Alinskyism vs Communism

Here's my favorite critique of Alinskyism from the left as printed in Jacobin.  Similar, but not identical to my critique, which follows.  In all cases of variance, believe their facts and analysis more than my historical imagination and free thinking.

At one time, long ago, Alinskyian organizing was thought by the man himself to be the slow patient variety, working through the achievement of incremental victories to the ultimate construction of a permanent power organization.   He especially eschewed Martin Luther King style mass movements which he viewed as tending to operate for a few months, achieve some fame and fewer victories and then vanish, leaving no base for continuing victories.  (However, while against his written principles, he took the opportunity for a mass movement when it arose.)

Since then, however, it appears that even Alinsky organizations have followed a similar course to fading away, but over the course of a few years rather than a few months.  Hybrid Alinsky-inspired service organizations like Acorn have had somewhat better success, but ultimately broken by malign outside forces.  (Acorn was good and great, and should be rebuilt, and has been partly rebuilt through a number of successor organizations.)

I think Alinsky type organizations should have a permanent place in society exactly where Alinsky himself had the most success--as residential civil rights guardians.  Having no ideology, they can work with all the residents in an area to overcome government failures which especially plague poor neighborhoods, now as in Alinsky's day.

Alinskyian tactics also may have their place in other kinds of organizations.  Boycotts are a classic Alinskyian strategy, often the only way the powerless can confront those protected by power.  UFW is or was an Alinskyian organization that succeeds through organizing consumer boycotts rather than worker actions (and the most long lasting, if not successful, of all of organizations founded by people trained by Alinsky himself, however it is now a shadow of its most-successful self and not generally significant to farmworkers anymore, primarily because it hardly involved the workers at all, it was run with outside "liberal" money from fundraising and sponsored boycotts).

However the general strategy Alinsky proposed is Direct Action.  My nutshell version goes like this:

1. Identify a decision maker who could affect the desired change, and make them the singular "enemy"
2. Attack the "enemy" relentlessly by any means available until they cave

I believe Alinskyian tactics need to be applied very selectively.  (So did Alinsky, though he might choose differently than me.)  Disruption can cause more harm than good in some cases, by disrupting outside alliances.

Alinsky had no respect for any politician.   Regardless of their proclaimed ideologies, he believed they would always simply follow the path of least resistance.  Hence, they always need to be pressured, and with the greatest predjudice, until they follow the people's will.

Since those of us who are Communists or like Communists (Alinsky dismissed all ideologies especially "-isms") still work to a considerable degree through electoral politics, and our ultimate plan is success through political unity, Alinskyian approaches should be applied with utmost caution to left-leaning or even center-leaning candidates.  The successful less-right candidates are "our" candidates and we should be somewhat nice to them.  (Not without exception, of course.  Sometimes they need a good push or even shove.  But my point is merely that this is a tricky business that needs careful design.)

It's strange to think the Communists, who aim to completely replace capitalism--as well as the imperialism which sustains it, as having a less confrontational tendency than "non-ideological" Alinskyists.  Mind you, both ideologies eschew violence, only endorsing non-violent direct action, if any at all.

But the Communist game is a still longer one (and yes, shared by those other -isms).  It is the game of not just creating one organization, but creating an identity, which will persevere to create new organizations when the old ones fail, endlessly.

In the case of the Communist identity, is is the identity of the unifiers, who aim to shepherd all the factions and splits of the people's movements and tendencies into a single and ultimately unstoppable people's identity that includes nearly everyone, because THAT is what it's going to take to replace Capitalism.  Whether the ultimate identity is called is of less importance than its breadth and inclusiveness.  Examples of the ultimate identity that could unify nearly all Americans include "the 99%" and the "99.9%".  Because a lot of Americans are students, dependents, and retirees, "the workers" has less resonance than it might (though, it's stil a pretty good universal identity for those who could ultimately support a replacement of capitalism with socialism).  Our fellow left organizers are Comrades whether we agree with them or not.  But never will the 99.9% all be left organizers, most will be the organized.

Communists may (like me) even self-discover this tendency as being the best, and then be shocked to find that's what the Communist Party (CPUSA) has been calling for all along.  Reasonably good minds think alike.

Communists do not (generally) smear Democrats as being identical to Republicans.  There are small differences (which may seem monumental to the brainwashed masses) which are nevertheless very important.  So, Communists work for Democrats (and had been doing that even before the Communist Party stopped running it's own candidates in 1988).  Communists themselves have just as much right (McCarthy and Cohn being long dead) to run as Democratic candidates as anyone else, they are generally willing to sign the Democratic Party's loyalty oaths, and stick to them as well as anyone, because they see and value the differences between Democrats and Republicans.  One Communist won a city election (as a "Democrat") recently.

Communists do not view Communism as fringe, they view other parties who attack the establishment left indiscriminantly as fringe and hope to make peace with them somehow.  This is often hard to imagine at a given time, but often unexpected events produce opportunities for greater unity, sometimes one step at a time.

Loyal Communists would even support Biden, if he were to win the Democratic Party nomination*, but it looks like even the most soothing words imaginable from Communists would not get many other leftists to support Biden.  In the Primaries we officially support the leftmost candidates Sanders and Warren (most strongly prefer Sanders, including me), and hopefully Biden will not win the nomination--he is highly flawed.  Gravel was the most Communist-preferred candidate of all.  Self proclaimed anti-Imperialist Gabbard appears somewhat counterintuitively to be a Zionist and Hindu Nationalist, while communists oppose divisive nationalisms, so she wouldn't be our top pick--in addition to lower polls (but myself I love the fact that she talked to Assad, and I love many of the things she says).  The remaining candidates are all unabashedly neocons and/or neoliberals, but still better than Trump.

(*Communists have been circulating Dump Trump signup cards, which pledge the signer to vote for the leading candidate opposing Trump in 2020 in the General Election.  Yes, we are Serious, and committed to the long haul.)

The story that really angers me about Alinskyism is how his organization in Chicago devolved over many years, along with it's association with churches, to become for awhile primarily a crusader against porn bookshops.  But it's only a small illustration of what happens when you have no actual ideology of what is important.  The twist could get even worse than that...ultimately the Alinsky organization worked against integration.

Fancy Bear

This series of links shows that Fancy Bear is RUH8, Ukranian Intelligence.  In the fabrication of Russiagate for the DNC, they were asked by CrowdStrike to make it look like leaked emails had been hacked by Russians.  A Russian hacker who was working for the Ukranians confessed to this and can prove it was his work.

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/09/the-democrats-impeachment-attempt-against-trump-is-a-huge-mistake.html?cid=6a00d8341c640e53ef0240a4d6a303200b#comment-6a00d8341c640e53ef0240a4d6a303200b

The truth still appears to be that the emails were leaked by Seth Rich, who was then assassinated by someone from the DeepState in order that Russia could be blamed instead.  (Yet, all of my friends who watch MSNBC all day cannot believe this story wasn't debunked 3 years ago.  It wasn't.  Somehow, the investigation into Rich's murder was simply dropped.  That's how it works!)

Thought Crimes

Richard Stallman, the ultimate geek/nerd/whatever, who largely invented the world as we know it, has reportedly resigned from MIT/CSAIL/whatever.

According to one of the most condemnatory reports, the height of his ignominy is spoken thought crimes.  To quote one of his main accusers:

There is no single person that is so deserving of praise their comments deprecating others be allowed to slide.  Particularly when those comments are excuses about rape, assault, and child sex trafficking.

As an example of his unthinkable thought crimes, 10 years ago Stallman had pondered whether 14 year olds couldn't be understood as expressing their free will and not necessarily be victims in some cases.  This was particularly in the case where a 14 year old was ordered by Epstein to have sex with MIT president Minsky (an affair which has never been confirmed), and considering the potential guilty-ness of Minsky.

I've pondered such things myself, and promise to continue my serious thought crimes here, as long as I am able!!!

I could add on to Stallman's pondering, whether in some cases 14 year old might be expressing predominantly their obesiance (paid or ideological) to some plan of malfeasance, such as entrapping some target or dependency of the deepstate, as is clear in the Minsky setup.

Such appears to be, in fact, the essense of the multi decade Epstein operation, whose parameters were well known to many insiders.  It was allowed to run, and destroy and control potential adversaries of the deepstate, but now that it runs no more, it can run backwards through highlighted means to achieve the same effect.

It is Epstein, not Stallman, who deserves our ire.

And, the forces behind Epstein, whoever they are, still unknown, and largely undiscussed!!!

Those same forces (likely our Deepstate, and Mossad) may also be behind the bigger (but apparently softer) targets of #MeToo, including Al Frankin, Garrison Keiler, Minsky, and now Stallman, apparently a kind of domestic Color Revolution system, which was also at play in originally snagging Julian Assange on some ridiculous sexual charges (non-condom use, as he was told to do) which were immediately dismissed by a Swedish judge but reinstated by another prosector (allegedly under US orders).

The deepstate also had motive in the Faux News cases, but why would I waste my breath on those guys, obviously creeps in every way.  Those guys had multiple huge settlements already, which one day flipped when it was time to call them in.  (That's how the leash works.)

Sex, sex, even talk about sex, used to control and destroy, and this is nothing new.  Is it any wonder actual sex for fun has suffered?

Target Lists

I consider myself a free speech absolutist.  Speech should be free up to the point where it isn't, as is now well defined by the Supreme Court in Brandenburg (1969), speech is no longer free when it poses a threat of Imminent Lawless Action.

Now one of my favored Jewish groups for peace and justice: Jewish Voice for Peace, is asking me to  sign petition against some web service hosting Lists of Jews by anti-Semitic groups, apparently for harassment purposes.  I call such lists "Target Lists."

Generally I believe the same standard that applies to "protected speech" under the First Ammendment, should also apply to websites and internet services.  I am opposed to banning content because it is deemed to be "fake news."  In order to find the truth, we must hear all sides, unfiltered, as much as possible.  So, for example, I was opposed to Facebook banning Alex Jones, not because I like him.  And, since then many anti-war and/or left voices have been banned as well, as I predicted.

But I will concede that in my mind Target Lists do in fact constitute a threat of Imminent Lawless Action.  Therefore, I think they should be banned, but with one qualification.

"Target Lists" of public names, of all kinds, should not be banned.  This includes public officials, corporate officials, attorneys, principals of privately held major employers, news editors, celebrities.  When people take on public roles such as these, they assume the risk of being "listed."  Generally such people are better prepared and protected from harassment also, nor do others as much dare harass them.

Banning lists of public names interferes with freedom in politics, government, commerce, and employment.

What needs be banned is unauthorized Target Lists of private persons, for any divisive category, including religious, ethnic and political.

Narrativ

Narrativ is interesting, apparently the deep background on many things, where the world gets very dark.

Spies, Lies, and Big Data shows many interesting things, much related to the selling of Promis software with a back door to the USSR, that also figures prominently in the Epstein stories of Whitney Webb.

One thing for sure I agree with, and have always said too.  The "Collapse" of the Soviet Union, endlessly portrayed as "proof" that "Communism doesn't work" at the time and since, wasn't a collapse.  It was a western orchestrated coup (for which the timing, with uber-deep-state spook and Kennedy assassination ringleader GHWB just having assumed the US Presidency, was impeccable).

Zev's info clearly fits my narrative in that regards.

By the way, the USA has been run by the deep state on a tight leash and very clearly ever since the Eisenhower administration--which had been created by Allen Dulles.  The Kennedy Assassination was proof of what happens to someone who strays off the ranch, but at least two people directly involved in that assassination through deep state connections (Nixon and GHWB) became Presidents, with Bush--being the deepest spook of them all--having established a 5 term dynasty (two terms including front man Reagan--the guy who would take on any role demanded by MCA).

I'm finding it hard to believe that "Soviets" or "Russians" or anyone else would expect that software from Americans and Israelis would be trustworthy, however.

I find this story only believable with an additional layer that nobody acknowledges.

The "Russians" receiving the software were NKVD spooks who knew clearly what it did and what it was for.  They were cooperating with the Americans and Israelis!  To overthrow the Communist Party!

Here's where even I have made a long series of mis-associations.  The "Communist Party" (now runner-up party in Russia, after Putin's United Russia deep state imperialist party, among legal parties anyway) is not the same thing as the Russian "deep state" or NKVD.

In fact, it appears (by my analysis of the above) that the in the 1980's the NKVD was actively trying to dump the Communist Party, making it look bad in every way.  (And not, as sometimes argued, the other way around--Gorabachev trying to make NKVD look bad.)

So the way the handoff works is that the NKVD gladly takes the bugged software, and then installs it in Russia through it's ownership of the deep state.  Some probably know exacty what it's for (dump the CPSU) others just do as they're told.  It's been accepted by the NKVD leadership so whatever it doesn, it's good for the NKVD, or at least they think so.

Yeltsin was clearly western puppet, but he fall through from NKVD, then become slightly independent from them for awhile by holding on with US help?

Maybe we shouldn't even be thinking about political parties, just how to overthrow the Intelligence Class that apparently rules the world.

The real way the world is ruled is first through the "masters of the universe" plutocrat/oligarchs, and thence through intelligence agencies, disguised with pesky elections and stuff.  These intelligence agencies are essentially trans-national, far more than it appears on the surface of pseudo-national politics.  The big combo we see here is CIA/Mossad/NKVD.  Perhaps NKVD doesn't always work with CIA/Mossad, I would expect only when it suits NKVD objectives, which are typical deep state imperatives (operate beyond politics through endless fossil extraction and war and manipulation).  All sides want endless war as their ultimate imperative, even apparently fighting each other, at least on the surface.

And it doesn't matter which country or political party we're talking about.  The only real party is the intelligence class who holds the deep states and oligarchs together, and relies on the endless funding of war and fossil carbon extraction.  We probably won't make any real progress until we can pull that apart.

Love they Neighbor

"Love they neighbor as thyself" is both Jewish and Christian ethics, as claimed, and honored in the breach in both, often.

A fellow Jewish Atheist friend of mine interpreted "neighbor" as the guy next door, or maybe the surrounding burrough at most.  I tend to prefer the "everyone" interpretation, or at least "anyone," as in anyone whose life you can positively improve.

From the standpoint of a deeply religious Jew, the Holocaust ought be seen as an act of God, requiring contemplation.  What had Jewish Society done wrong?

Sadly, the people who sacrificed their lives may have been among the very best in God's eyes.  Sadly, that's the way these mass death things usually work.

But clearly, there were errors, in other sectors.  Such as, indeed, in Jewish Banking.  And Jewish Crime.  (Not to mention, later, in Zionism.  I hope indeed the Holocaust might be some kind of pre-payement on that, at least once Zionism is finally reverted back to Judaism.  But I have no way of knowing if that might be true.  It's probably wishful thinking.  Except for the fact that the Balfour Agreement, delivered to Lord Rothschild--a Zionist banker, who also made sure it was interpreted his way--did actually precede the Holocaust so indeed part was already on the bill already.  Ultimately, all I can say is that, if God causes all, God caused the Holocaust too, for God's infinite reasons which we can only seek to comprehend.)

Even if we assume that Jews were no worse than their non-Jewish contemporaries in things like Banking and Organized Crime.  They should not have been plutocrats or ciminals at all.  Why were they not held to a fully "loving they neighbor" standard?  Why were they not denounced, if not disabled, by Jews and Jewish organizations?

These kinds of operations may have only involved a few Jews...but they had wide impact.

Now, you may not consider the Holocaust an act of God.  But surely, only a person with very poor religion could say it required reconsidering one's relationship with God.  Such as, with the expectation to be lead to Israel by God, not the reverse.

For me, I put it a little differently.  It's not at all a matter of God at all, my atheist judaism is a matter of ethics toward others.  The Holocaust doesn't change one iota one's future requirements to "love they neighbor" one iota.

The Ethical State needed to be a model of ethics from way before day one, before it used the name "Israel."  Before, say, the collusion (aka Theft) of the Balfour Agreement.  When the partner in a transaction doesn't have a fair offer, a fair opportunity to refuse, or lacks any other kind of fairness, it's not a sale.  It's a Theft, which began right there.

So in no way, does the Holocaust justify waiving any rules, for example, with the creation and maintenance of the State of Israel.  No theft or murder was permissable.  No kicking they neighbor out of his home.  (Or even coveting it, according to Mosaic Commandments.)  Of that we can be absolutely certain, and regardless of previous unwarranted deaths and other loss.  Two wrongs don't make a right, and especially for the moral people.

Glorificationist vs Critic

Both Glorificationist and Critical tendencies may have their place in a well functioning society.

Sunni and Shi'ite, Centralist and Anarchic, etc.

Flavors of Zionism

1) One flavor is the "God Promised it to us," which seems to have been visible in some movies about the Occupied Territories, though I've never seen that point of view expressed online.

2) Another flavor is the "It was our country since Moses, and then it was wrongly taken away by the Romans and others later."  I saw a variant of this on display in a comment to an article at the New York Times.  The article concerned the declaration of Netanyahu to annex more of the West Bank if he is elected.  The first comment was that it was about time, "Israel has always included Judea and Samaria," and then dismissing the "Palestinians" as fake.

One doesn't see this kind of ancient entitlement claim in mainstream media, who are generally too sophisticated for such a populist appeal.  But I think it exerts a strong hold on the minds of many Zionists, who feel that a longstanding rightful claim has finally been honored in the creation of the Zionist State.  Meanwhile, as I am a left popular front kind of person, I take these right populist appeals perhaps stronger than I should.  They rattle me seriously.  I feel strongly that the "ancient claim" of exclusively "Jews" on the "Land of Israel" is bogus on many levels, as I tried to summarize conservatively in a comment to the above comment (of which there were many others I would agree with, but none trying to be as comprehensive):

There have been so many generations since Ancient Israel that anyone from it who has descendants alive today would also be an ancestor of most people alive today, Jewish or not.  Only a fraction of the Israelis left the Levant in the first and second centuries, with some ultimately becoming the ancestors of those who are now Palestinian Arabs.  Jews were not ever the only ones in the region, and Ancient Israel itself only existed during a relatively short period of time in the human populated past, and had sovereignty during even less time.  The region was conquered and re-settled by many different empires, but for the majority of the past 3000 years it has been called Palestine, including when it was also called Israel.

It might just be simpler to point out the hypocrisy of honoring one tribe's claim on the land and dismissing all others, as another commenter did.

Another argument might be that the Zionist settlement of Israel and state-building was enabled by unethical collusion (such as the Balfour Agreement, and it's ultimate interpretation) and illegal violence (such as the bombing of villages and the King David Hotel).  The problem with these arguments is that then the Zionists will claim we're being selective in applying such ethical constraints.  The European conquest and settlement of North America was far more genocidally violent and unethical.  If the argument were then made that we simply don't do those things anymore, then the Zionists will claim we set the sunset selectively just to punish Jews, when their state building was finally possible.  I believe the Zionist arguments here are false, but they are difficult to refute.  One point is the violent settlement of North America is not only long over, Native Americans were finally (over 100 years ago) granted full US citizenship, including rights to own property and not be discriminated against.  So, in the USA, the pre-1905 Genocide and Apartheid State has been replaced by a more legal regime.  But the Apartheid State with Slow Genocide in Israel continues, with Arab settlements still being illegally uprooted and replaced by Zionist settlements, including as in Bibi's latest promise.

Some, who consider the theft of Palestine to be a more serious issue than I do, will have to go farther, which may be possible.

My feeling is, that given the status quo anti, the only remaining solution is a state that is completely race blind, and admits all the Palestinian refugees as full citizens.  Therefore we don't have to get bogged down in the question whether Israel represents an untimely theft that used to be "OK" and that others have gotten away with.  I'm not attempting to kick Zionists out of Palestine, to which the "theft" question would be germane.  They simply have no special right to operate an apartheid state NOW which excludes and collectively punishes half the rightful population.  Nobody does, or if they are, they should be subject to BD just like Israel.  I'm very angry about how the US has covered for Israel in security council resolutions.  Even if the UN is toothless, that's how the reform needs to start.  That, and ending the free US military support, and pulling US out of all regional wars and forswearing future ones, whether they were started "because Israel" or not.

That being said, displaced people should get their homes back too.  Loss of homes is morally acceptable even if we accept that capital or unsettled land is social.  And in the case of small farmers, their farms as well.  Even Lenin did not collectivize small farms.  Should we expect less of Israelis?


3) Another is the "Jews need a Homeland because of endless anti-Semitism and Dreyfus Affair," attributed to Hertzl.

This by itself doesn't sound like it could nearly justify making a native population into refugees.

4) The most commonly expressed now is the "Jews need a Homeland because of endless anti-Semitism and the Holocaust."

This sounds big enough to mandate a forced resettlement process, though one could still argue the Holocaust was not at all the Palestinians fault, and the Palestinians had been promised a homeland for some time, so perhaps by rights Israel should have been carved out of part of Germany, and the sacrifice borne by the perpetrators of the Holocaust as much as possible.

My position remains, diaspora is the best and generally safest way to live, and the best thing to do is confront anti-Semitism as it arises, words with other words of less intensity, actions with litigation, wrongful litigation with peaceable mass action, at all times with unquestionable fairness--above and beyond fairness to others when possible--because we that is who we are--the peace makers whose ultimate mission is peace, liberty, and justice for all.  We may be persecuted viciously, but we will survive through solidarity rather than violence, learn, and always press fowards for everyone, making ourselves ultimately loved everywhere.  (I'm often amazed at how many children of Holocaust survivors become the most ardent anti-Zionists.)  Of course this is the message of Jesus--who was a Jewish rabbi, and who was representative of first century rabbinic Judaism.  What differentiates us from Christians is that we don't buy all the platonic claptrap and authoritarian centralism that arose during the broader dissemination and ultimate repurposing of Jesus' message to an imperial enterprise (not unlike Zionism).  And a bunch of historic practices and rules which are mostly honored in the breach (and perhaps more should be--thinking of you, circumcision).


2-4 are apparent in this illuminating comment stream, which was posted in response to this article about the resignation of Valerie Plame resigning from the Plowshares Fund because of an alleged anti-Semitic remark.


Regarding endless anti-Semitism

One of the other commenters presents an article which alleges that DW Griffith's Birth of a Nation was financed and distributed and heavily promoted by Jews who were well aware of its content, and in some cases strongly approving of it.  Louis B Mayer made enough money distributing the film to start MGM soon afterwards.   I believe these claims, however, the fact that it is "Nation of Islam Research" reporting them earned some tough words from one Zionist commenter:

You are either a Muslim with a fake profile, or a poorly educated black person who needs to read the history and role of Islam in the Black Slave Trade. ...

 Two unfounded slurs and a non-sequitur.  To be fair, the Zionist commenters do not often begin with a racial slur, but they do denounce any criticism of Zionism in the strongest terms, and often begin by denouncing their interlocutors such as with:

100% WRONG.
100% LIES.
100% FAKE NEWS.

That was in response to the claim that Zionists are pushing for US involvement in middle east wars, essentially the same as what forced Valerie Plame to resign.  The Zionist commenter dismisses that completely claiming that Zionism is not about war or pushing the US to do anything.  Zionism is simply the belief that Israel has the right to exist and to be safe.  "To be safe" seems rather like it might involve pushing the US to wars, as did the Neocon Zionists, a great example being the recently fired John Bolton, a well known Neocon Zionist who was known for pushing war with Iran, which was reportedly why he was fired.

Now, imagine for a moment a person who is opposed to US military involvement in the middle east, and to supporting Israel militarily and with political collusion at the UN and elsewhere, AND also a Zionist.  Does such a person exist?  Is such a person even possible?  Meanwhile, Zionists argue that anti-Zionism in not a Jewish position, despite endless evidence (outside the mainstream anyway) to the contrary, most anti-Zionist organizations in the English-speaking world are full of Jews and most often created by them!

So while the claim could be made that abstract "Zionism" is not about war or pushing the US to do anything, it seems in practice many Zionists do just that, and it also seems to follow from the "to be safe" condition, that the many "enemies of Israel" which the Zionists are often decrying, may need to be kept under control by force and the threat of force, which is indeed often happening.

Most of my favorite websites and comment sections routinely assume that Zionists and especially Zionist Neocons are pushing the US to war, and there is endless evidence of this.  Often, Jews are also protesting against US wars, but those Jews often seem to be the lefter anti-Zionist ones.

In many cases such as this spread of comments, it's transparent how lacking in self-critical ability the Zionist commenters are--routinely applying the kind of extreme rhetoric they accuse their relatively soft spoken interlocutors of.  One doesn't need to be an expert in character analysis, or even understanding of the situation in the Middle East to quickly get the drift.  Only a fairly open mind to watch it all play out.

Seeing all this, it's clear to me there should never be a restriction on free speech outlawing sentiments opposed to people of any race or political views.  If there were, the Zionists would be the first ones locked up--except that they have now successfully argued in many cases that such rules should only apply to their critics, as vile a position as it gets.  The hypocrisy alone is self-damning, let alone the hysteria.  And I'm being kind compared with other anti-Zionist Jews.

Religion and Complacency

Some religions are most oriented to worshiping the here-and-now.  The god/empire/country/king is all goodness, and we must merely submit and await our orders.

Other religions encourage something a little different.  A critical examination of the here-and-now and especially the powerful within it, and standing up for the currently oppressed.

I imagine seeing this distinction between Sunni and Shia Islam.  Sunni Islam is the religion of the grandest kings, who are to be respected.  Shia Islam is the religion of internally squabbling republics. (The approach of sticking with the original family means generally falling away from newly rising kings, and adopting a more critical stance over time to the powers-that-be.)

I see Judaism as having had both tendencies, which may be differentially reinforced.  Endless study of the Torah and the Talmud by the highly religious coincided with a critical attitude towards the powerful in the here-and-now, in general, I think, which I think coincided with the Diaspora Epoch starting in the first century and ending in 1948.  (This continues today for the Anti-Zionist (they dislike the qualifier "ultra") Orthodox...and a growing subset of disaffected anti- and non- zionist leftist jews including many jewish athiests.)  A troubled State has coincided in the Zionist age with suppression and repression of critical dissent along with a tilt toward right wing national supremacism.  "Sunni" Judaism.

I believe the earlier age of Jewishness and Judaism was responsible for the greatest contributions of Jews to western society.  Jews were far beyond their numbers in contributing to political reform, scientific progress, and other areas.

Within Judaism, the more critical of the powers-that-be segments in the first century were attracted to Christianity, Jesus himself (or themselves) being of them.  Some, like Paul and Peter became nominal Christians, whereas others retained their Jewish principle identity, and went into diaspora with the Jews, so the left wing never left the Jews, but also remained among them, and became self-reinforcing in diaspora, becoming a powerful positive force in western society.

Meanwhile, the less critical elements have sometimes joined in corrupt embrace of the powers that be*, becoming rich and powerful themselves, and sometimes rightfully attracting hate for corruption (and now State violence too), but having that hate misdirected away from corrupt central authorities most often toward the less powerful, especially the left wing, who are smeared not because actually guilty, but because it's harmless to those smearing them because it is not stepping on the toes of the powers that be.

(*There's a long list, including Medici, Rothschild, Adelson, Kushner, etc.)

Meanwhile, it accomplishes no actual good to create a Zionist State.  This creates even more corrupt alliances with the rich and powerful, thereby adding to the fuel for antisemitism, of which some criticism is not essentially racist but merely critical, and critically important.  In the modern world, having a separate State adds no protection, only greater vulnerabilities, which need to be constantly addressed.  Needless to say this leads to repression and suppression of critical dissent, and an attempt to impose those elsewhere.

The best approach has always been to address anti-Semitism where it is and not try to hide from it.  When it includes valid criticism of the powers that be, that part should be agreed to.  The rest need not be dealt with in shame.

The Holocaust was a vast failure, but it stemmed not from mere anti-Semitism but from an even larger failure, World War II, one of the most catastrophic events in human history (so far) and Jews were not the only ones murdered on a near genocidal scale.  It is not representative of the general high degree of successful Jewish adaptation, assimilation, and success which existed previously in the epoch of diaspora which had tended to make the world a much better place.

The path to avoiding Holocausts mainly involves primarily preventing World Wars.  The Zionist State is no insurance or assistance to that end.

Neoconservatives

In place of my word Zionists, Pat Buchanan uses the word Neoconservatives, an an epic denunciation of the War on Iraq just as it was starting.

I generally think of Neoconservatives as the think tank suits, not the average person.  On the other hand, Zionists--who may be Christians or Jews--seems a more apt description of average people who just support a strong and unconditional defense of Israel, and aren't thinking of how to keep the whole Middle East under control for that and other "US interests."  But, correctly or not, Zionists does sound more like a Jew (actually, it may be the reverse...while there are more Christian Zionists than Jewish Zionists, it may not go that way for Neoconservatives, but reflecting that, Jewish Zionists may be more passionate about their Zionism than Christian ones generally, but then anti-Zionist organizations seem dominated more by passionate anti-Zionist Jews than anyone in the USA too).

I haven't found him use the word Jew except in this passage:

They charge us with anti-Semitism—i.e., a hatred of Jews for their faith, heritage, or ancestry. False. The truth is, those hurling these charges harbor a “passionate attachment” to a nation not our own that causes them to subordinate the interests of their own country and to act on an assumption that, somehow, what’s good for Israel is good for America.

I like Pat Buchanan's anti-Imperial writings.  (His writings on economics or US politicians I find disagreeable, but those may be the smaller part.)

From what I've seen of his recent writings, he does not portray anti-Semitism.

I take great issue with the Southern Strategy for Nixon in 1968 he invented or was part of, and perhaps other of his previous writings or activities, but every one of his anti-Imperial writings I've read since 2003 has been first rate.  In saying this, I should confess, that following my mother I was an early teen supporter of Nixon myself.

I am Jewish too

After having thought about it for far too long, for many reasons, including mere rhetorical ones, I've decided to just go ahead and call myself a Jew.  The practical consequences of this are negligible, basically what it amounts to is that when I talk about some or other Jewish Idea or issue, I can use the pronouns "we/us" if it suits me at the time.

If people choose not to accept my self-declaration, well, that's fine, I won't be too insistent.  I feel I'm on the right side of this but they may see it differently, I can understand that, most people are in awe of various exclusionary authorities, and I lack respect for such things.  If people simply question, I could say "on my mother's side," or, for that matter, "on my father's side," and deny any further knowledge.  As we shall see later in this essay, both are true in some sense.

When I think it would get me into an interrogation or other trouble, I don't have to bring it up at all, it's only when and where I choose to call myself Jewish I will, and otherwise not.  I don't believe I'd be violating any Jewish principles in this, Jews have historically denied Jewishness when they had to, or wanted to.  It's not against a Commandment, there is no Commandment against dissembling, only bearing false witness.

If Jews were being persecuted, in principle, if I were the most moral person I could be, I'd stand right in front of them and beg to receive the first stone, even if I knew myself not to be Jewish in the least.  In reality, I'd be more likely to run away as fast as possible, but that's not entirely un-Jewish either.  Sometimes people think of "taking the first stone" as a Christian idea, but it isn't.  In their principles Christian ethics are not much different from Jewish ethics, and if Jesus lived at all, which I now believe he did*, he was a Jewish rabbi, and therefore everything he said is Jewish too, even if Jews having other rabbis and their successors don't accept his teachings.  Judaism is like that, different rabbis can say completely different things as there is no human central rabbinic authority.  Rabbis are schooled to the satisfaction of another Rabbi, but that and being Jewish--as defined by their teachers--is the only requirement.

(*Not that I believe every word of the Gospels, except perhaps metaphorically.  In my understanding of the actual history, Jesus was a Jewish rabbi prince, the true heir to the Jewish throne as Matthew makes clear, and also a charismatic teacher who was ultimately crucified for defying human authorities, but he failed to die on the cross and escaped into anonymous exile, in large part because he had a lot of Jewish friends and followers.  Nobody used the word Christian until Paul came along, and he was Jewish too.  Paul determined that one didn't have to be Jewish to be Christian, and I'm just taking that one step further, by saying nobody has to be authorized by a Jewish agency to be Jewish either, as by widespread agreement now one doesn't have to be religious to be Jewish anyway.)

If you argue that I "haven't experienced Jewish persecution," as it turns out, someone once shouted an anti-Jewish (aka antisemitic) remark at me when I was in junior high school.  I first thanked him for calling me Jewish, which I did not know and had always wanted to hear.  He argued back, "Don't try to fool me.  Look at that nose!  Look at your friends!"

My other identities have suffered persecution also.  Communists were among the first sent to the death camps--if not merely shot on sight.  Even before that, Socialists and organizers were murdered in Krystallnacht.  Not to mention Communists and organizers facing decades of legal persecution even in the "free" USA.  Pretty much everyone has experienced some form of discrimination, persecution, or identity harassment, and it's all the same kind of evil as far as I am concerned, except as directed to those people who really have misused excess power, such as the ruling class.

All this being said, of course I am a Athiest Jew.  I am certainly not claiming to have converted to Judaism or any other religion.  But if other Jews can be Athiest Jews, then so can I.  I'm also an anti-Zionist, but there are also many anti-Zionist Jews, and they were the majority before WWII, and anti-Zionism has a 2000 year theological grounding in Judaism, so it cannot be determinative for not being Jewish.

The Zionist State is not likely to accept my self-declaration, but I do not care, I have no desire to visit the Zionist State anyway, and even if I were undeniably a Jew, by whatever other standards they construct, they wouldn't let me in for my anti-Zionist and pro-BD stances anyway, as some of my fellow Jews have discovered.  Meanwhile, why should I let the Zionist State determine what the threshold or characteristics of Jewishness is, when I don't respect their authority one iota?  I can just hold that whatever my quotient of Jewish blood is, it is good enough for me, and likewise for other Jewish principles--I satisfy the ones that truly need satisfying and the others aren't determinative.

By that same token, as far as other ethnicities go, I'm all of them too.   All living humans are related by not too many generations.  That's good enough, isn't it?  For rhetorical purposes, it's better to use "we/us" anyway.  It sounds better, it feels better, it's more inclusive.  It's people who are being exclusive who should have to justify their exclusivity.  So as well as Jewish, I'm also Palestinian Arab, and everything else, as it suits me to say or not.  It might be more of a stretch to say I'm Chinese when it's possible (though unlikely) that my nearest Chinese ancestor might have been as remote as 3500 years ago, before a united "China" as such existed, but why bother with such details?  Scientific investigation has shown the necessity of all people being related that far back, but in most cases, less than half that far in most cases, and who would know or care anyway?

I can call myself anything and everything I want to, as long as its not subject to some kind of exclusionary authority, or even then if I just use lower case letters and define things as I choose to.

So the same thing applies to religions as well.  I can certainly find a few good things in most any religion.  And as long as I don't have to submit to some human authority, I can rhetorically claim to be contiguous with any of them, if and when it suits me.  If someone wants to get technical with me, whatever, and I often can get technical right back.  Like most Athiests, I often know as much about major religions as their church attending congregants do, because we Athiests have to know these things to have decent debates, while actual congregants can often just sheep along.  Often things which are commonly supposed to be this or that way, are not really as ironclad as people usually think (there was no Nicene creed in the time of Paul, for example, so I could claim to be a "creedless" Christian as some still are) and all things religious are greatly and unavoidably subject to interpretation.

If Jesus were in Nazi Germany, he would most certainly take the first shot, not only by courage and by being Jewish, but by being an ethically uncompromising communist organizer of the masses and even an instigator--he turned over the money changer tables and demanded a Debt Jubilee!  (Funny how most people don't "get" the real story here.)  We get a glimpse of that same kind of selflessness today--mostly in anti-Zionist Jews.  Some are right up front with their other semitic cousins in dangerous protest actions, begging to take the first shot, and also in building anti-Zionist organizations and media facing off against a hostile establishment, friends, and family, all opposing an illegal, immoral, and distinctly un-Jewish Occupation and apartheid state.  (As many remark now, the Zionist State bears a striking resemblance to the Nazi State, though in slower motion and less murderous and destructive so far.  And terrorizing rather than conquering its neighbors.)

The Jewish anti-Zionists inspire me and show what Jewish character should look like, following the Jewish principles in the Torah.  (And the truest Christian principles too, which are basically the same.)  My own anti-Zionist and Communist organizer work barely deserves mention in these regards, and I can only hope it comes from the same place.

As far as Israel is concerned, in my version of Jewishness/Judaism, Israel is still a metaphysical concept meaning the ultimate goal of social progress, peace on earth and abundance and love and meaning for all.  That is contiguous with how religious Jews had defined it for almost two millenia before Zionism took hold after the Holocaust, and some Jews still see it that way.  For me, as an Athiest Communist Jew, this end goal is identical to the Communist World Utopia.  Not something that's going to be fully implemented right away, but a goal we should always aim to achieve and emulate now in every way we can.  Much as the Kingdom of Heaven--a Christian concept--also has the same sense and meaning.  The Apostle Paul (a Jew as well as a Christian on his own terms) defined the Kingdom of Heaven as existing in the here and now and in our hearts and minds within Christian communes, where each contributes as they are able, and receives as they need.

Israel should NOT be a place on war-torn earth as it is now, or a Zionist apartheid state of perpetual warfare.  I am angered by the way Zionists have stolen our sublime Jewish metaphysical and ethical (nee religious) concepts to glorify an apartheid state created and maintained by continual violence and threats of more.  That is the very antithesis of Israel!

But seriously, besmirching our Jewish words and concepts is trivial compared to endless war and suffering.  That is the real problem.  We Jews and all others must do what we can to stop it.  What binds us together as Jews is a relentless pursuit of peace, truth, justice, love, and meaning, within a deep tradition of books and reflection, and that is what we are all about, and not a blue shielded perpetual war zone of nationalist paranoia.

All this being said, I have to account for the sad fact that a majority of my fellow Jews have jumped on the Zionist ship since the creation of the Zionist State.  They seem to be ok with an apartheid state that even looks a little like slow motion genocide.  Is this a fault in the Jewish "race"?  Why am and (and other anti-Zionist Jews) different?

No, it is an established fact that among people who are partisan, partisanship can all too easily trump (and Trump) everything, even long established intellectual, ethical, and religious ideals.  This is not at all unique to Jews.  The same thing happened in "the most advanced culture" on earth, among some of the smartest people on earth, the Germans.  This is what has happened among Evangelicals in the USA whose support for Trump is the most unyielding, despite the obvious fact that he is not one of them.

Once the Holocaust happened, and the Zionist State was created, the fix was in.  The problem is not a problem of Jewishness or Judaism, the problem is a problem of Nationalism, which has a strong almost irresistable appeal to most every human being.  The Zionist State is the only State defined in purely ethnic terms in the world today.

It just so happened, and partly by chance, that I managed to avoid the siren call of ethnic nationalism.  For one thing, as the sea change following the 1967 Jewish victories and beginning of the Occupation occurred, I did not identify as a Jew.  Therefore, the nationalism did not appeal to me, and I could evaluate what was happening in the Zionist State in more objective terms.  By 1969 or so, and the occupied territories were still occupied, it was becoming more and more clear that a big mistake was being made.  This was not going to end well, it looked to me.  It had to go one way or the other, either scrupulous attention to maintaining and enhancing the integrity and independence of the Palestinian state (with strongly pro-active Israeli support to get it started on a strong footing) or a single binational state with equal rights for all (which Zionists say is "not Israel") to have some chance of remaining something like a permanent and sustainable solution that wouldn't end in catastrophe.

From that point onward, it seemed to me that rather than deploying the great(er) intellectual and ethical talents of the lefter Jews toward one or other of these sustainable ends, my comrades were marginalized and left behind to become mere critics and opposition advocates, and the military right wing took actual operations over more and more, it became total ethical collapse, which sadly had started at the very beginning with ethical faults but which were now becoming bigger and bigger and inescapable.

My Jewish friends tended to follow the nationalistic partisanship, and reject my critiques.  I don't recall that anyone ever said this to me, but somehow I could imagine some feeling "You're not a Jew, so you don't understand."  That is, by the way, a pure expression of nationalistic partisanship.

But I'm ok with it in this sense: I am not expecting everyone to accept my Jewishness.  That's the thing I care the least about.  It has mattered to me, some parts of me, for a long time and now that I've made up my mind I'm going to stick with it.  But all the same, I feel more comfortable intellectually identifying as a universalist, a believer in universal and non-partisan values, and I also strongly feel that partisanship is a negative force, and I worry that even "identifying" as anything other than a universalist might weaken my resolve.  Many I respect have  denounced their Jewishness just as I am embracing it, and I respect that too, as a form of intellectual honesty and disciplinary love.

And then there might be non-Jews who could say, "How can you side with these people!  See what they are doing!"  But THAT is ignorance or anti-semitism.  As I have argued, the faults of the Zionist State have little to do with Judaism and Jewishness in the abstract, and those are the things I identify with (and not the nationalism).  My Jewish community is the international community of Jewish Atheists, Leftists, and anti-Zionists, who I believe have remained the closest to the true spirit of Jewish traditions, ethics and books in the modern world.  I strongly admire them and always have, and will try to extend all the solidarity I can, as well as to all who support universal human rights.  One not entirely unimportant task is to rescue at least two ancient traditions (Judaism and Christianity) of love, scholarship, and reflection from a 20th century mental and geopolitical trap, terrifying, murderous, and potentially a catastrophe for all.

Noam Chomsky and Zionism

In many Left circles, Noam Chomsky--despite being extremely criticial of Israel and the US/Israel empire--is still considered a Zionist.  Because he once criticized the goals of "BDS" against Israel (not the boycott and divestment tactics themselves, or their use with regards to Israel).  He said then that outsiders should not be imposing a solution, such as a binational state, when many Palestinians supported the Two State Solution.  (He said that about 10 years ago and it might not be applicable now.)

Funny thing is, that Chomsky himself supported a binational entity from the beginning!  In the Chomsky Reader (1987) he says:

I was interested in a socialist, binationalist options for Palestine, and in the kibbutzim and the whole cooperative labor system that had developed in the Jewish settlement there (the Yishuv)....  The vague ideas I had at the time [1947] were to go to Palestine, perhaps to a Kibbutz, to become involved in efforts at Arab-Jew cooperation within a socialist framework, opposed to the deeply antidemocratic concept of a Jewish state.

That sounds like anti-Zionism to me!  Indeed, in the same book, Chomsky says:

what was then called Zionist ... is now called anti-Zionist

Short Version of the Syrian "Civil War"

there is a slight difference ( sarc.), for not to say a huge one, between those who provoke wars by exporting an army of foreign mercenary terrorists of different nationalities recruited amongst the most flowery from KSA jails and the rest of the muslim world, and those who are oblied to fight for their very lives in the defense of their land and country against this army of invaders and their looting ambitious sponsors....

I wish I could convince my NPR brainwashed friends and family about this.  Of course to many of them, I've been brainwashed by Russian Propaganda, from the likes of ConsortiumNews and MoonOfAlabama (both of which have been cited by PropornOT as b calls them).

It would be nice to have the Full History, going back to, I don't know, 1945?

And in the same book, perhaps, both "US-Israel" and "Rebel" and "Syrian-Assad" and POV, cross-referenced.

Meanwhile, just after I wrote the above, I discovered WGSPM.  Wow!

But that level of careful analysis applied back decades...it is impossible to imagine.

One problem is, you can't really "pay" for it without it being corrupted.  One of the co-founders of WGSPM, Tim Haward, contrasts the way WGSPM works with volunteers and no time constraints, and the Belligcat model, funded by Western-connected agencies.  In a wonderful paper he shows how the "professionals" deliberately recast an event, covering up obvious details with a simulation apparently designed to animate the theory rather than the actual facts.  This is regarding the alleged 2018 chlorine attacks in Douma.

When the FBI conducts the research, or funds it, somehow it always confirms the impossible "single bullet theory."

Orwell calling out the Mainstream Media as Fake News

Early in life I have noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened. I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various ‘party lines’.

Brexit

The European Union is a neoliberal federal system.  Neoliberal systems can only be expected to fail, and the current situation is that rather than increasing equality it has been increasing inequality.  It's more and more become the predatory system its fundamental principles require it to be.

However, all the enemies of the bad are not necessarily good.  Brexit has been orchestrated by an ethno-fascist (Make Britain Great Again!) component of Britain's conservative elite, to preserve their local power.

What to do if you oppose both neoliberalism and ethno-fascism?  Should you be pro or anti Brexit?

It's too close to call.  My sympathies.  I follow both George Galloway and Jeremy Corbin and think highly of both.  The devil is in the details.  As long as the Right remains in power, no good can come of anything.

Color Revolutions and Fascism

Color Revolutions may still sound like democratization and progress to many people.

The "progress" in Libya possibly hasn't sunk in to the consciousness of many people.  That's the clearest example.  Egypt is another pretty good one.  Syria and Ukraine are subject to different interpretations for sheeple and anti-wars, and in this short comment I can hardly get started on that.

I see the same fundamental moral failure in the Color Revolution concept, as in Alinsky's path to "people" power.  They are both orthogonal to any deep understanding of social justice; they could equally well be applied by fascists as communists.  They eschew commitments to "isms."

Actually, it looks to me like both techniques are actually more amenable to fascism than anything else.  They echo the rise of fascist states, such as that of Louis Bonaparte, in which violence provokes the state in an escalating spiral of violence.  Where self-described Communists have won so far, they have won through democratic opportunism (Russia), or extended people's warfare (China and Cuba), and NOT through Alinsky's methods--which don't require the same widespread degree of personal commitment as people's warfare or majoritarian democracy.

In the Antiwar sector, Color Revolution is now a slur applied to largely ethno-fascist movements, like the one that "liberated" Ukraine, and the western financed jihad in Syria, Libya, and Egypt.

Speaking of ethno-fascism, the current homeland of ethno-facism, Israel, seems to have a curious relationship to countries where Color Revolutions have broken out.  They are almost all "Enemies of Israel."

Which brings me to China.  There is no question that Israel and China have been developing closer relationships since 1992.  (It seems Israel is hedging it's bets about the next world empire.)

At the same time, there have been some antagonisms, more than with Russia and the USA in the current moment.  For example, in 2014, China was one of 29 nations to vote in favor of an investigation of Operation Protective Edge.  China is also friendly to Iran, the #1 "Enemy" of Israel.  From an Israeli perspective, they could use some discipline.

We might go back to the creation of the State of Israel, and before Israel the more widely recognized ehno-fascist state of Nazi Germany.  Both featured extremist violence front and center, but not so much the mass protest elements of Color Revolution.  However, the violence was used in the same way--to discredit the previous secular authorities who couldn't efficiently deal with it.

Successful far beyond their numbers

Mark Twain, answering the question of why Jews are hated in 1898, says that they are hated because they are so successful.  In other respects, he says they are hard working, not violent, take care of themselves and their own, and in most respects model citizens, who were simply too good for others too compete with.

(I've seen this essay edited so as to emphasize the bad things Twain has to say, which are hard to find if you look at the complete essay.  I interpret the bad things as incidental to showing the corruptness of society itself and/or the stupidity of non-Jews.  Within a cleverly edited version, the larger essay becomes satire with the bad things the ultimate explanation.)

Twain doesn't much succeed in determining the origins of Jewish success as coming from anything but pluck and luck.  I think he misses one not unique but somewhat important fact.  In 1898, there was no Israel.  Jews did not have an ethnic homeland anywhere in the world.

I think THAT was the crucial fact.  They were not weighed down by the need to preserve and defend an ethnic homeland, and could focus their energies independently on a wide variety of other things, and master them all.

Nationalism, militarism, and all that, atrophies the moral and intellectual compass, and displaces universal and visionary thinking with ethnic jingoism and short sighted goal grabbing.

When I was growing up, Jews were giants of moral and intellectual virtue, as well as social stature.  People like Albert Einstein, Jonas Salk, Justice Brandeis, and so on.  Far and away more giants like this than you would expect from their numbers.  Almost everyone, it often seems, I deeply respect.

It may simply be my limited knowledge, but I can't think of a towering generation of Jews like that anymore.  Instead, we have the likes of Kirchner and Netanyahu, partisan nationalistic crooks, good at riding the whale of empire and corruption but little else.

There are still Jews who are giants of moral and intellectual compass, in my estimation, but they are no longer the figures of great social standing.  I consider all the Jews involved in peace media and organizations now to be moral if not also intellectual giants.  But they are mostly people few have heard of, like Norman Finkelstein, Max Blumenthal and Ariel Gold, with only a few pretty well known people like Noam Chomsky--who still too few people have actually read.

Even some of the in between generation who used to be giants themselves, like Rob Reiner.  Once a towering comedic genius and social critic, he's now a partisan loser still pushing Russiagate.

Even my own Jewish friends, basically all of my best friends until I graduated from college, and most of them afterwards, seem to have been in a kind of mental decline since about 1967, the year that Israel decided to hang on to the West Bank and Golan Heights.  The kids who were the smartest in the room are becoming more and more just average.  Their ability to critique the world in universal terms has fallen dramatically, and along with it the ability, it has seemed to me, to accurately critique most everything else.  Sheeple--like most everyone else.  I did have personal friendships with a very few anti-Zionist Jews, who were almost all of the best and smartest people I've ever known, but now they are all dead, of either age (some were a much older generation) or perhaps bad stress.

Now it seems, rather than being the most pioneering scientists and statesmen around the world, many Jews are lucky to get a subsidized home in the Occupied Territories, after an early burnout in the USA, allegedly because of anti-semitism, as if that hadn't existed in 1898, when Jews were anywhere and always more successful than anyone else at anything they were allowed to do, despite the anti-semitism, according to Twain.

History of the 20th Century

Centrist (left center) economist Brad DeLong presents a magisterial wrap on the 20th century.

The big picture is vast, almost unimaginable, increase in the human material capacity to produce goods and services to meet human needs, but marred by so much inequality and alienation that people are no less unhappy.  (This is, essentially, a Marxist critique.)

As always, he includes Marx and Engels quotations, only partly to criticize them, and also showing them in some ways ahead of other economists of the time.  (Though even JS Mill was well aware of capitalist alienation.)

He points out that Marx's thin descriptions of life after the socialist revolution and reach to the "higher phase of communist society" deliberately echo Christian descriptions of how people who have attained the Kingdom of Heaven behave, in which each will contribute "according to his ability" (Acts of the Apostles 11:29) and to each "according to his needs" (Acts of the Apostles 4:35).  I had alluded to these passages less precisely just a few days ago, and here DeLong provides the exact references.  Wonderful!

Sadly, it's unclear if we are closer to communist society, or headed to doom first, as regular and excellent commenter Graydon suggests.

He points out that Edward Bellamy did not like being called a Socialist, though in fact what he was describing in Looking Backward was a higher phase of socialism, virtually "communism."

CPUSA History

The 100 year long and very distinguished history of the Communist Party in USA (CPUSA).

A commenter notes the CPUSA central leadership was inactive regarding opposing the War in Vietnam.  While clearly it represented terrible US imperialism, it was also thought to represent action against Maoists, whom the leadership also detested.  However these mixed feelings were not shared as much by the membership, and the Young Communists were a significant contributor to making antiwar organizing effective.

The apparent limits to Democratic Centralism are probably a good thing not just in this case but generally.

Meanwhile, organizations lacking Democratic Centralism can have a top-down feel that's even more constricting.

In my very limited experience with Anarchist organizations, they seem the most totalitarian of all.  Ironically, consensus decision processes, which nominally let anyone speak as long as they like, seem the ones most likely to empower extremists--it's basically rule by the people who never stop arguing.

With the seemingly looser type of Democratic but non-Centralist organization, like DSA, social pressure can push a wider spectrum of demands than could be agreed nominally and centrally.

The Crimean Tartars and the Russian Referendum

The claim, often made,  that the non-participation of Crimean Tartars invalidates the result of the Russian Annexation referendum, does not hold up to the lightest scrutiny, showing how shallow the Western disinformation system assumes its citizens to be.  (And likewise with Venezuela, Syria, Hong Kong, Ukraine, Libya, Honduras, the War on Drugs, Immigrant Invasions, etc, etc.)

This point is central, as the Russian Annexation is the #1 justification for Sanctions against Russia, and the recently increasing belicosity towards Russia.  (Imagine the nerve of those Russians--interfering with our world re-sculpting project, which just happens to take away their key ports.)

In this post, I'm going to rely on facts from Wikipedia.  I financially support and use Wikipedia on a daily (if not hourly) basis.  But I also understand that Wikipedia is based in the USA and relies on volunteers, which means it may not be immune from Western bias (which is widely believed in the antiwar sector).  In no way would I ever expect it to have pro-Russian bias, except in topics of limited general interest.

First of all, according to the 2014 Census, the Crimean population was 10.6% Tartars, and 67.9% Russians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea

The official Referendum result was 97% favoring annexation.

The Majlis of the Tartars claimed the results were invalid because only 34.2% of Tartars were able to participate.

Post-election polls by Gallop showed 82.8% of Crimeans supported the result.

Post-election polls by Pew Research showed that 91% of Crimeans considered the Referendum to be free and fair, and 88% said that Kiev should respect it.

The 88% number looks to me like the best assessment of the pro-Annexation sentiment, with sub-population bias removed.  I would call that total level of support "overwhelming", although Western countries and organizations have endlessly worked to discredit it.  Western countries have a clear Imperial imperative to deny Russia the port it has had for most of 200 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum

Needless to say, the apparent policy of the USA is "separation for thee, but not for me."  Not that it should be made universal!  Separatism is a bourgeois concept that almost never works out for the best.  The major historical tendency has been towards unification, for historical necessities.  Ultimately, the best would be one government for the whole world and all the people controlling it.  Separatism is moving backwards from that, each into it's own enclave, all the better for local strongmen to control and wage proxy wars with Imperial support.

False unifications like the European Union don't count.  The European Union is a neoliberal unification, based on the infinite mobility of ficticious captial and the far less real mobility of human and real capital.  It rejects cultural and welfare unification, which are the most important aspects of any unification.  In the end, it's not much different from any other worker-robbing Investors Rights Agreement (commonly and falsely called Trade Agreement).

This has relevance to a lot of proxy separatist conflicts the USA has stirred up around the world: Ukraine, Hong Kong, Syria, Libya, and China itself.

Currently, the Hong Kong movement appears most like a foreign- and oligarch- backed separatist movement, aka "Color Revolution," with organization from those sectors being obvious and substantial.  However, to the degree that it may also represents a true-Democracy movement, support change to 1-person-1-vote for Chief Executive, that would be a good thing in principle by universal standards.  But is that simply the picture on the red cape being flashed before the charging bull of popular unrest and violence, to be pulled away at the last moment?

Best is for US never ever to spend one cent of federal money for "influencing" distant government progress through NED, CIA, DOD, whatever.  If US Oligarchs choose to give money to their friendly oligarchs-to-be in other countries, that should be capped at some level--as with other "capital flows."  Even allowing that at all, we should expect it from others.

Even if local self-determination movements are fully ethical and desirable, assisting them appears and probably is corrupt.

Likewise, not one cent of federal money ought to be spent to promulgate or support sanctions, which are an act of war.