I just saw this. Wow!

For a different view might I humbly recommend my three comments at the tail-end of a recent thread on this blog: http://www.seraphicpress.com/archives/2008/03/the_los_angeles.php

HTML Format

mnuez

"a polite form of socialism"...I think these people are actually something quite different from the old-line socialists. The socialists wanted to run the economy, in the belief that they could create more prosperity than the capitalists could. They wanted to get their hands on the blast furnaces and assembly lines.

Today's "progressives," on the other hand, tend to sneer at economic prosperity. They are barely willing to admit that the blast furnaces even need to exist, and certainly don't want to get their hands dirty by being personally involved with them...much easier to just issue edicts to the inferior (in their view) people who do run them.

It really *is* about style and fashion as a substitute for almost everything else in life.

Liberals are obsessed with skin color, blood, identity politics, much like the KKK, but without the uncool robes.

At least the KKK were sharp enough to be ashamed of themselves, and hide their identities.

There's actually a symbolism involved in how it's draped across a shoulder. Note, on the woman pictured, how the proportions resemble all of "historical Palestine."

"Since Obama and Clinton do not disagree about anything of substance ideologically; they are both in favor of the endless expansion of the federal government—a polite form of socialism— the Democratic slug-fest is about style, fashion, and of course what's always at the heart of liberal politics: race and gender. Liberals are obsessed with skin color, blood, identity politics, much like the KKK, but without the uncool robes."

Allow me to point out (in no particular order):


- Obama and Billary are as hooked to the corporate teat as McCain.


- In the Democratic case, that means their economic politics were actually abandoned for identity politics forty years ago.


- The four issues (class economics, business economics, Zionism, and identity politics) are not intrinsically linked. The Israeli centre, for example, combines socialist economics with strong business growth (GDP +4% or more) and Zionism.


- In the Democratic party, these issues are at war with each other. For example, Edwards and Kucinich were stronger in leftist economic politics but were rejected because they were white males.


- In the Republican party, Wall Street conservativism long ago replaced Main Street conservativism (hard work, honesty, self-reliance, etc).

That leaves the Democrats as the worst of possible worlds - corporatist, identity politics, anti-Zionist, anti-Semitic.

MCain recognises both the importance of stopping the dishonest, incestuous corporate-government money relationship, and also the importance of supporting Israel - plus, he doesn't hate white males. That's why I've advised socialist Zionist friends to do something seemingly odd - vote for McCain.

Pro Zionist:

Thanks so much for the articulate comment. Glad to have you aboard.