My Other Blog & Comments

News and Information Feed

Monday, March 08, 2010

Marty Peretz epitomizes the racialist "center" in increasingly-tribalist America's breakup into three ideological strains

( -- By Chris Moore --

This item from lobelog ('Marty Peretz’s Cowardice,' By Daniel Luban) and its subject nicely illustrate the racialist mentality of the supposed "center" that has today taken control of the corrupted, hypocritical Washington establishment that straddles both main parties and sets America's political agenda and domestic direction.

For a brief moment, Peretz apparently let his mask slip beyond its usual politically correct chauvinism to reveal the true face and racialist mentality of today's Washington power brokers.

Daniel Luban:

In a typical rant, The New Republic editor/publisher Marty Peretz prefaced a rambling declaration of victory in Iraq with these charming words:

"There were moments–long moments–during the Iraq war when I had my doubts. Even deep doubts. Frankly, I couldn’t quite imagine any venture requiring trust with Arabs turning out especially well. This is, you will say, my prejudice. But some prejudices are built on real facts, and history generally proves me right. Go ahead, prove me wrong."

Peretz is quoted by Glenn Greenwald, who says most of what needs to be said about Peretz’s latest display of bigotry. I’m sure we can expect a 4000-word J’accuse from Leon Wieseltier condemning his boss’s racism any day now.

In any case, if one views Peretz’s post now, one finds that the offending sentence has been changed, without any indication that it used to read differently:

"There were moments–long moments–during the Iraq war when I had my doubts. Even deep doubts. Frankly, I couldn’t quite imagine any venture like this in the Arab world turning out especially well. This is, you will say, my prejudice. But some prejudices are built on real facts, and history generally proves me right. Go ahead, prove me wrong."...MORE...LINK
Peretz, a Jewish Zionists, is the long-time publisher of probably the most influential, establishment-liberal mouthpiece in America's history, The New Republic. Here are some blurbs from Wikipedia on TNR's venerable left-liberal establishment credentials, including its many years under Peretz's Zionist guidance, which was and is, as it turns out, in no way out of accord with mainstream left-liberalism in all its self-righteous hypocrisy:
Domestically, the current version of TNR supports a largely centrist to center-left stance on fiscal issues and a more strongly liberal stance on social issues. Editor Franklin Foer describes the magazine as overall center-left, stating that TNR "invented the modern usage of the term liberal, and it’s one of our historical legacies and obligations to be involved in the ongoing debate over what exactly liberalism means and stands for."...

One consequence of World War I was the Russian Revolution of 1917, and during the inter-war years the magazine was generally positive in its assessment of the Soviet Union and its communist government...

Up until the late 1960s, the magazine had a certain "cachet as the voice of re-invigorated liberalism", in the opinion of Eric Alterman, a commentator who has criticized the magazine's politics from the left. That cachet, Alterman wrote, "was perhaps best illustrated when the dashing, young President Kennedy had been photographed boarding Air Force One holding a copy"...

Kinsley and Hertzberg editorships, 1979-1991
Michael Kinsley, a neoliberal (in the American sense of the term), was editor (1979-1981; 1985-1989), alternating twice with Hendrik Hertzberg (1981-1985; 1989-1991), who has been called "an old-fashioned social democrat". Kinsley was only 28 years old when he first became editor and was still studying law[4] at George Washington University.

Writers for the magazine during this era included neoliberals Mickey Kaus and Jacob Weisberg along with Charles Krauthammer, Fred Barnes, Morton Kondracke, Sidney Blumenthal, Robert Kuttner, Ronald Steel, Michael Walzer, and Irving Howe...
Note the large number of neoliberals, neocons and Jewish Zionists on that list. It's almost as if neoconservatism, neoliberalism and left-liberalism have, over the course of the last forty years or so, seamlessly merged into one monolithic ideology that maintains the facade of "opposition" between its left and right wings, repeatedly going through the same ritualistic oppositional rhetorical charades, but in actuality has united around the axis of Zionism.

In fact, this is exactly what has happened.

Peretz's politically correct racism and the complete absence of response in the mainstream media or from the Washington political class -- usually so eager and quick to make partisan hay out of any bigoted faux-pas -- would be astounding if not for the fact that the Washington establishment and its media mouthpieces are themselves oriented towards Jewish supremacist bigotry and double-standards favoring Jewish Zionists not only over Arabs, but over pretty much everyone else they come into conflict with, as well.

For example, can anyone imagine the publisher any influential political magazines in America ever getting away with writing something along the lines of the following without an epic hue and cry from America's mainstream media?:
"There were moments–long moments–during the Iraq war when I had my doubts. Even deep doubts. Frankly, I couldn’t quite imagine any venture requiring trust with Jews turning out especially well. This is, you will say, my prejudice. But some prejudices are built on real facts, and history generally proves me right."
Marty Peretz epitomizes the hypocritical, Jewish supremacist mentality that has insinuated its way into Washington from Left to Right, and today squats right at the center of the corrupt Washington Establishment.

As a result, today's America appears to be fracturing upon three large political tectonic plates -- two of which are tenaciously, temperamentally and inherently anti-Christian, at least insofar as Christianity has traditionally been understood in both its Western civilization and early American incarnations, and as such, share much common ground.

One political "plate" could be described as the Hard Left, which is essentially atheist-materialist, Big Government/Big Union, anti-free enterprise, and politically authoritarian. Jews like Peretz used to be in this grouping before migrating Right, into the Big Government left-liberal/neocon establishment per the imperatives of their racialist Zionist ideology. The Hard Left coalition also includes ethno-ideological tribalists in the Jewish Zionist mold who, unlike the Zionists, haven't yet thoroughly penetrated the salons of the corrupt Washington establishment. An example of this would be the leadership of La Raza, and other racial special interests groups like it that have taken their cues from Jewish Zionism's political success.

The second grouping or "plate," (which currently works in a Big Government, spoils-dividing coalition with the Hard Left), comprises the contemporary corrupt Washington establishment referenced above, as epitomized by left-liberals such as Peretz, plus further right Big Government conservatives such as the neocons, their money-worshipping Big Business and Wall Street partners, and their smaller fry, venal money-grubbing useful idiots, as exemplified by the general Bushcon movement. This coalition, which under Bush grew the federal government more than any president since LBJ, has continued that growth on an even larger scale under president Obama's neoliberal leadership.

This set might be described as the Zionist Establishment coalition, because it includes both Christian and Jewish Zionists, neocons and neoliberals, is essentially operationally Judeofascist (eg it learns from, largely worships, and emulates the Judeofascist state of Israel and the Jewish Zionist mentality as demonstrated by Obama's Israel lobby-driven foreign-policy political agenda), and like Israel itself is either latently racist or boorishly elitist, can often be messianic, and is perpetually warmongering -- either for Money Power war profiteering purposes, Big Government Empire purposes, or religo-ideological purposes. Like the Hard Left, it too is politically authoritarian by definition and by necessity, which is why the two often work together hand-in-glove as typified by Obama's turn at the wheel, which has basically continued the Bush administration's foreign policies, but engaged in the distribution of Big Government political spoils on an even larger scale to appease his Hard Left supporters, as well.

The third "plate" is a much looser, de-centralized coalition comprised of traditional Christians, libertarians, and conservatives in the vein of the American Founders -- generally free market and free enterprise (although not pro-globalizationist), anti-authoritarian and anti-tyrannical, and generally partial to smaller government, localism, decentralization and self-determination. This coalition generally opposes open borders (which the internationalist Left supports for ideological purposes, and the Washington Zionist Establishment embraces for money-worshipping [eg wage-lowering, market-expanionism] globalizationist purposes), and is anti-Empire. Indeed, this grouping is highly suspicious or hostile to nearly all large scale, government-centered social-engineering projects, be they foreign (eg the Iraq War and the so-called War on Terror) or domestic.

The emerging Tea Party movement seems to be slowly feeling its way towards alignment with this coalition, which has been described as the Ron Paul Revolution, or the Freedom Movement.

How much longer will corrupt, racialist, Zionist Washington be able to get away with presenting itself as an "oppositional" multi-party system in alignment with America's political values and ethical principles? I supposed that all depends upon how much longer the Big Government Hard Left is willing to partner with it in dividing the spoils from the American carcass -- which means until the deficit spending on the national credit card maxes out and America enters into the phase of pending national bankruptcy.

In other words, probably not much longer. At that point, American politics will start to get really interesting. -- Chris Moore

No comments: