The other day a friend sent me a piece by the columnist "Spengler" of Asia Times online, saying that Israel is the happiest country in the world, while Arabs are "miserable" and their covetousness makes the idea of peace in the region impossible. These neocon horse feathers were trimmed out with theology about Islam and Judaism. I wondered who the hell Spengler is.
Then yesterday, a guy called Mark wrote to me, pointing out an even uglier statement by Spengler, on May 8, in an online forum Spengler leads:
The hidden premise of Islam is that Israel is chosen; that is why it [Islam]
had to invent a "final revelation" to replace Hebrew Scripture,
substitute Ishmael for Isaac, etc. etc. The nations desire Eternal
Life, of which they first heard from the Jews, and covet God's promise
to the Jews, who never can "unchoose" themselves, because no-one ever
will believe them. The Arabs are a dying culture and Islam is a dying
religion, and the only sensible thing to do is keep death at a
distance.
So: more war, more barbed wire, more killing, please! [emphasis mine]
Who is this murderous person? Wikipedia informs that Spengler has not been forthcoming about his religion, ethnicity or identity. My new friend Mark told me that he thinks Spengler also writes under the pseudonym "Shushon." Here are Mark's first couple of emails to me [and I will freely interpolate my comments within his, in brackets]:
I’d
like to draw your attention to an article in the current issue of First
Things, a monthly journal of “religion, culture and public life” [edited by neoconservative Father Richard John Neuhaus]. The
article is entitled “Zionism for Christians” and is written by “David
Shushon”.
I put the author’s name within quotation marks because I think it’s a
transparent pseudonym, almost certainly for the anonymous internet
gadfly “Spengler.” First Things once previously published an article
by Spengler under his Spengler pseudonym (“Christian, Muslim, Jew” -
October 2007), and anyone familiar with his style and thought will recognize “Zionism for Christians” as his work.
[In a rapid hunt of the 2 pieces, I find that both quote extensively from Franz Rosenzweig, including his statement that Christians and Jews are "laborers at the same task," and both speak of anti-semitism as a form of neopaganism, i.e., not Christian. This guy Mark is making sense to me.]
The idea of this most recent article is to persuade Christians that
support for the state of Israel is theologically mandated by their
faith. What does “support for the state of Israel” mean, from the
Spengler perspective? Perhaps the best way to summarize that phrase
from Spengler’s point of view is to quote a recent comment he made on
his forum–the kind of comment he avoids in the urbane pages of First
Things. [And here Mark quotes the "barbed wire" comment from above]
Obviously, such comments are difficult to make under a true name in
mainstream media, so Spengler has been making them pseudonymously. For
more polite audiences he has now found a forum at First Things, where
he couches his ideology in pseudo-theological terms.
The bottom line is that Spengler is seeking to convince Christians that support for the Greater Israel
agenda that you decry is hardwired into Christian theology. He is also
probably trying to bolster the flagging Jewish support for this
ideology.
First Things touts the article in these terms: “The issue features, as well, David Shushon’s “Zionism for Christians.” That’s this month’s free article, available even to non-subscribers–but, then, why are there any non-subscribers, when you could read in the print version Shushon’s fascinating essay, which begins: ‘Israel
always matters. Biblical scholars have devoted endless pages to ancient
Israel as a religious idea, and pundits have penned endless newspaper
columns about modern Israel as a geopolitical entity. The deeper
implications, however, have received less attention than they deserve
in recent years, overshadowed by the exigencies of Middle Eastern
politics. Indeed, real questions remain: What does the sheer existence
of the modern state of Israel mean for theology–particularly for
Christian theology? And what does that theology mean for the continuing
existence of Israel?’”
What, in effect, Spengler is attempting is to persuade the Catholic
Church–or, at least and less grandiosely, influential intellectuals
and opinion shapers within it–to sanction a specific form of
nationalism: Zionism. The practical benefit Spengler sees would be an
increase of support for a radically Zionist Israel within influential Catholic circles, and the Catholic Church
remains the largest and most influential single Christian grouping in
the West.
Spengler’s attempt rests upon a fundamentalistic reading of
the Bible, specifically of the Abraham and Exodus stories. While one
might expect the Catholic Church
to be immune from such a fundamentalist appeal, that is not the case.
Catholic scriptural theology has been deeply infected with
fundamentalist readings since the Reformation–essentially, they were
put on the defensive by the Reformers and are unsure how to distance
themselves from fundamentalism without seeming to renounce scriptural
authority. I speak on a popular level–the official statements of the
Church do struggle to effect this distancing, but very cautiously and
not entirely coherently, for fear of the “modernists” among them. So,
Spengler’s appeal could well be considerable among the “conservative”
Christians (including Catholics) especially in America.
By the way, as you may know, in Jewish mysticism the “shushon/shushan flower”
seems to be a symbol for Zion – six points/petals to the flower. [Didn't know that. By the way, Switchboard lists nobody with the last name of Shushon in the U.S., suggesting that it is a madeup name] So,
for those in the know, the pseudonym Shushon may be a code for
Zionist.
[I asked Mark what's wrong with Spengler, whoever he is, using pseudonyms.]
First Things has given Spengler/Shushon a forum to try to recruit Catholics to
the Zionist cause. Spengler/Shushon presents Zionism in a theological
way, whereas Spengler’s real interests are very practical. He conceals
what may be entailed for those who are deluded into believing that
support of the state of Israel is a matter of fundamental theology for
Catholics: once on board with that concept, they may (if Spengler has
his way) be called upon to support “more war, more barbed wire, more
killing, please!” (Reminds me of the bar scene in Fawlty Towers.)
After all, if support of the Zionist cause is written into the Creed,
so to speak, there’s no backing away from the implications: the end
will justify the means at that point. For that reason, I think Neuhaus
owes it to his readers to reveal who the author Shushon is, so they can
be aware that his agenda is not academic theology but power politics.
[Weiss again: I think the sale of Zionism to evangelical Christians gets at one of my big problems with Zionism. Because
Israel has depended from the start on the west and Zionists generally
believe as an article of faith that gentiles won't protect Jews
when it comes right down to it, Zionism's advocates have often tried to market Zionism as being in the west's best interest, and at times that claim
feels like so much snake oil. During the Cold War it made realist
sense, to some, to overlook the landgrabs. Since then it's been
problematic. The whole idea of "Islamofascism" clearly helped--the
claim that the U.S. and Israel are in the same war (a claim that Trita
Parsi has said was dreamed up by Israelis in the '90s).
But this idea hasn't worked out very well in Iraq, not in the blue states anyway, and meantime the
American Jewish interest in Zionism has weakened: young Jews don't feel
they have to flee to Tel Aviv, not when they're marrying privileged
gentile peers.
[I raised the snake-oil issue with Mark.]
It’s precisely the snake-oil aspect of what he’s peddling–his effort
to couch his product in terms that will appeal to the intellectual
pretensions of the Christian chattering classes–that needs to be
addressed. You
don’t have to be a Christian to have grave doubts as to the
compatibility of “more war, more barbed wire, more killing, please!”
with what are generally supposed to be the tenets of Christian faith,
nor for that matter do you have to be Jewish to have the same
reservations regarding the compatibility of what he’s saying with the
best in the very diverse Jewish tradition.
An important post for anyone who still assigns weight to 'First Things.' I gave up on Asia Times several years ago, mainly because of the neocon pugnaciousness of Spengler, who I assumed was acting as vicarious amanuensis for the website owner. Same reason I gave up on pedantic, prolific Richard Neuhaus: apologias for neocon wars ain't Christian; the Good (converted) Father can line up rhetorical angels on the head of his pin till they are tumbling off the edges, but that doesn't make Iraq a just war under Catholic doctrine. Neuhaus should be obedient to Rome and the clearly expressed intent of the recent Popes; he isn't, his defense of unjust war (which becomes a defense of murder)is a disgrace to any thinking Catholic. What a disappointment from the (then-Lutheran) author of 'The Naked Public Square.'
(A nice rebuttal of his "Christian militarism" thesis can be read here:)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/paul-w1.html
Rosenzweig's a complicated figure, and it's an eccentric chink in Spengler's churlish armor that he remains so devoted to him. From Wikipedia:
"Rosenzweig, while critical of Jewish scholar Martin Buber's early work, became close friends with him upon their actually meeting. This friendship lasted despite their differences of political opinion: Buber was a Zionist, while Rosenzweig was a strong defender of the German-Jewish heritage and felt that a return to Israel would embroil the Jews into a worldly history they should eschew (this position was given a tragic tone by the death of Rosenzweig's wife in a concentration camp long after he himself had perished of disease)."
…
"Rosenzweig's final attempt (he was dying from ALS) to communicate his thought, via the laborious typewriter-alphabet method, consisted in the partial sentence: "And now it comes, the point of all points, which the Lord has truly revealed to me in my sleep, the point of all points for which there—". The writing was interrupted by his doctor, with whom he had a short discussion using the same method. When the doctor left, Rosenzweig did not wish to continue with the writing, and he died in the night, the sentence left unfinished."
thanks oarwell, lovely
Perusing a few more of Spengler's recent (burnt)offerings, we find, from the Oct. 30 2007 AT, "When you can't deal with the devil." Guess who the devil is?
(Spengler's mask has slipped since last I read him–now he just dishes up straight Krauthammerian paranoiac propaganda)
"In February 2006, I argued that a few sorties by American aircraft could put the Iranian problem to rest, but that the window for a clean military operation would not last long.
The longer Washington dallies, the more resources Tehran can put in place, including:
Upgrading Hezbollah's offensive-weapon capabilities in Lebanon.
Integrating Hamas into its sphere of influence and military operations.
Putting in place terrorist capability against the West.
Preparing its Shi'ite auxiliaries in Iraq for insurrection."
…
"In early 2006, I predicted "war with Iran on the worst terms", and that is what the West is likely to get. I warned at the time, "if Washington waits another year to deliver an ultimatum to Iran, the results will be civil war to the death in Iraq, the direct engagement of Israel in a regional war through Hezbollah and Hamas, and extensive terrorist action throughout the West, with extensive loss of American life. There are no good outcomes, only less terrible ones. The West will attack Iran, but only when such an attack will do the least good and the most harm."
…
"Deals with the devil simply do not work, even in the ethically challenged world of foreign policy. The devil will act according to his nature, whatever bargain one attempts to make with him."
…
"Western civilians well may pay a heavy price for the excision of Iran's nuclear program in the form of terror attacks. The price may be steep, but it's worth it."
The West has no choice but to attack Iran, because Iran believes that it has no choice but to develop nuclear weapons. Make no mistake: this attack will destabilize the entire region, past the capacity of the king's horses and king's men to reassemble it. The agenda will shift from how best to promote stability, to how best to turn instability to advantage."
——
Spengler's recommendations form a blueprint for Hell. He confuses the cause of the West's sickness, centralized government militarism in concert with imperialist corporatism, with the cure. We don't need to smash Islam with an iron fist, we need to reembrace the things that, historically, have made the West preeminent: Aristotelianism, Judeo-Christian ethical advances, and the inviolable dignity of the individual in relation to the State.
More war will only lead to more war, and the further destruction of authentic Western values.
Spengler, though he denies it, is, like his namesake, a pessimist: he can see no future for the West that does not entailing mass murder.
Like Neuhaus, Spengler's great intelligence is no protection against profound error.
I noticed that Midge Decter leads the list of the members of the Editorial Board of FT.
Ambitious Jews bent on power and control on a massive political and geographical scale have always been limited by the relatively tiny number of Jews within the crucible from whence they came, and so have sought after masses of gentile useful idiots who can be used as troops. They have drawn-in these useful idiots with ideologies open to everyone and theoretically beneficial to everyone, which are then used to primarily advance the interests of the Jewish core.
In the 20th Century, Communism was this ideology; in the 21st, it is Neoconservatism. Naive Christian Zionists are the useful idiots of today, just as naive, eager, idealistic collectivists were the useful idiots of yesterday.
Maybe there is a Darwinian element to this; those individuals foolish enough to be hoodwinked by Organized Jewish Chicanery (OJC) end up as canon fodder, just as whole societies foolish enough to be hoodwinked by OJC end up with the kinds of problems that now afflict America, including terrorist attacks because of support for Israel, open borders/cheap labor to enrich OJC, massive deregulation of OJC controlled industries, and a generally politically correct governing class that refuses to address the OJC elephant in the living room.
What OJC amounts to is a Jewish oligarchy bent on extracting as much nourishment and as many resource as it can from any given society or country before the cadaver finally collapses, as did the Soviet Union. OJC will then move on to fresh meat elsewhere.
Canada, Australia, Oceania…be afraid…be very afraid.
Will BushCo bomb Iran before he leaves office, or leave it to the replacement? If that's Obama, it will not happen; otherwise, it will. Is that the practical sum of it?
Just wanna know how much I will be paying for gas. And, wanna know if there will be US military draft.
Anybody got a clue?
RE:'More Barbed Wire, More War, Please'
FROM WIKIPEDIA:
Regarding regime change in Iraq, in 2002 Ledeen criticized the views of former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, writing:[20]
He fears that if we attack Iraq "I think we could have an explosion in the Middle East. It could turn the whole region into a cauldron and destroy the War on Terror."
One can only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please.
Friedmanism may be more comparable to Marxism as a world movement than is Christian Zionism.
The Christian Zionists are probably more like the Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox peasant, who put so much effort into making pilgrimages to the Holy Land in the late 19th century. One can easily imagine that Jabotinsky wanted to harness such naive religious fervor to serve his movement.
When he finally visited the USA to recruit Jews to his form of Zionism, he also found Christians with just the right combination of zeal and gullability in white racist premillennial dispensationist Confederate irredentists of the American South. Jabotinsky consciously canvassed their leaders in order to inject Zionism into their eschatology.
Friedmanism may be more comparable to Marxism as a world movement than is Christian Zionism.
The Christian Zionists are probably more like the Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox peasant, who put so much effort into making pilgrimages to the Holy Land in the late 19th century. One can easily imagine that Jabotinsky wanted to harness such naive religious fervor to serve his movement.
When he finally visited the USA to recruit Jews to his form of Zionism, he also found Christians with just the right combination of zeal and gullability in white racist premillennial dispensationist Confederate irredentists of the American South. Jabotinsky consciously canvassed their leaders in order to inject Zionism into their eschatology.
MICHAEL LEDEEN ON NRO:
February 07, 2005, 8:50 a.m.
Faster, Please
Iran needs change. We need to help — now.
"…to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you." — President Bush, in the State of the Union Address
http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200502070850.asp
SALON:
Iranian regime change: "Faster, please!"
Neocon Michael Ledeen, long a proponent of "democratic revolution" in Iran, weighs the odds of military action by the U.S.
By Alex Koppelman
Pages 1 2 3 Buzz up!Share
Email
Digg
Facebook
Del.icio.us
Reddit
My Yahoo
Print RSS Font: S / S+ / S++
Read more: Iran, Politics, Vanity Fair, News, Iraq, Alex Koppelman
Michael Ledeen
(from Pajamas Media)
Jan. 15, 2007 | Even among his fellow neoconservatives, Michael Ledeen stands out as a politically divisive figure. He's loved — and consulted at the highest levels — by his fellow travelers for his hard-line positions on the Middle East. His catchphrase, "Faster, please!" refers to the speed with
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/01/15/ledeen/
"Will BushCo bomb Iran before he leaves office, or leave it to the replacement?"
http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=143
Spengler seems to be one of the more articulate 'cyber warriors' that seek to infiltrate Asian media and blogs. Just the other day I stumbled on an Indonesian blog (www.indonesiamatters.com) where, a few months ago, a contributor calling himself 'dragonwall' came up with a passionate defence of Israel referring to … Krauthammer as the best source on the matter. After my checking his own contribution turned out to be directly taken over (without quotation marks or acknowledgment) from a Zionist website.
The remarkable thing was that other contributors, presumably mostly muslim, allowed him to dominate that particular thread because of their own lack of arguments.
Be careful in overrating the influence of the Asia Times online. It is just an online publication and its pretty minor as online publications go.
In fact, if I type in philipweiss.org and atimes.net into alexa, I find that philipweiss.org consistently gets significantly more traffic than atimes.net.
See here:
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/philipweiss.org?site0=philipweiss.org&site1=atimes.net&y=r&z=3&h=300&w=610&c=1&u[]=philipweiss.org&u[]=atimes.net&x=2008-05-21T00%3A26%3A49.000Z&range=3m&size=Medium
"Anybody got a clue?"
Posted by: Charles Keating | May 20, 2008 at 02:31 PM
the only clue i have is the past combined with the urgings of the continuing present.
yes, the US of Amurderka will bomb iran before doofus is led to the pasture.
in addition to the aggressive war in iraq and the daily threats with eventual war on iran, amurderka's mouth and black ops (to go with its black soul) continue against venezuela.
draft? not sure. depends if the jewcons and the war mongering others plus the important rich can be exempted for savagery? if yes, why not a draft? the important ones wont have to serve. their precious well being is too vital for more war.
paul johnson wrote in modern times…
" one of the principal lessons of our tragic century which has seen so many millions of innocent lives sacrificed in schemes to improve the lot of humanity is this, beware intellectuals, not merely should they be kept well away from the levers of power, they should also be objects of particular suspicion when they seek to offer collective advise, beware committees conferences and leagues of intellectuals, distrust their public statements issued from their serried ranks, discount their verdicts on political leaders and important events. For intellectual far from being highly individualistic and non conformist people follow certain regular patterns of behavior, taken as a group they are often ultra conformist within the circles formed by those whose approval they seek and value, that is what makes them en masse so dangerous, for it enables them to create climates of opinion and prevailing orthodoxes which themselves often generate irrational and destructive causes of action. Above all we must at all times remember what intellectuals habitually forget that people matter more than concepts and must come first, the worst of all despotisms is the heartless tyranny of ideas."
You've just now heard of Spengler? What kind of out of touch buffoon are you, Philip? Spengler is probably one of the most influential opinion columnists in the world! People in Europa all know him–his name comes up all the time . . .
I haven't given up reading the NYT because of Kristol or the Wapo because of Krauthammer. There are often interesting posts at the Asia times.
I haven't given up reading the NYT because of Kristol or the Wapo because of Krauthammer. There are often interesting posts at the Asia times.
David, look again at the Alexa figures I posted earlier. Philip Weiss's blog has significantly more traffic that the whole Asia Times online website. Spengler may have some followers, he is by no means a household name even in Europa.
Chris, it's asiatimes.com
Sorry, atimes.com
on the saying of a rabbi Mendelsohn " be a Jew at home but a cosmopolitan on the street" , Gilad Atzmon writes:
Surprisingly enough, the primarily-Jewish left activist falls straight into Mendelssohn’s trap. He tries desperately to bridge the gap between tribal commitment and the universal call and, like Mendelssohn, he is doomed to failure. Indeed, in the early days of the Palestinian solidarity movement the primarily-Jewish peace activism was of immense importance. It was actually Jewish humanists who were the first to speak out for the Palestinians when the world out there was still immersed in the Zionist narrative. But things have now changed. Once Hamas was democratically elected, it was the Jewish tribal peace activist who was the first to show dissatisfaction on many a progessive discussion group. Obviously Hamas doesn’t fit into the Jewish Socialist vision for the region. In other words, tribal Jewish humanists’ support for the Palestinians is tilted by self-centric concerns.
"Obviously Hamas doesn’t fit into the Jewish Socialist vision for the region…tilted by self-centric concerns."
The Jewish Socialist vision is merely a variation of the Jewish Neocon vision which itself, in terms of world view, is merely a variation of the internationalist Jewish Bolshevik vision. What do they all have in common? Powerful, authoritarian big government, dominated by Jews and/or Jewish money, imposing its mostly Jewish-constructed notions of right and wrong, up and down, left and right, war and peace on the proles, aka goyim.
So long as Judaism itself is dominated by an aggressive, hostile minority, Jewish interests will always be at odds with gentile interests, hence the need for big governments — in order to coerce, intimidate and generally browbeat average citizens into accepting the state of affairs beneficial to hostile Jews. This is accomplished with seemingly innocuous, well-intentioned programs like political correctness, which is designed to make it taboo for citizens to speak frankly and freely about ethnic groups pursuing their own narrow interests at the expense of the majority; to the “war on terror” which is designed to make those who speak out against the security state suspect in the eyes of their fellow citizens; to the war in Iraq, which in addition to aiding Israel, was designed to make those who speak against war in general appear unpatriotic. "Unpatriotic Conservatives" was the headline that famously appeared in National Review above Jewish Neocon David Frum's article about conservatives opposed to the war on terror and the war against Iraq.
How many left-liberals, "humanists" and socialists who think they are pursuing humanity’s best interests by growing powerful central governments and imposing various social-engineering programs on their own fellow countrymen realize they are doing the bidding of racialists, quasi-fascists and oligarchs? How many care more about moral posturing than the long term consequences of their vanity?
Like Christian Zionists, mainstream group-think liberals are defenseless against Jewish intrigue because they have allowed Jews to construct their consciousness and write their narrative for so long that few any longer have the faculties to ascertain truth from lies. And those that do, and speak out, are quickly blacklisted and ushered into obscurity by the Jewish-dominated media.
"Surprisingly enough, the primarily-Jewish left activist falls straight into Mendelssohn’s trap. He tries desperately to bridge the gap between tribal commitment and the universal call…"
As in:
"You don't have to be a Christian to have grave doubts as to the compatibility of "more war, more barbed wire, more killing, please!" with what are generally supposed to be the tenets of Christian faith, nor for that matter do you have to be Jewish to have the same reservations regarding the compatibility of what he's saying with the best in the very diverse Jewish tradition."
"The best in the very diverse" is too little a thing to "bridge the gap," Phil. Think about it.
I know quite a bit about Kabbalah & Jewish mysticism & I've never heard of the shushan flower. However, Shushan is the capital city of Persia referred to in the Book of Esther. It is the site of general mayhem in which Jews take their revenge and slaughter their enemies & Haman's family.
"When he finally visited the USA to recruit Jews to his form of Zionism, he also found Christians with just the right combination of zeal and gullability in white racist premillennial dispensationist Confederate irredentists of the American South."
I've read plenty of newspaper reports from small towns in the South in the early 1900s that pushed for Zionism, so I know that part of what you are saying is true.
However, I don't know that the religious or racial views of white southerners were that different than those of the vast majority of other American whites at the time. If anything, the South was more characterized by bigotry than racism. I believe that it was other parts of the country that brought us actual doctrinal racism in the form of eugenics.
Primillennial dispensationalism in its Southern US variety incorporated a form of a racial theory intrinsically into Christian belief.
The defeat of the Confederacy seems to have been viewed as a prefiguration of the apocalypse, but I concede I would have to do more research on this point.
Usually eugenic theory is traced intellectually to Calhoun's justification of slavery.
I consider the claim only partially true and somewhat unfair.
Modern racism seems to result more from a Concretization of the Spiritual — see link to members.aol.com
.
never thouht about the difference between bigotry and racism. huh. learn something new every day
Bigot seems to have come from a French word that indicated obstinant devotion to one's opinions, prejudices, and beliefs, not necessarily intolerance, in the modern sense of harrassment and violence. Of course there's perks in being a bigot for the right cause.
Anyway I think it's splitting hairs. It's all power and exploitation, inforced violently, and dressed up in the rationalization of the day.
Of course Palestine will eventually go back to the descendents of Nakba survivors.
The question is: what will the descendents of the zionists do in order to integrate, or will they choose to repatriate to wherever they still have family or support?
Are zionists ever going to be willing to peacefully transfer power, or peacefully transition to a power sharing arrangement? Is that possibility?
What gestures could the U.S. zionists make, with their enormous resources that now go to lobbying for racist and violent policies, toward the future integration of Jewish culture and Palestine, in the legacy of Nakba recognition, and including Nakba reparations?
But Dick Cheney said the American way of life is non-negotiable. Ergo: Zionism, too?
Is the United States even capable of brokering a real peace deal, not just in Palestine, but anywhere in the world, as the worldwide leader in the arms trade? With a long history of violent intervention and sociopathic devotion to its "superpower" interests?
Will Barack Obama save the American empire and defeat the Islamic radicals and regain the sterling reputation America once had in the world (presumably before it dropped two atomic bombs on civilian centers and then fostered a barbaric cold war and nuclear weapons race)?
Will Barack be able to schlepp it to China to sell American assets to keep the dollar out of the tank? How is Barack's Mandarin by the way?
And finally, the most pressing question of all:
Will the new Jewish establishment give Phil Weiss a column at the Times so that it can at least mute the criticism that all of this here lobbyin' is being covered up by the major media?
"Will the new Jewish establishment give Phil Weiss a column at the Times "
But first Barack "Black Eagle" Obama has to win. ;)
Hmmm, I wonder if Joachim could specify the difference between a bigot and a racist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
"One with racist beliefs might hate certain groups of people according to their race (i.e., bigotry)"
Interestingly the origins of bigotry point to cultural prejudices. There is a story about a non-assimilationist Other, at least concerning customs it seems.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bigot
bigot Look up bigot at Dictionary.com
1598, from M.Fr. bigot, from O.Fr., supposedly a derogatory name for Normans, the old theory (not universally accepted) being that it springs from their frequent use of O.E. oath bi God. Plausible, since the Eng. were known as goddamns in Joan of Arc's France, and during World War I Americans serving in France were said to be known as les sommobiches (see also son of a bitch). But the earliest Fr. use of the word (12c.) is as the name of a people apparently in southern Gaul. The earliest Eng. sense is of "religious hypocrite," especially a female one, and may be influenced by beguine. Sense extended 1687 to other than religious opinions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry
The exact origin of the word is from the latin term "largo cocker", but may have come from the German bei and gott, or the English by God. William Camden wrote that the Normans were first called bigots, when their Duke Rollo, who receiving Gisla, daughter of King Charles, in marriage, and with her the investiture of the dukedom, refused to kiss the king's foot in token of subjection, unless the king would hold it out for that purpose. And being urged to it by those present, Rollo answered hastily, "No by God", whereupon the King turning about, called him bigot; which name passed from him to his people.[1] This is likely fictional, however, as Gisla is unknown in Frankish sources. It is true that the French used the term bigot as an abuse for the Normans.[2].
Also Italian: bigotto, bigotta,
Not all bigotries are associated with racism, and at the beginning of the 20th century racism was often considered high-minded and progressive.
"at the beginning of the 20th century racism was often considered high-minded and progressive"
Can you give us the essential "high minded" argument?
Progressive racists of the nineteenth century tended to associate races with natural abilities.
The British identified the Gurkhas as a martial race and made it easier for them to play this role in the British Empire.
Progressive Polish racists tended to advocate a non-extremist form of organic nationalism according to which the races within Poland corresponded to different organs of the body of the Polish nation.
Thus there was a place for Polish Jews, Polish Tatars, Polish Germans, Kassubians, etc. Of course ethnic Poles would act as the brain of the Polish nation state.
Sorry, none of the examples convinces me.
Basically "organic" is never a authentic progressive concept: quite the opposite it is a term beloved by the right.
Bssides you jump from "progressive racist" to "the British" general.
If there was such a thing as "progressive racism" in the 19 century you should be able to name names?
If I do a very fast search I find a use that feels a counterattack on the left, and I find it in connection with Walter Benn Michaels which seems to be in the context of identity politics.
I have no problem to accept that some progressives were infected by the racial virus of their times, but does that a "progressive" racism make?
Sorry, none of the examples convinces me.
Basically "organic" is never a authentic progressive concept: quite the opposite it is a term beloved by the right.
Bssides you jump from "progressive racist" to "the British" general.
If there was such a thing as "progressive racism" in the 19 century you should be able to name names?
If I do a very fast search I find a use that feels a counterattack on the left, and I find it in connection with Walter Benn Michaels which seems to be in the context of identity politics.
I have no problem to accept that some progressives were infected by the racial virus of their times, but does that a "progressive" racism make?
LeaNder, Joachim Martillo was talking about how racial theory was viewed in Europe at the time he discusses, not how it's viewed now, or even in the USA in the 1920's, for example. These days some USA school libraries ban Mark Twain's work and even Uncle Tom's cabin today. Get a grip.
"If there was such a thing as "progressive racism" in the 19 century you should be able to name names?"
I think that Theodore Roosevelt would qualify, and I think that his belief in the superiority of Anglo-Saxons and western Europeans was typical at the time.
Roosevelt may have met with Booker T. Washington, but he did nothing to uplift blacks at the expense of European immigration. Sure Roosevelt faced political pressure on racial issues, but I have to believe that he acted on conviction as well.
"Joachim Martillo was talking about how racial theory was viewed in Europe at the time he discusses, not how it's viewed now,"
Thanks for the note, Charles, maybe it is in fact a misunderstanding. But for me the equivalent to the US use of "progressives" in the 19th century context would be the socialists. And while I am aware of single antisemites among this group (two come to mind 1860s), it was never the socialist mainstream; there were simply too many Jews among them. And toward the end of the 19 century they were confronted with the Dreyfus l'affair and from then on they recognized that racism strictly was an essential streak in the mindset of their political opponents. Whom else but the socialist would you call "progressives" in the 19th century European context?
I have read too often by now that the socialists really were racists or more precisely antisemites, that I expect precision in this context.
If Joachim is aware of sources that prove his point, I'd be pleased to learn about them.
Thanks, Todd, I noticed that the term is used in the US context. If I search Google Books I get some entries, but if I translate the term into German – fortschrittlicher = progressive, the rest you'll recognize.
"fortschrittlicher Rassismus"
"sozialistischer Rassimus"
I end up with zeros. Obviously when I use:
Socialism + Racism + 19th century, I'll end up with studies looking into the genesis of the Nazis and not their political opponents.
But what does it tell us, when we see that my unimportant chatter has already made it onto number seven on the google hitlist? Google Search: "progressive racism":
http://tinyurl.com/6ct3oe
I'll ask the academic that is cited a lot in this why and for what he uses the term? And if there is any agreement.:)
see this:
http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2008/06/false-messiah-schneerson-meets-convert.html
my dear fellow, Spengler is not a resident of the USA.
How many instances of 'neocon' do we have on this one page? Is that everyones' most favoritest word of all? Everyone bad is a 'neocon'. Pfft.