Bye-bye, ‘Busters
Michael Totten and Tim Blair have slammed Adbusters‘ Kalle Lasn for his latest editorial. I’d like to join them.
Adbusters raises a lot of problems with consumer culture — over-reliance on medication, the commodification of human relationships, etc — without really offering any solutions. The fact that it responds to the scourge of glossy marketing with (wait for it) more glossy marketing, says a lot. Still, the problems themselves are worth thinking about, so I usually pick up a copy when I see it on the news stand.
Not any more. Not after this absolutely disgraceful editorial:
Here at Adbusters, we decided to tackle the issue head on and came up with a carefully researched list of who appear to be the 50 most influential neocons in the US (see above). Deciding exactly who is a neocon is difficult since some neocons reject the term while others embrace it. Some shape policy from within the White House, while others are more peripheral, exacting influence indirectly as journalists, academics and think tank policy wonks. What they all share is the view that the US is a benevolent hyper power that must protect itself by reshaping the rest of the world into its morally superior image. And half of the them are Jewish.
Who gives a shit? It’s not the fact that they’re Jewish that makes their politics repugnant. If Adbusters can’t be bothered debating the issues, if it would prefer to make antisemitic references to a sinister Jewish cabal, then I’m fucked if I’ll give them my money again.
Thankfully, most people have responded similarly. While many of the comments at the Adbusters site are from right-wingers (who no doubt found the site via Totten and Blair), a great many are not. The opinions of
Jonathan Dresner, Sanjay Wagle, Kim Richards, Jeremy , Abby , and Andrew Sain were interesting. Here’s my brief response to Lasn’s atrocity. I pretty much agree with Dan. I would encourage you all to add your own.
After all, if it’s good enough for Mr Mahatir bin Mahatir of Malaysia…
Yeah, that’s a pretty disturbing editorial. Their religion/race has nothing to do with it.
If you strip out the ugly anti-semitism from the article—if you are left with much at all, and if you are generous—there is a point to be made, which is that “half of the most influential neocons in the US are almost certainly Zionists.”
Questioning the tenets and the political influence of Zionism is not anti-semitism. In fact, Zionists are partly to blame for a confusion between Judaeism (a religion and a race) with Zionism (a political viewpoint) by labelling anything that does question Zionism as anti-semitic.
Of course, finding out whether someone is or is not a Zionist is significantly more difficult than finding out whether someone is a Jew. And there are degrees of Zionism, from relatively moderate to extreme, so ultimately you must take these people on their professed views rather than lump them in an elastic and disposable category. Adbusters took the easy, bigoted shortcuts (if, in fact, they were aware of the distinction at all).
Incidentally, I did a rather more lighthearted and (I would venture) less reprehensible survey of influential neocons on make-believe.org last year—taking as my sample all the signatories to the Project for the New American Century’s founding statement. Going alphabetically though, I only made it to G. Short attention span.
So it’s ok to slam Islam (bearing in mind its moderate and fundamentalist spectrum)and that’s not being racist to Arabs? I just want to get things straight.
Observa, wtf?
Err! Sorry Rob. I was reading (maybe not linked) a defence, something along the lines of- We are attacking Zionism rather than Jews per se. My comment was in this context
That’s what can happen, observa, if you demand too high a standard of analysis.
You knee jerk politicially correct arguments are garbage. Someone on Babble.ca said it best…
“I think the big problem here is that you are valuing certain groups above others.
None of you have a problem with statistics suggesting that “men run the world”. Or that, whites have a disproportionate presence among university faculty. Or that, wealthier countries have vastly disproportionate power in the world. I think there are valuable lessons to draw from realizing that whites, men, and the wealthy have disproportionate power and presence.
And, IF (and that’s IF) Jews hold disproportionate power in the world or in important groupings, then I also think it is important to note this possibility too.
By saying it is right to talk about male privilege, and white privilege, and so on, but not (possible) Jewish privilege, YOU are actulaly discriminating. Being hypocritical and closed. You are taking the injustices of the past based on race and gender, and reversing them. Creating new silences and hierarchies.
You have said time and time again on here that “Jews” are not a homogenous group. Well, neither are whites or men or (quite frankly) evangelical Christians. But you still disagree with male dominance of institutions. Or the domninance of whites in many important organizations or groupings.
Likewise, you believe that we cannot consider the ethnicity of major Jewish individuals now, because of what Jews AS A GROUP have suffered in the past. But then you insist that we cannot analyze people’s motivations or station-in-the-power-system AS A GROUP, because groups are irrelevant to discussion. So, you will exempt people from analysis AS A GROUP, but you demand we not discuss their ethnicity, because their predecessors suffered AS A GROUP. That’s a total double standard. ”