Dagblog Limbo

Jeez, Genghis.

I did read both the title and the piece, and I did notice the "scare quotes." 

I admit I was unaware that quotation marks have become the exclusive property of people trying to terrify one another, so I haven't developed the habit of fleeing punctuation. (My God! What if Raimondo gets his hands on an Exclamation Point?) 

I am, however, aware that a string of non-sentences followed by question marks is a rather mean and personal way of implying that someone is...stupid.

Fine. You didn't like the piece, and didn't want to have it linked from Dag, where it could spark of a firestorm of insults. Fair enough, and although I have misgivings about the decision (along the same lines as Dan Kervick, with whom I seem fated to forever agree) and noted in my remarks below to bslev, it's your site.

But you didn't have to be all arsey at me about it.

Thanks bslev. It means a lot that you took the time to reassure me about that. (No good deed goes unpunished—now you’re on the hook for reading the thoughts you inspired. Sorry about this.)

On my end, I hope I can reassure you that I really don't look at this stuff in an historical vacuum. Actually, it’s just the opposite--when something weird or off-base happens and I'm curious about exactly who and what triggered the event, I always find it's pretty useful to nose around and see what the off-base folk on all sides have to say about it.

In my experience, people with off-base ideas tend to keep a close eye on people with the opposite off-base ideas. So that's helpful. And, because politics really does make strange bedfellows, who sides with whom after the fact, or doesn't, can provide clues as to who worked with whom before the spotlight got turned on and everybody disappeared.

I'm fascinated by conspiracy stuff--not just by the events themselves, but by the way that people create bizarre opposing narratives about an event and infuse those narratives with self-righteous conviction as if they had seen it all with their own eyes. As you can imagine, I read a lot of strange material. It's possible that I'm so used to reading past spin, bloviating and expressions of hatred that I've become a bit casual about it. I'm not reading the piece to pick sides about whatever ideas it proposes--I often just look through for names, dates, known facts, new allegations and the like, then move on to the next piece of work, written by the next piece of work, if you know what I mean.

My Dad, a great investigator and savvy observer of human nature, always worked from a rule of thumb that nobody goes to the whorehouse just to listen to the piano player. But in my experience, when it comes to figuring out these "whodunit" kinds of stories, sometimes it's useful to wander in, sit back and do just that. The author's actual comments on whatever ideology they hold aren't uninteresting, but my primary purpose in reading the piece isn't to jump into their debate--it's pretty much just to know who stands where. (In which case, I guess I'm not exactly in the whorehouse just to listen to the piano player either, I’m there to see who else is there!)

Most of the time, conspiracy theories are just interesting and bizarre, but occasionally it becomes useful to know what's going on out there on the fringes, especially if somebody with clout is pushing the fringe ideas as not being fringe at all. I really do believe that we could have avoided the war in Iraq (and probably the war in Afghanistan as well) if more of us, meaning people in general, not Dagbloggers in particular, had been more willing to look past ideological content at the practical mechanics of what was going on, and less willing to allow suspicious activities or content to draw us into suspicion about each other, or in some cases, suspicion about the facts themselves.

I don't think the broad disasters of the past 15 years were the result of a detailed plan made by just a few like-minded people in a small room. Neither were they the result of widespread movements made up of millions. But there were opportunists--some allies, some enemies, some who didn't care about each other at all, some working as individuals, some working in small groups. The ones who rose to the top of what I'd consider to be the NeoCon heap in the USA were those who were willing to amplify certain controversies and let others roll by unnoticed, censure certain voices and praise others, and accept some risks and collateral damage to further their chosen initiatives. It was all about taking advantage of fringe ideas, turning them into what passed for legitimate debate, and staying personally unharmed by the resulting mayhem, whatever that mayhem might be. So the public face was "Look over there! Someone's burning a flag! Someone just bought a big house on credit! The market is strong! The market will fail! Vote fraud!" And then, there we were in two needless wars and bailing out our banks on the strength of a 1-page plan suggested by Hank Paulson. It really didn't happen overnight, but it seemed like it did.

When strange ideas start to coalesce into actual activity, it becomes important to know who stands where, and why. And if part of the situation involves pitting different groups against each other, there's a chance to prevent the mayhem if clear-headed people can be familiar with the content without being drawn into it or hamstrung by their other allegiances. (i.e., there have to be some people listening to the piano player, to stretch that analogy—looking for new notes in the same old songs, to stretch it even further.)

This is where my point about "reliable/unreliable" sources comes in--unreliable people can sometimes be reliable sources of information, and vice versa--but it's not always the case. In the leadup to the Iraq war, for example, some extremely unreliable people were touted as good sources of information, and people who actually knew what they were talking about either got sidelined, or sidelined themselves. (The best example of this is Scott Ritter, who probably suspected deep down that Saddam Hussein really had destroyed his WMD but had been making money for years as a consultant based on the idea that the WMD might still be there. When he finally stood up and said what he knew, he was vulnerable based on his past consulting activities. Because of this vulnerability as well as his vulnerability on lifestyle issues, it was easy to shove him aside.)

I also think it's important not to automatically write off sources based on previous activities or allegiances, or for political or financial expediency. This was the fatal error (in my view) made by Jonathan Alter. When he was reminded of the existence of the Hussein Kamel story, which detailed the destruction of Saddam's WMD years before, he could have put the pieces together and added his (relatively well-respected) voice to those suggesting that the "respectable" sources were wrong or lying, and we should take a closer look at the situation. But for whatever reasons, like maybe not wanting to ally himself with people who were already being shouted down, or not wanting to ally himself with the rather poorly-conceived story which was playing out on left-leaning blogs, he put the story in his Newsweek Periscope column as an odd little human-interest item and the rest, as they say, is history. To the best of my knowledge, Alter still hasn't taken full responsibility for that one--which I think really reflects poorly on him.

Anyway, bearing all these things in mind, I admit I was surprised that Genghis pulled the blog--like Dan K, I have misgivings about the reasons. To be fair, I didn't see the initial exchange of comments about it, and I don't like to read through long exchanges of personal attacks either. And, it's Genghis' site—he has thought out his terms, and as tm pointed out, it's not like he shut down the whole internet. But it still leaves me with a weird feeling, like we've all missed the point here somehow. (Well, except for me, 'cause I'm sooooo smart.   ;^)

I don't quite know what to do about your point that allegations of  "Zionist Conspiracy" are actually painful and dangerous. Clearly, you've got history backing you up there. But the sheer fact that allegations of conspiracy work so well as ways to inspire various kinds of mayhem—always have, and always will--is exactly why we need to try so hard not to be drawn into the obvious arguments offered up by what we all know by now is old, sad news, and look beyond it for the really important information, which is who is saying it today--to whom and about whom, and why. No one group has a monopoly on dangerous opportunists. It's important to look at these things because people who take advantage of fringe ideas are still doing it, and they gain part of their advantage by playing on the fact that middle-of-the-road people won't even look at what is happening until their new wrinkle on old news has taken hold. The very fringiness and offensiveness of the material and people putting it out there are what make it so useful to anyone who wants to build a coalition of weirdos or create legitimacy for an unwholesome idea. It stays under the radar until it has the required number of wacky proponents and enthusiastic supporters, and then it can be presented as that more respectable item, a "grassroots movement" or a "new coalition" or some such thing. Regardless of the unsavory nature of the initial proponents, numbers do count.

I probably haven't said it as well as some might, but I think we play right into the situation if we reject whatever practical clues might be in a piece like Raimondo's because the material is annoying or even painful to read. I think it would be better to read it, avoid the muck as best we can, note problems with the source, and move on to other sources to get additional information.

Well, there you go. I hope this whole thing doesn’t come across as too preachy, even though it is. When somebody links to an offensive, dangerous piece of crap that insults my peer group, hurts my feelings and gets me all riled up, you can remind me that I said it!

Thanks again.

As I understand it, the claim that the film was backed by Jewish donors was based on Nakoula's own testimony.  Raimondo didn't just make it up.  Now the guy is a convicted felon, and a Coptic Christian with an axe to grind.  So maybe he's lying.  Or maybe he isn't.

For some reason it causes shock and offends sensibilities now to be told there is such a thing as ultra-zionists, or that they agitate incessantly in the US and elsewhere to promote, among other things, hatred of Muslims; or to be told that many conservative Jewish nationalists make a point of insisting on the fact that Israel is the Jewish state.  I know there is an election going on, but are we all supposed to pretend now that we were born yesterday?

There are different groups of people with an interest in stirring up trouble and Muslim rage in the Middle East - which some of you might have noticed is a freaking tinder box right now - on the eve of a US election and coinciding with the 9/11 anniversary.  Hard line Zionists are one such group.  That's an inconvenient fact I guess.

 This "analysis" that is the subject of lulu's blog is not pointing a finger at the Israeli government Dan.  It's about a nefarious cabal of Jews Zionists. 

 
 Bruce, I am not sure that I understand the intended meaning when you write 'Jews', then cross through it and then write 'Zionists'. My best guess is that you are making a slightly veiled accusation that criticism of Zionism is really based on anti-Semitism.  
 In the entirety of the situation being discussed I believe there are many actors, many who are Jew, many who are not, with many overlapping motives. Where the ultimate purpose [the correctness of that purpose itself being debatable]  behind the motives of some different individuals or groups are the same, their tactics are often quite different. Some are honest, fair, and ethical while some are dishonest, scummy, and wrong. Some are actually dishonest and scummy and wrong because they honestly believe that the nature of the world requires that they be such so as to advance their own notion of the higher good. Then again, with some there is the claim of an honorable ultimate motive which is a lie to cover up other cynical and hurtful motives. By this I mean that some people would sell deals with the Devil at bulk discount rates just for their personal advancement. Isn't that obvious?
The combinations and permutations of motive and method are very much larger in scope than the few I have just described. We live in what it is actually a very complicated world, I know that is true because I read it on a bumper sticker.
 Raimondo pointed to a bunch of dots and suggested a way to connect them. With what I knew at the time I believed he had painted a picture worth taking a look at. I did not expect anyone to believe that they were looking at the final picture of the 'theory of everything' which would soon to be proved beyond any doubt. I did hesitate posting the link because of the inflammatory title.
  I will assert next that some of the people that are operating on the world stage are doing so with methods and motives that are completely dishonorable, by my standards at least, but I believe also by the standards of most people who have a fair minded conscience as their guide. These people are scum bag warmongering unconsciable disgraces to the higher aspirations of humanity, and some part of that group are Jews. Sometimes they act with various motives with non-Jews. Group numbers being what they are, the Jews in this dishonorable group are far outnumbered by members of other religions, or ethnicities, or whatever, but being outnumbered does not negate existence. Do I really have to say that I do not believe all Jews or even more than a small percentage fit the negative description above?
 Bruce, I think I can understand your defensive reaction whenever you feel that Jews are being attacked. I think I can empathize with your gut reaction. The thing is, with me, I do not have that same emotional connection to Jewry, if that is the right way to say it. My quick knee-jerk hostile and defensive reactions are based on different experiences in life. They are to things different than a perceived attitude or slurs against my tribe even if those negative perceptions are sometimes correct in individual cases. Even if they are often so.  
 I hope that I will never stoop to defending myself to you again as to my lack of anti-Semitism or my own disdain of it in others. That is giving up to you a power you have no right to wield like a cudgel at times or as a get-out-of-jail-free-card at other times. If you cannot accept that I am not anti-Semitic then fuck it. I don't intend to be bound by your standard of permissable questions or by a need to be ultra careful that I do not offend you if I see reason to critically examine actions of groups of people made up partly or entirely by Jews. Further, I allow myself some mistakes in life concurrent with an attempt to recognize them and to change my thinking if reason to do so is evident. That's one reason I listen to and dialogue with people discussing issues th at are important to me. Sometimes, for that same reason, I pose controversial questions or ideas. I even watch Fox News sometimes and try to relate to what is in their message that resonates with so many people. That one is kind of hard.
 So now that I have said that I think I can empathize with your gut reaction even though I don't share it I will tell you a strong gut reaction of mine which I do not believe you can share with the same conviction and because of the same reason. That is, you have not had, as far as I know, the same experience even if you have heard of your ancestors having had such experiences.
 One of my strongest gut reactions is that I fucking despise war mongers. They disgust me. They are foul and far more putrid forms of humanity than anti-Semites. That is my opinion because they are so much more affective in fouling the nest of all humanity. I say this as a person who is not by nature or philosophy a pacifist but who is a person who has both seen and participated in the successful result of other war mongering pricks of another generation. The only way to not feel overwhelming shame for what I participated in and came to recognize as so completely wrong is to always call out as wrong what I see as a part of the next act of that hideous ongoing reality play. I think my trigger points which set off my personal outrage are at least as strong and at least as justifiable as are yours. I do not, though, believe you want war at all, just that you don't feel the same intensity of reaction against people's actions which might lead to a traditional bloodletting war. The war against anti-Semitism you quickly enlist to fight has already been won in the United States, the country I feel a nationalistic, patriotic, sometimes even jingoistic connection to but fear will enter the other kind of war. The kind that hurts much more than feelings. When I think someone is mongering I maintain my inalienable right to say so regardless the tribe they belong to. If I make a mistake I honestly hope to be corrected but I don't intend to be shamed from continuing to look and attempt to judge fairly.  
 The people who produced that despicable movie had a motive. They certainly seemed to want to push hate which pushes fear which pushes for war. I want any lead pursued which leads to outing the creators and their motives. That wish of mine does not derive from any damned anti-Semite feelings. It did not evolve over two-thousand years, it evolved during the middle third of my life which was in the last half of the 20th century.
 I don't know what is in Raimondo's heart, maybe he hates you and wants you to be hated by others just because you are a Jew, but I doubt it. I don't expect that to be the case even if his life experience leads him to look first for Jewish influence when he sees provocations directed at Muslims while the current state of affairs plays out.

 

What's that? A Trope ban? Excellent idea!

Oh.

Hey great, just call them "right-wing ravings" without saying what exactly is wrong.

Did the Ayatollah not kill people? Did the Taliban not head back to the 13th Century? Did I not note the US (and earlier British) military actions had been much to blame for Mideast reactions?

Did I say this represents all Islam?

(for example, Indonesia and Malaysia seem much more advanced)

So cut the PC crap, and argue your points, if you have any.