OK I watched it and think you have mischaracterized her intent.I think it is NOT at all directed against ordinary working class people, per se, but to showcase the capacity of some, especially the media, to not grasp the depth of depravity of the genocide or even call it that. I recall during the Vietnam era when thee was a cartoon depiction of a supermarket with dead Vietnamese children in the meat section. It, like this, makes the point vividly that we ought to be horrified, not complacent, about the genocide, and this is not a class issue but a generic one.
Yes, Caitlin's intent is to say how horrible Zionism is. But the manner in which she expresses that idea is elitist and reflects her contempt for ordinary people. The two are not mutually exclusive.
The horrible people in her video were ordinary people and Caitlin made absolutely no effort to make it clear that she was not characterizing ordinary working class people. And as my earlier post about Caitlin (linked to in this one) shows, she does indeed have a very negative attitude towards ordinary people. She is a finger-wagger, pointing her accusing finger at ordinary people for being immoral in many of her posts. She is, of course, not unique in this regard.
Leftists in the name of "anti-racism" blocked traffic on I-93 near Boston several years ago because the commuters were mostly white working class people, no other reason. They had contempt for these commuters.
The Rockefeller-funded Jewish Voice for Peace told its anti-Zionism members to block traffic in major streets in Los Angeles and elsewhere, a totally counter-productive tactic that only turned the public against the "pro-Palestine" movement because it expressed contempt for the general public.
We ignore or downplay or make excuses for this problem of elitism at our own risk, in my opinion.
Strawmanning Johnstone yet again Spritzler? What was it you were saying about not gaining a large following by showing contempt for the people you're trying to influence? Now let's take a look at the relative size of your audiences... hmm.
You know, we can just go and read her posts and form our own opinions about her attitude - and what I'm seeing doesn't match with what you're saying. Mate, honestly, you're just coming off as sounding jealous.
Attempting to insert words into my mouth is not very persuasive. I tend not to reduce everything to positives and negatives - I prefer more qualitative representations.
I asserted that you were making a strawman argument against Johnstone, that is to say your description of her position was inaccurate - so asking me to agree or disagree with the position falsely described is besides the point.
I don't think Johnstone was attempting to portray a working class family specifically, however,
I'm from a working class family, and I did not find her depiction insulting or elitist. Unfortunately, though, I found it all too familiar.
"Ordinary people" are not an amorphous blob, there is a great diversity among humans, but if I'm forced to generalise about working class politics in the current times, I'd say most people are politically disengaged. They feel helpless to change the society and they defend against this feeling by trying to avoid thinking about matters which will cause a sense of injustice. If you insist on bringing them up, they'll at first try to gloss over things with platitudes, then if you persist, they'll become upset and act as though you are the problem.
Of course, if you talk in vague terms about egalitarian ideals and fairness, people are all for it, enthusiastic even. But if you suggest some specific concrete action to that effect, most lose interest. Not because they're "bad people" but because, in their experience, political efforts by the working class return no results. It's been generations since the workers had a strong class consciousness and effective organisations.
Res, when you write "I'm from a working class family, and I did not find her depiction insulting or elitist. Unfortunately, though, I found it all too familiar" what do you mean exactly by "all too familiar"? We're talking about cooking a Palestinian child's corpse and serving it as if it were a turkey, here, not merely behavior reflecting feeling helpless to change the society. Are you "all too familiar" with people doing something as immoral as eating a child? Is that what you meant? Or did you mean something very different?
Caitlin's "position" in her video is only implied by the video; it is not explicit. I think the implication is that Zionism is horrible, and ordinary people in places like the United States who aren't actively fighting it are also horrible. It is a real stretch to deny this is what her video implies.
Res, the woman is a total fraud. Dozens of us have left her Substack months ago. It's a venue specifically designed to keep all the dissenters corralled and appeased amongst each other. She's nothing more than a carnival barker.
The number commenting under her article denotes the number who fully subscribe to her deranged elitism. Nothing wrong with that in and of itself, it just means they are like her: deranged and elitist.
I don't believe everyone commenting on Johnstone's articles necessarily agrees with everything she says, but she does seem to strike a chord though, doesn't she?
You call her a "deranged elitist" twice, but offer nothing to support your assertion. At least Spritzler gives us a strawman argument.
Spitzler makes the point about her elitism, so there is no need for me to go over it again, esp. since I agree with his argument.
As for deranged, either she is not aware of her contradictory stance or is she is aware of it and in that case is deranged. Since I do not believe option 1 is true, option 2 must be.
Whatever it is, her articles are repetitive nonsense she spews liberally without making any positive contribution that she pretends to make. Her vivid pictorials and virtual crocodile tears are not meant to achieve anything else than for her to get attention.
Brilliant synopsis!!! So very true!!!! What is her actual purpose other than to incite?
{Whatever it is, her articles are repetitive nonsense she spews liberally without making any positive contribution that she pretends to make. Her vivid pictorials and virtual crocodile tears are not meant to achieve anything else than for her get attention.}
There is something else about dear Caity: she is a complete hypocrite. On her substack one can criticize the ZioNazi entity that pretentiously calls itself "israel", but oh vey if one has the nerve to criticize the Jews –dear Caity goes ballistic and will call you every name under the sun.
To whom, exactly, are you referring by "the Jews"? BillionaireJews? Very poor working class Jews? All Jews regardless of their actions? Whom? Please clarify.
Specifically, the Talmud, which defines the laws Jews should abide by, states non-Jews exist to serve Jews, and there is nothing wrong with killing non-Jews nor for a Jew to have sex with a 3-year old girl.
Having said that, not all Jews live by those laws. But Spritzler will not get into the discussion, which I understand:
You see, you behave exactly the way I stated. The Jews do not have any solid arguments to justify their behavior, so they cannot deal with criticism. Their reaction: run away.
And of course they are very sensitive to any comments that have the slightest inkling of criticism as any criticism risks exposing them.
You behave in exactly that way, and I know you have probably stamped me as an "anti-Semite" for what I have stated here –gosh, what would you people do with your beloved cliché'd label, that nuclear option that you people use so generously. In this case, unfortunately, you know you would likely lose the argument.
P.S. everything I have stated in my comments are confirmed by Jews and other non-Jews alike.
In other words, criticizing the Jews equates to viewing all Jews as the enemy: that is obviously a leap you need to show that, as usual, the poor Jews are being victimized? So, please explain why you people always need to play the victim?
Why can't you people accept that you are NOT above the rest of humanity and that you will therefore, just like the rest of humanity, be criticized ?
The reason I ask is this. Shahak was an Israeli Jew and a Holocaust survivor and an outspoken foe of Zionism who wrote a book that exposes the fact (the same fact you truthfully asserted above) that the Talmud is a vile, racist, evil document that tells Jews to have utter contempt for non-Jews. Shahak's book is titled Jewish History, Jewish Religion, the Weight of 3,000 Years and is online at https://archive.org/stream/JewishHistoryJewishReligionTheWeightOf3000Years/Jewish.history.jewishReligion-the.weight.of.three.thousand.years_djvu.txt . I have independently fact-checked Shahak's assertions and found them to be true.
All of my ancestors as far back as I know of were Jews. I do not refer to myself as a Jew because I have no connection to the Jewish religion, but those who consider Jews to be a biological race would insist I am a Jew based purely on my ancestry. I am an outspoken foe of Zionism; my articles about it are at https://www.pdrboston.org/my-articles-re-israel-palestine .
What is your attitude towards Jews such as Israel Shahak and (if you think in terms of ancestry) myself?
1st of all thanks for your reply, I did not expect to hear from you anymore, in a way I was even expecting to be banned from your substack.
Back to the issue at hand, yes, I have heard of Israel Shahak and I have read the book you refer too. I found it a very useful reference. I am happy to read that you fact-checked his assertions and found them to be true. I will add that part of your comment to the notes I took while reading the book –I always take notes when I read a non-fiction book.
I have great respect people like Shahak who have the courage to speak out. Others that fall into that category are Ilan Pappé, Gilad Atzmon, Ron Unz, Norman Finkelstein, and others.
I will read your pdrboston article about non-Jews not being anti-Semitic.
Then there are non-Jews who also dare to speak out, such as Germar Rudolf, Ernst Zündel, Benton L. Bradberry, and others.
No, the Jews are not my enemy, the good, sincere, honest ones, that is. I am absolutely disgusted by the 95% of Jews in ZioNaziland who support the "government's" genocide of the Palestinians, as well as ZioNazis and ZioChristians elsewhere in the world. I have a deep, burning hatred for all those groups.
Regarding a Jewish race, how ironic that when the Nazis declared the Jews to be a race they were stamped as anti-Semitic, whereas now anyone who states Jews are not a race are stamped as such.
The race issue is literally a non-issue: there simply is no Jewish race. There are European/Khazarian Jews (90%+ of Jews), there are Arab Jews, Ehtiopian Jews, Iranian Jews, Chinese Jews, Indian Jews, and so on. Then there are the converts (their genetic constitution presumably changes on conversion), and there are the intermarriages.
Interestingly, there is good evidence that the Palestinians are actually Jews who converted to Islam when the Arab hordes swept in from Arabia in the 7th century CE. So, the ZioNazi scum is actually slaughtering their brothers and sisters.
In view of your expansive comment above, I am still puzzled as to why you understood that my criticism of Jews meant I viewed Jews as the enemy. You criticize "israel", presumably because you don't see it as Jewish – I know Zionsim does not equate to Judaism – but presumably you don't criticize the Jews, otherwise you would not have been shocked by OP statement.
Despite what you wrote in this article, you must be in complete agreement with her about this issue: it is fine to criticize Zionists – it could be argued they have nothing to do with Judaism – but it is heresy to criticize the Jews, the only group in the world that has foisted a taboo on world public opinion regarding criticism about them. Criticism of Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, etc. is perfectly fine, but criticism of the Jews ......
Still can't believe you're buying into this woman and giving her attention. Common sense tells you no one in their right mind could spend this magnitude of time for over a year going on and on and on if she were NOT controlled opposition. It's so abundant and blindingly obvious - THIS is her full time job.
Unlike some of the the journalists such as MoDo who use wit sarcasm and humor Caitlin's just pathetic.
She's not even funny but rather desperately grasping at straws in attempt to be relevant and make her point. Please stop giving her attention! Once people realize she's a fraud they'll be more cautious to all the others as well.
I am not connected to or subscribing to any particular religion, nor was I brought up religiously. My ancestors on both sides are Jews. I have no connection to Israel; I have never been there and I have no desire to go there.
Artist, What do you mean by "workable details"? Workable for what purpose? If you're referring to my post about Caitlin's video being anti-working-class, either you see it is so by watching the video, or you don't. If you're referring to my linked article about building an egalitarian revolutionary movement, it is filled with concrete details in the links it provides. Take a look please.
OK I watched it and think you have mischaracterized her intent.I think it is NOT at all directed against ordinary working class people, per se, but to showcase the capacity of some, especially the media, to not grasp the depth of depravity of the genocide or even call it that. I recall during the Vietnam era when thee was a cartoon depiction of a supermarket with dead Vietnamese children in the meat section. It, like this, makes the point vividly that we ought to be horrified, not complacent, about the genocide, and this is not a class issue but a generic one.
Yes, Caitlin's intent is to say how horrible Zionism is. But the manner in which she expresses that idea is elitist and reflects her contempt for ordinary people. The two are not mutually exclusive.
The horrible people in her video were ordinary people and Caitlin made absolutely no effort to make it clear that she was not characterizing ordinary working class people. And as my earlier post about Caitlin (linked to in this one) shows, she does indeed have a very negative attitude towards ordinary people. She is a finger-wagger, pointing her accusing finger at ordinary people for being immoral in many of her posts. She is, of course, not unique in this regard.
Leftists in the name of "anti-racism" blocked traffic on I-93 near Boston several years ago because the commuters were mostly white working class people, no other reason. They had contempt for these commuters.
The Rockefeller-funded Jewish Voice for Peace told its anti-Zionism members to block traffic in major streets in Los Angeles and elsewhere, a totally counter-productive tactic that only turned the public against the "pro-Palestine" movement because it expressed contempt for the general public.
We ignore or downplay or make excuses for this problem of elitism at our own risk, in my opinion.
Strawmanning Johnstone yet again Spritzler? What was it you were saying about not gaining a large following by showing contempt for the people you're trying to influence? Now let's take a look at the relative size of your audiences... hmm.
You know, we can just go and read her posts and form our own opinions about her attitude - and what I'm seeing doesn't match with what you're saying. Mate, honestly, you're just coming off as sounding jealous.
If you agree with her negative portrayal of ordinary people, then just say so. Do you?
Attempting to insert words into my mouth is not very persuasive. I tend not to reduce everything to positives and negatives - I prefer more qualitative representations.
I asserted that you were making a strawman argument against Johnstone, that is to say your description of her position was inaccurate - so asking me to agree or disagree with the position falsely described is besides the point.
I don't think Johnstone was attempting to portray a working class family specifically, however,
I'm from a working class family, and I did not find her depiction insulting or elitist. Unfortunately, though, I found it all too familiar.
"Ordinary people" are not an amorphous blob, there is a great diversity among humans, but if I'm forced to generalise about working class politics in the current times, I'd say most people are politically disengaged. They feel helpless to change the society and they defend against this feeling by trying to avoid thinking about matters which will cause a sense of injustice. If you insist on bringing them up, they'll at first try to gloss over things with platitudes, then if you persist, they'll become upset and act as though you are the problem.
Of course, if you talk in vague terms about egalitarian ideals and fairness, people are all for it, enthusiastic even. But if you suggest some specific concrete action to that effect, most lose interest. Not because they're "bad people" but because, in their experience, political efforts by the working class return no results. It's been generations since the workers had a strong class consciousness and effective organisations.
Res, when you write "I'm from a working class family, and I did not find her depiction insulting or elitist. Unfortunately, though, I found it all too familiar" what do you mean exactly by "all too familiar"? We're talking about cooking a Palestinian child's corpse and serving it as if it were a turkey, here, not merely behavior reflecting feeling helpless to change the society. Are you "all too familiar" with people doing something as immoral as eating a child? Is that what you meant? Or did you mean something very different?
Caitlin's "position" in her video is only implied by the video; it is not explicit. I think the implication is that Zionism is horrible, and ordinary people in places like the United States who aren't actively fighting it are also horrible. It is a real stretch to deny this is what her video implies.
Res, the woman is a total fraud. Dozens of us have left her Substack months ago. It's a venue specifically designed to keep all the dissenters corralled and appeased amongst each other. She's nothing more than a carnival barker.
You're full of shit unless you can actually explain how she's a fraud while you subscribe to Bill Kristol.
Argumentum ad populum would work better if there were as many commenting here as after her articles, eh?
The number commenting under her article denotes the number who fully subscribe to her deranged elitism. Nothing wrong with that in and of itself, it just means they are like her: deranged and elitist.
I don't believe everyone commenting on Johnstone's articles necessarily agrees with everything she says, but she does seem to strike a chord though, doesn't she?
You call her a "deranged elitist" twice, but offer nothing to support your assertion. At least Spritzler gives us a strawman argument.
Spitzler makes the point about her elitism, so there is no need for me to go over it again, esp. since I agree with his argument.
As for deranged, either she is not aware of her contradictory stance or is she is aware of it and in that case is deranged. Since I do not believe option 1 is true, option 2 must be.
Whatever it is, her articles are repetitive nonsense she spews liberally without making any positive contribution that she pretends to make. Her vivid pictorials and virtual crocodile tears are not meant to achieve anything else than for her to get attention.
Brilliant synopsis!!! So very true!!!! What is her actual purpose other than to incite?
{Whatever it is, her articles are repetitive nonsense she spews liberally without making any positive contribution that she pretends to make. Her vivid pictorials and virtual crocodile tears are not meant to achieve anything else than for her get attention.}
When you say "contradictory stance," do you mean self-contradictory? How so?
There is something else about dear Caity: she is a complete hypocrite. On her substack one can criticize the ZioNazi entity that pretentiously calls itself "israel", but oh vey if one has the nerve to criticize the Jews –dear Caity goes ballistic and will call you every name under the sun.
To whom, exactly, are you referring by "the Jews"? BillionaireJews? Very poor working class Jews? All Jews regardless of their actions? Whom? Please clarify.
Funny you don't answer my question.
All Jews. Why do you ask?
Some Jews are very good people. You are wrong in viewing all Jews as the enemy.
What about their religious texts?
Specifically, the Talmud, which defines the laws Jews should abide by, states non-Jews exist to serve Jews, and there is nothing wrong with killing non-Jews nor for a Jew to have sex with a 3-year old girl.
Having said that, not all Jews live by those laws. But Spritzler will not get into the discussion, which I understand:
1. he could not defend his position
2. it is off topic.
You see, you behave exactly the way I stated. The Jews do not have any solid arguments to justify their behavior, so they cannot deal with criticism. Their reaction: run away.
And of course they are very sensitive to any comments that have the slightest inkling of criticism as any criticism risks exposing them.
You behave in exactly that way, and I know you have probably stamped me as an "anti-Semite" for what I have stated here –gosh, what would you people do with your beloved cliché'd label, that nuclear option that you people use so generously. In this case, unfortunately, you know you would likely lose the argument.
P.S. everything I have stated in my comments are confirmed by Jews and other non-Jews alike.
In other words, criticizing the Jews equates to viewing all Jews as the enemy: that is obviously a leap you need to show that, as usual, the poor Jews are being victimized? So, please explain why you people always need to play the victim?
Why can't you people accept that you are NOT above the rest of humanity and that you will therefore, just like the rest of humanity, be criticized ?
Ngungu: Are you aware of the existence of a man named Israel Shahak [1933-2001]? (Wikipedia has an article about him at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Shahak .)
The reason I ask is this. Shahak was an Israeli Jew and a Holocaust survivor and an outspoken foe of Zionism who wrote a book that exposes the fact (the same fact you truthfully asserted above) that the Talmud is a vile, racist, evil document that tells Jews to have utter contempt for non-Jews. Shahak's book is titled Jewish History, Jewish Religion, the Weight of 3,000 Years and is online at https://archive.org/stream/JewishHistoryJewishReligionTheWeightOf3000Years/Jewish.history.jewishReligion-the.weight.of.three.thousand.years_djvu.txt . I have independently fact-checked Shahak's assertions and found them to be true.
I have written an article that, in large part, is about, and in praise of, Shahak, at https://www.pdrboston.org/no-non-jews-aren-t-inately-antisemi .
All of my ancestors as far back as I know of were Jews. I do not refer to myself as a Jew because I have no connection to the Jewish religion, but those who consider Jews to be a biological race would insist I am a Jew based purely on my ancestry. I am an outspoken foe of Zionism; my articles about it are at https://www.pdrboston.org/my-articles-re-israel-palestine .
What is your attitude towards Jews such as Israel Shahak and (if you think in terms of ancestry) myself?
1st of all thanks for your reply, I did not expect to hear from you anymore, in a way I was even expecting to be banned from your substack.
Back to the issue at hand, yes, I have heard of Israel Shahak and I have read the book you refer too. I found it a very useful reference. I am happy to read that you fact-checked his assertions and found them to be true. I will add that part of your comment to the notes I took while reading the book –I always take notes when I read a non-fiction book.
I have great respect people like Shahak who have the courage to speak out. Others that fall into that category are Ilan Pappé, Gilad Atzmon, Ron Unz, Norman Finkelstein, and others.
I will read your pdrboston article about non-Jews not being anti-Semitic.
Then there are non-Jews who also dare to speak out, such as Germar Rudolf, Ernst Zündel, Benton L. Bradberry, and others.
No, the Jews are not my enemy, the good, sincere, honest ones, that is. I am absolutely disgusted by the 95% of Jews in ZioNaziland who support the "government's" genocide of the Palestinians, as well as ZioNazis and ZioChristians elsewhere in the world. I have a deep, burning hatred for all those groups.
Regarding a Jewish race, how ironic that when the Nazis declared the Jews to be a race they were stamped as anti-Semitic, whereas now anyone who states Jews are not a race are stamped as such.
The race issue is literally a non-issue: there simply is no Jewish race. There are European/Khazarian Jews (90%+ of Jews), there are Arab Jews, Ehtiopian Jews, Iranian Jews, Chinese Jews, Indian Jews, and so on. Then there are the converts (their genetic constitution presumably changes on conversion), and there are the intermarriages.
Interestingly, there is good evidence that the Palestinians are actually Jews who converted to Islam when the Arab hordes swept in from Arabia in the 7th century CE. So, the ZioNazi scum is actually slaughtering their brothers and sisters.
In view of your expansive comment above, I am still puzzled as to why you understood that my criticism of Jews meant I viewed Jews as the enemy. You criticize "israel", presumably because you don't see it as Jewish – I know Zionsim does not equate to Judaism – but presumably you don't criticize the Jews, otherwise you would not have been shocked by OP statement.
Despite what you wrote in this article, you must be in complete agreement with her about this issue: it is fine to criticize Zionists – it could be argued they have nothing to do with Judaism – but it is heresy to criticize the Jews, the only group in the world that has foisted a taboo on world public opinion regarding criticism about them. Criticism of Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, etc. is perfectly fine, but criticism of the Jews ......
Still can't believe you're buying into this woman and giving her attention. Common sense tells you no one in their right mind could spend this magnitude of time for over a year going on and on and on if she were NOT controlled opposition. It's so abundant and blindingly obvious - THIS is her full time job.
Unlike some of the the journalists such as MoDo who use wit sarcasm and humor Caitlin's just pathetic.
She's not even funny but rather desperately grasping at straws in attempt to be relevant and make her point. Please stop giving her attention! Once people realize she's a fraud they'll be more cautious to all the others as well.
What's your religion or relationship to Israel?
I am not connected to or subscribing to any particular religion, nor was I brought up religiously. My ancestors on both sides are Jews. I have no connection to Israel; I have never been there and I have no desire to go there.
I was asking BJ.
Very light on any workable details.
Artist, What do you mean by "workable details"? Workable for what purpose? If you're referring to my post about Caitlin's video being anti-working-class, either you see it is so by watching the video, or you don't. If you're referring to my linked article about building an egalitarian revolutionary movement, it is filled with concrete details in the links it provides. Take a look please.
I've come to expect long, well documented posts from you. This one was light on details or footnotes.
Did you follow the links?