Why Does Anti-Semitism Exist?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

However, I no longer spend much time thinking about or debating with liberals, because I have come to view them as a joke. As I’ve stated elsewhere on this forum, they have no power outside of academics. Every “establishment”, from the royal courts of Europe to the current Protestant establishment in America, has been conservative. This will never change. Conservatism is the ideology of those who have something to protect, or something to lose, at any rate. It is, in other words, the ideology of those in power. And as a student and observer of power, that’s all I concern myself with.
[/quote]

I think you are dangerously mistaken that intellectuals have little to say out of their environment.

Liberalism, i.e social democracy is the attempt to establish socialism through democratic means.

The very second they lose the “trough democratic means” part they usually kill dozens of millions.

The intellectual roots go much deeper than emotional inmaturity. Socialism is a product of the Enlightenment.

Those people saw that natural laws were discovered at an unheard of rate, that production of consumer goods went trough the roof and all because of the powers of human reason.

They lived in a world were the human mind started to abolish slavery, poverty, the stranglehold of the church, attacked the Allmighty himself without being struck down by lightning.

It really was only a small step to think that one could “better” society through rational means or to create an utopia in one single throw.

This is were those “intellectuals” usually go wrong. They do not see, and in a social setting it is hard to see, that the power of their reason has limits.

Conservatives that attempt “nation building” make the same mistake. Social structures evolve, never painlessly, or are forced into a society at an enourmous cost.

To call it what it is, most (liberal) intellectuals suffer from hubris.

The second thing is that the Enlightenment destroyed religion for some people. They “killed” God.

Socialists usually have found a substitute, they pray to the Leviathan, an allmighty entity that is responsible for creating paradise on earth.

Socialism has a lot of Christianity, especially the equality and brotherhood part and the neglect of personal freedom.

In a way, religions are collectivist ideologies too and that fills a very important gap in many peoples souls.

I start to wonder if the US are so anti-socialist because they are so religious.

Socialism cannot take root because
in order to believe in that BS you must have a non BS filled place in your soul and yearn for it to be filled.

Since most of the US citizens allready believe in fairytales they do not have the need for a substitute.

And last but not least:

It only takes one generation for those in power to be in power because of Socialism.

So NP, these people are actually conservative when they are defending Socialism, because that is what they owe everything to.

102

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

Of course I do, because that’s precisely what fascism consists of. It’s not some vague political epithet, but a specific term to describe a particular system of economics.[/quote]

Uh huh. You must have missed the part where I said, “I agree.” Israel is, by your definition, fascist. Fine.

[quote]The facts I pointed out aren’t extraneous to the allegation of fascism. While not necessarily constituting prima facie evidence, they are highly indicative of a fascist system of government in it’s advanced stages.

Is Switzerland fascist? At least partly so, yes. There are many degrees of fascism. Just about every country in the world, except, perhaps, for N. Korea, has a mixed economy which incorporates private property with publicly-owned assets in several key sectors. That is the fundamental structure of a fascist system of government.
.
.
.

The cultures of militarism and nationalism, among other things, are symptoms of fascism in it’s latter stages. America & Britain have each traveled far down this road since the foundations for the Welfare/Warfare state were laid in the early part of the 20th century.[/quote]

Okay, but see, I think you have now weakened your argument, if your intention was to illustrate the shortcomings of Israel. If one accepts your premise that every sovereign state (with the possible exception of North Korea) is to some degree fascist, then one must conslude that there is nothing special about Israel’s malefaction, only that there is a little more of it than in other countries.

Well, then, how about this: if one were to assign a ranking to every state, with the most fascist at the top and least fascist at the bottom, I would be interested in seeing where you would place Israel. And the US, too, for that matter, as militarism, nationalism, and “entitlement” (welfare just sounds so low-class) all seem to be rather popular these days.

We can use the 192 UN member states, plus Taiwan, Vatican City, and…oh, why the hell not? …the State of Palestine.

Please tell me your picks for number 1 and number 195, plus the rankings of Israel and the United States, respectively.

103

[quote]BarneyFife wrote:

The only problem that I have with isreal is that there are a lot of Americans without healthcare, education, heck, without food or a place to sleep, so it makes me unhappy when tax dollars go to help anyone but Americans. (feel free to call me an ethno-centric pig or whatever). I beleive that more should be done to help Americans before Americans worry about others.[/quote]

That would not make you ethno-centric–Amero-centric maybe…

You would undoubtedly be in the majority in your mode of thinking.

104

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
I’m not sure I understand what you are trying to say with the mile measurement thing. It is going to stay what it is.
[/quote]

It means we must agree on conventions or else it doesn’t matter how we define them because everyone is playing by their own rules.

105

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Based on my own observations, I’ve come to the conclusion that the left is largely made up of individuals who have never experienced much hardship in life, nor ever acquired any real appreciation for the fruits of hard labour.
[/quote]

What are your specific definitions of “fruits of hard labour”? These are nothing more than generalizations and only have a limited amount of “truth”. Many liberals died trying to establish a country based on individual liberty. Democracy isn’t a conservative concept.

I would call liberal philosophies those that change and evolve with society. This is necessary in order for societies to flourish. Conservative ideology seeks to maintain the power structure–the status quo–if you will. The two balance each other out. You cannot have conservative ideology in the absense of liberal ideology or vice-verse.

Liberals also have a tendency to make the world a little more beautiful and interesting to live in. That is not always a bad thing.

106

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Liberals also have a tendency to make the world a little more beautiful and interesting to live in. That is not always a bad thing.[/quote]

Socialised housing, medicine, education?

Yeah, let those flowers bloom.

107

[quote]orion wrote:
Socialised housing, medicine, education?

Yeah, let those flowers bloom.

[/quote]
I was speaking more in the realm of art and aesthetics than in the realm of government. Government doesn’t necessarily provide meaning in people’s lives…it’s merely a power structure.

108

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:
Socialised housing, medicine, education?

Yeah, let those flowers bloom.

I was speaking more in the realm of art and aesthetics than in the realm of government. Government doesn’t necessarily provide meaning in people’s lives…it’s merely a power structure.
[/quote]

State sponsored art?

Yeah, let THOSE flowers bloom.

I dunno, Michelangelo or Bach did well without pubic financing.

109

[quote]orion wrote:
…

I dunno, Michelangelo or Bach did well without pubic financing.[/quote]

Different economic systems.

110

[quote]orion wrote:
State sponsored art?

Yeah, let THOSE flowers bloom.

I dunno, Michelangelo or Bach did well without pubic financing.
[/quote]

You have no worries about art being sponsored by the government in this country. We have a hard enough time getting it taught in our public schools.

By the way, there is nothing wrong with government sponsoring art as long as they aren’t dictating what art is. Weren’t many artist commissioned by the governments of Europe using “tax payer” money? Are the works created by that of any less aesthetic value because of it?

111

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
…

I dunno, Michelangelo or Bach did well without pubic financing.

Different economic systems. [/quote]

I also saw Nazi; Sowjet and DDR state sponsored art.

There are only so many healthy, joyful industry workers I can watch without some sort of nausea…

112

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:
State sponsored art?

Yeah, let THOSE flowers bloom.

I dunno, Michelangelo or Bach did well without pubic financing.

You have no worries about art being sponsored by the government in this country. We have a hard enough time getting it taught in our public schools.

By the way, there is nothing wrong with government sponsoring art as long as they aren’t dictating what art is. Weren’t many artist commissioned by the governments of Europe using “tax payer” money? Are the works created by that of any less aesthetic value because of it?[/quote]

Frankly, they are usually pretty shitty.

Unless you mean state sponsored concerts or museums that show people who are long dead and had to find a private meacen for their art.

Those artists are mostly BS artists.

113

[quote]orion wrote:
Unless you mean state sponsored concerts or museums that show people who are long dead and had to find a private meacen for their art.

Those artists are mostly BS artists.[/quote]
Despite your opinion art has some aesthetic value. If you subscribe to the theory that art is subjective then by extension you see some value in art.

The main argument I was making is that I will let conservativism be the ideology of “power” (as per Nominal Prospect’s claim ) if liberal ideology can be the ideology that subscribes to the necessity of change and the possibility of hope that comes with said change. I believe art to be the extension to which people communicate these emotions. I see much hope in that and therefore ascribe it to the liberal forces within us. The way conservatism has been described to me makes it seem dark and pointless–which could also make for some very interesting art–if they didn’t all believe that it was just some “faggy” hobby.

Ok, I am generalizing way too much.

(You are right. Bach’s Brandenburg Concertos, commissioned by King Frederick I of Prussia, were all shit.)

114

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
(You are right. Bach’s Brandenburg Concertos, commissioned by King Frederick I of Prussia, were all shit.)[/quote]

I did not mention those and you know it.

I meant government sponsored art that you can enjoy, if you can, all over Europe right now.

4fth one, second part.

115

[quote]orion wrote:
4fth one, second part.[/quote]

Absolutely brilliant!

116

[quote]orion wrote:
I meant government sponsored art that you can enjoy, if you can, all over Europe right now.

[/quote]
I would tend to agree with you. Forced art tends to be…well, forced. This doesn’t mean public arts endowments can’t provide a means to artists to produce “good” art.

Ironically, people of means tend not to have the ability to produce art due to a lack of alientation so it’s almost a catch-22. My opinion is that really good art comes from alienatiob–or the glorification of a god–which sometimes indirectly brings about alienation.

117

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
I’m not sure I understand what you are trying to say with the mile measurement thing. It is going to stay what it is.

It means we must agree on conventions or else it doesn’t matter how we define them because everyone is playing by their own rules.
[/quote]

Who’s conventions/standards/morals/values/ethics do we use?

Another thing, I am more than just a RealDoll only here for procreation.

118

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
I’m not sure I understand what you are trying to say with the mile measurement thing. It is going to stay what it is.

It means we must agree on conventions or else it doesn’t matter how we define them because everyone is playing by their own rules.
[/quote]

I was speaking to the mile being used as an example for something that fluctuates.

You do realize the mile is a set standard? The mile is a bad example.

Your morals are not my morals, your values are not my values and that is okay. They are subjective.

Even laws and the judiciary system are flexible, as they should be.

119

A better question is, “Why does liberal antisemitism exist?”

SAN FRANCISCO - In a bizarre attack, a well-known author and Holocaust scholar was dragged out of a San Francisco hotel elevator by an apparent Holocaust denier who reportedly had been trailing him for weeks.

In a posting Tuesday on the anti-Zionist Web site ZioPedia, a writer using the name Eric Hunt takes credit for the attack: ?After ensuring no women would be traumatized by what I had to do (I had been trailing Wiesel for weeks), I stopped the elevator at the sixth floor. I pulled Wiesel out of the elevator. I said I wanted to interview him.?

They also run the full complement of anti-American Iraq war propaganda so beloved of our loyal opposition on the Leftard wing of the Democratic party.
http://dreadpundit.blogspot.com/2007/02/elie-wiesel-attacked-by-neo-nazi.html

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:6jY4kcgsHYwJ:www.ziopedia.org/+ziopedia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

120

[quote]Juan Blanco wrote:
A better question is, “Why does liberal antisemitism exist?”[/quote]

I don’t know whether that’s a better question, but the New Antisemitism article you linked had some interesting points, which address the question posed in the original post, as well as some of the subsequent themes that have come up as this thread has progressed. Here is an excerpt:

[i]Brian Klug, senior research fellow in philosophy at St Benet’s Hall, Oxford, defines classical antisemitism as “an ingrained European fantasy about Jews as Jews,” arguing that whether Jews are seen as a race, religion, or ethnicity, and whether antisemitism comes from the right or the left, the antisemite’s image of the Jew is always as “a people set apart, not merely by their customs but by their collective character. They are arrogant, secretive, cunning, always looking to turn a profit. Loyal only to their own, wherever they go they form a state within a state, preying upon the societies in whose midst they dwell. Mysteriously powerful, their hidden hand controls the banks and the media. They will even drag governments into war if this suits their purposes. Such is the figure of ‘the Jew,’ transmitted from generation to generation.”

He argues that, although it is true that the new antisemitism incorporates the idea that anti-Semitism is hostility to Jews as Jews, the source of the hostility has changed; therefore, to continue using the same expression for it --antisemitism --causes confusion.

Today’s hostility to Jews as Jews is based on the Arab-Israeli conflict, not on ancient European fantasies. Israel proclaims itself as the state of the Jewish people, and many Jews align themselves with Israel for that very reason. It is out of this alignment that the hostility to Jews as Jews arises, rather than hostility to Israelis or to Zionists. Klug agrees that it is a prejudice, because it is a generalization about individuals; nevertheless, he argues, it is “not rooted in the ideology of ‘the Jew’,” and is therefore a different phenomenon from antisemitism.

Klug argues that there are three distinct components of what some scholars are calling “new antisemitism”:

? Antisemitism, a prejudice that is based on the stereotypical construction of ‘the Jew’;

? Anti-Zionism and antagonism to Israel, based on a political cause or moral code, and not anti-Jewish per se;

? Prejudice against all Jews that is derived from the latter.

The discourse of the new antisemitism conflates these, he argues, leading not only to the branding as anti-Semitic of legitimate political views about Israel, but to inflated estimates of the scale of antisemitic incidents. The line between “fair and foul” criticism of Israel tends to be drawn in such a way that it rules out criticism “that goes much beyond a gentle rap across the [Israeli] government’s knuckles or finger-wagging at the laws of the land.”

He argues that crossing the line from fair to foul is a normal part of political debate. Pro-Israelis aren’t necessarily racists when they do it; pro-Palestinians are not necessarily anti-Semites when they do. Jumping to conclusions about people’s prejudices is itself a form of prejudice.[/i]