This conversation is the second part of a communication. See the first part at:
la.indymedia.org/news/2006/04/153248.php entitled "Banking on Our Ignorance"

My cousin's thoughts are written after the ">". I open up with the following, wanting to somehow keep a bridge open with my older cousin (who is in his 50s and is otherwise a pretty "hip" character, outwardly anyway). I haven't shared this with him yet, preferring to get some feedback from others --like you-- before I do.

==============================
"If I can dare into hot water, even fire, now, i may certainly aid many more in evading the destruction that may be their fate if they must deal with the consequences of my silence. The unbridled artist network is dedicated to resistance consciousnesses which are in solidarity with humanity!"--uan ideah
===============================

How do you describe yourself, fellow human being called E--? A description, by the way, needn't be simplistic, i.e. a reduction. For me, a description can be poetic and take up a large number of lines. Care to take a swing at that?

> Gosh, C! The food for thought that I sent seemed to cause you to CHOKE!!!

Yeah, it did...especially in light of what i thought was your earlier replies of saying to me "you the man" in a way that sounded to me like what i was saying was getting through (why sound so fun-loving if not?). --I.e. that people shouldn't judge entire groups by the meta politics of what their meta managers are "realistically" oriented to.

>
> I suppose you think Noam Chomsky is full of shit also.

Say what? In what context? Give me an example will you?

>
> You're knee-jerk reaction underlies the problematic issue with
> uninformed americans who insist on remaining ignorant (knowledge
> ignored) and following the corporate (jewish) media lock, stock and
> barrel.

I accept that I have a knee-jerk reaction to the topic, yes. And that, yes, i have been subject to ideological propaganda and hysteria directed against german self-determination (usually reduced to 'nationalism', an "always bad" thing if not "with us"), nazi or not. At the same time, seeing the form and content of the arguments and meta methods of these challengers to this example of dominating paradigm, I'm far from convinced.

(Oh, am I being "obfuscatory" here? Just because I want to be free of the constraints of language everywhere allowed us? Just because I use concepts like 'meta'? Surely I have gotten "too big for my britches" and am not alloted such a position in my conscript status! Really, your words come off as tho you are a colonel trying to cut a mere conscript down to size!)

And maybe that's something you did not expect from me (?), that i would be able to think, that i would DARE think in such CHALLENGING ways (ways that cause you to fire off things you have privately harbored for a long time), NOT ONLY against those who conform to Given meta politics or "normalized" ways of doing things (i.e. politicized jews and/or zionists), BUT ALSO the darling of your thinking and orientations.

Rather than ignorance, i feel that my position is one of "radical's radical" dared thinking. This is a "new" concept, gifted to me when I used to engage "middle management types" on other topics similarly heavy. And that i do not accept or subordinate to "being nice and vague" (i.e. "I'll read it and get back to you" and never get back to you) for the sake of our biological connection (as so many biological families seem to subordinate to, for valid or invalid--or grey area--reasons). (Are you grasping this, or do I need to share some actual examples of bio family difference?)

So, I am acknowledging that I have been manipulated by propaganda ("every" formal organization/group seems to be subordinated to such warfare these daze, as Jacques Ellul, a frenchman, points out in his _Propaganda: The Formation of Mens' Attitudes_), I *also* see that I have found a way to ESCAPE much of those ways' corralls; even tho i certainly, as anyone, hold blindspots.

Additionally, I feel that my replies/responses gave the topic much thought, especially in light that i have extensively read Chomsky's analysis on the subejct and as well, portions of nazi methodology against a broad variety of scapegoats (whom as any adult group, weren't entirely "innocent" in the context that they play into and subordinate to statecraft norms).

In light of *the way* Faurrison writes in the sample you shared --surely towards the often superficially conscious, "easily" mobilized youth (who as well have been taught not to trust in their intuitions to see value in "doing unto others as 'you' would have them do unto 'you'" specifically as such applies to "the enemy")-- I see/feel that my responses are respectfully critical (and even *disrespectfully* critical owing to the disrespect i see Faurrison utilizing in his "normalized" method of so-called "education" of the "ignorant").

(Oh, is this HARD to read, E? I am not playing the economy of language game that you are used to? Oh well. Too bad you don't see the value of taking the necessary time to think about what i am saying. But you seem pre-disposed to not really listening...On the other hand, i have gone out of my way to try to understand your points of view as you have shared them in the years we have been emailing each other...)

And, yes, I *did* get more emotional towards the end as i remember that you and Karl are apparently so invested in this somehow (and i wonder just how). And, experiencing what i have of you, including your consciousness that appears rather Leftish (maybe even somewhat anarchist), wonder about what you are up to.

So in that light, I deeply feel that you are mistaken about me, and wonder why you must be so rigid in assuming that i can only be "ignorant"; and that no grey area exists. Really, take an exceptional amount of puffs on your potent tobacco and think about this, man!

I have broken the following up to look at it more clearly, and as well, to assist those i share it with, in seeing the actual things you are saying.

> What is happening in Palestine is not defendable. It is horrible
> beyond belief, and yet, people like yourself default to the "Oh'
> the poor Jews, they are such tortured people, boo hoo".
--
There is deep truth to what you say, but in the context of the realities of statecraft (which I wholly disagree with) these statements work to put mud/shit over what *could* be gotten at *if* you/others were predisposed to (?) or allowed yourselves to see the value of thinking more carefully. But since you don't seem oriented to this, I must assume you are subordinating yourself to the believed "necessity" and expedience of propaganda. I don't mind wondering aloud about this, while being unsure as to your underlying intent, and so i share the following:

"Because propaganda is presented as a necessity, such a work would therefore force the author to make propaganda, to foster it, to intensify it. I want to emphasize that nothing is further from my mind; such an assumption is possible only by those who worship facts and power. In my opinion, necessity never establishes legitimacy; the world of necessity is a world of weakness, a world that denies [the best of humanity]. To say that a phenomenon is necessary means, for me, that it denies man: its necessity is proof of its power, not of its excellence."--Jacques Ellul in _Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes_ (www.angelfire.com/psy/intheheart/propag.html )

Let's look at what an imperfect source of propaganda analysis calls the kind of view you are promoting:

Generally:
Propagandists love short-cuts -- particularly those which short-circuit rational thought. They encourage this by agitating emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending the rules of logic. As history shows, they can be quite successful.
source: www.propagandacritic.com/articles/intro.why.html
Specifically:
Will performing the recommended action actually reduce the supposed threat?
When viewed dispassionately, what are the merits of the speaker's proposal?

source: www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ct.sa.fear.html
(both of these can also be found at: www.totse.com/en/politics/political_spew/161826.html --sources I consider incomplete without Ellul's insights (source in his quote above).

> There are
> reasons why the Jews have been discriminated against over the
> millennia, if you haven't noticed (obviously you haven't). However,
> neither Karl nor myself discriminate specifically against Jews.
---
But you use that term--jews--over and over again. You don't talk merely about zionists. If you were to do just that, and explain what you mean by that, then I would agree with what you are claiming (Chomsky himself has made this distinction as well, and is called a "self-hating Jew" for it). (By chance, I once read something Karl had put up on an indymedia page, and don't recall him only talking about zionists either. It was as if he was representing a larger community of militants and wanted to keep things "simplistic" in order to follow "the art of war" which so many leaders are taught to think is the "only" way to do things.)


> What we do abhor is the zionist lobby in this country and in Israel
> who have run amuck and now are helping to head this blue-green
> spinning orb towards disaster.

> You think a war with Iran is a good
> idea? Great, move to Israel. Have at it. Maybe you could join the
> army and help fight for "FREEDOM" in Iraq.
--
You are putting words into my mouth, now. I guess you are gearing up to block my alternative thinking entirely, eh?

> My background and
> fundamental operating system sees all violence, greed and religion
> as bogus, counter-productive and anti life.
--
Ah-hah. So HOW would you deal with zionists and their lobby/control?

> I will admit to being somewhat hypocritical, this missive as proof
> of my ability to be violent.
--
Mm-hm. (In which way? Physical violence? Or?)

>
> I have no allegiance to the fatherland of Germany. Karl may have
> some due to his closer connection with Der Furher II (my father)
> and his ongoing relationship with the German soaring scene. In
> addition he formed a close friendship with a woman named Hanna
> Reitsch. Google her name and you will see that she came from the
> bowels of the Third Reich. Unlike the standard innuendo and
> bullshit, this connection gave Karl first hand information about
> what actually happened during WWII vis-a-vis the jews.
--
From an ideologically-challenged perspective, no doubt. That is, *Hanna, one can assume, having been a 'normal' product of that era (from a nazi perspective) and thus being oriented to the third reich ideas of the time cannot help but to have internalized the values, rationalizations, and justifications for german meta war methods, whatever the actualities --i.e. of germans being warred on or made to be the 'fall guys' of a world elite that always needs to have scapegoats and distractions while it encroaches upon the world in its own shitty ways.

This topic reminds me of the kennedy assasination thing. How Oswald was the patsy picked to fall as a distraction for the larger plot against the kennedy administration and his policies, etc. I wouldn't at all be surprised, given the proof of what happened with s.hussein (of iraq) being mis-led by nato/u.s. interests (courtesy the u.s. ambassador to iraq at the time), that the germans were mis-led as well. And that they became the 'fall guys' for the international conspiracy of what Bush #1 called the "new world order".

But i just do not buy this idea that the jews/zionists are THE BAD GUYS/ENEMIES that must be in turn demonized and continually warred on "as history 'proves' them worthy" kind of thing (you never do consistently say what you mean, appearing to "enjoy" grouping all jews with the zionists; why don't you just talk about the zionists?) .

How expedient of you, E. What about, as Chomsky has pointed out consistently, the problem of *shared values*? Or of the shared bigotry, albeit severely alienated, that leading elites (like Harold Lasswell) articulate with such contextless generalizations like "the masses" are "incapable" and must be kept under controls, thought-oriented or force-oriented?

Maybe what you are getting at is that the zionists *came up with*, somehow, the meta methods of social control that the world's elites now agree on using? Can you give historical examples and such which back up this idea? What of other mystified groups, say the illuminati, or 'criminals' in general?

No, i really cannot agree with anyone that *whole groups of diverse individuals* are "worthy" of isolating so that "we" can smash them or force them to madagascar or off the planet, or wherever. I see that the things the ideologically-challenged groups like zionists are accused of exist throughout Western imaginations (and now including all their 'colonies'). Are you saying that the power of zionism is so strong that non-jewish elites adopt it and perpetuate it and don't see what they do?

Another question: Do you have any idea how zionism began? Does it come all the way from 2000 years ago, in your estimation?

Why not focus on the fucked-up *mentality* of politics and the methods states and other elite groups use to perpetuate the stupidity of war? Why *must* we reduce the whole problem/challenge to ONE ethnic or cultural group? What is that all about?

I am not convinced that ONE ethnic or cultural group is the all-encompassing "evil" that you and others seem so interested for some reason in reducing things to. And in fact, I see you and Faurrison engaging in tricks (like those I state in my previous letter) which can only perpetuate the kind of alienation that leads to armed conflict and more stupidity. So I wonder at why you are seeking to justify this stuff?

What is the context of that history you mention? As far as i can tell, that history, like most of why organized groups utilize history at all, is replete with translations and interpretations which serve today's social control prerogatives. Whether that means to enflame the masses (and hook their attentions, i.e. like Chomsky pointed out in his 'Media Control' speech, 1991, about the misinformation of "the Huns tearing off the arms of belgian babies"), to mobilize us, and to keep us 'under wraps' for the "human resource" perceived needs of our masters/rulers, it all comes down to the same rubric: Keeping us hyped-up and divided against each other. Unable and "incapable" of seeing the deeper problems that our beliefs encourage and perpetuate!

How "convenient" to those who believe that only war methods can bring so-called "progress".

Now, if we go back 2000 years to "the jews" who apparently "chose" as a monolithic entity (a view that to me wreaks of lies) to silence jesus (again, in the context that he attacked the 'capitalists'/merchants and was generally seeking to *quickly* and *dogmatically change* an entire society), there are insights that are not being discussed in a way that the old addage "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" plays out.


> In addition I have personally met and talked with a concentration
> camp survivor. His story does not support the commonly held belief
> system that has innoculated the american mentality about the
> "holocaust".
--
I have read a wide range of stuff on the topic--and not just hype serving the ideologically-challenged; i'm thinking here of Hans Asknasy who wrote the excellent _Are We All Nazis?_ for example (in my continuing interests to be inspired by resistance to warfare i read widely). Unlike you, however, I have not spoken to anyone directly (your one sample, without details, to me is hardly proof across the board). I did see a video interview made with Jeff's wife's mother and grandfather who are BOTH survivors. Tho I don't recall the specifics of that.

> I find your comment about being a weakling on the bike ride to be
> short of credibility. Not only are you as tough and strong as any
> of us, but you managed to shred up the hill faster than anyone. You
> cannot claim much territory there.
---
I was talking about *after* we got inebriated. You well know that any "white supremacist" (or similarly ideologically oriented type) would be opportunistic in the 'utility of interpretations' (a Chomskyan term) to support their mind-set. i was merely provoking you a little, wondering if you promote such ideas.

> I see your position to be amazingly mainstream. I find this rather
> incredible considering that you have the 'appearance' of being an
> independant soul, freed from the constraints of the corporate
> propaganda machine. The truth is out there. It takes REAL courage
> to connect the dots.
>
> I know you will nit-pick these words, find phrases, take them out
> of context and reshape them to fit your own narrow perspective.
> Rather than find information, any truth, I've noticed that you are
> a master at obfuscation, taking a simple fact, stirring it up and
> deliver a muddied response that no longer has any relationship to
> the original concept. Anyway have at. It will keep you from having
> to actually open your way-to active mind.
>
> Your turn.
>
> E

i want to look behind what you are saying directly to me, E. I feel that you have been holding this stuff within you towards me for a long time. Perhaps since the beginning. So poisoned by the limits of european language and Given "norms", perhaps, that your expectations tool you. --This isn't to say i *don't* have similar expectations! So cammoflauged are *my own* expectations (by the insanity of my experiences and my own imperfect consciousness!) that you may believe i am on some kind of high horse, talking "down" to you, when instead i feel just as misunderstood as you (tho don't have the additional years of existence here as a human that you have, and am consequently less cynically oriented--i.e. wanting to make sweeping generalizations, wanting to burn bridges, etc.).

Perhaps the reality is that text/language as we have been doing it cannot suffice for meaningful communication. Perhaps the reality is that we must fall back on more open conflict (which i don't see as entirely "negative" or "bad", unless there is inequality in the arting of such). We as a collective humanity seem so unused to or "incapable" of seeing value in trying to understand each other and the underlying value of what such means.

So organized/colonized we have become in our so-called "civilization" that we collectively will not hear each other, do not comprehend the value in trying to understand each other, and instead fall back on how we have been conditioned/programmed---to hurl insensitivity at each other and escape to more and more isolated existences.

Maybe this is how the general euro-peon invasion of the "americas" can be summed up. A consistent running away, not listening, not comprehending the value of hearing each other out in deeply meaningful ways (based in letting each other art themselves as they wish), and peering closer at each other to see and entertain our similarities. To see each other as ourselves, or a part of ourselves! To perceive the value of understanding. To see HOW WE REFLECT OURSELVES by our beliefs of others (when little or no input is allowed). We euro-peon hailing folks generally i think have been conditioned to be war-riors, to be implementers of others' (elites) policies. To supply, maintain, and perpetuate the stupidity of war on each other and anyone authority tells us we must "protect ourselves" from.

Perhaps we should 'engage' or *art* each other on another topic, something away from the jewish/german nationalist-type thing, and yet just as invigorating and possibly liberatory. What do you say?

your cuz'
c