← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · edward gibbon
Thread ID: 3338 | Posts: 45 | Started: 2002-10-31
2002-10-31 16:02 | User Profile
An anti-semite despises Jews more than is necessary. (Admittedly defining "necessary" may be a problem to some.)
2002-10-31 16:53 | User Profile
Edward,
I like Sobrans definition which is, to paraphrase, someone the Jews dont like. :)
Antisemitism is a defensive reaction to typical Jewish behavior.
2002-10-31 17:42 | User Profile
I prefer Carol Ward's definition: "a moral imperative for our time".
2002-10-31 17:54 | User Profile
Are you an Anti-Semite?
The last two years have taught me that if you believe America's interests come before Israel's, then yes, you are indeed an Anti-Semite.
2002-10-31 17:56 | User Profile
A fool's socialism for the practitioner, and an all-purpose excuse for the 'victims.' A wonderful arrangement, neither side would be happy without the other.
2002-10-31 18:19 | User Profile
REALITY IS ANTI-SEMITIC.
2002-10-31 19:04 | User Profile
An anti-semite is someone who opposes the agenda of organized Jewry. Using that definition, it includes anyone who thinks their own country's interests should come before Israel's interests, anyone Jews don't like, and is also a moral imperative for our time ^_^
2002-10-31 19:39 | User Profile
**An anti-semite is someone who opposes the agenda of organized Jewry. **
I concur in that and in the rest of your comments, Edana.
2002-10-31 19:54 | User Profile
Say this and you will be known as an antisemite, to the exclusion of anything else you accomplish:
*It is not difficult to understand why Jewish people desire the overthrow of Nazi Germany. The persecution they suffered in Germany would be sufficient to make bitter enemies of any race.
No person with a sense of the dignity of mankind can condone the persecution of the Jewish race in Germany. But no person of honesty and vision can look on their pro-war policy here today without seeing the dangers involved in such a policy both for us and for them. Instead of agitating for war, the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way for they will be among the first to feel its consequences.
Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastations. A few far-sighted Jewish people realize this and stand opposed to intervention. But the majority still do not.
Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government.
I am not attacking either the Jewish or the British people. Both races, I admire. But I am saying that the leaders of both the British and the Jewish races, for reasons which are as understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war.
We cannot blame them for looking out for what they believe to be their own interests, but we also must look out for ours. We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction.*
2002-10-31 20:05 | User Profile
An anti-semite (racist against Jews) is someone who opposses Israel.
Opposing Israel is racist because Israel is a Jew state. I wonder, though, how is an officially racial state not racist but people who oppose the state, not necessarily a race, is a racist?
It's like if you accuse the Nation of Islam of being anti-christian then you're racist because the Nation of Islam is black-only. Yet, the Nation of Islam isn't racist but you are. How is that?
2002-11-01 01:50 | User Profile
An anti-Semite is an antibody to the Jewish bacillus.
2002-11-01 06:29 | User Profile
Let me see....... Semites are a middle Eastern racial group that includes many differing nations, Palistinians and Sephardic Jews included.
Since I fully support Palestinian attempts to resist the invasion of their ancestral home by European "conversos" then it would stand to reason that, no, I am NOT an Anti-Semite. However, I am unabashedly anti-Zionist, and often as not, anti-Jewish. "Anti-Semite" is a thoroughly deceitful term used to obfuscate.
When one means anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist, or PRO something else, one should speak clearly. Clearly undefineable terms like "Anti-Semite" are nothing more than a way of getting around the naming of a specific, and clearly defineable subset of semites, the Jews
Anti anything should give indication of an opposite PRO position. If I am anti Semite, to use the term others have chosen, this should only be judged in its proper context in relation to my PRO position.
If I claim to love my Western Heritage, then I must naturally despise that which is in opposition to it. Zionism, or the worship of all things Jewish, is a direct affront to my culture, my history, and my heritage.
Anti-Semitic? No, not in the least. Pro European? By all means.
America is/was the vanguard of Western culture. I'd be remiss if I did not battle its enemies, within and without.
So, perhaps the question should be re-phrased. Are Semites anti Western? The history of my ancestors through the centuries gives a clear voice to that proposition.
The mere mention of it makes the "Semites" howl.
Me, anti-anything? Nope, I'm pro Western.
2002-11-01 07:29 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Oct 31 2002, 17:42 I prefer Carol Ward's definition: "a moral imperative for our time".
Say, what happened to Carol?
She's been gone a long time.
Walter
2002-11-01 10:57 | User Profile
Good question. But then, that's why I like her: she doesn't write to fill column space for a twice-weekly quota - she's more like Vesuvius or Mt St Helens. She's quiet ....until she erupts molten lava.
But I miss her too, Walter.
2002-11-01 11:25 | User Profile
I'll let Philip Weiss explain why I have a problem with the Jews:
There is hardly an area of public life on which Jews have not had a profound impact in the last generation, as discrimination against them ended and as they gained power. The civil rights movement reflects Jewish values of justice.
[url=http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=3706]http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=3706[/url]
The civil rights movement (forced integration) has been a disaster for Whites. I've seen many friends and family members injured because of it, and I've witnessed up close and personal the destruction of one of America's great cities by free-range Negroes. Of course, it's easy for Weiss and his ilk to pat themselves on the back when the Jewish dominated media hides the consequences, the lack of coverage of the ongoing Carr brothers trial being the latest example.
Then, of course, there are a million stories like this one out there:
The ink was hardly dry on the 1964 Civil Rights Act before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission bureaucrat, Alfred W. Blumrosen, illegally and unconstitutionally subverted the statutory purpose of the law. Judicial complicity and congressional distraction enabled Mr. Blumrosen to redefine discrimination from a purposeful action against an individual to the absence of proportional representation regardless of discriminatory intent. (Vanishing vestige of civil rights P.C. Roberts Aug. 8 '02 Washington Times)
2002-11-01 12:41 | User Profile
Blumrosen.
That has to be one of the shortest and most concise explainations on record.
For some of us that is all we need to know to understand this.
2002-11-01 12:58 | User Profile
Edward,
I stated that antisemtism was a defensive reaction above. Anyone who doesnt understand that would grasp it over a period of time simply by watching "Fox News" talking head programs and taking not only a good hard look at the "guests," by also listening to the Anti-Western garbage they promote. Quite revealing.
Edana,
You have a very well crafted definition.
2002-11-01 17:49 | User Profile
**An anti-semite despises Jews more than is necessary. (Admittedly defining "necessary" may be a problem to some.) **
OR we could say that an ati-semite LOVES that which Jews corrupt more than necessary. Agreed, defining necessary may be a problem for some. Can one love their traditions, history, and heritage more than necessary?
Only if you're non-Jewish, or so we've been told.
It's a damn shame that we are discussing the same problem as the Greeks, Romans, French, English, Egyptians,Germans, Poles, and others long past concerning this same silly issue.
If everyone one the block wants to kick your ass, then odds are that the problem is YOU. If everyone that has ever had contact with you wants to kill you, then there can be no doubt where the problem lies.
We have to adopt one of two positions...
Either the world is crazy, and only Judah is capable of truth in giving their one side of the story in an ongoing conflict.
OR, we must assume that the world is sane and that the problem is Judah.
Which one makes more sense?
What is an anti-Semite? Why, anything they say it is...........
2002-11-01 19:03 | User Profile
Here's a jewish perspective. The lies spewed by Abe Foxie can turn one's stomach, so you are pre-warned.
[img]http://www.jta.org/storage/articleimages/12009.jpg[/img]
FOCUS ON ISSUES Survey: Anti-Semitic attitudes are prevalent all across Europe By Mica Rosenberg
NEW YORK, Oct. 29 (JTA) ââ¬â More than one-third of the people in Belgium, Germany, France and Spain hold strongly anti-Semitic views, according to two surveys conducted for the Anti-Defamation League. The figures show that ââ¬Åall of Europe is infectedââ¬Â with anti-Semitism, said Abraham Foxman, the ADLââ¬â¢s national director. note: anti-semitism is a disease! For crying out loud Abe, I guess you hold the antedote!
Some 39 percent of Belgians and 37 percent of Germans harbor strongly anti-Semitic views, according to the ADLââ¬â¢s index of anti-Semitism.
In France, 35 percent were strongly anti-Semitic, and in Spain 34 percent. The figure fell to 23 percent in Italy, 22 percent in Switzerland, 21 percent in Denmark, 19 percent in Austria, 18 percent in the United Kingdom and 7 percent in the Netherlands. I'll quote from Red's post above:"Either the world is crazy, and only Judah is capable of truth in giving their one side of the story in an ongoing conflict."
The results of the surveys will be discussed later this week at an ADL conference on global anti-Semitism in New York.
Anti-Semitic attitudes in France, Germany, Denmark, the United Kingdom and Belgium were surveyed in June 2002. Attitudes in Spain, Switzerland, Austria, Italy and the Netherlands were measured in September and are being released this week. Along with your yearly physical and blood test, we'll test all patients for 'anti-semitism' as well!
The ADL calculates attitudes based on an ââ¬Åanti-Semitism indexââ¬Â that monitors responses to 11 statements deemed by University of California researchers in 1964 to indicate ani-Semitism. Respondents who agree with six or more of the statements are considered ââ¬Åmost anti-Semitic.ââ¬Â
Statements included the canards that Jews are more loyal to Israel than to their home countries, use shady practices to get what they want, care only about other Jews and prattle too much about the Holocaust.
Five hundred interviews were conducted in each country.
The survey released this week found that, overall, 40 percent of respondents think Jews have too much power in international financial markets. That number was highest in Spain, with 71 percent, and lowest in the Netherlands, where 18 percent believed it. Viva L'Espana!
A majority ââ¬â 56 percent ââ¬â of respondents in the five countries recently surveyed see Jews as more loyal to Israel than to their home countries. That number skyrockets to 72 percent in Spain. I'm really beginning to like those Spaniards!
Foxman attributed the results in Spain to the historical anti-Semitism and power of the Catholic Church. Couldn't be because jews are anti-Christian now, could it Abe?
Across Europe, the generally high levels of anti-Semitism are due to anti-Israel sentiment born of recent Israeli-Palestinian violence, he said.
But Deborah Dwork, founding director of the Strassler Family Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Clark University, questions whether the index captures the nuances of anti-Semitism.
The question of how Jews can maintain their loyalty to the countries in which they live and to the Jewish people has been salient at least since the Enlightenment.
ââ¬ÅItââ¬â¢s a problem for Christians, and if you attend any Jewish function or read Jewish newspapers, itââ¬â¢s a problem for Jews,ââ¬Â said Dwork, co-author of the recent book ââ¬ÅHolocaust: A History.ââ¬Â
In addition, European attitudes toward Jews and Israel traditionally have fluctuated, rising and falling according to internal European instability.
ââ¬ÅI donââ¬â¢t think that Israel is the issue,ââ¬Â she said. ââ¬ÅAnti-Semitism is an opportunistic infection. It sets in when the body politic is weakenedââ¬Â ââ¬â as it has been since the Sept. 11 attacks ââ¬â and when national leaders do not take strong stands against it.
Foxman said Spanish authoritiesââ¬â¢ reticence to speak out has allowed the problem to ââ¬Åfester and grow.ââ¬Â
In contrast, French authorities ââ¬Åin the last several months have been doing what weââ¬â¢ve been asking, and have respondedââ¬Â to acts of violence, he said.
According to Foxman, a drive to prosecute those who commit racially motivated violence has led to a recent drop in anti-Semitic incidents in France. yes, the glory of tyrannical, politically correct, totalitarianism coming to a Western Nation around your way, White man.
Across the five countries just surveyed, the ADL survey found that 61 percent of respondents were ââ¬Åvery concernedââ¬Â or ââ¬Åfairly concernedââ¬Â about violence directed at European Jews. A majority believes their governments are doing enough to combat the violence.
This survey, like many before it, found that the greatest predictors of anti-Semitism are age and education. Respondents over age 65 and those with a high school education or less are more likely to hold anti-Semitic views, according to the results.
Another contributing factor may be a lack of exposure to Jews.
ââ¬ÅMany Europeans have never met a Jew, never interacted with a Jew,ââ¬Â Foxman said.
In Spain, for example, Jews number just 18,000 out of a population of 40 million. That's it! I'm moving to Spain! Yo me voy a ir a Espana!!
Both Foxman and Dwork agree that it is necessary to speak out against the upsurge in anti-Semitism.
ââ¬ÅTo speak out publically, here in the U.S. and in Europe,ââ¬Â is the best way to combat anti-Semitism, Dwork said. Embarrassment about anti-Semitism ââ¬Åleads to silence. We need to transmute the embarrassment to outrage.ââ¬Â [url=http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?strwebhead=Surveys+find+high+European+anti%2DSemitism&intcategoryid=2]http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?str...intcategoryid=2[/url]
There really is no excuse NOT to be anti-semitic if you are a White-European Christian Man or Woman. Adios!
2002-11-01 22:33 | User Profile
Originally posted by Polichinello@Oct 31 2002, 11:56 A fool's socialism for the practitioner
There obviously seems to be some dispute on what qualifies one as a practitioner.
A wonderful arrangement, neither side would be happy without the other.
P, if we were to take the example of Patrick Buchanan and how he was so incessantly slandered by Jewish-led organizations and publications during his recent presidential run, I would be interested in hearing how he could have effectively countered this as an individual. Considering, if you please, MacDonald's point about individualistic ideologies being impotent in countering widespread collective action by a coordinated and well-defined group.
2002-11-01 23:44 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Nov 1 2002, 22:33 P, if we were to take the example of Patrick Buchanan and how he was so incessantly slandered by Jewish-led organizations and publications during his recent presidential run, I would be interested in hearing how he could have effectively countered this as an individual. Considering, if you please, MacDonald's point about individualistic ideologies being impotent in countering widespread collective action by a coordinated and well-defined group.
TD,
You kind of snipped the key phrase in post that answers this point. Here's my quote again with the important part bolded:
A fool's socialism for the practitioner, and an all-purpose excuse for the 'victims.' A wonderful arrangement, neither side would be happy without the other.
I agree that the label is abused as a slander. Though my words, "all-purpose excuse," convey this rather clumsily, I believe they do cover the point. What gives these organizations their power is their ability to use anti-Semites to scare up funds. That's why they love people like the National Alliance and Alex Linder. They're money in the bank. A quick way to end an argument.
Conversely, people like the National Alliance and Alex Linder love Jews. Without them, who else could they blame all of life's problems on. I'll go further, since we're citing examples: Linder's the biggest philosemite on the web. Just read his page. No one goes on and on about a subject unless they love it, and he absolutely adores his subject. He can't get enough of it. God, reading his rants are like listening some girl jilted by the love of her life. She'll bitch and moan and complain about his every little flaw. She'll blame every little shortcoming of hers on how he scarred her sensitive, noble and giving soul (read: the generous, altruistic, genetic code of the Aryan race). It sounds like hate, but it isn't. It's an obsession that goes well beyond hate: it's an admiring fascination.
As to Buchanan. He has successfully fended them off. No one takes the charge seriously except for the usual suspects. Since his campaign--which he bungled just fine on his own--he's done rather well actually. A best seller, a magazine and a spot on MSNBC. If anything, Buchanan went a long way to taking much of the sting out of the charge.
Best, P
2002-11-02 00:28 | User Profile
**I agree that the label is abused as a slander. What gives these organizations their power is their ability to use anti-Semites to scare up funds. That's why they love people like the National Alliance and Alex Linder. They're money in the bank. A quick way to end an argument. Conversely, people like the National Alliance and Alex Linder love Jews. Without them, who else could they blame all of life's problems on. **
So, in other words, one side cunningly uses the canard for a little harmless pump-priming from kinsmen; the other side is made up of whining psychotics living in a fabricated reality, whose potential for true malice is rendered moot by their childish petulance. Yeah, that's even-handed. As witnessed by this bit of sleight-of-hand:
**As to Buchanan. He has successfully fended them off. No one takes the charge seriously except for the usual suspects. Since his campaign--which he bungled just fine on his own--he's done rather well actually. **
Sure thing, P - the man is routinely and dismissively described as an anti-Semite and Holocaust denier in the pages of America's most respected and widely-read newspapers and slick weeklies, but nobody pays them very much mind, anyway. Hey, besides, he's on tv, just like Carrot-Top and Anna Nicole, so, y'know, he came out of it okay.
"Nobody takes the charge seriously". Must be why so many of our elected officials and media hotshots feel free to criticize organized Jewry in this country anytime the occasion calls for it. Now pull the other one.
2002-11-02 01:00 | User Profile
**You kind of snipped the key phrase in post that answers this point. **
On purpose because I did not want to focus on that side of the equation. Whatever their motivation, labeling someone they don't like as an anti-semite is the number one weapon in their arsenal. This is established fact. Moving on.
As to Buchanan. He has successfully fended them off.
Huh? I'm not talking about now, even though I would still disagree about that. I'm talking about 2001 and 2002, when there wasn't a day that went by without a hit piece on Buchanan by all the usual suspects. He certainly did not fend that off. Indeed, he never got any traction because of it.
But back to my original question (and I'm just picking your brain here, based on your reply to this topic):
Ignoring any dispute we might have over whether or not Buchanan successfully weathered the "anti-Semite" attack, for debate's sake let's assume he did not.
How would he have defended himself as an individual facing such a coordinated attack orchestrated by a well-defined group? Taking into account, of course, what his goal was and how successful he was in reaching it.
2002-11-02 02:06 | User Profile
Originally posted by Polichinello@Nov 1 2002, 19:44 **
Conversely, people like the National Alliance and Alex Linder love Jews. Without them, who else could they blame all of life's problems on. I'll go further, since we're citing examples: Linder's the biggest philosemite on the web. Just read his page. No one goes on and on about a subject unless they love it, and he absolutely adores his subject. He can't get enough of it. God, reading his rants are like listening some girl jilted by the love of her life. She'll bitch and moan and complain about his every little flaw. She'll blame every little shortcoming of hers on how he scarred her sensitive, noble and giving soul (read: the generous, altruistic, genetic code of the Aryan race). It sounds like hate, but it isn't. It's an obsession that goes well beyond hate: it's an admiring fascination.
**
Going on a bit there, don't you know.
Which reminds me: another typically Jewish behavior is to pull out the creaky anachronistic Freudian analysis whenever the ad hominems just aren't enough.
2002-11-02 03:04 | User Profile
Yes IR and Weisbrot, as usual, you two have nailed it. Sigmund Freud is generally considered Sigmund Fraud these days, except of course for a fringe of die hard hangers-on. But that doesn't stop the self styled chosen from using his style of "analyis" when it comes to muckraking in roundabout fashion.
As for being an Anti-Semite? In this case, we'll have to assume Semite in this case doesn't mean all the Semitic peoples, in this case it means jews. Of course I'm being facitious. Just another made up term, comprised of one word that has been hijacked (like the use and definition of the word "holocaust" into HOLOCAUST™) and redifined.
Anyone who is a realist is considered an Anti-Semite.
2002-11-02 14:26 | User Profile
[url=http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_news&Number=303223&t=-1#Post303223]How to be named an Anti-Semite[/url]
Saturday, November 02 2002 @ 03:12 AM GMT
The term anti-Semite as used here is one utilized as a catch-all phrase by various activist groups such as the Zionists, Israel Firsters, The Jewish Defense League, and also by those Jews unaware of what the phrase truly implies.
Many peoples of the Middle East can be classified as "Semites," but it appears that some Jews have appropriated the term to mean only Jews - which is historically incorrect.
To be named and anti-Semite in the current world is easy; all you have to do is any of the following:
Disagree with any action by any Jewish person at any time.
Take issue with the secular Israeli aggression against Palestinian and Arabs occurring anywhere in the Middle East.
Mention that Israel is truly a contrived, artificial state that was thrust upon the Palestinians and their land by the US, Britain, and the UN, despite how the Palestinian owners of the land did protest.
Criticize the JDL in any way or any manner even if it is shown that they tell outright lies about history, current events, Christians, Islamics, and other Jews who do not toe the Zionist-Israel party line.
Anyone who mentions that the United States, because of Israel Uber Alles infiltrators in our administration, congress, industry, business, and financial institutions in our country, our taxpayers have sent gratis over one hundred billion dollars $100,000,000,000) down the ratholes of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, in the form of cash, arms, goods, and services.
US Patriots who expose the fact that there are proved Israeli spies operating cells in America, working hand in glove with traitors like Jonathan Pollard and his wife, some spies of late in the guise of art students, who provide Israel with US military and industrial secrets, some of which are kept and used, and some that are to be sold for gain, even to enemies of America.
Speak out against the secular Israeli government run by Ariel Sharon and his jackboots who use American armaments to kill from afar hapless Palestinian men, women, and children, while they are safe in their American made helicopter gunships, tanks, and APC's, and use their missiles and heavy weapons against kids with stones, and men with small arms - ineffective against tank cannons.
Decry the evil actions of the IDF who in Palestinian cities use their Uzis and sniper rifles to pick off kids, old women, old men, and anyone else they can sight in on. It is a game to the IDF, called shooting fish in a barrel.
Talk about true Jewish young men who have refused to join in the bloodbath that is Palestine, and are ostracized by the Sharonistas, castigated by the Israeli press, and are subject to punitive action by the Israeli government.
Discuss the fact that there are many fine, truly Jewish youngsters and students who hate the IDF's murdering of Palestinians, and have held peace rallies to that effect, rallies that go unreported by the pro-Israel media in the US and the world.
Expose the news that the US has provided the Israeli "navy" with submarines and destroyers, possibly to monitor life in the dead sea or the sea of Galilee.
Tell the citizens of the US that although many nuclear capable nations have signed a nuclear non-proliferation agreement, that Israel has not, and until very recently denied having nuclear capabilities. It is estimated by intelligence services that Israel has over 400 nuclear warheads, and missile technology furnished by the United States to deliver them.
Refer to anything about the fact that secular Israel deliberately attacked and tried to sink the USS Liberty, a US Navy Elint vessel that was in international waters at the time. Pro-Israelis in the US government resisted any type of full blown hearings on the attack, simply to protect Israel against American adverse opinion. Incidentally, many of the world's encyclopedias, fact books, public records, libraries, etc., have had articles and news about the attack on the Liberty surreptitiously removed, most by agents of Israel. (See James Ennes's book: "Assault on the Liberty," if you can find it in your library or bookstore)
Avow that according to international law, water that emerges within national boundaries belongs to that nation - in this case Lebanon - and no other nation - in this case Israel - has the right to militarily attack Lebanon to steal water, as Israel has threatened to do.
Reveal that the true goal of Ariel Sharon and his secular Israeli government is in the process of eliminating the rights in Israel of any persons they feel are not Jewish, or Jewish enough for them.
Elaborate on the fact that there are almost 200,000 Christians who traveled from Russia to Israel under the guise of being Jewish, and that there are many Christian Orthodox services being held by these people, thereby presenting a problem to the Sharonistas.
Boldly state that Iraq has ignored edicts from the United Nations, and looks as though they will be attacked by a US-Britain led coalition to topple Saddam Hussein, Israel has not complied with far more than that, and their excuse is, the UN is anti-Semitic. Perhaps the coalition should zero in on Israel and depose the evilness of Ariel Sharon.
Dare to imply that Israel is a friend of the United States only as long as money keeps flowing from American taxpayers to Israel, or inquire as to Swiss bank accounts, kept filled by the flow, owned by certain individuals in Israel. Where is the CIA? In bed with the Mossad?
Let all know that even in the laws of the United States, Israel is mentioned by name almost 80 times, the points being to protect Israel at all cost, and to provide cash, goods, and services to Israel at the expense of the US taxpayer
Conclusion:
Yes, those statements are only a few of many that will get you called an anti- Semite, or a self-hater if you are Jewish, but if you are factual in your words, and stand behind them, you will prevail against the scatological name-callers extant. The truth will protect you, no matter what how the liars twist and spin, on the net, or anywhere. Just remember what distinguished editor and columnist, Brent Bozell, once stated in no uncertain terms: "The only thing worse that the charge of anti-Semitism, is the false charge of anti-Semitism."
Wonderful words; wonderful guidance; wonderful philosophy!
2002-11-02 19:13 | User Profile
Polichinello
Your continued deceit and evasion of facts that you find discomforting disturbs me. Buchanan has been marginalized by a deceitful media. I will quote from my book - ***War, Money and American Memory ***
Available at [url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0788184792/qid%3D1022776139/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F0%5F1/102-9675860-7271313]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/078...9675860-7271313[/url]
**The New York Times has felt free to accuse some of "blood libel" for implying Jews evade military service, but when confronted by facts compiled from Jewish sources, including themselves, proving this evasion, they refused to publish a letter asking for an admission of error, let alone apologize. These same Jews have felt entitled to be on the cutting edge of assaults on western institutions and to regard themselves as the conscience of American society. They have indulged in goy baiting at every opportunity. In 1990 prior to the Gulf War Abe Rosenthal, once editor of the New York Times, blasted Republican presidential aspirant, Pat Buchanan for stating the war would be fought by people named McAllister, Murphy, Gonzales and Leroy Brown. Mr. Rosenthal, acting as censor, believed this statement offensive to Jews. Even in 1996 Mr. Rosenthal demanded that Buchanan retract his assertion. A strong rumor has long persisted that Mr. Rosenthal's column has had even more force and eloquence in the original Yiddish which has not always been adequately translated to the detriment of Mr. Rosenthal's graceful and resourceful writing. Unwelcomed truth has never interested Mr. Rosenthal and friends. At least one letter detailing their deceit was not published. For the war in Vietnam 11 men named McAllister died; 81 men named Murphy; 84 men named Gonzales; and 380 men named Brown. Twice as many men named by Buchanan died than Jews. To the New York Times these men and their families are much more remote and much less important than a Brooklyn born settler on the West Bank of the Jordan River. **
Dishonesty of Mainstream Press> **When Mr. Buchanan went to the Republican Convention in 1992, he had become fair game for his enemies. Stephen King, the horror writer, was given space on the Op-Ed page of the New York Times to attack him by describing him as looking like a bulldog who had just enjoyed a good meal- perhaps a child. The Philadelphia Daily News called him a "redneck bully". The columnist Mike Royko thought of Buchanan's assault on Bill Clinton as one who sat in his room in Oxford and figured ways to beat the draft as being out of place for a supporter of the war who was young enough to serve. Mr. Buchanan's bad knee which got him a deferment did not prevent him from jogging several miles a day. Nor did his friendship with such worthy conservative draft-dodgers endear him to Mr. Royko. The editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial Page described him as having a cruel twist to his smile and having little pig eyes. Television performer, Charles Kuralt of CBS news, judged Buchanan's speech as having ugly elements with appeals to racism. In the lynch mob was the president of the Philadelphia Chapter of the American Zionist Federation who made the utterly preposterous assertion that 90 percent of Americans supported the war against Iraq. This charge made in the pages of the Philadelphia Inquirer did not go unchallenged, but the newspaper as usual when assertions by Jews were disputed declined to provide factual data.
Then the purported Godfather of the American conservative movement, William F. Buckley, was quoted approvingly of finding it "impossible to defend Pat Buchanan against the charge that what he said and did amounted to anti-Semitism". This editorial was written on January 13, 1992, virtually one year after the start of the war in the Persian Gulf. That Mr. Buchanan was correct in his assessment never bothered the professional goy baiters of that newspaper. That the wise elders on that newspaper did not know that Jews of American citizenship did not fight and did not die in appropriate numbers could only be believed by those who believe National Public Radio did not have a liberal bias. What should not surprise was the support of Mr. Buckley. The truce between Jews and Neocons had been observed. **
[color=red] In Vietnam American Jewry contributed only 269 deaths. If they had died in proportion to their numbers some 1700 would have died. In the Gulf War not one Jew, American, Israeli, or otherwise died. The Jews of America continued their crying and cowardice that has persisted since the Civil War in America to include the Holy of Holies - World War II.[/color]
2002-11-02 21:25 | User Profile
On purpose because I did not want to focus on that side of the equation. Whatever their motivation, labeling someone they don't like as an anti-semite is the number one weapon in their arsenal. This is established fact. Moving on.
And? I said as much.
Huh? I'm not talking about now, even though I would still disagree about that. I'm talking about 2001 and 2002, when there wasn't a day that went by without a hit piece on Buchanan by all the usual suspects. He certainly did not fend that off. Indeed, he never got any traction because of it.
I'm not sure what you mean here because the dates are off. Buchanan did actually get a lot of traction in '92 and '96. Despite the slanders, he did a lot better than many candidates who much more experience. What did him in was his ill-thought out defection from the Republicans, and then his consorting with characters like Lenora Fulani and picking a loon as his VP candidate.
How would he have defended himself as an individual facing such a coordinated attack orchestrated by a well-defined group? Taking into account, of course, what his goal was and how successful he was in reaching it.
You keep plugging on. The truth will come out. Buchanan has kept going. He's made a lot of mistakes, and he certainly suffered from slanderous accusations, as all politicians do, but he's doing quite well right now.
Best, P
2002-11-02 21:27 | User Profile
Originally posted by weisbrot@Nov 2 2002, 02:06 **
**
> **Going on a bit there, don't you know.**
I was asked to expound.
Which reminds me: another typically Jewish behavior is to pull out the creaky anachronistic Freudian analysis whenever the ad hominems just aren't enough.
Yeah, you guys never use ad hominem. And the analysis is based on observable fact. If you disagree with what I've written, then say so, and explain why.
Best, P
2002-11-02 21:35 | User Profile
**So, in other words, one side cunningly uses the canard for a little harmless pump-priming from kinsmen; the other side is made up of whining psychotics living in a fabricated reality, whose potential for true malice is rendered moot by their childish petulance. **
I wouldn't call it "cunning" or "harmless", but that's about the size of it. Both groups are bad, and perhaps a little mad.
Sure thing, P - the man is routinely and dismissively described as an anti-Semite and Holocaust denier in the pages of America's most respected and widely-read newspapers and slick weeklies, but nobody pays them very much mind, anyway. Hey, besides, he's on tv, just like Carrot-Top and Anna Nicole, so, y'know, he came out of it okay.
He's on a major news channel with two hours to have his say. Isn't this what you guys whine about not having? The slurs have been thrown, I don't deny that, but they've been largely tossed aside.
"Nobody takes the charge seriously". Must be why so many of our elected officials and media hotshots feel free to criticize organized Jewry in this country anytime the occasion calls for it. Now pull the other one.
I meant against Buchanan. More generally the charge is taken seriously (rightly), and it is abused(very wrongly). I haven't denied that.
Best, P
2002-11-02 21:41 | User Profile
Your continued deceit and evasion of facts that you find discomforting disturbs me.
I'm sorry to hear this. Take two aspirin and relax. You'll feel better.
** Buchanan has been marginalized by a deceitful media. I will quote from my book - War, Money and American Memory **
You quoting from you book, with a link to Amazon? Wow, why does that not surprise me?
If "being marginalized" means you can run your own magazine, be invited on numerous talk shows, have your own two-hour talkshow, and publish bestsellers, then it's a strange marginalization you have in mind there, Mr. E.
I don't deny Buchanan suffered the most heinous of slurs and distortions. They were wrong. But that doesn't change the fact that he's done quite well since, and without having to adopt some mystical group evolutionary strategy.
Best, P
2002-11-02 21:45 | User Profile
Originally posted by weisbrot@Nov 2 2002, 02:06 Which reminds me: another typically Jewish behavior is to pull out the creaky anachronistic Freudian analysis whenever the ad hominems just aren't enough.
Actually, if you read Linder's stuff, you'll see he does this kind of thing all the time (see his comments on Zionist Christians and Biker girlfriends). Really, when get you down to it, I'm judging him by his own standard.
Best, P
2002-11-02 21:53 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Nov 1 2002, 22:33 > Originally posted by Polichinello@Oct 31 2002, 11:56 A fool's socialism for the practitioner**
There obviously seems to be some dispute on what qualifies one as a practitioner.**
I should answer this directly. I apologize for the delay on that.
Roughly following Sartre's definition, I'd say an anti-Semite is someone who believes Jews should be deprived of their rights as citizens simply because they are Jews. I would not include under this heading criticism of Jews, the Jewish religion or Jewish organizations.
Best, P
2002-11-03 03:58 | User Profile
USS Liberty thread on FreeRepublic:
[url=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/778820/posts]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/778820/posts[/url]
2002-11-04 02:17 | User Profile
"Yes IR and Weisbrot, as usual, you two have nailed it. Sigmund Freud is generally considered Sigmund Fraud these days, except of course for a fringe of die hard hangers-on."
Ahhhh Freud, interpreter of dreams, keeper of the truth.
You know, there is a Jewish tradition of this that goes back to Joseph and Egypt. Able to intepret Pharoahs dreams, he amassed a bit beaurocratic power for he and his kinsmen.
The ability to define a mans thoughts and actions and extrapolate the future from the odd phrase is one hell of a powerful tool. The ability to do it and charge $200 an hour is a remarkable feat.
After the Freudian/Jungian pseudo sciences are dismissed, think we'll be able to get back to REAL science? You know, traditional concepts like "The White Mans burden", or why our smaller asses preclude us from winning track meets?
2002-11-04 02:47 | User Profile
Roughly following Sartre's definition, I'd say an anti-Semite is someone who believes Jews should be deprived of their rights as citizens simply because they are Jews. I would not include under this heading criticism of Jews, the Jewish religion or Jewish organizations.
Well, now we get to the MEAT of the matter. Before we start dispensing 'rights" of citizenship, should we not define the concept of citizen?
Doesn't it spring from the idea of NATION in its most rudimentary form? My turn of the century encyclopedia tells me that the PREFERRED definition of nation, the one rooted in HISTORY, is a RACE of people. KINSHIP is the defining term in the concept of nation.
Jews in Medieval England weren't considered "citizens" and were twice banned from England. I think that technically speaking, they are still banned. The connection between Cromwells "Dutch" financing and the sudden re-importation of Jews into England shortly after his victory might bear closer scrutiny.
This seems to be the common pattern in EVERY land that Jews have ever wandered into. They either arrived as the peddlers and beaurocrats of conquering armies, but were never broguth into a NATION under the invitation of the PEOPLE.
I'm fairly sure that corrupt kings simply can't dispense kinship at the stroke of the pen.
In fact, this seems to be the Jewish problem. As long as corruption reigns and concepts of nation and citizen are twisted, they thrive. However, when the PEOPLE have their say, it becomes clear that the HISTORICAL model of nation and citizen is once again reinstated.
This has been the case in EVERY land Jews have bribed their way into.
I've often wondered about the relationship between the "Federal Reserve" banking act and massive Jewish immigration into this land. americans, being a European culture, have held historical views concerning Jews that mirror Europe.
I do not believe that "citizenship" is any more transferrable than any other familial tie.
It's no secret that White Nationalism as a movement makes a direct link between Jewish corruption and the re-defining of the term nation.
Jews, even though they had lived among the Europeans for centuries, have never been considered European.
This is one of the sources of their "persecution".
Where the world villifies the Whites of South Africa for being among a people that do not want them, Jews have made the same condition a saintly trait for their situation.
Should Jews really be amazed when a traditionally warlike European culture eventually tires of them and turns on them yet one more time?
Before terms like citizenship can be discussed they must be defined. If we do it in an historical vacuum, we arrive at a Jewish definition. If we discuss it without twisting traditional roles and terms, we end up with "Jewish persecution."
Invaders bemoaning their "persecution" seems a bit ironic to some.
2002-11-04 15:42 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Nov 3 2002, 09:21 Why should we argue about whether or not we're anti-semites when there's already a scientific test? What else do you think the ADL is spending its sixty million dollars a year on (well, besides spying on Amercians and indoctrinating the FBI and local police deptartments in the finer points of 'hate')? They've got a eleven point test - like I said, it's scientific - that susses out the dreaded 'antisemitism' in even the most evasive subject, like this fellow:
I have no love for the ADL. Their test, as the original MSNBC article points out, is contradictory POS designed to raise money through scaring their constituents.
Best, P
2002-11-04 15:44 | User Profile
Originally posted by Red@Nov 4 2002, 02:47 > Roughly following Sartre's definition, I'd say an anti-Semite is someone who believes Jews should be deprived of their rights as citizens simply because they are Jews. I would not include under this heading criticism of Jews, the Jewish religion or Jewish organizations.**
Well, now we get to the MEAT of the matter. Before we start dispensing 'rights" of citizenship, should we not define the concept of citizen?
**
It's already been defined by the laws of this nation. You want to redefine it.
Best, P
2002-11-04 17:04 | User Profile
**I score a ten out of eleven - I disagree with statement nine, but only because the wording is so slippery. It is not true that 'Jews are so shrewd that no one else can compete'. This indicates that the contest is in intelligence, not group strategy. **
Coordinating a "group strategy" would indicate higher intelligence, actually.
**But I'm glad that P is here, since he can explain that there is no 'mystical' group, much less any group strategy - since the power of the accusation, 'antisemite', is surely the result of 'decaying Protestants' **
I would pin it more on the general nihilism that's infected western society since the Enlightenment. After all, these things have a similar impact in Catholic countries in Europe, even places where Jews are a negligible presence.
- somehow - and therefore the mystical non existent group should not be criticized, and that instead we should be concentrating on 'bad ideas' even though he admits that to concentrate on the wrong 'bad ideas' means that we have an irrational fixation on a group
What do you mean by the "group", WM? If you mean the organizations--many of which deserve it--then, no, you're not being irrational at all. If you mean everyone who happens to carry some genetic code marker, then you are being irrational, even counter-productive.
I don't deny that even I what I'm saying carries a cost. I myself got yanked from FR a few years back for posting a postive review of Finklestein's "The Holocaust Industry." I know others who've been zapped there for posting articles from my website there as well. I don't care at all for a lot of things done by particular Jews, but I'm not going go around trying to take away rights from people who've broken no laws and have done nothing with malice.
Best, P
2002-11-04 17:37 | User Profile
Originally posted by Polichinello@Nov 2 2002, 15:25 **You keep plugging on. The truth will come out. Buchanan has kept going. He's made a lot of mistakes, and he certainly suffered from slanderous accusations, as all politicians do, but he's doing quite well right now. **
Seems we're not gonna get past whether or not Buchanan was irreparably damaged politically because of a Jewish-led media campaign against him. Thanks for the replies.
One note to ponder, though: If he is indeed doing quite well right now as you say, you ever think that's because the "men-behind-the-curtain" KNOW that he is damaged goods and therefore a "safe" token opposition? (You don't have to answer. Just for pondering.)
2002-11-04 18:11 | User Profile
Seems we're not gonna get past whether or not Buchanan was irreparably damaged politically because of a Jewish-led media campaign against him. Thanks for the replies.
I don't think he was irreparably damaged "politically." He started out as a commentator in '92 with a moderate newspaper circulation, a half-hour talkshow and one autobiograpical book of commentary. Ten years later he's running a magazine, has a two-hour talkshow and produces bestsellers regularly.
Has Buchanan taken hits along the way? Yes. Have the hits often been unfair, even slanderous? Yes. But looking at the whole picture, he's actually well ahead of where he was in 1992.
As to his political career, it was undone more by his own insufficiency as a politician. He ran for the presidency despite never holding any other elective office. He did this three times. He left his major party in a ciritcal year and joined a third party with the naked ambition of gaining $12 million federal dollars. In the process he aligned himself with a lot of kooks, like Lenora Fulani. I don't dispute that the slanders were out there, but he also had a lot of defenders, like Michael Kinsley. For the most part the slanders and distortions fizzled with the public. The evidence of this lies in the sales of his books.
One note to ponder, though: If he is indeed doing quite well right now as you say, you ever think that's because the "men-behind-the-curtain" KNOW that he is damaged goods and therefore a "safe" token opposition? (You don't have to answer. Just for pondering.)
You might as well ask me if the little green men from Mars are running the whole thing behind the scenes. I can't disprove the existence of "men-behind-the-curtain" any more than I can Martians. The only thing this argument does is provide something of a dodge of last resort because anytime you or others are provided with counter-evidence, you can dismiss it by saying it was planted by those "men-behind-the-curtain." All I can do is point to the evidence in front of us. You say Buchanan was damaged. OK, then why is he doing so well?
Best, P
2002-11-04 18:30 | User Profile
You paint such a rosy picture of the Buchanan experience. I don't know, maybe my view from the trenches of that decade long political fight lends me to having a dramatically different assessment. As to his political career being undone by his own insufficiency as a politician, I couldn't disagree more, but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Also, the "men behind the curtain" wasn't meant to be factual rebuttal to any point or a dodge. As I stated, only something to ponder, make of it what you will.
2002-11-04 20:15 | User Profile
Originally posted by Edana@Oct 31 2002, 19:04 **An anti-semite is someone who opposes the agenda of organized Jewry. Using that definition, it includes anyone who thinks their own country's interests should come before Israel's interests, anyone Jews don't like, and is also a moral imperative for our time.
Edena's defintion is as able as any. But I would insert, ..."and own people's interest"...**
Edena's defintion is as able as any, but I would insert,"and own peoples interest."
2002-11-04 20:35 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Nov 4 2002, 18:30 You paint such a rosy picture of the Buchanan experience. I don't know, maybe my view from the trenches of that decade long political fight lends me to having a dramatically different assessment. As to his political career being undone by his own insufficiency as a politician, I couldn't disagree more, but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
It depends on what you see as the ultimate goal of Buchanan's politicking. If you think it was solely aimed at getting Buchanan into the Oval Office, then it was a failure. On the other hand, if you think it was aimed at bringing the issues of the Old Right into the forum, then it has succeeded. The issues aren't dominating the debate at the moment, but they are there, and the opposition is being forced--painfully slowly, but surely all the same--to acknowledge them.
Best, P
2002-11-05 02:46 | User Profile
Polichinello, you make an interesting point. There is a big difference between a perennial also-ran like Harold Stassen and a man passionately devoted to his cause like Norman Thomas. The former had an inflated ego which became its own worst caricature and the latter lived to see many of his platforms (e.g. socialist insecurity) become the law of the land and hallowed planks of the platforms of the major parties. While Old Buck was certainly defamed, he is also living proof that there is can be life after being tagged an "anti-Semite, fascist and racist."