Ben Cohen likes David Aaronovitch

From Aggression to Victimhood: David Aaronovitch
(or How the Mighty Fall)

Written by Mary Rizzo
Sunday, 26 April 2009 08:09
Like anybody, we love to watch false idols crumble, and when rabid Zionist and war advocate Aaronovitch hit the floor with a crash, it was actually one of the most amusing moments in recent political public events. We got to hear, and in some cases, to see the man who considers himself to be an iconoclast living the role of the icon tossed to the floor. And he’s stomping-foot mad about it!
Aaronovitch isn’t what one might consider well known outside of the UK, his argument is actually quite provincial if one can wade through his less than captivating prose, but in his own eyes, he’s quite something. That's him in the photo, giving one of those Come Hither looks he must think the ladiesdavid_aaronovitch-come-hitherfind irresitible. To the unacquainted, this is a man who used to spread a tribalistic ideology and colonial war mongering that would sit well in any imperial war room, and he would wage his battle cries in particular through a moderately progressive UK paper, The Guardian and a more conservative one, the Times. Can we consider it a promotion to now find his lame writing in the really exclusive and excitingly hip London Shtetl weekly, namely the Jewish Chronicle? It took Aaronovitch three weeks to assimilate his humiliating defeat in Oxford when he was one of the speakers on a panel that was about a topic that is considered to be “hot”, one about Antisemitism in the UK, and after that pause of reflection, it’s pretty disappointing to see the guy come up with such a weak piece. It is an attempt to soul search, but judging by the result, he maybe should have taken a few more weeks to get a few more ideas to rub together. Watching someone lick their wounds is never interesting, and self-pity at least should have a bit of self-irony to it. But the man takes himself far too seriously, but what would we come to expect from someone who shouts at people, “How DARE you applaud! YOU, Sir, are an antisemite!”

He bares what we can for expediency’s sake call a soul that he has been searching and in the subtitle tells his thousand or so readers: “I imagined this anti-Jewish Jew’s own words would show him up, but they were applauded”. He realises that in a Jewish paper, he has to appeal to the important matters first, namely, “who’s a Jew”. After getting that crucial matter out of the way, one is left with the realisation that if someone operates from some kind of judgment that is so utterly wrong about the need to drive the UK into an invasion against Iraq, making a value error about his own success in front of a paying public at a literary event in Oxford should be no surprise. Humiliation and failure always hurts, but what’s a bit of humiliation compared to being responsible for endorsing the upheaval of a foreign country that has cost the lives of one and a half million civilians?

He doesn’t seem to have that much of a sense of perspective either, if he is missing what matters to people. Let’s see what he wrote: “In essence,” says Aaronovitch, Atzmon’s argument is that Jews are responsible for their own historic misfortunes due to their tribalism and aggression.” Well, the man writing in the Jewish Chronicle about his own poorly managed public speaking event did bring that down on himself, and if he’s blamed for convincing others to get behind the Shock and Awe aggression stuff, this fatal responsibility should weigh on him too. It seems he has captured the essence of some points Gilad Atzmon was making about Jewish identity and its historical responsibilities. In other words, Atzmon suggests that Jews and those who write for Jewish papers, like our subject in question, might think twice and start to take responsibility for their own fate and glimpse into the mirror occasionally. Aaronovitch is very unhappy with such a suggestion. He prefers obviously to keep advocating wars forever, while being an Israeli Hasbara Committee author. With this kind of track record, how could he be stunned, upset or surprised that people are going to be intelligent or attentive enough to just connect the dots and hiss the man out of the premises?

But then the self-confessional begins as Aaronovitch admits why he took the fatal challenge in accepting to confront Atzmon in public. “I was too proud and arrogant not to believe I could show a roomful of British people that a line was in danger of being crossed.” Apparently as the audio link proves (click on the podcast), Aaronovitch was indeed silly not to realise that Atzmon possesses far more consistency and clarity, as well as having the not small benefit of being humanistic and a capable writer, all of this leading to popularity. Considering the extensive research he made of Atzmon’s writing - if we want to imagine for a moment he did it himself and not accept the suggestion made on Aaronovitch Watch that it was compiled for him from the other “look like a leftist and talk like a neocon” at Harry’s Place - Aaronovitch should have grasped that he just did not stand a chance. To win the applause of the public, one has to have something to offer.

A little further on in this vapid article Aaronovitch provides us with an explanation of his total failure. “A co-speaker, arranged at the last minute, was the journalist Nick Cohen. This was worrying, not because Nick is anything other than excellent,” Aaronovitch states, and a round of drinks or dinner shall be due for this hyperbolic comment, “but because British audiences hate ganging-up. If it was two beauteous elves against one hideous orc, they would side with the orc.” Man, if this is how he understood the dynamics, he should have left the research aside and just insisted that Azog be accompanied by the Phantom of the Opera, that way, it would be a fair discussion!
(at the left, how Aaronovitch fancies himself and Cohen). For those out of nursery school or who don’t accept the freaky math of our correspondent, the explanation was far simpler. Our hoity-toity Jewish Chronicler had nothing to say except to just read Atzmon extracts that were - shock - very convincing. Might just be something that explains Atzmon’s huge readership. Listening to the recordings for those who missed out on the other beauteous elf, Cohen had nothing to say in general except to pour poison on Islam. In an academic platform, the reality is that the two stood zero chance against Atzmon.

Interestingly enough, when addressing the Jewish reader, Aaronovitch employs some racial and physical categories to get his point across. Equating Atzmon with an orc was just one example. But here is far more revealing one: “Towards the back was the unmistakable Aryan presence of Michele Renouf, of the Number One Ladies.” Aaronovitch, who campaigns against antisemitism should know that referring to people by employing inflammatory racial references is nothing less than crude racism. However, as Atzmon said during the event, racism is a Jewish territory in the UK. Jewish Chronicle authors such as Aaronovitch get away with it, don’t they?

“From there it was downhill,” admits Aaronovitch as he watched the room drinking from Atzmon’s well. Aaronovitch and Cohen, the leading advocates of the Iraq war in the British press were confronted with Atzmon’s “diatribe about warmongers” when he was pointing at them again and again. “If you want to know what is the root cause of Antisemitism, here they are, sitting in front of you (Cohen/Aaronovitch)” was basically the recognition that the public was there making. If Jews want to save themselves, they better disassociate themselves from wars that are committed in their names or advocated by their Jewish Chronicle writers. It’s telling that Cohen and Aaronovitch can’t interpret this as one of those “I hope you’re happy now” moments. People actually DO resent their nation being dragged into wars while the journalists are sitting pretty when not actually shouting at them to stop showing their approval of someone else.

orcs(at the right, how Aaronovitch thinks the public is required to view Atzmon) Towards the end of his confession, Aaronovitch admits being staggered by a Jew who supports Atzmon. Aaronovitch decided to act on this shocking scene. “Later on that evening, I emailed this man and asked how it could be that he was so interested in Jewish history and the early experience of British Jews, and could end up co-applauding the Judeophobia of an idiotic musician, alongside Renouf.” Seemingly, in spite of Jewish emancipation and 200 years of Jewish assimilation, Aaronovitch expects Jews to act as one people. Pretty astonishing to hear such an idea from a man who advocated the invasion of Iraq in the name of the ‘Western notion of liberty’. When it comes to Jews, Aaronovitch expects total intellectual and spiritual submission.

Writing for a Jewish paper, Aaronovitch must end with the tragic victim exposition talking about an iconic ‘Jewish student’ who came to him afterwards ‘in tears.’

Aaronovitch fails to tell us why exactly the Jewish student was crying. Was it because the war in Iraq didn’t work as had been promised by Aaronovitch? Or maybe was it because of the Madoff swindling affair that inflicted so much loss on so many Jewish charities. Perhaps it was just because the tag team bullying tactics of Cohen /Aaronovitch proved to be a complete disaster and the Jewish student doesn’t have any other devices left at his disposal. It would be great if Aaronovitch would be kind enough to tell us and to remove any form of speculation. When a Jew cries, we all are entitled to know why.

My Argument with the 9/11 Truth Movement

Ben Cohen likes David Aaronovitch
(Ben Cohen uses the same phrases and plattitudes as Aaronovitch: very nice insight in the kitchen of the zionist cooks)

Ben Cohen

Ben Cohen

Posted: July 27, 2009 05:07 PM

facebook Twitter stumble reddit

Read More: 9/11, 9/11 Truth Movement, Birthers, Politics News

After publishing a piece on the absolute idiocy of the Obama Birther movement and its potential to turn nasty, I've been inundated with literally hundreds of emails decrying my comparison of the Birthers to the 9/11 Truthers.

The offending paragraph:

The 9/11 truth movement was enormously helpful to the Bush Administration as it provided a giant distraction from the colossal crimes they committed in Iraq and Afghanistan. If their energies had been directed in a positive way, there's a good chance Bush would have been impeached and Dick Cheney thrown in jail. Alas, the 9/11 truth movement dedicated its time to proving the U.S government tried to kill thousands of its own people in exchange for gold/political power.
The Birther movement can be compared to the 9/11 truth movement, perhaps not in scale, but certainly in its potency.

The emails I have received have made for an entertaining read. The absolute certainty with which otherwise fairly rational people have asserted that the U.S. government planned, carried out and covered up the horrific attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon has blown me away.

I have been accused of complicity with the attacks, called a 'traitor to the human race,' and a terrorist. This is an example of a typical email:

You're either a complete ignoramus (see PatriotsQuestion911 --, and the peer-reviewed article about nano-thermite found in WTC dust samples -- Google it)...
...or a Mockingbird sayanim flak covering up for the Mossad's involvement (Dominick Souter, Urban Moving Systems, Odigo, Zim Shipping) and an accomplice after the fact to mass murder.
Consider yourself outed.

And that was one of the more polite messages sent by the 9/11 Truth Movement foot soldiers.

Another theme that has come up over and over in the emails flooding my account are the 'facts' regarding 'Building 7'. I've skimmed some of them, and they mostly revolve around the idea that rich business men had insurance policies for the building that wasn't hit directly, and that it contained gold, and secret documents held by Enron, Exxon, and other evil corporations that helped orchestrate the attacks.

In fairness, I have also received some polite emails suggesting I do more research on the subject before offering an opinion, but the majority have come from arm chair warriors spewing language that would make a sailor blush.

I have done some research on the topic, but stopped fairly quickly into when it dawned on me that:

1. Any alternative to the official account of what happened is so absurd it simply cannot be true.

2. No reputable scientific journal has ever taken any of the 'science' of the conspiracy seriously.

3. The evidence supporting the official story is overwhelming, whereas the 9/11 Truthers have yet to produce a shred of concrete evidence that members of the U.S. government planned the attacks in New York and Washington.

A couple of years ago, I went to court to testify in a case against someone who had committed a crime against myself and three other people. I won't go into detail, but the case against the defendant was pretty air tight. All four witnesses provided independent, stunningly similar accounts of the crimes the defendant had committed, and all four witnesses had been living in separate countries for the previous decade without any contact whatsoever.

Regardless, the defendant was found not guilty and released without charge. Why? Because the defense attorney alluded to the idea that we had orchestrated a complex conspiracy against the defendant in order to destroy his life. The defense did not provide any evidence of their own, but simply picked holes in the witnesses accounts, all of whom were recalling events from over 10 years before. It was a simple, yet incredibly effective strategy, and the defendant walked free. The 12 regular folks chosen randomly to be jurors failed to see through the tactic, and believed there remained 'reasonable doubt' that he had not committed the crime. 

And herein lies the ultimate weapon the 9/11 Truthers wield over your average 'Myth Busters' viewer: They don't have to prove a damn thing. They just have to raise enough doubt, pick enough holes, and use enough 'science' to make you think twice about the official theory.

It's the same type of intellectually bankrupt shenanigans the Bush Administration pulled when 'proving' the case for war against Iraq. They cherry picked evidence, ignored information that disproved their theory, and used a massive disinformation campaign to persuade people the Saddam Hussein was a reincarnation of Attila the Hun and the biggest threat to America since Adolf Hitler. 

Given enough time and resources, you could prove that Barack Obama was in fact an alien invader from the planet Krypton, sent to earth to destroy America and turn everyone into slaves. I imagine you'd start with the whole Birther Movement nonsense, then move on to the fact that he alluded to it in a speech he gave when running for president. 

The fact is, no one could have ever predicted what would happened to the World Trade Center when a two Boeing 767s were flown into it, because you couldn't exactly recreate the scenario in a laboratory. Science is often limited in its ability to predict, mostly because the real world doesn't conform to standards set in a lab. There are simply too many variables, and the best scientist recognize this and understand that their methodology is intrinsically flawed. While there have been planes flown into buildings before, nothing exactly like that had happened before, and no one really had any idea what would happen if it did.

There are so many variables at play, it is easy to pick holes in the official theory and claim that in fact what we saw (two massive passenger planes flying at high speed into a building) didn't actually happen.

The problem is, by all sane accounts, it did, and the alternative is so ridiculous, you'd have to be a moron to even entertain it. 

The Bush Administration was far too incompetent to pull off anything as complex as the attacks on 9/11, and to think that they could have covered it up afterward is even more absurd. What they did do was carry out and monstrously fuck up two illegal invasions of sovereign nations for oil. And thanks to the 9/11 Truth Movement, a considerable amount of attention was taken away from the people trying to hold the Bush Administration accountable.

The 9/11 Truth movement is fighting a pointless battle for a pointless cause. They have spent enormous amounts of time and energy on the matter, taking attention away from legitimate criticisms of the debacle and the ensuing blood bath that followed. And for that, they are the traitors, not me.

And please, if you are part of the movement, don't email me any more. You're wasting your time.

Not that it seems to matter.

Ben Cohen is the editor of The Daily

Follow Ben Cohen on Twitter: