America's Jewish Psychosis

The ZPC ACTS WITH IMPUNITY
(Zionist Power Configuration - James Petras)



In addition to having now become a pariah nation, Israel and its global network of operatives act with impunity, knowing no crimes perpetrated in its name will ever be prosecuted.

“What? Continuing the holocaust, eh?” is the ever-ready response. Israel was set up as a refuge from Nazi hatred of Jews. Any attack on its right to exist, and implications thereof as determined by them, must logically be seen as ‘anti-semitic”: willingness to side with the Nazis in exterminating the race.

It is seen from the preceding argument that the ZPC has become morally inverted and self-contradictory. If it also immune from prosecution, we have a situation of psychotic killers hiding in the open in the name of “Israel”. Everybody knows, or knows someone who knows, an Israeli. Do they know whether they are a spy?

America’s Jewish Psychosis

Grant S. Smith’s just published book SPY TRADE details the history of The Jewish Committee, established in 1948 as a liason group between Truman’s administration and the tiny state authority established in Palestine. It’s name was later changed to The Zionist Council; then, to A.I.P.A.C.. Smith establishes that from 1948 forward, there was always a two-track process going on through these connections: one, the ‘upper’, bright-golden face Israel turned outward to the world, with narrative taken directly from the Holy Bible, Old Testament, tied by religious language to conservative America’s Christian heritage. And the other, an ‘under track’ of relations, mainly concerned with smuggling WWII military equipment into the budding state, allowing it to retail to other countries at profit. Israel became a hub of arm sales to an entire mid-east network, where moneybags got passed around, along with cocaine, opium and good red Leb hash, probably..

The extent to which this is true is nowhere more clearly illustrated than in the anthrax letter bombs of 2001. This was quickly determined to be a planted “black flag” operation to pin guilt on Islam, and was declared to be such by pro-Israeli DoD Richard Perle. Here was a weapon of mass destruction, a bio-genetic attack on the U.S. by Iraq, it was said. But the source of the anthrax was Ft. Detrick. The “Black flag” blame-game, however, showed what kind of operation it was….directly implicating Israeli operatives. Yet this lead was never openly pursued by the FBI, clearly because it contradicted the “upper story” narrative. (cf. the Lavon affair, The USS Liberty). The Children of Israel just don’t do such things, and it is anti-semitic, dangerous, hateful, Nazi-like to even suspect it. Obsession with it is a kind of political porno. So it is framed.

However, if the two strands of what “Zionism” is are stretched to the point where the ‘upper story’ narrative includes, folds in, predicates on, black flag (fake-hate, agents-provocateur instigated) events, then the process will be pushed toward the lowest common denominator of sustainable energy flow. Everything will be framed to elicit the reaction-formation of double-denial at each staged/real event. “Hiding in the open” (“Son of Sam” etc.) It the form of psychosis. (Jung, Mysterium Conjunctionis)



Systematic avoidance of blaming “the Jews” for anything, lest one be guilty of flirting with anti-semitism, extends to The Nation’s pages, representing perhaps the broadest middle class intellectual strand of psychic process.

3.1.210 ‘The Media-Lobbying Complex’ Sabastian Jones– traces use of cable TV news “experts” having open corporate-political conflicts of interests. It exposing real evil, e.g. Eli Lilly’s Mark Penn on MSNBC 1.22.10 Mornin’ Joe –but no mention of anything Israeli (e.g., AEI, Kristol backing Sarah Palin).
2.22.10 (after “Focus on the Fetus”, Katha Pollitt) very lengthy article “How To Get Our Democracy Back” by Lawrence Lessing,. Entirely ignoring the question of Israel’s influence, although it has never been voted on.

Both of these are deception-by-omission. This omission in The Nation, intellectual custodian of much middle American thinking, also illustrates repression of the ‘underside’.


A test of wills is underway to see if any of the nations claiming to be outraged will actually condemn Israel for this state sponsored assassination. One thinks: what it will mean if they don’t.

Dershowitz' O.J. Defense Negates Israel

Dershowitz O.J. Defense Negates Israel’s Right to Exist

Responding to Alan Dershowitz’ “If Israel did it…”

Claiming a right to murder enemies in hotel rooms in another country, as Dershowitz does (see footnote) refutes Israel’s right to exist. It poisons the rule of law and excludes them from participating in civilized diplomatic discourse under international principles of justice.

Argument:

If assassination by state decree is a right, it cannot be nation specific; it must also give Palestinians the right to murder suspected Mossad agents; and, indeed, any country making war on another the right to go anywhere, do anything, because its law trumped theirs. Such understanding cannot be international law; it contradicts assumptions of trust required for civilized diplomatic relations under atonomous jurisdictions. As a standing attitude, it places each official of everyone of their embassies, plus known contacts, under suspicion as possible spies and murderers.

Further, in anticipation of claims to Zionist-Israeli exceptionalism, it is contradictory to the principle of legal reasoning, itself, for parties to rules of justice governing a domain, national or international, to privately reserve exceptions in their own case, since each party could equally so-regard themselves, thus negating the effect of rules intended for all. But rules intended for all is the essence of rational morality. “I will agree to the rule of law, but only under the condition that it never apply in my own case” is not an agrement to rule of law at all. It contradicts the rule of law using its name to do so. It is immorality in the name of morality. This illustrates a particular psychosemiotic form of ultimately corrupt communication (~S/S*)^- assertion of text that negates its own tokens.

This, and no other, is the case demanding trial before an international tribunal; presumably by an appropriate branch of the United nations. The theory of rule of law pivots on it.

If Israel accepts Dershowitz’ “If I did it” justification for murdering citizents of other countries, it negates it’s right to exist.
*********
Footnote: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/if-israel-killed-mahmoud_b_467506.html

Alan Dershowitz argument in defense of state intelligence service (Israel’s Mossad) assassination. (his “If I did it…”)
“So if the Israeli Air Force had killed Mabhouh while he was in Gaza, there would be absolutely no doubt that their action would be lawful. It does not violate international law to kill a combatant, regardless of where the combatant is found, whether he is awake or asleep and whether or not he is engaged in active combat at the moment of his demise.

But Mabhouh was not killed in Gaza. He was killed in Dubai. It is against the law of Dubai for an Israeli agent to kill a combatant against Israel while he is in Dubai. So the people who engaged in the killing presumptively violated the domestic law of Dubai, unless there is a defense to such a killing based on international principles regarding enemy combatants. It is unlikely that any defense would be available to an Israeli or someone working on behalf of Israel, since Dubai does not recognize Israel’s right to kill enemy combatants on its territory.

If it could be proved that Israel was responsible for the hit—an extremely unlikely situation—then only Dubai could lawfully bring Israelis to trial. They would not be properly subjected to prosecution before an international tribunal.” Israel hiding from justice behind their anonymity (…jurisdictional matter)

AMY'S TARGET <=> SHELBY'S ASS

AMY’S TARGET  SHELBY’S ASS


http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?&articleid=1232943&format=&page=1&listingType=Loc#articleFull

‘Oddball’ portrait of Amy Bishop emerges

friends and family yesterday described Braintree native Amy Bishop as an awkward introvert on the brink of losing her teaching job.

a mother of four children - the youngest a third-grade boy - was a far-left political extremist who was “obsessed” with President Obama to the point of being off-putting.
****
But Mercedes Paz, a Brookline biochemist who also oversaw Bishop’s work in 1993, described her as a friend and a likable woman
She was a very good person,” said Paz, 81. “She was respectful and she did what she was supposed to do. I never saw anything that could make me think she was violent.”

***

CONNECTING THE TOKENS (It would have felt right…)

oddball
far-left political extremist (Sen. Birth Beyh also complained they drove him to resign)

“Obsessed” w/ President Obama: If she was ‘far left extremist’, this would not be in admiration, but because he won’t stand up to Bush/Cheney/Shelby Republicans. However, the way it is written makes it appear as if her “obsession” (I like the way they put their own selected word tokens in quotes, as if it were THE one to use for the situation, but they are savvy enough to see it might be understood variously) is out ofcontrol infatuation.

Fired calmy, deliberately, accurately in a faculty conference room in The Shelby Center at University of Alabama Huntsville. If she was a gun-totin’, super-intense Boston liberal receiving news her career was over at the hand of this bunch of nobody faux and not-so-faux conservatives, it would have "felt right’.

SHELBY  RIGHT WING REVERSAL

-Frank Rich, NYTimes 2.14.’10 points out Shelby is one of those Republican Senators – the chief one, in fact – who sends private letters to the Obama Administration asking for stimulous money for their state, even making a show of themselves on TV holding up the check…while at the same time “denouncing the stimulous to their constituents and the news media, often angrily.”

“Leftist extremists” see this as flatly self-contradictory hypocricy, alongside denouncing “government run healthcare” while enjoying their own government run Medicaid.

And here is the impasse. “Right wingers” don’t see this as contradictory but ‘pragmatic’. They used homosexually the same way. Sen. Craig, Guckert, others, homosexuals themselves, stirred up “gay” hatred for the cameras to get elected. Cheney’s daughter => lesbian; McCain’s wife and daughter, outspoken supporters of California Proposition 8 defeat. Reagan saw no contradiction in supporting Contra terrorism in Nicaragua with “one man’s terrorist is another man’s fredom fighter’ – which passed as words of wisdom from The Great Communicator. Contradiction, in fact, is the “right wingers” forte. Let others – women and bleeding heart liberals – worry about consistency; pragmatism is America’s way to go.

But this mentality represents arrested development. Anality, as a developmental stage of libido cathexis, occurs between the oral and genital stages. It is an entire character formation, but culminates as pleasure acme in anal sex. Many fantasies entertained during this period, Freud found, are concerned with ‘obedience’ (‘good boy”) – rebellion (“bad boy”) ambivalence connected with learning how to ‘withhold’ and ‘let go’ in bowel movement. “Americans are the good guys” (by psychosemiotic definition) expresses regression to this level. (cf. the pile of asses at Abu Ghraib – the only thing that refuted this, and used by one Iraqi war abuser for his “Christian” side that didn’t want to do it.) When the first genital, or “Oedipal” stage of normal development is reached (around age 6; constellating ego-fantasies preparatory to “who I am” of puberty), ‘doing your duty” like a “good boy” comes inder more-or-less-severe demand for Father Punishment (which, if later libido-cathexis switches objects, can become desire for penetration by the father, as in …..(case study?)…. with ‘nocturnal voluptuaries’.

This is the level of fantasy America’s love of George W. Bush regressed to. He is what the post-Reagan “He’s” desired --projected/reflected bad-good guy wish fulfillment; he'll do it to/for 'em. (Never more than tolerated, as a man, by females, as far as I could tell; few seemed jealous of Laura.) And “we” “let him”. Inducted into “The coalition of the willing” he and Tony Blair put together, by Antonin Scalia. Nor did the regression end there. ‘Lateral developments’ of unconscious group fantasy proceeded, among them ‘same-sex marriage’ and impregnation by anal rape. (also as above ?) G.W. Bush begets New Iraq on Saddam Hussein’s. In other words, we were excited to see him do unto the Sheiks, Sikhs, Persians and other darkskin persons in the Mid East what He doth do unto us.

****

This regressive position of group-consciousness is what Amy Bishop was shooting.


As common collective content, Amy Bishop’s horrible act represents karmic feedback from anal-soul-rape of America by right wing militaristic, fascists represented by the Republican Paty (now defunct). In America’s unconscious group fantasy, the 2000’s under BushII were an 8 yr period of unrelieved anal rape abuse: WHIGS (w/ Mary (Minnie Mouse) Matlyn at the helm) sticking it with the head of Cheney to effete TORYdems, with Baboon Bush calling “BRING IT ON”. Turbans, and sheiks, d’ja wanna see what’s under them sheets? So much unending, unconfronted, ponding, inescapable abuse of a people where they could not respond was sheer torture --with its “shock and awe”, “war on error”, Al Queda,“waterboarding”. This is evident in the Abu Ghraid pictures, but saturating the cultural atmosphere with constant homosexual agitation from various sources, culminating with “Bruno” dropping his pants in Ron Paul’s dressing room; “tea bagging” the Tea Party.

All of this holds together on the token side (of consciousness), independent of Amy Bishop's personal psychology.