Why Does Anti-Semitism Exist?

Very interesting read from Mark Twain (who was himself Jewish) responding to a letter asking him what he thought was the main cause of animosity toward the Jew throughout history.

I thought what was most interesting was, what was most likely NOT the original cause…

Mark Twain: Concerning The Jews, Harper’s Magazine, March, 1898

[i]“…Can fanaticism alone account for this?” Years ago I used to think that it was responsible for nearly all of it, but latterly I have come to think that this was an error. Indeed, it is now my conviction that it is responsible for hardly any of it…

Let us remember that this was centuries before the crucifixion. I wish to come down eighteen hundred years later and refer to a remark made by one of the Latin historians. I read it in a translation many years ago, and it comes back to me now with force. It was alluding to a time when people were still living who could have seen the Savior in the flesh. Christianity was so new that the people of Rome had hardly heard of it, and had but confused notions of what it was.

The substance of the remark was this: Some Christians were persecuted in Rome through error, they being “mistaken for Jews.” The meaning seems plain. These pagans had nothing against Christians, but they were quite ready to persecute Jews. For some reason or other they hated a Jew before they even knew what a Christian was. May I not assume, then, that the persecution of Jews is a thing which antedates Christianity and was not born of Christianity? I think so…[/i]
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1898twain-jews.html

Interestingly enough, Henry Ford came to much the same conclusion–the one thing that seemingly has very little to do with animosity toward the Jew is RELIGION.

Concerning classical anti-semitism I think it’s a mistake to conclude that religion played no part. One of the things that really set the Jews apart from other groups in the classical world was that they’re monotheistic beliefs put them outside of the otherwise unifying framework of polytheism.

In the traditional polytheistic system their was generally a mutual respect for the divinity of gods between cultures. My gods are gods, your gods are gods, they’re all more powerful than men.

Monotheistic faiths on the other hand denied the validity of the beliefs of others while insisting on the universality of their own. Of course this didn’t make many friends, especially when the state itself has a religious grounding.

Failure to pay respect to the religious symbols of the state would be an exaggerated version of a modern person refusing to salute the flag, marking that person as either an outsider.

A later practice which appeared with some early christian fanatics seeking martyrdom was to run into a state or religious building and desecrate the alter or state symbols- burning the flag in modern terms- since this would certainly lead to one’s “martyrdom” for fighting idolatry, and lead to sainthood. The symbols of the state and its religion were obviously a sore spot for some.

There are many reasons anti-semitism exists. During the old ages when tax collecting and banking was making its debut, it was against the Catholic, and many other faiths to collect interest. Jews however, had no problem doing this, which of course created quite a hatred. Also, look at the prosperity that many Jewish people bask in. Now look at it through the eyes of a poor native of that country. Of course it is unfair to dislike success, but it is a fact of life.

There is of course the religious hatred too. Look at the Jewish belief system. According to the Jewish people, they are the only ones to be saved and brought to the Promise Land.

There are hundreds of reasons why Anti-Semitism exists, none of them rational.

[quote]zlafosse wrote:
During the old ages when tax collecting and banking was making its debut, it was against the Catholic, and many other faiths to collect interest. Jews however, had no problem doing this, which of course created quite a hatred. [/quote]

Jews were forbidden from charging interest as well… at least to other Jews:

If thou lend money to any of My people, even to the poor with thee, thou shalt not be to him as a creditor; neither shall ye lay upon him interest. (Exodus, 22:24)

And if thy brother be waxen poor, and his means fail with thee; then thou shalt uphold him: as a stranger and a settler shall he live with thee. Take thou no interest of him or increase; but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon interest, nor give him thy victuals for increase. (Leviticus, 25:35-37)

Thou shalt not lend upon interest to thy brother: interest of money, interest of victuals, interest of any thing that is lent upon interest. Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon interest; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon interest; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou puttest thy hand unto, in the land whither thou goest in to possess it. (Deuteronomy, 23:19-20)

And he that hath given forth upon interest, and hath taken increase; shall he then live? he shall not live–he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely be put to death, his blood shall be upon him. (Ezekiel 18:13)

In thee have they taken gifts to shed blood; thou hast taken interest and increase, and thou hast greedily gained of thy neighbors by oppression, and hast forgotten Me, saith the Lord GOD. (Ezekiel 22:12)

[quote]zlafosse wrote:
During the old ages when tax collecting and banking was making its debut, it was against the Catholic, and many other faiths to collect interest. Jews however, had no problem doing this, which of course created quite a hatred. [/quote]

Anti-Semitism predates the other monotheistic religions. So, there should be more to that than your argument.

Regardless of what religions say on the matter, it should clear by now that the current monetary system - that incorporates usury as a pillar - is an evil thing. The gap between rich and poor has never been wider.

[quote]lixy wrote:

Regardless of what religions say on the matter, it should clear by now that the current monetary system - that incorporates usury as a pillar - is an evil thing. The gap between rich and poor has never been wider.[/quote]

BS and BS…

The Rabbi gives his take on anti-Semitism

from James Dunnigan at Strategypage.

Islams Secret Weapon
February 26, 2007:

A recent opinion poll of Arab countries (Egypt:, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates), questioned a sample of 3,850 individuals, and was done under the direction of American firm Zogby International. Many of the responses will seem odd to Westerners, but not to historians. The responses explain a lot of what has been going on in the Islamic world, and why the most recent outbreak of Islamic terrorism is so deadly and predictable.

Consider the responses to some of the questions posed in the opinion survey.

When asked which national leader, outside their own country, they most admired, the most highly rated individuals were the leader of Hizbollah (Hassan Nasrallah), the leader of France (Chirac), of Iran (Ahmadinijad) and Venezuela (Chavez). The same four were named when people were asked, “which world leader (outside your own country) you would prefer to rule over you and your family?” When asked which world leaders they disliked the most, they responded with U.S. president George Bush, Israeli leaders Sharon and Olmert, and prime minister Tony Blair of Great Britain.

Asked which nation they would prefer to see as the only world superpower, the following nations were selected (in order of preference); France, China, Pakistan, Germany, U.S. Russia, Britain. Egyptians, Lebanese and Moroccans preferred France the most, while the United Arab Emirates preferred the United States the most. When asked to name foreign countries that provided the most freedom and democracy for their citizens, the nations getting the most responses were; France, Germany, United States, and Britain. When asked which foreign country they would most prefer living in, the top favorites were (in order of preference); France, Germany, Britain, U.S., China, Pakistan, Russia.

When asked which two nations were the biggest threat to them, the three most often mentioned were Israel, the United States and (to a much lesser extent that the first two) Iran. When asked what the United States could do that would most improve their view of that country, the most frequent response was the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, within the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital. When asked if they believed spreading democracy was the major American goal in the Middle East, over two thirds said no. When asked what the real American objectives in the Middle East were, the most popular responses were; controlling oil, protecting Israel, weakening the Moslem world and a desire to dominate the region. Over half believed that Democrats taking control of Congress would not make any difference in U.S. policy (16 percent thought it would).

Most respondents believe that the war in Iraq meant less peace and less democracy for the region, and more terrorism. It was also felt that the Iraqi people were worse off because of the war. Moreover, 61 percent believe Iran has the right to have nuclear weapons, and 51 percent believe that Iran is trying to do just that. With regard to last Summers war between Israel and Hizbollah, 61 percent believe Hizbollah won. As a result, 68 percent have a better attitude towards Hizbollah. While 23 percent believe that it’s possible for there to be peace between Israel and the Palestinians (with the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, within the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital), 38 percent believe Israel would never agree to this, and 29 percent believe Israel should be destroyed no matter what.

In terms of their primary personal identity, 45 percent consider themselves a Moslem, 29 percent a citizen of their country, 20 percent an Arab, three percent a citizen of the world and one percent a Christian. Over the last three years, identity as a Moslem has increased, while " citizen of their country" has declined. Along those lines, 39 percent believe the clergy should have a greater say in how their country is run, and that 42 percent believe that clergy play too little a role in running their country. With regard to women, 38 percent believe women should always be allowed to work outside the home, while eleven percent believe that never should be allowed.

Over half (54 percent) got most of their news from al Jazeera.

The responses indicate that most Moslems seem themselves as Moslems first, and feel that the non-Moslem world is out to get them. The intense hatred of Israel is better understood if you keep in mind some key elements of Islamic history. First, Islam is a very intolerant religion. Their scripture calls for anyone who converts to another religion to be killed. Moreover, that particular rule is regularly obeyed by Islamic conservatives, even if local civil law forbids it. According to the Koran, other religions are only tolerated as long as the infidels (non-Moslems) pay higher taxes, do not hold positions of authority in the government, do not try to convert Moslems, and keep their own religious activities low key. Note, for example, that in Saudi Arabia, non-Moslem houses of worship are forbidden, as are public religious ceremonies for any other religion.

Infidels have been persecuted and driven out of the Islamic world for centuries. The percentage of Christians in the Middle East has been declining particularly rapidly in the last century. Sure, the infidels “get along” with Moslems in the Middle East, but they do so on Moslem terms.

Another unique aspect of Islam is the triumph of religious conservatives, and persecution of original thinkers and innovators. This struggle between progressives and conservatives has been going on for over a thousand years, and is a typical feature of most religions. When Islam first appeared it was, in many ways, quite progressive for its time. But seven hundred years later, the Europeans were undergoing a social and intellectual renaissance, and the Islamic world was going in the other direction. That is why, when Moslems talk about all the West owes the Islamic world in terms of science, they must refer to events many centuries in the past.

It also explains why the Middle East has such high rates of illiteracy, and such low rates of scientific and economic accomplishment. Israel shoves difference that right into their faces. That’s particularly painful because over a third of the Israeli population are Middle Easterners, the descendents of Jews expelled from Middle Eastern countries after Israel was founded in 1947.

These “Sephardi” Jews look like Arabs, often still speak Arabic, because their families lived in Arab countries for thousands of years. Yet the Sephardim are much better educated and economically successful than their Moslem cousins. So is Israel as a whole. Many Arabs admit that Israel must go because it embarrasses the Moslem world. The despots that run most Arab countries encourage this concentrated hatred of Israel, and blaming of Israel for the regions problems, as a way to deflect criticism of their own miserable misrule.

The whole “Israel is the biggest problem in the Middle East” issue is a scam, to enable local tyrants to keep their people down, and many of the people are starting to wise up.

There is a growing “Arab Reform Movement” in the Middle East, that believes the problems in the Arab world are internal, not external. The fact that an increasing number of Arabs support this movement, and that governments are not trying to exterminate it, is encouraging. But the reform movement is pushing against centuries of conservatism, and opposition to the kinds of things that Westerners take for granted.

Meanwhile, Most Arabs still prefer to believe in conspiracies and fantasies, rather than deal with the reality of their situation. Now the opinion poll makes sense.

Interesting numbers but the analysis afterwards takes pluralities and runs with them as if they were super-majorities.

What follows is a partially-completed reply that I’ve had sitting on my hard-drive. I had intended to write more, but don’t the time or the energy at the moment.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Hey, take it up with Oxford University Press. I didn’t write the goddamned thing.

Seriously, though, the distinction between “left wing” and “right wing” sort of falls apart when speaking about totalitarian regimes. Hitler’s brand of fascism was, after all, national socialism.

Was his regime left wing or right wing? How about Stalin’s? I’d say that about the only difference between these two gents was that Stalin was taller, had a bigger mustache, and killed far more people with his purges and forced famines than Hitler did with his Final Solution.[/quote]

Okay, lots of misconceptions to clear up on this thread.

I’m using the word “fascist” in a very precise, economically-correct manner.
It is not a word that I simply throw around as an epithet against regimes I dislike.

I’m going to give everyone a primer on the full spectrum of political ideology, past and present. If you disagree, tough luck, because I’m right. It is not as complex as most people think. There is lots of unnecessary bullshit that can be skipped over without affecting the argument.

Left wing ideologies, in theory, [to write the term, “ideology”, followed by “in theory” is a redundant statement but I include it out of awareness of the fact that not everyone is capable of recognizing such redundancy] are completely anti-statist. That is, they are anarchist and egalitarian. They envision a society free of government and of all human social hierarchies.
Socialism/Communism and anarchism are two distinct flavors of the exact same political ideology, the only difference being the disagreement of it’s adherents on how best to implement the system into the current political landscape.

Most people correctly associate Communism and socialist ideologies with extremely statist and totalitarian regimes, such as China & USSR.

There never has been [nor ever will be, unless everything that is known about human biology is suddenly reversed] a true “socialist”, egalitarian, stateless, horizontally-structured, etc… society in all of history.

Simply put, there is no such thing as communism. It is just an idea that has never been successfully put into practice and never will.

So what’s left? [or should that be, “what’s not left?”]
Naturally, the broad range of statist ideologies on the right.

On Fascism:

National Socialism=Social Democracy=Blair’s “Third Way”=Mixed Economy=Fascism

They all describe exactly the same system of government.

Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were both right wing regimes, as would be any other totalitarian state.

“Left-wing” governments do not exist, never have existed, and never will exist. Do not confuse ideological rhetoric with reality.

Left-wing ideology is inherently anti-statist. Indeed, socialism, communism and anarchism are identical for all intents and purposes.

There is no government entity under socialism. Socialist doctrines, conceived under Enlightenment principles of the natural rights of man, envision egalitarian, horizontally-structured societies in which human power hierarchies have been eliminated. A socialist society could not, by definition, be totalitarian. In practice, however, a totalitarian dictatorship is the only thing that could possibly result when socialism is attempted.

Also of note is the economic distinction between left and right. At one end of the spectrum lies central planning & public ownership of the means of production (socialism), while at the other end is laissez-faire and a purely market-driven economy (anarcho-capitalism).

There has never been a “pure” market economy, and much like corresponding notions of a “pure” command economy, the concept is unworkable in the real world.

A mixed economy, or fascism, is all that’s left. It is the only system that has ever truly been realized.

Fascism is a harnessing of the most efficient economic system - capitalism - for the primary benefit of State interests. It has absolutely nothing to do with “protecting the public from corporations” or any other progressive, leftwing claptrap.

Social benefits, price controls, and business regulations have their origins in the national-socialist government of Imperial Germany, as implemented by Otto Von Bismarck, a hard-line conservative and monarchist who staunchly opposed classical liberal reforms.

[quote]When Germany’s Chancellor Otto von Bismarck conceived a system of social security for the industrial workers in the late 19th century he had a very clear objective in mind. Along with consolidating the geo-strategic position of the Reich, he set out to bring the industrial workers under the control of the State. Integrating the masses into the body of the newly formed unified German State was the objective, and a comprehensive social insurance system provided the means for obtaining this aim.

While the practice and institutional forms vary from country to country, the idea that the State must protect and promote social justice and progress has become the paramount modern ideology around the globe. Following the footsteps of Bismarck, the construction of social policy systems has emerged as the distinctive feature of the modern State. [/quote]

Alternately, you can read the same historical description on the website of our very own Social Security Administration:

[quote]Germany became the first nation in the world to adopt an old-age social insurance program in 1889, designed by Germany’s Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck

Germany was one of the models America looked to in designing its own Social Security plan[/quote]

http://www.ssa.gov/history/ottob.html

America and the other Western Powers would go on to copy the German welfare model in the early 20th century.

The most significant aspect of economic fascism is central banking and the fractional reserve system. There isn’t a country in the world, to the best of my knowledge, that doesn’t use it - from China to Switzerland to Sweden to the U.S.

The Federal Reserve System was implemented in the U.S. in 1913, just prior to the First World War. The nation’s economy (and indeed, that of the entire world) would never be the same from that point on.

Major steps towards the establishment of a fascist economy in America include the aforementioned creation of the Fed, the income tax Amendment, the implementation of social planning in the Progressive Era (culminating in the New Deal), and the establishment of the military-industrial complex in the decades that followed. The political and economic lineage of American fascism can be traced back as far as the Civil War, which was an economic conflict between the North and South. The legendary tyrant, Lincoln, in fact, first empowered the federal government in a way that trampled the vision of the founders, having established a national banking charter in 1863 and introduced the nation’s first income tax, among numerous other Constitutional violations.

The elements have been in place for almost a century. There is simply no other way to describe the current state of affairs in America than to call it for what it is: state-sponsored corporatism, i.e. fascism.

[quote][b]The planned economy was all the rage in 1937, when Prentice-Hall published a 1,000- page tome on The Planned Society: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow: A Symposium by Thirty-Five Economists, Sociologists, and Statesmen. The “question that confronts us today is not if we shall plan, but how we shall plan,” wrote Lewis Mumford in the Foreword. All the contributors - Keynesian, socialist, communist, and fascist - agreed with that point, including such luminaries as Sidney Hook, Benito Mussolini, and Joseph Stalin.

But the book was honest. It linked Stalin and Keynes, fascism and the New Deal. The plans were not identical, of course, but all agreed on government “rationality” as versus the “chaos” of the free market.[/b][/quote]

Excerpt from “Myths of the Mixed Economy” written by Lew Rockwell – Myths of the Mixed Economy - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

Traditional conservative & libertarian assessments of Lincoln’s presidency:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html

Any questions?