« Scylla & Charybdis | Main | Cretinous Hoaxsters »

Shortage of hatred

By Michael J. Smith on Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:35 PM

Shown above, the gloriously pseudonymous "Brigitte Gabriel". That name! Sheer genius. Brigitte: a touch of Sixties erotica, a touch of Catholicism. Gabriel: a touch of American Protestantism, and perhaps even a whiff of Judaism. Talk about covering the waterfront.

"Brigitte" has got quite a lovely anti-Muslim scam going:

As a child growing up a Maronite Christian in war-torn southern Lebanon in the 1970s, Ms. Gabriel said, she had been left lying injured in rubble after Muslims mercilessly bombed her village. She found refuge in Israel and then moved to the United States, only to find that the Islamic radicals who had terrorized her in Lebanon, she said, were now bent on taking over America.
What I want to know is, why can't we can't do hate as well as these people can? Why can't we hate AIPAC as much as they hate -- or claim to hate -- Al-Qaeda? The former is at least as deadly and destructive; maybe more so.

There's a lot to be said for hatred, and there are a lot of people who richly deserve it. Why are we so shy?

Comments (43)

Kataebist douchebag.


Well, yeah! Of the highest order. Almost seems they have to land on these blessed shores before they can really blossom, doesn't it?

You're probably right. Those sponsored by Israel, over there, have to pretend they're not actual, for real, party organized falangists.

Here, it can be grease painted in Jesus signs, and the average American won't be able to differentiate it from run of the mill Catholic or Baptist firebreathing.


"Cultural entrepreneurs" like Gabriel, Norma Khouri, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali have found a niche chronicling 'a story in which the villains and the victim are known  —  to borrow a phrase from Gabriel Garcia Marquez, a "tale foretold"'.


Am I the only one who misses the ghoulish cultural entrepreneurs from crusades of an earlier era who sold their wares with greater brio? Even the titles were memorable: You Can Trust The Communists (to be Communists). They didn't seem as shorn of humor as the immigration con-artist turned Parliamentarian turned DC thinktanker, Ayaan Hirsi Ali either. Or, maybe it was just the frisson created by the expected combativeness of reception to their opus, what with the still extant left — which still knew how to give 'em hell, if only verbally, especially the "New York intellectuals", the code phrase itself adding to the saltiness — but nowadays, as Diana Johnstone and Jean Bricmont have lamented, even the Trots — or some of their "tendencies" — are on the Islamic peril bandwagon, what to speak of the Greens, Unions, and the dwindling ranks of last Intellectuals.

That hatred of Islam from Judeo-Christian corners has a lot to do with Islam's forbidding loans-with-interest, the foundation of "growth" and "progress" in Judeo-Christian nations.

At it's heart, it's a defense of Capitalism, a love of "modernity" and a highly materialistic urge. "Spirituality" is okay in Judeo-Christian lands, as long as the real spiritual nourishment comes from owning stuff and buying more stuff to own.


"even the Trots — or some of their "tendencies" — are on the Islamic peril bandwagon"

especially the trots
so many sects abound among um
trots are everywhere
on all sides of every issue

so many cross currents and rip tides
their seas are unsail-able

trots and former trots are a disease

they can be forgiven
one soul at a time
of course
any of us
might equally sin else wise
their sects oughta be tolerated
as much as possible

they can only divert those spirits that we're better of without anyway

just take some advice
keep em out of the inner core of any
mass movement type outfit
they are indeed wreckers

Peter Ward:
That hatred of Islam from Judeo-Christian corners has a lot to do with Islam's forbidding loans-with-interest...(CFO)

Does Christianity not forbid "usury" as well? And was that not once used as a rational for antisemitism? Besides, liberal atheists such as Richard Dawkins are on the bandwagon as well.

Peter --

Note that "usury" is flexible. Mere imposition of interest isn't usurious, it's only usurious when it pinches the borrower excessively. What's excessive? In a capitalist system... more than "what the market will bear."

I spent a couple years trying on Xtianity, Presby variant, as an adult in his late 30s. I remember quarreling with people in "Bible study" over things having to do with capitalism, saying that capitalism didn't exist as capitalism in Mr HeyZeus's day. This just caused weird confusion and retreat into scriptural literalism... ironically.

Fundamental Islam forbids interest, period. It's not about "fair interest." Which is one of the roots of the Islamic Fundamentalists' distaste for "modern Islam" -- a flexible Islam that allows finance in order to "grow" and "progress" materially. The fundamentalists of course point to material vs spiritual.

Brian M:

Let's not go too far here.

Since I am skeptical of claims to "spirituality" and arcane wisdom directly revealed by GOD...I'm not sure I am all that fond of their "spiritual progress" either.

Materialism and "capitalism" may be responsible for many sins, but so is the pseudo-thought behind most religions.

A pox on all religions...even when they are "oppressed" "third world" ones.

Long live the Confederacy! (Just kidding...LOL)

I don't think this is even afield, let alone far so. Religiosity is at the hear of The Michelle Obama Lookalike's scathing speechifying.

Dismissing all things known as "religion" might not be such a wise point. It's an easy stance to take and hold, but I'm not sure it's a considered one.

I'm ambivalent about Sufism, Buddhism, and whatever Gurdjieff was into. "Fundamentalism" can seem whacked, but I agree with the ban on interest -- figure that, eh?

What Shelly's Lookalike is doing is fanning the flames of a Hate Fire, under the auspices of a religious fidelity and a condemnation of an opposite religion. This isn't to suggest religion as religion is bad. It suggests only that Shelly's Lookalike is an asshole who seeks personal material gain while pretending to advance spiritual concepts. It means, in other words, that she's a fraud.

To answer MJS's question: Organizing and money, with the latter being the key advantage they have. Personally, I think we do hate AIPAC as much or more than they hate their targets. But we are poor and about as thoroughly scattered as could possibly be.

If we had enough clarity and unity left to mount the kind of campaign we did against South African Apartheid back in the early/mid 1980s, I think it would be pretty effective. Alas, we don't, and our Reagan is now black, hence even more Teflon that the original.


Dawson, re: "If we had enough clarity and unity left to mount the kind of campaign we did against South African Apartheid back in the early/mid 1980s, I think it would be pretty effective. "

Such a campaign would, unfortunately, ever be undermined by innuendo about anti-semitism ("Sure, you SAY this is about Israel, but really....") which will spook many. Plus, a good number of Jewish leftists just won't go there with you, no matter how reliably lefty they are in every other regard.

I dunno -- have always had trouble making the South Africa-Israel parallel really stick, regardless of how manifestly alike they are. Of course, at this point, the Jewish State seems determined to pursue a suicidal, implode-from-within course. Can't say they weren't warned....


op, wise words on Trots, but the problem is the Pecksniffian virtue of those inhabiting less messianic frequencies of the spectrum, such as the Greens, self-described Social Democrats, etc. who remain suckers for the Humanitarian trope (PDF).

cz, you have a point about the South African analogy. As those who have seen Apartheid and the effects of Israeli pogroms first-hand, people like Desmond Tutu and Ronnie Kasrils, have repeatedly noted Apartheid South African forces were relatively principled next to the white phosphorus on schoolyard dropping IDF. This has a revealing lowdown of the Israeli Apartheid system.

I hear you, cz. But, especially at this new point, why couldn't we make it a "US out of ME" movement, making defunding Israel merely one part of the aim?

Alas, even that is a pipedream with Black Reagan at the helm.


sk, Many years ago, when I was much more deluded, and susceptible to conventional wisdom and propaganda, I had a lively email debate with a Palestinian activist in which I said he and his brothers and sisters were ill served by their leadership. "If you had a Nelson Mandela leading you, you'd have had your state by now." Then I followed with some blather about Ghandhi and civil disobedience.

[No need to refute this stuff. I now know it's nonsense.]

One retort of his that stayed with me: "The Israelis don't deserve an adversary like Nelson Mandela." And your point re IDF is most salient in this regard.


Michael: AIPAC TKO's US out of ME.

Alas, re pipedream: ESPECIALLY WITH Black Reagan at the helm.


now the zionics out satan the boers ??

please reign it in here

i agree with md 2.0

the slogan ougha be
uncle out of the ME

that by implication as md sez
uncle removing his unconditional
backing of the zionic entity eh ??
the guns
the funds
the everything

we can still keep the home land farce
alive ...no ??

that sacred pledge by the rest of humanity to the light among nations
is in the end
"protected by ...the UN "
after all

that not withstanding
cz you are too pessimistic

"Such a campaign would, unfortunately, ever be undermined by innuendo about anti-semitism "

i agree

the moral tarnish on
one's public name plate
the mere accusation of "anti semite"

--no matter how unfounded--
might produce
among certain passe
liberals and pwogs
of highest moral vanity
an important curb on their robust
support for a narrowly focused
cut off israel movement
but they are a vanishing breed
mostly living
outside the key elite college towns
where many young chosen people scholars
themselves are going tanti zionic
and not just those noble few
that are going thru their
self loathing phase

nope its no longer just jews caught up
in youthful folly
that would join in
to lead the charge
and they will stand up and mock
the racist charge
by a mere display of their clear pedigree

and mention of the blood shed don't cut ice much anymore either

" not again ..not another blood bath "
etc etc no longer
twinges the soft secular humanist heart
not after the last 30 years of brutishness
and blood spilling

recall all you got to work with here
is the professional class's sympathy wing

the well worn irony of any zionic use
of the anti semite branding today
is of course
the bald fact
most prominent old school jew haters
long ago converted
to pro israel gibber and hooting

since prolly
the daring raid on entebbe

CZ, why is Gandhi silly vis-a-vis Palestine? I don't see what's so obvious about that.

As to the Israelis not deserving a Mandela as the enemy, all I can say to that is wow, it's wrong in five different direction, not least being the obvious point that one doesn't choose one's leaders for the benefit or aesthetics of one's enemy. Gandhi talked about satyagraha demanding love for the enemy, but was under no delusion that he was doing anything but fighting for common Indians.

I also often wonder if Arabs would be quite so quick to draw conclusions about race/culture if the occupiers were merely another set of Brits or Boers.

All humans are human.


In any competition between sane people and sociopaths, it is not an excess of hatred that gives them the edge, but the fact that all options are open to them while scruples limit your ability to respond. They can choose to take the moral high ground, if expedient, or they can murder your kids right in front of you to get what they want. They can go from hating the Arabs one day to praising them the next, all the while setting them up for the inevitable kick to the balls everyone knows is coming. Their "hate," like their "love," is purely mercenary and ad hoc.

Creatures like Ms Gabriel are limited only by the human imagination in the number of lies and distortions they have to draw on, and Zionists will happily promote every one of these largely racist lies without a second thought. There is, to be sure, no such thing as an honest Zionist. But Leftists in their sanity feel compelled to stick to the facts, by God, and Leftists who despise Israel are often the first to denounce you if they feel your opinions on Israel are not in strict order or, Baal forbid, suggestive of anti-Semitism. What's amazing and depressing to me is that most Leftists can listen to an entire tirade from a professional Zionut like this and never feel the slightest bit compelled to call her on her bullshit or denounce her Islamophobia. If this Julius Streicher in drag ever got half as much calumny from the Left as James Petras does, I'd die a happy man.

I like that first para, Sean. My only reservation is the tag "sociopath."

Assume we follow what you've outlined. And don't get me wrong -- I would like to follow that outline! But let's assume we do. A natural consequence of that path is to use the concept of the "sociopath" to identify people who possess the traits of the "sociopath." And... then... sequester them so that they can't work their pathology on others.


That's the purpose of diagnosis and labelling in mental health, isn't it? To categorize for "treatment" -- and inevitably, there will be some who are "untreatable."


So who gets to identify "sociopaths" and by what criteria?

What if a latent sociopath becomes the leader of the entity that identifies "sociopaths"?


As I said, I agree with that first para. There are humans among us who, for whatever reason/cause, have no qualms seeking then taking power and wielding it cruelly. They have all options open to them, as you say. This, I think, is self-evident to the observer of humans across the span of time.

There are some among us who don't realize this.

They are the ones who continually talk about politicians and govt figures being "incompetent." They follow this mistaken road because they assume, wrongly, that others will not use antisocial, misanthropic means to seek personal ego-boosting ends. They assume that people in power will wield it benevolently, for all... or at least for a big chunk of humanity.

To such naive people -- most of whom identify as Democrats and/or leftists, by the way -- the only Q is competent or not.

Sheesh. It's like they're stuck in a child's world.


I agree with you that psychiatric categories are problematic. There is no consensus on what a 'sociopath" is even within the psychiatric community and even if there was, no guarantee that this categorization is accurate, or amounts to some sort of distinct "disease" in the way cancer or asthma is. But most of use terms like "sociopath" in the colloquial sense, and in that sense I think it is a useful term for people whose ruthless and opportunistic behavior is so extreme, it warrants a special label.

Sometimes, "asshole" just doesn't cover the bases, and it's not like there's a consensus definition of "asshole" either.

But when you meet one, you know it.

I don't agree naivete about human nature is limited to the Left. It does tend to be found among basically decent people who can't see the evil in others because they are not used to seeing it in themselves, or have led comfortable lives where they have rarely had to confront the harsher realities of human nature. Comfortable, happy, carefree folks from SUV Land can't fathom what an intense piece of shit Obama really is, even when you present them with irrefutable proof.

Oddly enough, I'd say it's a lack of empathy, too, that makes people like Obama invisible to so many. Empathy not only helps you to understand and relate to those who are suffering things you have never experienced, but to understand and relate to complete sons of bitches and the rush of power they get from inflicting pain on others, even if you have never experienced that for yourself, or would ever want to.

You're right -- what would have been more accurate for me to say would have been this:

The contrast, the naivete, is more startling among Democrats and the left.

On the Right, many themes or stances are not rooted in humane cooperation, but in self-before-others. On the Right, there is a belief that an unbridled Self yields a more happy world of Others. Thus the Right seeks freedom to behave badly/selfishly, and seeks to punish cooperation.

The Left, the Democrats, pretend to want cooperation and communal fairness, but tend to support policies and people who do the opposite. They support plutocrats while believing they are promoting egalitarianism.

That's what I was trying to say.

"Sociopath" is a useful shorthand, of course. I was talking only about the endpoint of using it too regularly, or in too powerful a context.

Solar Hero:

Oxtrot: you’re getting part of the picture with the usury thing, but I think there is much more.

Friedman is an idiot, but he did call Islam “Monotheism 3.0.”

From the authoritarian Christian point-of-view, those Muslim women do know their place, a lot better than here, anyway. They are jealous of that infidel religion that is more effective in promoting patriarchy in their society.

Do you know many Muslims? Those I’ve met are incredibly devout, go to Mosque regularly, contribute to their Mosques and communities, believe firmly and with conviction in God. Our Christian “leaders,” from the fundamentalists to the mainline Protestant crackers to middle-of-the-road Catholics are jealous of that.

It’s faith-envy.

I hear you, Solar Hero. I was using a snapshot and ready example. I would agree: I compared the Muslims I've known (only two that I recall, unfortunately, so the sample group isn't large) to the Christians (mostly Catholic but plenty of protestant too), the Muslims have been genuinely devout, while the Christians tend to use their "faith" as a wallpaper, as a costume ball mask, or as an excuse for antisocial behavior.


Sean, you had me at sociopaths.

Michael, re "why is Gandhi silly vis-a-vis Palestine? "
Maybe it isn't.

Brian M:

Is the point with Gandhi and Palestine that the Israelis are too brutal, too ruthless, to be adequately confronted by a Gandhi?


Where is the Israeli Gandhi?


CFO said - 'There are humans among us who, for whatever reason/cause, have no qualms seeking then taking power and wielding it cruelly.'

please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dos_Erres

to discover objects of [rational] hate. [The above is 'only' one of 600 plus of similar type]

There's no Palestinian Gandhi because there's no Israeli Raj.

Gandhi had a specific historic circumstance - a British Empire which could afford to let India go, politically, as long as it maintained relative control of the transition from direct colonial rule to a more indirect, parliamentarian parasitism.

In short, the Brits could let go, so they could also allow for a Congress Party, a Partition, a Gandhi and a Nehru.

What is the Israeli state going to let go of? It's own existence?

Not going to happen - so, its leadership fights for what it believes to be its own vital survival.

There's no moral high ground in mystical pacifism, in the face of that. The Israelis lose absolutely nothing by crushing a Palestinian satyagraha movement, because anyone with any power to stop them already accepts as a first principle that this a struggle to the death, for the Israeli state.

Crushing pacifists is a no brainer when your nuclear and security umbrella guarantees you can do so with relative impunity.

Juan -- that was some ugly crap that I didn't know about before. My mind flashed to Sayles' Men with Guns and some other, more horrifying images. Blood Meridian also pops to mind.

One of the surest ways to control a populace is fear, and a certain vector of fear is blankfaced brutality committed by those who lack all moral compulsion and any empathetic sensation. When people see such cruel mayhem at work they go into self-protective mode, which usually involves compliance and self-abasement.

I often wonder why some people enjoy movies like Saw (and its sequels). There isn't enough real-life example for them?


"happy, carefree folks from SUV Land can't fathom what an intense piece of shit..."
lots of their "leaders may be

but you over egg the cake with this

" Obama really is an intense piece of shit"

not necessarily and i'd wager he isn't in any one on one level or among friends and family
its a system of institutions that can "use" leaders like o'barry to perform key cvomponents of an evil process ...
that is what we need to completely and persuasively
out of "the record"

no it doesn't take a hitler
to order in the killer drones
as to
institutions that "produce " evil
again that comes packages with much else
that dilutes and "justfies" the evil

lines like this grow sontaneously
out of our partial comprehension
"of our total system":

corporate exploitation
in the service of the forward march
of our necssary social production
is bad


its the least bad ,,,,sustainable institutional arrangement
yet designed by humans

if you can't devour that shibotkin
whole fast and furious
then your part of the nasty pro establishment tilt


"Is the point with Gandhi and Palestine that the Israelis are too brutal, too ruthless, to be adequately confronted by a Gandhi? "
well the g fans might respond
india was "too brutal, too ruthless, to be adequately confronted by a Gandhi"
until by the mysterious morphing of motive and resolve
the brits knees caved to the tender mercies
and then yup g was enough to push it all over
much like egypt or indonesia or ...
allas in each case what was toppled was succeeded by systems that never threatened
the fundemental social relations sufficiently to provoke an effective class based rebellion
by the old dominant national elements
and yet obversely
by going only so far substantively
arrested the social transformation
prior to serious qualitative immediate change

clios endless soap opera
where watching substantive change is like watching grass grow



good point contrasting india to the west bank

let alone a one state solution

but if you focus on the historic compromise some where out there ahead in at least some
of our n parallel futures
ie a two state solution
which i suspect most observers focus on here

i of course agree the brits
could afford to let india go by 46
but that was as true in 1919
similarly france and algeria
and similarly

israel can give up the west bank

--gaza is a self governing reservation
already given up
de facto
with the settlement removal--

but giving up the west bank means a big loss
even if survivable and on blance not likely to impede jews there from greater prosperity in a two state then in this present composite
boerite state monstrosity

your sense of the brits controling
the new system "enough" after turn over
is questionable
even if you broaden that to anglo american "control " and influence

recall the indo soviet alliance and the reactive us paki alliance

in sum

that loss to the brits post 47
though affordable was none the less appreciable
much as a two state solution would be for the zionics


The London Stock Exchange didn't suffer all that greatly for the loss of direct territorial control over India. The Brits - and this would have to include their emerging American protectors - were aware of their mastery of the coastal and commodities trade sectors, in the old Raj lands. Whether or not Nehru navigated an Unaligned path with some Soviet benediction, Indian goods, currency and resources traded heavily in London.

The point I'm trying to make, all the same, is that the Brits could let go. They knew it then. The Empire would take a blow, but the Commonwealth has still been fairly hardy, and they were already beginning to set the groundwork for it as they cautiously sought to tolerate Gandhi and the Congress Party.

And Op, I think the Israelis will at some point accept the legal fiction of an independent Gaza.

But, it still won't produce a Gandhi figure, because it'll remain the Israeli agoge for future garrison state hoplites. They're almost perfect helots and Messenes, those sad Gazan Palestinians...


agree completely with 1:22 pm

the empire's "civil and military "service class"
prolly took it hardest and those rascals that went into the raj region to make their fortune

the raj was a splendid base area for projecting power into the ME
from the hind end occident wise
one thinks of raj based troops in persia/iraq
or looking north menacing turkistan/tibet
or south
indonesia malaya
it was the center of asia and the source of global extention even on to east asia ..no ??

not hard to imagine why the winston types had such a hard time giving it up

took these pack of
wicked fools and preachers boys
--with the stray union mug --

who looks like the wolf here
who the beagle..
and who the village goat??



since george habash lost his seat at the table
i've past the palestine watch on to other nobler more patient eyes

to me
gaza is the latest red headed step child
of the western family's ....
"civilized " global household

the martian solar police oughta
take the interned population of gaza
to arizona/nevada/new mexico/utah
for a two year vacation

--sort of a delux equivalent of the katrina veil of tears operations --

with options to stay

oh ya
after a quick punitive zap
of washington and tel aviv

who ever said
i don't dream of interventions !!!!


Islam should be hated because it is a hateful religion and ideology. Why anyone on the left would continue to defend Islam - a misogynistic death cult if there ever was such a thing - or the hate-filled Quran is beyond me. And before you point out how Christianity and Judaism are also full of hate and with violent track-records, I fully agree. The world would be better off without religion, especially the Abrahamic ones that have caused so much violence and bloodshed and continue to poison the modern world with their antiquated, prejudiced views on women, homosexuality, etc. And while Christianity has been forced to moderate, Islam and Muslims remain in the Medieval era.

The left really needs to get its act together over this issue. Sam Harris, Christopher Hitches and Richard Dawkins are absolutely correct: Islam is the worst religion of them all and is the source of the greatest evil today. Instead of being champions of the Enlightenment, the left coddles Islam and defends the indefensible.


proud atheist
you appear to be
a fierce little godless innocent

-- may jesus and andy warhol
forgive you--

by twist of context and turn of fate
a sappy yankee humanist
corporate imperial
remote control drone

Brian M:

ProudAtheist: While I might agree with you somewhat, I might also respond that Neoliberal corporatism, both as practiced now and during the glorious colonial era...killed far more people than the Islamic warriors blowing us up. We (the US) killed 200,000 in the Phillipines alone. As horrible as the World Trade Center bombings were...our invasion and sacking of Iraq (and Afghanistan...and Somalia (via Ethiopian proxies)...and Yemen...)

To use one of the BETTER turns of phrase from an Abrahamic religion...I would suggest we worry about the BEAM of gluttonous corporate capitalism before we worry about the mote of Islam...as horrific as Islam can be.

It's not (just) religion....it's centralizing, hierarchical culture.

Brian M:

op: Proud Atheist is a useful tool, no? On the one hand, the War Machine can use apocalyptic Christian fundamentalism. On the other hand, they can coopt the "left". The War on Islam is a useful mechanism for ensuring that The War (this war, that war, any war) goes on.

Post a comment

Note also that comments with three or more links may be held for "moderation" -- a strange term to apply to the ghost in this blog's machine. Seems to be a hard-coded limitation of the blog software, unfortunately.


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on Tuesday March 8, 2011 11:35 PM.

The previous post in this blog was Scylla & Charybdis.

The next post in this blog is Cretinous Hoaxsters.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Creative Commons License

This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.31