Skip to main content

Demonization (literally): it's not just for social conservatives any more

Let's play connect the dots.

The Obama administration's special envoy for the Gulf and southwest Asia [which means Iran] is Dennis Ross.

Dennis Ross, until this appointment, served as Chairman of the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, which boasts that it "makes an annual presentation to the Israeli Cabinet as a whole on main developments in the Jewish world, offering its assessments and policy recommendations."

Here's a quotation from the latest JPPPI briefing, which refers to

"the international threat posed by nuclear weapons capacity in Iran (and other demonic societies)."


Apparently, demonization and other such political-theological references are only a problem in government when issued by social conservatives, rather than former pro-Israel lobbyists.

Comments

Tyler Nixon said…
I have to say I laughed out loud when I read the money quote.

But Steve, I think you're missing how the vast bulk of social conservatives (and I mean vast, if not all) are indeed pro-Israel.

Social-cons and "neo-cons" are but two sides of the same fear-mongering demonization coin.
Good point, Tyler. I've said it for years. Social conservatives, neo-cons, and other right-wing theocons are just that: Pro-Israel. It finds in to their end times-scenario all so well.

Many of them could give a damn about "the Jews."
Delaware Watch said…
"Apparently, demonization and other such political-theological references are only a problem in government when issued by social conservatives"

Beautiful straw man. I know of no one who says that demonization is the exclusive province of social conservatives. But it's interesting that you feel a need to latch onto to this and defend them by creating a straw man.
Dana
I'm not defending the use of such language by social conservatives, which you know quite well.

I am attacking the hypocrisy of those in the current administration who promise change and then fill the ranks of our State Department with theologically oriented neo-cons.

Give me a break.
Anonymous said…
Steve I stand with you on this one. AIPAC is the 2nd largest lobby group in the nation. No one gets to Congress or the Senate without their FIRM stamp of approval. They cannot permit anyone who doesnt stand 100% with them to be elected or have any power.

Obama has placed in the highest levels of government (as did Bush) many dually passported Israelies. My question has always been, whose side on they really on?

Another shipment of arms just landed in Israel (including white phosperous) compliments of the USA.

The zionists and the right wing of both parties will never question their loyalty to our Constitution.

Now they want the traitor Ron Pollack an Israelie spy out of US prisions and delivered to Israel. Why is this so important to them? Perhaps because he has more information he was unable to deliver because he was captured, and the zionists want all he has.

I am conservative Progressive. I want my tax dollars spent efficiently cost effectively! I do not want my country to be about "empire", or creating and formenting war all over the world.

I want the Federal Reserve audited and closed down.

The left - right paradigm must be debated. Fighting over these words is dividing and conquering the best and brightest brains among our citizens.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...