Title: AJ's a bad motherf***er ... give a C-note or f*** off ! Source:
www.infowars.com URL Source:http://www.infowars.com Published:May 31, 2008 Author:Doug Scheidt Post Date:2008-05-31 21:35:07 by noone222 Keywords:None Views:823 Comments:54
I don't have anything to say other than this son of a bitch is an American, like me, he will keep his word, he is doing the job ... so decide between Hagee and Jones ...
I think as long as people don't operate as if everything is predestined then things will be a lot less predictably bad for people. People are often rewarded for simulating randomness well, for being practically unpredictable. You might say their unpredictability or winning thereon is pre-destined. Pre-destined unpredictability. That's a bit self-contradictory.
It's antics with semantics, "zionism" and "jews" are two vaguely-defined sets of conditions always with significant amount of non-overlap and political ramifications. If one assumes for the sake of the same argument that despite all that the "jews" die or cease to be "jews" with the end, or abrupt turn of direction, of "zionism" as we all presently may know and love it, then what is it we are saying about the rest of mankind?
You fell into discussing the terms instead of the man. I personally think he's correct to avoid bringing up either term, because he'd lose a significant part of his audience, and he could be more readily identified by panderers as a talk show host monger of hate. There are some elements of his communication that are unavoidably going to be identified as hate speech, because to believe in what he is saying is to require the understanding that mass murderers are walking the face of the earth in the name of the USA, and that they want to kill billions of people, including Americans. But he manages to neatly avoid identifying them as a racial or religious groups, and instead discusses particular individuals.
I can interpret what you're saying as a criticism of his attackers: they conflate terms, when they should be discussing specifics. Each time he makes a mistake, or isn't specific enough, or is too specific, they have the opportunity to blame him. It's very hard to be 100% on target 100% of the time, especially when he has to stay on the air so much of the day.
The times I've listened to him I've gotten a lot out of it, and I've seen Terror Storm and End Game, and I've seen him interviewed on the subject of David Icke. He studies hard, communicates clearly, and tries to only appeal to baser motives in general terms rather than inciting hate for specific groups. This is a decent approach, very decent.
He appears to take the affirmative on an implicit proposition that the end of "zionism" means the death of "jews," whatever those two terms mean to him. To me that's an accusation of fatal flaw on the part of non-"jews" or these particular "jews." That is I believe the crypticly extremist aspect of his response.
Now I understand what you're saying, thank you. If true, then I'd have to agree. This is a change of position for me, so I can understand why AJ hasn't gotten there yet. I don't know whether he realizes that it's really a matter of priorities. It's just not his problem, or ours.
I've said it before, the MIC needs an engaging history and zionism provides it. There's no substitute. Much overlap with "zionism" and some history of some "jews" exists. It also just happens to be a mostly BS history self-told. It's a useful technique. Very unpredictable, in a predictable sort of way.