What a Jew can say others can't

[Wizard]

Browsing the shelves of a bookstore this afternoon I came across “The Heebie-Jeebies at CBGB’s – A Secret History of Jewish Punk” (2006) by Steven Lee Beeber. Jewish Punk? – that stood out! The inside fly reads:

“Focusing on punk rock’s beginnings in New York, this book is certain to change how we view not only punk music and culture, but the nature of Jewish identity since the Holocaust….Originally known as New York Rock, punk began in that city because it could begin nowhere else – it was all about outsiders in the shtetl-like East Village. Wiseasses with sharp minds and wounded psyches; it reflected the irony, the romanticism, and, above all, the humor of the Jewish experience”

The Introduction starts:

“Punk is Jewish. Not Judaic. Jewish, the reflection of a culture that’s three millennia old now. It reeks of humor and irony and preoccupations with Nazism. It’s all about outsiders who are “one of us” in the shtetl of New York. It’s about nervous energy, the same nervous energy that has characterized Jews from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob through the Hasids to the plays of David Mamet. Punks, like Jews, self-consciously identify with the sick and twisted, what Hitler referred to as “the decadent”. Punk’s home is the home of the Jews – New York, especially downtown Lower East Side/East Village New York, the birthplace of this new music known for its populist vibe, its revolutionary attitudes, its promotion of do-it-yourself like some sort of anarchist mantra.”

It continues,

“Punk reflects the whole Jewish history of oppression and uncertainty, flight and wandering, belonging and not belonging, always being divided, being both in and out, good and bad, part and apart. The shpilkes, the nervous energy, of punk is Jewish.”

And concludes,

“..they invented the punk sound that continues to be heard to this day. This book shows how that sound cannot be separated from their Jewishness.”

This made me recall Douglas Reed’s perspective on New York in “Far and Wide” (1951) (chapter 9):

“It is polyglot, but one of its breeds is paramount. 'New York is a Jewish city' (wrote the Zionist Record of Johannesburg), 'when you have got over the first terrific impact which New York makes on you, you wake up to discover that New York is a Jewish city.' That is true and to my mind is the secret of New York's especial tension; it is that of Jewry in ferment. Any man who knew the Jewish quarters of Warsaw, Berlin, Vienna, Prague and Budapest in this age of Political Zionism recognizes the condition, and it is tauter and more vibrant in New York than it ever was anywhere. It has more Jews than any city in the world and is the stronghold of Political Zionism, which now grasps all of Jewry, Zionist and anti-Zionist, as firmly as the Nazis held all Germans and the Communists hold all Russians.”

“Jews would alone be enough to fill it with unrest. It stirs them, for or against, to the depths of their natures, for they (if not the Gentiles) know what it portends: that though the world has made peace with the Jews the Jews refuse to make their peace with the world (as Mr. Shaw, by report, once said). They are anew to be torn between the teaching of Jeremiah, 'Seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captive', and that of the nameless psalmist, 'How shall we sing the Lord's song in a foreign land?'”

“If Mr. Shaw did use those words, however, they were wrong; not 'the Jews' but Political Zionism refuses peace and scourges Jewry towards new wanderings. From New York the Political Zionists persist, so far with success, that the American Republic must hitch its wagon to the star of David. The same claim has been made with success in England, but the strength of America is apparently considered decisive for the final ambitions; the expansion of the Zionist State and the setting-up of a world one. This seems to me the chief cause for the uncanny sense of a sinister destiny which overhangs the nervous tumult of New York. I met many Americans, including native New Yorkers, and foreigners who felt it. Mr. Priestley (who would presumably not agree about its cause) described the condition in words which fit my own sensations:”

“'... I would be visited, after the first enchantment of landing in New York had vanished, by a growing feeling of spiritual desolation. ... In this mood, which has never missed me yet in New York, I feel a strange apprehension, unknown to me in any other place. The city assumes a queer, menacing aspect, not only to me, I feel, but to all the people I know there ... When Americans say that New York does not represent America, they are leaving much unsaid ... My deep uneasiness remains, grows, even accompanying me into the houses of friends there, calm, smiling, hospitable friends. Outside those houses, it begins to take on a nightmare quality. I feel like a midget character moving in an early scene of some immense tragedy, as if I had had a glimpse in some dream, years ago, of the final desolation of this city, of seabirds mewing and nesting in these ruined avenues. Familiar figures of the streets begin to move in some dance of death. That barker outside the Broadway burlesque show, whose voice has almost rusted away from inviting you day and night to step inside and see the girls, now seems a sad demon croaking in hell. The traffic's din sounds like the drums in the March to the Gallows of a Symphonie Fantastique infinitely greater, wilder, more despairing than Berlioz's. Yes, this is all very fanciful, of course, the literary mind playing with images; yet the mood behind it, that feeling of spiritual desolation, that deepening despair, are real enough. And nowhere else in America do I catch a glimpse of this Doomsday Eve. Only New York does that to me ... Has something been seen, some faint glimmer of writing on one of these walls, some echo of the voice that was suddenly heard, pronouncing judgment, at Babel?' (Midnight on the Desert.)”

For his views on Zionism and it’s plans for world domination via domination of the US, Douglas Reed found his books “on the index” (meaning they were ostensibly unable to be obtained in the US) and no publisher prepared to publish him. While, here we have a Steven Lee Beeber (a Jew) freely stating as a fact that New York is a Jewish city. That city that controls US and much of global finance and thereby asserts it’s power across the globe is stated as being a Jewish city, by a Jew.

This seems to be another example where non-Jews are pilloried for stating such things while Jews make such statements freely.

This reminded me of the article on sott this week. In Australia that such views are now to be regarded (if the Anti Defamation Commission succeeds in its manipulations) as anti-Semitic and to be censored.

If that does indeed become the case then all of Douglas Reed’s book will no doubt be banned in Australia. A very definite loss for those seeking truth and perspective on the current state of the world.

No doubt books on Jewish Punk will still be freely available.

 

[Ryan]

Wow. And here's me thinking punk rock originated in the UK!

 

[Tigersoap]

Wow. And here's me thinking punk rock originated in the UK!

In fact it originated in NY after the name of a small fanzine created by Legs Mcneil, John Holmstrom and Ged Dunn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legs_McNeil

The whole music scene of the end of the 60s and the beginning of the seventies started the genre but NY was not the only place where it started contrary to what Steven lee Beeber says.
Detroit was as much in the process to define a new genre than NY with The Stooges (pre-Iggy pop) or the MC5.

Concerning the book I really think the author selects the data that fits to his thesis because even if some people where of jewish origin, many members of the groups were not.
Did the jewishness of the people drive the whole scene ? I think not, did it influence some bands, it must have but maybe not as much as the author claims to have found out.

I think the book "Please kill me - the uncensored history of punk" gives a much less biaised and glamorous picture of the time because most people in these bands were either narcissistic, drug (Deedee Ramones) or people abusers and everything at the same time (Lou Reed, Iggy Pop).

It is rather a big stretch to associate the punk mouvement as a whole to a few persons based on their origins (which in good part did not care about anything except making noise and get wasted.).

When Punk went to the UK it turned out way more politcal and violent for some.

 

[Ottershrew]

When Punk went to the UK it turned out way more political and violent for some.

Or, indeed, more socially conscious - as with The Clash.

Interesting that Joe Strummer (lead singer of The Clash) et al. found phenomenal success and exposure when they went from London to New York. It seems that their "vibe" matched that of some section of New York youth quite neatly.

A brilliant documentary (imo) on Joe Strummer is the recent "The Future Is Unwritten". Really, really worth seeing to get a flavour of what punk could be about! Though not always a "nice" person (in fact, he could be quite ego-driven, like most of us), there was something non-anticipatory about Strummer that's very attractive and instructive (imo).

 

[sHiZo963]

The article on SOTT and this thread caused me to notice something VERY interesting in the following article from JPost.

Link:
_http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1208870469767&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Clinton plays up her security credentials
Apr 22, 2008 23:19 | Updated Apr 22, 2008 23:22

During the ABC debate held here last week, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton singled out one of her supporters from the stage, and it was neither of her top local boosters, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell nor Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter.

Instead, the New York senator pointed to a retired four-star general who once served as the supreme commander of NATO.

"General Wesley Clark is here in the audience with me, as one of my major supporters," she said, as the camera focused on him acknowledging her words.

His support, and that of other military figures, has been key as Clinton has tried to make the case that she would be the best commander-in-chief - no small task for a female candidate. She has cultivated deep ties with the military during her service on the US Senate's Armed Forces Committee, ties on which she has called throughout her campaign and particularly in recent weeks when she has tried to argue that her rival, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, doesn't have the national security credentials for the job.

Clark has been at the top of the pack of Clinton's military cadre, appearing with her at major foreign policy addresses and surfacing in rumors as a possible running mate.

Yet Clark could pose a potential liability among Jewish voters, just as the Jewish Rendell poses a benefit.

At least, that's something the Obama campaign is quietly suggesting, mentioning Clark's name as Obama himself comes under attack for ties to people who don't sit well with certain segments of the Jewish community.

Obama has come under sustained scrutiny for his affiliation with his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, who has made harsh anti-Israel statements, and endorsers such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, who is largely perceived as unfriendly to Israel.

Clinton's supporters have received significantly less attention. Yet Clark made some Jews uncomfortable back in January 2007 in comments to liberal blogger Arianna Huffington.

In the interview, he referred to the concept of bombing Iran before exhausting diplomatic options as "outrageous," and then reportedly answered that what made him sure the United States was moving towards such an attack was that, "You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided, but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office-seekers."

Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman spoke to Clark about his comments, particularly the offense taken at the phrase "New York money people." He later told The Forward newspaper, "He is a friend of Israel and is not an anti-Semite... but some of the things he said are very, very unfortunate." When asked about the possibility that he represented a liability with Jewish voters because of his controversial comments, Clark became visibly agitated.

"I haven't made any comments that have caused any problem," he said and referred to his biological father's background.

"My father was Jewish. Do you know that? Do you know that? My father was Jewish, okay?" he said. "I was in Israel in September. I've got a lot of friends there. I'm very well-respected in the Jewish community, and in the Israeli Jewish community. Thank you."

Oh my! :O

 

[Wizard]

In the interview, he referred to the concept of bombing Iran before exhausting diplomatic options as "outrageous," and then reportedly answered that what made him sure the United States was moving towards such an attack was that, "You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided, but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office-seekers."

Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman spoke to Clark about his comments, particularly the offense taken at the phrase "New York money people." He later told The Forward newspaper, "He is a friend of Israel and is not an anti-Semite... but some of the things he said are very, very unfortunate." When asked about the possibility that he represented a liability with Jewish voters because of his controversial comments, Clark became visibly agitated.

"I haven't made any comments that have caused any problem," he said and referred to his biological father's background.

"My father was Jewish. Do you know that? Do you know that? My father was Jewish, okay?" he said. "I was in Israel in September. I've got a lot of friends there. I'm very well-respected in the Jewish community, and in the Israeli Jewish community. Thank you."

So once again we see just how much homage has to be paid to the "Jewish" Lobby - no small deviance from absolute submission is tolerated.

Of course, it isn't really a "Jewish" Lobby at all, it's a Zionism Lobby hiding within the Jewish community. This is even implicitly acknowledged by ADL director Abraham Foxman when he says "He is a friend of Israel and is not an anti-Semite.." - as usual Israel, a political creation is equated to "Semites" a cultural and linguistic grouping of peoples.

From Wikipedia:-

Semite means a member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, Arabs, and Ethiopian Semites

The fact that Wesley Clark's father was Jewish counts for nothing to the Talmudic Jewish mind as Judaism (according to the Talmud) is purely matrilineal. One wonders how his protestations were received by those "New York money people" and the Zionists to whom he is submitting.

The other thing that stands in contrast with that quote from Douglas Reed's 'Far and Wide' is the statement of Abraham Foxman regarding the offense taken at the phrase "New York money people." when Reed quoted the Zionist Record of Johannesburg "New York is a Jewish city".

Reed details the development of the phenomenon of which this is but a symptom in great detail in Controversy of Zion. However, his work stops in the early 1950's. Since then matters have only become more extreme. We are familiar with the fact that there are certain matters related to the Jews and to Zionism that may be freely stated by Jews but are vilified if made by a non-Jew. Now there is an additional layer through which non-Jews and to some extent Jews as well have to tread - that is the portrayal of all things Israel as blessed and wonderful and the absolute censorship of the slightest negativity, real or perceived, regarding the Jews or Judaism.

It should be clear to people that we have a major problem when one group of people is beyond reproach, when one religion is beyond reproach, when one country is beyond reproach and when one of the pillars upon which this gagging of free speech and free thought rests is based upon an historical event that is beyond examination, study or detailed academic consideration.

All this would be bad enough if it weren't for the additional fact, amply demonstrated by the JPost article, that every western politican has to submit to the will of a power clique (Zionism) hiding within this group of people, within the religion and within that country.

This makes a us all, Jew and non-Jew alike, prisoners of this clique.

If you doubt this fact then try writing freely about this issue and see how conditioned you are to censor yourself and consider how your words will be twisted by the ADL or similar. The fear of being personally smeared or litigated against for deviating from absolute submission is within us all - that his how successful this clique has been in imprisoning the western mind.