The Lunacy of Norman Podhoretz by the Southern Avenger

[EC66OK]

If Americans do not wake up from the progressive and necon alliance to build New World Order soon...well, it's likely already far too late to recover. Besides, "Dancing With The Stars" is on...;-)

[therealaj123]

What a merry get-together of vile, disgusting jew haters in this here comments =)

[Seigu007]

fucking jews are like cockroaches. exterminate them all.

[AlexTrebucq]

I never get tied of SA. He might just get me to move to Charleston!

[PsychoPunk1965]

Southern Avenger, please talk more about the Trotskyite connection to neo-conservatism...

[badluck1986]

Thanks for posting, you have made my day

[LuckyPierre78]

Their are more outright lies in this video to enumerate. That it's so unbelievably deceptive doesn't reflect malicious lying, but rather mere misinformation and short-sightedness. Which are allowed since it comes off as entertainment, clearly framed in the realms of science fiction.

[MorningStarIX]

Typically the main symptoms of dementia are delusions of grandeur and delusions of persecutions.

And I know of one tribe that has made a religion out of this.

[rlga5]

"I pray as an American and a Jew that America will bomb Iran". Mr. Podhoretz, you are not worthy of calling yourself American. Renounce your American citizenship, and go back to Tel Aviv and work for the Israeli government, because that is where your heart and mind truly is.

[werebear1]

He is not American, he is Jewish and Israeli first and foremost. America and Americans are just a tool, their cattle (goyim), their slaves.

[machalot]

Hmm, a pretty simple-minded analysis.

[kamenofthelambdazone]

zionism the common denominator.

[messiahsoon]

If zionism is the common denominator, talmudism is the exponential factor.

Podhoretz is not a lunatic. Only a genius gets the most powerful army... not only for free, but charging INTEREST on its cost via the Federal Reserve to Americans.

This is the most underrated racket known to human kind. And with Sean Hannity working hard to divert attention, we can begin to understand its massive ramifications and complexity: Hannity is not the only gentile talking head involved.

[HerrGeneralVonBraun]

Yes, you're absolutely right.

[zxygh]

Another Hitler? Another Holocaust? What the hell is Podhoretz talking about?

[utubehayter]

Global domination through military force

[hillbillybeachboy]

One of the jooz that owns the American perception, conscience & direction. The real and only threat to American sovereignty. Neither Fox nor CNN will show you the truth. Thanks SA.

[JamesHenry1221]

SouthernAvenger:

In this video, you didn't describe the motives of Norman Podhoretz. You make it sound as if he's a crazed lunatic who's influencing American policy toward wars in the Middle East for no good reason. Actually, he's not a sociopath who's trying to start wars just for the sake of starting wars; he has a Zionist agenda to serve Israel and the Jews. (Why did you not mention this?)

[shiftstart]

Would it really matter if he is a lunatic or has a Zionist agenda?

[JamesHenry1221]

Yes, it does matter. Why would it not?

[shiftstart]

You said it does. Now justify your answer.

[JamesHenry1221]

To criticize Podhoretz but not speak anything about his motivations is completely futile. It is the same for any other similar situation: It is insubstantial to not address the root-cause of a person's substance, but instead merely criticize superficially. How can any reasonable solutions be offered if the underlying factors are deliberately overlooked?

I've answered your question; you answer mine: Why does it not matter to deliberately overlook a Podhoretz's underlying motivations?

[shiftstart]

Earlier I asked you whether it matters to criticize the motives of a lunatic or a Zionist and you said it does. It's seems to you a lunatic has more wiggle room then a Zionist. Is it so futile to criticize the motives of a mad man or a lunatic? Of course not! I can't even keep count of how many time people have described Hitler or Stalin as "madmen" yet some how these "madmen" captured the attention of millions how they were motivated. Were they pretending to be crazy? I think not.

[shiftstart]

SA simply explains this mad man's motives or the lunacy of Podhoretz to his audience. He doesn't give you a contrast nor does he care if it's a Zionist motive or just an insane one. Nor would you if his behind the wheel and his taken you one way trip to hell. Trust me when your life is in danger you won't be sitting in the back sit questioning his Zionist motivation but rather getting the hell out of dodge or try stopping him at any cost before he kills both you.

[shiftstart]

Some might even suggest a Zionist is psychologically out of touch with reality and therefore might be delusional and or insane. So for the sake of feeling warm and toasty JamesHenry1221 you can associate Zionists with lunatics like Podhoretz. Ok?

[JamesHenry1221]

I see. I didn't look at it that way.

[JamesHenry1221]

I rescind my earlier concession I made to you.

It is better if the Zionists are associated with psycopathy, even if not all Zionists are psychopahts. The more people associate negative things with Zionists and Jews, the better. The reason: Jews are a malignant people who, for over a century, have made a concerted effort to undermine America, its values and its white Christian population, despite the fact that they overwhelmingly support Israel, which has a Jewish-only immigration policy.

[dragonxx77]

Will a true patriot living near Podhoretz, please put a chain around his neck and hang him from the nearest tree...............

[jclayton59466]

April 13th Jefferson's Birthday Money Bomb!

Spread the message!!

Ron Paul 2008!!!

[brazensteel]

I like your videos but why not name the Jew? You call Podhoretz a crazy white dude while Podhoretz calls himself a Jew. Why not call him a crazy Jew and say that neoconservative is really a euphemism for these crazy Jews and their gentile supplicants. And why not talk about how Jews will blindly support crazy Jews due to blood loyalty.

[shiftstart]

Not all neoconservatives are Jews. And not all Jews support crazy Jews. That's a fallacy you need to watch out for.

[brazensteel]

Apparently I wasted my time writing "and their gentile supplicants". There will always be exceptions. It's not necessary to always have a disclaimer recognizing those exceptions to make a generalization. One must group collectively to put up a defense. It's called collateral damage.

[shiftstart]

"One must group collectively to put up a defense."

Then you are no better than Norman Podhoretz and his kind. Thinking like collectivists is what got us in this mess in the first place. Your solution to a man caught fire is using burning oil to put out the flames.

[brazensteel]

As much as one doesn't want the pendulum to swing to the extreme of collectivism, it is also wise not to have the pendulum swing to the extreme of individualism. A balance is important. But the fact remains that whatever my moral standing is in this issue, individualism causes dispersion and weakening. How can individualism mitigate or defeat collectivism? It can't. Many are always stronger then one.

[tonysshadow]

Ive watched, listened, and read pretty much everything I can find from this gent with the moniker "Southern Avenger". Because of Yankee conglomerates, I know it'll never again come to pass that true southerner will garner the deserved respect and recognition of Pulitzer or Peabody (ironically). But, By Golly By Gum!.. it's awfully grand that we still produce citizens with the gray matter and talent.

[SubfighterReturns]

No one says that Wright poses a threat.

What concerns people, and rightfully so, is that a man who might be president (Obama) seems to agree with what Wright says.

Regardless of what Obama says, why did he sit there and listen to the man if he didn't agree with him?

[libertadparamipatria]

He wants to change a country and he hasn't been able in 20 years to change one single man...(His spiritual leader by the way) ... who has a point of view so opposite to the spirit of unity the senator wants to deliver.

Whoever wants to laugh at this, go ahead...

[thor718]

Wow I never though about it like that. But then again I never knew who Podhoretz was either.

[andreaw2112]

Another great one, SA!  Thank you!

[HungryDingo]

We all know why people like Sean Hannity pick on the crazy preacher. Keep people focused on the crazy preacher keeps them away from the madness of neoconservatism.

[chewbaca1989]

Thanks for outing these F-tards.

[vy588z]

Another great video SA. If only the mainstream media would enlighten people like you do. It would get people to pull their heads out of their asses and see what is really going on.

[jarofsoup]

Yeah, the neo-cons used Reagan as an easy way into power because he was open to such ideas and optimistic. He did not really know what he was getting himself into...You should watch "The Power of Nightmares" it is a BBC documentary about Islam and the Neo-Con. Do you have anything on global warming?

[UnderseaCaveman]

Outstanding, subscribed~

[7cedargrove]

Thank-you for covering this most important subject. You are so right.

[7cedargrove]

You are so right I wrote a paper on him in my last poli sci class and got an A on it. He wants WORLD WAR 4

[oldhacks]

ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS GET OFF OF OIL!!!

jesus christ it isn't rocket science...

how do you get off of oil when the oil lobby owns congress?

you have to pass the national initiative yourself. and empower yourself to make laws with your home town on federal issues.

Its the only way we're ever going to be able to stop Big Government from getting even bigger. Make big government Illegal as a citizen.

[oldhacks]

oh and SA you gotta get South Carolina off of Nuclear Energy.

Nuclear power = Nuclear waste = Nuclear Warfare

[shiftstart]

Sometimes I wish the draft was back. It sickens me to hear pencil pushers sound the war drums yet never bleed for this country. You'll also find the same use words like "isolationist" or "protectionist" and some other marketable label as to suggest they sit on a mighty steed and others on dirt. Or perhaps a special draft for those who are eager to wage war or just spew war propaganda. Otherwise they just need to shut their cakehole.

[Steadno]

Grt info!

[shiftstart]

Great Video SA!! You dig long and hard on Podhoretz and you just may find so much dirt on this guy it'll take you a whole week to clean your hands.

[israeliteknight]

RIGHT ON!!!! Very, very well said, Southern Avenger.

[gemhunter99]

I understand now why I didn't think I was a Republican growing up until Ron Paul came along...like he says the party had lost thier way.

[VoteYourConsience]

thank you SA

[Seriousdudes]

Important video with great info. Thank you!

[HolocaustReenactor]

Trotskyite socialists? Ex-liberals? Please...

Don't blame us democrats for your mismanagement of your own party. Radical conservatives are the byproduct of a party which has historically oppressed the rights of minorities & that of 3rd world nations. You can't blame communism on everything, pal... at one point or another, you have to admit that scum like Podhoretz are your fanatical children, not the American liberals'...

[dtaijo174]

LOL!!! You forget that democrats were against ending slavery, against the civil rights act, and even active Democrat Senator Byrd was a member of the KKK. HAHAHA!!!

[KarateKidX]

many prominent members of both parties were in the kkk.

also, back then, 150 years ago, it was the democrats who were the conservatives and the republicans who were more liberal.

[dtaijo174]

LOL!!! You forget that democrats were against ending slavery, against the civil rights act, and even active Democrat Senator Byrd was a member of the KKK. HAHAHA!!!

[HolocaustReenactor]

I didn't forget, I simply ignored it b/c that's not the liberal I am.

[HolocaustReenactor]

I didn't forget, I simply ignored it b/c that's not the liberal I am.

[philippe1985]

Well you have to admit all the common points between democrats and neocons. They both believe government is the answer on most of issues. And people are too stupid to solve their problems on their own, Charity doesn't work and America was created to spread 'democracy' around the globe. And I don't fully trust neocons when they say they are against gun control. Why would they be?

[flakyjon]

Great video as always. Only one problem: the word "Jew" was only used once when it should have been used many times especially to describe the neocons.

[ArmchairRevolution]

But SA, the whacky Rev. Wright might rape your children and smoke your cigarettes! How can you not be utterly terrified of such a man?!

Seriously though, your videos are awesome even for a loony Liberal like me! ^5

[southernavenger]

When I defended Trent Lott for paying a kind compliment to Strom Thurmond on his birthday, I was called a "racist" and a supporter of segregation.

When I point out the irrelevancy of Obama's relationship with Wright, when compared to lunatics with power, like Podhoretz, then I'm a "liberal."

They tried to do the same thing to Ron Paul and John McCain will no doubt be next over the John Hagee endorsement.

Count me out. Ideas over idiocy.

SA

[ArmchairRevolution]

Damn, SA, please keep up the fight!

[airborne373]

Norman Podhoretz is a Trotskyite Commie.

[Hunterkirk]

You seem to be on a witch hunt and obsessing. I have not seen your proof that the founding fathers were as isolationist and peacenik as you are. I think you should make a video with your proofs of the founding fathers positions being that of your claim.

Secondly I think your form of conservativism has become the home of liberals as you seem to have embraced the anti war mentality of the far left and in fact I can not distingush much differance between you and them.

[murphycline]

Read George Washington's Farewell address, and it's not isolationist foreign policy; it's non-interventionist. There is a difference between the two. And how is nation building and engaging in Wilsonian actions conservative? You can't have a small government at home and an expansive foreign policy abroad. The warfare state leads to the welfare state and vice versa. True conservatives are opposed to the expansion of the government...period. That includes military adventurism.

[Hunterkirk]

70% of the US budget goes to social welfare. As nations go a fairly small percentage of our budget goes to the military. If you truely think that the primary job of the government is protecting the country then how could this upset you?

Our military spent including Iraq is only 4.06% of GDP and you call that a "Warefare state"? Are you suggesting we follow Canada's example with their 1.1% military spending?

[murphycline]

It upsets me because I don't believe that having troops spread all over the world results in an effective protection of our country. Iraq is only a part of it. If 1.1% would allow us to maintain a more efficient, slim downed force that had the capability to respond to attacks then yes I'd support that move. And welfare is tied with warfare; just look at LBJ, FDR, and Bush; among others. Bush has been a wartime president and has seen an expansion in welfare programs; the two often go together.

[beatlemaniac233]

Nonsense. Reagan scaled back the welfare state whilst being just as complacent and imperialist all around the world.

[murphycline]

Reagan was less interventionist than Clinton or Bush, and Reagan spoke with the Soviets while we're treating Iran like they're a bigger threat than the Evil Empire was. And Reagan reduced the growth of the welfare state, but in terms of deep cuts he didn't do a great job; but that's not just his fault. Congress is to blame as well, they bear the main burden of responsibility in fact. Look at the numbers instead of just the rhetoric.

[beatlemaniac233]

I just have to laugh. Nicaragua, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Argentina, Cuba, Lebanon, Grenada, Guatemala, El Salvador and Panama.

Reagan called bin-Laden and his pals "courageous Afghan freedom fighters". He called the Contras the "moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers.

This man was just as bad as all the Presidents before him and certainly Bush I and Clinton. He killed millions and tortured and oppressed tens of millions more by proxy.

[murphycline]

I'm referring to boots on the ground as opposed to simply monetary aid.

[beatlemaniac233]

Fair enough, but he still tourtured, killed, raped and destoryed by-proxy. Reagan was pals with the same people Osama bin-Laden was pals with. Reagan presided over a reign of terror against so many countries, especially in Latin America. Reagan was president when the CIA were dealing drugs to US citizens. Reagan started the so-called "War on Drugs" which we all know was never about drugs and all about terror.

Reagan was the same as the presidents before and after him.

[Hunterkirk]

Do you believe that we need a strong military? Doe you believe we need to protect our national interests? Do you believe we have any national interest outside of our borders?

Bottom line is the last question.. if you dont think we have any national interest outside our borders then your a isolationist. If you do think we have such interest then you need to define them.

[murphycline]

In terms of defense and the use of military force then the answer is basically no, other than perhaps the use of the navy to maintain freedom of the seas. Other countries ought to defend themselves and foot the bill. Strong is not the same as bloated. And in terms of economic interests I believe in free trade, but free trade in the sense of government removing tariffs or maintaining only at very low levels as a revenue generator (5% max). Isolationism also includes economic protectionism.

[anyusmoon1]

I think, sir, you should go and watch every minute of 'The Pentagon's New Map' and learn how the military industrial complex has been turned into a gross national product, something to sell for profit, NOT AS DEFENSE.

You sir are grossly misled. But I don't fault your ignorance- Until you become knowledgeable and then STILL SPEW these absurd simplicities to defend pre-emptive wars and INTERVENTIONIST foreign policy, then I will fault you.

[beatlemaniac233]

Slanderous lies. The hard left and the hard right have a lot in common, they also disagree vehemently on a lot of things, too. But the hard left and right agree that war is a last resort and should never be entered into lightly, also the hard left and right often remember history - Iran, 1953;Iraq, 1980-88;Afghanistan, 1979-88;Vietnam, 1962-75. Despite a gulf of immeasurable distance ideologically, the facts speak for themselves and are not up for discussion.

[southernavenger]

Hunterkirk - Is Pat Buchanan a liberal? Or better yet, is unqualified support for our government's wars, conservative?

[Hunterkirk]

That does not establish your case. You say we have no national interest in the middle east, right? Ok then you need to tell me why oil isnt a national interest or why nations with terrorist ties and support terrorism isnt a national interest?

You have throw things are fast and heavy but have not explained your position well or at least explained well why you think this war in Iraq is such a bad idea. Lacking is data.

[southernavenger]

The U.S. has an interest in seeing a reduction of Islamic terrorist activity. Our foreign policy-as CIA Bin Laden Unit head Michael Scheuer has stated -increases and promotes terrorism ten fold.

The United States doesn't face an imminent threat from any nation state in the world. Terrorist outfits? Yes, which we aid.

Money talks and BS walks, and any nation will do business with their oil. Look at Saudi Arabia.

We have a war right now simply because men like Norman Podhoretz wanted one.

[Hunterkirk]

"The U.S. has an interest in seeing a reduction of Islamic terrorist activity."

So how do you do this? We stay at home? We abandon Israel and allow a genocide? Here is the problem the radical Muslims had supporters whom didnt join in until the radicals came under fine. You can call that "increasing terrorism" or I would call it "drawing out supporter of terrorism"

But in either case I simply dont see how staying with in the borders of the USA helps reduce the terrorism.

[southernavenger]

Israel can take of themselves.

If some dictator wants to commit genocide, it is not the role of the U.S. to stop all human suffering. If it is - then we need to be in Darfur, China, North Korea and a zillion other places this moment. I say it's not worth one American life.

You talked about "lack of data" and yet say "I simply dont see how staying with in the borders of the USA helps reduce the terrorism."

What data suggests that intervention reduces it? The exact opposite is true.

[Hunterkirk]

Ok let us cut to the caste. Tell us YOUR solution. It seems to make sense that you would have one. One can always complain few are able to offer solutions.

Are you willing to have the Iraq's that worked with us die? A pull out will include that possability, the breaking of a promise resulting in there deaths and the deaths of their loved ones.

In Vietnam were earned the distrust of many and blooded our hands with the deaths of hundreds of thousand of our allies.. Are you proud of that?

[southernavenger]

A. There is no wholly effective "solution" to the problem of Islamic jihadism.

As to a "solution" for 9/11 - how about the U.S. Congress putting a $1 billion dollar bounty on Bin Laden's head and allowing private mercanaries to collect? "Letter of Marque & Reprisal" - it's in the Constitution.

Going to war with nation-states is certainly NOT a "solution," and doing "something" - like what we've done in Iraq - is not better than doing "nothing." In fact, it's far worse by every measure.

[Hunterkirk]

Yet even though a bounty has been in place for 7 years now it has produced no positive effect. Thusly the bounty solution is no solution just wishful thinking.

Worse how? He have killed by their own account of 25,000 of there membership and likely more of their supporters. We have drawn them out of the shadows. The bounty solution would still have then and their supporters in the shadow continueing to attack the USA.

[southernavenger]

"Worse" as in Islamic terrorist camps and activity have exploded since the Iraq invasion, including Al-Quada in Iraq, which had never existed there before.

"Worse" as in nearly 4000 American soldiers who gave their lives because our government is duplicitious and corrupt as hell.

And "worse" as in - the Bush policy, and McCain's continuation of that policy - is EXACTLY what Bin Laden wanted to happen with 9/11.

Bush is pursuing the foreign policy of Osama Bin Laden and so would McCain.

[beatlemaniac233]

You are wrong on one point, bin-Laden could never have hoped in his wildest dreams that the US would savagely attack an Arab, Muslim third world country which had nothing to do with 9/11 in such a brazen act of imperialism. The sort of recruitment boost that gave al-Qaeda is incalculable.

[beatlemaniac233]

The "solution" seems pretty clear to me if America, Britain, Israel and certain other states want to avoid having dozens or more of their citizens killed. Stop terrorising the Middle East, no more money, arms and hugs for dictators. No more imperial wars. No more anti-democratic attitude and no more arrogance.

However, the US does not want to stop terror, it wants to control resources and populations - including its own - so it will continue on its path until the citizens stand up to it.

[Hunterkirk]

So Isolation and abandonment of allies is the solution?

[mavtek]

Huh?

[beatlemaniac233]

Military isolationism, yes. Abandon the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Pakistanis and the Israelis, yes.

All of these regimes are terrible and their populations would rise up against then if American support was withdrawn.

Israel is a special case but without American support for its political class maybe it would follow popular opinion and create a Palestinian state, also it has nukes, I think it will be fine.

[beatlemaniac233]

In Vietnam the US killed THREE MILLION poor Asians. Don't draw comparisons with that disgrace. There was no reason to go into Vietnam, the government actually lied to get in. The same politicians who said it was necessary to go in and it would be easy are now saying it would be disastrous to pull out, just like Vietnam (remember the domino effect?)

Already ONE MILLION Iraqis have died, how many more before the US listens to the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi population and gets out.

[uzijohn]

I Agree,

Remember when you were a kid in school? wasn't there was always some loud mouth twerp kid who had deliberately befriended the not so bright biggest kid in school then used him for protection from the trouble his mouth would get him into.

You see were I'm going; the USA has become that "Big Kid" and so for a few dollars strategically donated by Israel and friends we have become their lackey's !

[murphycline]

If by national interest you mean security and economic prosperity then getting out of that region would be a boon to both. And I'd argue that our current policy towards Israel ties their hands, subsidizes socialism which harms the Israeli economy, and limits Israel's sovereignty. If you believe in mercantilism then I can understand your position regarding the Middle East, but if you believe in free market capitalism then our Middle East policy is a joke.

[beatlemaniac233]

It's only in the interest of the multi national oil companies or the people who get billions of dollars from the nanny state Pentagon in contracts to be in Iraq(lots of oil), Afghanistan(ripe for a pipeline) or to keep Israel at war(America's bulldog in the region).

The US doesn't subsise socialism in the Israeli economy, it forces them to make neoliberal changes.

Who actually believes in free markets anymore, they don't exist and they never will.

[ADistantThunder]

*****

[slavophile1]

Very nice! Five stars.

[angelsoulnme]

Good Job SA

[jackspratt409]

the guy is a jew. no one is willing to tackle him because to do so would be "anti-semitic".

[immanent]

Another brilliant piece from SA. Thanks for your work!