More on Jones vs Rivero

I'm enjoying this. I'm enjoying the troofers finally having to confront the fact anti-semitism is a big issue within 911 Troof and US Patriot Movement, etc.

I applaud Alex Jones for once. Seemingly he's taken a stand against the quite extreme anti-semitism of Mike Rivero - about time too. But is that what has happened? Did Jones sack Rivero for his anti-semitism?

One post has been doing the rounds amongst the pro-Rivero set: it includes a few quotes apparently from Mike Rivero on the topic, and also includes a ludicrous 'reader's response' which is nothing but an Orwellian effort at Newspeak - redefining the meaning of anti-semitism so as to avoid the accusation. Not exactly a rebuttal! lol

Here's Rivero, supposedly, and the assinine Newspeak response from one of his readers:

Announcement from Mike …

“I have just been informed by the Alex Jones show that they are canceling my monthly interviews commencing this coming Tuesday. Imagine my shock and disappointment. No, really, just imagine it!”

A little more info from Mike …

WRH: “I have not made a big deal about the reasons for the move, but in a nutshell, GCN is a reflection of Alex Jones’ views of the world, and more and more our points of view regarding Israel are diverging. I get a lot of email asking why I do not challenge Alex on his defense of Israel, or asking why every time I am on his show Alex feels obligated to have a pro-Israel representative on immediately afterwards to counter the points that I made.

I view the attack by Israel on a US flagged ship and Americans in international waters as an act of war and all who defend said attack as traitors to the USA. Alex holds a different view and I guess the breaking point was his rant in which he said that anyone who is a critic of Israel is a “weak-minded fool”. That made it a personal attack, and I decided it was time to step out of Alex’s shadow and go in a different direction.”

Imagine being too anti-semitic for Jones? Too paranoid for Jones!? Too ridiculous!? *The reader response which has accompanied these quotes around the net appears at the end of this post - the 15 points about semitism.*

I found two recent episodes of Jones' radioshow still at PrisonPlanet - this one from June 1st, where Alex and Rivero talk about the Flotilla episode, and this one, from July 6th where Rivero seemingly blames everything on Israel, and Alex is audibly struggling to follow Rivero's line.

Jones hits Rivero with some very good points, for once, which left Rivero scrabbling around with anti-semitic tat instead of cogent reason: Jones (rightly) said the evidence clearly shows the Israeli soldiers being attacked with knives and bars and also asked why Israel would be trying to start a war between N & S Korea, as Rivero claimed. Rivero's responses were very weak as soon as Alex stated the most appropriate points, which he really seemed to be trying to do in as amiable and non-confrontational fashion possible. (He never likes to disagree with guests - the script is 'everyone agrees, really'.)

Interesting listen (for anything by these people). I am quite impressed with Jones saying what he does at some points - somewhat ridiculing those whom believe Israel/Jews are the cause of all problems in the world, that it's a religion for the haters. Very good stuff, considering it's Alex Jones.

Personally I feel atm that Jones is operating as normal - but critically he now has new ammunition to rebut charges of anti-semitism (and fascism. Though he could easily be a fascist absent chronic anti-semitism, of course) Jones can carry-on saying the same things as ever, interviewing the same anti-semites as ever, promoting Willis Carto, Eustace Mullins, Reverend Pike, AFP etc....and yet can claim he even bust-up with Mike Rivero because of Rivero's anti-semitism.

And Rivero gets the (surely undeserved) benefit of being known as someone 'prepared to sacrifice nothing for his principles'? In that sense it does neither of them any harm, rather it reinforces their respective myths and allows them to carry on doing what they were before, only now they're reinvigorated with increased and more distinct appeal to their respective crowd.

Some questions arise: why didn't Alex notice Rivero's anti-semitism in the beginning? What took so long for Alex to see it? What attracted him to having Rivero on his show in the first place? They have been close enough for a long time - and Alex surely has long known about Rivero's connections with the far-right.

And why has Jones never mentioned anti-semitism around Eustace Mullins? Why hasn't Mullins' Nazi background prevented Jones from idolising him? Jones has called Eustace Mullins 'a modern day Founding Father!' What a difference to Jones' treatment of Rivero? How come?

And why hasn't Jones ever taken a position over Willis Carto? Why has Jones persisted in promoting Carto's various fascist output? Why does Prisonplanet even host pages from Carto's old AFP website when they're dumping Rivero for "differences of opinion"? (If that is what has happened)

Jones has done well to perhaps distance himself from anti-semitism - if that's what he's doing. For once I applaud Alex Jones heartily. Yet Jones is also opening himself to strong charges of hypocrisy - what about Willis Carto, Eustace Mullins, Reverend Pike, David Duke etc? Will all this stuff be purged too? I don't believe it will.

And we still have the as yet unanswered conundrum of why the far-right bootboys find Jones' output so useful and interesting when according to Jones such people "100% oppose" his views and the agenda of Prisonplanet. No Alex - they like you because they agree with and share your views - it's called your constituency, Alex - your audience.

Jones had Rivero on his show to appeal to his audience - maybe to 'tell them things', to 'give his opinion' etc. That's why he was on the show? Why else? Same reason Eustace Mullins, Reverend Pike and the rest of those people feature on Jones show and amongst his ouevre, Because he completely agrees with them and thinks his audience should! That's why he had Rivero on, and why he's now getting rid of him: Jones doesn't have people on his show with whom he disagrees.

So, if Rivero goes, apparently because of "diferences of opinion on editorial line", what about the rest? So long as they aren't explicitly anti-semitic on the show they can continue to be regarded as 'modern-day Founding Fathers'? Even though they're saying the exact same things, only somewhat more euphemistically? [The same charge I lay at Alex Jones - that he employs vague euphemism (such as NWO, bankers, elites) to be understood by much of his audience as "jooos" and (Hitlerite) World Jewish Conspiracy.]

So, Alex's position looks like grandstanding to me: he can carry-on pushing his anti-semitic euphemism and promoting Publishers of the PRotocols and Holocaust denial (just as he's always done) whilst now also claiming (and being known) to have 'taken a stand against anti-semitism'. Hardly a real principled position. And Rivero can get the credit from the other wing for refusing to bow to 'Zion'. All's well?

Further dampening the optimism aroused by the possibility of a real discussion on this in 911 Truth we have Prisonplanet already deleting forum threads mentioning the Rivero affair. It's understandable that they might not wish to allow a flamefest about it, but if it is really an issue about editorial policy over anti-semitism - and about the Troof Movements position on it - isn't it a discussion that needs having? If Prisonplanet really do see it as such an important and potentially divisive issue shouldn't they be embracing the opportunity to make their position clear? Shouldn't they be delineating the scope and content of their differences with anti-semitism? To suppress discussion about it seems to reveal a lack of will to properly address the issues, though it isn't impossible to imagine other reasons for it.

Maybe there really are other reasons for the split. Personal issues? Alex has plenty. Neither Jones or Rivero seem especially interested in hearing any opinion outside of their own conspiracist straitjackets. Once such people disagree, it's going to be tough to reconcile them?

Then there's commercial reasons? Whom would wish to advertise on anything Rivero touched? (Or Jones!) Of course, as Rivero's groupies tell it this is a result of - and proof of - Jones' servitude to supposed 'Zio-money' and 'Zio-media' (in the Rivero vernacular at least) [Funny how the influence of others is so malign, yet the influence of 911 Troof Movement so benevolent? It's a common-enough protest of the powerless - one given expression in 911 Troof on the vehicle of anti-semitism. The Troof Movement and anti-semitism both place great emphasis on 'influence' - media ownership, political intrigue, corporate sponsorship etc. They even say "There's a war on for your mind!" But if we are to believe the various assertions and premises of Rivero and Jones' paranoid rantings, then it's a war that has already been lost - long ago. We have tyranny, thought-control, mass manipulation, false history as facts, supposedly. Such is 'influence'! This reminds me of one Umberto Eco's 'Ways to Spot a Blackshirt': the enemy must be wholly powerful and accomplished whilst alternating at the same time witht he idea that the enemy is also weak and fatally flawed. Both Jones and Rivero employ this exact rhetorical dualism. ]

Umberto puts it better than I (no shit!)

Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers of Ur-Fascism must also be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy.

That's a reassuring last line and one I've held to for some time.

Just for the record, here's the 'reader comment' which has been attached to Rivero's comments in that post that has been doing the rounds. The points were originally posted at WRH, apparently.

From a comment at WRH …

READER: With all of the “anti-semitic” accusations being thrown around lately, it might be wise to try and define just what “semitism” really is so that we can be sure not to be “anti-semitic”.

1) If “semitism” is stealing your neighbor’s land, destroying his house and imprisoning and torturing his family, then yes, I am anti-semitic.

2) If “semitism” is committing terrible acts of violence and framing someone else for them, then yes, I am anti-semitic.

3) If “semitism” is compromising the USA government through blackmail and other threats, then yes, I am anti-semitic.

4) If “semitism” is imprisoning millions of improvised and brutalized people, cutting off all basic necessities for life, then yes, I am antisemitic.

5) If “semitism” is taking billions in aid from the USA and then murdering Americans with impunity, then yes, I am anti-semitic.

6) If “semitism” is ignoring all UN Resolutions critical of you and then using the same UN to raise trumped-up charges against an INNOCENT nation, then yes, I am anti-semitic.

7) If “semitism” is coercing the USA government and fooling the American people into attacking an INNOCENT nation, costing millions of innocent lives, including American soldiers, then yes, I am anti-semitic.

8) If “semitism” is attacking unarmed humanitarian ships in INTERNATIONAL waters, murdering at least nine people, including an American, shot FOUR times in the head, then yes, I am anti-semitic.

9) If “semitism” is thinking that you are a master and superior race that has to answer to NO one, then yes, I am anti-semitic.

10) If “semitism” is taking American tax dollars and then sptting in America’s face, then yes, I am anti-semitic.

11) If “semitism” is suppressing any and all discussion of high crimes against humanity then yes, I am anti-semitic.

12) If “semitism” is constant lying and deception to achieve a goal that is illegal and immoral then yes, I am anti-semitic.

13) If “semitism” is arming yourself to the teeth, threatening other nations with attack AND attacking other nations because they are supposedly armed to the teeth and threatening you, then yes, I am anti-semitic.

14) If “semitism” is staging 911 with the help of traitorous Americansin high positions of power, murdering over 3,000 innocent Americans so that the USA will attack your “enemies” blamed for doing 911(and in the process blackmailing those same officials who helped you pull of 911!) then yes, I am anti-semitic.

15) If “semitism” is calling anyone critical of you or revealing of your actions “anti-semitic” then yes. I am anti-semitic.

Of course, these are not the real definitions of semitism, but “semitism” has become the cloak to shield crimes against humanity! But one thing is clear to me- those throwing this accusation around are the ones who are REALLY dragging REAL semtism though the mud! They are the real anti-semites!

Pathetic, isn't it? I need only have posted this line:

[we need to] try and define just what “semitism” really is so that we can be sure not to be “anti-semitic”.

This is a familiar tactic of anti-semitism, and of totalitarianism everywhere - it's Orwellian Newspeak: to escape a thoroughly warranted accusation, the meaning of the accusation is changed. That's what these 15 points are doing - it's what the Halfway 'discussion' about anti-semitism was doing - it's what so many anti-semites do -- slither away from the charge. It's disgusting and pathetic.