Chris Moore is angry that I "tarred" him with the anti-Semite label in a post I did last week. He's responded on his site-- the charmingly-titled Judeofascism.com-- here and has challenged me to publish the post. I won't, but you can go look at it.
The first thing about antisemitism, from my standpoint, is that there's an emotionnal/gut element to it. Like Potter Stewart said about pornography, I know it when I see it. No, that's not very logical, is it? (Especially now when anti-Semitism is being reexamined by the likes of Lindemann, and myself too, as a reaction to the modern Jewish rise.) But the tone of Chris Moore's stuff sure feels anti-Semitic. His latest post is all about victims of the "murderous Jewish" contribution to communism. This isn't clear thinking. A lot of western Jews opposed Communism. Herzl did. Yes, Jews played an important role in Communism, as they did in so many intellectual movements. But was Communism Jewish the way that neoconservatism has been correctly labelled Jewish (by among others Jacob Heilbrunn, Adam Garfinkle, Benjamin Ginsberg and Murray Friedman)? No.
In Moore's response to me, I note that he says that "left-leaning Jewish Zionists... comprise 20% of the Democrats in the U.S. Senate even though Jews are under 2% of all U.S. citizens." This is foolish thinking. To say that all ten Democratic Jewish Senators are Zionists is foolish. It is failing to "differentiate the other," as the writer Maud Lavin once said to me when she busted me for sexism. Does Russ Feingold or Carl Levin either identify as a Zionist or adhere to Zionism? I don't know. I would like to ask them, yes; because Zionism has to a horrifying degree captured American Jewish identity formation. Tragic. But to state that all Jews are Zionist, and Zionism is evil (as I'm sure Moore believes) is not at all helpful. Do those Senate Jews vote on behalf of Israel? I bet they do, but so do a lot of other Senators, who may or may not be Zionist. What about Joe Biden, he's a Christian and says he's a Zionist.The singling out of Jews as the fly in the ointment, I find that bigoted.
He’s probably as angry as the rest of us and went overboard on that post. Was Chris Moore using the name Ed about one year ago? You can block him out, but is that the way to go?
What happened to Thors Provoni – Is he blocked for being a self-hater?
link to righteousjews.org
Israel Shamir is a righteous Jew? He’s not even Jewish. “He is a citizen of Sweden, where his legal name is Adam Ermash (previously Jöran Jermas).”
link to en.wikipedia.org
A Baptismal name is not a legal name.
Israel Shamir’s bio (partial) and not the bullshit you quote from the anyone-can-enter-it wikipedia:
Phil, I can understand that you are upset he implied ‘all Jews’ dot dot dot – that definitely is antisemitic. It’s conflation. It’s a logical fallacy.
However, the basic point I think is that Christian identity/White-European identity can be questioned and criticized while Jewish identity is a much more taboo subject.
Zionists regularly employ:
-Emotional blackmail
-Intellectual dishonest arguments (with superficial ‘truths’; i.e., Israel left Gaza but all it got was rockets.)
-Fear-mongering
-Gate-keeping
Now, there is a lot of collusion between ‘the Establishment’ and the interests of the organized Jewish community over the ME. I mean, it’s not like America was a peaceful happy nation, and suddenly ‘the Jews’ made us go to war w/ brown people everywhere.
I think Jewish identity is a face to put on the military industrial complex and on our problems in the ME, because Israel is the self-proclaimed ‘Jewish State’. Jews are part of the Establishment as well.
So any kind of discussion on Jewish power needs to take into account the variables that transcend ethnic and religious lines. Like just good old fashion realpolitik and imperialism.
The Lobby functions in the grassroots Zionist movement. That’s where it is working the hardest. Then there is congress. The gate-keeping works both ways, people are AFRAID of questioning Jewish power and so they help perpetuate this image of it.
I do think it’s kind of shallow to talk about Christian Zionism. The main and most meaningful source of power of the Zionist lobby is the organized Jewish community, the invoking of Jewish suffering for political purposes by Jewish and non-Jewish intelligentsia, etc.
When people have been able to de-construct the ideological and social pressures in our society (Jewish identity and power; overcoming this taboo of simply TALKING about it) then we will have made some meaningful progress.
Until then, we take 2 steps forward and 1 step back.
Just look at Gaza. What changed since then? The US isn’t going to support the report. Israel is refusing to look into it too as well as do an investigation apparently. American Jews support the settlements – right? Israeli Jews overwhelmingly supported the massacre.
I consider Zionism to be Jewish ID. It’s been supplemented in recent times by a sense of Jewish exceptionalism, Orientalism, and just good old fashion tribal-politics.
Witty often is criticized here for his dishonest verbiage and constant white-washing of Israel’s crimes. The conclusion is that he doesn’t want Israel to ‘suffer’. I think Jewish identity needs to be torn down like the Occupation wall as well. Jewish identity needs to ‘suffer’ in the sense that it needs to be brought down to size – w/ the rest of us.
It shouldn’t be dehumanized, it should be de-mystified.
I never saw where Chris Moore said or implied that it was “all Jews”, but instead he liked to ascribe a “Jewish” character to these other ideologies and actions. I’m completely agnostic as to whether that description is accurate or helpful. Phil seems to think it is, in the case of neo-conservatism. But not communism. Maybe he’s right.
But why is the conversation out-of-bounds? Why not respond to Moore’s contentions with evidence to the contrary, or counter-arguments?
Phil basically ignored him for so long, and finally banned him. Is he trying to establish some kind of Jewish cred? Is he sanitizing the blog for a more anti-Semitism-sensitive audience? Is that the path forward on the anti-Zionism front? I can’t see how a restricted discourse is really going to lead to greater understanding.
Looks to me like Moore’s real target is the political left – communism and its variants, and he blames Jews for being leftists, not just for being Jews.
Has he ever attacked the Jewish neocons?
Answering myself – I see that he has attacked the neocons.
Nehru said something like (I paraphrase) “The Jews believe they are better than any other people. In this they are like every other people.”
Maybe Jewish “exceptionalism” has roots in Christian theological myth, in which Jesus Christ was “chosen.” I don’t know.
In any case, it seems more like communist ideology is extremely opposed to any kind of exceptionalism. Also, it’s kind of anti-nationalist. Its really unfair to blame the worst atrocities of the communist regimes on “Jewish” communists as this Chris Moore does. Communism is not Judaism. If some communist Soviets who also happened to have some genetic relation to some Jews committed some atrocities, its a big stretch to say anything in the Jewish culture is responsible.
“Maybe Jewish “exceptionalism” has roots in Christian theological myth, in which Jesus Christ was “chosen.” I don’t know.”
I suggest you read the ancient Hebrew scriptures (not necessarily in the original).
helpful. thank you Cliff
Gee, for an organised Jewish community, we seem to be really bad at giving Israel the one thing it needs, the one thing which might make a difference to them; a flood of educated, affluent and physically fit American Jews to move there.
American Jews are neither willing to move to Israel either to support the present government, or change Israel’s path. It’s pretty much out of our hands.
You will never figure it out, will you. Somehow, Israel must conform to your fantasy of a coherent and organised Jewish community, which does not exist in America, except where Zionism produces a facsimile of it for their own purposes. And you joyfully accept all the lies Zionism tells about itself.
Mooser – American Zionist Jews are certainly moving to Israel, to the settlements where they can fulfill their destiny of driving the Arabs off the Land.
Mooser, when I say organized Jewish community I do not know what percentage of the entire American Jewish community I am talking about.
I am talking about quite literally, the ‘groups’ like the ADL, AIPAC, etc. I’m talking about the Zionist groups.
But at the same time I don’t want to whitewash Jewish identity. Zionism is a construct of Jewish identity. And there are people who will support Israel in the same way there are people who will support the ‘Palestinian’ dream.
Phil once wrote here that Zionism was about Jewish self-respect. I can understand that. That pride. That sense of identity.
There are people who may not know the politics, but have an emotional, mystified, attachment to ‘the Jewish State’ (emphasis, here is that this is how they see it).
I’m not equating. I’m just trying to take away the politics and talk about perceptions.
Saying everyone is a ‘Zionist’ is just an easy way to disassociate these two identities that have something to do w/ the other.
I mean, everyone claims that they are the true [whatever religion, whatever identity]. But there is ‘the religion’ [the text and the direct and then subtle meanings of the text]. There is then the various sects/interpretations. Who is right? Who is wrong? Can we say either is meaningfully wrong/right? What is the absolute truth?
The point is that religion is an inherently flawed institution that becomes more and more obsolete.
At the same time, people are both secular and religious. I say it’s ‘religiousity’. It’s hypocritical, but if religion is suppose to inspire, then you could say there is a difference between the ‘religion’ (absolute) and the human (flawed creatures) followers. We can’t be perfect Jews/Muslims/Christians. So we pick and choose and become Muslim/Jew/Christian in our ‘own’ way = our upbringing, our unique experiences, our education, our whatever. This leads us to our own conception of these religious identities and how they should manifest through us.
Jewish identity isn’t just religious – it can be cultural. And none of the other identities are either. There is no ‘Muslim’ ethnicity or ‘Christian’ ethnicity though.
So when I say ‘organized’ – I should say it’s mostly Zionist, but I think ‘Jewish identity’ in all it’s complexities can yield sympathy towards ‘the Jewish State’ within Jewish individuals who may not be Zionist if they were to understand the politics. They feel some emotional connection to it, perhaps a cultural element, solidarity w/ other Jews.
Anyways, I’m pulling a Witty here.
The best way to get an answer to this question of ‘who is the Lobby’ is to look at polls. Right?
“But the tone of Chris Moore’s stuff sure feels anti-Semitic.” -Phil
This line of thinkin–err, feeling–sadly reminds me of something I just read:
“Does anyone care what Americans think? They’re the worst-educated people in the First World. They don’t have any thoughts, they have emotional responses, which good advertisers know how to provoke.” -Gore Vidal, in a recent interview with The Times (London)
Phil’s attempt to address the content of Chris Moore’s argument consists of simplifying it and employing a one-word rebuttal. It’s like the internet version of the Opher Pines-Paz’ hand clapping. Obviously emotions have interfered with the possibility of actual impartial inquiry.
I think Phil is hypersensitive and/or hypocritical on this issue, but most people are hypersensitive and hypocritical when their particular group or ideology is examined. When Phil bashes white Southerners, paints with a broad brush, uses slurs, makes ridiculous comparisons to Zionism or is selective with his facts, I find it annoying. But I wouldn’t want him silenced, and I wouldn’t demonize him.
Do I think there is a lot of anti-Gentile bigotry among Jews? From my personal experiences, and by looking at the MSM and popular media, I would say yes. I would also say that there is an antagonistic relationship between the two groups, and that many Jews have a chip on the shoulder when it comes to whites in America. Furthermore, I don’t think it is healthy to have a minority elite that is also ethnocentric, chauvanistic or divisive, and those are valid complaints.
There are two issues to consider when we post about this – 1). There has to be some basic distinction between all of a people and those in power, that is just common courtesy afforded to any “group;” 2). The result of movement like this in criticism needs a check, simply because of where it lead previously. I can unpack this for you if you want, do you want me to?
Obviously emotions have interfered with the possibility of actual impartial inquiry.
What horseshit! It’s not that this is a fresh line of inquiry, it’s that you haven’t heard it before. That’s why I keep on calling it “second hand” It’s all left over from the right-wing demonasation of what they called socialism and their attempt to somehow attach it to a popular prejudice, anti-semitism.
But if Phil wants to call neo-conservatism “Jewish” really, as far as I’m concerned it evens the score, and he deserves whatever he gets.
I sure remember how Jewish neo-conservatism is, and how they couldn’t launch Shock&Awe on a Fri. noght cause tghe soldiers were 75% Jewish and wouldn’t work on the Sabbath.
Not to mention there’s a little thing called reality involved. Why not take a look at the statistics. Whatever “America Fust” thinks, nobody is buying it. For all the Jewish Power all these Jews are supposed to have, well, where are all the Jews? Why do the numbers keep dwindling? Why do they keep marrying out? That’sa really some Jewish Power, they seem to be able to control everybody except the Jews, and impose socialism everywhere except where they ostensibly have the most power.
Mooser, you really think all the regular commenters on ths blog are blind to to the whores in congress and Obama’s appointed consultants and gate-keepers?
Even if Chris Moore were the caricature of Father Coughlin dancing around in your head, and solely devilishly responsible for denying you the chutzpah and resources needed to seize back the Jewish narrative, I still think he could be challenged at a slightly higher level than “Jew-hater”.
Playing the anti-Semite card is like the nuclear option. It doesn’t win the debate; it just kills the debate.
How are you going to have free and open discussion of Zionism if certain theories about Jewish power are automatically out-of-bounds?
Mooser, I’ve tried, and I can’t find a single thing you said above that’s relevant or appropriate to this discussion. Why don’t you get off the “socialism” thing? I’ve never seen anyone on this blog mention it except you and Chris Moore.
Mooser, are you married? Or is that shiksa you talk about as ruling you just a live-in SO? Do you have common children? You know Phil does not. Witty’s firmly against intermarriage, judging by his own choice and comments. Some of us do have “mischling” children. We care about them and their future. That doesn’t mean
we rubber-stamp Israel’s activities, nor the USA’s.
V, when you say that “there has to be some basic distinctin between all of a people and those in power,” you seem to be implying that a situation exists where the Jewish state or Jewish organizations are pushing one action but the majority of individual Jews are in favor of an opposite action. But in my experience, this is not true; usually individual Jews, at least those who make their opinions known, are pushing in sync with their government and/or organizations. For example: the Israeli government is in favor of military action against Iran and recent polls show 66% of Israeli Jews agree while 56% of Americans agree. During the war on Gaza I saw it reported that 97% of Israeli Jews agreed with their government’s actions against the people of Gaza. I didn’t hear about a poll on American Jews’ opinions but I did see numerous press reports of Jewish organizations rallying to support the state of Israel with a few individual Jews protesting against the assault. Obviously, noone can claim that every single Jew is in support of this militaristic approach but from my observations, it sure looks like the great majority of Jews, both inside and outside of Israel, are in favor of these wars.
“Judeofascism” – An existing and disturbing phenomena, much like Christian Fascism
“the “murderous Jewish” contribution to communism.” – Comparable to the murderous Christan contribution to Nazism.
“This isn’t clear thinking. A lot of western Jews opposed Communism.” – Did Chris say anything suggest otherwise?
“To say that all ten Democratic Jewish Senators are Zionists is foolish.” – Is there even one that doesn’t consistently vote the AIPAC party line? I can’t say I’ve rightly looked into the specific claim, but from what I’ve seen pretty much the whole of our Senate is Zionist.
“But to state that all Jews are Zionist, and Zionism is evil (as I’m sure Moore believes) is not at all helpful.” – Did he ever state such things, or are you simply assuming such beliefs on him, or ? Regardless, as a universalist I contend that nationalism is inherently evil, and see no reason to give Zionism a pass on that.
Phil, while I greatly respect all the good you’ve done though this blog and elsewhere, and I abhor all forms of bigotry; unless there is more substance to your charge against Chris than what you have presented, I can’t respect your position here. Looking at your arguments you’ve presented, I get the impression your contention Chris is not a rational one, but rather the result of Pavlovian conditioning. Put simply, I believe you owe the man an apology.
Phil is his own problem. He does not really address effecively gentile(rebel) perspective
on his own. His wife does not know enough to set him objective.
I simply fail to see how anyone who says they are against racism, including anti-semitism, cannot by hypocritical unless by “racism” they mean a belief in either the *inherent* intellectual or moral inferiority of this or that race.
Otherwise what is “racism” elsewise except a declaration of dislike for this or that different *culture*? And who can claim that they don’t find this or that aspect of many cultures unlikeable/repugnant/infirm? Who, for instance, is going to say that they found post-Civil War Jim Crow White Southern culture to be just hunky-dory? Or White Afrikaan South African apartheid culture just as nice and non-objectionable as any other culture?
Is just incoherent and almost necessarily hypocritical to see racism as anything other than a belief in some *inherent*, negative trait.
The term “racism” is based in the illogical belief that humanity consists of separate races. I simply don’t use the term as I have no interest in humoring such ignorance. As for disliking aspects of various cultures, of course there is nothing bigoted in that, be it anything from their treatment of others to their cuisine. It only becomes bigotry when one assumes negative traits on individuals based on associating them with particular cultures. So while there is nothing wrong in condemning Afrikaner apartheid culture, and rather quite the contrary, disparaging individuals simply for being Afrikaners is indisputably bigoted.
And so, Kyleisme, what do you think of Israel’s take on the Palestionian arabs, and do you like the USA’s support of same?
I stand firmly against both. I am at loss as to how you could see any reason to question me on that though, even if I hadn’t been posting here regularly for more than a year now.
“I simply fail to see how anyone who says they are against racism, including anti-semitism, cannot by hypocritical unless by “racism” they mean a belief in either the *inherent* intellectual or moral inferiority of this or that race.”
Technically speaking, anti-semitism usually should not be considered “racism”. Apart from some Jews themselves, hardly anyone nowadays in America thinks of “the Jews” as being members of a separate “race” (unlike “blacks”, “latinos”, and some others). There are some rather obvious reasons for that.
Also, many people in the U.S. who have anti-Jewish sentiments {which many Jews would characterize as anti-semitism) do not have “a belief in either the *inherent* intellectual or moral inferiority of” Jews. They don’t think of Jews as being intellectually or morally inferior. Their anti-Jewish sentiments aren’t directed toward Jews as persons or as a people. Rather, they are based on what they perceive to be political, economic, or cultural power far beyond what is appropriate for such a small minority in a “democracy”, and far beyond a level consistent with THEIR OWN interests.
There are very important distinctions between “racism” and anti-semitism that commonly apply here in America. These distinctions are usually ignored on this blog.
Call Me Ishmael wrote:
“There are very important distinctions between “racism” and anti-semitism that commonly apply here in America.”
Well, maybe, but nothing that does any violence to my contention that unless one is positing that this or that group of people possesses some *inherent* bad characteristic you are in essence then merely criticizing *culturally based* behavior of a sort. And if you then try to say that this is still “racism” or “anti-semitism” you simply cannot help being a hypocrite unless you also say that all cultures are equal and there’s nothing that can be criticized in any of them.
So how is this different in terms of “anti-semitism”? Unless a person is positing that jews possess some inherent characteristic they don’t like, all they are saying is that they don’t like the way they perceive that jews *choose* to behave. No different than criticizing the way/belief system/culture/whatever that Southern U.S. Whites chose to behave in or believe in with regard to African-Americans for a long time. No different than criticizing the way Germans behaved and what they believed during the Hitler years.
Of course people can still be wrong about their cultural perceptions, and of course this can still result in all manner of evils. But it isn’t racism or anti-semitism as one can define same in any sensible way. The reason true racism was seen as particularly evil was because of its belief that the people in whichever group it focused on had no choice about possessing the negative characteristic posited, and that because it was race-based pretty much every member of that subject group shared it too. It was, in essence, inescapable.
Because the distinction has been lost what we have today is babel, and rank political and/or moral opportunism. It’s perfectly okay, for instance, to criticize as harshly as one wants “White European Christian culture” for any and all manner of sins. (Many of which are true.) Indeed not just countless books and academic careers today are built on same, but it seems that entire academic disciplines are too.) Try doing that with a few other groups however gets you called a racist or anti-semite.
It’s just incoherent and doesn’t make sense. Merely because someone isn’t a racist doesn’t make them either right, or good. They may even be evil. But they might not. And so wrongly and promiscuously using the term “racist” or “anti-semite” so as to just describe any thinking you don’t like is in the long run just going to render those terms as being utterly meaningless and without force, which I think I already see happening.
Sin Nombre: “…unless one is positing that this or that group of people possesses some *inherent* bad characteristic ….”
Let me be clear: I do not think that people who identify as Jews have some “inherent bad characteristic”. Nor any other group of people.
More to the point, I think that few, if any, regular or somewhat regular commentators on this blog think that Jews have some “inherent bad characteristic”.
More significantly still (in my opinion), only a very small, ignorant minority of American gentiles believe that Jews have some “inherent bad characteristic”.
That cannot be said concerning some “racial” groups in America. I have seen real racism in America and know what it looks and smells like. There used to be vast numbers of Americans who believed that ALL members of some identifiable racial groups have some “inherent bad characteristic”. There still are such people, but in far fewer numbers.
In all my many decades of adulthood, living and traveling in many parts of the country, I have never known anyone who seemed to think that about Jews. America has never been like old Europe in that respect.
That’s not to say there is not anti-Jewish feeling in this country. There is a lot of it.
But it is based on perceptions of group power and influence, including perceptions about Zionism and loyalties to Israel – not on “racial” distinctions. I think I have written about that elsewhere in this thread so won’t elaborate here.
Great writing, CMI. Thank you for enunciating my thoughts on the matter better than I am able to!
Call Me Ishmael:
Appreciate your clarification; it seems we weren’t in any significant disagreement after all.
In fact, it’s kind of funny all this talk about anti-semitism especially given, as I said, that it’s essentially viewed as just another form of racism. Like you I too suspect there’s very little true “racist” anti-semitism in terms of believing that jews have some inherent inferiority. What’s funny then is that I’ve seen stories reporting that it’s quite common in Israel to believe that jews are in fact inherently *superior,* intellectually at least. (And I’ve even heard that in American jewish households the use of the term “goyish kop” isn’t unusual and is used to designate someone with a dumb—”goyish”—brain.)
Lots coming just from jewish cultural beliefs, but also bolstered by supposed findings in modern IQ testing, of course this is what real true racism looks like. And yet of course, given the state of public discourse, one would think that the world was simply awash with true, “genetic” anti-semitic racism which we both agree is probably a very very rare thing.
Oh dear, I’ll probably be next to be banned with my following comment. I find this jarring as a tagline: The singling out of Jews as the fly in the ointment, I find that bigoted.
OK, Phil, is is bigoted to say The singling out of Jews as the instigators? Because that’s what we’re talking about here. It is not, however, Jews in general. It is certain Jews. But does everyone have to trip over their feet delineating the specific Jewish individuals when we have no problem sweeping Iranians, Muslims, Americans, right-wingers, men, women, MSM, etc, into their own containers to make points in short posts?
It’s true that to say all Jews are Zionists is false logic and does not convey the multiplicity of thought, value, ethics of any individual Jew–a righteous complaint of Mooser, for example, and false in the light of Jewish history in the Diaspora–Jews as a whole when compared to to other groups as a whole may be arguabley seen as fomenting agents of change under ostensibily different ideologies, all sorts of isms, capitalism and communism as just two obvious examples. Odd though, that the same can be said
of white gentile people, originally Christian by birth. The difference is that there is
no stiff taboo about lumping, e.g., all white males in the same negative group. From the founding fathers, to the (former) exclusive WASP establishment in the USA, to
“crackers” and “rednecks.” All of these have been easy political and cultural targets since the mid-1960s– for about a half a century. The KKK grew out of the USA’s reconsruction era, and era not studied or taught in detail in the USA, and the Nazi party’s appeal to white males in Europe, most of whom were also born into Christianity, is also a taboo subject taboo. The focus in both cases is always on
white male racism as the negative cause of all the ills in the world. Who were the
stiff peon support of such evils in later and post-colonial USA? The Irish indentured servant is certainly one. We have a problem. I’m not sure Phil is ready to address it. In fact, I don’t know anyone who is, whether old school Nazi or current Obamaland. Who goes into this gray area of cause and effect? Nobody I’ve ever read, and nobody I’ve ever seen running or in political office. Perhaps we should look to the origins of modern Australia for a road map? I’m just asking, and I have a book detailing the
Rothschilds’contribution to world history, their origin, their impact on European and USA history.
While “cracker” and “redneck” can be used to refer to people in bigoted fashions, both appropriate uses too. Check a dictionary.
Huh? How does this reply enlighten readers of this blog in the context of whatI said?
Surely “there is no stiff taboo about… “crackers” and “rednecks”” suggests you believe there should be? In response I pointed out that while both can be used in a bigoted manor, neither are inherently disparaging terms. This is similar to how “hajji” is an respectful term to use with a Muslim who has partaken in the Hajj, but offencive when applied to Muslims indiscriminately.
Citizen, what DID you say? I’m still trying to follow it.
So, calling someone a cracker or redneck is a compliment? You mean in the same way blacks call each other the N word? Or comedians on the country & western comedy
stand-ups? Do not such belated reactions suggest the terms had long been of a dismissive and abusive nature?
How often do you see the terms used by the dictionary definitions that you have in mind? The words are almost always used as nasty ethnic and racial slurs at this point, and further insult is added by the fact that the words are supposedly acceptable.
Todd, that’s exactly my point. Kudos to you for saying it more succinctly.
Todd,
The words are almost always used as nasty ethnic and racial slurs at this point. In the USA only. Elsewhere, they are comical labels, and dont carry the emotional freight you impute to them. No different than Tennessee Williams films in India: here they’re serious drama, there they’re high comedy.
MRW, But we are discussing the USA. Do I really care what words people use? Not so much. However, when certain slurs end careers and negatively brand people for life, the double standard is enough to cause anger.
As far as the rest of the world goes, race, religion and ethnicity are serious issues which can get people hurt or killed, whether slurs are a big deal or not. Having watched Finns and Swedes fight it out on ferry boats over past injustices, or watching a Laotian and Vietnamese man go at one another with hammers because of ethnic tensions in the workplace, I don’t have so much faith in the rest of the world when it comes to being tolerant or free of ethnic animosity.
I can only scan this discussion, but this caught my attention:
The focus in both cases is always on white male racism as the negative cause of all the ills in the world. Who were the stiff peon support of such evils in later and post-colonial USA? The Irish indentured servant is certainly one. We have a problem. I’m not sure Phil is ready to address it.
Not sure if I understand you, but you know this book?
You are aware of Noel Ignatiev’s book? How the Irish Became White by Noel Ignatiev.
Citizen, I can only scan this discussion, but this caught my attention, and now it’s so long, I probably won’t succeed to get it through the spam filters:
The focus in both cases is always on white male racism as the negative cause of all the ills in the world. Who were the stiff peon support of such evils in later and post-colonial USA? The Irish indentured servant is certainly one. We have a problem. I’m not sure Phil is ready to address it.
Not sure if I understand you, but you know Noel Ignatiev’s book? How the Irish Became White by Noel Ignatiev.
Initially the Irish based their conflict with Blacks on economic competition, not on believed biological superiority or difference “To become white they had to learn to subordinate county, religious, or national animosities, not to mention any natural sympathies they may have felt for their fellow creatures, to a new solidarity based on color-a bond which, it must be remembered, was contradicted by their experience in Ireland” (p. 96). The Irish in Ireland discriminated other Irish by geographic locations like counties and in order to become successful Irish workers united against the Blacks like they would have of other people in different counties in Ireland. Later in the history of Irish once they become a dominant player in American culture participate in race riots aimed at Black laborers, “Many of these working-class heroes had made their way to Philadelphia, and when the riot broke out they displayed the highest degree of white race consciousness by taking an active part in it” (p. 137). The Irish finally became one of the oppressors, not the oppressed when they officially became “white.”
Concerning the Rothschild’s I am a bit hesitant. The source of my hesitations, are of course the Nazis. All their scapegoating essentially shows a mirroring process. They don’t really mind to turn into Rothschild’s themselves. The are Darwinian’s the stronger succeeds. At one point they didn’t publish the Protocols anymore, since they realized it showed their own mindset. This is a trait I sense in Chris Moore. I can’t help but imagining what the US would like if his mindset were given a chance to supplant “the Jewish domination of the US”. He is far too obsessed with the issue, way beyond the legitimate contemporary discourse. He picks out historical items and creates a process in which the evil is neatly mirrored on the other side. The Jews are essentially playing a zero sum game, always were and always will.
One question. Why shouldn’t I agree sometimes with someone who is Jewish? Why does this make me suspect of being either Jewish myself, as he once suspected, and seemingly simmering with excitement asked me, or simply a sympathizer along essentially Jewish ideas a left position, socialism, communism? So either Jewish or tricked by them? Who else but a hard-core ideologue would come to such a conclusion? Does this construction of extremes feels realistic to you?
Why is e.g. the English revolution, no Jews in England at the time, or the French revolution or the German Peasant’s War, somehow triggered by Luther? A Jew? or the 1844 weaver’s revolt wiped out of his easy attribution of left thought to Jews?
Whatever doesn’t fit into his mental architecture is wiped away with phrases like: the modern Jewish-ideologue chronicle. But if you take the definition of “modernity”all the above events belong to it. It would help if he started to define his terms. What is the psychological source for his rigid world view? It feels way beyond the dilemmas the US is caught in.
The are Darwinian’s the stronger succeeds.
Holy shit, if that is your understanding of Darwinism, you are in trouble! I couldn’t even start telling you what’s wrong with that, but let’s start with the fundemental one: Darwin was talking about competition between species, not intra-species competition, and nothing Darwin ever said (unless he was speculating, as we all do) shows that he meant his theory of evolution to be applied to human societal competition.
As I understood him, Chris seemed to blame most or all of the ills of Western civilization on the evil Jews. Now even if he only meant a subset (though I got the impression that subset was supposed to be large), his beliefs are insane and anti-semitic. They also happened to be the norm in Western culture about 100 years ago and we all know how that turned out. You didn’t have to be a Nazi sympathizer to contribute to the events that led to the Holocaust. You just had to believe that Jews were particularly evil or greedy or whatever, and you were contributing to the climate that fostered genocidal responses. And apart from the Holocaust, anti-semitism is also the chief reason why Zionism had the success it did. Western anti-semitism is part of the cause of Palestinian suffering.
It’s perfectly possible (and necessary, IMO) to talk about the Israel lobby and how the charge of anti-semitism is used as a weapon to suppress criticism of Israel and Zionism, and no doubt there are ethnocentric idiots in every culture and religion, but when you start seeing Jews as the source of evil on everything you’re not talking about “ideas” that need to be seriously discussed.
I come to this blog because Phil and his co-bloggers write stuff that appears in very few other places. There are other bloggers on this issue (Israel/Palestine) I like just as much, but they don’t produce as many posts, so I come here more often. But if this place turns back into a site where people start discussing antisemitism as a respectable POV, or where Holocaust deniers receive a sympathetic hearing from some (something I saw here a year or two ago) in the comment section, Phil’s blog will lose whatever chance he has at reaching people on this issue. Antisemites in the comment section have the potential to taint what he’s trying to do. And besides, they’re morons.
BTW, though I’m a lefty, when Chris limited himself to talk about leftist arrogance I think he had a point, though an exaggerated one. But the sort of liberal who wanted us to go into Iraq and remake the entire Middle East in our image does have a lot in common with, say, Lenin. What they have in common is incredible arrogance, the willingness to risk countless lives for some utopian scheme. There’s some sort of family resemblance there. (Though Naomi Klein would add that free market types who supported Pinochet are the same, and that’s also correct. But then, free marketeers are what the 19th Century called “liberals” and they have their own grand utopian notions.)
Unfortunately, Chris couldn’t make that point for long without going back to his ethnic obsessions.
“As I understood him, Chris seemed to blame most or all of the ills of Western civilization on the evil Jews. “
Common courtesy requires a quote or two to back this up.
V’s quotes below are the kind of thing I was remembering.
Anyone who read Chris for long (and “Ed” before that, as I think they were the same) soon noticed a crazed obsession with “Jews”. I don’t see how anyone could sincerely dispute this. The very title of his blog suggests it–I don’t like the term “Islamofascism” because people who use it are bigots and Chris’s term is the same sort of thing.
Anyway, this all the time I’m willing to waste on this subject.
“Islamofascism” generally used by bigots simply because they are too damn stupid to comprehend any distinction between fascism and other forms of brutally authoritarian government, and it is inappropriate where it doesn’t rightly apply.
On the other hand, some Christians and Jews are exceedingly fascist.
The term “islamofacism” was/is a sly, not stupid, way introduced by the neocon writers to paint (take your pick and or any) the arab or muslim leaders with a
competitive view as all somehow joined at the hip with discredited Nazi philosophy.
It relied, relies on vast ignorance of history and inaccurate analogies obfuscating awarness of current real political
situations.
Donald,
I am trying to figure out what your saying here:
“You didn’t have to be a Nazi sympathizer to contribute to the events that led to the Holocaust. You just had to believe that Jews were particularly evil or greedy or whatever, and you were contributing to the climate that fostered genocidal responses.”
So people who didn’t support the plight of the Jews through history are indirectly guilty of genocide? Are the Poles guilty, or maybe the United States, since we dragged our feet into WWII?
Donald, you should be a bit more aware of your assumed premises. It’s really difficult to start out with no assumptions at all. But you should try it. History is not what you see.
One thing is true, and me and Phil had better get used to it. I expect America’s decision to deal differently, to try and force Israel to change its behavior, to be taken with the same level of thought and information, the same amount of demogoguery, and the same amount of rational inquiry, as any of the other changes I have seen in America in my 50odd years.
It’ll be a fuckin mess, and more than any rational decisions taken either on ethics, humanitarian concerns, or even self interest, it’ll be accompanied by a shit-load of really anemic anti-semitism.
It won’t be different than anything else. Oh well. You can see it here, and from what I hear talking to people, it’s about typical.
NO, any attempted change will be fought all the way by the congressional AIPAC whores; the battle will be accompanied by a shit-load of really hot proto-semitism, Israel right and uber alles.
So long as Jewish-American entertainers ingratiate themselves w/ our society, ‘Jewish’ identity will remain humanized (as it should be) but also impenetrable (in any meaningful sense). And as long as Hollywood keeps the Holocaust industry alive and running, the same taboos and social pressures will affect the majority population.
I mean, we forget that MOST people in this country do not know what the hell is going on ‘over there’. Just look at 2004′s issue awareness polls. They are embarrassing.
How can we expect people to even skim the surface of this debate, let alone sympathize w/ the Palestinian cause? I mean, the surface is dominated by propaganda (the MSM).
You can expect the most timid and tepid criticism of Jewish identity from people who have undergone similar oppression (Desmond Tutu) and from well-known Leftists (Fonda).
The Arab American community is not even close to as organized as the Jewish community and they have to deal w/ intense and deep-seated racism in this culture towards them. They will have to jump through a lot of hoops and accept a lot of premises to and for any meaningful dialogue on the ME. (Just watch any ‘Is Islam a religion of hate’ type of debate.)
I mean, it’s really a miracle of PR – what we’ve done to the Arabs and Muslims. Granted, there are lots of problems over there that have to do w/ the Arab leadership – BUT – this divide and conquer strategy is not new. The way we destroy liberation movements we don’t like and help prop up corrupt and despotic rulers who will maintain favorable economic relations w/ us and police their own population – is something we’ve done in other parts of the world as well.
And then we have tourists like that girl Phil cited. I mean, this occupation is over 40 years now. And we’re only just recently humanizing the Palestinians and scratching the surface on the history of the conflict.
What we should be doing is banning people for POINT SCORING (look it up, although I’m sure most here know the rhetoric by heart having been bombarded w/ it during the Gaza massacre by Zionist trolls).
Phil is so concerned about antisemitism because he is Jewish. It has nothing to do w/ universality. If it were, why did he allow all those trolls who were mocking Palestinian children of malnutrition, to remain up until this new feature? Why does he allow the racist/bigot Michael L. to stay? The latter is far more racist than Chris M.
I don’t know. I mean, I donate money. I can do that. But beyond something like that, we’re all essentially arm-chair analysts and this is all academic. I guess, the feeling I got from this blog used to be of ‘action’.
But uh…, I mean just look at the TIFF thing and now Polanski. This is a reflection of our political/moral culture. Goldstone too. This is like cartoon good vs. evil at this point. Especially when that thug gets up at the UN and cries about the Holocaust after having killed 1300 Palestinians.
I agree with you, Cliff. It’s embarassing. Hollywood’s spin on what Polanski actually did & the way Obama has agreed to avoid the Goldstone report, buying Bibi’s spin
it will interfere with the peace process, and I will add, Obama’s agreement with Bibi
to continue the Israeli nuke ambiguity, do suggest just the depth of a willingness
to not confront reality, which means the status quo will go limping on along until
we are all enveloped in WW3. Nobody influential learned from WW1, which led to WW2, and WW3 is the next time. No lessons are ever learned, just tactics.
“It’ll be a fuckin mess, and more than any rational decisions taken either on ethics, humanitarian concerns, or even self interest, it’ll be accompanied by a shit-load of really anemic anti-semitism.”
Anemic, Mooser?
I disagree with the causal chain you suggest. I think, and in fact fear, that the real, spittin’ kind of anti-semitism is likely to result not from an effort “to try and force Israel to change its behavior” (which, if it happens soon enough, is likely to be led by Jews anyway), but rather from the consequences of failing to do so.
The longer American Jews themselves, of whatever flavor, delay in vigorously trying to “force” Israel to pursue a fair and secure peace, the more likely it is that the consequences will become so severe for America that the future effort will not be led by Jews, and real, classic anti-semitism will arise in this land that has been largely free of it throughout its history.
The things you see on this blog that you often vehemently object to are usually not expressions of real anti-semitism (see my post above on the subject). They are attempts to engage others in serious discussion of important issues. Often, they are clumsy attempts.
I agree, C.M.I. I have been very concerned that most of the Jewish community in the US seems detached from reality. It’s hard to blame them, since they are inundated with comfortable propaganda: Jews are moral leaders; their critics are dimwitted anti-semites; Jews have always been hated without cause, etc. etc.
In general, the Jewish community, and Israel, for that matter, seem to be unable to tolerate or learn from criticism or “self-correct.” Perhaps, having lived in subjugation for so many centuries, this ability was never cultivated as it was amongst the ruling Christian classes.
The issues of outright corruption (Jane Harman, and now see the Sibil Edmonds interview linked below) are quite serious. Jewish media figures seem to be getting more, rather than less brazen in advertising their contempt for middle America, and I am not sure how long the US can remain the sole exception to the disgust that the behaviour of Israel and the Zionist lobby have earned worldwide.
If no correction occurs, there will inevitably be a pushback, or backlash if you will, and matters will be taken out of the Jewish community’s hands. Phil has done a great thing by seizing the initiative, but I do not know if it will be enough.
link to amconmag.com
I agree with both C.M.I. and DavidF. DavidF, in particular, wrote my perceptions better than I could — although I would have added ‘Muslim’ to this phrase about the ruling classes: this ability was never cultivated as it was amongst the ruling Christian classes.
What DavidF is saying is something that Zionists, and even reasonable non-political Jews, are refusing to listen to; in fact, say they dont have to because their arguments are so secure and because history backs them up. I dont care who you are or where you are in the entire history of human kind, any group that sets itself up as exclusive, exceptional, untouchable, smarter than the rest, and then assumes that it can act as an oligarchy in any society it penetrates without repercussions is cruisin’ for a bruisin’. History is rife with stories of groups who tried and died as a result, the Catholic Church dominion being one big example when it overstepped its power with the Inquisition and Henry VIII….poof.
The ‘comfortable propaganda’ that DavidF refers to above has begun to grate non-Jews, and they are growing tired of holding up the untruthiness of hasbara split hairs. I hear this all the time, in quiet voices, with resignation, without rancor. This is the 21st C and the constant refrains of being hard done by throughout history, when ordinary American folk are truly being hard done by now, in light of the incredible power of Jews in our society quite likely can provoke the backlash DavidF alludes to if, horrifically, Israel bombs or gets the US to bomb Iran; or the failure to reach a peace in the I/P situation drags on keeping our President occupied from the more pressing issues we face here.
What DavidF does not say and which is true: this is a festering sore under Blanket America. WASPs, as an elite, threw stones, drew guns, and went to war with the motherland they arrived from; they, at least, presumed to act in this country’s best interests. You cannot say that about those Jews advocating for war with Iran now, or like the Israeli official MJ Rosenberg quoted a couple of days ago who said that Americans will get used to terrorism on our shores if Israel bombs Iran because Israel obviously has been subject to terrorism for so many years, and we have learned to live with it, just like Americans learned to get over the deaths of 9/11 “within a few months.” So, he concludes, So, terrorism is something that should not deter, you know, the West from attacking Iranian nuclear sites.” link to z.pe
You dont think there won’t be a backlash against that kind of mendacious arrogance should it occur? Think again. Think long and hard.
“The longer American Jews themselves, of whatever flavor, delay in vigorously trying to “force” Israel to pursue a fair and secure peace, the more likely it is that the consequences will become so severe for America”
“American Jews” have no power over Israel, except insofar as they withhold contributions. And I’m sure America’s Gentile government will be more than happy to make up the difference.
Mooser, that’s exactly the key point, the very one you suggest here but do not acknowledge (while you dwell on the 50% intermarriage rate):
You say, ““American Jews” have no power over Israel, except insofar as they withhold contributions. And I’m sure America’s Gentile government will be more than happy to make up the difference.”
So, considering that you know the USA goys will “make up the difference” –how can you imply the Israel Lobby is not the problem, while simultaneously making comments here over many months saying the USA goy is fundamentally anti-semitic, especially the more conservative goys? You need to integrate your
disparate ideas and feelings.
Phil raises an interesting point. Are there some Jewish senators who vote pro-Zionist not because of ethnocentrism, but for the same reason Joe Biden does? Meaning they’re political whores too? We’ll never know, as they won’t admit it either way. But Rabbi Lerner has talked about Jews being under the same sorts of pressures gentiles are under. I get the impression from Mearsheimer-Walt that there are Jews in academia who also feel cowed. But none of this should distract us from the source of all those pressures: Jewish power.
It’s much simpler. All but a couple of Jews currently in the USA congress conflate completely the USA’s best interest and Israel’s.
I have one advantage over some, it is that I quote verbatim many times those I disagree with – even if Phil erases it, and that is for times of a “lapse in memory” for some of what previously transpired. So, as kylebisme asks – “This isn’t clear thinking. A lot of western Jews opposed Communism.” –” Did Chris say anything suggest otherwise?” I think this is some of the semi-universal retort in here, so why don’t you read what Chris said and you decide –
“I won’t delve deeply into certain strains of obsessive and megalomaniacal Jewish psychology that demand centralization and socialism as a means of controlling the levers of power across huge expanses of politics, geography and economy out of a cultural control-freak insecurity and irrational neurosis, because I have learned to hold my tongue out of good manners and a grudging respect…”
“Re “The Arab Mind”: Interestingly, the same author of the book by that title, Raphael Patai, wrote a sequel that readers here might find interesting called “The Jewish Mind.””
“As I see it, the role of the intellectual is to understand, and at most attempt to manage the interactions between cultures in the most efficient and peaceful possible manner so that each can pursue its God-given role. Vis-à-vis control-oriented Jews, this means managing their tendencies towards monopoly and totalitarianism so that they aren’t allowed to artificially suppress the actualization of other peoples and cultures through authoritarian intrigue and warmongering.”
There is no distinction here, in fact, there is little distinction of a portion of a “group” (Jews) from another in most of his comments. So, I would really like to know what people are kvetching about after you read this – if you need more proof I can go to his site where he claims to have put the entire post down in whole, and give you more examples. What would you call universal statements like this? I call them antisemitism.
But that’s because you don’t think there is any content to Jewishness.
Please elaborate what you mean D
“Please elaborate what you mean D.”
We’ve been through this once before. You called me an “antisemite” for suggesting that there were ideas associated with modern secular Jewish identity. And when I asked what ideas you thought might be central to the self-identification, you seemed to suggest that Jewishness was all a diffuse cloud of diverse opinions.
Perhaps I read you wrong.
V, I believe I have confused you with another poster, syvanem. I’m very sorry.
How so? You have not connected the dots. What makes you think you have, V?
What does that mean Citizen – does it mean that the world has been smitten by “megalomaniacal Jewish psychology?” That the Jews, as a group whole, have tendencies towards “monopoly and totalitarianism ?”
It just strikes me as strange that we did not hear these whoops and cries during the era of Mellons, Morgan’s and Stanley’s, etc. However, now it is a question. This is not even a defense of what those who are in power do, which is unconscionable – but it does bring to the fore of why it is so severe now when it has been the mode of operation in this country (USA) since its inception. Unless, of course, you believe in some pristine beginning, which is nothing but horse shit – or some mythical capitalism. Barring that, my question still stands.
Let me approach in a more affirmative fashion. You either have to have some cockeyed ideas about the beginnings of this country (the USA), a brain full of fluff (like the validity of representation, or checks and balances between the branches in the government as the few laugh all the way to the bank and at the people from the beginning, etc.) . In the realm of economy you have to believe that there is some sort of fairy tale capitalism that does not devolve eventually to fascism (because the two always merge). Thereby dismissing that this country from the beginning was a polyarchy, that is, that the “responsible classes” rule which always mutates into a oligarchy. Some strange idea that this country is “of. for, and by the people (going back to the the “saintly” founding fathers. Fascism cannot survive without capitalism, etc.
Or, you understand that this was and is the case (this system as described above) but just do not like the idea that the Jews are now doing what was done by the Mellon’s, Morgan’s, and the whole Eastern Establishment, etc. There was not egregious outcry that the previous assholes drug the American people into two world wars, and impoverished them by the early depressions and recessions, etc. It is these “Jews,” there is something wrong with “their” character, something sinister about their acts, otherwise it is as American as apple pie. Now, as I said before this is not a defense of what is transpiring, it is just an observation that there is partially another group in a confluence of interest that is evident, the Jews – and it is this which is supremely objectionable.
Take for instance, Citizen, you have previously mentioned Ron Paul. What Paul wishes to do is to just turn things loose to private tyrannies – get the government out of the way, or so the stories go. Which at the current juncture would be nothing but absolutely horrendous – giving carte blanch to these “super-persons” who have been created by “findings” with the rights of people, that never die, and that have massive sums of money and hence power to crush the people (which is part of what is now going on).
I have some admiration for Paul in the sense that he wishes to shut down the Federal Reserve (which we both know is not federal or a reserve), as if it is merely this institution alone and its demise that will cause all to prosper. However, that is only half of the story – because it was our “representatives” that invited them in and handed them the keys! Why? Because they are part of the franchise that serves the few – that is what this government is, from the beginning till now. Those bankers said to them “we will fulfill you’re designs, and make it so that the few can continue to reign – everything like their own personal treasure, and they will reward you well for how you served them (and who were the characters who introduced this? The moneyed few).” Well, why do you think these reprobates sit with such rapt attention when the head of the reserve speaks? It is there to help to enslave the people into debt peonage, so that the few can advance – who the damn government was created for in the first place. Making one and all who are not the privileged a slave colony. The corporations are merely the instruments which help to fulfill the design both foreign and domestic. They (these bankers) promised them (the few) what they wanted from the beginning, an Empire, and Empires only serve the few – they have swallowed republics from time immemorial with foreign pillage and the twin of divesting the people of any enfranchisement (as Hannah Arendt tried to warn us, they will totally swallow your institutions and the people). However, the gap has never been so wide since the rich and the poor, greater now than even the robber baron days.
However, with this background, lets get back to the power of the Jews – all they did was a continuation of what was previously enacted and worked out. Now THAT is what we are dealing with – and it is just as horrendous and reprobate as what has happened in the past. Definitely they have to be stopped, this new cadre which in part consists of Jews – look at what they have done both foreign and domestic. But we did not go after all the English previously (as seen by the few representative elite), we did not lynch all of the Irish, we did not hand all of the Italians – it did not even enter anyone’s minds in a significant way and gain momentum. Therefore we will not go after all of the Jewish by saying they are all twisted, that they are all Zionists without a conscience, because to do so is not to solve a problem but to envisage pogroms – it becomes antisemitism.
v.., all this time I have mistaken you for a sensible person. You say you would like to shut down the Federal Reserve? Could you give us one of your long discourses, and explain:
1) How will monetary economics be pursued; e.g., how will the money supply be controlled (it doesn’t regulate itself, you know); how will short-term interest rates be held within a range appropriate for current economic activity?
2) Who will influence banks’ lending power; e.g., who will serve as the lender of last resort to prevent bank failures when needed, adjust reserve requirements, prevent seizing-up of credit markets?
Please don’t respond here. This is actually a plea that we stay on topic.
I don’t deny the Mellon-Morgan-Stanley matrix of greed and how it harmed the USA.
I never excused the WASP establishment for anything; nor will I excuse the current establishment. Crony is crony, whatever ethnic or other composite. There was plenty of whoops and cries during that old WASP era; go back to the more courageous news articles back in the archives. They made their impact, eventually, as will Phil’s tiny blog.
There’s a huge difference in that the Morgans and Mellons could be aggressively criticized as could the entire “WASP” establishment as such. But criticize Jews in even the most oblique way, and the cry of anti-Semitism quickly shuts down the discussion (except, so far, on the internet).
Call me Ishmael, you want a long version? here ya go –
WHAT WILL GO IN THE PLACE OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE?
Knock yourself out, get a cup of coffee
V, I don’t disagree with what you say. I don’t mean to imply, if anyone thinks I did, that the Jews are different than the the former WASP elite in the days of the WASP robber barons. Like Phil, I see we have the same problem. And like Phil, I note there are more and more Jewish Americans who keep the same nasty schtick alive to the detriment of most Americans and ditto re the world. A key difference though, is that
the official conflation of American interests with a foreign state’s self-perceived interests, i.e., Israel’s, was never a part of the old crony WASP establishment’s vision. Benedict Arnold has been replaced by the neocons who survive quite well, thank you, under Obama. Obama’s main goal is black reparations in disguise; for this
he will follow the AIPAC agenda. The loser in both cases is the people who form the backbone of the USA . It’s all happening before our eyes.
Call Me Ismael, there is no national economy in recorded history that survived being run by private banks, or a private banking system like the FR: we are experiencing the long-term effects of it now. Only governments that can control the currency provide the proper safety nets for a society. Aristotle said that ‘Money exists not by nature, but by law’. Adam Smith came along and said money is a commodity and economists not understanding the effect of this adopted his views; this started our spiral downward. In fact, Smith was a secret agent of the private Bank of England and was acting in their stead to bankrupt the new United States, which failed for a number of reasons. (Too much to go into here.)
You need to read The Lost Science of Money by Stephen Zarlenga. Here is an informed commenter writing on a blog about it better than I could, or care to, at the moment. The book is stunning.
And more from the same commenter referencing ideas made clear throughout history in Zarlenga’s book.
Read a review of Zarlenga’s book here: link to monetary.org
And the web site for the book is here: link to z.pe
Ron Paul’s “End the Fed” should be out soon, if it isn’t already. Definitely worth a read, as is “The Creature from Jekyll Island : A Second Look at the Federal Reserve.”
link to amazon.com
MRW, having devoted several years to the study of monetary economics, I doubt that I need instruction in the basics from people like Zarlenga. “Money” in the modern economic sense (which includes as a subset the legal tender, “currency”, the most liquid type of money) is a highly liquid CLASS of financial assets, not a commodity. But, in capturing some of the properties of “money”, some lines of economic inquiry treat money as a commodity for analytical purposes.
I could use many big, abstract words on this point, but in a nutshell: Controlling the money supply must be a function of government. (I didn’t say elected government officials and I didn’t say banks.)
The Federal Reserve System of the US is a quasi-independent federal government agency (hence, the “Federal” in its name). Its powers are defined and generally circumscribed by act of Congress. Its primary statutory responsibilities are control of the money supply and regulation of the operations of the commercial banking system. It is not a private bank; it is a regulator of banks and the banking system, and it serves as the central bank of the federal government.
(I was going to write a brief defense of the FRS and also explain generally how I think its present authorities need to be modified, reduced, or expanded. But I see it will take too much space for a subject that is well outside the brief of this blog entry. I know this is a hot-button issue for many libertarians, but I’d like to let it rest here.)
v…
“I have one advantage over some, it is that I quote verbatim many times those I disagree with – even if Phil erases it, and that is for times of a “lapse in memory” for some of what previously transpired. ”
S(he) then goes on to post the following from Chris Moore:
“Vis-à-vis control-oriented Jews, this means managing their tendencies towards monopoly and totalitarianism so that they aren’t allowed to artificially suppress the actualization of other peoples and cultures through authoritarian intrigue and warmongering.”
Her/His conclusion:
There is no distinction here, in fact, there is little distinction of a portion of a “group” (Jews) from another in most of his comments.
v…
You posted a quote that demostrates a clear distinction in Chris Moore’s thinking between “control-oriented Jews” and Jews who are not “control-oriented”.
Thanks for providing more evidence that Chris Moore DOES make distinctions between different groups of Jews. Kvetching indeed!!!
FPM
FPM, nice try Sherlock, but you took away the first part of the paragraph which brings the context -
“As I see it, the role of the intellectual is to understand, and at most attempt to manage the interactions between cultures in the most efficient and peaceful possible manner so that each can pursue its God-given role. Vis-à-vis control-oriented Jews, this means managing their tendencies towards monopoly and totalitarianism so that they aren’t allowed to artificially suppress the actualization of other peoples and cultures through authoritarian intrigue and warmongering.”
He is contrasting the “balanced” intellectual (because we all know how unbalanced Jews are…) WITH the “Vis-à-vis control-oriented Jews…” If one is going to fancy himself to be a gifted wordsmith he is going to pay the piper when he say things like this. The “vis-Vis-à-vis” is the terminal juncture, or absolute contrast between the two, and that is the common reading – not a convoluted reading to save someone from what they so clearly stated. He did not say “the Jewish intellectual, and than he took them as a whole once again giving a repeat of their “propensities” – “…managing their tendencies towards monopoly and totalitarianism so that they aren’t allowed to artificially suppress the actualization of other peoples and cultures through authoritarian intrigue and warmongering.” Any other reading, even within the interrelation of the of the other paragraphs preserves the meaning (the “Jewish Mind,” and “…obsessive and megalomaniacal Jewish psychology…”).
Oh, one other matter FrankieP, just happened to notice –
“S(he) then goes on to post the following from Chris Moore…”
I am a male, but I have not abandoned my feminine side…LOL
v…
“I am a male, but I have not abandoned my feminine side…LOL ”
DON’T abandon it!!! It makes for a more balanced emotional and spiritual personality.
FPM
“I am a male, but I have not abandoned my feminine side…LOL ”
DON’T abandon it!!! It makes for a more balanced emotional and spiritual personality.
And the ladies love it!
There are certain strains of obsessive and megalomaniacal psychology in many cultures, and control oriented people accordingly. Surely you are aware of such facts?
What about Joe Biden, he’s a Christian and says he’s a Zionist.The singling out of Jews as the fly in the ointment, I find that bigoted.
Joe Biden identified as a Zionist once, in an interview with Shalom TV. It’s frankly hard to imagine he would self-identify as a Zionist if he were involved in any walk of life other than politics.
What this says about the power of Zionism in the United States is self-evident.
Zionism is a Jewish movement.
Decades ago, many Jewish people would change their names or not identify as Jewish in order to gain acceptance to centers of power and privilege.
These days, the eventual vice president of the United States self-identifies as a Zionist in order to further his political career.
I remember a black man saying that there really couldn’t be such a thing as “reverse racism” because racism is all about power and blacks, even to this day, don’t really have much power in the United States.
Using this criteria, can there really be such a thing as “antisemitism” in the United States in 2009?
Obviously I don’t deny that there are prejudices.
As another commenter here recently remarked, “Why bother singling out Jews as unique and different – it (“antisemitism”) is a self-defeating definition that seeks to prove what it opposes. The term Racism works just fine and dandy for the rest of the world.”
When a group that comprises 2 to 3 percent of the populace has such enormous influence in media, politics, and finance, resentment is bound to arise, regardless of said group’s cultural, ethnic, or religous makeup.
But when the large majority of said group has such a passionate attachment to a foreign country…
I don’t know what the answer is.
“But when the large majority of said group has such a passionate attachment to a foreign country”
Most Jews in the US have, at best, a sentimental attachment to Zionism. Statistics will bear that out. There is no waiting list of educated affluent Jews willing to throw over life in these here United States for life in Israel. If there were, they wouldn’t be worried about the Arab Israelis, would they? Once again, don’t be confused by what people say, out of a perceived social neccisity. Look at what they do.
And they ain’t buying Zionism, not by a long shot. Settlers? I said educated and affluent and oh, sane.
But the problem is, the Jews who are anti-Zionist, or more likely, are not prepared to use Israel’s kind of price brutality to effect ZIonism simply have no voice!! No one records their “no” voice. No one records their “At this point I think we need to find a new way” so the Jewish community appears solid.
Look, when there is only one Jew left in the US who supports Israel’s expansionist and brutal policies, he will tell you that every Jew in America agrees with him.
Unless a voice can be provided for those other people.
AND WHEN THEY COME TO MONDOWEISS THEY SEE THE SAME WARMED OVER ANTI-SEMITISM THEY HAVE BEEN HEARING ALL THEIR LIVES. That will not help them decide to have a voice, if it means association with anti-semitism.
That is exactly my point: I wonder if those commenters care more about the suffering of the people hurt by Israel, or more about convicting the Jews for some type of something (you notice, they never say exactly what it is. Is it “racial” is it religious training? Family training? they never say, but it leads to “race mixing” and socialism.)
Oh, and by the way, I like “race mixing”. I’m mixed race myself, just like everybody else.
The furthest any two human beings can be from each other on this planet is fifth cousins. Yup! I know it hurts, but it’s hard to get seperate “races” out of that.
Mooser, you see no connection between Jewish ego and Gentile ego?Study basic physics.
“Most Jews in the US have, at best, a sentimental attachment to Zionism. Statistics will bear that out. … And they ain’t buying Zionism, not by a long shot.”
I’d like to see these statistics.
Most Jews in the US have, at best, a sentimental attachment to Zionism. Statistics will bear that out. … And they ain’t buying Zionism, not by a long shot.”
A national poll finds that 56 percent of American Jews support a U.S. military strike against Iran. [What are the #s on Americans generally; I'll bet far lower]
The annual Survey of American Jewish Opinion, commissioned by the American Jewish Committee, revealed a 14 percent rise in the number of U.S. Jews in support of such a military strike, whose aim would be to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. [Only] 36 percent of those polled – self-described adult Jews were against such an attack.
link to mondoweiss.net
The finding that 51 percent disagree with the Obama administration’s call for a “stop to all new Israeli settlement construction” stands in contrast to earlier polls by J Street, the pro-peace process lobby and political action committee, which were interpreted as showing strong Jewish support for U.S. pressure on Israel to advance the peace process and other surveys showing limited sympathy for settlers and settlements.
Even a very slim plurality of Reform Jews — 46 percent — said they disapproved of the settlement squeeze (74 percent of the Orthodox disapproved).
Why the apparent shift?
“There’s clear evidence American Jews don’t like Israel being pressured,” said Colby College political scientist L. Sandy Maisel, a close student of Jewish politics. The early administration focus on settlements, he said, struck even many Jews who voted for Obama as misplaced.
Yep, there’s no real feeling for Zionism there, just the good old love of Israel that all Americans are born and raised with.
[CLAP] Wake up!
Here’s the link for the info I posted above:
link to thejewishweek.com
It is a bigoted criteria, lumping individuals together into monolithic groups. Even if there all but one white or Jew enjoyed empowerment over others, that would be no excuse to hate on “the whites” or “the Jews”, and there is hardly such unaminity in either case.
As for the polls you posted down the page a bit, the discrepancy between those figures and ones from J Street and such is bound to be at least in part due to the difference in interests of those who conducted them. But to take the higher figures, you are only demonstrating a notable majority, which is no reason to take issue with the whole.
kylebisme, you make a valid point in your analogy between blacks saying reverse racism cannot exist due to the difference in power, and anti-semitism, which has much less power in the USA than a POV rubber-stamping Israeli actions for many decades. The issue is deeper addressed by looking at how much white americans living now had to do with past racial discrimination; that is, how long should indirect
reparations go on? A distinction is that the Palestinians never discriminated against
the Jews by virtue of government power; they are paying the price for lethal discrimination against the Jews by people they’ve never met on another continent.
And the USA is supporting this. It’s really dispicable. Too bad most Americans black or white don’t have a clue’
But to take the higher figures, you are only demonstrating a notable majority, which is no reason to take issue with the whole.
I agree. It likewise would be quite foolish to ignore the majority opinion. I posted the polls in response to Mooser’s opinion that “Most Jews in the US have, at best, a sentimental attachment to Zionism. Statistics will bear that out. ”
Mooser has argued, perhaps correctly, that these polls (and I’m not one for polls of any nature, believe me) fail to gauge the opinions of the anti-Zionist, non-Zionist, etc. crowd of Jews, because they simply don’t reach that audience. I think that’s probably true.
So, we’re back to where we started: Jewish non-Zionists need a larger, more powerful voice, within their own community (a “wall” that is difficult to break, I understand) and in the U.S. at large. And non-Jewish persons who wish to speak out on this need to be able to do so without fear of the “antisemite” charge.
So here we are.
Thanks Phil and Adam.
Whatsisname claimed that:
“There are a lot of different opinions about what, exactly, Judaism is; but one characteristic that most people can agree on is that it is comprised of a cohesive group of Jews.”
Ummmm, no. I wouldn’t say this is antisemitism, per se; it’s more a demonstration of a basic lack of eduction and awareness. After all, as the saying goes, among two Jews you’ll get three opinions; if you get a few different denominations together, it wouldn’t take much to find “cohesion” thrown out the window. The comment also exhibits ignorance of the fact that there are European Jews; (the ones with zero provable connection to Palestine) African Jews; and Arab Jews. Suggesting that these diverse groups are “cohesive” is just…dumb.
That is true to a degree matter, but what does one do or say with their “dumbness?” The devil is in the detail, all forms of racism and bigotry have their modicum of ignorance in varying degrees – we can only judge by what someone says or does with either their “dumbness” or even their brilliance.
A small problem with your analysis, Matter, is that, although in Jewish classic tradition and conduct may pride themselves (somewhat correctly) in having disparate
opinions, the same classic tradition and conduct does not allow airing dirty linen in
the eyes of the non-Jewish public, who are always drawn into the issue; this makes
a force against a diluted (by individualism) force, though all are impacted.
Citizen – We’ve been involving non-Jews in our squabbles since the various Jewish factions played the Babylonians off against the Chaldeans in the book of Jeremiah, or the Hasmoneans and the Temple aristocracy duked it out in front of the Greeks, or the warring Jewish factions invited the Romans into Judea, or the priests had Pilate execute Jewish troublemakers, or – getting closer to our era – hassidim, misnagdim and maskilim took all their complaints against each other to various local governments, and even got the Austrian Imperial government to ban rival groups’ rabbis, and the neo-Orthodox in 19th-century Germany noisily seceded from the government-recognised Jewish community. In America, we fight with each other anywhere and everywhere – hell we’re even working on rival lobbies in Washington. We don’t always fight about the right things, but historically, traditionally, we don’t care who hears or sees.
Shmuel, I think what you say is true about you, but the USA-Israel “special relationship” I think you will agree is real, and I think you will also agree it is
not a totally positive relationship considering all affected by it. Your failure in my eyes is not to recognize that the most influential Jewish organizations in the USA
most definitely not only do not wash dirty Jewish laundry in public, they also
toss very powerful dirt on any clean laundry offered. I’d like not to be standing
in that laundromat, but I, as an American am.
Shmuel, I think what you say is true about you, but the USA-Israel “special relationship” I think you will agree is real, and I think you will also agree it is
not a totally positive relationship considering all affected by it. Your failure in my eyes is not to recognize that the most influential Jewish organizations in the USA
most definitely not only do not wash dirty Jewish laundry in public, they also
toss very powerful dirt on any clean laundry offered. I’d like not to be standing
in that laundromat, but I, as an American am.
Citizen – The reference was to “classic Jewish tradition”. I gave you classic Jewish tradition. As for the organised American Jewish community today, there are huge problems, but not airing dirty linen in public is not one of them. It’s not as if there’s all this secret disagreement going on within Jewish communities that non-Jews are not allowed to see. Sadly, what you see is what you get – J-Street, Tikkun Magazine, BTVS, AFPN, and a few blogs. I wish there were significant meaningful debate going on within Jewish communities around the world. Believe me, there isn’t. (Of course that’s exactly what I would say if I were in on it, hehehe.)
Schmuel,
Re: “Citizen – The reference was to “classic Jewish tradition”. I gave you classic Jewish tradition. As for the organised American Jewish community today, there are huge problems, but not airing dirty linen in public is not one of them. It’s not as if there’s all this secret disagreement going on within Jewish communities that non-Jews are not allowed to see. Sadly, what you see is what you get – J-Street, Tikkun Magazine, BTVS, AFPN, and a few blogs. I wish there were significant meaningful debate going on within Jewish communities around the world. Believe me, there isn’t. (Of course that’s exactly what I would say if I were in on it, hehehe.)”
You live in Italy. Take Phil’s word for it, if not mine. In the USA the Jewish dirty laundry is not aired in the USA MSM, where average Americans get their news. It’s bad that there is not enough talk of dirty Jewish laundry as between themselves, but it’s much worse that all Jewish laundry in the USA regarding Uncle Sam’s total support of Israel First is not even hinted at by the USA MSM.
What, you mean my Jewish brothers and sisters have been keeping stuff from me? So what’s in this whole Jewish power thing for me, if they won’t even tell me that they’re keeping some stuff secret?
Seriously though, Citizen, I think I’m pretty informed from general and personal sources on what goes on among American Jews, and this dirty linen thing surprises me. It doesn’t fit with anything else I know on the subject.
If I may jump in here, I’m guessing that Citizen is referring to “gatekeeping” where any criticism of Israel is kept from wider circulation. I’ve heard personally about it and read about numerous examples of American Jews who cast a critical eye on Israel being denied access to forums and money unless they quit their criticism. This censorship is usually instigated by mainstream Jewish interest groups here. Phil himself was a victim of this. Things are opening up now, but the problem was quite severe a decade or two ago, and it is partially responsible for the vast ignorance that we witness in the US today about what really goes on in Israel and the Occupied Territories.
Thanks tree. Makes more sense now. But I wouldn’t characterise that as not “airing dirty linen in front of the gentiles”. It is part of a broader attempt by the bullies who dominate public American Jewish life to silence anyone who doesn’t agree with them. They try to do the same thing in politics and in the MSM, but obviously, they have more control in their own backyard. It’s a common tactic, used by bullies everywhere.
I’d like to see these statistics.
I’ll see what I can do. But as for me, I try do make my conclusions from what people do, not what they say.
But I offer this as a parting gift:
Lilienthal, 1953:
link to desip.igc.org
fromWhatPri…riceIsrael.html
Speaking at the Eightieth Anniversary of the Miztah Congregation at Chattanooga, Tennessee, New York Times publisher Sulzberger pleaded that “plans to move Jews to Palestine should be but part of larger plans to empty these camps of all refugees, Jew and otherwise.” He called for a reversal of Zionist policy that put statehood first, refugees last: “Admitting that the Jews of Europe have suffered beyond expression, why in God’s name should the fate of all these unhappy people be subordinated to the single cry of Statehood? I cannot rid myself of the feeling that the unfortunate Jews of Europe’s D. P. camps are helpless hostages for whom statehood has been made the only ransom.”
I’ve told you over and over that anyone with the chutzpah and the resources can seize the Jewish narrative. That is what the ZIonists have done, and they have been good at it. But that will change, and it would change even faster if Mondoweiss didn’t become clearinghouse for tea-bagger level right-wing politics, and an anemic, second-hand antisemitism.
It’s up to Phil and Adam.
As an aside Mooser, I know you are aware of the view some hold, that Israel the state was created to assuage the fears that arise from a ignorance of the Jewish people – to send them elsewhere. That is, that the land was proposed so these various countries would not be forced to do their duty and let them immigrate, some believe that the motives for the creation of Israel were somewhat mixed. To keep the Jews away from these countries rather than an act of mercy (per “…helpless hostages for whom statehood has been made the only ransom.”
I knew it was just a matter of time before Zionism would be blamed on the gentiles. :)
OK, but once you’ve seized the Jewish narrative, can we have free speech back?
“I’ve told you over and over that anyone with the chutzpah and the resources can seize the Jewish narrative. That is what the ZIonists have done, and they have been good at it. But that will change, and it would change even faster if Mondoweiss didn’t become clearinghouse for tea-bagger level right-wing politics, and an anemic, second-hand antisemitism.
“It’s up to Phil and Adam.” – Mooser
It won’t change without a whole lot more effort being expended by non-Zionist Jews. You’ve got your work cut out for you, so hop to it. The Zionists have a little more than a century’s head-start on you, and they are surely not anemic. Mondoweiss is clearly an effort to counter and reverse that advantage.
I agree that it’s up to Phil and Adam. But I think your recommendation would be that all statements by gentiles (goyim, whatever) critical of Jews (“the Jews”, whatever) should be suppressed. Even when the statements are meant to apply to “Zionists” and not to people like you or Phil or Adam.
I also think you believe that, if such statements could be scrubbed from the blog, lots more of friendly Jews (and perhaps some not so friendly, but at least more amenable to persuasion than R. Witty) would be attracted to read and comment here. I doubt that. Controversy attracts attention and that is not a bad thing for a respectable blog of diverse opinion. (It’s respectable to be critical; I’m sure as a good Jew you must have learned that somewhere.)
For one thing, I think Phil and Adam have in mind a broader target audience than just friendly Jews. I think they want also to reach out to non-Jews, friendly or less friendly, and persuade them of the justness and rightness of their cause. And I think they want to reach Zionists and show them there is another way to be a good Jew. I don’t see reasonable statements from non-Jews on this blog criticizing Zionism, or even what they see as undue “Jewish” power or influence, as detracting from these objectives. On the contrary, I see them probably acting as a stimulant for proper concern on the part of Jewish readers and participants.
I think there needs to be that proper concern. And I don’t mean concern about anti-semitism growing like weeds. I mean concern about what American non-Jews actually think about “Jewish” issues like Israel and Zionism. After all, we are 98 per cent of the population, and our views are usually not well represented by what you see on most web-logs, political journals, or comment sections of major newspapers.
Hats off to Phil and Adam for what they do! Let it continue.
It’s not just controversy that attracts people to blogs. People generally read and participate where they feel that views fall within a certain range – a “comfort zone”, if you will. Witty’s defenders here often point out that without him, the views here would be pretty monolithic. Why is that? I will tell you, as someone who knows how liberal Zionists, moderate non-Zionists, and shaky anti-Zionists taking their first steps behave (I used to be all three and more, although not necessarily at the same time). Most members of those three groups will take one look at some of the stuff that goes on here, and head for the hills (or Magnes Zionist or Richard Silverstein or JSF or Muzzlewatch or whatever). That’s ok, because there is also room for the debates we (have I been here long enough to say “we”?) have here.
But it IS an either/or proposition. For those who want to thrash things out with reasonable, moderate Zionists, you are not going to get that here. You will get dogged masochists like witty or autistic hasbara freaks like Michael. The atmosphere here is conducive to a lot of debate, but not that kind.
Final word, as always, goes to Phil and Adam. What sort of discussion do they want to generate and with whom? Not that I am suggesting this, but a Palestinian list I used to belong to had a Jewish subgroup that wanted to work out its own issues without being distracted by real and/or imagined anti-Jewish feelings (there were both, with most of the real nastiness coming from non-Palestinians, which is my experience in Palestine/Israel as well). The Jewish group identified with the basic ideas of the general group, but didn’t feel “safe” exploring their own anti-Zionism in the open forum – understandable also in light of the flak we AZJs get from our own communities.
I second the “hats off to Phil and Adam.”
Thanks, Schmuel, for sticking up for the non-Jewish American regulars here in the face of the self-defined eclectic Mooser. I’ve been here every day for over two years
and I view Mooser’s POV generalizing about the non-Jews here as a slander–at some point, the fact that non-Jews make up 98% of the USA population might make self-defined rebels as Mooser less abusive in his characterizations of that 98%–having said that, Mooser at least has a better grip on reality than Witty. Too bad that’s not saying much.
Mooser, don’t be so hard on the goy tea-baggers–they are trying to wake up; it’s difficult to do so if you’ve been kept in the dark your whole life like some kidnapped kid growing up isolated and raped by your new “parents.”
Although Judeofascism may exist, such an all encompassing description of the people practicing Judaism should be considered racist. However, if that is the case, then Islamofacism must also be considered racist, as well as Christofascism. Interestingly, those who might be considered Judeofascists and Christofascists coined the term Islamofascist, demonstrating their racism.
Ed never was able to explain how Judaism informed the Bolsheviks who were Jewish to become totalitarians. The brutality of the Soviet Communists, most of whom were not Jews, was learned from the Czars.
“The brutality of the Soviet Communists … was learned from the Czars.”
That’s just spectacularly mistaken. Compared to the Bolsheviks every Czar any of them ever lived under ruled like the gentlest of lambs. For instance most of the founding Bolshies had at one point or another been arrested for subversive or even terrorist activities. Ridiculously, almost invariably, their punishment under the Czarist system was internal exile of a few years only out to some Siberian town where they were essentially free to do anything they wanted so long as they stayed put. And the savage Czarist punishment for violating this and “escaping” back from exile (kind of a ridiculous terms since they weren’t confined at all really in exile), was simply to be returned to exile again until they had served the equivalent of their original term. No increase in punishment even in general. Stalin, in fact, seems to have been sent into exile five or six times, “escaping” instead of serving out his term four or five if not all of those times.
While I think there was a death penalty under the last Czar, I seem to recall that its use was just simply rare, and indeed the entire criminal justice/political crime system just seems remarkably lackadaisical, casual and haphazard.
There is simply no comparison between the workings of any of the Czarist systems the Bolshie’s lived under the the system they instituted, with arctic concentration camps and extra-judicial murder and mass murder and terror being instituted almost the minute Lenin got his hands on the whip.
*No* comparison whatsoever. The Bolshies were sui generis. Indeed somewhat of a stigmata of the Commies, isn’t it? Mao, Pol Pot…. Nothing to do with the Czars….
Sin, this is like the absence of the narrative of what taking place in China before Mao. Nobody hears about the thousands dying in the streets, and how both opium and starvation were ugly twins in the land. All you hear about is “horrible communism.”
The Czars were selfishly cruel; the early reds took it to a new dimension commensurate with an ideology more systematic than medieval belief. Industrial timing matched this up.
And v is right about pre-Mao China. Mao was horrible and there’s no excuse for the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution, but China under the Nationalists and under the warlords was also a nightmare. And in the 19th century there was a civil war that killed twenty million (out of a much smaller population back then). That was also when the Brits were forcing the opium trade onto them. Unbridled capitalism backed by the state is a pretty ugly thing too.
You are spectacularly blinkered to Russia’s brutal feudal history, which was led by the Czars. Never have the Soviets cut the noses off all the men in a newly colonized area, as the Czars of the Nineteenth Century did. The oppressive violence of the Czars’ lasted for centuries, and even if late in the Nineteenth Century it was relaxed to put intellectuals into a soft exile, the template of making dissent a crime against the state was set for Russian society. If you want to exonerate the Czars and Russian feudalism, reach for the influence of the Golden Horde upon them.
tommy wrote:
“If you want to exonerate the Czars and Russian feudalism, reach for the influence of the Golden Horde upon them.”
I don’t want to exonerate or implicate anyone, I just think that the evidence is overwhelming that you were just mistaken—at least once if not twice—when you said that “[t]he brutality of the Soviet Communists, most of whom were not Jews, was learned from the Czars.”
As you seem to admit the Czars the Soviet Communists grew up with were not the nose-cutting ones of far more ancient history. So they didn’t learn it from the ones they lived under. And then you look at the guy who started the brutality of the Commies—Lenin—and there’s just reams and reams of writings and statements from him showing not a scintilla of reference to the practice of earlier Czars or etc. but instead an absolute infatuation with the French Revolution and its terror. Just simply tons of quotes about how it would be unthinkable to build a revolution without firing squads, or terror, or his famous cry “Where is my Fourquier-Tinville?” (The public prosecutor of the French terror, who Lenin found in Derzhinsky of course.)
To an amazing—indeed almost total—extent the character of the Bolsheviks was set by Lenin, whose early death then served to elevate him and his view of what that character should be to an almost holy status. And I just fail to see any evidence that he harked back to some long-ago Czars in terms of coming up with his innovations of arctic death camps, production-line execution cells, generalized terror campaigns directed against the entire population and/or etc.
Interestingly enough, in 1937 at the height of his own Great Terror, it was Stalin who made what I recall was about the only relevant reference to past Czars by several times mentioning to his compatriots that maybe he was acting like Ivan the Terrible executing his boyars and etc. But that was just in terms of Stalin killing off his big crony princes the way Ivan killed his boyars, not in terms of Ivan who never had the kind of concentration camps and production-line killings and generalized terror that Stalin had going on his whole population.
None of this is to say that the brutal history of Russia didn’t form somewhat of a mental backdrop for the Bolshies’ belief in brutality. But a far clearer and indeed laser-like directness links same with more modern sources and with the French Terror especially.
I would submit the Soviets of 1917 were acutely aware of the recent history of Russian expansion. The use of state violence by the Soviets was a continuation of the state violence begun in the Twelfth Century. The oppression in Chechnya imposed by Putin would indicate state violence against citizens continues into the Twenty-first Century.
Er, tommy, while it’s true by numbers there were more brutal gentile reds than jews,
if you look at the early red leadership, the very disproportionate number of jews is inescapable. Just a caveat, but with immense historical range.
They were all Russians. Russian history informed them on how to organize and rule, not the shtetl. The Kremlin is still the center of power in Russia. Despite revolutions or the religion or ethnic composition of those who hold the reigns of power, the organization and style of rule in Russia, the Soviet Union and again in today’s Russia was established in the Twelfth Century.
The Whites in the Russian civil war (1917-1921) were every bit as brutal as the Bolsheviks. In fact, there was a huge slaughter of Jews in that period (roughly 100,000 or so), something that has been almost forgotten because of the Holocaust and because the Reds won.
I despise Lenin and Trotsky, but comparing their atrocities to those of the Czars in more peaceful times is ahistorical. The civil war years were a war of all against all –maybe Iraq a couple of years ago was similar on a smaller scale. And those who supported the Czars were as murderous as the communists. They lost, but if they had won there’s not much doubt they would have exterminated massive numbers of people. As it was they still murdered hundreds of thousands.
Now what Stalin did later on is, of course, another story, but that wasn’t inevitable.
I also think that communist atrocities, though horrific and in total amounting to many tens of millions of deaths, are not really different in scale from those caused by capitalist greed. The 19th century saw government-caused famines in the name of laissez faire in India that were as large or larger as any under Stalin, and imperialism in Africa racked up a death toll in the tens of millions.
Thanks Donald, for bringing a bit of sanity to this discussion. This distortion of pre-revolutionary Russian history makes the false claim the Bolshevism was “largely a Jewish movement” (as one poster argued) even worse. If things were more or less ok under the Czars, why did all these Jews become Bolshies? There can be no other explanation but pure malevolence. To the extent that the Czars actually did anything to harm the Jewish population of the Pale, they must have been entirely justified. Excuse me for getting carried away here (must be the context in which these things have been presented here), but by extension, we must beware of Jews everywhere, because they are a senselessly destructive force in any society.
This is not about the Israel lobby and its destructive influence on American policy (by no means the only dstructive force at work in Washington, by the way, in case we have forgotten). It is about a unifying theory of Jewish malevolence. Call is genetic or call it cultural. It amounts to the same thing. I can see the responses already. I am blind, I do not recognise the damage caused by Israel and its supporters, I can’t handle the “truth” when it comes to Jews. Be that as it may, like Phil, I know group hatred when I see it, and this “unifying theory” is the real McCoy. And in case anyone was wondering, I don’t hold back when criticising Israel or Jews and definitely do not consider such criticism a Jewish prerogative
Now can we please get back to discussing the oppression of Palestinians, crazy talk about bombing Iran and the like – including open and honest discussion of the role played by the American Jewish community (and Jewish communities around the world).
The brutality of the Soviet Communists, most of whom were not Jews, was learned from the Czars.
B.S. Read this, Einstein: link to z.pe
Or read Slezkine’s Jewish Century, or Ginsburg’s Fatal Embrace, or Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years. There are many points of interpretation to argue over in history, but not that Bolshevism was largely a Jewish movement. (Remember that this does NOT means that all Jews were Communists.)
And this fascinating historical artefact shows that contemporaries had a roughly accurate appreciation of what was going on:
The Revolution in Russia, William Eleroy Curtis, National Geographic Magazine, 1907
(Since I know many people here are too busy posting to do much reading, you might want to skip to pages 313-314.)
Thanks D,
for the link to the NG of 1907.
A fascinating read. Puts the pogroms in more context than, say Fiddler On The Roof.
So THAT’S what the pogroms were about. Self-defence by the poor beleagured Russian Imperial police against rampant Jewish crime. They had no choice but to organise mobs of good Russians to rape, loot and massacre entire communities of Jewish men, women and children at random.
I don’t know who the author of this tripe is, but a valid source of historical information he ain’t.
I’m getting to the point where I think Phil should consider shutting down comments altogether–we’ve reached a level of total insanity when people start quoting defenses of Russian pogroms. What exactly is it that antisemites have against Israel’s slaughter of Gazan civilians? It can’t be any moral principle, because here we’re supposed to sympathize with the Russian pogromists. There are discussions worth reading in the comments at this blog, but they are mixed in with this antisemitic drivel. I can sympathize with Phil’s desire not to be constantly patrolling the comments section–he does a great job with the articles he writes and in posting articles from others. He should not have to worry about his work being tainted by this idiocy.
I seriously expect someone to start quoting from the Protocols next, if it hasn’t already happened.
What exactly is it that you antisemites have against Israel’s slaughter of Gazan civilians? It can’t be any moral principle, because here we’re supposed to sympathize with the Russian pogromists.
To anticipate an objection to my post, I haven’t thought that the comments should be shut down because there are defenses of Israeli atrocities in the comments section (though I do think the most extreme commenters in that vein should be banned.) That’s for a simple reason–defense of Israeli atrocities and double standards of that kind are utterly mainstream in our society and so we need to be confronted with it here, if only to have practice arguing against it. In a sane society, nobody would think that either Russian pogroms or Israel’s atrocities in Gaza were justifiable and people who argued for either position would be seen as crackpots.
“I don’t know who the author of this tripe is.”
Look him up in Wikipedia.
“Antisemitism” doesn’t mean anything anymore. The word should be dropped from the lexicon.
I post this again, because it’s important:
Why bother singling out Jews as unique and different – it (“antisemitism”) is a self-defeating definition that seeks to prove what it opposes. The term Racism works just fine and dandy for the rest of the world.
“Antisemitism,” as it is commonly used today, should be replaced by “anti-Jewish,” particularly being that Palestinians and Arabs are semites.
This was well put and deserved to be repeated. But it’s exactly because “antisemitism” proves the specialness of Jews that the advice won’t ever be heeded.
Take the 613 halachal laws (please!), but don’t you dare touch my choseness.
I think Phil is nitpicking regarding Chris’ posts. I did not think he was the more divisive posters, and I have found him to be consistently civil to his many opponents.
I cannot see what was supposedly anti-semitic about Chris’ deleted post. He raised some very interesting questions about the contradiction between a Jewish identity and secular humanism. I would have been interested in seeing a response to his points.
Here is another interesting reply from Chis, tell me what you think he is saying –
“V,
I’m glad *you* have come out of the closet and unmasked yourself as motivated by ethnocentric Jewish interests and grievance. I can’t tell you the number of supposedly anti-racist, “post-religious” left-wing Jews I have encountered who, once you scratch the surface, turn out to be seething with suppressed Jewish rage and grievance, and whose entire underlying political orientation is contrived as a means of simultaneous self-promotion and racial and religious vengeance. There is no good will, benevolence, love of humanity or desire for justice to any of it whatsoever, even though that’s their affectation. It’s motivated by pure, red hot hatred, rage and the desire for retribution. And their left-totalitarian choice of politics reflects this. ”
Sounds like a “balanced statement to me…lol
I think the point to take away from that rant is whether this notion that most Jews are liberal is true or not.
And true in a MEANINGFUL sense.
A meaningful kind of liberal sensibilities would be if the principles were applied universally – and I don’t think that is the case AT ALL.
I think Kevin MacDonald makes this point when talking about the involvement of Jewish intellectuals/activists during the Civil Rights era amongst other things.
It’s not sincere and so it’s not true, because we’re talking about principles here. You don’t get to pick and choose – so for example, promoting equality and “social justice” but then saying Zionism isn’t so bad (like Witty, who claims to be ‘pro-Peace’ and yada yada yada).
I don’t care what you guys think of Chris M., he’s not in outer space. He just doesn’t know how to dress up his ideas nicely.
Even Phil did a post about the sincerity of Jewish activism. He talked about how he and his mom were having a discussion on it and how proud she was. He thought to himself whether they (Jewish activists) were doing what they were doing because they truly cared about the principle of it all or because it ‘served their interests’. He decided against asking her this question from what I recall.
I don’t think anyone went berserk on Phil after he wrote this. He is good w/ words. He is a good writer. Chris M. is not. He is too heavy and polarizing in a very uncool way (Fink is cool about it, but even he is beginning to get annoying and kind of pretentious TBH).
Yep, that’s Chris’s point, and also MacDonald’s. Phil knows it has real legs even if they do not belong to his mother. PEP is the coinage, and it’s a hard currency in the face of fiat bills.
Cliff, I’ve seen several posters berate Chris for being a poor writer, or for not knowing how to dress his ideas, and I don’t think either is the case. I think that Chris is guilty of being honest and expressing his ideas without pretense. I think Phil could take a lesson or two from Chris.
V,
Without seeing what comment Chris was responding to, and not knowing you well enough to guess what you might have said, I can’t rightly judge whether the comment was even off base. If you had said something along the lines of most of Richard Witty’s posts, I’d say Chris hit the nail on the head. Regardless, there is a difference between accusing individuals of ethnocentrism and claiming an ethnic group is inherently ethnocentric, only the latter being bigoted.
All ethnic group are inherently ethnocentric? Bigoted? Well, a group is different than an individual of any group. And so?
Kylebisme, here is what I said previous to the retort you mention from Chris –
No one dragged you through the mud Chris, you dove in yourself as if you were taking a long awaited bath. The very points you bring above try to temper what you came up with when you were being factually and verbally decapitated under another lost, let me quote some –
“I won’t delve deeply into certain strains of obsessive and megalomaniacal Jewish psychology that demand centralization and socialism as a means of controlling the levers of power across huge expanses of politics, geography and economy out of a cultural control-freak insecurity and irrational neurosis, because I have learned to hold my tongue out of good manners and a grudging respect…”
“Re “The Arab Mind”: Interestingly, the same author of the book by that title, Raphael Patai, wrote a sequel that readers here might find interesting called “The Jewish Mind.””
“As I see it, the role of the intellectual is to understand, and at most attempt to manage the interactions between cultures in the most efficient and peaceful possible manner so that each can pursue its God-given role. Vis-à-vis control-oriented Jews, this means managing their tendencies towards monopoly and totalitarianism so that they aren’t allowed to artificially suppress the actualization of other peoples and cultures through authoritarian intrigue and warmongering.”
So why do you put the governor on your keyboard now? I will tell you why, because you were ripped wide open and exposed for what your are and espouse.
Ah, will somebody please tell me if this is not another abstract version of not washing dirty laundry in public?
Anyone want to argue for the rise of socialism in Israel? lol Come on, I have a hat near me, if you can prove it I will eat it. Here is another example –
THE RISE OF SOCIALISM
What are you even on about here? Both the US and Israel are far closer to fascism than socialism. Costner as Garrison calls it as it is right in the video you linked.
It is called sarcasm kylebisme, I was just showing how far off the other accusatory comments were from reality
I’ve been following these threads on anti-Semitism with interest, testing my own limits, prejudices, hypocrisy, tolerance and patience. One thing I’ve noticed is quite a bit of two-wrongs-make-a-right thinking. White Christian males are demonised, so let’s demonise the Jews too. The term “Islamofascism” is pretty widespread, so why not “Judeofascism”? “Why is it so hard to criticise Jews today?” is a good question, but the logic of that question is lost if the criticism itself slides into racism (in the general sense of bigotry). The fact that many Jews (and particularly Jewish organisations) are no less racist is a reason to call them on their hypocrisy, not to “give them a taste of their own medicine”. Following the latter course in the name of fairness is no less hypocritical.
Did I overlook someone making this argument? Regardless; would you argue that there is not a notable fascist faction within Zionism? Would you argue that there is any notable fascist faction within Islam? I get the impression you have an emotional aversion to actually following these threads and rationally analysing the comments therein.
I have followed 3 or 4 of these threads so far. The term Islamofascism and the views of those who use it (such as Pipes) have come up, as justification for sweeping statements about Jews and Judaism. If I am mistaken, I apologise for the specific example, but I believe my original assertion – that the arguement has been made that if other groups can be slurred then Jews can too – is correct.
There is undoubtedly a notable fascist faction within Zionism, and even within religious Zionism. In the sense of socioeconomic control, censorship, suppression of opposition, fear of “degenerate” values, etc. a case can certainly be made for a fascist stream within Islam (see eg. Ian Buruma, Occidentalism>). Do I get the impression that you are justifying the term Judeofascism because it is factually correct and rejecting Islamofascism because it is factually incorrect? I find both reprehensible and those who use them a mirror image of each other.
“I get the impression you have an emotional aversion to actually following these threads and rationally analysing the comments therein./i>”
I wouldn’t call it an aversion, and I do try to follow and analyse, and even change my mind from time to time, but yes I do find the subject a little difficult – as I think I admitted at the beginning of my previous post.
Exactly Shmuel. And are we supposed to over look that he turns any post, on any topic, into a diatribe on the psychological and ethical defeciencies of the Jews?
Frankly, I think that’s his entire interest in the subject.
I do think that Schmuel indicates a concern we should all have: pot calling the kettle black. I will say only that the big pot is not this blog’s comments, but the offical and de facto policy of the only superpower in the world, and the only nuclear power in the middle east.
I’m only skimming these threads, but if you are talking about Chris, that was my impression too. I also agree with Shmuel’s pov–pretty much every word he writes in the 1:56 and 4:48 posts.
Pingback: Blog Design Showcase | Traffikd | ProBlogr
Yes, while I know of multiple Islamic movements which are brutally authoritarian, I don’t know of one I could rightly label fascist. Not being able to access the book you suggested at the moment, could you please name names here, and elaborate how you arrive at such conclusions? Also, does your aversion apply to noting fascism movements with respect to their ethnic or religious character in all cases, such as referring to the Mussolini government as Italian fascism?
I’m afraid I’ve lent (and lost) my copy of Buruma’s book and am working on a deadline right now. Buruma (and his co-author Avishai Margalit) compare the social an dphilosophical origins of Islamism to those of fascist movements in Germany and Japan. The book is a pretty reasonable one, and does not seem to have an anti-Arab or anti-Islamic agenda.
Your question about Mussolini is an interesting one, particularly because I live in Italy. I would not hesitate to call Mussolini’s government Italian fascist, as I would not hesitate to call Meir Kahana’s movement Jewish fascist. That is not the same as creating a general category of Italofascism under which I would include many demonstrably non-fascist elements of Italian society, culture and history, attributing the lot to some basic flaw or need in the Italian character. I would consider that racism (usual caveat: general sense, not implying existence of races, etc.).
“I would not hesitate to call Mussolini’s government Italian fascist, as I would not hesitate to call Meir Kahana’s movement Jewish fascist. That is not the same as creating a general category of Italofascism under which I would include many demonstrably non-fascist elements of Italian society, culture and history, attributing the lot to some basic flaw or need in the Italian character. I would consider that racism (usual caveat: general sense, not implying existence of races, etc.). ”
Exactly, and that is what this whole argument has been about.
I would add a more up-to-date note. The Italian mafias arguably pose no less of a danger on a global scale than Israel and the US Israel lobby. Organised crime knows no nationality, but the Italian element is decisive. It is thus an identifiably Italian problem. Within Italy it is even identifiable with a specific geographic region (the south in general, and particularly the regions of Campania, Sicily and Puglia). Historically, there are all sorts of theories regarding the devolpment of this incredibly destructive force – including American interference in the 1949 and subsequent elections, and in American postwar reconstruction efforts (the mafias were seen at the time as a bulwark against the Italian Communist Party).
Without the complicity of successive Italian governments, and by extension, of the Italian people, the mafias would not have become the global menace they are today. It is legitimate to take Italians to task, legitimate to identify the Italian mafias as Italian. It is not legitimate to link this Italian problem to a unifying theory of Italian (and/or Catholic) malevolence, although it is easily done through a selective, superficial and pseudo-intellectual review of Italian history. To attempt to do so on a website dedicated to the problem would not get you banned; it would get you laughed out of cyberspace. Perhaps because there is no “venerable”, “intellecutal” tradition of such anti-Italian racism.
Those of us on this cite, including Phil, who have pointed out anti-Semitism have been told to look inward, to question ourselves, to get our own houses in order. I ask the same of those who have criticised us. Are you so sure your houses are in order? Are you not equally reluctant to examine your own views and elements of your own identities for bias?
By the way, there may have been a few Jews in the Italian Communist Party (understandable, considering the fact that the Communist partisans fought to liberate Italy from the Fascists and the Nazis), but they were in no way, shape or form, a dominant element in the party. Imagine that – non-Jews managing to run a Communist party all by themselves! Oh I forgot, they were taking orders from Moscow, and THEY were all Jews, or Jewish-inspired, or Jews-in-spirit, or whatever. (In case anyone missed it, the last sentence is sarcastic.)
Concerning the Italian Mafia. Andrea Camilieri wrote about them in his autobiography. His well off family, I think they owned a factory, cooperated with the mafia to transport money safely. Thus he show how the conflicts and discrepancies of the Italian society are the ultimate source that helped create the mafia.
During the last decade I often encountered business strategies around the most “honorable” firms that all seemed to hint at cooperation between respectable firms and more criminal enterprises aligned with them. And wasn’t the much celebrated Enron enterprise a peak in this context?
Shmuel, without doubt authoritarian systems can rest just as solidly on religious as on secular thought. Just look at the entanglement of church and secular power in Europe, and their rationalizations.
But concerning Italy, as far as I remember Mussolini had Jewish supporters too, after all his system wasn’t antisemitic. Just as the right had Jewish supporters over here. Ultimately it is a complex story. But one thing is sure, the Zionist were right then. The question is does this have to remain the same to eternity?
Below a passage from Shulamit Volkov, writing about the letters of her father that she discovered after he died. He was still in Germany at the time, her mother, the daughter of a Zionist, had studied there witnessing the rise of the Nazis and had returned to Israel:
So, and now I am gone again.
LeaNder – I’m off to a demo for the freedom of information in Italy, but just to answer your question quickly, Mussolini’s movement indeed had some Jewish supporters at the beginning (as Italian Jews were no different from their non-Jewish compatriots, and held a variety of views and interests), until the movement became anti-Semitic and enacted its own infamous “racial laws” – throwing Jews out of work, school, etc. Jabotinsky was in Rome in the early years of Fascist government, and expressed great admiration for Mussolini.
I disagree that the Zionists were right even then, although we must keep in mind the all-important difference between thought and deed.
Shmuel, I noticed your question below, concerning the quote: I mean the “Jewish-ideologue chronicle”.
The quote is Ed, responding to an article by Jack Ross after watching Arguing the World with a friend. It’s comment #18 Ed/Chris Moore.
Now it’s here twice, not easy to follow comments with the new software.
Shmuel,
I’ve mostly missed on reading this thread until now and was happy to find a lively and wide-ranging discussion here, instead of the gatekeeping and threats of banning that worried me and caused me to speak up in the earlier thread. I’ve agreed with much of your viewpoint in general here, but if I may I’d like to add my insights to a few of your points.
I totally agree with this point, and take it to apply universally, which implies of course that taking Israeli and/or American Jews to task for their complicity in the oppression of the Palestinians and the encouragement of anti-Arab hatred is legitimate, but of course it is not legitimate to link this to a supposed universal Jewish or Israeli malevolence. However, my point would be that many Israeli and American Jews make a connective leap between criticism from non-Jews and a belief in Jewish malevolence that most times does not exist in the mind of the critic.
I can’t really speak about Chris Moore’s belief system, as I missed most of the exchange, and the little I read from him seemed to blame “the left” of malevolence and hypocrisy, as distinct from “the Jews”, but if I knew him better I might be inclined to say he has anti-semitic ideas. I would say that he has a conspiratorial mindset, and I consider that a negative, but not necessarily worthy of a banishment. I think most of the rest here have easily admitted that misdeeds by Jews as individuals or in groups do not imply some global Jewish malevolence. The complaint that I have raised and have seen raised by others is that criticizing those misdeeds themselves is often assummed by others to be by implication a denunciation of all Jews everywhere, when really it is an aknowledgement, or at least a plea for acknowledgement that Jews as a group or individually are equaly capable of gross inhumanity as any other group. That is not anti-semitic in the least. Just as often as there are negative stereotypes about Jews there are positive stereotypes as well, and pointing out that the positive stereotypes are, well, just steretypes, certainly does not imply that the negative ones are any less sterotypical either.
That is why I think that discussions like this should not be banned or discouraged, and I think that your Italian analogy is a good one to follow. Universal demonization by race or religion or nationality should be addressed and challenged but it can’t be done by simply banning any discussion of human negatives for fear of hearing from bigots.
I assume that I am one of those to whom you addressed this question, as I had criticized one or two of your earlier statements. Is my house in order? I strive for it to be but admit to the usual human failings. I try to check myself regularly for biases, and admit that they are easy to fall into. So far, I have found that using the test of “changing places” has helped me to identify and overcome some of my inherent biases. In other words, if the protagonists were swapped would I still come down on the same side of an issue, or does the identity of the protagonists lead me to change my view of an issue? Its probably not a perfect system but so far it has worked for me. I am female, grew up as a Unitarian, have a sister who chose to convert to Orthodox Judaism and move to Israel. I saw her grow more bigoted as she made the change in religion and nation, but don’t take that as an indictment of all of Judaism, and I am well-aware that there are likewise some Christian Churches that encourage the same kind of bigotry that she picked up from her rabbi. And even though Unitarianism is very non-dogmatic, I’m well aware that a Unitarian is capable of being just as big an @sshole as anyone else. I’m now an agnostic with some atheistic and some pagan leanings, and would probably tag myself as liberal. Again, none of that provides me with a talisman against human shortcomings. I strive as much as possible to find my own identity rather than tie mine up with any group I might logically be catergorized into, but am very aware that identity is oftentimes a social construct more than an individual one. If you catch me displaying what you think is a bias of mine, please point it out. It can only help me.
Another wonderful entry, tree! One small caveat: None of us can completely escape from the subjectivity of our standpoint.
I don’t consider Islamofascism a valid concept because as a realist I have no business judging how Muslim countries conduct their internal affairs. Israel is a different case because of how the entire West has been sucked into their sordid affairs, internal and external.
Well, it’s true that all USA citizens should be very concerned about their cyclical regime’s “special relationship” with Israel. Too bad, thanks to our MSM, that
the average American citizen is intentionally kept uninformed (in the breaking new between sports updates) as to acts they need to know to be other than sheeple.
Fact is the average US citizen is Barney Fife on Mayberry, USA. The quaint series
continues, now nearly a decade into the 21St Centruy. Curb your enthusiasm.
While reading Edward Said’s volume “On Late Style” I came across this interesting section on Gramsci –
“What the unification of Italy did to places like Sicily,
Naples, and Sardinia was to arrest and distort, then
to isolate them in their lopsided social, economic,
and certainly political actualities. To Gramsci, then, the
south appears, he says memorably, like a vast social
disintegration: a large mass of destitute and oppressed
peasants are preyed on by a class of parasitic
intermediaries (priests, teachers, tax collectors) on
behalf of a small group of land owners.”
Dr, Edward W. Said, On Late Style, pg. 101
To be frank i see very little difference between this and the current condition in America.
@ DavidF # 46:
Your post is sensible and insightful. Not only are Jews bombarded with their own positive propaganda, the rest of us are as well! I tire of hearing of Jewish intellectual, moral, creative, financial and any other superiority. I can’t possibly account for all Jews, but from my experience, many Jews accept those traits as being representative of Jews as a group.
I don’t know that Jews have no ability to self-correct, but the victim mentality is present even when Jews are powerful and on the giving end of injustice, bigotry or racism. The paranoia exhibited by many Jews in past generations in worrying about pogroms in the United States borders on dangerous when the same people are in positions of power or influence. I think it is reasonable that the rest of us would worry about Jewish power, and the corruption you mention validates the fears of those of us who do! But what is maddening is that many Jews (as is shown on this site) are so wrapped up in their own Jewishness (which they deny at will) that they refuse to recognize that other groups have no desire to be victimized, either.
And Jews are far more apt to exhibit contempt for middle America than the reverse, and that fact isn’t even open for debate as far as I’m concerned.
I think you are doing a good thing by voicing your opinions, but I’m not so sure where Phil’s heart is. My guess is that he is mostly worried about his version of Jewish interests.
‘Not only are Jews bombarded with their own positive propaganda, the rest of us are as well! I tire of hearing of Jewish intellectual, moral, creative, financial and any other superiority. I can’t possibly account for all Jews, but from my experience, many Jews accept those traits as being representative of Jews as a group”
Thank God white people don’t do that! “Many Jews accept those traits…” What, we should be self-haters?
You are taking the role of victim, Mooser. I never stated what whites should or shouldn’t do. But if whites were to generally toot their own horns, or preach their own superiority, my guess is that the usual organized Jewish groups would be there to let us know where such attitudes lead, and give out predictable lables along with the predictable lessons in history and morality.
That said, I will say that a majority group recognizing its own accomplishments and perceived positives as part of a national image is quite different than a group of hostile minorities (largely descended from immigrants) using a stranglehold on different media outlets to bash the majority and praise their particular group are not the same things.
You just have to face the fact that Jews are a small minority, and that, in the end, the rest of us aren’t going to put Jewish interests or identity above our own interests and identities.
Not so cute, Mooser. Should all Germans be self-haters?
No. Just another group of self-righteous bigots. Just don’t claim to be a light to the world at the same time. The double standard is really annoying. Just be like the rest of humans, as Nietzsche said, “human-all-too-human.”
Todd,
“But if whites were to generally toot their own horns, or preach their own superiority”…
Didn’t Chris Moore do precisely that recently? If I recall correctly (and I do), he causally mentioned the moral superiority of Christianity (over Judaism) (and it is quite an exercise in time and tedium to go back and find the post).
This sort of “moral superiority”?…
link to muigwithania.com
And in what I personally see as more evidence of his “self righteous self-delusion”…if you wander over to his “judeofascist) web site…and scroll down the page, you can find a link to an article at rense.com by the towering genius “Henry Makow” who demonstrates yet more “christian moral superiority” by advocating the expulsion of Jews from the US.
Just how nuts does someone have to be for his or her banning to be justified? They need to advocate extermination?
Well, if you are living in the USA you must know that the slightest public nuance of white superiority is a taboo. Don, do you deny this? Please clarify. Do you live in
the real politic world?
Exactly. Christians are white blameless like white lilies are the dark evil manipulating force through the centuries. Jews in fact leave a selfish evil trail through history. If there were only Christians, everything would be fine on earth, we would almost live in a paradise or heaven. It’s a utterly coherent force. No individuals.
Here is how I view the modern Jewish-ideologue chronicle: They started as Mensheviks and later Bolsheviks, primarily to gain power but also in reaction to anti-semitism, but deep down maintained their Jewish identity and cohesiveness. They exercised power ruthlessly in the Soviet Union/block countries, but eventually their Jewish supremacist beliefs came into conflict with Leftist racial and anti-religious doctrine, and many found their way to America and Israel. In proudly Jewish Israel, racialism developed fairly quickly and openly, whereas in America due to their minority status and to race politics, they had to mask their racialism, hence neconservatism, which in addition to being Jewish-supremacist, also actually encourages large scale non-European immigration to cover its own racism, but also as a way of watering down the white Christian majority, which has historically always been the most ruthless and effective opponent of organized Jewry.
Neocon anti-communism was only the result of Leftism forcing Jewry to abide by Leftist doctrine, and when Jewry refused and was punished, those that were to pioneer Neconservatism turned on Communism angrily. (Some Leftists are engaged in a similar battle of wills with organized Jewry again today). The Jewish ideologues would have happily stayed with murderous Communism and continued to wield their power ruthlessly and Jewish-networked their way into control of the Communist Leviathan had they only been given a pass on the forced melting-pot Leftist racial ideals, (as they mostly have by the half-ass Left in America).
As far as “civil rights” goes, as exercised by most components of organized Jewry, it’s just another ploy to gain power, pit competing races against each other at its own behest in a divide-and-conquer strategy, cover its Jewish-supremacist tracks, and deftly angle their way to the top. Abe Foxman’s ADL, for example, describes itself as a “civil rights” organization. We all know its just a Zionist/Jewish supremacist front.
Sorry, I didn’t finish my changes here:
Christians are blameless like white lilies, while Jews are the dark evil manipulating force through the centuries.
Where is this quote from, LeaNder?
I mean the “Jewish-ideologue chronicle”.
Shmuel, it’s here: Jack Ross watches a documentary on neocons and understands his calling
Ed, January 25, 2009 at 10:18 pm, #18
There are many, many similar ones.
Don,
Chris did write of the moral superiority of Christianity, but he didn’t link the religion to race. Actually, he did the opposite. If I’m not mistaken about Chris’s views, he stated that he believes that Christianity is the best hope for all of humanity.
Chris never came off as a racial or ethnic supremacist. If racial or ethnic supremacy is the issue, the Jewish variety is the bigger problem on this site. Jewish giftedness is a given around here, and is often stated explicitly! This thread would have been much better if Chris were here to defend his views. Why ban a poster, and then immediately start a thread trashing him? If Chris is to be officially ignored, then officially ignore him!
Chris was civil, which is more than can be said about many other regulars. And I would be willing to bet that all of the regular posters on this site are armchair ideologues with no ability to harm one another. Could either side of the drama organize an effective pogrom against anyone? I doubt it! I also doubt that anyone who could do so is doing much more than ignoring or laughing at our opinions, on the slight chance that he would see them at all.
Agreed, Todd.
Chris was the only person on this blog who wrote from an explicitly Christian-traditionalist perspective (i.e. Pope Pius X). This worldview is completely alien to most college-educated liberals.
I think many of this blog’s readers really had no idea where his ideas were coming from, and awkwardly tried to classify them under “heresy: antisemitic: racial essentialist.”
Chris certainly considered Christianity morally superior to Jewish particularism or any modern ideology, whether it be based on race, class, or secular ideals of “universal human rights.”
I know that Phil’s post focused on the expulsion of Chris Moore, and many commentators here have made their views known about Chris and his writings. But Chris is just one individual.
I don’t think that people like Mooser, v.., Donald, and others are complaining merely about Chris. There is a resentment shown toward other non-Jews commenting here. For those having such resentments, I would like to see some discussion of what you would like to see done. Do you think that criticisms of “the Jews” in America should be banned outright?
My own feeling is that the critics of “the Jews” on this blog are to a person conscious of the many positive contribution Jews have made, and are making, to American society. That is not the issue. It is the reality of Jewish power and influence in the country, and the perception that they are excessive.
Treating that issue is clearly not the central purpose of this blog. But, as I think Phil would acknowledge, it is related in no small way to the problems he is trying to address. You cannot completely divorce Jewish power from issues like Israel/Palestine, Iran, Iraq, Russia, “the war on terror”, the congressional-military-industrial complex, the War Party in America, etc. (Likewise, civil liberties, the arts, literature, etc., but these are not directly relevant.) Who gives a shit about socialism?
To those who complain about the dissenters: What would you like to see done on this blog? If the purpose here is to limit discussion to Jews and others who want simply to groom the Jewish narrative and explore in an insular fashion the niceties of Jewish identity, then obviously I should withdraw and look to other places to express my opinions.
Where is the complaint about dissenters? I see a complaint about racism. There is no denial about Jewish influence, just that there is no confluence of interest. The point being if you are going to target these various Jewish groups than target the groups, not all Jews with some debunked 19th century concept that is supposed to blanket everyone (“megalomaniacal Jewish psychology – monopoly and totalitarianism”), I mean if that is the case why don’t we go back to equally spurious Platonic views of mankind (Some are like gold, silver, and iron)?
I suggest outlawing all talk about “the Jews,” and just allow talk about Jewishness.
(But since that’s basically what we’ve already been doing, and it still shocks a sheltered cadre, perhaps those offended should move off to a J-site like JSF.)
I’m not here to talk about Jews or Jewishness. I’m here to discuss certain problems in America’s foreign policy and foreign relations. But because of the extensive involvement of Jews (of all political persuasions) in these issues, I find it unavoidable to have some discussion of Jews and Jewishness, among other things. The freedom that this blog provides for such discussion is why I read and write things here.
I’m not Jewish, btw. Also, in case there’s any confusion, “Don” is someone different, though we share similar views of Chris.
My objection is not to criticism of racism among Jews. When I first got serious about reading about the I/P conflict I noticed a resemblance in tone between the way many defenders of Israel (some non-Jewish, btw) couched their arguments, and the way the more genteel white racists of my youth talked about blacks. A genteel racist would never be so crude as to use the “n” word and they would usually disassociate themselves from the crude openly racist types, but somehow, when the subject of black poverty or race relations came up, it was always the fault of the blacks. Not partly their fault that they were poor, but entirely their fault and any tension between the races was also their fault, along with maybe a few crude white racist “rednecks”. I saw the same psychology at work in Israel defenders. They’d sometimes feign compassion for ordinary Palestinians, but somehow it was all the fault of their leaders that they were in the situation they were in. The most sophisticated of this sort nowadays are critical of the settlers, like the genteel racists were critical of “rednecks”. I concluded that many American Jews who were vocal in their defense of Israel were a lot like the oh-so-civilized white racists of my youth.
I don’t object to discussions of how widespread that racism is–I’d like to know myself and I think that sort of racism gets a free pass in our culture. It shouldn’t. But I draw the line when people seem to think Jews in particular are prone to evil, or deserve pogroms and for that matter, I read Chris’s writings (also back when he was “Ed”) and can’t see how anyone could not be disgusted with his anti-Jewish obsession. It’s disturbing to see some people defending him. I’m glad that people like him are treated with contempt in mainstream society–I would like to broaden that contempt to include those who treat Muslims the same way, but it would not be a step forward to go back to the good old days when anti-semitism was a widespread and perfectly respectable sentiment.
All I said was:
“Thanks D,
for the link to the NG of 1907.
A fascinating read. Puts the pogroms in more context than, say Fiddler On The Roof.”
I’m sorry, I don’t know how some readers here, judging by their subseqent comments,
translate my English as justifying the pogroms discussed in this 1907 NG article. Did any of those subsequent commenters read the NG article? It included data that the Jews
were discriminated against legally more so than other groups except one; it also said
that much of that legal discrimination had been lifted, and it also said that most
of the terrorists at the time were young Jews, while simultaneously saying that
the Jews had been suffering from state-sponsered police terror in the form of
pogroms. It also said 75% of all within the Czar’s domain were illiterate; that the
Czar himself acted for the general welfare always belatedly, so that even when
he did good things they were not attributed to him, etc. Reading the article, written in
1907, oddly reminded me of reading about the I-P situation with a link to the USA
congress; it made me think of those determined young Jewish terrorists as foreshadows of young HAMAS guys today. In turn, this suggests that the IDF is
analogous to the Russian police in 1907 Russia. So, should I start calling
the recent turn of this year’s 3 week siege on Gaza as “The Gaza pogrom?”
See, that’s the terrible historical irony of the situation. Israel is doing to the Palestinians what the Russians were doing to their Jews. And making even worse, in many cases it is the Russian Jewish immigrants doing it.
That’s why I make a big distinction between Israelis/Zionists and Jews elsewhere in the world. If most Jews knew what was really going on, supposedly in their name and with the money they send to Israel, they would be positively appalled. This speech here, by Sir Gerald Kaufman, sums it up I think.
link to youtube.com
Those in power always want to normalize the unthinkable, but we cannot allow what is posed as a cyclical process to continue. It does not matter who who did to what group in the past, that does not nor will it ever excuse what is occurring in today’s atrocities. Frankly, I do not give a shit who it is that commits these crimes nor their background – even if it is my own “group,” there are no excuses. In fact, being victims like this it should have informed us early on not to create a repeat – not to repeat it.
Terrorism is a normative term and not a descriptive concept. An empty word that means everything and nothing, it is used to describe what the Other does, not what we do. The powerful – whether Israel, America, Russia or China – will always describe their victims’ struggle as terrorism, but the destruction of Chechnya, the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, the slow slaughter of the remaining Palestinians, the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan – with the tens of thousands of civilians it has killed … these will never earn the title of terrorism, though civilians were the target and terrorizing them was the purpose.
Normative rules are determined by power relations. Those with power determine what is legal and illegal. They besiege the weak in legal prohibitions to prevent the weak from resisting. For the weak to resist is illegal by definition. Concepts like terrorism are invented and used normatively as if a neutral court had produced them, instead of the oppressors. The danger in this excessive use of legality actually undermines legality, diminishing the credibility of international institutions such as the United Nations. It becomes apparent that the powerful, those who make the rules, insist on legality merely to preserve the power relations that serve them or to maintain their occupation and colonialism.
Attacking civilians is the last, most desperate and basic method of resistance when confronting overwhelming odds and imminent eradication. The Palestinians do not attack Israeli civilians with the expectation that they will destroy Israel. The land of Palestine is being stolen day after day; the Palestinian people are being eradicated day after day. As a result, they respond in whatever way they can to apply pressure on Israel. Colonial powers use civilians strategically, settling them to claim land and dispossess the native population, be they Indians in North America or Palestinians in what is now Israel and the Occupied Territories. When the native population sees that there is an irreversible dynamic that is taking away their land and identity with the support of an overwhelming power, then they are forced to resort to whatever methods of resistance they can. Frankly, that is the bottom line.
I’m reminded of Dresden, and of the atom bomb on Japan cities. This use of collective
state-sponsored terror (e.g., also the Nazi bomber attack on Coventry, and the
9/11 attack, both arguably tactical decisions to allow by the respective English and USA regimes at the time, as was Pearl Harbor). Israel can point to Western goy
tactics as its own larger strategy for winning; but it cannot do so without ignoring
the Nuremberg Trials and the Geneva Conventions following on their heels. So,
how do the Israelis equate the Palestinian resistence to their centuries old homeland
being taken (even though they’ve never had their own state)? When white-eyes-who-speaks-with-forked-tongued made treaties with the native Americans, the USA federal government there and then acknowleged that, although the Injuns
had no concept of owning the land by paper title , but rather of the land owning them, or at least being an equal partner, they (the Paleface)
nevertheless by such treaties (all ignored) acknowledged the Injuns as having
title by prior control and usage for ages. Germany was the first nation made to give up all its colonial domains. Nuremberg and Geneva proclaimed the progressive principles hard earned with how many lives? When Truman and Stalin recognized
Israel and did not simultaneousl make such recognition conditonal on a co-instant
Palestine state of equal soverignty, they did not see the forest for the trees. General Robert E Lee became similarly senile at Gettysburg. Not that I would have wanted him to win.
I was criticizing D, who quoted the passage that said the poor Russian police organized pogroms to fight Jewish criminals. Wonderful idea–why not send in fascist murder squads into a neighborhood to kill people of a certain ethnicity when there’s a bank robbery? I didn’t read the article, because D put forward what he apparently thought was important for us all to read–
“On the 8th of November a few Jewish revolutionaries entered a treasury car near Ragow, in Poland, got $850,000 and disappeared.
Every deed of that kind is done by Jews, and the massacres that have shocked the universe, and occurred so frequently that the name “pogrom” was invented to describe them, were organized and managed by the exasperated police authorities in retaliation for crimes committed by Jewish revolutionists.”
Yes, picture the exasperated police authorities, poor dears, unable to stop a certain category of crime all allegedly perpetrated by Jews, had no choice but to organize thugs who then proceed to smash Jewish homes, gang rape Jewish women, and slaughter Jews–all as a crime-fighting measure, of course. They must have been really exasperated if they thought that was the way to go. I wonder if these techniques are still taught in police academies today? Probably so, in places with a certain sort of police force.
I’ve met tree stumps that were more intelligent than the person who wrote the words D cites and this is what is offered up to us as an incentive to read the rest of the article? Why? So we can see what sort of anti-semitic insanity used to prevail in Western culture?
Now the Czarist Russia/Israel analogy I think has some validity. The war on Gaza was similar to the way the Czar put down the abortive revolution of 1905 . The pogroms would be more like the violent actions of the settlers on the West Bank, where the IDF looks the other way. And yes, people who joined revolutionary movements were often motivated by the stupid brutality of the Czarist government, the way young Palestinians are motivated to join terrorist groups by Israeli brutality.
As for the Czar, he was an antisemitic idiot and also someone enjoyed reading about how his soldiers crushed the 1905 uprising with random atrocities, murdering thousands of people (yes, small compared to what both sides did in the Russian civil war). Some of his ministers were better than he was. (Not that that would be hard).
Donald:
You keep writing about D’s citation of that Nat’l Geo article as if he was approving of the morality/rightness of the Russian “police” (meaning the Czar’s Secret Police the Okhrana undoubtedly) organizing the pogroms against jews in response to violent, illegal revolutionary activity conducted by the jews.
In the first place however I at least didn’t quite read D’s citation to that effect; it seems to me he was merely noting that contemporary observers were saying that jews were indeed responsible for such revolutionary activity.
Of course any and all such observers might be wrong, and indeed the one D cited seemed particularly idiotic for attributing all such activity to jews. But, still, merely citing him to this effect doesn’t say you agree with his other allegation that the pogroms were organized in reaction to same, much less that you believe in the moral rightness of doing so.
D hasn’t exactly clarified himself here however so in any event what remains is what seems the larger point you were hinting at in terms of possibly banning the kind of substantive sentiment you perceived in his post. And the problem I have with trying to ban people for such substantive things (as opposed to being uncivil or rude or etc.) is that I don’t see how one can draw that line without essentially destroying damn near all give-and-take on the issue.
For example, one of the reasons you very commonly see cited supporting Israel’s actions or inactions is out of the Israeli belief that the Palestinians do not really want a peace deal but instead are really out to eliminate them. Indeed, I’ve not only seen Israeli partisans here say that, but have seen polls showing that not only do a big percentage if not majority of Israelis feel that way too, but so do jewish Americans. And for sure I’ve seen mainstream Israeli leaders say that this is what they believe too and is why they won’t do X or Y or Z.
In other words, it’s just simply and utterly a commonplace belief. So that if one wants to talk seriously about the I/P issue one has to talk about same.
But, upon reflection, what is that belief? In essence it’s nothing less than saying that a significant percentage of the Palestinian people—if not a significant percentage of all arabs and/or moslems—are homicidally and indeed genocidally minded.
Now that’s a terrible belief some would say. (While others would say its true enough of course.) Regardless, if you applied your apparent objection to hearing such substantive things then we couldn’t listen and debate here what amounts to the absolutely standard, middle-of-the-road, near-boilerplate discourse and argument which exists on the I/P issue not only elsewhere, but damn near everywhere elsewhere.
Indeed, I think you touched on something similar in one of your posts here talking about how maybe anybody posting who defends what Israel did in Gaza ought to be banned. But of course the problem is that doing that exact same defending is very much a matter of the mainstream discourse out in the world today. So how much more meaningless could we get here if we banned talking about the very things that everyone else is talking about and are indeed the hot issues of day?
Nor do I think you can split hairs on the subject: If it’s okay to say that “well, this or that such Israeli partisan doesn’t believe that *all* Palestinians/arabs/moslems feel that way,” well then why wouldn’t it be okay for someone to say that only *some* of the pogroms against the jews were “justified”?
I greatly sympathize with your reaction of having intelligent discourse here marred by people saying ugly things. But my problem is that the reason we are talking about the I/P issue is because it is so politically contentious which almost by definition means that there’s lots of ugliness involved in it. So I don’t know how to excise that out fairly and remain able to talk at all about the underlying contention given that the ugliness is part and parcel of that contention.
The only solution that I see is either to ignore the ugliness or point it out. Because if you want to start down the road of banning ugly substantive sentiments probably all you are going to end up doing is banning those who don’t know how to disguise their ugly sentiments, and yet of course the worst ugly sentiments are the ones that do indeed come swaddled in nice disguises.
That was brilliant Sin, thank you.
Donald,
Herzl, himself, according to historian Gabriel Kolko was anxious to create a nation for Jews because of the revolutionary Russian Jews. Kolko is a war historian. I put a lot of truck in what he writes, even in short articles.
And
Banning people isn’t the ideal solution–the ideal solution would be for people who don’t like vicious ugly remarks to denounce those remarks, no matter which direction they come from. If D didn’t want to sound like he was sympathetic to the police who organized pogroms, it’s his own fault for posting what he did.
There’s a problem in discussions of this sort that when people gather together to talk about a particular human rights issue, they start choosing sides and then they end up romanticizing one side and demonizing the other, and people who are offensive on one side are denounced, while people who are offensive on the other side are given a pass. Many of us are here because we are disgusted by Israel’s human rights violations and disgusted by the one-sided way in which the conflict is described in the MSM in America. So when we have people like Michael or Julian or even (in a more nuanced fashion) Richard making excuses for Israeli brutality, we all jump on them. Good. And if someone makes a racist remark about Arabs, the same thing applies. Also good.
But only some of us jump on the antisemites and depressingly, we’re regarded as peculiar. There’s a gray area where at times it’s not easy to distinguish between someone making a legitimate criticism of some Jewish organizations and antisemitism, but Chris was well over any sensible line one could draw and yet Chris has his defenders here, people who apparently couldn’t see he was antisemitic. This is the kind of pathology that you get with political discussions–a group with marginalized political views gets so angry that they give a pass to hatreds of the opposite sort. Antisemitism as a charge is used so dishonestly wrt to I/P that people here start avoiding it altogether. When people get together to condemn the lies of side X, it’s all too easy to slip into the mentality of not seeing the problems on one’s own side.
And to MRW–
Much of what I know about Russian history in the revolutionary period comes from a book “A People’s Tragedy” by Orlando Figes. It covers the period from 1891 to 1921. You don’t come out of it with a high opinion of either the revolutionaries or the Czarists and if you didn’t already know this (as I did), you soon find out that once the Russian civil war started, it was a war with multiple factions and the Whites were every bit as savage as the Reds. There are some decent people scattered around and millions of ordinary people just trying to survive, but in the end it’s the idiots and the murderers and fanatics who drive events forward. But in the 1905 rebellion, most of the violence was committed by the Czar’s forces, along with the pogromists. Yes, some Jews were revolutionaries and I have no particular admiration for revolutionaries and guerilla movements of any ideological stripe. But I don’t have to explain why terrorist acts by one side do not justify rape, pillage, and murder by the government or forces associated with the government.
It’s also well-known that people in those days exaggerated the Jewish role in revolutionary movements and also held Jews as a whole responsible for the Trotskys. It’s a lot like the modern tendency to think that all terrorists are Muslim and all Muslims are terrorists.
Mmmmm. The NG 1907 article says that 75% of Czarist Russia were unable to read, and when they did learn to read a bit, the adage of a little information is worse than none was deemed applicable. It also said that the average citizen of this domain had only half of what was needed in land just to support his family on a subsistence level.
The rest of the land was reserved for the Czarist government. Now that’s a fertile ground for revolt, and one we, as Americans should take note of in current USA. To drae an analogy, at one time the Elephant was the Tank. The principles remain same.
I see an analogy also in the USA Civil Rights movement in the 1960s. To my dismay
I also now see an analogy in, e.g., the tea bagger movement that is not all fake grass movement. Is this a matter of cultural/political Darwin? It seems so to me. This of course raises the spectre of the Nazi mentality and the Irgun mentality. Can I get some talkback from some of both the zero point anti-analysis and those supporting less of a view?
Donald wrote:
“But only some of us jump on the antisemites and depressingly, we’re regarded as peculiar. ”
Well, I’ve jumped on anti-semites here and I didn’t feel regarded as peculiar. But even if that’s just some obtuseness on my part in terms of how others feel about me I don’t see how you go from there to banning individuals because of the civil expression of their substantive beliefs.
The pith of your argument it seems is that merely because there’s a disparity in the numbers of people saying things here that alone shows some problem. But maybe it’s just that the things you regard as anti-semitic aren’t regarded as such by many others. How do you know? You wouldn’t, I don’t think, insist that everyone accept your definition of things.
Moreover there is nothing so far as I see that says that a discourse is is ipso facto “unfair” unless you’ve got a roughly equal number of people on both sides. Indeed, just as if someone were to argue that the sky is blue it might just be that a lack of disagreement with that is some evidence of its validity.
Indeed, in this vein I’ve seen on any number of other blogs where, when I/P issues are raised, despite the cries of anti-semitism from some a simply huge number of others just reject that, so much so that quite a few misguided blog operators feel that to be “fair” they’ve got to eliminate all commentary entirely—an idea you flirted with here.
But even though I agree with you that there’s somewhat of an imbalance here that this doesn’t explain and that there are too many classically “anti-semitic” remarks made here, banning people still doesn’t make any sense. In essence that rule says that if any one side is afraid to engage the substance of someone’s argument and simply wants nobody to hear same they would have the veto to do so merely by boycotting the site. An old trick, I think you’ll agree.
No, Phil is wrong to ban this Moore or Ed guy or whoever he is, and you were right to just engage D. I think I already gave a good example of how impossible it is to be “fair” in banning someone for the substance of what they say given if you are going to ban Moore or D because of the ugliness of what they say then you’d have to ban folks like Witty and an apparent huge percentage if not clear majority of Israeli partisans given their apparent belief that the Palestinians and/or arabs are generally genocidal in nature and don’t want peace but want to extinguish the Israeli jews.
But here’s another even more relevant to your revulsion over what you perceive D’s argument was to the effect that the Russian pogroms and associated killings of innocents and women and children were somehow justified by jewish revolutionary activity: Okay, say he did mean that and you ban him for it. Fine. What about then what seems like the overwhelming if not sole (because the facts aren’t all that denied) view of millions of Israeli partisans who justify the Cast Lead operation in Gaza or Israel’s behavior in Lebanon recently on the basis that well, they are in essence in a war and war is nasty?
After all a D might well be saying that in essence Russian Czarist society was at war with at least some of its jewish communities and so the pogroms were justified as acts if war and just like in Gaza war is nasty? And the earlier you go back in time such as when pogroms took place they were just typically nastier than they are today.
So isn’t this just one more basis upon which Phil should then ban Witty and what seems about every other Israeli partisan out there?
You think Moore or Ed and D are antisemites. I think Moore is an anti-semite and don’t know about D. But the answer is to argue with them. Too many times the rejection of what are labeled beyond the pale sentiments are really just fears that some people are going to find at least a little of same they agree with. And while I don’t think that was Phil’s motive I think that’s a particular phenomenon elsewhere when it comes to issues involving judaism and banning people like Moore who argues that lots of jews are anti-Christian, or anti-Gentile. But banning such people out of that fear is just wildly self-defeating because of course everyone sees the banning or censoring and takes same as a possible indication that what they are being forbidden to hear has some truth to it. There’s no reason, for instance, to ban someone who says that the sky doesn’t appear blue. So why, the suspicion naturally goes, is someone banned who merely expresses ideas that are allegedly equally stupid or wrong?
The marketplace of ideas is going to be at work in one way or another, especially with the internet today. Trying to stifle this or that aspect of it only artificially heightens that aspect’s appeal. It’s a shame Phil felt he had to ban Moore so as to be more “respectable” in the eyes of the allegedly more Right-thinking crowd. Because Phil was right originally not to ban people for civilly expressed substantive opinions and that crowd was wrong, which is why that “mainstream media” crowd seems to be finding itself in bankruptcy ever more frequently.
“Pogrom” would be a very good word for a lot of the Israeli treatment of Arabs under their thumb.
The brutality of the Russian police in 1907 informed the Soviets of the 1920′s. Even thought the Soviets may have ‘improved’ the application of Russian violence, the innovation did not come about just because some of the perpetrators were Jews.
link to z.pe
tommy:
We disagreed over the patrimony of the Soviet’s beastliness above but this is to agree with your argument that there was nothing really “jewish” about such beastliness.
While it does seem true that among those who might be called the “Founding Fathers” of the Soviet Union a very significant percentage (if not absolute clear majority) were jewish, it just seems to me clear that *no* Founding Member can really be said to have been representative of any group other than the kind of fanatic, deeply thuggish movements that societies in crisis seem to produce who have latched onto some quasi-intellectual justifications for themselves and their actions. In short, just almost freakish people who, like Hitler, are ordinarily out there grinding their crazy axes with perhaps only one or two equally crazy friends, but who find their time when societies fracture and the most ruthless and fanatic find their openings.
This really came out to me reading Simon Sebag Montefiore’s books “The Court of the Red Tsar” but then even moreso reading his recent work on Stalin’s early years. It was just amazing reading these books which focus less on politics than the personalities and relationships involved in the high Bolshevik circle just how … small and inbred and strange that circle and its members were. They really only talked with each other, they married each other only really, screwed each other only really, entertained each other only really, let their kids play with each others only really, and etc. and so forth. Of course some of that was with people who were merely vague sympathizers with their movement, and who weren’t in the hard-core circle, but surprisingly little.
Gentile or jew, these were just simply people whose fundamental nature was defined very little by the societies or communities from which they sprung but instead by their extreme alienation from those societies and communities. They were in essence deep deep haters, and when they found the pseudo-idea of Leninism as a justification and more importantly even then found themselves and formed the incestuous little family they did, that was all they needed to see virtually all other human life as unimportant and then to treat it that way whenever needed.
(And indeed even when not just because Leninism seemed to call for extreme violence and terror almost as a matter of some revolutionary aesthetic regardless of whether the revolution was going well or not. And this gets us back to the patrimony of the Bolsheviks’ love of violence and terror because, as I said, you simply never see Lenin hearkening back to same, but instead to the French Terror, and people like Sergei Nechayev who really made violence and terror almost an end in itself.)
Of course one might still say, given the numbers if not preponderance of jews amongst the Bolsheviks, that there was something in the Russian jewish culture that tended to produce such freaks, but that doesn’t mean that such culture intended to at all and it may well be that it was anyway just the result of all the especial violence that had historically been directed at that culture. Moreover, it’s clear, far far more representative of that culture was the Menshevik faction which was just hugely jewish and which of course might have been the Bolsheviks biggest enemy and which the Bolshies just savagely treated. (So also showing that no matter how “jewish” the Bolshies were, they didn’t give a hang if they were shooting jews or Martians; whoever stood in the slightest opposition to them was going to get it in the neck.)
In any event and again I can’t recommend Montefiore’s books highly enough for showing the human nature of those Bolshevik creatures. Gentile or jew, they were really freakish human beings, representative of nobody other than violent freaks in general.
“That’s why I make a big distinction between Israelis/Zionists and Jews elsewhere in the world. If most Jews knew what was really going on, supposedly in their name and with the money they send to Israel, they would be positively appalled.”
Of course, there would be major distinctions between the Diaspora and Israeli Jews. But if they were disconnected communities we would not be having such problems with Israel. The bonds are in fact quite strong throughout most of the American Jewish community.
Many Jews in Israel (I’m told on good authority) don’t know what is really going on in the Occupied Territories. They have plenty of opportunity to know, in spite of the conspiracy of silence. They don’t know simply because they don’t want to know. Morally, they are zombies.
Many Israeli Jews do know what is happening and either don’t care or support the criminal actions in the name of some high Zionist or nationalistic ideal.
(Yes, Mooser, a dwindling minority do know and do care and would like to stop it.)
You don’t have to live in Israel to be a Zionist. We have a whole lot of them here in America. Many well-educated, well-off Jewish American Zionists are quite aware of what’s happening in the territories. They have access to the same sources that I do, and more. They have learned the trick of reconciling what they know with Jewish ethics.
Many others of these American Zionists, solid supporters of Israel, don’t know much at all about what Israel is doing to the Palestinians beyond the whitewash given them in our MSM. This is not an accident; they don’t want to know, like their counterparts in Israel. They are moral zombies, but at least their life has been made easier by not having to reconcile what they have avoided knowing with their Jewish values.
Many non-Zionists are also ignorant of what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, and they don’t care. Many do know and do care but do nothing because they are intimidated by the force of tribal and family ties. And some of these (many of whom are known to us, like Phil and Adam) do care, are shamed, and are motivated to work hard to change things.
The distinction between Israeli and American Jews is not absolute. Several hundred thousand Jewish citizens of America reportedly are also citizens of Israel. Many of these have served in the IDF, but not in U.S. armed forces. Anyone acquainted with the workings of AIPAC and affiliated Jewish organizations knows the connection is there, big-time.
Much of what I said above about ignorance and moral compromise among American Jews applies also to American non-Jews. The main differences are that non-Jews don’t identify with Israel nearly to the extent that (many) Jews do, and non-Jews generally are not as knowledgeable about sources of information concerning Israel. In that respect, maybe they succeed in maintaining a cleaner conscience with less frenzied moral gymnastics.
I know exactly what you are talking about Call Me Ishmael, and that is why I propose something quite different than just these forums and counter-groups. There has to be a moment(s) of confrontation(s), I mean right in the bowels of these organizations that are allowed to support what is taking place in Israel with impunity.
Granted that a consensus has to be built and strong relationships have to be established which are committed to changing things NOW, it is not enough to build just so many contrary groups that are kept at a distance from ground zero. To the constant building of groups there is no end especially when they are atomized all calling for support, but all they do is merely write, talk, and have their various meetings. In fact, if all they are going to do is establish that they disagree without doing anything they are worthless, in the light of the Palestinian people dying daily and the theft of their land – this process of genocide.
It is time to enter the turf of the “enemy,” so to speak, they have been given a pass too long, and all that we can show for it is people standing on the outside looking in on a process that is unacceptable and constantly just mouthing that we disagree. In this instance all these various groups that disagree with the occupation become is a mere counterbalance, saying “don’t blame me” and “I disagree” while these Zionists use the full force of state apparatus both in the USA and in Israel. It makes us as “useful” as the so-called left in Israel which shoots and cries, albeit by not participating it is granted, but little else.
It is time to get on these peoples doorsteps, indeed walk right into the halls of their insulated institutions. Whether it be our local shuls, standing up on the floor of the World Zionist Congress, Hadassah, AIPAC, B’nai B’rith, ADL, religious affiliations, American Jewish League, Israel b’Aliyah, Herut, think tanks, universities, media sources, various business which supports Zionism, etc. – get in their face. this necessitates a coming together of various organizations and concerns, careful planning, establishing a docket of events. We see this as an example in lets say Code Pink that has proactively addressed many on the nations issues, have visited Gaza and than what else have they done – merely written against what is taking place or have done petitions, etc. Well the “stunts” (as some have called them) have gotten the spotlight, the MSM has not just ignored them – but we find nothing of the sort in confronting these various and “in your face” organizations which support this murderous Zionist process.
As a further example of doing something that is correct and more than merely so many words, look at Lev Leviev blood diamonds. As part of the Jewish Land Redemption Fund, Leviev finances the expansion of Mattityahu East in Modi’in Illit, Zufim, Maale Adumim and Har Homa. All of these are in violation of International Law as set down in the Fourth Geneva Convention and the position is further supported by both the UN and the international Court of Justice. If we look Adalah of NY as an example of getting right in someones face, protesting right outside the premises, even telling charitable organizations to refuse support from this beast and his blood money. There are many other examples, but I hope the point is clear, and if not I can elaborate.
I do agree with you, v. And if you elaborate on your ideas, it would be helpful.
I think that the campaign in support of Palestinian rights must be carried out on many fronts. Blogs and discussion forums like this one are quite important because they allow ordinary citizens to read and articulate factual information and reasonable views that normally are screened out from the MSM and political journals. But discussion is not enough; direct action is required for change to come about soon enough to save the Palestinians (and the Israelis from themselves).
The emergence and strengthening of Jewish action groups on the left, such as J Street and some others, is highly significant because it is long overdue. Working together in cooperation with other, older peace groups such as Jewish Voices for Peace, Americans for Peace Now, Brit Tzedek v’Shalom (Jewish Alliance for Peace and Justice), these new direct action groups may begin to make a difference in countering the political power of the likudnik Zionist lobby.
But I have long felt that the Jewish left, working alone, will not be able successfully to oppose AIPAC and CPMAJO on the right. The radical Zionists have become too embedded within the American power structure. Progressive Jewish groups will need help from American non-Jews to change the direction of the U.S. government’s support for Israel. And that in turn is what is required to change Israeli public opinion and government policy.
Accordingly, I would hope to see greater efforts on the part of progressive Jewish peace groups to bring into their memberships like-minded non-Jews, and to form alliances with suitable anti-war, anti-imperialist groups – on either the left or the right.
(As a leftist myself, I don’t agree with Mooser that all anti-Zionists on the right are anti-semitic. For exceptions, among others, Andrew Bacevich comes to mind. The noted anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist, Ron Paul, used to be my congressman for years, and I never had reason to think he was anti-semitic. Many of the right-leaning readers of antiwar.com and The American Conservative probably are anti-Zionist without being anti-semitic.)
I am aware that the idea of encouraging anti-Zionist sentiment among non-Jews seems dangerous to many non-Zionist and weakly-Zionist Jews in the peace movement, and I know of at least two reasons for this. But I think that such risks pale in comparison to the dangers to American Jews, and the nation as a whole, from not taking effective action to achieve peace in the ME.
I agree emphatically that more direct action and confrontation are required. But it would need to be planned and executed carefully to avoid unintended consequences such as physical and economic retaliation, political and social backlash, etc.
I agree with both of you, v… and CMI.
“As a leftist myself, I don’t agree with Mooser that all anti-Zionists on the right are anti-semitic. For exceptions, among others, Andrew Bacevich comes to mind. :
I agree about Bacevich. I’m a lefty, but if someone like him miraculously got the Republican nomination (will never happen), I might have to vote for him.
Don’t know about Ron Paul. I’ve heard bad things about him, but have never cared enough to look into it deeply enough to know what the truth is.
“(As a leftist myself, I don’t agree with Mooser that all anti-Zionists on the right are anti-semitic.”
And then you quote a couple of exceptions which prove the rule.
Mooser, to help us get to the heart of the matter, would you provide your personal definition of “anti-semitism”? Its scope appears to be quite broad.
Do you think this must be an inherent characteristic of all non-Jews who don’t swear an oath that they are “philo-semitic”? Is a conservative political orientation reason to suspect “anti-semitism”? Or is it that any non-Jewish person who is strongly opposed to political Zionism must harbor dislike for Jews?
It seems to me that you might think all these things are substantially true.
Look, first we talk about all the Jewish people in America who need to know more about what is going on in Israel. And if they come to Mondoweiss, they will see the same kind of warmed-over right-wing anti-semitism they have heard all their lives.
My objection is not to saying bad things about Zionists and Israel, my objection is to saying untrue things about Jews, and moreover, things which can only be discussed by debasing the principles the website is supposedly based on.
But that was until I read Phil’s work on the “Clinton Scandals” . Now I know it’s hopeless. Once you have touched the Clinton Scandals in that way, your credibility is shot.
I tell you, all this stuff about Jewish identity, and criticisms thereof, and defenses thereof, makes for fascinating reading. It’s enough to make a lachrymosiac laugh aloud.
Surely no one would deny there is a connection from Jewish identity, and Jewish influence, to the plight of the Palestinians (the central emphasis of this blog). One can only hope that the participants here are able to devote as much thought and energy to “the Palestinian question” as they seem to give to “the Jewish question”.
Hey, I’ve got a good idea! Instead of measuring Israel’s actions against some ridiculous ideas about the Jewish identity, we could measure and analyse Israel’s actions against other colonial enterprises (actually, a sub-enterprise of British colonialism, but that’s cool, that’s how it happens)?
It wasn’t the Jews or the Zionists that could open up Jerusalem to Jewish immigration, it was the British (Mandate, Sykes-Picot, etc.)
When the early Zionists made their moves, they had to deal first, with the colonial masters of the area, then sell it to the Jews.
And I just find it ridiculopus to talk about the “power” of a group which can’t even replace itself, and is dwindling in size. That’s Power?
Jewishness and Judaism are nothing but a distraction from the real issues. But of course, rightists can’t argue those things. They are all in favor of colonialism and racism, just not Jewish colonialism and racism. They are no help.
Sounds like a form of Wittyism. Anemic, second-hand apologia?
Well, yes Mooser, “It wasn’t the Jews or the Zionists that could open up Jerusalem to Jewish immigration, it was the British (Mandate, Sykes-Picot, etc.)”
Similarly, it took the French to give Israel its nukes, and it has taken the USA to
enable Israeli expansion for over 40 years–and partner with the pretense of Israel may or may not being gay, the don’t ask, don’t tell policy Obama recently confirmed
as to whether or not Israel has gay nukes. No, I could care less what you do in the privacy of your home. But when what you do affects the world outside, I care.
“When the early Zionists made their moves, they had to deal first, with the colonial masters of the area, then sell it to the Jews.” Yep, they had to show the successive goy regime leaders that it would be benefical to them keeping their power. And simultaneously (rather than successively) they had to sell “what’s in it for you” to
their fellow jews.
You totally ignore the power of Zionist leaders’ affect on both England and the USA. Check out Wilson and Truman’s and England’s leaders in their own diaries
and in the archives regarding the power of Zionist influences. You write like
it never existed. Read Churchill too. The fact that there is a 50% intermarriage rate among US jews is not relevant to those historical facts. Read what JFK had to say about the power of organized Jewry, and how frusrated he was about that when trying to act in the best interests of the USA, his first sworn duty. The neocons rise to power from the Scoop Jackson days through PNAC in BushCo offices for 8 years, and now attendant Obama in very key places, starting with his gate-keeper
who supported IDF tanks and who’s father was an Israeli terrorist who proclaimed
to the effect “What, you think he’s at the white house to push a broom like some Arab?” –that neocon rise to power, that PEP and AntiPEP both, that doesn’t illustrate power? Read the Jewish neocons–they are very explicit quite often
in their equation of their concept of being Jewish with the path they recommend, and have recommended for US foreign policy. My Big Fat Greek Wedding echoes
the Jewish intermarriage rate, aka the “silent holocaust”–but how powerful is
the Greek Lobby?
The impression of power is not the same as actual power. Weizmann was an amazing con artist, who managed – playing on British anti-Semitism and belief in global Jewish power, as well as romantic biblical notions and colonial aspirations – to convince Balfour and Lloyd George that he represented a large and powerful organisation that could be of great service to the British Empire. Nothing could have been further from the truth. His not insignificant personal contribution (as a chemist) to the British war effort didn’t hurt either – in terms of opening doors and getting powerful men listen to his pitch.
You are historically accurate, Shmuel. My research at least indicates this. Is there a lesson here for those on this blog? Anything beyond how powerful elected leaders
are actually really naive but always focused on what anyone convinces them they
might gain in power and reputation, the hell with the real cost to tons of humans?
Elected leaders can sometimes be fooled, sometimes actually want to be fooled and sometimes just want to look they’ve been fooled. I think the behaviour of Balfour and Lloyd George with regard to the Zionists was a combination of the first two, with a dash of the third, and a heap of good, solid British interests (as they saw them) that had nothing to do with the Zionists. British leaders of the early 20th century certainly were not particularly concerned with costs to “native” populations.
Mooser, are you denying that Jews are powerful in the West? If so, this is where the issue goes off the rails. Also, If birth rate were a sign of political power, the poorest people on the planet would be in charge of everything. Whites in America are losing out demographically, but I see no shortage of criticism going their way.
I don’t claim to know the exact nature or magnitude of Jewish power, but to deny that it exists, and that it exists to benefit Jews at the expense of other groups is to be on the weak side of the argument.
Why anyone should all of a sudden deny that power is usually group-based now that Jews are the issue is beyond me. And no, I don’t believe that the British should be blamed for Zionism, since it was an explicit tactic of Zionism to piggyback off the dominant power to achieve its goals.
For the most part, anti-Semitism doesn’t really mean much. When Jewish groups, with heavy support from the Jewish community, play ethnic power -politics, then Jews are just another group open to criticism and competition, whether the issue is Isreal, or not.
“The impression of power is not the same as actual power. ”
Shmuel, do you believe that there is more of an impression of Jewish power than actual Jewish power today? I think it’s obvious that Jewish elites are playing power politics from an ethnic angle, and that there are some powerful individuals involved. At the same time, I don’t see how these groups would have the resources or numbers to have lasting power over non-Jews.
I believe that the Zionist lobby in the United States, supported by most organised Jewish groups in the country, enjoys a great deal of power. This was not the case in early-19th century Britain, which was the subject of my comment on Weizmann.
But, Shmuel, do you say how the Zionists gained credence and power in England and Wilson’s USA? No. But do you agree? If so, what do you think was the source of organized Jewish power? Do you also recognize how Wilson felt later, and Churchill too, and Truman too? Roosevelt of course died naive, no?
I know a little about how the Zionists gained influnce in Britain – mostly from Tom Segev, and about the power wielded post-Holocaust, but very little about the situation under Wilson or Roosvelt. I do know however, that pre-Holocaust, the Zionist movement, for the most part, lacked real power. That came later and progressively.
Sorry, I meant “early 20th century” in my 1:01pm comment.
on anti-semitism. my favorite quote is by some wiseass jew: ” anti-semitism is hating the jews more than they deserve”
I heard it: “Anti-Semitism is hating Jews more than necessary.”
Thanks Shmuel, That’s it. I don’t know that I agree. In fact I work hard to hate actions not people, and hate is too strong a word.
I think that what many Jews call anti-semitism doesn’t involve hate or dislike at all. I refer back to what Todd wrote just above:
“For the most part, anti-Semitism doesn’t really mean much. When Jewish groups, with heavy support from the Jewish community, play ethnic power -politics, then Jews are just another group open to criticism and competition, whether the issue is Isreal, or not. ”
I personally have never seen hatred or dislike of Jews (unlike some “racial ” groups in days gone by). But I have seen a lot of concern about Jewish power in politics and the media, and what that means for the other 98% in a “democracy”. That concern, and maybe resentment, is not at all the same thing as hatred of Jews as individuals or as a people.
I make a big distinction between Zionism and Jewry. But my impression is that many American gentiles do not; that because organized Jewry has been so aggressively Zionist, they just assume that all Jews are loyal to Israel (and they are very surprised when they meet one who is not).
I have often wondered how large does concern about Zionism and the Israel connection loom in people’s concern about organized Jewish power in America. Would the latter be just as strong if there were little or no Zionism, little attachment to Israel, among American Jews? Todd seems to be suggesting, yes.
(A related question is, if organized Jewry in America had not become strongly Zionist since 1945, would it still have had the cohesiveness and sense of purpose to gain the political power we now see? My guess is, no.)