Whenever anyone claims antisemitism, I am reminded of Kissinger's astute observation that “any people who has been persecuted for two thousand years must be doing something wrong.”

Antisemitism is the rumour about the Jews. A pathic projection.

There is only one good reason to deal with antisemitism, and that is to radically oppose it, to criticise it, to argue against it.

If you've dealt with this phenomenon in all its various open forms and all its different disguises, you're able to grasp that there is only one way to understand this madness and that is to deal with the psychological needs of antisemites, and that's the only way to find the "reasons" for antisemitism, it's in their paranoid rationalizing, in their crude ideology.

Like I said polarise two groups of people and you'll never have a solution.. we havent even touched on the issue behing the issue...Israel allows America a grip on the Middle East and Iran et al give Russia what they need. As long as their are groups and countries that benefit from this, then I really dont see a solution. Bring up all the history and ideallogical arguements for and against ultimately it's gone way beyond that now..the issue is a geopolitical football that means so much more than the sovereignty of a couple of countries.

What was not glorious about facing the aggression of the superior power of the combined forces of Iraq, and the neighbouring countries of Egyptian, (Trans- )jordan and Syrian armies, about defeating the whole Arab league?

Zionism is certainly not just a fashion.

Just read Theodor Herzl or even Moses Hess to understand what it is all about.

But don't rely on the so-called "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" from Czarist Russia.

http://www.amazon.com/Global-Impact-Protocols-Elders-Zion/dp/0415598923

https://books.google.de/books?id=8f2y0F2wzLoC&pg=PA358&lpg=PA358&dq=alexander+stein+hitler+protocols&source=bl&ots=p-Ds3kfu1K&sig=dCVNaY4Kp3WNSo_7OSCrEumDcdg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi34_mLm8XMAhUjG5oKHZgKB3UQ6AEIKzAD#v=onepage&q=alexander%20stein%20hitler%20protocols&f=false

Some of the stuff that is spat on here sounds exactly like these fabrications.

I mean, it's easy to distinguish between medieval Christian anti-Judaism and modern antisemitism which was often combined with racism and pseudo-scientific biological nonsense, but sometimes these lines are blurred, and it's easy to ignore antisemitism in antiquity and contemporary antisemitism which usually is disguised as "antizionism" or "criticism of Israel".

In reality the differences are not that big. Medieval blood libel, myths about Jewish ritual murder, Jews poisoning the wells of gentiles- it all comes back in some form, even if contemporary antizionists use differnet language and talk about the "water conflict".

But you only have to read the last reply by chitchat ozzy jr to know what antizionism is all about. It's not about Israel. It's all about Jews and their very existence. A perfect illustration of what I said previously about "Blaming antisemitism on the Jews".

It starts with an inane sentence:

"I am rather apalled by the Zio hate speech here to be honest."

... and what follows is a long list of hate speech that proves my point.
---------------

RE: Ivy

I don't think it's an obsession but I still like this traditional East Coast American look. Combined with other Americana, a few British classics and a touch of Continental style it's a great look, very NYC and rather cosmopolitan at the same time, nothing to do with the iGent obsessions or the middle class uniform that one might think it is, if you're reading the preppy blogs and message boards such as Ask Andy. Ivy League style or Madison Avenue or the Natural Shoulder look or whatever you want to call it, is at the center of modern men's fashion for more than a century.

That's what I thought.

Meanwhile, Ken's been at it again:

http://order-order.com/

Last edited by chatsworth osborne jr. (2016-05-06 08:27:54)

Where did I "bash Christianity"? Pointing out Christian antisemitism (from Paul in antiquity to the crusades, the Inquisition, Luther etc.) is not bashing Christianity. Of course, I'm all for the freedom of religion and against the discrimination of anyone based on terms of religion, no matter if they are Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs or whatever faith there is. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion to some degree, though, and this freedom does not permit criticism and satire.

The Critique of religion is one of the central aspects of enlightenment, and it was instrumental for the process of secularization, in the development of liberalism, parliamentarism and civil society. The left should be opposed to politicised religion and fight its influence in society, at least in all its repressive forms, and that's what they would do if they had understood their Marx properly. For various reasons the left is able to identify the Christian Right wing as their political enemy, but they don't dare to touch political Islam.

In fact, I think the main problem is this vague mantra among liberals in the USA (or "social democrats" in Europe) that you cannot criticize "the other" (pronounced with a touch of woo, like most of this po-mo jargon). Hence, the only confessions you're allowed to critize are Roman Catholicism, Orthodox Judaism and Christian fundamentalism in the USA.

Everything else is >> t he  o t h e r<< thus it is some sort of touchy subject for this infantile crowd that thinks of themselves as antiracists. What they are preaching, though, is merely inverted racism, and they often sound like their mission is to protect "the noble savage", when they defend the most dangerous and reactionary Islamists even against secular Muslims or against ex-Muslim atheists and agnostics. At the same time they fancy themselves as radical, revolutionary, emancipatory, progressive and anti-bourgeois. This is ironic, if you consider that Marx and Engels in their Communist Manifesto praised the bourgeois revolution for having fought what the regressive left wants to re-establish (or at least defends, often in a patronizing manner):


>>The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.<<

The difference between communists and socialists like Marx and Engels, Rosa Luxemburg and people like Oscar Wilde or George Orwell on the one hand, and all these so.called communists and Marxologists (ML, Maoist, Stalinist, Trotzkyite etc), anarchists, postmodernists and this whole regressive left on the other hand, is that Marx and Wilde understood that liberalism, democracy and the rule of law is a progress from feudal relations, personal rule and despotism, whereas the regressive left is not able to distinguish between progress and reaction, anymore and sides with the most reactionary elements. Marx was originally a liberal, before he met Engels in Paris and learnt about the situation of the working class in England. When he dealt with the worker's movement, early socialists and communists he wrote in the introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right:

>>The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses. Theory is capable of gripping the masses as soon as it demonstrates ad hominem, and it demonstrates ad hominem as soon as it becomes radical. To be radical is to grasp the root of the matter. But, for man, the root is man himself. The evident proof of the radicalism of German theory, and hence of its practical energy, is that is proceeds from a resolute positive abolition of religion. The criticism of religion ends with the teaching that man is the highest essence for man – hence, with the categoric imperative to overthrow all relations in which man is a debased, enslaved, abandoned, despicable essence, relations which cannot be better described than by the cry of a Frenchman when it was planned to introduce a tax on dogs: Poor dogs! They want to treat you as human beings!<<

These are radical thoughts, this is critical thinking. Compare this to contemporary "radicals" and most of them give you the same empty slogans and the same un-critical, authoritarian phrases. They're not progressive, they're regressive.

But I digress, I don't completely agree with Burchill's idea in the Daily Mirror piece above that the left embracing Islamism and Antisemitism is all about catering for Muslim votes, though I wouldn't doubt that it's a possibility in some cases. The main reason, I think is that there is a common ground in antiwestern/ antimodern/ antiliberal attitudes. It is collectivism, antiindividualism, regressive anticapitalism and the hatred of civilisation that Islamists, the regressive left and neonazis have in common. It is not expressed in the same way on the fringe left as by Islamists and neonazis but there are several ideological similarities.

Back on topic there are two good articles in the Jewish Chronicle Online that sum up the problems with the Labour party those of us who are concerned have seen for a long time, certainly not just in the last few weeks. I'll post some of this and get back at a few other issues that were raised here.

This is a copy and paste it contest - nobody with any sense is going to read all this garbage.