Jewish power dominates at 'Vanity Fair'


Michael Stuart Kelly

Recommended Posts

That's exactly why attaching race characteristics to Jews (or anyone else for that matter) is foolish - I agree with you. BUT...The way into Judaeism is by BIRTH for ALMOST EVERY JEW! But not all - I understand that. Quibbling on this is not central to what I'm saying. It's not wrong to say that rightly or wrongly being a Jew has a racial connotation - arguably more strongly that culture - however right or wrong that might be. That's why it's dumb, in my opinion to flirt with ascribing the group any negative OR positive characteristics.

Bob

The Hand that Rocks the Cradle and feeds the pablum belongs to the person who transmits the culture. Babies adopted into Jewish homes (as opposed to being born into Jewish homes) generally turn out as Jewish as babies born into Jewish homes. The home life and upbringing is what implants the culture, not gestating in the womb.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That's exactly why attaching race characteristics to Jews (or anyone else for that matter) is foolish - I agree with you. BUT...The way into Judaeism is by BIRTH for ALMOST EVERY JEW! But not all - I understand that. Quibbling on this is not central to what I'm saying. It's not wrong to say that rightly or wrongly being a Jew has a racial connotation - arguably more strongly that culture - however right or wrong that might be. That's why it's dumb, in my opinion to flirt with ascribing the group any negative OR positive characteristics.

Bob

The Hand that Rocks the Cradle and feeds the pablum belongs to the person who transmits the culture. Babies adopted into Jewish homes (as opposed to being born into Jewish homes) generally turn out as Jewish as babies born into Jewish homes. The home life and upbringing is what implants the culture, not gestating in the womb.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Was Rand a Jew???

Uh... Maybe??... Sort of... by birth.... but.....

If the answer is not a quick 'NO', then that illustrates quite clearly how we connect (rightly or wrongly) Jewishness with genes - at least partially and that's all that matters.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's exactly why attaching race characteristics to Jews (or anyone else for that matter) is foolish - I agree with you. BUT...The way into Judaeism is by BIRTH for ALMOST EVERY JEW! But not all - I understand that. Quibbling on this is not central to what I'm saying. It's not wrong to say that rightly or wrongly being a Jew has a racial connotation - arguably more strongly that culture - however right or wrong that might be. That's why it's dumb, in my opinion to flirt with ascribing the group any negative OR positive characteristics.

Bob

The Hand that Rocks the Cradle and feeds the pablum belongs to the person who transmits the culture. Babies adopted into Jewish homes (as opposed to being born into Jewish homes) generally turn out as Jewish as babies born into Jewish homes. The home life and upbringing is what implants the culture, not gestating in the womb.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Was Rand a Jew???

Uh... Maybe??... Sort of... by birth.... but.....

If the answer is not a quick 'NO', then that illustrates quite clearly how we connect (rightly or wrongly) Jewishness with genes - at least partially and that's all that matters.

Bob

EXCELLENT Bob - precisely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was Rand a Jew???

You bet. Her ethics were Jewish down to the molecular level. Her parents might not have been observant, but they transmitted the ethics faithfully. It usually take three generations to die out entirely. Zedes (grandfathers) and Bubbies (grandmothers) have a way of making it persist.

You will notice the O'ist movement was started and sustained in its early stages by cultural Jews. That is NOT a coincidence.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited by BaalChatzaf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was Rand a Jew???

You bet. Her ethics were Jewish down to the molecular level. Her parents might not have been observant, but they transmitted the ethics faithfully. It usually take three generations to die out entirely. Zedes (grandfathers) and Bubbies (grandmothers) have a way of making it persist.

You will notice the O'ist movement was started and sustained in its early stages by cultural Jews. That is NOT a coincidence.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ok, but do you see what's happened now?

A 'Jew' is some combination of race, religion, and culture. If Rand was a Jew, well, there goes religion. Now we're only left with race and culture. If your personal definition is entirely cultural that's fine, but that's not the working definition of the term in widespread use. And as a result if you ascribe anything, positive, negative or indifferent to 'Jewishness' or 'Jews' you are making a race-based comment.

And for crying out loud, among logical folks why am I the first to point out that if the words

"White Power Dominates" are offensive, how could "Jewish Power Dominates" just slide on by???? Really now....C'mon...

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was Rand a Jew???

You bet. Her ethics were Jewish down to the molecular level. Her parents might not have been observant, but they transmitted the ethics faithfully. It usually take three generations to die out entirely. Zedes (grandfathers) and Bubbies (grandmothers) have a way of making it persist.

You will notice the O'ist movement was started and sustained in its early stages by cultural Jews. That is NOT a coincidence.

Ba'al Chatzaf

"You will notice the O'ist movement was started and sustained in its early stages by cultural Jews. That is NOT a coincidence."

Now that is a despicable comment. So now the blush is off the rose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Her ethics were Jewish down to the molecular level. Her parents might not have been observant, but they transmitted the ethics faithfully."

This statement, in my opinion is blatantly racist. It is racist because in common use "Jewish" is a partially race-based term and as a result, ethics are ascribed at least partially to a genetic source.

Not good. Really not good.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Her ethics were Jewish down to the molecular level. Her parents might not have been observant, but they transmitted the ethics faithfully."

This statement, in my opinion is blatantly racist. It is racist because in common use "Jewish" is a partially race-based term and as a result, ethics are ascribed at least partially to a genetic source.

Not good. Really not good.

Bob

I guess I continue to learn that I can still be totally shocked by mixed premises leading inexorably to anti-individual results.

Apparently, the basic assumption being advanced in this argument is what gang? Send in your choices now and we will announce the winners later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't call it racist, but I would call it unconvincing. I've seen arguments to this effect by Ron Merril, Adam Reed and Jeff Walker, and they all struck me as labored and implausible. Word is that Ann Heller is going to go into this in her forthcoming biography of Rand. We'll have to see her version when the time comes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't call it racist, but I would call it unconvincing. I've seen arguments to this effect by Ron Merril, Adam Reed and Jeff Walker, and they all struck me as labored and implausible. Word is that Ann Heller is going to go into this in her forthcoming biography of Rand. We'll have to see her version when the time comes.

Agreed. Good observation Reidy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't call it racist, but I would call it unconvincing. I've seen arguments to this effect by Ron Merril, Adam Reed and Jeff Walker, and they all struck me as labored and implausible. Word is that Ann Heller is going to go into this in her forthcoming biography of Rand. We'll have to see her version when the time comes.

Explain please...

If it quacks...

He called Rand's ethics "Jewish". He also implied quite clearly that Jewish ethics are precise and well-defined (with his 'molecular' comment). If Jewishness has anything to do with race, then the statement implies her ethics are partially race based. That fits just about perfectly with any definition of racism I can think of. You might not call it racist, but it is...

American Heritage Dictionary

1)The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

2)Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Bob

Edited by Bob_Mac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't call it racist, but I would call it unconvincing. I've seen arguments to this effect by Ron Merril, Adam Reed and Jeff Walker, and they all struck me as labored and implausible. Word is that Ann Heller is going to go into this in her forthcoming biography of Rand. We'll have to see her version when the time comes.

Explain please...

If it quacks...

He called Rand's ethics "Jewish". He also implied quite clearly that Jewish ethics are precise and well-defined (with his 'molecular' comment). If Jewishness has anything to do with race, then the statement implies her ethics are partially race based. That fits just about perfectly with any definition of racism I can think of. You might not call it racist, but it is...

American Heritage Dictionary

1)The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

2)Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Bob

You clearly have not distinguished culture/upbringing from genetic heritage. By "molecular" I meant to a deep level. Rand's ethics are very Jewish. Take my word for it. I have been living according to Jewish ethics for over 71 years so I know what I am talking about. Most likely, Rand's parents were not particularly observant to the details of the Jewish religion. But that is mostly a ritual and ceremonial issue. The ethics are ingrained into the person in his total living.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't call it racist, but I would call it unconvincing. I've seen arguments to this effect by Ron Merril, Adam Reed and Jeff Walker, and they all struck me as labored and implausible. Word is that Ann Heller is going to go into this in her forthcoming biography of Rand. We'll have to see her version when the time comes.

Explain please...

If it quacks...

He called Rand's ethics "Jewish". He also implied quite clearly that Jewish ethics are precise and well-defined (with his 'molecular' comment). If Jewishness has anything to do with race, then the statement implies her ethics are partially race based. That fits just about perfectly with any definition of racism I can think of. You might not call it racist, but it is...

American Heritage Dictionary

1)The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

2)Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Bob

Precisely, Bob. Definition(s) of term(s) saves a great percentage of useless arguments and energy spent defending them. Defining terms for a debate is a first principle. My "gut"[equals sense in my gestalt] about the denotive definition of racism that you profer for this excellent argument that you are advancing is that racism needs a state political structure to qualify, but I have been re-examining my premises on this one.

I am no longer sure about that.

However, the dirty little secret that is not being addressed is that some exponents of individualism, freedom, self-reliance and just being a citizen who wants to be treated both "laissez-faire"

and "lainous faire"[spelling ????] which roughly translates to "leave me the _ _ _ _ alone!"

I fly the coiled rattle snake Don't Tread on Me" flag regularly. It is an elemental liberatarian position and certainly an anarcho-capitalist position.

It basicly frustrates me when I see sharp minds getting all tangled up in mixed premises instead of concluding, hmmm I guess that is irrational and eliminate it from rational consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You clearly have not distinguished culture/upbringing from genetic heritage. By "molecular" I meant to a deep level. Rand's ethics are very Jewish. Take my word for it. I have been living according to Jewish ethics for over 71 years so I know what I am talking about. Most likely, Rand's parents were not particularly observant to the details of the Jewish religion. But that is mostly a ritual and ceremonial issue. The ethics are ingrained into the person in his total living.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I understand, I distinguish, you dististinguish. The problem is that the distinction is not automatically implied by the writer of such assertions nor inferred by the reader. Hence the problem. Also, problems arise when people think they're not being racist when in fact they are.

One problem is when you speak of any 'tribal' attribute, racial connections will usually be made, intended, or both. As a result, statements will be perceived as racist without careful and deliberate clarification. Look at the following statements...

1.) Rand has the ethics of a Jew.

2.) Blacks are better at sports.

3.) Asians are better at math.

4.) Jews are cheap and money-hungry.

5.) Blacks are more criminally minded.

6.) Catholics have a low opinion of women.

Regardless of whether the statement has any factual basis, or is complementary or insulting, they ALL involve a prejudgement based on race OR tribal affiliation or that character differences are based on this affiliation. It just doesn't matter how close the tribalism is linked to genetics or not.

An African black person would laugh at the notion of a black 'race'. Different tribes within Africa have huge genetic variation so no black race exists in any real way. So because there really is no race basis to "Black" can we say that he has "Black" ethics now? Can we freely discuss black culture? Can we say that that was a very "Black" thing to do? Only if it's complementary? I call bullshit on it all. It's all racist.

What, is achievement a Jewish value? Family cohesion? Hard work? I value those things, but I'm not Jewish. Does that make me a little more Jewish? Did I steal a Jewish value? I bet if I WAS Jewish, I'd understand right?

Bah...You all damn well know this is racism.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You clearly have not distinguished culture/upbringing from genetic heritage. By "molecular" I meant to a deep level. Rand's ethics are very Jewish. Take my word for it. I have been living according to Jewish ethics for over 71 years so I know what I am talking about. Most likely, Rand's parents were not particularly observant to the details of the Jewish religion. But that is mostly a ritual and ceremonial issue. The ethics are ingrained into the person in his total living.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I understand, I distinguish, you dististinguish. The problem is that the distinction is not automatically implied by the writer of such assertions nor inferred by the reader. Hence the problem. Also, problems arise when people think they're not being racist when in fact they are.

One problem is when you speak of any 'tribal' attribute, racial connections will usually be made, intended, or both. As a result, statements will be perceived as racist without careful and deliberate clarification. Look at the following statements...

1.) Rand has the ethics of a Jew.

2.) Blacks are better at sports.

3.) Asians are better at math.

4.) Jews are cheap and money-hungry.

5.) Blacks are more criminally minded.

6.) Catholics have a low opinion of women.

Regardless of whether the statement has any factual basis, or is complementary or insulting, they ALL involve a prejudgement based on race OR tribal affiliation or that character differences are based on this affiliation. It just doesn't matter how close the tribalism is linked to genetics or not.

An African black person would laugh at the notion of a black 'race'. Different tribes within Africa have huge genetic variation so no black race exists in any real way. So because there really is no race basis to "Black" can we say that he has "Black" ethics now? Can we freely discuss black culture? Can we say that that was a very "Black" thing to do? Only if it's complementary? I call bullshit on it all. It's all racist.

What, is achievement a Jewish value? Family cohesion? Hard work? I value those things, but I'm not Jewish. Does that make me a little more Jewish? Did I steal a Jewish value? I bet if I WAS Jewish, I'd understand right?

Bah...You all damn well know this is racism.

Bob

AMEN! And the congregation rose to its feet in applause.

"Rand's ethics are very Jewish. Take my word for it. I have been living according to Jewish ethics for over 71 years so I know what I am talking about. Most likely, Rand's parents were not particularly observant to the details of the Jewish religion. But that is mostly a ritual and ceremonial issue. The ethics are ingrained into the person in his total living."

I'm sorry, are you actually stating that you are the fountainhead of interpretation of "Jewish ethics" because you are old? Therefore, I am the fountainhead of interpretation of "objectivist ethics" because I have practiced them for 49 years?

And then you ask us to "trust you"? Isn't that a lot like a philosophical three card monte game wherein the dealer tells the marks to trust him that the "game" is "honest"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My "gut"[equals sense in my gestalt] about the denotive definition of racism that you profer for this excellent argument that you are advancing is that racism needs a state political structure to qualify, but I have been re-examining my premises on this one.

I am no longer sure about that.

The political structure in my view is totally irrelevant. Racism involves any type of prejudgement, good or bad, of an individual, based on the assumption of inherent attributes, abilities or lack thereof in the genetic stock. The attribution of any ability or character attribute whatsoever based on genetics is racism.

Therefore, a value should not be attributed to race, and of course a set of values is just the same - racist.

Now some 'facts' might be true, but it matters not.

The prejudice example of racism:

West Africans dominate sprinting - FACT.

John is West African, and must be a good sprinter - RACIST.

OR

The 'race attribution' example of racism:

Jews enjoy a higher income than Group B - FACT

Success is a Jewish value - RACIST

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My "gut"[equals sense in my gestalt] about the denotive definition of racism that you profer for this excellent argument that you are advancing is that racism needs a state political structure to qualify, but I have been re-examining my premises on this one.

I am no longer sure about that.

The political structure in my view is totally irrelevant. Racism involves any type of prejudgement, good or bad, of an individual, based on the assumption of inherent attributes, abilities or lack thereof in the genetic stock. The attribution of any ability or character attribute whatsoever based on genetics is racism.

Therefore, a value should not be attributed to race, and of course a set of values is just the same - racist.

Now some 'facts' might be true, but it matters not.

The prejudice example of racism:

West Africans dominate sprinting - FACT.

John is West African, and must be a good sprinter - RACIST.

OR

The 'race attribution' example of racism:

Jews enjoy a higher income than Group B - FACT

Success is a Jewish value - RACIST

Bob

Well put. I have been re-examining that because I used to call what you just stated as bigotry or prejudice, but it is racism and the state does not have to be involved. I was pretty sure this was the way my re-examination would end and your cogent argument convinced me. Kudos Bob.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well put. I have been re-examining that because I used to call what you just stated as bigotry or prejudice, but it is racism and the state does not have to be involved. I was pretty sure this was the way my re-examination would end and your cogent argument convinced me. Kudos Bob.

Well, thank you.

FWIW, I also am aware of the mounting evidence that 'Nature' seems to predominate over 'Nuture' and indeed a great deal of character traits and abilities are indeed quite highly heritable. I am very critical of Rand's tabula rasa ideas. But that's off-topic. This is not however contradictory to my anti-racist stance.

The key, I think is to realize that racism is wrong, not because character traits and abilities are not genetically based (in fact they are), but rather because the range of abilities and characteristics WITHIN a race are always so much greater than BETWEEN races so that judging an individual based on race alone is all but useless. The same logic applies to assigning attributes to races. That, IMHO, is why racism is wrong.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

Wolf as a white supremacist?

Dayaamm!

Maybe you should read some more of his works. White supremacist is a tad off.

Michael

Hi Mike. While I can be a hothead sometimes on the subject of anti-Semitism, let me just say this:

The stereotype cliches that Wolf raised in his "observation" (more or less a variant of "The Jews control the media, Hollywood, New York, Florida and U.S. foreign affairs, etc.") are not just facile and hackneyed. They are the catch phrases often employed by racists of all stripes (whether they be white or not) who hope to create or exploit resentment against Jewish people.

I know whereof I speak. Although I am not Jewish, I ran the office of a Jewish civil rights organization for many years. And, part of our work was media watch. Such phrases as Wolf used are the very code words employed by hate groups, whether they be Stormfront, National Alliance, Al Sharpton, or the Nation of Islam (Farrakhan's group).

This resentment of the Jews, and their many accomplishments, is often a gateway to even more caustic language, often which includes the advocacy of violence against the Jews. It is a weaker form of "blood libel," which puts on the Jew a scarlet letter in the form of a sobriquet (e.g., "money lender," "diamond merchant," "shyster lawyer") which brings with it the suggestion that the Jew is: a. In a place of higher authority; b. That the source of that authority is suspect (probably nepotism or patronage); c. That because of this suspect basis of authority that the Jew uses his ill-gotten gains and position to "control" a certain sphere of human activity.

Therefore, it is expected of the gullible by the demagogue to easily lead them towards the final step in this chain of distortions, by exploiting his sense of envy and resentment, that, d. There is a Jewish conspiracy which secretly controls everything and runs a shadow government (currently called "the Zionist Occupation Group" [ZOG] by overt racists, or "neo conservatives" by covert racists).

Wolf's words, "Chosen by God to rule the Holy Land, the City of London, Wall Street, Hollywood, US foreign policy", cannot be anything other than (at best) a manifestation of resentment of the Jews, and a suggested mischaracterization that they feel "chosen" to be the masters of "the rest of us."

If they were shtick, they were delivered with too much seriousness to suggest facetiousness. There were also no smiley faces to clue us that he was j/k.

Mike, I don't think Wolf is a white supremist, and I doubt that he is. I made these points about National Alliance and the Deutsches-Amerikanisches Freundschaft Bund to point out to him that his rhetoric sounded exactly like someone from those rabble-rousing groups, and that he should think twice before writing such moronic nonsense.

That I am the only one who called him on it is to me, frankly, frightening.

There was a Jewish guy who wrote a letter to the editor of TNI some months ago, about Ed Hudgins' article on Sam Harris, in which he made the observation that if objectivists got their wish that religion went away, it would more or less be the veritable equivalent of a "final solution." A lot of what he wrote sounded eerily a lot like what I have been saying about atheists' "blind spot" when it comes to religious people. While I don't for a minute think Ed would really want a "final solution by other means," (Ed is a friend, and a forthright and decent guy as the day is long) I can sympathize with the logic of his hypothesis.

To get down to brass tacks, Mike, I'm saying this: If Wolf's comments were made in a social vacuum, then they'd be little more than harmless. Given the history that such statements have had -- whether in the same wording or paraphrased -- in the actual intimidation of Jews and divesting them of their rights and safety, we cannot ignore that history. It is an ugly history, and falls into the same category with similar "observations" that "blacks love fried chicken and watermelon,which they buy with food stamps," and "American Indians are lazy drunks who can't hold onto jobs or wives," and "can we trust Mitt Romney -- a Mormon -- to be loyal to his oath of office, if elected president?"

(This last is a recycling of "can we trust John Kennedy -- a Catholic -- to be loyal to America, and not the Vatican?")

Please let these boards not become a haven for making racial and ethnic insults.

Edited by Robert Jones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please let these boards not become a haven for making racial and ethnic insults.

Here here...

But if you make racial or ethnic compliments, IMHO, you're insulting the others just the same.

Bob

I agree with you, in part: I'm quite sure Michael was using that space to celebrate human achievement. I've read your comments elsewhere in this thread, and what I gather is that you are against imputing to *all* people in the Jewish group these achievements, especially because all Jews have not earned this praise.

I can sympathize with the bad taste left in your mouth by concepts like racial and ethnic pride, especially when some in those groups get a free ride by expropriating the achievements of their betters within that group, and ascribing to the group -- and not the individual's own talents and hard work -- credit for those accomplishments.

In that regard, here, here as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

You have tried to pin racism on me with a false argument and I am going to ask you to examine the premise. The plain fact is that a name of a race often can (but not always does) mean a culture. There is a point that just about every dictionary on earth contains: most words have more than one meaning. Now here is how your false argument plays out.

ME: I mean culture, not race, when I say Jew in the phrase I just stated.

YOU: Jew is a race. Your argument is racist.

Do you see the massive blank-out? Jew means both. I defined my term with a valid definition, gave my reasons for my conclusions, and you purposely stuck the wrong meaning on my term so you could make a false argument. This is a perfect example of refusing to think conceptually and getting stuck on words.

If you want to know the truth, I actually find your argument to be racist because it misses the message and focuses only on race. There is nothing else. Notice the length and number of your posts get in trying to get this idea across (not just with me). I will not speculate why you do that, but it is wrong. You misrepresent what people say and refuse to look at what they actually mean at the same time. And you do both on purpose.

Barbara Branden once stated in a discussion with me that a higher crime rate has been recorded among young male blacks. According to your standard, one would be prohibited to mention that for fear of being labeled a racist. Lots of wasted manpower and lost lives can result in a refusal to make an objective identification like that. Here is an article I found on a blog (one hostile to us):

The Inconvenient Science of Racial DNA Profiling

by Melba Newsome

Wired

October 5, 2007

The resistance to this technology, which has already saved many lives by narrowing down suspect lists, is based on nothing but your kind of PC bias. A particularly telling example of mixing the two meanings is giving in a quote:

But even the people one might think should be his biggest allies aren't supporting that, including Tony Clayton, the special prosecutor who tried one of the Baton Rouge murder cases. Clayton, who is black, admits that he initially dismissed Frudakis as some white guy trying to substantiate his racist views. He no longer believes that and says "had it not been for Frudakis, we would still be looking for the white guy in the white pick-up truck." But then he adds, "We've been taught that we're all the same, that we bleed the same blood. If you subscribe to the (Frudakis) theory, you're saying we are inherently unequal."

He continues: "If I could push a button and make this technology disappear, I would."

This guy is afraid that a physical factual identification of race by DNA will lead to proof of inherent cultural inequality.

That sounds at root like your argument: one cannot notice a group's behavior (nor praise it) because one is thus claiming this is inherent in the genes of the members of that group.

There is a difference between volition governing behavior, even when such behavior is encouraged in a group (what I was talking about), and genes governing behavior, or race causing such behavior (the racism you are talking about).

This fundamental issue is volition, not race. You should check that premise before judging a statement. Otherwise you get stuck in a racist mindset and can't see because you keep your eyes closed.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

Regarding your Post 69, this is the kind of conceptual unpacking that I love. You gave some very compelling reasons for judging Wolf's statement as you did. It is something I think Wolf should look at and I would love to hear his thoughts on it.

Wolf's words, "Chosen by God to rule the Holy Land, the City of London, Wall Street, Hollywood, US foreign policy", cannot be anything other than (at best) a manifestation of resentment of the Jews, and a suggested mischaracterization that they feel "chosen" to be the masters of "the rest of us."

If they were shtick, they were delivered with too much seriousness to suggest facetiousness. There were also no smiley faces to clue us that he was j/k.

Mike, I don't think Wolf is a white supremist, and I doubt that he is. I made these points about National Alliance and the Deutsches-Amerikanisches Freundschaft Bund to point out to him that his rhetoric sounded exactly like someone from those rabble-rousing groups, and that he should think twice before writing such moronic nonsense.

That I am the only one who called him on it is to me, frankly, frightening.

You don't have to be too frightened because there is another context (and I did not think Wolf was joking from the tone of his post.) Wolf's writing is full of resentment at times, but such resentment is not antisemitic. Even in the part where I gave the full quote holding the passage you mentioned, it is easy to detect that the resentment is against abuse of power and the hypocrisy of calling it something else. He has written much (and written eloquently) from that lens. He is an accomplished writer, so I am certain he was aware he was using hot-button words. In my interpretation, his message is a kind of belligerent refusal to allow PC language restrictions to cover up what he sees as hypocrisy, especially the insinuation that tribalism is OK when taught and practiced in a certain manner but not OK in another manner. In other words, within the context of what he was saying, I understood the phrase to be like an exclamation point to another message (anti-tribalism), not the core message itself (antisemitism).

The dangers you see in using that kind of rhetoric are real, well documented, and should be highlighted. I fully agree with that. I also agree that you should object, strenuously if you feel you need to from what you have experienced and learned. I do not think attributing a wrong motive to the writer (judging by the standard of his voluminous writing output) is of much value, though.

We once had a poster who was a bigot and insisted on using hot-button words for blacks, homosexuals, etc., as a core message. His argument, repeated several times in a "chip on the shoulder" kind of attitude before I asked him to stop and he left, went something like this: "I'm saying there are good blacks and there are niggers." If this guy used the words Wolf did, I have do doubt lots of people here on OL would be all over him. I know I would.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

You have tried to pin racism on me with a false argument and I am going to ask you to examine the premise. The plain fact is that a name of a race often can (but not always does) mean a culture. There is a point that just about every dictionary on earth contains: most words have more than one meaning. Now here is how your false argument plays out.

ME: I mean culture, not race, when I say Jew in the phrase I just stated.

YOU: Jew is a race. Your argument is racist.

Do you see the massive blank-out? Jew means both. I defined my term with a valid definition, gave my reasons for my conclusions, and you purposely stuck the wrong meaning on my term so you could make a false argument. This is a perfect example of refusing to think conceptually and getting stuck on words.

No, Michael it is you that's confusing the concepts. You went on to elaborate using Asians as a 'cultural' group. That is a huuuge stretch. You combined the concepts, perfectly illustrating why I said it's dangerous, dumb and racist to do what you're doing. You did it (made racist remarks) and didn't even realize it until you were called on it. Now you're sore.

Did you address this question?

------

And for crying out loud, among logical folks why am I the first to point out that if the words

"White Power Dominates" are offensive, how could "Jewish Power Dominates" just slide on by???? Really now....C'mon...

-------

How does that work Michael? Oh I get it... You really mean "Jewish Cultural Power Dominates" oh yeah... much better now...

Bullshit.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You went on to elaborate using Asians as a 'cultural' group. That is a huuuge stretch.

Bob,

I don't mind disagreement, but accuracy is important. You are not accurate. Please read carefully. I mentioned the Chinese as a cultural group (as in American culture, English culture, etc.) as well as a race (as in Caucasian, Chinese, Japanese, etc.). When I mentioned Orientals (not "Asians"), I specifically said "cultures." Look it up and you will see it.

I had prefaced that by saying "culture" before qualifying it with "cultures" and the context should have made it clear that the standard of comparison on that level (which was then subdivided by the plural) was "Western culture," "Oriental culture," "Arabian culture, "Indian culture," broad strokes like that. These cultures do exist.

Your inaccuracy is actually one of the dangers of seeing things through a racist lens. It blinds you to obvious messages and makes you aggressive where no problem exists. There are real enemies and bad guys out there and they need to be engaged. (I, for one, am engaging.) Why not do that? Maybe it is safer to be aggressive here among men and women of reason, even if the price is to be inaccurate?

All I can say is if information about groups and praise for them offends you, don't read them. I fully intend to continue and my observations will continue to be principle-oriented. Making a false argument and false accusations merely reflects on your own misunderstanding. Here is a good example:

And for crying out loud, among logical folks why am I the first to point out that if the words

"White Power Dominates" are offensive, how could "Jewish Power Dominates" just slide on by???? Really now....C'mon...

Words? The reason you are the first to point this out is because you are the sole author. I do not recall a single post on this thread (or others) talking about "Jewish Power," much less "Jewish Power Dominates." This is more inaccuracy from being blinded by the racist lens.

(Exceptions. Robert Jones recently mentioned this, among other things, on another thread in discussing the dangers of using well-known catch-phrases of hate speech. And I believe there was a small discussion of the Protocols of the Elder of Zion several weeks ago. That's about it.)

Incidentally, have you noticed what you keep omitting in your arguments? The reason for the achievements of both Jews and Chinese is due to their attitude towards education. To the extent their respective cultures foster this attitude, they achieve. We all should look and learn from that.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now