Not an argument.

I await refutation of my claims (I don’t want to have to report you for trolling, but if I have to, I will).

A beautiful proof that what a hubristic zionazi blatherer can produce is only hubristic zionazi blather…

I was talking about Zionism, not Jews, and I didn’t say that we should leave it alone, unless you think ”Of course we should fight and resist Zionism…” is the same as ”Don’t touch!”

But thanks for revealing what this is really all about to you.

”Yes and contained within a boring inches-long paragraph probably copied from some Hasbara tract like the Israel Project.”

Translation: you can’t refute anything I said. Hasbara tracts don’t contain sharp criticisms of Zionist collusion with state-capitalism. If they do, let me know.

”Yup, that’s how it works. ”

Not an argument.

That exhausts all your charges.

LC singing his old beloved tune “Don’t touch the Jews!”…

While the motivating forces behind capitalism and Zionism are slightly different, they are largely congruent, as are the motivating forces behind capitalism and Wahhabism (a force that the White House has always been deferential towards, for obvious reasons. Certainly not because they had any personal love for these creeps). Thus the ”remarkable” success of both these religious doctrinal systems against the backdrop of capitalism, which is more ”basic” than either of them. Zionism can get its way most of the time because the powerful state-capitalist configuration it operates within already has much the same prerogatives; it finds common grounds with it more often than not. Key Zionists are often important capitalist players in their own right (operating through the most important manifestation of capitalist accumulation dynamics, the corporation), and will naturally see their broader goals as synonymous with their economic designs (and will certainly seek to sell them as such). The most powerful bloc within the state-capitalist configuration isn’t the Zionist one, though, influential as it is. Lockheed-Martin by itself wields more influence. The industrial, financial, and auto lobbies also come to mind. The have had not only more time and resources to co-opt the state, but they have much more of an influence on the dad-to-day social fabric of the country, how work is carried out, decisions about distribution and production, etc. The Zionists have been as successful as they are largely because they have emulated and flattered or otherwise made themselves useful to (or engineered one or another fait accompli to virtually make themselves indispensable to) the existing capitalists and state players, not the other way around (as though there was something qualitatively so different about the Zionists that somehow give them seemingly magical power to utterly transcend the logic of the system and impose their own designs while the other groupings sit helplessly by). It is sheer lunacy to suppose that if we cripple the Zionists, that the rest of the rotten edifice is going to become more amenable to the needs of the people. What reason is there to think that, for example, the financial sector is going to let go of its stranglehold on health care policy just because Zionists have been defeated? Their reasons for having a stranglehold on the health care sector are to do with their own imperatives about what’s best for their interests. And imperialism is something that the capitalists do by necessity, not by choice, and this follows directly from the accumulation dynamics of capitalism. We get rid of capitalism, and the Zionist bloc will lose its foothold, because it won’t have the institutional convergence with the broader structure within which it is able to operate and parasitise (and the same goes for the other blocs). They won’t have anyone to make themselves indispensable to, no imperialist schemes to offer their services to, no institutional prerogatives to find common ground with (that is, unless the socialism we replace capitalism with is itself a rigidly hierarchical, swaggering juggernaut that is little different to what it replaces, in which case it isn’t really socialism). Of course we should fight and resist Zionism, but that goes for everything else mentioned above.

Does this mean they will not shutdown the Worldwide web although very soon we will not need the web just open the front door. Hal open the pod bay doors open the door. Sorry Dave I can’t do that my mission is to important and Obama is a one term President Obama is a one term President. Hal you seem to be stuck on stupid. Dave that wasn’t very nice am going to take all the air out of the room now. Hal am sorry I meant you are repeating the obvious. That’s better Dave but am still not going to open the door.

Reading Atlas Shrugged and Beck’s new book am on the road to recovery.

Portions of southern Australia kept a close eye Wednesday on rising rivers that threatened to add to the mounting destruction from a month of flooding that has killed at least 21 people, inundated homes and devastated thousands of acres of crops across the country.

Potential for more major flooding in the state remains strong. CNN

South African farmers may have incurred losses of about 1 billion rand ($145 million) as a result of flooding that damaged grape, corn and sunflower crops, according to Agri SA, a farmers’ organization.

“That’s a very rough estimate for all farmers,” Agri SA economist Dawie Maree said by telephone from Pretoria today. “You can’t do a full assessment before the water level has subsided.”

Floods have hit seven of South Africa’s nine provinces since mid-December, claiming at least 40 lives and displacing more than 6,000 people. The government yesterday declared 28 municipalities disaster areas, saying damages totaling 356 million rand have been recorded so far in three provinces.

In December, most of the country had more than double the normal volume of rain for the month, according to data on the South African Weather Service website. It forecast a 60 percent chance of more rain in Johannesburg tomorrow and an 80 percent chance of further showers the day after. Bloomberg

Oh Brother and the duplicitious meanings of Democracy and crony Capitalism shape shifting possibly into a new form.

Did these elected leaders in the House say Obama is a one term President sort of and red is gray and yellow white. Say one term President like Billy Bob in Sling Blade, Obama is a one term President, Obama is a one term President. Of course that’s giving these people credit with the big C on there forehead,” jump”, how high.

Mr Sullivan writes: “The duplicitous meanings of democracy are used interchangeably by the plutocracy, leaving the American people ambivalent and confused. This was an engineered bait and switch that went virtually unnoticed by a naïve and somnolent public.”

There’s an unfortunate trend to sneer at the general public – even if it’s not particularly intentional. For example, here we see that if the American people are not ‘naïve and somnolent’ they are ‘ambivalent and confused’.

Not enough allowance is made, in my view, for the fact that we are all misled and brainwashed, almost from the day we are born. If people are naïve or confused, it’s hardly surprising. Given the relentless conditioning we receive from birth to death, it takes a considerable effort (and a fair degree of good luck) for anyone to see through the lies and deception that permanently surround all of us 24/7.

The second point I would like to take issue with is where Mr Sullivan writes: “We must understand that capitalism and democracy are irreconcilably opposing philosophies. ”

In my view it’s not that they “oppose” each other, but that they are completely different. Capitalism is an economic philosophy and democracy is a political philosophy. You might say that capitalism and socialism oppose each other, or that democracy opposes monarchy, but to say democracy opposes capitalism is a bit like saying the theory of evolution opposes the theory of gravity. Having said that, I think it’s absolutely true that our leaders do try to conflate in our minds the view democracy and capitalism are synonymous. They’re not. This is quite an important point, because just as its incorrect to assume that capitalism and democracy are the same, it’s equally incorrect to say that socialism and democracy are the same. They are quite different. You can have a democracy with a socialist economic policy (such as Venezuela), or you can have a democracy with a capitalist economic policy (such as Switzerland) – both equally capable of providing just and humane government.

liz
http://www.burbankdigest.com/

in a classful society, with vast gap in earnings, education among its several classes of people, a democratic form of governance, such as the one in u.s., is an ideal system of rule for maintaining and/or augmenting inequality and all kinds of injustices.

a govt governing a people [and u.s 1k1 and 1 ethnicities] is easy if the govt is not self governed.
that’s the key problem: who governs a govt? governing class? yes, i think so. or about, say, 1% of people.
btw, i stopped reading and posting on d.v. solely because some my of my posts disappear. tnx

This is the line of thinking that justifies Right-wing and pseudo-Left rhetoric of blaming the “corporations” as if people didn’t matter before the Supreme Court perverted the 14th Amendment. The Constitution did that by considering African-Americans 3/5 of a human being in order to preserve their inhumanly exploitative economic status as slaves. Even before “corporations” the political system was undemocratic and corrupted by Capitalism. Capitalism was fundamentally built into the U.S. starting with the Declaration of Independence when Jefferson initially wrote that government is suppose to protect life, liberty, and [private] property. Because Capitalism must “grow” it stands to reason that Capitalism will seize the government in order to sustain its “growth”. This has nothing to do with “corporations” but everything to do with the fundamental nature of the Capitalist system.

What is slightly different starting with the 21st Century is the rise of Zionism and Zionism working in tandem with Capitalism. The motivating forces of Zionism are slightly different from the motivating forces of Capitalism.

By reifying corporations as omnipotent persons and by equating capital with free speech, the Supreme Court gave corporations and their CEOs enormous power. Since corporations do not have a pulse or a conscience, the courts essentially created sociopathic institutions that are driven by an insatiable lust for profit. Originally, corporations were moderately controlled by government through regulation. But as corporate influence in government waxed, corporations began to lobby for, and to win, greater deregulation. The revolving door between big business and government gave rise to the corporate state and to unfettered capitalism.

This is such hogwash. So for example corporations like Atena who insured slaves and Lehman Brothers who financed the purchasing and transport of slaves were, as inferred from the author’s comments, benign prior to the 14th Amendment and the resent SC ruling. “Corporations” as bogieman. Yet another simplistic narrative of the pseudo-Left — and the Left has the nerve to condemn the Right’s narrative as “conspiracy”.

Private ownership of the means of production and the invisible hand of the market are two key components of modern capitalism. In reality, there is no ‘invisible hand’ of the market, as the proponents of free market capitalism contend. If there were, the global banking system would have collapsed long ago. We have only to lift the cloak of secrecy for the human finger prints of manipulation to become plainly visible. A small cadre of the elite is manipulating everything.

I’m glad the author fundamentally understands that Capitalism is anathema to Democracy but his understanding of the historical aspects of Capitalism and his confusion about corporations which existed and developed right along with Capitalism will confuse most readers. His confusion unfortunately well help to perpetuate the Right’s narrative that will ultimately result in reforms rather than a complete rejection of both Capitalism and Zionism.

It’s not just corporate money unless you consider Hiam Saban to be a corporation. Rich individual who promote their agenda like Saban spend even more than many corporations and his agenda is not necessarily Capitalistic. This is the myopia coming from “Socialists” these days that everything is economically motivative. Racism as a motivating factor goes unconsidered. This head-in-the-sand by “Socialists” towards Zionism is what has allowed it to flourish.