What the Pope Sees (and Doesn't) in America

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Here is a hand full of links from the eye of the storm (the Israel/Palestine mess). Not every one will specifically agree with fundamental freedom values, but most should. Also there are Jewish and Palestinian organizations listed. In the rest of the world the situation is even better and growing.

Here is an article from 3 days ago about where we will probably invade next: Iranian President Faces Continued Criticism Following Rare Student Protest.

There is lots of hatred out there but there are even more good people. All we have to do is provide correct information and most will follow reason (for the most part) when they can.

Michael

[Robert Jones]

Robert,

If that is your standard for overall hatred of a religion, shouldn't Catholicism have been abolished with the Spanish Inquisition?

Do you hate all of Islam or just the faction that lead to the barbarity (basically Islam + Nazism)? (See the discussion of Bernard Lewis, here for instance, to clarify this thought.)

Michael

While the Spanish Inquisition had huge amounts of excess, I really don't think I need to be brought to task for my church's slaughter of CENTURIES ago. We're talking here and now. Again, with the cop-outs! Some little event happened along the way since called "The Reformation." You might've heard of it somewhere.

But, your statement Mike infers that I want to *abolish* a religion, just because I find it cruel and barbaric. This is the go-to reaction for those erstwhile rational people of atheistical cant, who wish that they had a magic wand to make religion disappear. Hitchens is one (despite my huge high regard for him on most other subjects) and losers like Sam Harris are among the others.

I look at history and realize one thing: Islam needs a reformation. Since it won't happen from within, it must be imposed on them from without. Secular humanists, agnostics, and atheists are, by-and-large, too much filled with pussies in their legions' ranks (present company excepted, I hope), so it will be (again) left to Christianity to smite these filthy scum.

I am proud to be among them, the Crusaders, and I don't hide from that. I wear my crucifix, my St. Francis Xavier medal, and St. Christopher to ward me against hijackers when travelling on airplanes, on my rosary.

There's another religion that will have this dirtiest of dirty work, and that is the Jews in Israel: They are the most alone of all nations, but when push comes to shove, DON'T MESS WITH THE JEWS.

If there is a hell, I hope the Jews are in charge, so that when Jimmy Carter passes on, his pathetic anti-Semite soul will burn to a cinder. What's left of it, anyhow.

No, I don't want to eradicate the Moslems. I am a student of history, and short of armageddon (which I DON'T want to see happen, unlike many of the "Left Behind" evangelical crowd) Islam ain't going away.

I want to beat them back, humiliate them, and pacify them so they think twice about getting out of line.

Then, they will be behaving like modern-day Catholics and Jews. That's all I ask for.

P.S.: I'm with Bob 100% on his post.

[Robert Jones]

Brant,

Here is a hand full of links from the eye of the storm (the Israel/Palestine mess). Not every one will specifically agree with fundamental freedom values, but most should. Also there are Jewish and Palestinian organizations listed. In the rest of the world the situation is even better and growing.

Here is an article from 3 days ago about where we will probably invade next: Iranian President Faces Continued Criticism Following Rare Student Protest.

There is lots of hatred out there but there are even more good people. All we have to do is provide correct information and most will follow reason (for the most part) when they can.

Michael

Most will not follow reason. Maybe Jews, Christians and secularists, yes.

I am not counting on Moslems to come to reason.

They must be brought to reason, by kicking their asses and humiliating them so painfully they shy away from the excesses of their evil religion.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

I am not taking you to task for being a Catholic. I am merely pointing to a standard.

I look at history and realize one thing: Islam needs a reformation. Since it won't happen from within, it must be imposed on them from without.

We fully agree on the need for reforming Islam, but on the part about it not happening from within, I suggest you look again (if you are interested). Not only is it happening all over the place, there is no such thing as a homogeneous Islam. I highly suggest the following:

Building Moderate Muslim Networks

This is a free PDF monograph you can obtain simply by clicking on the link above. You can read it online, download it to your hard drive and print it out (217 pages). It was sponsored by the Rand Corporation. (No relation to our beloved. )

Daniel Pipes even recommends this document and this is precisely the approach I have been arguing for. See his latest article for New York Sun:

Bolstering Moderate Muslims

April 17, 2007

Daniel Pipes recommended this document sitting beside Yaron Brook and Wafa Sultan on a public discussion panel.

Here is my strategy, and you may agree or not as suits your temperament. I think the military needs to be left alone to do the ass-kicking retaliation and freedom-loving intellectuals need to engage Muslims to fight the intellectual battles.

That is what I am doing and intend to keep doing. I do not see your kind of rhetoric convincing many minds on the Muslim side.

Incidentally, I agree with your rhetoric when certain strains of Islam like Wahhabism (or followers of Qutb, etc.) are involved. Bernard Lewis calls Wahhabism to Islam what the KKK was to Christianity, except it has vast funds from Saudi Arabia.

Michael

[Robert Jones]

Robert,

I am not taking you to task for being a Catholic. I am merely pointing to a standard.

I look at history and realize one thing: Islam needs a reformation. Since it won't happen from within, it must be imposed on them from without.

We fully agree on the need for reforming Islam, but on the part about it not happening from within, I suggest you look again (if you are interested). Not only is it happening all over the place, there is no such thing as a homogeneous Islam. I highly suggest the following:

Building Moderate Muslim Networks

This is a free PDF monograph you can obtain simply by clicking on the link above. You can read it online, download it to your hard drive and print it out (217 pages). It was sponsored by the Rand Corporation. (No relation to our beloved. )

Daniel Pipes even recommends this document and this is precisely the approach I have been arguing for. See his latest article for New York Sun:

Bolstering Moderate Muslims

April 17, 2007

Daniel Pipes recommended this document sitting beside Yaron Brook and Wafa Sultan on a public discussion panel.

Here is my strategy, and you may agree or not as suits your temperament. I think the military needs to be left alone to do the ass-kicking retaliation and freedom-loving intellectuals need to engage Muslims to fight the intellectual battles.

That is what I am doing and intend to keep doing. I do not see your kind of rhetoric convincing many minds on the Muslim side.

Incidentally, I agree with your rhetoric when certain strains of Islam like Wahhabism (or followers of Qutb, etc.) are involved. Bernard Lewis calls Wahhabism to Islam what the KKK was to Christianity, except it has vast funds from Saudi Arabia.

Michael

But my my rhetoric is not addressed to Moslems. It is addressed at the frustration of the sunshine patriots of the West who've gone wobbly.

Yes, there are some very reasonable Moslems, and they ought to be supported. BUT, left to their own devices, nothing will change. Not one scintilla.

However, they will succeed if the West greases the skids by, say, blasting the hell out of Iran's nuke facilities and staging a coup to topple Ahmadinejad from power. I think Iran will benefit much more from a power vacuum than Iraq did. Yes, agreed that Iran has quite a student movement, whereas nothing of the sort exited under Sadam Hussein.

That said, without some ass-kicking, I don't see it happening. There is an acceptance of fate in Islam that is simply frightening. A direct result from a religion called "Submission." We've got to make them fear Uncle Sam more than they fear Allah.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

However, they will succeed if the West greases the skids by, say, blasting the hell out of Iran's nuke facilities and staging a coup to topple Ahmadinejad from power. I think Iran will benefit much more from a power vacuum than Iraq did. Yes, agreed that Iran has quite a student movement, whereas nothing of the sort exited under Sadam Hussein.

That said, without some ass-kicking, I don't see it happening. There is an acceptance of fate in Islam that is simply frightening. A direct result from a religion called "Submission." We've got to make them fear Uncle Sam more than they fear Allah.

Robert,

I have no problem denying Iran nuclear power (even by means of war) given the "second-coming" (14th Imam) bent of Ahmadinejad and the ruling clergy. That's a very dangerous kind of mentality to be in charge of massive means of blowing things up. But even if Ahmadinejad were toppled from power with our involvement (and that is the wrong guy to topple in Iran, anyway), I seriously doubt the repercussion in the Sunni world would be very great. It wasn't when the the Shah was installed, it wasn't when the Shah was toppled (Iraq even went to war with them) and I don't think it would be with Ahmadinejad. The Muslim world is just too big and divided for an oversimplified "shock and awe" approach.

I have no problem with teaching fear to those who need it (and on a personal level, I have done a bit of this myself in the past), but it is a tragic mistake to miss out on teaching Muslims to love individual rights and other forms of love where this can be done. I would expect you, as a Christian, to have at least some sympathy for the approach of teaching love for human beings.

The solution to this whole issue is a package of many measures and there is no one size fits all. There are simply too many Muslims, too many denominations and too many countries involved for that to be realistic.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

I have no problem with teaching fear to those who need it (and on a personal level, I have done a bit of this myself in the past), but it is a tragic mistake to miss out on teaching Muslims to love individual rights and other forms of love where this can be done. I would expect you, as a Christian, to have at least some sympathy for the approach of teaching love for human beings.

You have a better chance of teaching your pet jackass differential equations than teaching the Shi'ites love for the infidel. I think you are being naive and way over optimistic in your expectations here. I don't know what it would take to convince you that fervent and sincere and devout Muslims are the enemy of your liberty and mine.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

It is simple. I think bigotry is evil.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

It is simple. I think bigotry is evil.

Michael

Well I think that submission of my grandchildren and great grandchildren to Islamic tyranny is even more evil. I would have no compunction about pushing the button that wiped out a billion of the bastards. After which I would sleep the sleep of blessed. And if you think this is bigotry, then keep on thinking so.

If thine enemy even threatens to smite thee on thy cheek, tear his head off and shit down his neck.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Yes I do think that is bigotry. That's enough. If you want to preach bigotry, do it on your own space, not mine.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

Yes I do think that is bigotry. That's enough. If you want to preach bigotry, do it on your own space, not mine.

Michael

Your turf, your rules.

Eppur si mouve.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited October 13, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Your turf, your rules.

Bob,

Thank you.

As to your Latin phrase, if you are into ethnic cleansing, I can indicate some sites that support this view.

Michael

[studiodekadent]

You have a better chance of teaching your pet jackass differential equations than teaching the Shi'ites love for the infidel.

This probably applies to most Shi'ites, although I personally find it hard to say that all Shi'ites are this hateful.

But the other point is that there are more kinds of Islam than the Shi'ites, and some of these other kinds of Islam are potentially very reasonable.

[Robert Jones]

Bob,

It is simple. I think bigotry is evil.

Michael

Well I think that submission of my grandchildren and great grandchildren to Islamic tyranny is even more evil. I would have no compunction about pushing the button that wiped out a billion of the bastards. After which I would sleep the sleep of blessed. And if you think this is bigotry, then keep on thinking so.

If thine enemy even threatens to smite thee on thy cheek, tear his head off and shit down his neck.

Ba'al Chatzaf

That may work on paper, but I think the Chinese and the Russians would soon follow suit to wipe 250 million Americans off the face of the earth. Don't underestimate the Chinese: They pull the strings behind the scenes on a lot of Jihadist terror, as well as North Korean madness. The Russians are nuclear whores. As long as they get rubles for weapons, they're happy.

Be careful of what you wish for.

[Robert Jones]

However, they will succeed if the West greases the skids by, say, blasting the hell out of Iran's nuke facilities and staging a coup to topple Ahmadinejad from power. I think Iran will benefit much more from a power vacuum than Iraq did. Yes, agreed that Iran has quite a student movement, whereas nothing of the sort exited under Sadam Hussein.

That said, without some ass-kicking, I don't see it happening. There is an acceptance of fate in Islam that is simply frightening. A direct result from a religion called "Submission." We've got to make them fear Uncle Sam more than they fear Allah.

Robert,

I have no problem denying Iran nuclear power (even by means of war) given the "second-coming" (14th Imam) bent of Ahmadinejad and the ruling clergy. That's a very dangerous kind of mentality to be in charge of massive means of blowing things up. But even if Ahmadinejad were toppled from power with our involvement (and that is the wrong guy to topple in Iran, anyway), I seriously doubt the repercussion in the Sunni world would be very great. It wasn't when the the Shah was installed, it wasn't when the Shah was toppled (Iraq even went to war with them) and I don't think it would be with Ahmadinejad. The Muslim world is just too big and divided for an oversimplified "shock and awe" approach.

I have no problem with teaching fear to those who need it (and on a personal level, I have done a bit of this myself in the past), but it is a tragic mistake to miss out on teaching Muslims to love individual rights and other forms of love where this can be done. I would expect you, as a Christian, to have at least some sympathy for the approach of teaching love for human beings.

The solution to this whole issue is a package of many measures and there is no one size fits all. There are simply too many Muslims, too many denominations and too many countries involved for that to be realistic.

Michael

Well, we can argue details, but the main thrust of my argument was rhetorical. Yes, i know some Ayatollah jerkoff really runs things in Iran, and his word is law. My main challenge was the *equivocation* between Christians, Jews and Moslems. I do not see it, and cannot see it. I can make out a laundry list of atrocities commited in the name of Islam that are not commited in the name of Christianity and Judaism.

Nor was I saying that a one-fell-swoop attack on Iran would answer everything. I was giving a single *example,* namely to address the point above. "Shock and Awe" worked only inasmuch as it toppled Saddam from power, but afterwards we didn't exactly calculate what would happen in the power vacuum. However, I am glad that the United States has established two bases of operations (Iraq and Afghanistan) with Iran in the middle. What I am NOT happy about is precisely the point you raised about the Sunni Moslem world: Saudi Arabia is behind all this Jihad shite, and we didn't attack them because we are whores for oil.

I have sympathy for your approach in trying to foster relations with reasonable Moslems. I have in fact left numeous postings on these boards praising Irshad Manji, and others, who seek to revive the Islamic tradition of Ijtihad. However, that's the carrot. And, without the stick at the backs of the radicals and their sympathizers (more people than you think), there'd be little impetus to change their way of thinking. Yeah, I'm with Daniel Pipes and Wafa Sultan on building bridges (I don't know who Yaron Brook is, though). It ought to go without saying that we oughn't to throw the baby out with the bathwater on this, which would only end up alienating decent Moslems, who certainly don't deserve to suffer from the excesses of their extremist brothers.

However, so many decent Moslems are silenced from speaking their true thoughts on these matters. Yes, half of it is from fear. But, the other half is from shame of not following their own religion as rabidly as the terrorists. Until decent Moslems admit that perhaps Mohammed was a murderous Schweinehund, they will be permanently cowed by the more devout of their faith. I have no problem saying, "hey, St. Paul was probably wrong about this or that," and I am not stoned for it. A Moslem most likely would be if he even suggested that Mohammed was not always a swell fella.

As a Christian, though, here's where I stand on the subject of the kind of agape love you are describing.

If I turn the other cheek once, shame on you.

If I turn the other cheek twice, shame on me.

The West has turned the other cheek to the Moslem jihadists *thousands* of times. Time to slap back, I say!

Edited October 15, 2007 by Robert Jones

[Robert Jones]

Bob,

Yes I do think that is bigotry. That's enough. If you want to preach bigotry, do it on your own space, not mine.

Michael

In all fairness, Mike, why wasn't what Wolf de Loon spouting off bigotry? It was right out of the Stormfront handbook about ZOG!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In all fairness, Mike, why wasn't what Wolf de Loon spouting off bigotry? It was right out of the Stormfront handbook about ZOG!

Robert,

I object to preaching ethnic cleansing as in killing a "billion of the bastards." I don't recall any post by Wolf preaching that, or any form of antisemitism for that matter. I recall he said some things said against AIPAC, but that's a lobby group, not a people. Someone bashing CAIR is not necessarily an anti-Muslim bigot, so why should bashing AIPAC be considered thus? I personally think bashing ANY politician or lobby group is fair game because I have yet to see one with a diploma of saint or angel.

Could you please supply a quote of something you object to from Wolf as bigoted? I am sure if you find something that sounds antisemitic, Wolf will be glad to explain what he meant. If it really is racist, I will ask him to stop. That's fair, isn't it?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

I am curious. What does turning the other cheek have to do with what I wrote? Here is my quote:

I have no problem with teaching fear to those who need it (and on a personal level, I have done a bit of this myself in the past), but it is a tragic mistake to miss out on teaching Muslims to love individual rights and other forms of love where this can be done. I would expect you, as a Christian, to have at least some sympathy for the approach of teaching love for human beings.

The solution to this whole issue is a package of many measures and there is no one size fits all. There are simply too many Muslims, too many denominations and too many countries involved for that to be realistic.

My point is that the military has the job of using the sword (and I strongly favor of them using it when they need to). We intellectuals have the job of using the word. We can preach to ourselves and we can preach to Muslims. (I use the term "preach" loosely here.)

When we do engage Muslims in debate, what is wrong with trying to convince them to use love as a standard (as well as reason, of course)? Isn't that part of persuasion? Are you against using this argument along with others? Preaching love (as I mean it here) does not mean abandoning getting tough with enemies or not mentioning anything else. That would be oversimplifying and if there is one thing I keep clamoring against, it is oversimplification.

I highly recommend reading Bernard Lewis on his view of the Islamic world. I think his analysis and policy recommendations are sane, practical and moral because they are based on demonstrable reality and deep knowledge.

Michael

[Robert Jones]

In all fairness, Mike, why wasn't what Wolf de Loon spouting off bigotry? It was right out of the Stormfront handbook about ZOG!

Robert,

I object to preaching ethnic cleansing as in killing a "billion of the bastards." I don't recall any post by Wolf preaching that, or any form of antisemitism for that matter. I recall he said some things said against AIPAC, but that's a lobby group, not a people. Someone bashing CAIR is not necessarily an anti-Muslim bigot, so why should bashing AIPAC be considered thus? I personally think bashing ANY politician or lobby group is fair game because I have yet to see one with a diploma of saint or angel.

Could you please supply a quote of something you object to from Wolf as bigoted? I am sure if you find something that sounds antisemitic, Wolf will be glad to explain what he meant. If it really is racist, I will ask him to stop. That's fair, isn't it?

Michael

Fair enough. Here are two examples of his (transparently veiled) anti-Semitism:

"The political principle of democracy and equal justice is to check the natural aristocracy of brainy rich people. In America, this means Jews and white-shoe bankers who dominate banking, show business, government, etc."

-and-

"Tribal to the core. Don't intermarry. Stick together. Chosen by God to rule the Holy Land, the City of London, Wall Street, Hollywood, US foreign policy."

[Robert Jones]

Robert,

I am curious. What does turning the other cheek have to do with what I wrote? Here is my quote:

I have no problem with teaching fear to those who need it (and on a personal level, I have done a bit of this myself in the past), but it is a tragic mistake to miss out on teaching Muslims to love individual rights and other forms of love where this can be done. I would expect you, as a Christian, to have at least some sympathy for the approach of teaching love for human beings.

The solution to this whole issue is a package of many measures and there is no one size fits all. There are simply too many Muslims, too many denominations and too many countries involved for that to be realistic.

My point is that the military has the job of using the sword (and I strongly favor of them using it when they need to). We intellectuals have the job of using the word. We can preach to ourselves and we can preach to Muslims. (I use the term "preach" loosely here.)

When we do engage Muslims in debate, what is wrong with trying to convince them to use love as a standard (as well as reason, of course)? Isn't that part of persuasion? Are you against using this argument along with others? Preaching love (as I mean it here) does not mean abandoning getting tough with enemies or not mentioning anything else. That would be oversimplifying and if there is one thing I keep clamoring against, it is oversimplification.

I highly recommend reading Bernard Lewis on his view of the Islamic world. I think his analysis and policy recommendations are sane, practical and moral because they are based on demonstrable reality and deep knowledge.

Michael

Turning the other cheek is what Christians do.

As for the preaching love and all that mushy stuff: Hey, I'm not a hippie. Find some chick with flowers in her hair to sing "Kumbaya" to them and preach about love.

It's beside the point to preach love to them in a debate. It only makes us look weak.

I've read some Bernard Lewis, but I don't remember anything about preaching love in there. Then again, I'm sure I read but a fraction of his total output.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

Within the context of a thread discussing roughly 50% of the top powerful people in the world being Jewish, I did not find the first quote antisemitic (or anti white shoes, either ). Most of that list dealt with "show business, government, etc." Here is the entire post to check for context:

Hm. Why it always falls to me, I do not know. Anyway, I have to say something on behalf of the stupid and slow-witted, among which I am a prominent member. The political principle of democracy and equal justice is to check the natural aristocracy of brainy rich people. In America, this means Jews and white-shoe bankers who dominate banking, show business, government, etc.

Us dumb folks are not terribly effective at speaking up for ourselves. We have silly prejudices and worse than silly expectations. For instance, most Americans believed Saddam had nuclear weapons and was somehow responsible for 9/11. People at the top knew better and lied to us. Stuck in Iraq, average Americans are incapable of explaining what should be done next, except they like the idea of winning. Israel is the Holy Land, and all God's children (except Muslims and Chinese) are doing the right thing. We don't care to think too hard about Russia at the moment.

Having gulched more than most, I hereby certify that slow-witted people are attracted to Objectivism with equal or greater passion than very smart people. Rand's theories are accessible and logical. Her fiction demonstrates how ideas move the world or destroy our ability to function. Hank Rearden was blocked, emotionally twisted, guilt-ridden and deceitful. Took years to free him, conveniently squeezed into a short soap opera that will never be dated or outmoded. Was Hank Rearden a genius? No. His wife, brother, and mother bullied and outsmarted him approximately forever. Rearden reminds me of Thomas Edison, engaged in ten years of failed experiments and guesswork, boss of a crew that did most of the lab work for him.

Three cheers for dolts, creators of light bulbs and rock lyrics, over the road transport and fast food.

As to the second quote, to my eye it reads like anti-tribalism and disgust with USA foreign policy, not anti-Jewish racism per se. We can ask him. A good litmus test would be to ask him what he thinks of Muslim tribalism. At the moment of the quote, we were discussing the interpretation of a verse in Leviticus (19:18) about which type of neighbor to love and the doctrine of collective atonement and some other similar considerations. For the record, here is the original quote.

Tribal to the core. Don't intermarry. Stick together. Chosen by God to rule the Holy Land, the City of London, Wall Street, Hollywood, US foreign policy.

I have to quit this thread. Nothing constructive to add, and my question about GWOT died on the vine.

W.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Turning the other cheek is what Christians do.

As for the preaching love and all that mushy stuff: Hey, I'm not a hippie. Find some chick with flowers in her hair to sing "Kumbaya" to them and preach about love.

It's beside the point to preach love to them in a debate. It only makes us look weak.

Robert,

This did not answer my question and actually mischaracterized it. I didn't ask about what Christians do, I never accused you of being a hippie, nor did I talk about (or mean) singing "Kumbaya" or preaching "mushy stuff."

I am surprised. Didn't you know all that already?

Michael

[Robert Jones]

Robert,

Within the context of a thread discussing roughly 50% of the top powerful people in the world being Jewish, I did not find the first quote antisemitic (or anti white shoes, either ). Most of that list dealt with "show business, government, etc." Here is the entire post to check for context:

Hm. Why it always falls to me, I do not know. Anyway, I have to say something on behalf of the stupid and slow-witted, among which I am a prominent member. The political principle of democracy and equal justice is to check the natural aristocracy of brainy rich people. In America, this means Jews and white-shoe bankers who dominate banking, show business, government, etc.

Us dumb folks are not terribly effective at speaking up for ourselves. We have silly prejudices and worse than silly expectations. For instance, most Americans believed Saddam had nuclear weapons and was somehow responsible for 9/11. People at the top knew better and lied to us. Stuck in Iraq, average Americans are incapable of explaining what should be done next, except they like the idea of winning. Israel is the Holy Land, and all God's children (except Muslims and Chinese) are doing the right thing. We don't care to think too hard about Russia at the moment.

Having gulched more than most, I hereby certify that slow-witted people are attracted to Objectivism with equal or greater passion than very smart people. Rand's theories are accessible and logical. Her fiction demonstrates how ideas move the world or destroy our ability to function. Hank Rearden was blocked, emotionally twisted, guilt-ridden and deceitful. Took years to free him, conveniently squeezed into a short soap opera that will never be dated or outmoded. Was Hank Rearden a genius? No. His wife, brother, and mother bullied and outsmarted him approximately forever. Rearden reminds me of Thomas Edison, engaged in ten years of failed experiments and guesswork, boss of a crew that did most of the lab work for him.

Three cheers for dolts, creators of light bulbs and rock lyrics, over the road transport and fast food.

As to the second quote, to my eye it reads like anti-tribalism and disgust with USA foreign policy, not anti-Jewish racism per se. We can ask him. A good litmus test would be to ask him what he thinks of Muslim tribalism. At the moment of the quote, we were discussing the interpretation of a verse in Leviticus (19:18) about which type of neighbor to love and the doctrine of collective atonement and some other similar considerations. For the record, here is the original quote.

Tribal to the core. Don't intermarry. Stick together. Chosen by God to rule the Holy Land, the City of London, Wall Street, Hollywood, US foreign policy.

I have to quit this thread. Nothing constructive to add, and my question about GWOT died on the vine.

W.

Michael

Oh, yeah, sure, "Chosen by God to rule the Holy Land, the City of London, Wall Street, Hollywood, US Foreign Policy" doesn't at all smack of anti-Semitism.

It's NOT tribalism he's attacking; it's JEWS he's attacking for being tribal.

SHOW those quotes to any number of Jews -- the vast majority will tell you that they're anti-Semitic, and that there is a deep, resentful undercurrent against the Jews to Herr DeVoon's rhetoric and rehashing of the same anti-Jewish stereotypes.

And, equating AIPAC with CAIR?!?!? Should I equate the Boy Scouts with CAIR? After all, they are both "organisations."

Edited October 15, 2007 by Robert Jones

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

Aren't AIPAC and CAIR lobby groups to promote legislation funded by their respective groups of interest? If not, what are they? (I don't recall any lobbying activities by Boy Scouts.)

Michael

[studiodekadent]

"Tribal to the core. Don't intermarry. Stick together. Chosen by God to rule the Holy Land, the City of London, Wall Street, Hollywood, US foreign policy."

This is Wolf's description of an aspect of Jewish culture.

This is not racist ipso facto. Racism is the belief that certain races are superior or inferior to other races, i.e. it applies to racial biology. Culture is not biologically transmitted, and hence criticising a culture is not equivalent to criticising a race (unless one believes that culture is racially determined).

The same logic, that criticising certain aspects of Jewish culture is racist against Jews, is the same logic that says criticising hip-hop culture is racist against African-American people. The latter proposition is patently ridiculous as is the former.

And to be honest, there certainly are elements of racialist collectivist tribalism within Jewish culture. However, this does not imply that all Jews are racialist, collectivist or tribalist, since one's beliefs are not transmitted genetically.