Kissinger rebukes Liberal Democratic Crusade

Although it is a dubious honour, Dr. Henry Kissinger has endorsed the Woodchip Gazette's analysis of the Ukrainian Crisis....

In interviews given over the past two weeks, Henry Kissinger has all but rebuked Biden's warmongering policy. Kissinger has stated:

1. The new catastrophic destructiveness of non nuclear weapons is a technological change which necessitates a diplomatic and geopolitical rethinking. (Aka - don't sleep walk into Armageddon.)

2. We should not seek "regime change" in Russia (or China); nor should we frame the issue as Manichean confrontation between "democracy and authoritarianism." We can use that distinction in our analysis of situations but not as a strategic goal.

3. We should likewise recognize that Russia IS part of Europe, has been so for 400 years, and has interests in this region. (Aka Screw Zbigniew Brzezinski and his Grand Roll Back wet dream.)

4. We need to seek a negotiated solution to the crisis within the next two months, before things take on an irreversible momentum of their own, and which will return to the status quo ante. (Aka Donbas to Ukraine; Crimea to Russia.) Pursuing the war beyond that point would not be about the freedom of Ukraine, but a new war against Russia itself.

Last but not least: Dr. K cautioned against the "Enthusiasm of the moment" --- which is what a seasoned diplomat calls Lindsay Graham's spitting salivating snarling for war.

The Witch and Dick

Soooo.... it turns out in open court that Witch Hillary personally approved the leaking (aka planting) of fake information, falsely linking Donald Trump to a Russia bank. Gee...who'da thunk it?

For some reason we were transported back to November 7th, 1960 when the final returns came in proving that John Fitzgerald Kennedy (aka the Golden One) had stolen the election.

Kennedy as some readers might recall was a minority president, garnering less actual votes than Tricky Dick. What put Jack over the top were the returns from Cook County, at the time run like a well-oiled machine by Mayor Daley who famously urged Democrats to "vote early and vote often."

Everyone knew it. It didn't have to be leaked. Cook County was as rotten as they came. And yet, at two minutes to midnight, Richard Nixon took to the podium, conceded the election and congratulated his rival, as his wife Pat choked back tears.

 
God how it must have choked Nixon. It's a wonder he was able to speak at all. But yet he did. Why?

Because just as we all know that Cook County is rotten, just as we all know that Amurkan democracy is a corrupt and vulgar farce, those who participate in the sordid spectacle cannot possibly admit it. To do so -- to delegitimize the election -- would be akin to heaping offal on one's self. Vile, slimey, faithfless and untrue as these scum might be, they at least don't heap shit on their own heads.

Not Hillary. Her ego is so overweening that she preferred to delegitimize the "democracy" should would lead rather than admit the she was too arrogantly incompetent to win an election against a talk show buffoon.

It takes doing to make Nixon look good... but on the vileness scale hands down, cunt beat dick.

An Imbecile speaks Faux Truth

Robert Reich has revealed his true Gentrified Demorat colours. "We must fight Bullies, whether they be Putin, Trump or Tech Billionaires" he writes in the FemWoke Guardian.

What brilliance from the comfort of his second home!

Lessee... Reich wants to fight Putin. As a man? Well why not...MAN to man. I'd love to see Reich and Putin in the slosh pit. Laurel and Hardy could not have done better.

Oh? no...? You mean, not Putin qua man, man but as head of state of a sovereign nation? Ah.... So how do you fight Putin-the-President without fighting the thing he is president of? So... you well paid, well connected ex-cabinet imbecile, you mean we should go to war with Russia?

You must be out of your dimwit mind.

Alright enough of that. We need to fight Trump-the-Bully. Again, Reich says "Trump must be held accountable!" For what? Reich doesn't say, except to add in the next sentence that politicians Christian nationalism must be condemned and voted out of office.

How about politicians who encourage Jewish Nationalism?

[pin drop]

Reich goes on to say:

standing up against all forms of bullying and brutality – is essential to preserving a civil society.

Throughout history, the central struggle of civilization has been against brutality by the powerful

A civil society doesn’t allow the strong to brutalize the weak

When inequalities become too wide, they invite abuses. Such abuses invite further abuses until society degenerates into a Hobbesian survival of the most powerful

The struggle for social justice is the most basic struggle of all because it defines how far a civilization has come from a Hobbesian survival of the most powerful.

CEOs who treat their employees badly must be exposed and penalized. Billionaires who bribe lawmakers to cut their taxes or exempt them from regulations must be sanctioned, as should lawmakers who accept such bribes.

This is what civilization demands.

This is not a poison pill. It is a paradoxical effect pill.

What is that? "Paradoxical effect is the effect of a medical drug, that is opposite to what would usually be expected. An example of a paradoxical reaction is pain caused by a pain relief medication."

What Reich has done is to bury a classic Marxist thesis under a pile of roughage and rubble, distracting from the true cause of things while purporting to talk about the true cause of things. This is precisely why American politics more than any other remains so impossibly infantilized.

"Social justice is the most basic struggle of all because it defines how far a civilization has come from" savage survival of the most ruthless,"  Reich says.

√.

But from that point which echoes Genesis, Jeremiah and Jesus...and yes Marx... Reich derails into talking about "bullying" and "brutalizing."

No... what it concerns is CLASS WARFARE. The rich against the poor. The haves against the have-nots. Those who have capital against those who sell their labour for less than its worth so that those who have capital can increase their capital.

Now... you can call capitalism a form of economic bullying. The problem with that, however, is that the word "bullying" implies a personal character defect and what we are really concerend with -- in economics -- are systemic effects. By characterizing the issue as one of "bullying" Reich derails from the principle and underlying point.

The derailing is underscored by statements such as "CEOs who treat their employees badly must be exposed ..." In casting the issue in those terms, Reich makes it appear that treating employees badly is a personal and incidental failing... AKIN TO .. treating women badly... or being nasty to transgender bi-spirits...

St. Jerome (450 A.D.) was much more blunt and on point: "The rich man is either a thief or the son of a thief." Period. No bullshit about thieves who treat their victims badly as contrasted with those thieves who steal compassionately.

WHAT THE FUCK???

Reich makes the matter even more confused by writing that we must stand "against all forms" of "bullying." "These things are connected" he writes.

In so saying he makes clear that he is using the word "bully" as an equivocation point to switch from talking about the war of the classes to yapping about the war of the sexes. And of course, by defining "social justice" (the opposite of bullying) to include treating women and workers right, somehow the worker part, the economic part, gets subsumed and forgotten in the cultural issue part.

Pseudo leftists always do this. They will start out talking about means of production and control of social capital and then will add something like "...and abolish the oppressive institution of marriage..." Suddenly everyone gets in a dither about the institution of marriage and goes to war over that issue while the underlying question of political-economy gets lost in a pixie dust of "social reforms."

Then cometh Hillary to announce that "we are making progress..."

So... Reich makes (sort of) a correct point about the savage nature of capitalism which he then buries in a lot of blather and nonsense of GOING TO WAR AGAINST TOXIC MALES, DEFENDING THE RIGHT TO FETUS FLUSH or be to be an adolescent ALT SHE MALE.

"These things" are NOT "connected." The structural inequities of capitalism, and gender norms, roles and violence are two different issues. That's why we have categories like "political-economy" and "socio-cultural."

Fake leftists have been doing this blur, ever since Max Weber derailed Marxist analysis into the mushy world of socio-cultural issues.

Reich tops all this off with a call for politically correct censorship saying: "Celebrity pundits who fuel racism and xenophobia must be denounced and defunded."

Oh... just celebrities? Yeah well, I'm fine with that. Needless to say, Reich skips over the inconvenient fact that in order to track what "celebrities" are saying the public conversation has to be monitored in the first place. Wonderful. And if anyone thinks it will stop with celebrities, he or she can join the Reichian Ranks of Imbeciles.

I am very dubious that capitalism can be reformed not to do what it was intended to do: exploit the worker. No wealth comes out of nowhere and ultimately somebody has to pay the piper. It may be some hottentot out of sight in another continent; it may be some deforested jungle... But the price has to be paid.

In the words of Lenin, social-democratic reforms only end up producing an "aristocracy of labour" in favoured countries. The German or American worker lives well; travels to some exotic place on his holiday and wonders at the poverty those poor people live under....

But OK... we ought not let theory be the enemy of practice. At the end of the day, I don't know if capitalism can be reformed or what will be the consequence if we try. I am willing to vote for Bernie. I'd have vote for FDR or Ferdinand Lasalle. Fuck... I'd even vote for Bismarck at this point.

But what I will NOT vote for is some confused Gentrified Liberal confusing issues and peddling the notion that if we control speech and put an end to pussy grabbing we will have taken a significant step in remedying the savages injustices of our economy.

C'mon Reich...you can do it: call for an end to for proft hospitals! Demand price (and rent) controls... including caps on doctor's salaries. Demand free college education, debt relief and a single payer pension funds. You actually do know where the nuts and bolts are... you are just hoping to pogey bait the rest of us to follow you down some stupid primrose reformist path. ... while drumming for war with a nukular power.

Asshole.

Monday Madness - Stupid Remark causes Flight of Furies.

Monday would not be Monday with a fresh batch of nonsense over which to get agitated.

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov was asked how it was possible for Russia to claim it was seeking to “de-Nazify” Ukraine when its president was Jewish. To this incredibly stupid question, Lavrov answered: "I could be wrong, but Hitler also had Jewish blood. [That Zelensky is Jewish] means absolutely nothing. Wise Jewish people say that the most ardent anti-Semites are usually Jews."

Quoth BBC: “The minister's statement was met with outrage across Israel's political spectrum.”

Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said: "Such lies are meant to blame the Jews themselves for the most terrible crimes in history and thus free the oppressors of the Jews from their responsibility” adding "No war today is the Holocaust or is like the Holocaust."

Israel's Foreign Minister weighed in: “Foreign Minister Lavrov’s remarks are both an unforgivable and outrageous statement as well as a terrible historical error. Jews did not murder themselves in the Holocaust. The lowest level of racism against Jews is to accuse Jews themselves of antisemitism.”

The BBC notes at the end of the article that “There have for decades been unproven claims that Hitler's unidentified paternal grandfather was Jewish, fuelled by an assertion by Hitler's lawyer Hans Frank. Frank said he uncovered evidence that Hitler's grandfather was indeed Jewish - though the claim, which has gained ground among conspiracy theorists, has been treated with scepticism by mainstream historians.”

1. The Stupid Question.

The fact that Zelinsky is Jewish has no bearing on whether there are neo nazis in the Ukraine any more than the fact that Obama was Black would mean that there was no racism in the United States. All nations are comprised of different types of peoples and political factions. Furthermore, a politician from one faction very often has to compromise and make deals with his opponents. Franklin Roosevelt was not a racist but he had to make deals with Dixiecrats to satisfy the latter's racist demands. That an accredited journalist on the diplomatic beat would ask such a primitive question is beyond belief.

2. The Stupid Answer.

Instead of giving the answer I just gave, Lavrov doubled down into the sandbox by bringing up Hitler. One might think a seasoned diplomat would spot a hornets nest hanging over the door. It was first of all stupid to say that “having Jewish blood means nothing.” It means a lot to Jews. He should not have let his intended meaning hang on an ellipsis. He could have at least said: “... it means nothing in the context of making deals in politics.” He might have found an appropriate quote from the first Baron of Rothschild to that effect....

But no. Lavrov went on to venture a questionable generalizaton that the most ardent anti-semites are “usually” Jews. That is nonsense. It is true, that some ardent anti-semites have been Jewish or of Jewish descent. The Spanish inquisitor, Torquemada, was of proximate Jewish ancestry. Saint Teresa of Avila was Jewish by birth and said very nasty things against Jews. Marx's essay On the Jewish Question has left leftists scrambling to “contextualize” some of the statements he made. Frederick Marr who coined the word “anti-semitism” to describe his own beliefs was married to a Jew. One could go on. But so what? The most ardent homophobes are often themselves homosexuals. The most ardent anything usually masks insecurities or phobias.

It is true that there is some evidence that would support the inference that Hitler had Jewish blood. The BBC is being misleading when it says that the claim is treated with “skepticism” by most historians. What the matter boils down to is that “Hitler's father, Alois, was registered as an illegitimate child with no father when born in 1837 and to this day Hitler's paternal grandfather is unknown. Alois’ mother, Maria Schicklgruber, is known to have worked in the home of a wealthy Jew, so there is some chance, however small, that a son in that household got Hitler's grandmother pregnant.” (Jewish Virtual Library.) Most historians say simply that the evidence is so circumstantial that no positive inference can be drawn.

There was no reason for Lavrov to broach any of this, particulary absent any indication that Zelinksy himself harbors an anti-Jewish animus.

3. The Unhinged Reaction.

But that the question and answer were undeniably stupid does not mean that the reaction was within the bounds of reason.

No one equated the war in Ukraine with the annihilation of Europe's Jews. No one “blamed the Jews” for Nazi genocide. No one claimed that Jews “murder[ed] themselves in the Holocaust.” The rhetorical hyperbole is based on the fallacy of generalization: to jump from “one” to “all.”

Let it be supposed, for the sake of argument, that Hitler was Jewish or at least believed he might be; and that, so believing, he suffered from intense feelings of self doubt and loathing which he then projected on to Jews in general by whose genocide he “purged” or “corrected” his own supposed Jewishness. All that is still the psychosis of one man; one supposedly Jewish man who ordered the murder of millions of others. That does not by any stretch of logic or even of imagination translated into “Jews murdering themselves.” It just doesn't.

What disturbs us about this unhinged and aggressive reaction is that it magnifies a stupid incident into a world-historical or even a cosmological event supposedly necessitating what is in actuality a completely exagerrated response. This flows from turning the genocide of European Jews into a taboo called “Holocaust.” It is the nature of a taboo that by making something “unquestionable,” “untouchable,” “unapproachable,” “incomparable” and “immeasureable” reason itself, which is always a question of measure, is derailed.

There is very little difference between today's reaction from Israel or Jewish organizations and the Muslim reaction to any disparagement of “the Prophet” or the medieval reaction to denying the Resurrection of Jesus.

This sort of over the top reaction actually disserves the memory of the victims of Nazi genocide. Eventually, people will simply tire of it and come to see it as a form of self-serving manipulation. Stated another way, outrage looses its impact when it becomes routine.

The mass murder of European Jews with the intent to eradicate that group as such (“genocide”) was an historical event that can be studied or remembered. Although historians can always find issues and subtopics to investigate, for general purposes, the history of the matter has been combed enough. For the rest of us, what is left is an act of remembrance which, at bottom, serves a social and political purpose. Some acts of remembrance are occasions for happiness and celebration; others are occasions for reflection and resolve. But remembrance too looses its force when overdone.

To pounce upon every stupid, ill-considered, or malicious remark with the vigilant vehemence and fury of a Torquemada will eventually cheapen the very thing safeguarded.