On Being Angry and Dangerous 892


I learn the interesting news that David Aaronovitch tweeted to Joan Smith and Jenny Jones that I am:

“an angry and dangerous man who could as easily be on the far right as the far left”.

I had no idea I was on the far left, though I suppose it is a matter of perspective, and from where Mr Aaronovitch stands I, and a great many others, look awfully far away to the left. I don’t believe you should bomb people for their own good, I don’t believe the people of Palestine should be crushed, I don’t believe the profit motive should dominate the NHS, I think utilities and railways were better in public ownership, I think education should be free. I guess that makes me Joseph Stalin.

But actually I am very flattered. Apparently I am not just angry – since the invasion of Iraq and the banker bailouts everybody should be angry – but “dangerous”. If I can be a danger to the interests represented by a Rupert Murdoch employee like Aaronovitch, I must have done something right in my life. I fear he sadly overrates me; but it does make me feel a little bit warmer, and hold my head that little bit higher.


892 thoughts on “On Being Angry and Dangerous

1 28 29 30
  • nuid

    “Can you shed any light on this, Nuid?”

    Well, I got involved after joining the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign, and I started promoting them and BDS on Twitter. I didn’t research who started BDS. But I had thought the call came from Palestine. See on this page http://www.bdsmovement.net/ (top right hand corner)

    “WHAT IS BDS?

    “In 2005, Palestinian civil society issued a call for a campaign of boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel until it complies with international law and Palestinian rights. A truly global movement against Israeli Apartheid is rapidly emerging in response to this call.”

  • Passerby

    In the spirit of collaboration; “Take a look at this caterpillar” (what compels this creature to behave in this fashion?)

    The nonsense of; “my best friend is a Jew/Black/Pakistani/Arab/….”, or “where I live in our street there are Jew/Black/Pakistani/Arab/…. living there too, and they look just like us!”, etc. These are the very epitome of the hijacked language of dissent, and or these could be the semiotics heralding the beginning of a sinister debate with codified/tolerated/acceptable hate and prejudice language.

    It is a given, that there are good people and bad people around the planet, most of the people, in fact majority are good decent and loving people, alas there are some bad people intermingled among these good people too.

    These people are good because they follow the path of being good regardless of their colour, religion, gender, age, etc. therefore it would be wrong to segregate good based on certain characteristic that is in addition to “being good”. This standard ought to be adhered to because then we also can class the bad people for their deeds and not attribute their badness to additional characteristics.

    This defensive posturing is necessitated because bad people, despite being bad are also people too, and they share many characteristics as their good counterparts, therefore the additional characteristics then can be used to detract from their badness, and or used to condemn good people who are sharing the said attributes/characteristics. These can be prone to be wrongly condemned for the nefarious reasons of “bad” camouflaging themselves in among the bigger crowds of “bad people” (perceived and not actual) as per the additionally shared characteristics.

    Let me illustrate this point; I know this really nice, loving, humane, responsible, great person whom happens to be a Jew, and female, thus a Jewess. I also know of alan dershowitz a thoroughly obnoxious, odious, poisonous, inhuman, wanker, whom happens to be a man, and a Jew.

    Now;

    Because my friend is a Jew does that make dershowitz good?
    Because dershowitz is bad does that make my friend bad?
    Because my friend is a female, and good, does that make all females good?
    Because dershowitz is a “man” (some would dispute this contention) and bad, does that make all men bad?

    The simple fact is my friend is good, regardless of her other attributes, the reverse of course applies to the wanker that I need not mention his name.

    Those seeking to segregate human beings invariably are bent on following a nefarious end, Often these nefarious “ends” are in fact mundane intentions of stealing the wares of next guy along, or nicking his/her car, husband/wife, boy/girl friend, paying little (as good as stealing) for goods, and services that is desired, ad nauseum, this is at the low end of the spectrum ie closer to ordinary people and their day to day lives.

    However there exist super bad bunch of fuckwits bent on creating mayhem and disorder for their own ends and these normally entail super riches, power, and manipulation of large numbers of people. The main reason for segregation of one person from another is to set the discourse of parallel worlds in which those outside of the group are shunned, and thought to be morons, and idiots, whilst others within the group are thought of as the super nice and fantastic group of people whom only can appreciate each other and no one else is endowed to understand those within.

    The story of the lands without people starts with a major fuckwit named Balfour whom for his own nefarious reasons sends a letter to his pal who owns the red shield pawn brokers and promises a tract of land that is not in his possession and he does not own to the pawn broker who is not an elected representative but a self appointed busy body because he has made good with his pawn brokers business.

    The letter goes:
    His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

    It is only the zeal of the ziofuckwits that has kept this racist document from the righteous wrath of the good people of the world. The “Jewish people” referred to in the letter were these not living in their homes among the rest of the people in Europe? Why these had to be uprooted and sent to some far flung corner of the Earth?

    In fact many people objected to this kind of segregation, with many Jews opposing the very idea, but there we had some major super bad wankers who were setting up the grounds, for a carnage that would last many decades and would cost many lives, and distort the nature of good and evil itself.

    To day as we are debating the iniquitous, bloody, and inhuman legacy of this dastardly plot we find ourselves trapped in the same frame of discourse that started it all. The many decades of carnage and wars have not resolved the issues arising from this early plot, so why do we wish to limit ourselves to the same references here and now?

    I have so far tried to change the limits and terms of reference, and judging by the responses you all seem to wish to do so, by forwarding the boundaries that were set as per UN, which innately acknowledge the rights of Palestinians, and affirms their humanity and the rights thereof, including the right to a life free from coercion, occupation, hunger, thirst and safe from attacks of settlers the unauthorised mercenary army, or the ziofuckwit army that is the authorised mercenary bunch.

    The fact is regardless of the side issues that we have been debating, the patent fact is; the bad people have won up until now, do you want to let them get away with even more death, destruction, disorder and chaos? Then change the terms of reference, and start reappraising the language of dissent itself.

    ,

    PS the video will be discussed later.

  • Jon

    Passerby:

    I have so far tried to change the limits and terms of reference

    No, you keep posting wordy, pseudo-intellectual nonsense that adds little to the debate whilst knocking down a few straw men of your own making, avoiding direct questions that are put to you about the topic in hand, and saying nothing regarding criticisms of your counter-productive rhetorical style.

    I still don’t know whether you’d cooperate with Jewish groups willing to end the occupation, nor whether you support arming the Palestinian people, nor which set of borders you think are most appropriate, nor your views on BDS.

    I can’t wait to find out how the video of a caterpillar being eaten by a frog is relevant, but I am sure you’ll find a way!

  • Fedup

    Sound idea, boycott the shit of the bastards, I have not bought anything made in shitty strip of land for years now, and will actively seek to discourage others from buying so too.

    Divest any money and encourage anyone else for divestment from any kind of businesses operating in that place.

    Total boycott ought to be on the cards; commercial, cultural, academic, at all levels.

    Sanctions will only come about through union activists refusal to work towards aiding and abetting the ziofuckwits doing business freely in the international level.

    Support for shitty little strip of land has come to be unfashionable and politically toxic for any would be politico who is all too ready to sell his soul for a few morsels thrown their way by the rich sponsors and benefactors of the ziofuckwits. Political support for isreal ought to carry a price tag for those who support it, and the price ought to be their seat.

    The Sanctions can then follow and South African style sanctions can be set in place. Biting sanctions that specifically target the military goods and killing technologies, as well as limiting the amounts of aid, and ending of any kind of military aid.

    Political support for isreal ought to carry a price tag for those who support it, and the price ought to be their seat.

    will have to think of more.

    PS congrats to those activist who managed the protests disrupt Israeli dance performances

  • Cryptonym

    The Defamation film, linked a few days back, shows that future generations of Israelis are being brainwashed, taught the world is full of anti-semitism, look for and find it where none exists and that this has being going on probably for half a century in whatever passes for an education system in Israel, where it is seeded. The reaction to the two or three older (probably not born till the late-50’s) Polish? men the young girls accosted – about the only contact the group had with anyone outside the Holocaust Industry, seeking them purely I think to personify their inculcated hate, then swerving away claiming that they called them ‘bitches’ when they said no such thing, later that they called them ‘monkeys’ when they had said no such thing – were, whilst the film overall wasn’t that great, revealing insights. My sympathy is partly with the young people subjected to this curriculum of hate, uncurious if the reality of the world outside their hermetic bubble of lies is quite different; there are inherent difficulties in teaching that certain death, for a worthless cause – the most likely consequence of their governments policies – claims them and as future Israeli cannon-fodder need only rudimentary education for such cynical use.

    What surprises me is that the nations hosting these former concentration camp sites have not razed and eliminated all trace of them and stopped these morbid pilgrimages of ill-informed ghouls and fragile unformed minds, that future generations of their own nationals are not forever subjected to such groundless unjust hostility and hate. I wouldn’t even be certain that a token perpetual monument in their place would be a good idea. The names too could do with being eliminated, it worked for Windscale didn’t it. No-one questions or will ever that these workhouses and warehouses of death existed, they are all of humanity’s shame.

  • nuid

    The brainwashing of young teenagers in that film was downright scary.
    As was the couple who were not religious and who admitted that the ADL gave them a “focus” for their Jewishness. The ADL whose raison d’être is ‘anti-semitism’ that barely exists (if it exists at all) where the ADL is determined to find it.

    Tech, what’s a little Anglo-Saxon between friends …

  • Passerby

    ( a quick comment, in a hurry)

    Jon,

    Now, now, no temper tantrums and name calling;
    keep posting wordy, pseudo-intellectual nonsense that adds little to the debate

    The resultant oversight due to temper is an all too evident affair;

    I can’t wait to find out how the video of a caterpillar being eaten by a frog is relevant, but I am sure you’ll find a way!

    Jon that frog is not eating the caterpillar, it is the caterpillar that is feeding itself to the frog. In your temper tantrum you could not discern the relentless efforts of the caterpillar in trying to feed itself to the frog, and finally succeeding.

    As for the latter part of your contentions, that is called “synthesis” Jon, some would go so far as attributing that to genius, hence it is not an attribute that ought to be subject to derision.

    Too much to do, will be back to debate the video later, but this thread is getting really interesting now.

  • Jon

    @Crytonym, thanks for the pointer to the film – not encountered that. Will add to the watch list.

  • nuid

    CHARLOTTE, North Carolina – Democrats amended the party platform Wednesday afternoon to include language supporting Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

    The last-minute change came in the wake of mounting criticism from Democratic members of Congress incensed that the 2008 platform’s declaration backing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel had been removed from the 2012 text.

    Sources close to the platform drafting process said US President Barack Obama personally intervened on reinstating the Jerusalem language. The whole 2012 platform was originally adopted during the Democratic convention Tuesday night.

    http://www.jpost.com/USPresidentialrace/Article.aspx?id=283989

  • nuid

    Yep, that looked to me like 50/50! Must be very annoying as a delegate to have your vote run over like that …

  • nuid

    But the ‘No’ vote was apparently about restoring the mention of “God” and not necessarily the mention of Jerusalem. According to this writer anyway:

    “The fight over including a single mention of God in the platform—that was extreme. The original removal of the single mention by the platform committee—extreme. The huge “No!” vote on restoring the mention of God, and including the administration’s own stand on Jerusalem—that wasn’t liberal, it was extreme.”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443686004577636443448520330.html

  • Zoologist

    @Nuid – I just read that piece by Noonan. No idea what she is on about..
    Confusing opinion piece altogether I thought.

  • Jemand

    Craig, “Danger” is your MIDDLE name. Anyone who can attract nearly a thousand comments from a couple of hundred posters is most definately dangerous. Your good work and calm demeanour is always appreciated by those of us who are working to resist the rust-like spread of tyranny.

1 28 29 30

Comments are closed.