The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJames Petras Archive
Democratic Party Primaries: “Progressives” as Political Contraceptives
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Introduction: Over the past few decades, insurgent mass movements reflecting political discontent with the domestic economy and imperialist foreign policy have emerged to challenge the leadership and policies of the Democratic Party (DP).

There are good reasons for this: The Democratic Party in power in Congress and the White House presided over (1) the deepening of inequality between labor and capital; (2) the decline of real wages; (3) the approval of repressive legislation; (4) the reduction of trade union membership by two-thirds; (5) deepening inequality between the races, (6) a trillion dollar (and counting) bailout of the banks and Wall Street; (7) mortgage foreclosure against millions of homeowners; (8) endless ‘police state’ abuses by federal and local police; (9) deregulation of the financial system and (10) the off-shoring of manufacturing jobs and service employment.

Over the same period, the Democratic Party has supported wars and invasions against Indo-China, Panama, Grenada, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Somalia and scores of ‘clandestine’ military operations – including the recent and current proxy-wars in Georgia and Ukraine.

Popular movements have emerged and mass public opinion has expressed hostility toward both major parties. Hence, the third parties struck a responsive note among the electorate to which the Democratic Party leadership felt threatened by a possible defection by wage and salaried voters, especially to supporting Ralph Nader.

Yet in the end, nothing came of the discontent. Despite large-scale and deeply felt anger and popular outbursts of protests, including the million-strong street demonstrations against the invasion of Iraq in 2002-2003, the Democratic Party continued to dominate the ‘progressive’ electorate or relegated it to demoralized abstention.

This essay addresses the following questions:

(1) Why have mass movements and genuinely disaffected progressive voters and activists been unable to break with the Democratic Party, despite its consistently abominable record on foreign and domestic policy.

(2) How was the pro-Wall Street, pro-imperialist Democratic Party able to retain the support of an electorate, which overwhelmingly polls in favor of health care reform via a national, single-payer health plan, a living minimum wage, the end to police-state surveillance and against serial wars and invasions?

From Protest to Political Hostages

American mass movements have been successful in mobilizing hundreds of thousands in opposition to Washington’s support of the South African apartheid regime, Central American dictators, wars in the Middle East and racist legislation. Progressives have educated and organized millions to oppose Wall Street and the Democratic Party’s more recent bailout of banks.

Without fail every time mass movements and the popular electorate have opted for independent social action outside of the Democratic Party, a ‘dissident’ politician has emerged from within the Party mouthing many of the criticisms and demands of the social movements and the critical electorate.

These Democrat ‘dissidents’ organize ‘grass roots’ campaigns in popular venues, soliciting small scale contributions and making promises to put an end to ‘Big Money and Big Business’ domination of the electoral process.

Such Democrat ‘dissidents’ round up millions of votes and hundreds of delegates to the Democratic Convention and then…they inevitably lose to the Party machine and meekly submit…reasserting their loyalty to the ‘greater good’ against the ‘greater evil’.

The radical rhetoric used during the campaign is consciously designed to obscure the ‘dissidents’ fundamental loyalty to the Democratic Party, its military machine, its billionaire fundraisers and its Wall Street economic policy strategists.

The pre-ordained primary campaign defeat of the Democrat ‘dissidents’ is not the real issue here: The essential political consequence is that the “dissidents” channel mass social disaffection back into the Democratic Party thereby undermining any independent political initiative capable of breaking the duopoly stranglehold. In animal husbandry, they are like the handsome goat who tricks the flock into entering the big slaughter-pen of their social and political aspirations.

By endorsing the crowned Party nominee, these ‘dissidents’ discredit the very critical ideas and social programs they claimed to promote. They demoralize and depoliticize important segments of the electorate. They demobilize and disorient the social activists who had worked for the social transformation promised by their campaign program.

Most important, by reorienting the peace and justice movements and the neighborhood and anti-racism community organizations into Democratic Party electoral politics, they empty the streets, neighborhoods and workplaces of effective activists.

A brief survey of presidential campaigns over the past thirty-five years confirms this analysis.

Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Hustle: 1984 and 1988

Jesse Jackson was an important leader-activist in the civil rights movement. Based in Chicago, he helped organize tens of thousands of Afro-Americans and develop ties with other minorities, white progressives and trade unions.

Jackson opposed President Reagan’s assault on the trade unions, especially the firing of thousands of air controllers. Jackson’s opposition to Apartheid South Africa and Reagan’s invasion of Grenada and the escalation of military spending gained him credibility in the peace movement.

Millions looked to Jesse Jackson for political leadership and a new political direction. He negotiated with the bosses of the Democratic Party for his entry into the primaries. The deal was that he would compete with the traditional politicians, but immediately submit to the leadership if he lost the nomination.

Jackson mobilized hundreds of thousands of activists from the northern ghettos to the Ivy League college campuses and from the textile factories of North Carolina to the cotton fields of Mississippi. He rolled out the rhetoric about social justice, raising the minimum wage, a single payer (Medicare for All) national health plan and a massive transfer of public funds from the Pentagon to domestic social programs.

He secured an impressive 18% of the vote in the 1984 Democratic primaries. Upon defeat, he immediately capitulated and endorsed the Wall Street Cold Warrior Walter Mondale. He campaigned for Mondale with the promise that the ‘Rainbow Coalition’ would influence the campaign and subsequent Mondale presidency. Nothing of the sort happened. Mondale lost. Reagan was re-elected. The ‘rainbow coalition’ was as ephemeral as its namesake.


Four years later, a recycled Jesse Jackson trotted out the same rhetoric, the ‘grass roots’ organizing, the ghetto gab, the poverty hustle and the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow coalition with white and black togetherness… to the amusement of the party bosses and corporate funders.

It was ‘All hands on deck’: The street movements shifted from concrete local struggles to door-to-door voter registration for the Democrats. Trade union locals were attracted to Jackson’s ‘save American jobs’ rhetoric. Middle class progressives were attracted to Jackson’s promise to cut the military budget.

Jackson received a substantial 29% of the Democratic primary vote. Michael Dukakis won the nomination and, as promised, Jesse Jackson endorsed the party’s choice and instructed all the civil rights, social justice and peace activists and anti-Wall Streeters to work for his election. Dukakis was resoundingly defeated by George Bush Sr. in the 1988 election.

At the end of the ‘rainbow’ and over a demoralized and de-politicized peace movement, the Bush Administration led the US into the First Gulf War. The wreckage from the popular movements- turned- electoral machines offered little resistance.

Confused by Jackson’s double discourse, the disaffected masses fractured. Four years later, the few pieces were picked up by Wall Street flunky “Bill” Clinton. Once in office and after tooting his victorious saxophone, President ‘Slick Willy’ proceeded to decimate welfare programs, roll back the Glass-Stiegel Laws and deregulate the banks, launch a merciless ninety day war to break up Yugoslavia and maintain ten years of bombs and starvation sanctions against Iraq – causing the deaths of 500,000 children and many more adults.

Cowboy Dennis Kucinich and the 2004 Primaries: Keeping Progressive Livestock in the Democratic Party Corral

Just when disgust at the consequences of Clinton’s rotten policies and peccadilloes and George Bush, Jr’s grotesque wars were beginning to unite the disaffected, Dennis Kucinich popped up ‘from nowhere’ to launch a white working class version of the Jesse Jackson ‘Rainbow Coalition’ in the Democratic Party primaries of 2004. Saving a lot of money on placards, he re-cycled the same slogans about a national health system, minimum wage boost, higher taxes for the rich, anti-Wall Street rhetoric and public ownership of utilities – from the Jacksonites.

Since there was still a substantial strong anti-war movement, he called for the impeachment of President Bush (Jr.) for lying to the American people about Iraq. He criticized Congressional Democrats for supporting the fabricated pretexts to invade Iraq and called for the withdrawal of US troops from the Middle East.

His presidential primary campaign within the Democratic Party attracted a small army of disaffected voters and contributors who otherwise would have bolted from the party for the Greens and their candidate, Ralph Nader. In the Democratic Party Convention, Dennis (looking more like ‘Alfred E. Newman’ than any righteous working class leader) petered out with nary a mumble. He lost the nomination to the Uber-militarist and upper class hero, John Kerry, without even a floor-fight or speech. He endorsed the obnoxious crown prince of the Democratic bosses, Kerry, an ardent pro-war, member of the billionaire class and defender of the US Constitution-shredding Patriot Act.

Kucinich managed to corral the anti-war and anti-Wall Street Democrats into submission, seriously undermining the anti-Bush mass movements, especially the anti-war activists, and the rising tide of Americans who openly favored the Single Payer National Health program – an extension of Medicare for All.

Kucinich ran again in 2008 but he was already damaged goods. His ‘belly crawl’ performance at the 2004 Democratic Convention had alienated most of his backers. But even more important in relegating Dennis to the dustbin was the emergence of a new, slicker and infinitely more persuasive con-man : Barack Obama, the Hawaii-raised, Ivy-league polished and Chicago-crowned chameleon of many colors, cadences and clichés, who burst on the scene playing every instrument in the band!

Barack Obama: The Ultimate Progressive Rabble Rouser and Master of Deceit

Barack Obama’s con-job far surpassed any previous effort by Jackson or Kucinich. His mind-boggling ascension on rhetorical bubbles left rival Hillary Clinton, long used to the cant of ‘Slick Willie’, literally pop-eyed and slack jawed. During the 2008 primary he embraced the progressive demands of the anti-war movement, promising to end the Iraq war, bring home the troops from Afghanistan and close the US torture camp at Guantanamo Bay. He promised to finally develop a national health plan (hinting broadly at a Medicare-for-All model) and regulate Wall Street’s unbridled swindles and speculation.

Easily seeing through his fluffy rhetoric, the Democratic Party’s Wall Street backers secured hundreds of millions from billionaires with which to finance a real ‘grass roots movement- in style’ defeating an astonished Hilary Clinton in the Democratic primaries and swamping the mega-millionaire Republican candidate ‘Mitt’ Romney in the general election.

The Zelig-like Obama adopted the Baptist minister’s deep and musical cadences in front of black audiences while savaging and disowning his militant black religious mentor from his Chicago ‘community-organizing’ day, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who had condemned the war in Iraq in frank Biblical terms and alienated his Chicago Zionist financial backers and Israel-centric inner council. No longer useful, the good Reverend was effectively ‘thrown under the bus’ – an object lesson on introducing Ivy League graduates into mass community struggles and enabling their ambitions.

In office, Obama allocated a trillion dollars to bailout Wall Street while letting two million American householders sink under mortgage debt and foreclosures.

He expanded on-going wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and went on to launch new wars in Libya, Syria and Yemen. He supported the violent coups against popularly elected governments (‘regime changes’) in Honduras, Ukraine and Egypt.

The re-cycled and bamboozled anti-war leaders, who backed his candidacy and lies, were discredited, the remaining “movement” fractured.

Initially upward of 80% of US public opinion expressed support for the anti-Wall Street ‘Occupy Movement’ but they had no mass-based political organization to sustain the struggle after many of their leaders swam and ultimately sank, tied to the lies of Obama.


Under Obama more American blacks have been murdered by police with complete impunity; more abortion providers assassinated and clinics bombed than under any white Republican president. As for ‘humanitarian intervention’: In Libya, tens of thousands of ethnic sub-Saharan Africans (contract workers and Libyan citizens) died in the post-Kaddafi ethnic cleansing of Libya by the racist warlords unleashed by Obama’s air assault.

The bewitched progressives were befuddled by the Ivy League’s ‘black’ president and didn’t notice that social inequalities had deepened at an alarming rate. As for access to health care, the American people were forced to ‘buy private insurance plans’ (many of which were worthless), meanwhile deductibles and co-pays skyrocketed forcing all but the well-salaried to forego necessary medical care. The notion that ‘access to health insurance’ was equivalent to having effective health care has been one of the biggest shams of the Obama era: Life expectancy for large segments of the low income rural and small town Americans has dropped – an unimaginable development in previous eras.

During Obama’s Presidency, the political climate turned rabid rightwing and the progressives turned tail and ran. Right wing extremists swept the Republican Party and then seized control of the Congress and the Senate.

After 7 years of failures, frustration and futility under Obama, progressives found themselves without a movement or prospects. Over 92% of US private sector workers were unorganized and faced continued decline in their standard of living. Black, Chicano and Asian neighborhoods were subject to large-scale, brutal police raids and the extra-judicial killing of minority youth, the homeless, mentally ill and the poor continued with impunity. Over 2 million immigrant workers were incarcerated and expelled. Tens of thousands of young immigrant and refugee mothers and their children were held in private prison camps.

The Republicans promised to extend Obama’s reactionary agenda without the smiling blackface mask. They assured greater tax handouts to Wall Street, with none of the embarrassing rhetorical flourishes, and more wars, without the sanctimonious ‘humanitarian’ cant.

Against this expanding panorama of social deterioration and war-weariness, (a backdrop, which would normally open up the possibility for alternative politics…), Bernie appeared. Bernie Sanders was to incarnate the Fourth Coming of the progressive Democratic primary campaigner-messiah and scupper any real movement to the left.

Bernie Sanders: After the Black Con-Artist Bring out the Jewish House Radical!

By 2015, US society was deeply polarized. After 7 years of Wall Street pillage, under Democratic President Obama, the mass of working people were looking for an alternative. On the horizon there was only more of the same promised from the rabid right which ran the Republican Party. Massive voter abstention had propelled the Republicans to power in ‘both Houses’ in the elections of 2010, 2012 and 2014. Terror-mongering, the so-called “Global War on Terror”, no longer cut any ice with a population terrified of losing their miserable jobs or getting bankrupted by an illness in the family. The Pentagon resorted to paying unemployed actors to stage ‘spontaneous’ displays of patriotism at huge sporting events – dressing up as veterans and running about on the fields with huge flags. There has been a big drop in healthy young Americans willing to ‘sign up’ and fight in overseas wars despite the continued prospect of being mired in poverty-wage jobs in the so-called ‘recovered domestic economy’. The mass of disaffected working people were not flocking to the Democratic Party’s plutocrat-of-choice, Hilary Clinton, the war monger, Wall Street favorite and pro-Israel candidate par excellence. The stage was now set for mass voter abstention and a resounding electoral defeat for a deflated Democratic Party with a disgusted electorate. As a presidential candidate Hillary would have to fight tooth and nail to meet the challenge of even the most marginal lunatic candidate from the increasingly bizarre Republican Party – because the Democrat’s disaffected voter base would stay home.

Behold! A raspy rabble rouser, a ‘democratic socialist’, floated in on a cloud of self-righteousness, conjuring up the illusion of a movement with promises of ‘profound (and even profounder) changes’.

Like Jackson and Kucinich before him, Sanders launched right into The Rant: Against Wall Street, for a National Health Plan and a reduction of military spending (but not too much…). He added a few new planks about cancelling student debt, lowering tuition, ending the cap on the social security tax and greater regulation of Wall Street.

Early polls have given Sanders 25% of the Democratic preferences.

Bernie assured his worried Democratic Party handlers that should Madame Clinton win the primaries, Bernie (and his followers) would immediately and unconditionally support the Party’s war mongering, Wall Street candidate of choice.

What are we to make of his promises and his radical program, if from one day to the other he can easily make a 180 degree turn to support the most discredited dregs of the Democratic Party – those largely responsible for the country’s social and economic decline?


The whole history of Democratic Party ‘progressives’ is one of deceit, hypocrisy and betrayal of millions of workers, minorities and other oppressed and excluded groups.

They rant and rave, till the votes are counted and then they dissolve their electoral organization and push their supporters into the Party electoral campaign!

They do not continue the struggle outside of the corrupt party – they simply go belly up, ‘graciously conceding defeat’ and waging their tails hoping for a reward (like some inconsequential, toothless position within the administration) if the Democrats win.

After every one of the ‘radicals’ defeats, their supporters are left adrift. Indeed, they are worse off than before because their movements had been diverted into the Democratic primaries and away from the communities. The historical record is clear: After Jesse Jackson lost, the Rainbow Coalition fell apart; civil rights movements were weakened; police violence against blacks continued and even worsened.

After Kucinich ran and lost, his grass roots supporters within the trade unions had no mechanism to block the relocation of auto, steel and textile plants overseas.


After Obama conned progressive Americans, the peace and justice movement virtually disappeared. The church, trade union, neighborhood alliances who celebrated Barack Obama’s ‘historic victory’ have in reality experienced historical retreats. The only things “historic” about Obama’s terms in office have been (1) the trillion dollar bailout of Wall Street, (2) the number of simultaneous wars waged by the Pentagon, (3) the millions of people of color slaughtered in Libya, Syria, and Yemen (4) the thousands of minorities killed in cities, big and small of the USA (5) and the tens of thousands lost to premature deaths in economically devastated rural and small town America.

The current “Bernie” Sanders road-show is just recycling the past, right down to the same rhetorical and inconsequential promises of his predecessors’ .

Some of his gullible followers claim that he is important for “raising issues” – when in fact he will just raise them and then demoralize their advocates.

Other pundits claim he is ‘challenging’ the Democratic Party ‘from the left’ when in fact he is doing everything possible to prevent millions of disaffected ex-Democratic voters, mostly workers and minorities, from rejecting the Democrats and joining or forming alternative political movements.

The key to understanding why millions of Americans, fed up with 30 years of declining living and health standards, deepening inequalities and perpetual wars, do not form an ‘alternative party’ is that they have been repeatedly conned and corralled in the Democratic Party by the “house radicals”.

Jackson, Kucinich, Obama and Sanders promised radical changes in the primaries and then have gone on to hand their supporters, mostly disaffected workers, over to the Party oligarchs, abandoning them without their past social movements or future hope: like cast-off condoms. Is there any wonder why so many abstain!

(Republished from The James Petras Website by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2016 Election, Democratic Party 
Hide 10 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Tom_R says:


    Thanks for the great article, Sir. I agree the Progressives and the Democratic party has betrayed the American workers and minorities. For eg. the Judaists who own and operate the Democratic party support massive 3rd world immigration, so Mexicans take away jobs that could have gone to Americans, including Blacks and children of prior Mexican immigrants.

    The Demoractic party and the Judaists claim to care about blacks but then cut their throat through more immigration that keeps blacks down perennially, even though the majority of the public (on the left and the right) is against immigration, foreign wars, foreign aid, etc. All this money could have been used for domestic programs instead.

    Why? This is because the Judaists own and operate both politicial parties, thus:

    “Campaign donations from Jews or Jewish and pro-Israel groups account for as much as 60 percent of Democratic money…” at:

    Also see:

    “In sum, Jews account for 50% to 60% of campaign contributions to the Democratic Party; about 20% to 35% of campaign contributions to the Republican Party”


    Billions more are paid to the politicians under the table, such as through sham non-profits, and promises of sinecure jobs and lobbyist positions for family members from Jewish companies. The politicians then do the Judaists’ bidding, by fighting trillion dollar wars for Israel and flooding our countries with 3rd world aliens to destroy all goyim, white and black.

    The Lobby’s main tactic is B&B: Bribes and blackmail. Politician who refuse these campaign contributions or refuse to obey the Judaists or are patriotic are mired in bogus scandals, framed, and removed from office. Eg. Cynthia McKinney

    “Cynthia McKinney Explains the Power Israel Has Over the U.S. Government” at:

    It is no wonder that the politicians, especially the Democratic party, is totally out of touch with its voters and totally in touch with the Judaists.

    Solution: Binding superseding national referenda whereby people can pass good laws that a broad spectrum of the public agrees on, themselves. See National Citizens Initiative For Democracy at

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
  2. Thirdeye says:

    The bigger picture is the “left” deliberately moving its base from grass roots, community-oriented movements to identity-based movements based first among students and intellectuals, followed shortly by the legal profession and social engineering bureaucrats. Those milieu are easily co-opted by the promise of nice careers if they can direct the energy of those movements in directions not threatening to the political and economic power centers. “Left” leadership has accomplished next to nothing meaningful and have gone in directions that are divisive and harmful. So we have racial minorities hoodwinked into thinking they’ve accomplished something when they attain electoral power, particularly at the local level, gender issues motivated by a false sense of grievance generating never-ending drama and harmful policy, and other feelgood causes that are tangential, at best, to the structural injustices that are ruining millions of lives. No wonder “liberal” is a dirty word to a huge swath of the population that has been discounted by the political and economic establishments as its needs grow more and more urgent.

    Martin Luther King, at the time he was assassinated, recognized the limits of what a movement based on race-specific issues could accomplish and was working to build cross-racial, class and community based coalitions that could truly change the direction of American politics. Since then, the advocates for minorities have almost exclusively focused on race-specific issues while the overall conditions for minorities, along with the rest of the working class, have deteriorated.

  3. @Tom_R

    1. Why wouldn’t the “Judaists” use their control of the media to win the referendums?

    2. Who decides the wording? [One reason rederendum are undemocratic is that wording is everything.]

    3. Why do you refer to “Judaists.” The suffix signifies a belief system, where you mean “the Jews.” If anything, Judaist restricts the meaning to religious Jews – who are also the worst Zionists. But your calculations convey that you don’t intend that restriction. Why use novel (and misleading) words when ordinary ones will do?

    • Replies: @RobinG
  4. Bill Clinton and his New Democrats kicked organized labor out of the Democratic coalition in order to court corporate bucks. Since then we have had one party rule. The red corporate party and the blue corporate party. Corporate Democrats have done a better job protecting the left flank of the uni party than the Republicans have done protecting the right flank. I wasted my time for years trying to convince progressives that they should bolt the party. And then trying to persuade them that they should seek an alliance with Ron Paul’s base. Lessorevilism is the devil’s delight.

    No real progressive supports the Democratic Party. No real conservative supports the Republican Party. The so called center left and center right are actually Fascists. And the brain washed fools who legitimize them on election day are Fascists also whether they know it or not. Jesse Ventura has the right voting strategy. Always vote but never for Democrats or Republicans. It’s too late now of course. The D’s and R’s have stolen our birthright and ruined our country. Until there is regime change in Washington we will be the increasingly impoverished subjects of a Fascist Police State.

  5. RobinG says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    “… religious Jews – who are also the worst Zionists.”
    I have to disagree with you, and so does Gilad Atzmon. Here’s part of his testimony from the trial of Arthur Topham:

    Years of studying of Jewish identity politics led me to the conclusion that we are dealing with three non-exclusive categories.

    A: The Religion – people who identify as Jews because they believe and follow the Torah/Talmud. Ladies and gentlemen-this category is innocent. The history of hundreds of years of rabbinical Judaism proves that orthodox Jews have never been involved in a genocidal act against another people.

    B: Ethnicity – people who identify as Jews due to ancestry and family lineage. Ladies and gentlemen, this category is also innocent. Having a Jewish mother doesn’t make one into a war criminal!

    C: Politics – those who identify politically as Jews. Ladies and gentlemen, unfortunately, this category is far from innocent. Zionism-the promise to bring about a Jewish homeland in Palestine was executed at the expense of another people: namely the Palestinians.

    …I argue that it is the Jewish political element, the subscription to the 3rd category that leads towards some unsavoury acts whether they be the cold blood murder of Palestinian families or extensive Jewish Lobbying in the West.

    Atzmon is particularly critical of the leftist, anti-Zionist Zionist Jews. This entire testimony is an interesting read.

  6. @RobinG

    The history of hundreds of years of rabbinical Judaism proves that orthodox Jews have never been involved in a genocidal act against another people. – Atzmon

    I don’t completely understand this. The orthodox (and ultra-orthodox) Jews are in the forefront of the international-law violating settler movement. They’re the most genocidal force in Israel.

    I’m not sure you’re correctly interpreting Atzmon. Of course, the Jewish religion and the Jewish ethnicity aren’t objectionable in themselves. It’s the politicized Jews to worry about. But as Atzmon said, these categories are non-exclusive (overlapping). I think that the politicized Jews are found much more often among the religious Jews. Most nonreligious Jews care little for Jewish ethnicity (often intermarrying) and little about Jewish Zionist politics. [There are some very important exceptions: the neocons.]

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  7. Ron Unz says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    I don’t completely understand this. The orthodox (and ultra-orthodox) Jews are in the forefront of the international-law violating settler movement. They’re the most genocidal force in Israel.

    Actually, I think it’s much more complex than that…

    Traditionally, ultra-Orthodox Jews have been fanatically anti-Zionist, essentially for religious reasons. They regarded the State of Israel and its establishment as an *abomination* and wanted nothing to do with it. Basically, according to their theology, G-d exiled the Jews from Palestine for their wickedness, and until the Messiah appears to reestablish the Kingdom of Israel, that mustn’t change. Establishing a Jewish state before the Messiah comes seems to imply you don’t think he’s taking too long or maybe not really coming, which is a major no-no. Suppose 500 years ago some Christian guy declared himself Jesus Resurrected: the Inquisition would surely been burned him at the stake as the worst sort of heretic, and that’s more or less what the really hard-core ultra-Orthodox think should happen to all the Zionists. Every now and then they get together and pray that G-d will exterminate every last Zionist in the world. The Zionists they hate the most are the religious Zionists, since those claim to be religious but are actually the worst sort of pagan idolators.

    However, Israel’s been around almost 60 years now and has lots of government power and money. So over the decades some of the less hard-core ultra-Orthodox groups have gradually made their peace with Zionism, usually in return for money and support, arguing that since the vile pagan idolators haven’t yet been exterminated, maybe some of their filthy money can meanwhile be converted to good works, like supporting rabbinical students. Naturally, this has outraged the harder-core ultra-Orthodox groups, and often led to severe schisms and battles. Each generation the bought-off ultra-Orthodox increase at the expense of the real die-hards.

    Obviously, this is just a somewhat exaggerated thumbnail sketch, but I think the basic outline is correct.

    • Replies: @RobinG
  8. RobinG says:
    @Ron Unz

    Thank you, Ron.

    Also, if Stephen wants to clarify Atzmon he should go to the link. I only copied a bit of his testimony. As Stephen noted, the categories overlap, and the Settlers are both religious and political. Atzmon reserves his greatest antipathy for secular, political Jews. Gilad can be kind of edgy, but he makes some useful observations.

  9. @RobinG

    The history of hundreds of years of rabbinical Judaism proves that orthodox Jews have never been involved in a genocidal act against another people.

    The Amalekite lobby wishes to register their disagreement with this.

  10. The key to understanding why millions of Americans, fed up with 30 years of declining living and health standards, deepening inequalities and perpetual wars, do not form an ‘alternative party’ is that they have been repeatedly conned and corralled in the Democratic Party by the “house radicals”.

    Even the “out-of-house” radicals have never brought up the primary issue of low-wage immigration (and anything under $40/hr for immigrants is a slap in the face of natives). Nobody making less than six figures believes further immigration is good for this country.

    Also, why would you expect a peace movement to thrive in a party that put a babykiller on a coin within months of his death? And the party has never apologized to the Lindbergh family.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All James Petras Comments via RSS
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?