The new anti-Semitism
I’ve been online for about 20 years, and it’s a huge part of my life these days.
It started small, as many habits do. I wanted to look up information on the nerve injuries I had, and the internet provided me (for the very first time, actually) with a way to do that as well as support groups for people who shared same the physical difficulties. I was elated; what a find! It was extraordinarily helpful in making me feel much less alone.
Another thing that attracted me right away was the internet’s ability to conjure up favorite literary excerpts. My son—who in 1995 already knew at least something about the internet and about me—showed me a trick he knew would strike a deep and resonant bell. “Just give me a line from a poem you like,” he said temptingly. When I responded, he typed in my answer and—lo and behold! Like magic, the entire poem appeared.
That was it for me; I was hooked. What a wondrous tool!
And so it has been. But early on—very early on—I discovered there was a dark side, a side that didn’t surprise me. Pornography, one of the oldest attractions and preoccupations of humankind, is probably the single most numerous topic online, and not all of it is of the mainstream type, to say the least. For a while, it was hard to block that sort of thing from your computer—it kept popping up unsolicited.
And it didn’t take too long for me to encounter trolls—in fact, one of my very first online experiences (a discussion board for nerve injuries) was to watch the predations of a vicious troll who initially masqueraded as a soothing avuncular type and who ended up messing heavily with the minds of vulnerable people.
Not long after that, I realized that anti-Semitism was also rife online. The internet gives this old hatred with a long pedigree new and sturdy legs. Do a search for some topic connected with the Holocaust, for example, and pretty quickly you would encounter the Holocaust deniers and websites devoted to spreading anti-Semitic lies about all manner of Jewish things and all points of Jewish history. These sites are slick, numerous, and wide-reaching, and I have little doubt that they have increased the number of anti-Semitic people in the world who are firmly convinced that they are privy to the truth about Jews.
Which brings us to the current campaign season, and the modern spread of anti-Semitism. I only heard of the following for the first time yesterday, via commenter OM (see this), but I noticed that today there’s a NY Times article about it:
The Anti-Defamation League added a new symbol this week to Hate on Display, its database of prominent white supremacist imagery. It’s called the “echo,” and it is used online to call attention to Jewish names in the news.
The symbol originated in 2014 on an anti-Semitic podcast, “The Daily Shoah,” which applied a novelty sound effect to Jewish names that made them echo ominously.
That practice then spread to blogs and Twitter, where the podcast’s creators and fans created a visual translation of the echo sound effect by placing three sets of parentheses around a Jewish name, like (((Cohen))) or (((Goldberg)))…
This is how a hate symbol rises in 2016: A podcast sound effect becomes a Twitter meme and a browser extension before it finally slithers into the physical world.
The “echo” is the first officially recognized symbol to emerge from the “alt-right,” a movement of white-and-proud extremists who are as obsessed with cultural memes as they are with white nationalism. They play fast and loose with white supremacist iconography, remixing it with pop culture and the sardonic tone of internet subculture. Their regressive message, cloaked in an ultramodern skin, is being spread online to a new generation of race warriors.
Of course, the alt-right is not solely composed of anti-Semites and white supremicists (nor, or course, are the ranks of Trump supporters). But it is folly to ignore the fact that there is a sizable proportion of the alt-right that does fit that description. Many people have an image of white supremicist anti-Semites as a bunch of inarticulate thugs, unsophisticated and not all that bright. Untrue; plenty of them are very knowledgeable about human behavior, just as they were in Nazi Germany. They may prey on the unsophisticated sometimes, but this is a polished, clever group that is especially internet-savvy.
They are also characterized by the left as being of “the right.” But they are not actually of the right—that’s why they call themselves the “alt-right.” They want to displace and then replace the current right by growing their own power and influence.
Well, thanks to the current right it seems to be working out for the alt-right.
Then again we can contemplate the embedded anti-semitism of the Hillary campaign in two words “Huma Abedin.”
Dangerous ground I tread here so I’m going to say something about me, which I rarely do. Two of my wives had Jewish fathers. I have been to temple more than once.
OK. There are haters in this world. They’re born that way. They were haters in their past lives. They hate targets of convenience. Micks, spics, wops, dagos, greaseballs, … When a cult of hate rises in a society they pick a target, a focus for their hate. Jews bear the brunt because they are the single most successful culture in all the world. They stand out like a sore thumb.
And it does absolutely no good to protest that the Jews don’t deserve it. That doesn’t matter to the haters. When things start to come apart in a society it either ends up in a civil war or directs the anger to foreign threats. Europe is falling apart. They can either fight the enemy in their streets or direct their anger elsewhere and that happens to be Israel and the Jews.
What’s to be done? You’re asking me? I don’t run the world. I just try to understand it.
Coincidentally, yesterday, at “PJ Media,” David Goldman (Spengler) wrote about how antisemitism has become respectable (http://tinyurl.com/z5tepkk).
Goldman focuses on mainstream culture and politics, where antisemitism primarily originates with the Left and with Muslims. As their political alliance has grown, so has antisemitism leaked into the mainstream.
Antisemitism among the alt-right internet mob has been a gift to the Left, who’ve become very noisy in their accusations of bigotry and racism towards both the alt-right and Trump’s supporters.
This frees both the Left and Muslims from charges of bigotry, because they can point and shout at the alt-right: they’re the antisemites, not us. We’re just fighting the oppressors.
Scapegoating and political competition are ratcheting up the hateful rhetoric. Can’t help but worry where it will end.
Another report on the echo tactics of some Trump supporters..
http://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/2016/06/11/anti-semites-targeting-jews-journalists-critical-trump-twitter/
A societies attitude toward toward Jewish people might be likened to making them similar to that of a canary in a coal mine. A sickly society starts by picking on the Jews. When that becomes acceptable, as it quite unfortunately seems to be where we and the world are heading, things do not end well.
There is no rational reason for that hatred. Which makes the haters, by definition, irrational.
” the sardonic sheen that coats everything oozing from internet subcultures helps provide cover for white supremacists” – Hess, NYT article linked by Neo
It is beyond internet subculture. And, it is reaching beyond anti-Semitism.
If there is one “Overton Window” that Trump has successfully opened, it is this. The ability to attack people of some identified group and to attack those who criticize them for that attack as beholding to a leftist PC narrative.
Be they Alt-Right activists or just plain bigots, they’ve used that “anti-PC” motive for cover.
I am surprised that Ace of Spades even falls for it, as he has had a few articles that attack conservatives for bending to the leftist narrative in finding offense with Trump’s comments re: Judge Curiel.
There are even commenters on this blog that talk about Muslims being wholly incompatible with our society. (Ironically, many who believe this might well be saddened in some way by Ali’s passing).
Makes one wonder if we are arguing about Liberty and Founding Principles anymore, or if we are just talking about freedom for our group/tribe at the toleration, if not expense of everyone else and left vs right is really an illusion, as the real issue is who gets to have power over whom – who gets to write the new social contract.
As I said before, this seems to be giving us a taste of life in the last days of the Wiemar, but without the real desperation that many faced at the time.
Big Maq:
I don’t know whether or not you’ve seen this before, but you might want to take a look.
meanwhile we have the other party that denied god and israel, twice, that put virulent bdsers like cornel west and james zogby on the platform committee,
miguel,
… and invited to the White House Al Sharpton, who not only has a decades-long history of race-baiting and antisemitism but has incited more murders than Charles Manson, or Dylann Roof.
I put MY money on Moscow — and its SVR agents of influence.
I’ve mentioned “Arbiter” before.
Near as I can tell, Arbiter and other pseudonyms are committees, — SVR staffs.
I hold such an opinion because the output of such venom-names is too great for any ordinary mortal.
AND, the ‘personality’ of the pseudonym changes over time… exactly what you’d expect for an established SVR ‘legend’ wafting over the Internet.
Further, such antics are of LONG standing with the SVR/KGB/NKVD/ and all antecedents going back through to Tzarist days.
BUT this history NEVER SINKS IN.
State sponsored manipulations of our polity are STILL not acknowledged.
Yet, ALL of the following nations are clanging away at their keyboards:
North Korea
Red China
Russia
Iran
KSA
ISIS
The usual Western suspects can’t be dismissed, either.
Google and Bing both figure it’s their right and duty to manipulate our polity…
As does Facebook… on over.
&&&&&
Of late Putin’s air force has come to experience F-22 stealth fighter functionality over Syria.
I’d say that Putin is absolutely FREAKING OUT.
Only NOW is it become apparent just how impractical anti-stealth penetrating// detection technology is.
AND, the F-35 has reached initial operational capability with the USMC this year.
All over YouTube Russian kiddies are trying to convince themselves that the Russian air force is a viable — even world beating — military power.
I smell panic.
Massed stealth air fleets makes Russia’s ICBM fleet at risk from a first strike.
BTW, the USAF is edging back into production of the B-2 — to be the B-21.
A fleet of hundreds of B-21s would be far too much for Moscow to handle… emotionally.
And in other news, Putin’s stealth project lost its funder: New Delhi. Tragic. Just tragic.
&&&&&&
The OTHER big factor in Moscow’s calculus: The American Left is hugely dominated by Jewish-atheists.
( Marx and Trotsky were Jewish-Atheists, and not quiet about it. )
So, what comes off as anti-Semitic rantings — is nothing but Moscow wigging out about what might best be described as ‘Mensheviks.’
So the hatred, venom, is really directed at one Leftist faction by another Leftist faction.
Putin sees Hillary as adopting his own expansive impulse — and arrogance — and Leftist-supremacist world view.
The last time this dynamic reached full flower Berlin and Moscow were at each other’s throats.
Putin sees America gradually shoving Moscow off the Left of the world stage.
THIS is the source of Moscow’s manipulation war.
Discrediting Leftist Jewry is deemed an essential cog in holding Moscow’s psychic market position.
Pingback:Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove
“Many people have an image of white supremicist anti-Semites as a bunch of inarticulate thugs” – the alt-right benefits from being consistently underestimated. Many of them (such as Richard Spencer and the other contributors to Radix Journal) are highly educated and sophisticated. This is not the older generation’s white nationalism, a la David Duke or Tom Metzger.
Another proof of their savvy is their skill at using the Left’s tactics. Recently for instance Spencer and some friends staged an “alt-right safe space” at Berkeley, and even broadcast it live. Since many of them were marinated in left-wing education environments, they know how to pull this stuff off.
“I don’t know whether or not you’ve seen this before, but you might want to take a look.” – Neo
Thanks. I must have missed that one.
Actually, it was slightly nauseating as it hits too close to home for what I am seeing and the arguments being pushed for Trump.
Good research!
Too many are willing to give up liberty in the name of something else, and, historically, those folks were left with neither.
Lessons are never learned, they are just replayed every couple of generations, as if these were completely new ideas.
The history of the Jews and of anti-semitism just doesn’t make sense if you view it from a normal, human level. There have been a lot of smart, successful tribes throughout history that have gotten wiped out. There’s no way, on paper, that the Jews should have survived as long as they have without God’s help. I know, Jews have a strong sense of community, and they oftentimes promote education. So have other groups, whose names aren’t remembered.
The continued existence of the Jewish people is proof of God and his love for them, the persistence of anti-semitism is proof of the existence of the devil and his hatred for them. You simply can’t explain anti-semitism otherwise. Someone said upthread that people always hate the prosperous. That’s true, but historically hatred is usually directed at the class or ethnicity immediately above you, or the one that’s moving ahead of you. People hate the Jews when they’re bankers, but also when they’re dirt farmers. They hate the Jews when they stay off by themselves, and they hate them when the Jews intermix. People hate the Jews when they have no interaction with them whatsoever. Seriously: there’s anti-semitism in Japan. Tell me how that makes sense.
Aliens, studying history, would conclude that the three most basic human drives are wealth, power, and hatred for a particular genetic tree from the Middle East. The worst societies allow anti-semitism to run free, but even the best struggle against it. The two worst presidential candidates in American history are both appealing to anti-semitism. It doesn’t make sense unless you take what the Bible says as true.
Big Maq:
I’ll tell you something else. I originally read that Mayer book in 2009, and here’s my initial post about it. If you read it you’ll see another quote that inadvertently contains some Trump-relevant quotes, although at the time I was thinking of Obama.
That quote in the post I referred you to earlier in this thread, the quote about the ratcatcher, was a quote I first drew attention to in January of 2010. At the time, I could already feel the vibe of “throw the rascals out” and that’s why the quote gave me pause. You can see in the comments section in that January 2010 thread that one or two people seemed prescient on the subject:
Looking back at that comment (by someone named “Taylor”), I think the person was quite brilliant. My reply at the time was that the quote from the book was meant to be cautionary on BOTH sides.
Indeed.
By the way, that was the only comment “Taylor” ever made on this blog.
I discussed that “Ratcatcher” quote again in December of 2013. I could feel that “throw the bums out” sentiment building and building (on the right in particular) and felt it boded ill.
So here we are.
The most widely spoken Semitic languages today are (numbers given are for native speakers only) Arabic (300 million),[3] Amharic (22 million),[4] Tigrinya (7 million),[5] Hebrew (unknown; 5 million native and non-native L1 speakers),[6] Aramaic (575,000 to 1 million fluent speakers)[7][8][9] and Maltese (520,000 speakers).[10]
Someone who is anti-semitic would hate Semitic people, which happens to include Arabs.
When Jewish tribes in the diaspora decided Semitic only meant their tribe, there was a problem.
I wrote an nice size post and hitting submit killed it.
Oh well.
Anyway, Neo, thanks for the extra links and writeup, all good reads.
Only thing to pull from the previous post…
Perhaps some of the Tea Partiers Taylor encountered were alt-Right groups. They often use similar sounding names (perhaps purposely so).
Also, many are associated with preppers / survivalists.
Don’t want to smear them all as alt-right, but there is a world-view inherent that seems fertile for a “throw all the bums out / burn it all down” mentality.
Search google trends on the two terms and one sees a rise in popularity in the topic post 2008, especially since 2012. Related?
There were Europeans who were anti semitic, back when the Jewish tribes worked for their Islamic overlords in helping to sell EUropean sex slaves to Islam. In that sense, the Spanish Inquisition wa quite Anti Semitic, in that they persecuted and exiled all Arabs and Jews, because of their origins.
Now a days the Jewish organizations, many Leftist in nature, declare that the Islamic jihadists are Anti Semitic. No, the jihadists are Anti Jew.
Ymarsakar – Words are important. We can agree on that. But what’s the value in distinguishing between anti-semitism and Jew-hatred? I’ll grant you that “anti-semitic” isn’t a great word. Just like I’d grant that the rest of you guys who aren’t from the Caucasus shouldn’t be called “caucasian”. What’s the benefit in the improved accuracy?
Ymarsakar:
Read up on the history of the term “anti-Semitic.” It’s originally the German word for it, and has become standard. There have been many suggestions over the years to replace it, but they’ve not caught on.
If all of a group’s genuine concerns are dismissed as “racism” for two or three generations, is it really surprising that they start to side with racists?
Trimegistus:
Are you really suggesting that’s the genesis of the white supremacist movement? It’s of much great antiquity and continuity than that, and feeds on just about anything at all.
Anyone else get the feeling this site is going the way of Little Green Footballs? It sure looks like Trump Derangement Syndrome is making ostensible right-wingers forget who the real enemy is (hint: a vulture with a Left head and a Muslim head)
Thanks for the article, Ms. Neo.
I’m still trying to understand what the label “alt-right” actually refers to. (I’m more of the old-Buckley, new-Cruz classical liberal right myself; voted for Cruz in last week’s primary.)
That the New York TImes desires that they be considered to be “white extremists”, however, is an indication that most “alt-right” are likely not to be such. I remember the NYT efforts to falsely accuse Tea Partiers of being racists: for the NYT, labels are tools that can be used to discredit their enemies. The NYT credibility is very poor.
I also read the quote from “Taylor” you had above, Looking back–I was not a Tea Party activist, but did attend several of the local leadership meetings to see what it was about–I can say with surety that they were not looking for a “strong man” to take over, but were very much in favor of decentralized and less pervasive government. Quite the opposite of a strong man: a government that would help reduce the power of anyone with dictatorial tendencies.
I believe labels can be important. At the nation’s founding, I think there were many who looked upon Washington as a strong man who would right everything–and there were many who feared that that is exactly what he’d do. (Similar fears were expressed about Adams and Jefferson, BTW.) With Washington, there was much to support their fears, given his history as a military leader and commander.
As we know, the fears were unfounded. I think most today still are, since our political system (both official and cultural) tends against it in the main.
One final note: it should be noted that Obama was looked upon as a “strong man” by many of his supporters, elected by them to set things right as they would see it. HClinton’s supporters are that to an amazedly unthinking extent, and Sanders’ supporters are know for that. Many of the stronger Trump supporters are the same way (although, from my conversations with and observations of many of them, not nearly as much as were the Obamans or are the Clintonians).
(Hmmm. During my lifetime, it’s hard to think of any presidents who didn’t have some supporters looking for a ruler to take charge and set things right. Today it is more pronounced, and somewhat more likely to be used as an accusation, but it is nothing new..)
Anyone who might take our freedom away is “the real enemy”.
” Looking back—I was not a Tea Party activist, but did attend several of the local leadership meetings to see what it was about—I can say with surety that they were not looking for a “strong man” to take over, but were very much in favor of decentralized and less pervasive government.” – CBI
I made a very similar point in my lost post.
And made one further… Yet, also looking back at how I came to the conclusion that the shared belief in conservative principles was much wider spread than it was, leaves it open to question if our observation of the TP was as “clean” as it was. Did we filter out those who might have talked the right words, but also said other things incongruent with those words?
Another guess is that there were groups who we gravitated towards and there were others we might not have, using similar names, perhaps actively linking themselves to the TP movement, that were more focused on what is now considered alt-right themes.
One coincidental indicator may be the growth in prepper / survivalist interest, as it seemed that these groups share a world view that provides space for those alt-right themes (though that doesn’t translate to all preppers being this way).
Alt-right is a new idea to me, too, but what I get from it is something akin to neo-Nazi.
“Many of the stronger Trump supporters are … {looking for a strongman}… (although, from my conversations with and observations of many of them, not nearly as much as were the Obamans or are the Clintonians)”
Seems true from my experience too. But what if we are just filtering the incongruent comments.
Because of the situations, we rarely get to the depths of discussion like we do in places like this blog to probe it that deeply. They also might be timid in saying what the really think.
Taylor may have been extraordinarily astute or in a way accidentally prescient, but I do hear the same ideas, the same arguments articulated by the subject German citizens of the study that Neo discusses in her other posts (links above). That is just too close to be a coincidence, and ought to serve as a warning sign to us all.
Nick Says:
June 12th, 2016 at 3:44 pm
The history of the Jews and of anti-semitism just doesn’t make sense if you view it from a normal, human level. There have been a lot of smart, successful tribes throughout history that have gotten wiped out. There’s no way, on paper, that the Jews should have survived as long as they have without God’s help. I know, Jews have a strong sense of community, and they oftentimes promote education. So have other groups, whose names aren’t remembered.
The continued existence of the Jewish people is proof of God and his love for them, the persistence of anti-semitism is proof of the existence of the devil and his hatred for them. You simply can’t explain anti-semitism otherwise.
***
“Canary in the coal mine” indeed.
God takes note of each person’s treatment of his Covenant People as an indicator of their opinion of Him (don’t get sidetracked by the fact that Jesus was himself killed by Jews; just look at J-Street and its followers).
3 Nephi 29:8
8 Yea, and ye need not any longer hiss, nor spurn, nor make game of the Jews, nor any of the remnant of the house of Israel; for behold, the Lord remembereth his covenant unto them, and he will do unto them according to that which he hath sworn.
Neo: No, at least not entirely. Lately I’ve been spending some time on “alt-right” sites (because I do sympathize with some of their positions) and I’ve also begun to find the constant emphasis on “(((jews)))” disturbing.
From what I can see, their antisemitism has four roots.
CAVEAT: I am not saying these things are true. My wife and children are Jewish. I am saying this is what the new alt-right antisemites believe.
First, of course, is the classic “rich Jews run everything” conspiracy theory. This one goes back to the era of the Rothschilds, if not earlier. The fact that Jews in America are successful, especially in fairly high-profile fields like media and finance, is used as “proof” of this.
Second, and more subtle, is post-Holocaust Jewish attempts to claim victim status. When a group is successful but claims victimhood — and is constantly alert for the menace of antisemitism from people who aren’t as materially successful — it looks like hypocrisy. You will sometimes see the term “Holocaustianity” to refer to this phenomenon: the notion (which, I have to say, some Jewish scholars are guilty of) that somehow the murder of 6 million Jews by one set of mid-20th century totalitarians is worse than the murder of 20 million Ukrainians by a different set, or 10 million Chinese by a third crew. The horribly sad truth is that the Jewish Holocaust isn’t even the worst crime of the 20th century, so attempts by Jews (disproportionately represented in media and academia) to portray it as such look like special pleading or even dishonesty. This feeds back into #1.
Third is a complete misreading of how American Jews relate to Israel. There’s a presumption that Jews reflexively support Israel, so that any political/diplomatic decision made by American Jews in government must be intended to benefit Israel. When those decisions turn out to be failures (i.e. Jewish “Neocons” supporting the Iraq war), the conspiracy theory creeps in that the boneheaded failure was deliberate in order to advance some secret long-term pro-Israel goal. (The fact that most liberal American Jews are actually kind of anti-Israel is either unknown to the anti-semites, or is folded back into the conspiracy theory somehow.) The ignorance about American Jews vs. Israel also turns up in debates about immigration: “They don’t want US to have a wall, but Israel does! They’re a bunch of hypocrites!” (Except, of course, that the liberal Jewish American “they” in question have been equally against Israel’s self-defense measures.)
And finally, there’s the fact that Jews in America seem nearly monolithically liberal, and are over-represented in precisely those areas where contemporary aggressive liberalism is most visible and grating: media and academia. They are, for better or worse, the “face” of liberal media shoving trannies in the bathroom down our throats, or telling our kids in school what they’re not allowed to think. It looks like “the Jews are pushing this filth on us.”
A related matter is the fact that while Jews vote liberal, they don’t tend to live by what they support: they have low rates of divorce, a good work ethic, a reverence for learning, etc. Their support for Democrat policies which seem to oppose all of that (which most of us view as tragic foolishness) looks like part of the conspiracy theory again: “They don’t live that way themselves, why are they pushing this filth on the rest of us?”
It would be VERY useful if some American jews could actually have a public “conversation” about some of these issues. Acknowledging that Jews are just as “white” as a poor Appalachian coal miner and thus have no moral authority over him would be a huge step. Airing the “dirty linen” of the intra-Jewish disputes over Israel would actually help rather than harm non-Jews’ understanding of the issue. And, though this is probably too much to hope for, Jews getting over their suicidal love affair with the Democratic Party would help all of us.
As to the shift to a “man on a horse” from the previously small-government loving Tea Party supporters, I think it’s just the hard lesson of the past 6 years. They voted for small-government candidates, and got . . . nothing. No reduction. Not even any limits on growth. I think that has soured a lot of people on the democratic/legislative process. Plus there’s the feeling that “if Obama can ignore the Constitution, then why can’t we?”
Trimegistus Says:
June 13th, 2016 at 12:16 am
If all of a group’s genuine concerns are dismissed as “racism” for two or three generations, is it really surprising that they start to side with racists?
neo-neocon Says:
June 13th, 2016 at 12:29 am
Trimegistus:
Are you really suggesting that’s the genesis of the white supremacist movement? It’s of much great antiquity and continuity than that, and feeds on just about anything at all.
I agree with both points. Racism is ugly and has to be fought. Unfortunately, the word is now applied to just about anything, and there are times when a person has to say “I don’t care if you call me racist for saying this”. In such an environment, we have to turn off our usual instinct to avoid anything labelled racist, and that allows some ugly stuff to creep in.
It’s like racism is a bacteria. We’ve been over-prescribing antibiotics for everything, and the bacteria have gotten stronger.
It’s originally the German word for it, and has become standard. There have been many suggestions over the years to replace it, but they’ve not caught on.
That would be the result of evil, manipulating language in order to destroy people’s ability to see the truth.
Similar to Political Correctness as well as 1984 mind control via Linguistics.
The only thing people promote when they adhere to the status quo power, is the evil of the status quo.
But what’s the value in distinguishing between anti-semitism and Jew-hatred? I’ll grant you that “anti-semitic” isn’t a great word. Just like I’d grant that the rest of you guys who aren’t from the Caucasus shouldn’t be called “caucasian”. What’s the benefit in the improved accuracy?
What’s the value in not clumping Arabs, Kurds, and Jews together, plus some of the other various 12-13 lost tribes of Biblical history?
Because if you claim someone is racist, and it’s false, you’re promoting the illusions of evil. Just as when someone claims x are against all Semitic people, when the Kurds and the Arabs are also Semitic, it is called lying or promoting the illusions of this society if x is only against a single tribe. None of which goes to a good result.
Slavery is Freedom, and Freedom is slavery. Without understanding how mind control works through Linguistics, people fight on this planet endlessly and constantly. Without end in sight.
If people want to accuse people of being racist, that statement is either true or not. Calling Arabs and Islamic Jihadists “Anti Semitic” is not accurate, when the only proof of which tribe they hate is the House of Israel.
As for the Alternative Right, there’s a lot of interesting medical and scientific theories concerning the human genome. Which has been incorporated into the new enlightement aspect of the internet, which makes the Alt Right categorize all races and human genome types. It is not merely antagonistic towards the Jews or the Arabs. And I’ve never heard them mention the Kurds either.
Part of it is political. When the Jewish clans thought that God alone chose them, they were wrong. There were several other tribes in the Covenant, the House of Israel was not special in that sense. The prophecy was that the tribes would be scattered and then re integrated back in Zion or New Jerusalem at a certain point. Just like the House of Israel was allowed to return to Jerusalem and Judea after almost 2000 years of exile and Diaspora.
It is political in the sense that the Jews who spread out, started believing in all kinds of anti-God rhetoric and philosophy. Voting Democrat by more than 60% majories. Bolstering and supporting communist revolutions in Russia. Funding and supporting Nazis like Soros. This is problematic when it comes to the Covenant, since even by the laws of Moses, you shouldn’t covet your neighbor’s stuff. Which is about the only thing socialism offers. Even if the House of Israel recognizes nothing else after Moses, they should have still recognized that Law. And for the most part, Israel the nation, does abide by the older divine laws.
Because of the politics of the Jews, people in this world, including the ALt Right, are against them. But they aren’t really educated in religious history, so even for the leaders, this is a pretty vague subject. Nearly half to 40% of their internet consumers also fell for the Iraq propaganda concerning Neo Cons being Jews and being the ones behind the war. Sort of the flipside to people saying Bush was weak on terrorism because Bush II said Islam is a religion of peace.
Islam is a religion of war, and war requires money from peace. So in that sense, the contradiction isn’t all that inexplicable. If America wasn’t at peace, would they have been able to send gold to Russia via Lend Lease? Probably not. Wars are pretty expensive. So if you want to win wars, ensure the peace is long and produces a lot of tax money. Islam is relatively good at that. To make sure that Jihad is logistically supported, is not something an amateur would think about. Amateurs think about winning tactics.
Linguistics and language are very important to the war effort. If you can’t even call yourself a man because you’re a cisgender anti feminist… maybe you already lost the fight without realizing it. Which is why I don’t ascribe to Marxist or Leninist or Staliniques or Maoesque or Hitlerite philosophy or linguistics, using their terms in my language complex. It’s sort of like opening your firewall and sending the weakness over the net to dare someone to attack you. Maybe they just will, with a DoS. The firewalls they use to stop DoS now a days is almost like a virtual box.
If you want to dissect Leftist viruses and WMDs, to understand them, it would be wise to create a sterile room and use remote manipulation.
And, though this is probably too much to hope for, Jews getting over their suicidal love affair with the Democratic Party would help all of us.
The Jewish communities don’t police themselves. Except perhaps in Israel. They’ve been alone for too long, and they’ve worked for Islamic overlords for too long, too.
It would be nice for the Jewish communities to fix their own problems… like Soros. But that’s sort of like expecting Judea to welcome in Jesus as the next Messiah to replace Moses. Or demanding of the Jewish Zealots that Jesus was their king, and not the holy warrior the Zealots wanted as their Messiah to lead a holy war against the world.
Until Israel came along, as a nation, the Jewish clans did not really get along, at all. Not for 2000 years even. In the Dead Sea scrolls, there’s various monasteries of people who upheld the Laws of Moses. They got killed when the Jews rebelled against the Roman Empire… and it probably wasn’t even the decision of these monasteries to rebel, they just got caught up in the problems of Jewish city leaders and rabbis.
On the topic of the Alternative Right, people have a lot of ignorance about their origins. Most of what they have access to is word of mouth, and word of mouth online is pretty much 50% trash.
Reading Alt Blogs can help, but if you read the comment sections… well, they’re like Youtube comment sections. What you are seeing is the Internet culture, not so much the Alt Right leadership or culture.
The Anti Jew conspiracy theorists have been around online far longer than 9/11 inside jobers and fire can’t melt steel types.
As for Democrats and Republicans wanting a Hero King to save them from having freedom… well that’s just Americans. A lot of Alternative Right comes from internet baronies and communities. I’ll list a few.
PUA, aka Pick up Artist blogs and communities, aka Alpha Male “guides”.
Reddit sub reddit communities.
Forums.
Survivalist and grow your own garden communities, which is strong enough to power its own mini economy btw of sales people.
Veterans and military/police from Sissy Blogs. Patriots too.
They are a coalition, an alliance. As such, they don’t have one leader. Even if Trump takes the US Throne of power and makes people as rich as Little Green Footballs got rich off Leftist logistical support, it won’t change the leadership at the grassroots of the internet. Not unless you tax the internet sales at 50-90, at least.
People who never truly understood what constituted the Leftist alliance, are crippled when it comes to understanding the Alternative Right as an alliance. Also the Tea Party isn’t all that complicated either, but they were an attempt at reform. They weren’t bred from the desert of the internet. The proof is that paranoid people on the internet would never have talked to the IRS without expecting the gov to backstab them. While the Tea Party people in charge of the cash, did talk to the IRS and were “surprised” that the ATF and IRS and SWAT persecuted them. Of course they did, that’s what the Government Does: Everything for the State, Everything within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.
Conservative organizations, by actually threatening the power of DC, became an Enemy of the State. The federal super state that owns 51+% of land west of Mississippi even.
People may think of Alt Right as a “smear” but that’s only because of how the Left uses them. Just as the Left used the smear of “you spat on blacks, you racist” against the Tea Party. They Only Attack the ALt Right, because the Alt Right is effective. They only attacked Fox News, Rush, and Breitbart because they were effective. The moment they caved, is the moment they stopped attacking them. Well in the case of Breitbart, he didn’t surrender, he just died. And the Left declared victory.
To even call the alliance by a name, such as the Alternative Right, is a very very dangerous thing. Because if people fail to crush them… you will see something that Americans have not seen since the US Civil War I.
“It’s like racism is a bacteria. We’ve been over-prescribing antibiotics for everything, and the bacteria have gotten stronger. – Nick
Very interesting analogy.
The overuse of the “racism” charge, including the faked up incidents, has in some ways “delegitimized” the issue to the point that provides cover for the real cases and arguments. A sort of “innoculation” to the charge.
Sadly it creates uncertainty around the issue in both directions.
A good friend recently had a “conservative” “admit” to him that “most” (i.e. nearly all) of the concern with Obama was because he was black.
Until recently, I was certain that was not the case, just as I was certain that a majority in the GOP held strong to conservative principles, and calls of racism on this count was just how the left unfairly painted conservatives.
Had to admit that, sadly, in light of what 2016 has exposed, a significant portion of the opposition to Obama may well have been based on his color.
Still don’t think it was/is the majority by any means, but 2016 has resulted in a rethink on assumptions about “known knowns”.
Ymarsakar – There appear to be two different things happening here. You’re arguing that the term “anti-smitism” isn’t being used properly. You’re also apparently discounting the extent to which Jew-hatred is wrong. If you wanted to make the first point, I’d say that it’s valid, but I find it ultimately unimportant. We could argue about its importance all day. If you’re making the first point and the second point, then you’re on very thin ice with me. You also don’t seem averse to scientific racism. While it certainly makes a difference to you whether you cross the line into racism, I don’t think it makes a practical (or functional) difference whether you do cross the line or flirt with crossing it repeatedly. I have the impression that you’re very comfortable near or even beyond the line.
Trimegistus:
No, it wouldn’t be helpful if Jews had such a conversation.
That’s because anti-Semitism is based on nothing and everything. Jews are rich? Hate them. Jews are poor? Hate them. Jews assimilate? Hate them. Jews keep apart? Hate them.
If you study anti-Semitism and its history and forms you will learn they are shifting and protean. Jews are hated. The excuses are found later.
Dennis Prager has written some good stuff on that. I forget the book’s name; don’t have time to look it up at the moment.
CBI:
I agree that the Tea Party was not looking for a strongman THEN.
Many, many members or former members are looking for one now however, much as “Taylor” predicted.
“The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of likely voters shows that nearly a quarter of them aren’t likely voters at all: a pox on both your houses, substantial numbers of Americans are saying, and on the two parties and the political system as a whole.“
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/06/12/three_big_questions_130857.html
Flanahan:
I don’t think you’re very familiar with Little Green Footballs if you can make that comparison.
And no, no one here’s ignoring the problems posed by the combination of radical Islam and the left. Many posts, many threads, many comments on that.
You’re arguing that the term “anti-smitism” isn’t being used properly.
It is being used properly, as a weapon of propaganda or war. What I was talking about was whether it was accurate and true. Remember that, the Truth, what that was all about.
If you wanted to make the first point, I’d say that it’s valid, but I find it ultimately unimportant.
The fact that you find the war of propaganda and ultimately of cultural conflicts and occupation, to be ultimately unimportant, is why the Alternative Right and the Leftist alliance and the Islamic Jihad find people like you to be merely barriers in their road to domination. You, do not matter, except as cannonfodder.
Anyone that cannot utilize the weapons of war or violence, will be destroyed by those that can and will.
The question is merely how long before it takes a Nick to recognize what he should have recognized years ago. How many Wacos and terrorist attacks, etc. I predicted 100 for the average American, back in 2010/2012.
I have the impression that you’re very comfortable near or even beyond the line.
You are not an Authority capable of determing what the line is, for me or anyone else. If you want to exert your ignorance and lack of power on this matter, go right ahead. You’ll need more than the army you have, however, atm.
Had to admit that, sadly, in light of what 2016 has exposed, a significant portion of the opposition to Obama may well have been based on his color.
The support for Hussein was based almost entirely on his color. What you don’t get is that people fell for the Leftist propaganda, which says the Alt Right doesn’t have Democrats in them. In fact, a third of Trump’s support are Democrats. And they use the Alt Right as a label to isolate and freeze Trump supporters, usually. Just as the Tea Party was supposed to be racist and radical rioters.
The Democrats who voted in Hussein based on skin color. That’s where the reactionary elements are mostly at.
Using the New York Times and other Leftist organs as a source, is what corrupts people. It is at least the easiest way.
No, it wouldn’t be helpful if Jews had such a conversation.
It would do the Jewish community a world of good to distance themselves from Soros, to attack Soros, or to boycott Soros.
Unless you are claiming that those who hated Soros did so only because they first found out he was formerly of Jewish lineage. The more you ignore the bad Jews, the more the good Jews are placed along with the bad ones. Same thing happens in Islam with the moderates.
If a significant number of Jews began hating and attacking people like Soros, it would put the anti Jews into a peculiarly bad spot. They would have to come up with a justification that works for why the fearful Jewish tribe is attacking one of their leaders and wealthy elite. It’s a kind of counter insurgency, that weakens the enemy’s unity by giving them reasons to branch off. The light anti Jews might be willing to take on any allies against Soros, for they fear and hate Soros. The fanatical anti Jews will hate all Jews, and come up with justifications after the fact. They don’t care about Soros, bad or good Jews. It doesn’t matter to them.
ANd in that action, it splits the enemy force into at least two factions. Creating dissent in the enemy is one of the first steps to conquer and divide.
It’s not as if the Jewish world wide community is immune to hate or above that. They hate Israel, after all, often times.
Neo:
That kind of “circle the wagons” mentality you’re expressing is exactly the thing that fuels charges of hypocrisy and conspiracy.
Look, I don’t want my kids to be persecuted because they’re Jews.
Which means I am willing to say that fanatical Democratic Party Jews who support keeping the borders open for Jew-hating Muslims are a bunch of suicidal idiots. I’m willing to say that the fanatical Democratic Party Jews who keep urging Israel to let itself get demographically swamped by Palestinians are a bunch of suicidal idiots.
Ignoring those issues — or attributing them to anti-Semitism — is precisely the thing which is driving the anti-Semitic “alt-right.”
In simplest terms: the alt-right can’t believe Jews can be that fucking stupid, so they assume it’s a deep and malicious plot.
Ymarsakar – I oppose the manipulation of the language for political purposes. I don’t see that happening in the use of the term “anti-semite”. A grand total of no one is confused by the term. No one has ever used it in reference to all semitic groups. Everyone has used it in reference to the Jewish people. It was never commonly used to mean anything else.
There are some words that have gotten twisted for political purposes. The words “liberal” and “conservative” are good examples. I personally don’t engage in conversations about the proper use of those terms, though, because I’ve never seen them yield any benefits. It’d be great if we could clear up the meaning of those terms – it would help our political thinking. Where is the benefit to our political thinking in pointing out the misuse of the term “anti-semite”? The term is part of our vocabulary. It causes no confusion.
I have only ever seen the term questioned by those who aren’t completely opposed to anti-semitism. It would be great if we could argue terms without having our motives questioned, but experience has indicated to me that this term is never debated other than by people whose motives I do question.
You’re also apparently discounting the extent to which Jew-hatred is wrong.
Also Nick, that’s a separate topic, and it’s not one I addressed in my answer to your question. So I have no idea why you are bringing it up. This is to clarify the record in case you thought I was ignoring and thus conceding your point. That point was something you thought up, not me.
The term is part of our vocabulary. It causes no confusion.
Racism is as well, and you’ve illustrated the way people think on that very well. And you’re doing the same thing to distort other terms as well, based on half deceptions, in similar fashion to your criticism of how racism was over medicated using anti bacterials.
And if Neo’s recorded claims are correct, that vocabulary you consider yours, came from the Nazis. A veritable proud lineage there.
Just as eugenics, concept and form, came from Margaret Sanger, but Sanger herself got those ideas from the white supremacist racists of the Democrat slave lords, and not just in the South.
I have only ever seen the term questioned by those who aren’t completely opposed to anti-semitism. It would be great if we could argue terms without having our motives questioned, but experience has indicated to me that this term is never debated other than by people whose motives I do question.
That is a result of your lack of experience. Just as I could say that nobody who utters a single good line about Lincoln or Sherman, ever had Southern ancestors in CW 1.
The truth is not biased towards the good guys or the bad guys. Also, in my life, I have only ever seen the charge of racism being denied by conservatives when they are guilty. After all, no Black Caucus member would accuse conservative activists of spitting on them, if it wasn’t the truth. The way humans determine the truth is based first on evidence, and secondly on human motivations.
When human motivations and status quo power corruptions are your primary means of determining the objective reality of things, no wonder you think like that, Nick. After all, your fellow compatriots in the world or in the US, is where they are precisely because they gave up charges of racism and every other objective truth to the Leftist alliance and Islam. And look where that got the people, exactly what they deserved.
When questioning the Left’s occupation of culture and people, means being charged with racism, after awhile, the term loses its meaning. Because it is not true and it is not accurate. And even propaganda cannot reattach a person’s head back to their body, and then successfully maneuver the corpse around and have everyone believe it is still alive. Sooner or later, and probably sooner, the corpse will begin showing its true colors, past the illusion.
I, personally, do not care what cherished golden cows people have. I will obliterate and fight against them, if they use deception and false concepts. Has nothing to do with political loyalty or even national loyalty. Those concepts have little worth to me.
No one has ever used it in reference to all semitic groups.
Just because people are ignorant about WMDs in Iraq, doesn’t mean they are right.
For one thing, the people who use Anti Semitic, wouldn’t even know What Semitic Means. So thus they know what Anti means, to be opposed to or hate it or be against it, but they don’t know what “it” means except in the connotative sense that “it” means Jews.
Lack of education doesn’t mean you are right, Nick. It’s one of those logic things.
For example, the Left says being Islamophobic is racist. Do they even know what a “race” is? No, they don’t. But in their ignorance, they Obey their Orders because doing what they are told is all that matters. And if they are told, Islam is a race, that is what they will believe. If people are told that Semitic has only ever applied to Jews and has and will only ever apply, no other options exist, then that is what people will abide by.
And will be destroyed by too.
Trimegitus:
I have no idea how you get from my comment to a description of it as a “circle the wagons” mentality.
I merely said that it would be futile for Jews to do as you suggest; that it wouldn’t change a single mind or solve a thing.
“Circle the wagons” simply means to get together to counter an attack. I don’t see what one thing has to do with the other.
You are being much too simplistic about why anti-Semites on the alt-right hate Jews. They hate Jews because they are Jew-haters, and they will always find excuses to hate Jews.
Perhaps as a non-Jew with Jewish children, this is hard for you to accept. You write, “I don’t want my kids to be persecuted because they’re Jews. ”
Of course not!!! But they will be. And nothing Jews can do will stop it. I am very very sorry to say that, but it is true.
That has nothing to do with calling out Jews for being liberals. Be my guest. I don’t like it that so many Jews are liberals, either. But it is not the reason people persecute Jews. And it will not change anything.
I suggest you read Prager’s book Why the Jews?: The Reason for Antisemitism
if you’re not already familiar with it.
First, the good news is that the internet gives us an opportunity to find obscure places that resonate as gifted and even transcendent. The price of course, is that dark, darker and even darkest sides of human nature can be the gauntlet on the way.
.
On the greater topic: I’m a huge fan of GIFTS OF THE JEWS by Thomas Cahill and of Pope Pius XI who in 1938 said “Spiritually, we are Semites.” The only logic I see in the opposite view is it confirms a profound nihilism. The God of the Jews identified as “I am Who am,” i.e. I am existence itself. Eliminating Jews eliminates their profound understanding of God. I know that Christian and Muslim anti-semites supposedly posture as people of God, but they wouldn’t be the first dark agents who cleverly hide in plain sight.
Let me ask you if you can reformulate your question from rhetorical speculation regarding the views of others, into a straightforward statement of your own positive views or doctrine.
It’s not a smart-assed challenge, but rather an attempt to get to the core principles.
For example, it sounds as though you are completely sincere in believing that freedom is of paramount value. You may even agree with me that no social arrangement or polity is worth preserving or sacrificing for which does not reflect that value.
It also seems that you at the same time believe that values pluralism is not only the definition of socially realized freedom but a moral duty as well; and that perhaps this encompasses a duty to the weak or those with antithetical views regarding the very value of freedom as a life way.
Is this an accurate assessment?
This business of the parentheses is very strange. It’s hard to imagine what they hope to accomplish.
Ymarsakar – No. The term “racism” causes confusion. The term “anti-semitism” does not, or if it does, it causes confusion only with regard to what qualifies as anti-semitism. That is to say: the ambiguity is about the “anti”, not about the “semitism”. No one debates whether feelings about Kurds should be labelled “anti-semitism”. People do debate whether anti-Zionism should be labelled “anti-semitism”.
According to the Online Etymology Dictionary entry on “anti-semitism”,
Not etymologically restricted to anti-Jewish theories, actions, or policies, but almost always used in this sense.
DNW – Most search engines drop punctuation. Triple parentheses allow the user to call attention to something in the text without the use of a keyword or phrase. It’s a way to be coy, and fly a little bit under the radar.
“The support for Hussein was based almost entirely on his color.” – Ymarsakar
Even if true, the rest does not follow from that…
“a third of Trump’s support are Democrats. And they use the Alt Right as a label to isolate and freeze Trump supporters”
That is an open question… Just how much might there be of Dems who are switching vs infiltrating vs simply being what has been described… people who haven’t previously been motivated to vote in recent history and may not have any principles in mind.
Nevertheless, there is clearly an element out of what used to be the GOP, and/or the Tea Party that are not beholding to conservative principles, and who are satisfied, even if reluctantly, with a potential strong man.
The Germans had been using Anti-Semitic for some time, a century before WWII.
This was eventually used by the Nazis to determine who had or didn’t have Jewish ancestry. Which at that point, meant a pretty loose affiliation, a single drop of Jewish connection was enough. The State bureaucracy could justify almost anyone having Semitic and thus Jewish connections. The standard was no longer the Jewish religion, thus a Christian or a Marxist could be equally Jewish. If the State decided it was so. But the State also had exceptions for people who were useful. The joke was that by the Nazi laws and rules, even Hitler had Jewish connections via family.
Neo’s etymology link had:
Holocaust scholar and City University of New York professor Helen Fein defines it as “a persisting latent structure of hostile beliefs towards Jews as a collective manifested in individuals as attitudes, and in culture as myth, ideology, folklore and imagery, and in actions–social or legal discrimination, political mobilization against the Jews, and collective or state violence–which results in and/or is designed to distance, displace, or destroy Jews as Jews.”
A kind of institutional racism, in which they fight against, but in fighting against, almost assuredly ensures the concept remains by recognizing the ultimate legitimization of Semitic=Jew.
In 1879, Wilhelm Marr founded the Antisemiten-Liga (Anti-Semitic League).[42] Identification with antisemitism and as an antisemite was politically advantageous in Europe in the latter 19th century. For example, Karl Lueger, the popular mayor of fin de sié¨cle Vienna, skillfully exploited antisemitism as a way of channeling public discontent to his political advantage.[43] In its 1910 obituary of Lueger, The New York Times notes that Lueger was “Chairman of the Christian Social Union of the Parliament and of the Anti-Semitic Union of the Diet of Lower Austria.[44] In 1895 A. C. Cuza organized the Alliance Anti-semitique Universelle in Bucharest. In the period before World War II, when animosity towards Jews was far more commonplace, it was not uncommon for a person, organization, or political party to self-identify as an antisemite or antisemitic.
A very political decision during that time.
In the aftermath of the Kristallnacht pogrom in 1938, German propaganda minister Goebbels announced: “The German people is anti-Semitic. It has no desire to have its rights restricted or to be provoked in the future by parasites of the Jewish race.”
Rather than people who challenge anti semitism as being un-Semitic being anti Jewish, it is the very creators of the term and movement who were anti Jewish.
After the 1945 victory of the Allies over Nazi Germany, and particularly after the extent of the Nazi genocide of Jews became known, the term “anti-Semitism” acquired pejorative connotations. This marked a full circle shift in usage, from an era just decades earlier when “Jew” was used as a pejorative term
It’s similar to Leftist memes and propaganda that the Nazis were right wing fanatics, like religious Christians. Like most State propaganda, it wasn’t entirely the truth.
The Nazis were so bad, that they gained a kind of status. Even if that status was not 100% true, it was true enough for political advantage to be gained by the Left and others.
Neo’s link, which she told me to read up on, is less an authority on usage and more of a mini history glide of who used the term and why.
Ymarsakar – You’ve thoroughly documented that no group at any time has used the word the way you want it to be used.
Did we ever come to a conclusion as to who was and who was not a “Jew”, and how it was that one would know?
Let me try running this by and seeing what others may have noticed or think.
Let’s grant the premise. I personally think that it is probably correct in almost all cases. However, I think that I have noticed a deliberate move (gambit, ploy, tactic ?) by secular leftists whose leftist parents apparently identified as Jewish in some sense, to call attention to, to emphasize and to identify their actions as specifically in line with their “Jewishness” and their – I don’t know, make it – “world historical mission to always and everywhere socially —” and fill in the blanks.
Now I cannot know the psychology of these persons or their level of sincerity. But it seems to me as if they are attempting to tease out, if not bait, anti-Jewish reaction: in a sense to get all Jews, forced by reaction, into the same political boat.
Imagine a calculatingly cynical and unprincipled Marxist IRA member waving a Papal flag in the face of a bunch of Orangemen at a picnic and shouting “we will remake you as ours” , and you get the picture I am trying to draw and the motivation which it seems to me exists among some of what can only be described as the most tenuously “Jewish” of Jews.
DNW:
Anti-Semites (just like the Nazis before them) identify Jews the way they wish to. That is, even if someone is a convert to Christianity, or even if their parents converted years ago and they were raised a Christian, they’re a Jew if the anti-Semites wish them to be.
To an anti-Semite, a person’s a Jew if he/she had one grandparent who was a Jew.
A person’s a Jew if that person is not allied with the Jewish religion, if that person was born to Jewish parents. In fact, a high percentage of the Jews on the left are Jews only culturally and in terms of background; they have little or nothing to do with the Jewish religion and don’t refer to being Jewish, either. ‘
Anti-Semites use whatever standards suit their needs at the time. It has nothing to do with what how the designated Jewish person identifies or does not identify.
Have you ever spent time reading on anti-Semitic websites? I have. It’s a cesspool.
Re last question: To be frank … no, very little to almost none. Maybe none, really. I read enough lunatic stuff from the postmodernist crowd as it is. I have only so much appetite for deep irrationality. Probably should read some Alt-right stuff.
There has always seemed to me to be more than a merely unpleasant whiff of deranged homo-eroticism in race worship advocates. I can tolerate a lot of clannishness, exclusion, marginalization, and indifference: it’s a big world and we don’t have to live in each other’s pockets – figuring that from a strictly secular perspective no one with an antagonistic life-way has a moral claim on the life sacrifices, or the right to demand affiliation with, another. But what the allegiance of these race worshiping cases actually amounts to is something more bizarre from what little I have seen.
My earlier point is that from my reading of left-activist types, some, with some extremely nominal connection with Judaism, or better with some mere “Jewishness”, seem to be promoting themselves as harbingers of social reordering in the name of a secularized and ideologically transmuted “Jewishness”.
If I were Jewish, I would have no trouble in alienating them and excluding them from the solidarity circle. But then I have no problem with alienating anyone. LOL
Damned if I will shed any tears over the harrowing of socialist Swedes just because they are blond. Screw ’em.
“You may even agree with me that no social arrangement or polity is worth preserving or sacrificing for which does not reflect that value. “ – DNW
Come now, you expect me to fall for that?
Sounds very much like a lead on to a “burn it all down” argument.
The premise of that rests on the idea that all is lost, so might as well take a flyer on a potential autocrat in our name.
You may be fine with a guy like Trump because you think the Dems are evil incarnate, and, like GB, you think Clinton will turn a win into a permanent Dem. party rule somehow over the next four years.
Focusing on the next four years, those arguing Trump is “better”, and who fear permanent Dem “existential domination” (to say nothing of gulags and such), cannot say how it is that Obama didn’t / couldn’t do it, nor what changes this election cycle that makes Clinton so much more likely to.
More probable, we will see a continued move towards something resembling the UK, France, Switzerland, Canada, or Australia (just to pick a few of many countries that are much further down the leftward path than we) over the next four years.
With Trump we have a distinct possibility of an authoritarian. Some even contend it is a sure thing, and STILL think Trump is “better”.
The choice to risk a possible sudden major loss of freedom vs a likely continued erosion of freedom just doesn’t compute.
So, then what are we debating in Trump vs Clinton? The comfort level with Trump, and the over hype of what a Clinton/Dem admin represents in the next four years, seems more compatible with an argument about whose tribe gets to rule the rest, not about the best choice for preserving the freedom we have today.
Not sure why everyone is making it strictly a binary choice at this point. There is another choice.
Short of a conservative third party (nowhere on the horizon), the Libertarian Party is running a ticket of experienced Republican governors, and has the infrastructure in place to be competitive.
If we wait for the perfect, viable alternative to appear, or are resigned to Trump, the more the door closes on that third option. The Libertarians need only a bit more early support to start getting media attention and create momentum.
Frankly, if folks are willing to “blow it all up” it ought to make sense to look outside the two main parties, and consider supporting a Libertarian over the risk that Trump represents.
So, are we debating which path is best at preserving the freedom we have, or is it about something else?
Gotta wonder.
Ymarsakar — You’ve thoroughly documented that no group at any time has used the word the way you want it to be used.
What I want isn’t the issue. Also it’s not a word, it’s a hyphenation between Anti and Semitic. As a word or phrase, it was created by Germans and Nazis for political purposes… It’s a false statement just like false charges of racism is a false statement when people call a person talking about facts, racist. You try to cover up the difference between truth/false statements by saying everyone has used it that way. That is more than just invalid, that’s even worse as a way to justify things.
You wanting a false statement to be true, doesn’t make it true just because you or previous Germans liked to use weapons in propaganda wars. Of course Semitic was used to refer to people who were ethnically of the Semitic region or who spoke Semitic languages. But it doesn’t matter who used it, as popularity has no correlation with the truth. Popularity and usage is only something you care about, Nick, because it’s a way to justify why you think this is an unimportant issue. In that sense, you also destroy your argument that false charges of racism is an important issue. You probably figured this out by now, which is why you are trying to avoid the issue. If everyone started calling people racist… and they aren’t racist even… popularity and amount of usage does not make false statements into true statements. Using too much medicine is a problem but not the only one.
Besides, the documentation on wiki writes:
In common usage, antisemitism has an accepted meaning to specifically describe prejudice against Jews.[2][13] This is despite the fact that there are speakers of other Semitic languages (e.g. Arabs, Ethiopians, or Assyrians) and the fact that not all Jews speak a Semitic language, making the term a misnomer.
If you read the link Neo linked to, Nick, you would already know that and wouldn’t have tried to claim otherwise. Reading sources isn’t particularly difficult, using the internet. Even if the source is flawed in many ways. As I mentioned before, Usage has no effect on whether a statement is true or false. Maybe a lie is accepted as truth if enough people state it, but that’s other people’s problem.
Even if true, the rest does not follow from that…
To Big Maq
Of course it does, because you would need Republicans who voted against Hussein precisely because of his color to explain the situation now otherwise. And if there were none, then you would only get the racists from independents, Libertarians, outliers, or Democrats. Pick one as the majority.
If you claim racists exist that voted on skin color, they had to have come from somewhere. And before 2012 or 2008, were they just hiding themselves like heterosexual gays in the 1950s? I doubt it, for 2012/2008. The only verifiable ones were Democrats.
People blame racism on the Tea Party because 1. They fell for Leftist propaganda or 2. They are propping up Black Caucus propaganda. I’ll exclude the political aims like being threatened by TP anti corruption in DC circles. Demoncrats have had the majority of racists in the US since Jim Crow, and probably even before that in 1830s. That’s because the racial belief that whites are superior than blacks and that blacks should be slaves in the field, happened to be a eugenicist belief promoted by Democrat Southern slave lords, even before Margaret Sanger was born. It’s a racial supremacist belief similar to what Hitler picked up, except modified to use slaves as worker fodder, instead of eliminating Jews.
If racists existed, you would have found them out in Clarence Thomas hearing too as conservatives, Southerners, Leftists, etc. The Democrats say they sent Dixiecrat racists to the Republicans. Not even that panned out as exactly true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzukiZkhGA0
At around 38-45 minutes. This may be classified as an Alt Right interview, now a days at least. And it contains information about some of the genetic science being discussed. It’s about the sexes, male and female, but the research into the races is also discussed in the sphere elsewhere.
“Even if true, the rest does not follow from that…” – Big Maq
“Of course it does, because you would need Republicans who voted against Hussein precisely because of his color to explain the situation now otherwise. – Ymarsakar
To provide context, I was responding to this:
“The support for Hussein was based almost entirely on his color. What you don’t get is that people fell for the Leftist propaganda, which says the Alt Right doesn’t have Democrats in them.”
Man, you make a Grand Canyon leap with your juxtaposition of reasoning, to paraphrase…
Support for Obama was based on his color, hence, the Alt Right really does have Dems in them.
And, based on your follow on statements, this comes about by using the NYTs as a source.
The rest of your recent post after “Of course it does” is a rabbit hole I won’t pursue, as your best point you chose to put forth is “because you would need Republicans who voted against Hussein because of his color”.
Again to paraphrase…
Support for Obama was based on his color, because it would have to be Republicans that voted against him because of his color.
I hope you see the problem with your argument here.
.
I am guessing…
You are trying to make the case that exclusively Dems are racist; that Alt Right are exclusively active Dems (pretending to either be former Dems or be GOP supporters all along); that by implication, Republicans cannot be racist, in definition; and, that the only reason we think the Alt Right are part of the GOP (and not active/former Dems) is that we have succumb to the Left’s propaganda.
I’m not buying it and I don’t care to argue this particular point further, especially when you provide as part of your evidence a video that talks about IQ and how the distribution between men and women shows how we’ve seen more male “sublime geniuses” (e.g. Mozart, Rembrandt, and Van Gogh) than female (right at minutes 40-42). It is not even nominally related to the argument I think you are trying to make.
Big Maq Says:
June 13th, 2016 at 9:29 pm
“You may even agree with me that no social arrangement or polity is worth preserving or sacrificing for which does not reflect that value. “ — DNW
Come now, you expect me to fall for that?”
I don’t expect you do do anything, and I am not selling. What I had hoped you would do is state your own case if you had one, plainly .
“Sounds very much like a lead on to a “burn it all down” argument.”
No, it’s just a cost benefit type of calculation. In terms of fundamental interests and capabilities: costs versus gains.
“The premise of that rests on the idea that all is lost, so might as well take a flyer on a potential autocrat in our name.
You may be fine with a guy like Trump …”
No, I’m not fine with a guy like Trump.
” … because you think the Dems are evil incarnate, …”
I don’t know if they are evil incarnate – my guess being that “evil” doesn’t even have a coherent meaning in their moral universe – but I think that they have demonstrated that they are in fact ideological or temperamental or perhaps innate, enemies of the kind of liberty that is important to me and which Americans once had more of than they do now.
There is just no gain in such a relationship.
Ymarsakar – Words aren’t lies or truth; they’re words. They designate things. It’s your position that the common use of the word “anti-semitic” doesn’t fit its etymology. That’s a fine argument to make. You cannot make the argument that the word is a lie, because that doesn’t make sense. You might as well say that the word is a fish. A word can’t be that. A word can be used in a lie, and it can be used misleadingly, but a word can’t be a lie.
Is the word “anti-semite” used misleadingly? Not if everyone who uses it concurs on its meaning, and everyone who has ever used it has meant the same thing. It’s actually quite surprising when a word maintains its meaning consistently in common usage. I bet that if you read this comment to someone 100 years ago, they’d be confused about the changed meaning of several words I’ve used. That’s bound to happen. It’s not post-modern to recognize it. But in this case, as you’ve shown, there has been no change in the use of this word.
Maybe you could cite for me a case in which the word “anti-semitic” is used in a way that would confuse or mislead anyone who was expecting the word to mean something along the line of Jew-hatred or judeophobia. Specifically: where the group being referred to is the source of the ambiguity.
@DNW – I stated where I stand as succinctly as possible regarding our present choices and why, multiple times in this blog.
I’ve challenged the view that Trump is somehow “better” and how many are over playing what Clinton will bring, as well.
Ultimately, if our shared goal is to preserve the freedom we currently have, why are we stuck on a binary choice, neither of which advance that objective, when alternatives exist?
Rather than be coy, please state where you indeed stand and why, if I had misread your comments (this and some past ones I’ve come across) that you’d rather support Trump because Clinton would usher in “existential domination” (your words) somehow in the next four years.
Focusing on the next four years, for POTUS, Trump, Clinton, Libertarian (short of conservative third party – unlikely), or do you have another alternative?
I didn’t ask you about any of that. I asked regarding one paragraph you wrote in the form of a rhetorical question, and as to what if any principles you wished to assert in distinction to the framing at which you seemed to look askance.
Here, perhaps a reminder will help:
So, while it may be a misreading of your intent, you seemed to be asserting with your antitheses, that the preservation of freedom by means of excluding some from fellowship or peer status (even if they were tolerated), was not only less than ideal, but wrongheaded; even if the result was the maintenance of freedom for those who were accepted as morally like-kinds, and worthy as political peers.
On the other hand you may have been saying less than meets the eye, and just talking about group power and domination per se.
Let me try and clarify by quoting less completely, and by abstracting and highlighting a phrase which caught my attention.
Take the formula:
” [Are]we are just talking about freedom for our group/tribe at the toleration, if not expense of everyone else and left vs right is really an illusion …” in the abstract.
The questioner seems in the longer quote to be asking whether a commitment to conservative or classically liberal principles in a universalist framework has just been talk, or whether Trump supporters (ostensibly, I imagine) simply wished to have the hammer so to speak.
However, the phrasing seems to imply something more: that exclusionary liberty, even a relatively benign or tolerant one, is a greater moral ill than a possible temporary loss of liberty.
This is the possible principle, embedded within the questioning paragraph, regarding which I sought an answer.
It may be that the author has no answer to that, or that he did not mean to imply the reading to which it was susceptible .
Again, I was just seeking clarification on this one point.
DNW – you are goading, as you want to take us down a path of a nuanced discussion of philosophy, and perhaps walk through point by point… until one of us tires, as these things usually work themselves out to be. Been there, done that at other times.
Right now, that is turtles all the way down a rabbit hole, and is particularly an avoidance of the real question we face today: Trump, Clinton, or something else over the next four years?
We don’t have to get into the finer points of philosophy to argue one vs the other in terms of retaining the freedom we have today.
Where do you stand, if I’ve pegged you wrong?
I’ve asked you a simple question regarding your predicate case.
It seemed possible that you were implying that preserving freedom within a polity, by denying peer status to would-be entrants, or ethical aberrants, was morally worse than a – presumably temporary – loss of freedom across the board.
You came back instead with some accusation that I was being coy.
I then reminded you of what was actually being mooted, and what it was that you had said to evoke the notion of the question in the first place.
I then, without waiting further, rephrased the original question regarding your remarks: narrowing the quoted text so that there could, or should be, no mistaking what it was about your remark that I found interesting.
You don’t have to answer the question.
But it was based on an implication which you could reasonably have been construed as intending to present.
They were your own words and possible insinuation I was asking about, not some philosopher’s.
I have even taken the trouble to quote you repeatedly and in context. Something you seem to have trouble dealing with.
I don’t know why you should find it so difficult. I had no trouble in stating that I was not a Trump supporter, when you falsely suggested it. It seems likely that you should have had as little trouble denying what you seemingly implied – if you did not mean to imply it.
Hard to say what your real problem is.
DNW – It is simple. Folks, are stuck thinking in binary choice terms and find preferable a certainty (one argues – I only argue it is a good possibility) of Authoritarianism with Trump (others argue he can be contained in one way or another – also folly) over a continuation of leftward movement that Clinton would bring (examples of countries provided of what that may well look like).
Authoritarianism is a rather drastic position to defend, and it is incredibly unclear how one navigates a path under those circumstances back to non-Authoritarianism, let alone preserve our current freedoms for the duration and thereafter.
The vociferous support of Trump with this possibility, and the over hype of the problems of a Clinton admin, while ignoring any third options just makes me wonder if we are seeking solutions to best preserve the freedoms we enjoy today.
That logic just seems too much like the mother in King Solomon’s court who chose to split the baby, just another variation of the “burn it all down” argument.
That’s it.
You want to make this about some “interpretation” you have, to make a finer point on, and which is less relevant than the question at hand. Sorry. Had too many “conversations” on the net to see that this line of question is headed down a rabbit hole.
My problem is the guy who wants to have that discussion doesn’t come out and simply answer Trump, Clinton, or other? Let alone, justify it.
So, I gotta wonder, is the rabbit hole he’d like to go down really about answering his question, or an avoidance of discussing the real issue we face, otherwise, why burn time and energy on a side topic that is not going to turn anyone’s decision on Trump, Clinton, or other?
All I did was to ask you a simple question regarding what it was that you meant when you wrote,
Attempting to understand your meaning, I repeatedly asked, in various formulations, if you meant to imply for example,
You have now put up a series of four fulminating evasions, refusing to answer a simple question which could have been settled with a simple “yes” or “no” or “I don’t want to say” reply. All while you have been simultaneously claiming that you have no time for such an involved exercise.
You also assure us that Libertarians offer a viable alternative to Trump, should it come to that. And that failing there, that Hillary would merely propel us a bit further down the socialist road: to some place akin to Great Britain, or Canada. Supplementing perhaps our descent into the legal and moral fiasco of Obamacare with its “individual shared responsibility” mandate, the Administration’s lawless targeting of individual citizens by organs of government for political purposes, and the intentional subversion of the national interest through a deliberate refusal to take care the laws are enforced, with additional touches; such as the speech codes and limitations which they have in those countries, and some Democrats admit to wanting here. Some plan. Some evaluation.
What in the world you could possibly be thinking, if indeed you even are thinking, is beyond my powers to intuit.
But not all is in vain. In light of your current comments, this earlier remark of yours: ” … we rarely get to the depths of discussion like we do in places like this blog to probe it that deeply.” is a richly, and comically ironic thing to behold, is it not?
Big Maq and DNW – My two cents.
I’ve looked over this thread, and you seem to be having an intelligent conversation with clarity as a goal. That’s rare online. My hat’s off to both of you. The fact that you’re getting bogged down and frustrated is a testimony to the difficulties of conversation on comment threads. I don’t know if there’s more history between you two from other threads, but you both seem to have put a fair question to each other. It’d be cool if you’d take a few minutes and answer the other guy, even if it seems unproductive.
If you can tell me what his question actually is, I will answer it tomorrow. LOL
Done with the office for the day.
Nick, thanks. I appreciate your comment.
My last comment on this.
I don’t see that there really is a question to be answered, per se. How one gets “You may even agree with me that no social arrangement or polity is worth preserving or sacrificing for which does not reflect that value (freedom).” and “you believe that … pluralism is not only the definition of socially realized freedom but a moral duty as well; and that perhaps this encompasses a duty to the weak or those with antithetical views regarding the very value of freedom as a life way.” out of my statement, IDK.
Notwithstanding that, the stated “simple question” is not singular, and is not simple.
So what to do – “no social arrangement is worth preserving if it doesn’t reflect freedom?” – Does a yes mean you ought to then support “burning it all down”, since the “GOPe” and Dems have proven failures on this standard to some level? Does a no mean you are a hypocrite? How much explanation is then required to differentiate the nuances? In the end, you realize that it just leads back to the same old argument of Trump vs Clinton wrapped up in fancy language.
On the question of “pluralism with a duty to the weak or those with antithetical views?” – say yes and you get mired in differentiating that from the left’s position, say no and you must differentiate that from authoritarian rule. More spiral thorough explanations of the nuances to unpeel that onion to realize we are back at Trump vs Clinton, again.
And then “the phrasing seems to imply something more: that exclusionary liberty, even a relatively benign or tolerant one, is a greater moral ill than a possible temporary loss of liberty”. – just walk through that yourself and see where you get. I hope you see the point.
We can debate if DNW wants to go down that path for mere discussion. IDK for certain one way or the other. But, I see where it goes and I don’t want to get sidetracked employing the time and energy to MAYBE bring that discussion to a point that DNW is satisfied with.
I’d much rather deal with the real question we face and are debating about (elsewise), not worrying about what may be hiding behind language like this. This is why I put forth the straight question about where DNW stands, a question he doesn’t seem to want to engage in.
My own “straightforward positive statement” (such as it is) is that we ought to look beyond the binary choice, because they are both bad in terms of preserving what we can of our existing freedoms. I urge we thus support the Libertarians (short of a conservative third party) and GOP the rest of the way down.
I don’t assure anyone that they are a viable alternative, but have already addressed that point elsewhere… If we wait for an alternative to become “viable” (however that determination is made), and if everyone plays that same waiting game, that alternative vanishes by default.
There really isn’t much more than that, given the poor circumstances we face – all are far from my ideal.
The assertion that precipitated this line of discussion is the observation that some of the “Trump is better” arguments being commented on this blog are incongruent with a path to preserving the freedoms that we have. I’m not discounting the problems with a Clinton admin (and the implications for Obamacare, IRS targeting, judicial choices, and other general continued implementation of leftist policy, etc), and yes it represents an erosion of our freedoms. It is just that those who admit that Trump would certainly be, or likely turn, authoritarian (their assessment, not mine) have set a high bar for how that is the path to preserving our existing freedoms. Unless… that is not the bar to measure our decision by – my concern expressed.
I think there are some reasonable arguments for Trump…
http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-06-09/five-reasons-decent-people-may-want-to-back-trump
…but I just don’t see some folks here getting past their demagoguery of the left, as somehow that is going to be so much worse over the next four years (than we’ve seen under Obama or exists in several other countries further down that path – of course, if we never get our act together and stop the Dems, the worst fears EVENTUALLY come to fruition, but the next four years is our focus), and therefore we have no choice but to voluntarily submit ourselves to a likely (their assessment) Authoritarian.
.
“if indeed you even are thinking” Indeed, I’m sorry to disappoint DNW, as he sees fit to question even if there is any thought. Probably just more goading to carry on down the path he wants to engage in.
He seems to have made some good points along the short time I’ve been here, so I’m not happy it has come to this.
.
The discussion here IS more in depth, and has been more educational than the two line test of wits and insults thrown around elsewhere on conservative sites.
It is NOT a contradiction to choose to not run down a rabbit hole unless I also see it as productively moving the conversation forward. As you can tell, I’m not convinced that it is.
Well, the choices were, “yes” that is what I meant, “no” that is not what I meant, and “I don’t want to say” what I meant.
And after five accusatory and suspicious rejoinders to a simple question, we are finally informed that the author does not want to say exactly what he meant; because, he fallaciously reasons, that if he says “yes”, he is trapped as a leftist, and if he says “no” (that he has no duty to sacrifice freedom for the sake of solidarity) he is somehow endorsing or must defend “authoritarianism”.
He’d rather spend his time on realistic matters such as discussing the likelihood of a libertarian candidate victory.
That’s fine. Of course, that was the same choice he faced five long and obfuscating rejoinders ago.
Big Maq’s question to DNW: Trump, Clinton, or Other (if possible)? and Why? (It’s a practical question.)
DNW’s question to Big Maq: Is freedom merely a necessary condition for a good society, or is it a good in itself? Is it the ultimate societal good? (It’s a theoretical question. It may lead to some complicated backroads of political philosophy, but the question is itself a fair one.)
Other if possible.
And it is always possible but unlikely: unlike Libertarian which is impossible because it became for a time the party of cranks, of the drug worshiping “self-ownership sell my organs” insanity subsequent to the days of Ed Clark and a few admirable others.
What and where now are the sane types who once voted Libertarian before the crack-up? Republican precinct delegates like myself (at one time).
The convention has not happened yet, and Trump may simply self-destruct. Hillary might be indicted. Anything could happen.
Trump is probably as unfit today, not necessarily tomorrow, for office as that moral vermin Hillary will always be. He shows unfortunately as little familiarity with the principles of Constitutional government as Hillary has respect for them.
He and she share the conviction that it is all about the deal: what you want regardless of the principle involved, and what you can get to from that staked out position.
His way of behaving in this manner is instinctual and pragmatic; her’s is ideologically driven and based on the anti-principle principle.
The difference with Trump is that what he says he wants, just happens to align with traditional American rights and liberties moreso than does Hillary’s amoral appetite thing’s desire to refashion humanity in the image of her psycho-sexual mental disorders.
She, is just as likely to get us into a catastrophic confrontation with Putin through her duplicitous weakness, as Trump is, with his blustering vainglory. And when you go to the line for Hillary’s values and America, you are going to the line for your own destruction.
If Trump is elected, and we do not have an emperor president yet, there will be men on the right as well as the left who will stand to rein him in.
If Hillary is elected, no one on the left will stand to protect constitutional government, and no one on the right will count even if they have the Congress; since like Obama and the membership of the Democrat party at large, Hillary is no respecter of law much less truth.
Lastly, in general, I don’t give a fuck about illegals and their wants.
I should add this: If we had not gotten ourselves into this contemptible position of having a quasi imperial presidency, I would have no trouble whatsoever in voting for Trump as a last resort, despite his apparent manifest unsuitability for the office.
Better a Warren Harding, than a Stalin.
The only thing that gives me any pause is the international situation. Everything else that Trump could eff up could just as easily be fixed. Not so with the Democrats.