hate-spewing Palestinian speakers is helping turn impressionable college students against Israel.
.
A.L.: “I still understood its dream of Israel as a moral and just cause, but I judged it anachronistic. The only Zionism of any consequence today is xenophobic and exclusionary, a Jewish ethno-nationalism inspired by religious messianism. It is carrying out an open-ended project of national self-realization to be achieved through colonization and purification of the tribe.”
.
S.K.: Yes, Jews are a tribe, both a nation and a people, unlike any other people on earth. Israel is moral and just, but not perfect. Perhaps if Lerman were in charge of Israel, it wouldn’t be so “anachronistic” in trying to remain the State of the Jews. It could be more trendy by inviting the Arabs to be our friends. . Running a country is tough, just ask President Obama, who is probably in sync with Lerman’s post-Zionist views. (Post-Zionism: a set of critical positions that disparage Zionist ideals and the historical narratives and social and cultural representations that it produced.)
.
A.L.: “Since liberal Zionists can’t countenance anything but two states, this situation leaves them high and dry.”
.
S.K.: Two states will not work and it’s not the only option. In this region, where Muslims slaughter each other with regularity, only a naive person would cling to a failed paradigm. I don’t know exactly what the best solution is, but I recognize a “solution” has no chance to succeed, such as the two-state vision. With Israel sitting on less than a half per cent of so-called Arab land, to give land for peace is worse than fruitless, it’s a recipe for disaster. My view is that things will eventually settle down in Israel’s favor, because the Palestinian Arabs have proven themselves incapable of governing, let alone sharing, even a part of this tiny space between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
.
If Lerner and the others doubt this, take a second look at the Gaza experiment, or just imagine if Israel had turned over the Golan Heights to the Syrian leader, Bashar al-Assad, who has previously been called a “reformer” by Hillary Clinton and “generous” as well as a man of his word by John Kerry.
.
Antony Lerner and his ilk find it easy to criticize Israel from their comfortable arm chairs somewhere else. Israel is a vibrant democracy which invites all Jews to make it their home. Lerner can move here and say whatever he wants, without fear of imprisonment or worse. In fact, that’s what many like-minded critics do, as loyal Israeli resident-citizens.
dweller Said:
“Napoleon” in room 103 at Bellevue said the same.
dweller Said:
you take yourself much too seriously, give yourself too much importance in the scheme of things. You certainly drive no one up the wall and off the roof. “Napoleon” has a better act than you.
dweller Said:
In other words, no support necessary because god told you…….
hence your claim to perfection……..
and your “belief” in your own infallibility…..
Did he also make you lie about what I asked you to prove?
dweller Said:
See, once again I prove, and you demonstrate, that your claim that you NEVER lie is untrue. you knew full well that I did not ask you to prove you were “not delusional” but to prove the myriad of psychological assertions and assumptions in the repeated analyses of others. You are indeed a most disingenous person, hence the significance of your absurd claims to NEVER telling lies or stories and the Hamlet quote describing your ludicrous behavior.
Start with proving your assertions in your most recent “analysis” of HB’s promise. I am sure that you knew I was asking you to support your psychological assertions and not ask you to prove that you are “not delusional”. You not only tell lies, but you do it in a most wily, stealthy and deceptive manner, weaving your web of deceptions. Of course, perhaps you will call it “marketing” or some other similar fig leaf and red herring.
“dweller Said:
“liar, liar, pants on fire… 🙂
yamit82 Said:
this one had me rolling on the floor 😛
dweller Said:
Prove it, Barbie!!!
@ yamit82:
So you DON’T personally attack me? (guess I’m ‘delusional’ about that, am i?)
About certain kinds of things, my observations are unfailingly correct, but not because they are mine. Quite the contrary, I’ve said many times that they are not arrived at analytically; so how COULD they be said to be ‘mine’?
— They are simply received.
What is never wrong is not YoursTruly, but ruach elohim.
If YOU listened to Him in these matters, then YOU wouldn’t ever be wrong either.
You need to take this one up with BROSS. It’s he, not I, WHO is bucking for ‘proofs’ these days.
Lately he wants me to ‘prove’ that I’m not ‘delusional’ in my assessment of him. He’s never been able to show a single instance of me being wrong about somebody’s emotional & psychological makeup (including his own) — which would surely constitute the evidence that I am delusional (if I were).
But instead he wants me to ‘prove’ that I’m not delusional. LMSS. Strictly Kafkaesque.
You are confused.
Self-confident is not ‘arrogant.’
Straightforward w/ an observation about oneself is not ‘boastful.’
Uncluttered statement of fact is not ‘pretentious.’
Bottom line here is that, lIke that other turkey I’ve been dealing with lately, you just can’t stand the fact that I‘m not afraid to say what I know.
You wouldn’t mind so much my knowing it
— it’s the TELLING that drives you up the wall and off the roof.
Just who’s the aggressor here — and whom, aggressed upon?
Get a life, Yamit.
@ yamit82: great jokes from weissberg
yamit82 Said:
😛 😛 😛 😛
yamit82 Said:
I sure do!
He is such a bundle of fun and amusement, you can rely on his predictable gymnastics to provide the entertainment.
dweller Said:
the point would be giving credibility to your unsupported assertions. there is nothing that you say in your analyses which has any more credibility than anyone else giving their unsolicited opinions and analyses. without support it simply becomes you wanking in a public venue….a form of exhibitionistic wanking….as I have previously pointed out your examples many times before. the fact that you believe wholeheartedly in your delusions means nothing in the world of science.
dweller Said:
Lots of irrelevant blah blah blah to obfuscate the point that I highlighted for you with the well known phrase and its well known usage. I wasn’t discussing the play, I was discussing that you repeatedly and quite vociferously assert that you ALWAYS tell the truth and yet I have also repeatedly pointed out your lies, …….do you forget the many references to your “marketing” like Paul? this was a perfect example of your need to demonstrate something irrelevant to obfuscate the point. I thought that the obvious reference to the common usage of the phrase made it clear: your repeated protestations ring hollow when heard next to your many non truths. The well known phrase explains why you appear “insincere”. Do you need a road map?
dweller Said:
the words were yours, I simply noticed that your were obviously “projecting”
dweller Said:
😛 😛 😛 😛
dweller Said:
On the contrary, I neither find your ludicrous superlatives offensive nor unforgivable; you appear to suffer from delusions of reference AND grandeur, again, both in one statement. No one takes you that seriously. I do find your gymnastics both predictable and amusing.
dweller Said:
we have no disagreement here; of course your self perspective is of self confidence just like the emperor, but also like him there was denial AND hogwash.
dweller Said:
why would you believe that your assurances would carry weight? That is simply another self delusion.
@ bernard ross:
To someone lacking the interior wherewithal (like PresentCompany) to discern the appropriate distinctions between the real & the spurious, NO amount of ‘proof’ would suffice even if it WERE my ‘job’ to prove the accuracy of my assertions (which job it is most certainly not).
So, what would be the point?
@ bernard ross:
Yup, sure enough, you DIDN’T think about it.
Why am I not surprised?
ROFLMFAO.
It would be clear & apropos here if I hadn’t made the statement in question in response to a contrary remark, just out of the blue. THEN you might have something to point toward as questionable.
As it was, however, I stated, “I don’t tell stories; I tell the truth, etc” by way of direct response to your remark that I should ‘tell that story to your shrink at your next session, etc.’ So your conclusion is in-apropos and faulty on its face.
If I scream at somebody five times, ‘You are a cow!’ and he responds each of those five times, ‘I’m nothing of the sort, but thanks for your opinion’ — that’s not ‘protesting too much.’ That’s merely setting the record straight
— unless, of course, the reply was emotionally DELIVERED; in which case, it MIGHT (or might not) bespeak inward assent to the charge.
But there’s never been the slightest hint nor breath of excitement or emotionalism in my replies to your lame assertions in this regard. A calm, uncomplicated denial of a charge, offered as many times as the charge itself is offered, betokens nothing beyond its face value, in and of itself.
(I’d say, ‘Nice try though’ — but, of course, there was NOTHING ‘nice’ about your attempt, was there? In fact, quite the contrary, it was typical of your malevolent intent.)
Next time, Bernard, instead of quoting the online equivalent of the Cliff Notes version of Hamlet — read the play for yourself. Then you’ll know what’s apropos in your critique & what isn’t.
dweller Said:
wrong again, no relaton to laziness, it is pure ignorance with the same egotistical drivers which you display. Ignorance and arrogance, laziness has nothing to do with it.
dweller Said:
wrong again, I have no hopes regarding your delusions.
dweller Said:
I already told you, it is up to you to suport your ludicrous assertions, I have no responsibility to prove that a lunatic who asserts he is Napoleons is incorrect. I simply observe his lunacy. Why disturb the poor creature. Similarly you, you are in perennial denial about your character and your delusions to the point of making the most ridiculous statements. when you say that you are always correct, never lie, etc. I have no great need to awake you from your nightmare. I merely observe and comment, pointing out your silly assertions. Like the emperors clothes, no one comments but everyone knows, thats how it is with you; like you the emperor believed his delusions. I have in fact repeatedly pointed out your pathologies in detail but of course you do not even notice that, its called denial.
honeybee Said:
I so enjoy your answers, anyone who reads your psychobabble can easily see it, your obsessive need to demonstrate your “knowledge”, to be the guru, your assumption of grandiose knowledge and capabilities as if your were the prophet or messiah. apparently you have never noticed these thngs about yourself, you are so focused on dispensing the blessings of your amazing faculties.
dweller Said:
Prove them right, put up or shut up….like I said the onus is on you to support your ridiculous assertions and I have no responsibility to prove you wrong…..you analyze everyone here, diagnose their “problems” like a quack, making up myths as you go along……you must prove your myths are correct. when you analyze someone prove that your comments have any scientific basis. Put up or shut up, everyone is tired of humoring your role as the site psychobabbler…..If you offer diagnoses, advice, etc….prove them.
And now you have competition as Max is just as capable as you of making unsupported ludicrous assertions on just as many topics as you.
dweller Said:
For you dweller although I doubt you will understand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8XWQjzBEFY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RcRx2Zeq1Q
@ bernard ross:
dweller Said:
This reflects dweller’s narcissistic personality disorder (NPD)
Rigid, inflexible thinking – Anyone with a different approach is seen as personally attacking the narcissist.
Cannot be wrong – The narcissist is never, ever wrong, and they like to present “proofs” that they are correct. The narcissist cannot accept responsibility for making a mistake and they are expert at diverting the blame to others
Arrogant, boastful and pretentious
Aggressive responses to criticism –
There is a lot more but you get the gist of my outline of dweller’s NPD
yamit82 Said:
” Good night, good night, parting is such sweet sorrow, that I should say good night until it be marrow”
@ bernard ross:
Fine. As I said, since YOU find it relevant (I don’t), YOU take it up with him.
YouDON’T have a ‘massively inflated ego, Bernard??? (Now, how did you get that past me?)
Y’know, boychik, for someone who routinely insists on Evidence in place of bald assertions, you grow curiously quiet when it comes to substantiating claims like the one you just made. If you regard my ‘maliciousness’ as extending to being ‘seductive & quietly calculating,’ then suppose you present us with an example of it. (Don’t worry; I won’t be holding my breath waiting.)
Unlike PresentCompany, I am NEVER seductive, as I consciously and categorically REJECT the gambit — root and branch. If I were prone to taking the seductive route, I’d never speak freely about these kinds of things — since they make me such an easy target for hateful creatures like yourself. Yet I surely DO speak freely of them, even KNOWING how you salivate over the opportunity to attack. I speak freely of them, since my conscience is clear, and I trust in the truth. That’s why it’s always EASY to refute the likes of you.
What it’s called is self-confidence — not denial NOR hogwash. Nor do I make any apology for it. And you bet I believe it.
But what offends you, Bernard, is not that I believe it
— what offends you is that I have the balls to SAY it out loud. That’s what you find absolutely unforgivable.
To what end? I don’t need certification to know that I know what I know.
— Nobody does. And those who HAVE such “stamps of approval” are not to be trusted anyway.
I’ve told you a dozen times if I’ve told you once:
What I do is not ‘psychoanalysis.’ It isn’t an analytical process at all.
In fact, it could better be termed “psychocatalysis”
— and ANYBODY can learn to do it, just as I did.
No need to relate to anybody as an ‘authority’ in the matter.
honeybee Said:
“Sleep rock thy brain,
And never come mischance between us twain!”
@ bernard ross:
Only to the degree that laziness indicates character. In any case, it’s minor. Like you, he’s got MUCH bigger fish that are scorching on the stove, unattended.
“Grandeur” has nothing to do with it, ‘delusion’ or not.
You mistake ‘seeing’ for HOPING that I’m ‘delusional.’
But if, in fact, you can ‘see’ that I’m delusional, then you should have no trouble offering examples (surely at least ONE) where a psychological observation of mine has turned out the least little bit wrong, thereby justifying your charge that I’m ‘delusional.’
— Let’s see it, smartass.
Nothing whatsoever ‘obsessive’ about what I do. The mere fact that I take to it readily & easily doesn’t make it ‘obsessive’ — any more than the fact that a peach tree readily produces peaches makes the peach tree ‘obsessive.’ You’ll have to do better than that.
There’s no ‘attempting’ about what I do — and what I do does NOT consist of analysis. Far, FAR from it.
Well, again — if, indeed, I’ve been ‘unsuccessful, then you should have no trouble illustrating that ‘fact’ by showing instances in which my ‘analysis’ has proven wrong. Put up or shut up.
Nope. Never entertained such a ‘hope.’
If I’d undergone the mind-numbing that a psychologist endures to get his/her certification, I wouldn’t know what I know. It would have been ‘educated’ out of me with all the REST of the common sense a person is born with.
bernard ross Said:
The quote is from Macbeth. Oops forgive me, can you believe, I am wrong.
.
dweller Said:
…..
I think it is quite clear and appropo
dweller Said:
It’s your job to prove that your ludicrous assertions are accurate. I daily hear ridiculous claims from deluded persons like yourself.
dweller Said:
if you say so, and no doubt you always do.
dweller Said:
a massive ignorance accompanied by a massive arrogance is usually an indicator of character.
dweller Said:
another delusion of grandeur
dweller Said:
Actually, I do know. In fact I see that you are more delusional and in greater denial than I thought
dweller Said:
Not the language, but rather your obsession with attempting to analyze everyone here, rather unsuccessfully, as if you had hoped to have been a psychologist.
dweller Said:
quite relevant, I was demonstrating another character trait you shared in common: massively inflated egos.
dweller Said:
A good description of how you see your malice, you even inflate it to being “seductive and gentle and quietly calculating”….all self images which you find positive about your malice. Like I said…you are predictable and transparent…the gift that keeps on giving us all some amusement.
dweller Said:
you are indeed a fascinating specimen, I do believe you actually believe such hogwash about yourself….it’s called denial.
dweller Said:
Just issue it to yourself, like you do with every other “qualification” you tout. After all, you appear to be the worlds foremost psychoanalytic authority, I am sure that no one will dispute your assertions.
@ bernard ross:
No, of course you couldn’t — now that you realize you unwittingly stepped in something you can’t get off your shoe.
Well, obviously. Or you wouldn’t have stepped in the aforesaid “something.”
Told you: Unlike yourself, Bernard, I do NOT typically write long tirades. When my posts run long, it’s usually because for the sake of continuity, I incorporate blockquoted material to which I’m replying. My own actual comments are RARELY lengthy.
I’ve no idea what you’re talking about. And if you can’t be more specific, I’ve little choice but to conclude that YOU don’t know what you’re talking about either.
My ‘sessions’ are daily, Bernard, and with an infinitely more exacting and constructive Party than any shrink could ever be. Neither you NOR Max could take the heat (at this point), I quite assure you
— with or without me present.
But those ‘sessions’ have made me an ORIGINAL, from the tip of my toes to the top of my head.
@ bernard ross:
It’s clear the “psychobabble” gambit is actually yours, not mine.
Don’t have a shrink, nor need one. You, OTOH, might well avail yourself of such services. Your envy problem should interest him, though he’d be helpless to deal with it effectively. You could put braces on his kids’ teeth, furs on his wife’s back, and the pink slip for his Porsche in his wallet — and be no better off for it than before you’d started seeing him.
I notice that you accuse others of playing the very, twisted, skull games you yourself incline toward. And you’ve just done it again, here.
It’s not a ‘wail’ — it’s an unembroidered fact.
— And the word you want here is plaintive, not ‘plaintiff.’ (Not that there’s anything plaintive about what I said either.)
In fact, there’s never been any emotionalism of ANY sort in any instance of my stating it. Didn’t need to be, as it was a simple matter of noting uncluttered, objective reality. The fact that it was stated more than once tells you nothing — as there are constantly new readers (and posters) coming aboard who may not have been aware of the prior exchanges, and for whom therefore it does not constitute a restating of the ‘claim.’
Actually, Gertrude was unwittingly speaking of HERSELF when she said that about the Player Queen [Act III, scene 2]. You might want to think about that.
— But of course, you won’t.
You have YET to show a single instance of my personality ‘analyses’ being wrong. So you don’t know that my “claims of perfection” are false or delusional, or otherwise wrong. All you really have to go on is your assumption that ‘nobody could be 100 percent correct about anything‘
— well, that and your understandable HOPE that I’m wrong about you. . . .
Well then, since I’m NOT a patient, I guess that DOES qualify me. (I was right, Bernard. You ARE duller than I thought.)
@ bernard ross:
If you truly cannot see the difference — then you’re even duller-witted than I thought you were. (And that’s saying something.) He regularly copies the apparent style of an opponent. You obviously haven’t been paying attention.
You don’t KNOW my ‘claims’ to be delusional, Bernard. You merely HOPE they are. (And for entirely self-serving reasons.)
Irrelevant and off-point. If you find it significant, suggest you take it up with him.
Am not-at-all in denial. Sarcasm, invective, irony, derision, or otherwise tough talk (which I use freely & regularly) do not CATEGORICALLY betoken maliciousness. They may or they may not; it depends on the man & the intent. What’s more, maliciousness CAN actually be quite ‘gentle’, even seductive and quietly calculating — again, depending on the person and his intent. Ask the man in the mirror about this, Bernard; I’m certain he can give you generous pointers on the subject.
Translation:
You ‘intervened” for purposes of PILING ON. You’re transparent, Bernard, and so is your self-serving tripe.
It wasn’t that I was ‘malicious’ — I have never been anything of the sort (not once) — not even for vindictive reasons (which YOU apparently regard as fair game).
Rather, you piled on for the purpose of giving those “others” (and receiving from them) SUPPORT against me, because I was in the process of patiently & meticulously taking them apart at the time, as I’ve taken YOU apart on numerous occasions — and will do so again.
“Intervened,” indeed. . . .
In that case, hero, I suggest you get to work humiliating YOURSELF — since you’ve clearly outlined & identified your target.
@ bernard ross:
Ignorance does not, of itself, constitute a crime, or even a sin. If you can’t draw a direct relation to a matter of character, then it is indeed superficial.
I ‘admit’ to nothing of the sort. We are NOT AT ALL “the same” in this regard.
Wrong again, and protestations have never been part of it. I may use language common among psychoanalysts, but only because it’s handy, not because I follow their methodologies. (Their methodologies have no potential whatsoever to bring them to my conclusions, which are otherwise derived.) I use the language of legal practitioners too, on occasion, also the language of structural engineers — but not because I engage in legal process or the designing of public works.
And when I make an observation regarding somebody’s character or psychological outlook, it is not merely of “higher quality” — it is not at all as rhetorical device (as it is w/ Max, who simply copies an opponent’s ‘style’ in hopes of unnerving him). When I make a characterological or psychological observation, it is reliably both real and CORRECT — not merely of “higher quality.”
I repeat, it is INDEED unfailingly correct — and it isn’t about psychobabble. The language used is utterly irrelevant. . . . except to one whose vanity feels threatened by its accuracy. (Yourself, for instance.)
You keep repeating that. Perhaps you should get yourself checked out for Alzheimers.
There’s usually a name for most anything, Bernard. Only a cretin standing in an empty suit, however, seeks to TIE somebody to a name that way.
Who would issue it? — a shrink? No shrink knows what I know. If he’d HAD an inkling of what I know, he’d have lost it in the course of putting his head through a wringer to get his degrees & certifications in the first place.
yamit82 Said:
Why do you say the above, just curious.?
Democracy is extremely prone to subversion by demagogues and activists. It is not incidental that in every ancient state which has practiced it, democracy led either to final military defeat, or was superseded by tyranny and monarchy. Masses are easily fooled at least for a short time, and during that time the tyrant creates a sufficient power base to disregard subsequent popular opposition—which is mild anyway, so long as his policies are not outright murderous. People love shedding responsibility, even to tyrants during the time of their unimpeded rule. There are many exmples of peoples choosing tyranny even mild and benevolent tyranny to democracy. Democracy and freedom are not synonymous per-se.
The American system of democracy originally was only nominally a democracy, but actually an electoral aristocracy or meritocracy at most. Only educated—and by a large margin, moral and principled—people stood for the highest offices. The candidates were drawn from a narrow class, and could not imagine appealing to the lowest common denominator in order to win the most voters.
Look at the amount of donations Obama has collected, especially before elected to his first term. Did the political donors suddenly feel charitable, and support someone who promises to do away with corrupt politics and lobbying? Or did they give money to Obama because hepromised to repay them manifold through government contracts, concessions, and subsidies?
Don’t confuse dictators with authoritarian rulers. The Egyptian and Jordanian rulers respect law and cannot be likened to demagogues like Ayatollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi. Singapore is autocratic and it seems the people are happy with their lot and situation.
Max Said:
RR, the dirty criminal and Jew hater aside, I disagree with your premsie re: Tyranny and whose responsibility it is to oppose it. Democracy is extremely prone to subversion by demagogues and activists. It is not coincidental that in every ancient state which has practiced it, democracy led either to final military defeat, or was superseded by tyranny and monarchy. Masses are easily fooled at least for a short time, and during that time the tyrant creates a sufficient power base to disregard subsequent popular opposition—which is mild anyway, so long as his policies are not outright murderous. People love shedding responsibility, even to tyrants during the time of their unimpeded rule. There are many exmples of peoples choosing tyranny even mild and benevolent tyranny to democracy. Democracy and freedom are not synonymous per-se.
The American system of democracy originally was only nominally a democracy, but actually an electoral aristocracy or meritocracy at most. Only educated—and by a large margin, moral and principled—people stood for the highest offices. The candidates were drawn from a narrow class, and could not imagine appealing to the lowest common denominator in order to win the most voters.
Look at the amount of donations Obama has collected, especially before elected to his first term. Did the political donors suddenly feel charitable, and support someone who promises to do away with corrupt politics and lobbying? Or did they give money to Obama because he promised to repay them manifold through government contracts, concessions, and subsidies?
Don’t confuse dictators with authoritarian rulers. The Egyptian and Jordanian rulers respect law and cannot be likened to demagogues like Ayatollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi. Singapore is autocratic and it seems the people are happy with their lot and situation. Russians chose Authoritarian Tyrants over democracy freely.
@ Max:
But I wasn’t ‘defending my symbol’ when I made my comment. I was simply showing Mr Ross that he’d been snookered by his own maliciousness.
A claim that an extraordinarily powerful & effective personality was effectively a ‘hoax’ is indeed its own SPECIES of negative. But I’d gotten your meaning, Max, at the time you made your above comment (though I’ve never agreed with the proposition, and still don’t).
But, given your outlook, this post of yours SHOULD have been addressed to Mr Ross when he made the [above] lame assertion that “I think [Max & dweller] have found each other” — as it’s rather apparent that HE did not get your meaning.
— If you HAD addressed your comment to him, then YoursTruly wouldn’t have had to call him on its absurdity.
dweller Said:
You are so busy defending your symbol, you didn’t understand yet what I have been saying. RR simply doesn’t exist as you conceive him/it. So I can hardly be saying anything negative about him/it (the rallying symbol that was created for you).
What the Reagan Administration did internationally as directed by the section of the power elite in control at the time was very beneficial in the war against tyranny.
Black cat , white cat it doesn’t matter so long as it catches the mice
The global war that has been being fought for several centuries is totalitarian systems versus democracies. Everything is added and subtracted from this. The conclusion is not yet known. The war against Hitler , Hamas , Hezbollah, Islamization, North Vietnam, North Korea (impending), Communist China (Impending), Iran (impending) Saddam’s Iraq, Assad’s Syria , Gaddafi’s Libya. etc etc are all the same and all righteous and absolutely necessary wars – they were and/or are wars against totalitarian systems.
dweller Said:
not superficial, he simply lacks the knowledge on issues and facts in the ME. I already demonstrated this by asking his opinion and his version on a few simple events about which we all know. He was unable to answer even a one.
dweller Said:
Here you admit to being the same but protest that your psychobabble is of a higher quality, that you are substance and he is style. In fact, you claim an unfailing perfection to your psychobabble….perhaps you should discuss this claim with your shrink at your next session. I believe they have a name for such claims; with such a record of perfection I am surprised that you have not yer been issued a license to practice your psychobabble on the public at large. Is this another example of the world failing to acknowledge your perfection. Your claim that your, and his psychobabble are not similarly motivated and that he is just trying to “ape” you might be considered a “delusion of reference” and a “delusion of grandeur”. both of these delusions are shared by Max and yourself, he also thinks of himself very highly, refers to himself in the 3rd person(HMMMMM?)
dweller Said:
another way in which you are both very alike. Interesting in that you recognize it in him but are in denial regarding yourself. You appear to have already forgotten the many times I intervened in your threads with others simply because your were being “downright malicious”. I only humiliate those with a tendency to humiliate others and those who intentionally lie. With such folk I agree that i am downright malicious, but they prove themselves first to be deserving of humiliation through their own maliciousness and lies.
dweller Said:
Its called “projection” when used unconsciously, ask your shrink what it means at the next session. You have already used it at least twice in this one post; it appears that you do not notice.
dweller Said:
Yes, we have heard this plaintiff wail many times. Your endless repetition of this ludicrous refrain simply brings to mind shakespeare:
your claims of perfection ring on deaf ears, except of course your own. the emperor also similarly claimed in his new clothes, but everyone else could see the truth. Like I said, ask your shrink about these thngs at your next session. BTW being a patient does not qualify you to be a professional psychobabbler except in your own deluded mind.
dweller Said:
couldn’t care less about your 10 day old exchange which I never followed. those long tirades, like your recent obsession with proving yourself correct with Honeybee’s promise, become background noise except when absurd claims and maliciousness arise. The RR thing was a joke.
Although there are ways in which you and Max are different there is no doubt that you re both alike in you MO here. Whether the similarities are of style or substance is in the eye of the beholder.
You have at least proven in the past, in spite of your unattractive pathologies, to be able to carry on discussion and argument with support for your opinions. Max however appears to be completely ignorant on most issues and facts that he discusses especially the ME.
both of you obfuscate, throw red herrings, avoid confronting the truth, use ad hominem, shoot the messenger with psychobabble….do almost anything to escape the possibility that you are incorrect. I believe that such self views of perfection and the pathologies they engender are well documented in the field of psychology. Perhaps a joint session with Max at your next visit would prove helpful in seeing yourself by seeing it in others like you. 🙂
@ bernard ross:
Hardly. But you typically confuse style with substance, so your remark comes as no surprise.
It’s true that Max never does substantiate an assertion, even when asked to. (I’ve alluded to the fact myself.) He’s simply too lazy to make the attempt or take the time. But that’s a superficial matter, not nearly as signficant as you make it out to be.
And yes, he DOES do his amateur psychoanalysis thing, but that too is of surface import. He does that merely to ape me. Yet MY “analyses” have been unfailingly correct (without exception) — while his are transparent contrivances and a rhetorical ploy; there’s no mistaking them.
The SUBSTANCE, however — which, unsurprisingly, eludes you (since you share it with him) — lies elsewhere.
The screeching ENVY eating you up and virtually oozing from your pores gives Max mountains more in common with you than with YoursVeryTruly. SUBSTANCE.
Moreover, whenever his jibes, jeers & sneers fall flat, he reverts to type and turns downright malicious — and deliberately TRIES to humiliate; gets off on it whenever he thinks he has succeeded. Nobody ELSE on this board fits that description so completely as PresentCompany. SUBSTANCE..
But what makes you both MOST alike is that old Alinskyite practice of accusing an adversary of doing the very thing you yourself are doing. In that regard you & Max are truly brothers under the skin. SUBSTANCE.
@ bernard ross:
I don’t tell stories. I tell the truth. It’s so much more absorbing (and satisfying) than stories.
@ bernard ross:
So you went for it — hook, line & sinker! (why am I not surprised) If you weren’t so dense, Bernard, he couldn’t have slipped that one past you as he did. But you were so ready, so primed to find a way of linking me to him, that you went for the bait that he clearly intended for ME. Too funny! And it serves you ruddy-well right. You were set up by your own maliciousness. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving individual.
— You are indeed a buffoon in the Falstaffian tradition.
Max had already let on how he felt about RR — in an exchange with me 10 days ago, and he was even LESS laudatory about him than you or any of the other usual RR-hating suspects on this board. When he made the above crack about Reagan, he was simply presuming to ape me again. I told you, it’s a rhetorical ploy.
If you were any slower-witted, Bernard, you’d have to be watered twice a week and given a quarter-turn every four months.
dweller Said:
that’s a nice story, be sure to tell your shrink next session. 🙂
@ bernard ross:
Quite the contrary, very MUCH a fantasy fueled by wishful thinking.
The reality, Bernard, is that you’ve NEVER ‘caught’ me doing (or not doing) anything, because there’s frankly no part of me capable of being ‘caught’ (assuming the likes of you could catch anything more available for the catching than a case of the clap) .
What’s more, we BOTH know quite well, Bernard, that the only times my pants have ever been ‘down’ throughout the course of your memory have been those occasions when I’ve, effectively, dropped trow and MOONED you w/ a curt admonition to kiss my keister in Macy’s Window at high noon on Easter Sunday.
Aside from that, the only places you’ve ever ‘caught’ me w/ my ‘pants down’ have been in the contemptible self-conceits you desperately cling to in your dreams.
These fanciful auto-congratulations of yours bear telling witness THROUGHOUT the archives to the length and breadth and depth of your delusions. You really should review those posts sometime. . . .
@ honeybee:
But not the promise you made. THAT was — as you note — never forgotten.
The damage was done the moment your Mom imposed that terrible promise on you.
Max Said:
there is nothing to discuss when you are incapable of providing any support for your opinions. This goes for this and any other subject. opinions like yours are a dime a dozen. You never “discuss” a subject: you preach. As for silverman and Stewart they are “useful idiots” for the “elites” to which you keep referring. They are fed their facts and beliefs unable to discern fact from fiction; ignorant and superficial puppets. they probably had an education similar to yours, trivial and superficial in its scholarship. If you are unfamiliar with any facts or issues on the ME then your opinions lack merit on that subject.
Max Said:
delusions of grandeur? I merely use you as the butt of humor, even while you were away you were a regular reference as the syrian “democratic revolution” morphed into its obvious reality (which you still do not get)
Max Said:
Of course you must say this, so that you may run away and hide like a little boy not knowing how to respond to real facts and issues that expose your ignorance and highlight your arrogance as buffoonery. Your ludicrous posting of google links was incredibly juvenile, a little boy trying to fool his teacher.
@ bernard ross:
I fed the troll. my mistake but then again I did it for the edification of others but in future I will avoid even that.
.
I see.
So in fact you had no interest in the subject at hand as you haven’t bothered to discuss it. It’s always the same with you disingenuous angry fixated people – ie ask a question in order to launch your fruity caker crusade.
“Benghazi” “Max “Obama” all part of your PTSD. I suppose, I should be honoured that the Kathy Bates of pundit is my biggest fan.
I’m not interested in you kittenz, your blogpostz, your fruity nutella syrup. I don’t pay attention to your politics.
Your presentation of self and personality invalidates any content you should wish to present .
Max Said:
did your “education” teach you that if you post a lot of irrelevant links it will make you look intelligent, or perhaps fool your teacher into thinking you actually did the work?
Max Said:
It appears that your “education” did little for you as you appear ignorant of basic principles of research and scientific method. Most higher educational institutions include, in their first or second year, these methods and how to apply them. The only thing you demonstrate here is that you have no impediment to forming opinions and fact is no inconvenient stumbling block for you.
I am wondering whether you posted your google links as an intentional obfuscation and red herring or that you actually believed that you were posting them as support or evidence for your statement. Basic logic courses explain that posting irrelevant material is not helpful as supporting evidence.
Max Said:
It appears that google is not nly your friend but your red herring of distraction.
Actually, I read some of the links with particular interest in actual studies and research and found NOTHING that supports your comment. this was the closest I could find in one of your long list of Google links under the search “daily show political influence”:
this of course is a far cry from your statement. Furthermore, your Bill Reilly video’s one reference to actual research stated that celebrities making political statements tend to sink in their popularity. Most of your links were about journalists talking about the today show and giving their opinion on its influence, hardly a basis of evidence. The same journalists just gave us their version of the gaza war, hardly any relation to reality.
Perhaps you are used to dealing with brainless dolts in the forums you frequent but this post of yours merely demonstrates that you can make a search in google, not that you can provide any support for your statement.
I doubt that you read any of the links turned up by your search. I expect that this is the same way you form most of your opinions, reading what journalists and celebrities have to say about other journalists and celebrities. You have spoken of your knowledge of sociology and psychology but my own experience in those fields has called for a more reliable methodology for arriving at opinions.
Oh, and by the way, there was no research presented on sarah silvermans “getting obama elected”, not even an opinion. I assume you were relying on your links not being read.
Your “scholarship” at best is rather shoddy.
Like I asked originally:
bernard ross Said:
If you are going to make ludicrous statements pretending them as fact then perhaps you should first do a little homework to see if you are even in the ballpark.
Some people here need an education.
GIYF (Google is Your Friend)
https://www.google.ca/search?q=daily+show+political+influence
https://www.google.ca/search?q=daily+show+election+2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gloiyg3I4_Q
Max Said:
Is this assertion one of your flights of poetic license or do you actually believe what you state?
dweller Said:
not a fantasy just a source of regular amusement. I can always rely on you getting caught red faced with pants down and providing the forum and myself with your predictable circus gymnastics, tortured twisting and turning, trying to extricate yourself from an obvious humiliating position being caught out transparent. both you and Max react the same way: both cannot admit to being wrong and either run away, throw out red herrings to obfuscate your buffoonery, employ amateur psychobabble as a red herring, or smear the messenger who exposed your buffoonery. You now make an amusing pair, like heckle and Jeckle. Mirror images of each other both wearing the emperors clothes.
@ Max:
dweller Said:
HMMMM?
Max Said:
I think they have found each other.
2 peas in a pod, same modus operandi, same massive egos unable to admit error, same psychobabble and obfuscation when caught being ludicrous,same smearing the messenger when unable to come up with a logical arugment or evidence to support their arguments… a marriage made in heaven?
@ dweller:
Despite Max’s best advice I shall respond Sweetie. The above incident was soon forgotten. Why, because before the move I had always lived in apts and was afraid of dogs. My new friends had a dog. The dearest ,dumbest, loving Cocker Spaniel in the world. I was in love, it was a great summer of fun and freedom.
Max says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
September 6, 2014 at 8:11 am
Must be a mot-her ing impulse. You should ad-opt him – he needs a mot-her.
@ honeybee:
You created a much bigger one; certainly a more lasting one.
Didn’t say they were “proud.”
— I said they’d been hugely successful. They were.
They couldn’t be ‘proud’ because they never knew the nature or extent of their ACTUAL success. But that is irrelevant. Serious damage was done — and done, moreover, by the very intended victims THEMSELVES.
Not in any superficial sense, no, they didn’t.
Yet, unbeknownst to them, they DID succeed in moving the two of you to cooperate in fracturing the unity & trust within your family
— thru the concoction of a secret that manacled the relationships amongst yourselves and which did the GREATEST emotional harm to you personally, HB. You carry with you the effects of it to this day.
@ bernard ross:
Ah, your favorite fantasy
— and one which you evidently need to rely on.
Like Max’s, it remains a staple in your imagination — and nowhere else.
I was clearly correct:
— You and Max have MUCHO mas in common with each other than either of you has EVER had with YoursTruly.
Max Said:
This was before I took the crown. Sorry about dweller, but he’s simply irrespirable.