Distraction 101: Why Are The Prog-Blogs Silent On Gaza? Because That Is Their Job!

In my view, the reason why "leading" "progressive" blogs are silent about the Israeli assault on Gaza is because "that is their job. Their main purpose is to capture and nullify any potential opposition."

You can read the rest here, and I welcome your comments.


THe inhumanity of Israel.

The latest is this ...

I wonder if there is box cars waiting for people of Gaza at the assigned locations ? It seems like Bibi's "final solution" for the people of Gaza. Ironic really.

Weaponry and Body Count: Gaza versus Isreal. Illustration

I went looking for a chart to help me get a visual on the military imbalance.

I found this:


The sources for the information in the illustration are in the bottom left hand corner.

The illustration seems a little off kilter because it is pitting just little Gaza against Israel's might whereas Israel is concerned with fighting the entire region. The inclusion of the nuclear missile is too much for a comparison with Gaza. It seems unreasonable that Israel will fire a nuke at Gaza with Tel Aviv just down the coast.

Still, the imbalance is huge.

I found this criticism of the illustration as well:

Re: Jewish owned press
Posted by: billb
Date: November 20, 2012 05:44AM
Tanks are even more destructive and Hamas is daring Israel to come shoot at their Palestinian shields.
and continue to fire off volleys of non-guided rockets even raining them down on Palestinians themselves

Pretty propaganda graphic, but it doesn't show how many Palestinians have been killed by Hamas.
(just put them in the Israeli column and maybe the sheeple won't notice)

Back from Egypt


Hi WP,

Nice post. But I must disagree with some of your conclusions.

Except by your correct semantic definition of anti-Semitic I do not accept that these bloggers can be defined as anti-Semitic in the modern sense. I think that like other words that change their meaning, such as gay, the correct, pedantic meaning is now lost in the mists of time and will never come back. I suppose Islamophobic approaches this true meaning now.

So, in that sense, calling these people anti-Semites is not going to gain traction and may be counterproductive.

No, these bigger bloggers are tribal. Pure and simple. Most of them, and of their audience, belong to the same tribe and many or most subscribe to the same religion of Haulocausticism.

Chris Floyd steps very carefully in this regard, perhaps because he is a great admirer of Arthur Silber. When I commented on Floyd's blog about how Silber and others can wholly criticise US govt policy without specifying the roots of the neocons, my comment was not published.

To avoid this problem and the anti-Semitic slurs than invariably follow, others, such as Alan Hart make great play on this difference between Zionism and Judaism (see:"Zionism. The Real Enemy of the Jews"). His heart seems to be in the right place. However, many of the Haulocaustists would claim not be be Zionists, or even to be anti-Zionist, but still will not consider any discussions of the subjects listed in your post. So there has to be more to it.

Closest to the mark, I think, is Gilad Atzmon. Both in his book ("The Wandering Who") and at his blog he blames the Jewish tribal identity and the new tribal religion for most of the problems, and considers that specific criticism of Zionism without considering the Jewish aspect is something of an escape clause, particularly for those that share this modern religion.

This, to my mind, is the core of the problem. As is well laid out in his book, "Solving 9-11 : The Deception that Changed the World", Christopher Bollyn establishes that Jews can be proven to be at the centre of most of the events surrounding 9/11. This is a problem for most of the blog gatekeepers. They could obfuscate, or even try to muddy the water as occurs with most 9/11 conspiracy sites - but, once more knowledge is gained - they cannot dare to discuss itemised events without this fact becoming blatantly apparent. Many must suspect this, therefore much easier to shut down and belittle all discussion on this subject, as occurs, for example, at CounterPunch (where most of the contributors while daring to criticise Israeli policies are themselves members of the modern religion).

The same is true of your other "banned" topics, especially the origins and identity of the neocons that drive American foreign policy.

Finally, and incidentally, on your comment about Israel's right to exist there is an excellent little Australian Blog site that I would like to draw to your attention and which may also be of interest to some of your readers. The author, MERC, goes into this in some detail with appropriate historical references and citations (you will have to scroll through past posts to find them all but there is given some wonderful background color regarding, for example, the writing and origins of the Balfour Declaration, among others). The site is: http://middleeastrealitycheck.blogspot.com.au/

Best wishes

thanks for the dis-

-agreements. :Cool You are certainly welcome to express your opinions here regardless of whether or not you agree with me. I may very well be wrong about some things. That happens sometimes. Or perhaps I didn't express myself as clearly as one might wish. That happens too.

You raise a lot of points and I can only deal with a few of them at the moment. Let's start here:

I believe that when we lose the meanings of our words and phrases, we lose our ability to think clearly. When words and phrases are deliberately twisted to mean their opposites, and this twist facilitates outrageous crimes, then it is in my opinion our responsibility to try to reclaim our language, and with it our ability to think.

Israeli apologists consistently and cynically use the label "anti-Semitic" as a smear against those who criticize Israel for committing outrages against the Semitic people, and I think it is vital to point this out, not only because the term "anti-Semitic" conjures up images of the sorts of atrocities which Israel itself commits with nauseating regularity, but also because of its implied assertion that it is the Israelis who are the Semites, an assertion which robs the Palestinians of their ethnic identity and moves them one step closer to becoming the non-entities that the Israelis clearly wish they were.

I think it's important to point out all this hypocrisy, and I don't much care whether or not I gain any traction by doing so. I have already come to terms with having no traction. I blog anyway, when I can. And if telling the truth is counter-productive, then let's have more of it.

So ... when I say the big "progressive" bloggers are anti-Semitic, I mean they are anti-Palestinian, meaning pro-Israeli. They may "earn" some "credibility" by allowing certain criticisms of Israel on certain issues, but on the core issues, there are lines that one dare not cross. I know this from inside experience, and this is why I would rather be an independent blogger with a small readership and no traction, than remain where I was.

I'll fast forward past Chris and Arthur, Hart, Atzmon and Bollyn, at least for now. Perhaps we can get to them later.

About the so-called right of states to exist, I believe the history of the Balfour Declaration proves my point in spades. The victors of a war which killed 80 million people certainly qualify as those whose opponents cannot overcome their power. As always throughout history, states -- especially killer states -- exist by might, not by right.

The victors of the war had no right to declare that Palestine would become Israel. But they had the power to do so, simply because nobody could stop them. And of course -- by design? -- Israel quickly grew into a genocidal monster, which we still can't stop. None of this is based on any sort of "right" whatsoever. It is all based on fire and steel, on burnt and crushed and shredded human flesh. There is nothing "right" about any of it, in my view.

[I have to run now. Perhaps we can disagree more later. Thanks again...]


Thanks for responding WP.

I do not, at all, intend to be tendentious. I have admired and appreciated your writings for several years without comment. I have also cited your work (for example on patsies - albeit without attribution - on several MSM sites. The reason for non attribution, of course, is that as soon as one cites WP it is immediately construed as conspiracy and binned).

So please don't get me wrong. I am a fan, but not uncritical in the cause.

First, as in all forms of warfare, we must accept our losses, lost battles, and lost ground and plan how to recoup and move on from here. We do not control the press or mass media so we must be able to see where we have lost and move on to battles that we might win. Be honest, and let's face it: we have lost the battle of what and what is not constitutes anti-Semitism. The ADL with millions of dollars at their disposal plus a regulated and compliant press has ensured that their definition will prevail. No point, therefore, in continuing to tilt at windmills.

On your next point re the formation of the State of Israel, unfortunately I have to say, your historical perspective and understanding is nothing short of exceedingly disappointing to me. For example, it had little or nothing to do with the 2nd WW and I would strongly encourage you to read the historical details in the site that I cited before commenting further in this regard.

In my opinion (worth little of course), the major traction could come from consideration of the 'new religion' and how the treatment of "H" deniers in Europe is almost the precise equivalent of that of religious heretics in the dark Middle Ages.

what's missing?

You're not the only one who is 'disappointed', g. I have to say I'm a little disappointed in how you have contributed two lengthy comments on a post about the blatant genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza and have managed to not mention Gaza or the Palestinians.

Much like the 'progressive bloggers', come to think of it.

It takes a taxi driver

to express the insanity and the outrage at the psychopathic behaviour of the perps, their backers and the media. All of them liars and much else- (H/T McJ)

See it and others on Youtube-

What kind of psychopath?


Yeah, that's the sort!


I took opposition of and revulsion against the actions against the Palestinians for granted, perhaps wrongly. I was attempting to address the issues at a more philosophical level. Sorry if I left you behind.

thanks for the clarification

I was wondering whether your previous comment warranted a long detailed response, or a short snarky one, or none at all.

McJ's picture



McJ's picture


I must say...not the best attempt. Your two previous comments read to me like they were designed in part, to insult Winter. It appears you have some other agenda beyond your 'raising' of the philosophical level of discussion (none of which addressed the point of Winter's post btw). Perhaps, it is you that is so far behind; you can't see the others in front of you.

McJ's picture


Thanks for giving your voice to the horror we are witnessing yet again in Gaza. I know how hard it has been for you to write these days. It is very much appreciated. It reminds me how much I miss your writing!

I am in total agreement with your point that the 'progressive left' gatekeepers are anti-Semitic. To stay silent with their large audiences and potential influence, is to support Israel against the Semitic people of Palestine. I noted the pathetic response given by one of the 'nothing to say' bloggers over at Empire Burlesque with regards to their lack of coverage of this latest massacre. He would really have been better off sticking with nothing.

thanks, McJ

Your kind words are greatly appreciated.

Of course I agree with you when you agree with me, but when you say "To stay silent with their large audiences and potential influence, is to support Israel against the Semitic people of Palestine," I might also add that -- as I have seen from direct experience -- They stay silent with their large audiences and potential influence, because they support Israel against the Semitic people of Palestine.

Of course none of them can admit this without losing any of their so-called "credibility," so they are forced to stay silent, or to write the sort of thing to which you referred. It's pathetic no matter which way they turn.

Meanwhile ... my condition is improving (slowly), and it appears that I may be able to write a bit more often in the near future. I am looking forward to it.

Best wishes


Misunderstanding the schoolyard

I appreciate the generally snarky comments and understand how my remarks can be interpreted. In my defence - and accepted as no justification - as a simple retired University Professor who once enjoyed this site when it was run by WP, I did think that it had continued to be a serious, intellectual site for discussion. But I made a mistake. I apologise and will not be back.

Primacy and focus

g wrote-

Misunderstanding the schoolyard
I appreciate the generally snarky comments
(Misunderstanding the schoolyard? - Sorry if I left you behind?) and understand how my remarks can be interpreted (so you're well aware of this?). In my defence - and accepted as no justification - as a simple retired University Professor who once enjoyed this site (sounds like this is about you and your enjoyment) when it was run by WP, I did think that it had continued to be a serious, intellectual site for discussion (it never was. More on that below). But I made a mistake (understandable given your academic life. More on that below, too). I apologise and will not be back (your choice and I respect that).

I happen to know quite a few people who have suffered extreme trauma due to the outrageous criminality of people with lots of power. What interests these veterans of trauma (and the Palestinians are certainly veterans of extreme trauma for generations) is understanding the truth and its causes and this being exposed to the public at large. I also know that these veterans have little patience with academics and distanced professionals who intellectually latch onto some relatively minor sub-issue and want to project it (and their own knowledge and pride) to the forefront at the expense of the primary issue, the bleeding obvious, the unconscionable exploitation that is an ongoing threat to society; which, of course, includes the aforementioned intellectuals.

While the intellectuals may have very valid points often, the proportion is not there. They miss it. And for those that can see this lack of proportion, it is insulting. Even worse is when it is seen that it ultimately serves the purposes of the perpetrators by removing the focus from the immediate glaring exploitation and its educative moment.

WP's site and this site (if I can speak for WP and the others involved here) are concerned with the establishment and the exposure of the truth of the trauma and dispossession in this world and its primary causes. This is our focus.

This puts us at odds from time to time with people, including intellectuals, professionals and academics, whose primary focus is often on elevating intellectual jousting skills on which their pay grades and even their financial and professional survival depend. All fair enough in their own environment perhaps but, with respect, not here.

thanks, James

Thanks for your cool-headed cool response. You have been considerably more generous than I have been. And that's probably good.

McJ's picture

Great Comments

Apologies for taking so long to get back to this.

Great comments Winter and James! I am so glad you addressed the points you did cause I was gonna have to come back here and do it myself. In fact I would have titled the comment, "It's not a schoolyard" but you beat me to the punch Winter.

I could well imagine 'Professor Gee' addressing his students in that condescending tone, telling them not to bother coming back to class until they could regurgitate his views on history.

It's not a schoolyard.

It's more like a classroom. At its best it is an excellent classroom, with a handful of gifted and well-educated volunteer teachers. But every now and then somebody comes along and drops a load of preposterous crap on us, and then it can become a bit like a schoolyard, but usually for a just little while, and mostly because serious people get seriously annoyed when they have to deal with low-grade nonsense applied to important issues.

There is enough distraction from the main issue on this thread already, and far more than enough condescending bullshit. So I will be as brief as possible. It's too bad that my historical perspective disappointed g, but it's probably a good decision on his part not to come back. I am afraid I would have disappointed him further by clarifying one important point after another.

For instance, the problem (from g's point of view) is not that I am insufficiently familiar with the MERC site, but that I have spent enough time there to see it for what it is. And his assertion that I am unworthy of commenting further on this issue (especially at this website[!]) until I read even more propaganda is as ridiculous as the notion that the creation of Israel had little or nothing to do with WWII. In fact, the power granted to the UN to create Israel flowed directly from the Allied victory in that war, and the most prominent public justification given for that action was based on the treatment of the Jews in Germany during the war.

When I say the UN had no right to create Israel, I am stating a particular (and not particularly interesting) application of a general case: What gives victorious warriors the right to re-draw the maps -- even the maps of foreign continents? Nothing! They do it because they can! They do it because no one can stop them.

It has always been thus. To the victor go the spoils. In the case of world war, the entire world is up for grabs. And this virtually guarantees many instances of criminal aggression against innocent people. I do not accept the claims that warrior states have any right to do any of this. But then, I was absent from History class the day they taught The Divine Right of Superpowers to Refashion the World to Suit Their Wishes.

The horrible, disappointing truth is that the UN deliberately gave land occupied by innocent people to a band of terrorists who denied the existence of those people, and who all too often seemed (and still seem) intent on driving them (and their descendants) into the sea.

Aside from the horrible human suffering involved here, we have the question of "What did these statesmen think they were doing?" Were they really promoting the UN's stated goals, working for peace and harmony among nations? Or were they deliberately inflicting upon the Middle East (and indeed upon the whole world) a wound that could never heal, one destined to fester forever and ever? To a conspiracy theorist such as myself, the idea that the creators of Israel all failed to see the obvious consequences of their actions is too absurd to be taken seriously. (But don't quote me -- you wouldn't want to get "binned"!)

On the subject of insults, I was not terribly upset by g's insulting tone towards me personally, although (as you can see above) his cheap shot at James was more than I was willing to tolerate. I was more upset by g's attempts to stifle the discussion by attacking my post in two places where I was deconstructing Israel's favorite lies. This is exactly what gatekeepers do. They try to steer the discussion into "safe" waters, leaving the most critical facts unexamined. It amounts to an insult against the truth, and against the victims of criminal abuse of power. And anyone who tries to do that to us, at our own site, is bound to be disappointed.

I apologize for contributing to the hijacking of this thread. Now where were we?

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.