The Uniqueness of the Holocaust
Reflecting on comments in this thread, here is a personal view on the Holocaust I'd like to discuss.
Ethnic cleansing, killing a group of somehow assumed "lesser value" people, has happened before and after the 1940s and such still happens today. Such has been tried or done by about each ruling powers of their time and area. There are certainly comparable deeds in history that at least, relatively to general population numbers, reached or even exceed the numbers of the Holocaust.
The historic difference of the Holocaust, the German (and cooperating others) systematic killing of their Jewish bethren, is the total amorality of using industrial methods to do so.
Evacuation orders and train schedules synchronized to be 'just in time' for the furnaces being ready again and cleaned from the last round of burning corps - optimization of throughput in killing - that is unique.
As a German and even an industrial engineer, that is what really personally hits me right in the stomach. To me technology must carry a promise of moral use, of some progress for mankind's well being.
Designing a system for maximum throughput of killing people is outside of any otherwise compareable and equally despicable behavior.
That is the uniqueness, and guilt, of the Holocaust.
Posted by b on July 19, 2007 at 19:05 UTC | Permalink
« previous page | next page »I'm not a defender of any nationalism, including zionism. But I am a strong believer in the bad faith and immoral basis of any argument of the sort that "the bitch made me hit her" or "the pushy jews cause anti-semitism." And I'm a strong believer in the idea that all of us are immersed in cultural prejudices that come out in the way we discuss things. When I hear a traditional bigot story, it does not occur to me that there is a need or even a possibility of logically refuting it. How can I refute the argument that if the jews were not so despicable, good Germans would not despise them? That's not an argument, it is a statement of sickness.
As usual, this story is accompanied by things that are refutable: the distortion of Daniel Goldhagen's work (which is highly respected even by scholars who disagree with him), the tedious claim to have read Talmud (which is a number of different works that are notoriously hard to master) and to have seen in it the worst racism, etc. etc. I have attempted to refute these.
But all in all, when someone repeats a racist narrative and accompanies it with the standard lies, there's not much of a case to be made. Even if I were a rabid zionist and even though I cheerfully confess to being a pushy obnoxious Jew, the truth of my analysis remains.
Good luck
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 21 2007 21:40 utc | 102
And to clarify, the point of telling our friend who is sickened by Holocaust monuments that he was repeating the themes of the German right was to make it clear that I'm not accusing him of active racism, only of repeating stories that are in the air and of accepting stories that need to be understood as appeals to the irrational.
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 21 2007 21:45 utc | 103
We just have to accept that the Isrealis have the monopoly on the Holocast, and well they should. BUT........... where's the end game? The French gave them atom bombs, the Germans gave the subs to deliver said bombs.
Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jul 21 2007 21:52 utc | 104
Sell, sell sell that Holocaust...
Iran attack could be 2nd Holocaust, Gingrich warns
Former US House speaker, who is considering running for presidency on Republican ticket, warns that if Iran acquires nukes, Israel and US would be under severe threat; 'Firing one or more bombs at Israel could be a second Holocaust for the Jewish people,' Gingrich says
Just when you think Gingrich couldn't possibly bow lower to his Israeli masters, he surprises you by doing just that.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jul 21 2007 21:55 utc | 105
Just when you think Gingrich couldn't possibly bow lower to his Israeli masters, he surprises you by doing just that.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jul 21, 2007 5:55:16 PM | 105
Well, you know us Jews, always selling something.
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 21 2007 22:04 utc | 106
We just have to accept that the Isrealis have the monopoly on the Holocast,
I have no idea what you mean by this. Could you explain?
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 21 2007 22:20 utc | 107
@ Parviz - "Religion is, I repeat, the root of all evil."
Amen.
Posted by: beq | Jul 21 2007 23:10 utc | 108
ck
daniel goldhagen is highly contested even in his own field
it seems to me in real analysis of the extermination of european jewry - no one has ever really surpassed raul hilberg & it is important to note that someone like hannah arendt made the publication of his work very difficult. that occurred i imagined because there was blame to share around & because hilberg was extremely critical of the role the judenrat played in which zionists rather than bundists played a heavy role. this is not to exculpate the real criminality but it is to acknowledge that in places like lodz in poland, in amsterdam, in riga - the jewish councils did not create any form of resistance
the resistance that was arrived at in warswaw, & in concencentration (death) camps were almost entirely by young people & heavily politicised people. primo levi who is no sympathiser of the left acknowleged that resistance. the resistance at sobibor & at majdenek, chelmno & countless others was led by communists - but people who otherwise were citizens of their country who were also internationalists. in eastern europe even jewish peasant life was highly politicised & there was little or no support for zionism. bundism was strongest current
the participation of the countries i have mentioned - like poland - & the very few that were left in the pale - in the baltic region - created the most profound despair about europe & not just in the east - that despair was manipulated by zionism
& i have thought ahmajinijad is at least correct on that point - why wasn't the morgenthu plan put into practice & why weren' the jewish people given a homeland within germany or austria
there are so many parallels with the jewish resistance against fascism & the palestinian intifadas i am surprised you have not made that connection
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jul 21 2007 23:42 utc | 109
RG: Of course I agree that Goldhagen's book is contested. However, this description
for example, Harvard quack Daniel Goldhagen could have written a book titled "Hitler's Willing Executioners" claiming that the entire German 'race' is inherently evil, even today, and that the Jewish community did absolutely nothing to haul this Jewish racist before every court in the country and in the world!
is straight out of German neo-nazi propaganda. Many scholars disagree with Goldhagen, but he is not a quack, he made no arguments about the "german race", and he has done nothing to merit being hauled into a court. Yet we are told that the Kikes deserve collective punishment for not shutting him up. I'm not willing to listen quietly to such crap.
I don't disagree much with the rest of your argument, although I think that Bundists and other fractious and battling Jewish leftist groups shared popularity with Zionists, people who just wanted to leave to America or somewhere, and religious nuts.
The Zionists did not need to manipulate despair. The hopes of the Bundists were mocked by the tribalism of the non-jewish population and the hopes of the internationalists were mocked by the closed borders of the rest of the world. Of course, Ahmanjinijad is correct on that point: The Europeans were happy to dump their jews on the middle east.
Finally, you write:
there are so many parallels with the jewish resistance against fascism & the palestinian intifadas i am surprised you have not made that connection
And of course I have made the connection. The fate of the Palestinians is a grim endorsement of the real-politick of the Zionists. The Palestinians have the sympathy of the West, the Israeli Jews have attack helicopters and Intel plants. The sympathy of the West is shown again to have the value of a bucket of warm spit, as we say in America, when it comes up against guns and money. This would not surprise Ben Gurion or Jabotinsky although the cesspool that Israel has become and its status as a US client would have distressed them. Another parallel is the ease with which Stalin was able to manipulate the battling Jewish leftist organizations - much as the Israelis and Saudis have done with the Palestinians.
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 22 2007 0:11 utc | 110
Many of those who argue that the Iraq Invasion was illegal do so as a response to the attempts by the USuk alliance to scrape a patina of legality over the theft of another people's land and resources by cobbling together a few loosely worded UN security council 'decisions'. Any half smart person sees that a Security Council resolution should never be regarded as an indication of lawfulness. The notion the Security Council - where a handful of the big and has-been big players can unilaterally nullify the expressed will of the planet's population, being lawful, is plainly ridiculous.
That tribunal flies in the face of natural justice notions (ie all decisions are made fairly by unbiased, uninvolved adjudicators in full possession of all 'facts', in a timely way, after all parties have an opportunity to present their case).
Nevertheless since Bliar in particular continually insinuates his actions were the only lawful option that would get the job done it has become my practice and that of many others when describing this outrageous incursion onto a sovereign state's territory, to refer to the invasion as illegal. Just as the neo-cons hit their fucking talking points every minute of every day we must do the same if we are to be heard above the incessant, ubiquitous roar of illogical, self-interested and contradictory babble that infests our airwaves in 'modern' societies.
@Slothrop if you feel that the notion of sovereignty is both antiquated and misused to protect criminality I won't disagree, but until some system is evolved that does incorporate natural justice into it's determinations of whether outside intervention is warranted, I will continue to advocate 'sovereignty' in preference to any of the likely alternatives.
Those alternatives inevitably result in greater injustice and worse atrocity than that they were allegedly 'righting'. That is a particular jaded and sad reflection on the motives of those who control our sovereign states but it is accurate. It is equally accurate to observe that people living inside a horror have a much better grasp of the depth of the horror and are therefore the best able to judge 'how far' it is reasonable to go to avert or overturn it.
Dollars or not, the 19th isn't the place for 'them' anonymous asshole
As for the other thread I am amazed that there appears to be consensus that the holocaust industry and the continual 'beating up' of the holocaust when anyone questions the actions of the apartheid Israeli state against the Palestinian people, is regarded as a purely Jewish affair.
It most certainly isn't and if there is one thing which should wise up those who think that the continual beating of the "6 million dead drum" needn't to be resisted it is the appalling reality that the party of the neo-cons, the Republican Party retains as it's 'backbone' those assholes who wouldn't let a Jewish person join their fucking golf club!
The same assholes who continually blocked the entry of Jewish refugees from Europe into 'new world' countries because "they were all communists" are now using that tragedy to keep a mob of wacko Israelis and asshole personality disordered types from all over the planet, who happen to be Jewish, in control of the Israeli death state.
Not because they believe in any noble enterprise like the dream turned nightmare that the original Zionists deluded themselves with. They do it because it is an effective and efficient way of keeping control of the ME resources and the supply lines to and from those resources.
Read up on the invasion of Suez by Britain and France in the early 50's if you don't think that is considered to be vital by assholes united. That was back in the day when amerika was largely oil self sufficient. Nether the Truman administration nor the Eisenhower one which followed, gave a shit about Suez --- then.
That changed or more accurately evolved and with that evolution a near perfect outpost cum money laundry cum distraction from the real issue evolved too. Natural selection, has meant that the passionate but under resourced attacks on Israel combined with the resourced but half hearted attempts to restrain Israel (ie UN EU) have succeeded in making a near impregnable edifice. But that edifice cannot last without continual inflows of hard currency, moolah, cash, resources whatever you want to call that which an incompetent and inefficient state requires to survive.
State, as in an entity which provides a successful environment for the populace to eat, live and procreate. Israel cannot provide that environment without considerable assistance and is therefore in one real sense, a failed state.
To secure the moolah, bullshit about the holocaust being the worst thing by far that mankind has committed on other men is trotted out at every turn. However just as the real beneficiaries of the state of Israel are not all Jewish people, neither are those who drag out this worn out and heavily scratched "Golden Great Atrocities" Volume One.
Simon Wiesenthal is dead and I suspect most people imagined that the almost unhealthy obsession with the Holocaust would fade away after he died. Most survivors dealt with what had been done to them in different ways than that which Wiesenthal used, and some may have questioned his obsession. That is their right but I can't be the only person who feels somewhat queasy when a survivor is dragged blinking into the TV floodlights nowadays. Whenever the Holocaust factory feels it's time to 'trump' some argument against the holy state of Israel. I wonder "Is this person really still living and breathing that horror or do they now towards their end of their life, feel forced into reliving it, in the name of peace, but in reality to advance war?"
It could be argued that by dragging this stuff up for selfish reasons like winning an election, making an arms deal, or securing an energy contract, the people doing that, Jewish or not and most are not, are in fact just another arm of the gestapo, still terrorising the weak and defenseless.
There will be much more of this propaganda in the next couple of years. I apologise for having no short term memory, an effective 'history' function on Firefox, and the piss weak Google contrivance on the Counterpunch site, because after much effort I still cannot find an article i read there a couple of days ago which quoted polls of amerikan citizens on their support for continued financial aid for Israel.
Amerikans' reluctance to provide aid to any foreign nation needs be factored into this, although support for aid to Israel is higher than anywhere else, it is a minority view of amerikans, and what support there is is falling. Dropping markedly since the failed Iraq adventure and the ill-fated but lethal (for the Lebanese), attack on Lebanon last year.
It is only a matter of time before real pressure is applied to the ruling elite over the amounts spent on the Israel/AIPAC/Politician/Arms Manufacturer money-go-round. That will be a time when even amoral shills like Dershowitz need to consider their depths to which they should sink.
Every over-exaggerated media beat up eventually has it's come-uppance. As we have seen countless times before, it is usually those at the vanguard of the original beat-up who become most vicious on the turn.
How long before the first instinct of many of the assholes, which was to black ball those 'pushy' types from their clubs, resurfaces? No, I doubt that there will be a credible swing to Nazi-ism, but there will be a time for 'blaming' and we all know who will be most likely to be blamed. it won't be the main-chancing assholes. It will be the average amerikan, who also happens to be Jewish, that will cop the brunt of the backlash.
Instead of arguing that the use of the holocaust to advance the interests of corporate capitalism is anti-Semitic, Judeophobic or whatever, it would be smarter to look at the reality of people's attitudes and their likely responses now, rather than what they were 50 years ago.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Jul 22 2007 1:06 utc | 111
Good morning, I just woke up and was pleasantly surprised to observe that I am not alone in objecting to the comments of one "Citizen k", whose methods are so transparent that he shoots himself continually in the foot.
You write: My conclusion is that you are repeating themes from the racist right in Germany.. Well, I'm very familiar with those tactics: "Ignore the message and shoot the Messenger." "Discredit critics by innuendo". Bravo! I feel in good company, because people like you employed exactly the same technique on Chicago/Harvard professors Mearsheimer/Walt (who thankfully are expanding their 81-page essay into an eagerly awaited book), ex-U.S. President Jimmy Carter and a prominent Jew, Professor Finkelstein, who has been ostracized and denied tenure at DePaul for criticizing the Jewish misuse and abuse of the Holocaust.
You can't pin-hole me as a white supremacist, because I've made it clear that I'm anti-Christian, anti-Muslim, anti-Jewish and anti-Just About Everything. I am especially anti-Hypocrisy, which is why you and I don't get along. And remember, I didn't start the personal insults. Go back a few posts and read, if you can, instead of reacting like a zombie at the mention of the word 'Jew' or 'Holocaust'.
The Holocaust is experiencing a revival since that moron Ahmadinejad came to power in my country. I would say the Holocaust is in overdrive, with a new lease of life aimed at bombing Iran by disingenuous association of Iran today and Nazi Germany. Keep pounding away at the message (Thank you, Uncle$cam, for your comment on Gingrich). Maybe the Holocaust will one day come full circle and be responsible for creating a new Holocaust in Iran, even bigger than the original one. That will lead to subsequent Holocausts and maybe WWIII. Is that what you want? If so, keep up your strident rhetoric and alienate those who try to see all sides of any argument. You're not doing your religion a service: Quite the opposite.
Kind regards from Parviz, your typical anti-Muslim, Asian White Supremacist! Go figure! Better still, rent a brain.
Posted by: Parviz | Jul 22 2007 4:22 utc | 112
P.S., Isn't $ 150 billion in reparations from Germany enough? Now you're suing the German railways for having transported Jews to death camps several decades ago. Next you'll be suing Bavarian farmers for having planted crops that were then used to feed and strengthen the soldiers who tortured the Jews ............... And how about the factories which manufactured uniforms? Maybe you can get $ 1000 for each military uniform and $ 10,000 for each Nazi uniform? Is money all you care about?
Why haven't you sued the United States for having employed Nazi scientists and engineers? Oh,I see ...........
Posted by: Parviz | Jul 22 2007 4:28 utc | 113
Bob Livingston Denies Armenian Genocide
Former House Speaker and lobbyist for Turkey, Bob Livingston, is begging congressfolk to vote 'no' on Armenian genocide. ANCA debunks his claims.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jul 22 2007 11:10 utc | 114
Wow! What a thread!
Except for the industrialization of death, putting it on an assembly line basis, the Nazi death machine was neither unique, the first or the last.
I have read rather extensively on this subject and two authors I recommend most highly are Tadeuz Borowski and Victor Frankl
Borowski is important because he lays bare the raw nerve of the insanity.
Frankl is important because he brings home the fact that anyone can find themselves thrust into the unbearable -- and how then does Charlie Brown find meaning?
Posted by: Chuck Cliff | Jul 22 2007 11:12 utc | 115
You write: My conclusion is that you are repeating themes from the racist right in Germany.. Well, I'm very familiar with those tactics: "Ignore the message and shoot the Messenger."
I've attacked your message and you fail to come up with any defense. To start:
1. Your characterization of Goldhagen as a "quack" and your claim that he generlizes about the "german race" is both false and a good example of attacking the messenger.
2. Your claim the "the Jews" collectively have to demonstrate their repudiation of this work in order to not justify your anger at the Jews is illogical and classical bigotry.
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 22 2007 12:32 utc | 116
P.S., Isn't $ 150 billion in reparations from Germany enough? Now you're suing the German railways for having transported Jews to death camps several decades ago.
Who is "you"? I haven't sued anyone, yet. Do you imagine "the Jews" sit around discussing "the jewish cause" and passing around the ill-gotten loot? We all meet at the Free Mason conventions and plot against the hapless gentiles.
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 22 2007 12:34 utc | 117
what was learned as an operation lesson to Capital by the shoah - to paraphrase michael corleone, "that if we have learnt anything from history, it is that, you can kill anybody"
& on this there can be no disagreement with ck
yes i think it is a mistake to place genocides in the spiritual realm. they were after all material events that had very specific contexts & histories
& those contexts & histories have to be remembered & studied over & over again
the american indians suffered a genocide because american capital wanted land & it wanted the materials to create its capital accumulation
the turks killed almost the entirety of the armenian people in yet another context
the extermination of european jewry had it specific history
the genocide of 3 million vietnames & god knows how many laotians & cambodians by the u s empire are another history altogether
what connects them - is the economic imperative & the racist
i remeber a number of photographs my father gave to my as a child that might seem macabre - but they were impregnated in heart forever - one is of a ukranian peasant in a street wielding an axe at a number of jews who are already mortally wounded & the other is of american soldiers holdding up the severed heads of viet cong with a necklace of people's ears around their neck
genocide is something integrated deeply into capital acumulation - it is just that germany extended the boundaries of what could be done, industrially . it is apparent to one & all that these boundaries too have been extended
(just a paranthetic point for b - i'm reaading the looming tower in bed & also rereading keppel & jason bourke - & i'm a little overwhelmed by how many engineers formed the base of aq including bin laden himself - there are many industrial & mechanical engineers, but also chemical engineers, communication engineers - of professional people in the ranks they are more plentiful than doctors like al zawahiri)
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jul 22 2007 12:55 utc | 118
I'm sorry, but Jews have received $ 150 billion from Germany (so far) and about $ one trillion from the U.S.A. in direct and indirect aid to Israel. That works out at about $ 190,000 for every Jew killed in the Holocaust. I do not recall any such reparations and aid being granted to the objects of any other human tragedies in world history, not to mention the active assistance of the U.S. Government in aiding the recipients' genocidal policies in the lands stolen from uninvolved third parties and generously granted to them in the form of additional territorial reparations.
Do you imagine "the Jews" sit around discussing "the jewish cause" and passing around the ill-gotten loot?
Well, you certainly didn't get all that money without a determined, relentless and brutally coordinated effort to obtain it. Do you think everyone is stupid? If I were you, I would count the money and keep very, very quiet about it. Why do you think so many moderate Jews have turned against the ideas espoused in your extremist rantings?
Have you ever thought why you are a Jew and I am a Muslim? Because we were born with the stigma stamped on our foreheads, no more, no less. Neither of us 'chose' his/her religion, so neither of us is intrinsically superior to the other. It was a pure accident of Fate, which means we are all repeating the nonsense of our forefathers like stupid parrots. It's no coincidence that Jews and Muslims learn their scriptures by heart, with all that self-hypnotic head-shaking to boot.......
....... which brings me back to the point that religion was, is and will always be a tool for political, financial and territorial gain. The Jews excel at this game. Your arguments merely prove my point. And thanks for mentioning the Gentiles, who are 'unclean', as are all non-Jews, according to the Talmud. The same stupidity applies to Islam. At least I'm intellectually honest enough to admit the failings of my own religion. How about you?
P.S. Since you insist on Kosher food on Lufthansa flights, next time I'm on El Al make sure they serve me a nice, juicy pork chop. Thanks in advance.
Posted by: Parviz | Jul 22 2007 13:20 utc | 119
Chuck Cliff@115
I liked this quote from the Viktor Frankl link:
He also concludes that there are only two races of men, decent men and indecent. No society is free of either of them
Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jul 22 2007 14:01 utc | 120
wioth c k whom i disagree with on so many other matters, on this i am in agreement with his central thesis
the act of remembering, of not forgetting - each act of genocide that men commit is essential to understand who & what we are
this act of remembering is nearly wiped out altogether - contrary to what is being sd - very little is remembered - even from recent history
at least, 3,000,000 vietnamese dissapeared from the face of the earth & they are forgotten & the sympathy is transformed to the unwilling perpetrators
the exact nature of the project condor in latin america is forgotten & the details are essential to remember to understand our present
& if people knew the history of the genocide of the jewish people then they could more clearly understand the parallels to what is happening in occupied palestine
forgetting has been so incorporated into dominant culture - that we forget the victims in iraq before they become one
so, i support without reserve the acts of remembering not only of the extermiantion of european jewry but also the contact of genocide in the rise of capitalism
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jul 22 2007 14:37 utc | 121
Well, you certainly didn't get all that money without a determined, relentless and brutally coordinated effort to obtain it. Do you think everyone is stupid? If I were you, I would count the money and keep very, very quiet about it.
Nice. I'm impressed at how you can come up with crap like this and still maintain your injured attitude when you are called on your bigotry.
As I said, turn over a rock ...
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 22 2007 14:38 utc | 122
That great quote is pro-Mankind and anti-Religion, so I'm all for it. Religion brings out the worst in all of us (viz. the Holocaust, the 100-year N. Ireland civil war, the Crusades, the Hindu Caste system, the Inquisition, Wahhabi Islam and even Communism which was itself an anti-religion -- a set of beliefs that itself constitutes a 'religion').
Religions are illogical by their very nature: Which of the billion Christians, billion Muslims, and remaining 4.5 billion mixture of Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, etc.,. can claim a correct version of history (including 'Creation' vs. Darwinism)? Doesn't each religion, by claiming to be God's chosen religion, formally insult every other religion? Why do Muslims and Jews consider the members of the opposite religion 'unclean', 'heathen' and by inference 'inferior'? The ludicrousness of this last point lays in the fact that fanatical Orthodox Jews and fanatical Wahhabi Muslims are as ethnically identical as humans can be -- both Semites. (Citizen K, get over it and learn to kiss your Arab brethren. After all, you're almost identical in customs and culture: circumcision is compulsory, you both ban pork and blindly follow the religious interpretations of your religious leaders).
Isn't religion therefore a form of racism? The Holocaust was a disaster waiting to happen, as was the Hundred Years War, the 30-year war, the Saxon War, the Crusades, Jihads and Milhemet Mitzvahs.
Conclusion: Fcuk all religions and distinguish people as per the parameters of the fantastic quote above, namely, decent and indecent people. Zoroastrianism was probably as close as one can get to an unobtrusive religion, with only 3 Laws: Think good deeds, say good words, do good deeds. The rest (where we come from) is fairy tales, and the stupidity of Creationism has finally been proved now that we Iranians have discovered, in the person of Ahmadinejad, the Darwinian 'missing link'.
Posted by: Parviz | Jul 22 2007 14:40 utc | 123
There you go again, 'Citizen' K, trying to prove that your cause, and your religion, is the right one, while I'm arguing that it's ALL crap. Give it a rest.
Posted by: Parviz | Jul 22 2007 14:42 utc | 124
....... which brings me back to the point that religion was, is and will always be a tool for political, financial and territorial gain. The Jews excel at this game. Your arguments merely prove my point. And thanks for mentioning the Gentiles, who are 'unclean', as are all non-Jews, according to the Talmud.
This is such a mishmash of nonsense. The Jews excel at the game of using religion for "territorial gain" which is why, I guess, 2/3 of the Jewish people, most of them desperately poor, got killed by the Nazis and now the vast lands of Israel extend for kilometers in several directions. Masterful.
The Talmud does not define non-jews as unclean.
One thing you are right about is that religion is a source of many harmful lies. But it is not the only such source. Nationalism doesn't need religion. And, as you have shown, an "enlightened" "educated" and non-religious person can wallow in fantastical hatred.
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 22 2007 14:49 utc | 125
Since we are discussing religion, the only good argument for belief in God I have ever seen was I.B.Singer's argument that atheism let God escape the blame for the horrors of the world and it was not responsible to let him off the hook so easily.
Parviz: Perhaps you can start to learn something if I give you a few personal facts. The closest to a religious doctrine I've seen that appeals to me is Tom Paine's "Age of Reason". The total amount of reparations I've received and expect to receive is NOTHING. My grandparents were all Holocaust survivors, all lost at least 90% of their relatives. One of my inheritances was a file of unbearably sad letters from relatives in Lithuania asking for help, which could not be given, in getting visas to get out - letters from people who mostly were dead 2 years later. Of my four grandparents, three were indifferent to religion and one was militantly atheist and would curse Black Hats when he passed them: blaming them for the advice they gave to the East European Jews to stay and wait for the messiah. I don't live in Israel, hold joint citizenship, or even visit.
Maybe you could think about how your preconceptions, prejudices, lead you to make up a fictional story about what I must believe and how I must live.
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 22 2007 15:17 utc | 126
'Goy' is a derogatory term for a non-Jew, used frequently throughout the Talmud. Read your own book, otherwise I shall be forced to ram it down your throat because I have, contrary to your assertions, read the Talmud from cover to cover, and I find it as sickeningly racist and perverted as the texts of many other religions including my own. As for the Torat, there's enough crap in Numbers to block the sewage system of a large city, including Moses's stoning of a poor man for collecting firewood on the Sabbath to prevent his family from freezing to death. (Funny, isn't it, that Israeli Senator Joe Lieberman proudly announced, during the 2000 campaign, that he would refuse to work on the Sabbath even if a nuclear bomb hit the U.S.A.!!! Lucky he wasn't V.P. in 2001 or Osama would have chosen a Saturday instead of a Tuesday).
And exactly where is my 'fantastical hatred' you try to conjure up? Certainly not in my assessment of all religions as fairy tales? Did you expect me to make an exception for the Jewish religion? Did I offend your peculiar sensibilities? Go ahead and sue me, as you've been suing everyone who dares to question your gross and blatant misuse of the Holocaust for political and pecuniary gain.
Posted by: Parviz | Jul 22 2007 15:18 utc | 127
O.K., there was an unfortunate overlap in posts between us. I'm ready to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're a 'moderate' Jew who values all human beings equally. The reason for the acrimony is probably because of the sensitivity of this thread. b, It's all your fault ;-)
Your last post made me understand that I misunderstood you, as you misunderstood me in believing I harbour 'fantastical hatred'. What I actually feel is 'disappointment' in what I believe to be the fanatical maintenance of grossly divergent myths.
According to the world's greatest living physicist, Stephen Hawking, the world will end in max. 500 years, so let's help eachother, have fun and enjoy each other's company while it lasts, not for Christ's or Mohammad's sake, but for our own and for our children's.
Posted by: Parviz | Jul 22 2007 15:27 utc | 128
chuck cliff
i think you are in denmark - a piece of mine is being performed there at the cafeteatret in copenhague - ulrike meinhof sang -you might be interested because it works on some the questions discussed here
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jul 22 2007 16:39 utc | 130
Debs may have been referring to this, even if not it is of interest:
The threat of America’s opinion ..Israel.. (on public opinion in the US towards Israel and others) http://www.counterpunch.org/dimaggio07202007.html>counterpunch
The 1.25 billion dodllars paid by the Swiss banks for restitution of the ‘dormant’ accounts still rankle here. That was some story.
The funny thing is - I remember very well - and this one article confirms it, google is miraculous - it was of no interest in Israel or to Israelis. Or not much. The article sets forward a few reasons that may be partly credible, can be discussed, etc. but are obfuscating.http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/9387/edition_id/179/format/html/displaystory.html>jewish weekly
The real reason, of course, is that scams and machinations of Gvmts. and para-Gvmt., as well as mafia types and shysters, don’t affect the people of Israel, or Jews elsewhere, in the US or Russia, or those countries as whole, in any positive way. Any Israeli, or Jew in another part of the world, probably understood that whatever windfall might be flying about would not go into their, or their old auntie’s, pocket. Second, a ‘let it go’ attitude, very understandable.
Some of the machinations can be seen or guessed at here. Note that the proposal of the Israeli Gvmt. was that “up to 20% of remaining funds be used to “fulfill the transcendent moral obligation to future generations to educate, commemorate and document the Holocaust.”
http://www.forward.com/articles/israeli-requests-for-shoah-funds-denied/>the jewish daily forward more here: http://www.forward.com/articles/netanyahu-seen-angling-to-control-shoah-funds/>ditto
The sum given was a ‘deal’ and was not directly tied to dormant accounts or unclaimed sums. 17 million francs was the total found sleeping in Swiss banks, with 10 million judged to be that of ‘war victims’, who were all rapidly classed as killed by the Nazis, although of course in the maelstrom many ppl starved (etc.) and many were killed by the Allies. How many of the holders were Jews was not possible to determine; only names gave clues.
This is timeline of the events, factual but not leading to comprehension, just to hint at the endless in and outs. I have taken care to choose one that is rather pro-Isr., pro US, as of course the events one picks out...etc. It is just a list without commentary. http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/Switzerland1.htm>link
To this day, it is not know how much of this money was attributed to living, ordinary ppl. (Afaik.) Not published in Switzerland anyway.
God is not an actor in these affairs.
Posted by: Noirette | Jul 22 2007 17:30 utc | 131
'Goy' is a derogatory term for a non-Jew, used frequently throughout the Talmud. Read your own book, otherwise I shall be forced to ram it down your throat because I have, contrary to your assertions, read the Talmud from cover to cover, and I find it as sickeningly racist and perverted as the texts of many other religions including my own.
Since Talmud is not a book one can read "cover to cover", but rather a series of books, including both a Bablyonian and Palestinian Talmud, and the books themselves are elaborate commentaries about commentaries that are usually read in the context of later commentaries and generally one should be familiar with both ancient hebrew and aramaic to understand it, it's hard to take your analysis too seriously.
Here's a link to a reasonably complete edition
http://www.artscroll.com/Talmud1.htm
A wonderful summary, containing much that is brilliant and much that is just nutty in the great poet Bialik's "Book of Legends".
As usual with religions, there are many possible readings ranging from those of crazed superstitionists to humanists.
You might want to take a look at Emmanual Levinas Readings in Talmud for a modern perspective of a non-crazed person.
From my point of view, I've found a lot of interest in the little bit of Talmud I read, in the Christian bible, and also the translation of Koran. These are really the records of all of our ancestors wrestling with problems of ethics and philosophy. The difference between, for example, the intent of Rabbi Hillel who offered a one sentence summary of Judaism as "do not do to others what you would not like them to do to you" (the negative is interesting in distinction to the more evangelical Christian version) and the version of the religion offered by the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem now (who quite openly calls for killing of all Jews who do not follow his crackpot ranting -e.g. me) is quite profound.
Talmud is particularly illuminating on zealotry - an important subject for the Jews after intercine fighting helped them in devastating losses to the Romans.
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 22 2007 18:20 utc | 132
The 1.25 billion dodllars paid by the Swiss banks for restitution of the ‘dormant’ accounts still rankle here. That was some story.
I don't know much about this, but assumed it was in the category of "crooks rob banks, possibly a few deserving people benefit", and as I'm not too sympathetic to banks, I don't care all that much.
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 22 2007 18:23 utc | 133
Parviz
When citizen tried to speak to you, person to person, @ 126, you ignored his gesture, of providing personal background; and you subsequently showed that you could give a flying fuck about his family history or his humanity. You just continued to yammer on about your obsession. This strikes me as bad manners.
Your hatred of religion seems to be an excess in its own right, an emotional, regurgitated rhetoric ad nauseum, and it's become tiresome.
Copeland@134,
I believe your comments in 134 are in good faith.
Having said that, I think we should ALL try as much as possible to keep any hint or appearance of moral superiority in check, in the discussion of a global issue like this.
Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jul 22 2007 19:57 utc | 135
Copeland, you can't be serious. I clearly stated:
"O.K., there was an unfortunate overlap in posts between us. I'm ready to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're a 'moderate' Jew who values all human beings equally. The reason for the acrimony is probably because of the sensitivity of this thread. b, It's all your fault ;-)
So before butting into the discussion and taking sides you may wish in future to read ALL the posts and not only the ones that suit your argument.
Posted by: Parviz | Jul 22 2007 21:30 utc | 136
Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jul 22, 2007 3:57:10 PM | 135
So when our friend from Iran explains that anti-semitism is justified by Jews who do not satisfy him by jumping up and down vigorously enough in denunciation of books by Jews he does not like, that's not an arrogation of moral superiority?
[off counting the money and figuring out how much blood to put in the matzah]
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 22 2007 21:33 utc | 137
Copeland:
And I still don't have a response from Citizen K to my offer of friendship, so I don't think I'm the one who can be accused of bad manners. Maybe YOU should look in the mirror.
Posted by: Parviz | Jul 22 2007 21:33 utc | 138
Citizen K, I thought we had buried this one. Apparently not. But isn't it strange how our posts overlap, this time at exactly the same minute of the day? Spooky!
Posted by: Parviz | Jul 22 2007 21:35 utc | 139
But to answer your question on 'moral superiority', the difference between 'religionists' and Atheists is that religionists insist their own religion is the correct one (less than 1 % of the world's population actually changes religion), while Atheists believe no religion has a monopoly on wisdom and that, quite to the contrary, the empirical evidence does not support the teachings of any monotheistic religion.
Personally, I go one step further and claim that religion is the root of all evil. This doesn't make me 'morally superior' but 'disillusioned' by all the disasters and suffering perpetrated in the names of various religions. If that's a crime I plead guilty. But I certainly don't claim 'moral superiority' over anyone else.
I apologize if anyone is bored with my statements, but I honestly feel that an analysis of the fundamental origin and development of religion has everything to do with the topic of this thread, namely, the 'unique' suffering of the Jews in the Holocaust.
Good night, everyone, it's 01:16 a.m. over here, and I'm loaded with Vodka brewed locally (and legally) by my Armenian fiends, so please also excuse the incoherence.
Peace.
Posted by: Parviz | Jul 22 2007 21:47 utc | 140
haha...changing sockpuppets time, I see sloth...
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jul 22 2007 22:18 utc | 142
i'm not that smart, uncle. but i could emulate you, if you want me to.
Posted by: slothrop | Jul 22 2007 22:39 utc | 143
Citizen K, I thought we had buried this one. Apparently not. But isn't it strange how our posts overlap, this time at exactly the same minute of the day? Spooky!
Posted by: Parviz | Jul 22, 2007 5:35:27 PM | 139
I have no grievances, but I don't think you appreciate the full import of what you are saying. Enjoy your vodka though.
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 22 2007 22:44 utc | 144
Hello Rocketenmensch and thanks for the kind word.
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 22 2007 22:46 utc | 145
Oh, don't bother sloth, unless you know, wanna help me deal with my grief over the end of Harry Potter./snark
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jul 22 2007 22:49 utc | 146
jony_b_cool
Point well taken. But after some of the recent exchanges I felt the thread had been needlessly sidetracked into acrimony, built around one commenter's need to apply a blunt instrument against the world's religions instead of against the subset of zealots who misuse religion.
The issue is the uniqueness of the Holocaust. The project of the Nazi apocalypse in Europe (1933-1945) seems to have aimed at the destruction of what essentially was Europe, the complex and cosmopolitan civilization existing there already. This summer I've taken up a book by Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, a book I began reading, after checking it out from the library a few years ago. Returning to this reading now with my own copy, I'm about to resume study.
Two issues I identified from the previous reading were those of the vitality and deeply ingrained cultural influences of Jewish culture in Europe: diplomatic, economic, and cosmopolitan influence. The extermination and displacement of Jewish culture broke apart many things, among which was the diplomatic network that had reduced potential strife and in many ways helped harmonize relations between European states.
The other issue that stood out was the inexplicable nature of the totalitarian mind. Arendt described totalitarianism as "a form of governace that eliminated the very possibility of political action"; and one must add to this the horrific organic nature of the totalitarian transformation, in which the minds of the many become transfixed as one mind.
As Chris Hedges reminds us in his recent book American Fascists, "Freud cautioned us against any emotion or movement that promised to unify the psyche behind a collective cause."
An absolute leader, called in Freudian terms the collective superego, is morally permissive. This is part of the leader's attraction. Murder may be wrong, but the murder of infidel Iraqis or Islamic terrorists--or the genocidal slaughter of nonbelievers by an angry Christ at the end of time--is celebrated. This moral permissiveness is exciting and seductive and empowers followers to carry out acts of violence, often with a clean conscience. (Hedges, p. 85)In the ability of totalitarian techniques to turn up later in history, Arendt was aware of just the kind of weakness that can rise in a nation that is indoctrinated and mastered by propaganda.
Before they seize power and establish a world according to their doctrines, totalitarian movements conjure up a lying world of consistency which is more adequate to the needs of the human mind than reality itself; in which, through sheer imagination, uprooted masses can feel at home and are spared the never ending shocks which real life and real experiences deal to human beings and their expectations. The force possessed by totalitarian propaganda--before the movements have the power to drop iron curtains to prevent anyone's disturbing, by the slightest reality, the gruesome quiet of an entirely imaginary world--lies in its ability to shut the masses off from the real world.Sunday morning's interview (on Face The Nation) with the mild-mannered leader in the US Senate, Democrat Harry Reid, took me by surprise--though I shouldn't be surprised after four years of war and occupation. After all the talk of the President's abuses of power, and mention in passing that the President is a liar, and that we need to begin removing troops from Occupied Iraq, the gentle Reid assured us all that it was well within our rights, and an expectation that we should bomb parts of Pakistan, provided that there was the kind of evil there which we ought to stamp out.--Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, p 353
This begs the question of what kind of "lying world of consistency" Americans are now living in. The uniqueness of the Holocaust seems to be a spectacular collapse of civilized norms, the descent of the mind into a kind of unthinking automatism, the mobilization of a whole society into industries of mayhem and extermination, and a pre-existing hatred of a pre-identified other. Simone Weil warned us not to dismiss these horrors as an aberration.
Copeland 147:
Here's an interesting question. What is the fundamental difference between normal mass state violence and episodes of mass psychosis? The Nazi regime was nightmarish, for the citizens of Europe, but the EU, in regular operation, has condemned millions to starvation, armed psychotics, hammered the shared environment and so on. One can make the same analysis of the US, pre-Bush (who is merely the culmination of Reagan) and post-Bush. What was once scandal is not advertised policy.
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 22 2007 23:31 utc | 148
I hope I can say this without coming across as trying to be morally superior. I've noticed that all of the major religions get their power from a kernel of truth or commonsense contained within the verbiage and bullshit mysticism that most of the rest of the theology is. One of Islam's most powerful kernels of commonsense is the stricture against alcohol.
As someone who had far too fuckin many 'Oh no' mornings before my liver sounded the alarms, I reckon that aside from those awful 'downers' (eg barbiturates and hypnotics) that few people take for any extended period and live, alcohol is the most miserable drug of the lot for encouraging excessive behaviour and stupidly grandiose thinking. This is especially true for those of us that talk too much at the best of times.
The thing that always used to catch me out was "the everybody's as drunk as me trap". That is when I used to drink a lot I would often assume (frequently incorrectly) that everyone else was just as intoxicated. Therefore everything I said would be water off a duck's back. Heh yeah right. This is dangerous particularly as one gets older. After about the age of 30 (it probably took me at least 5 years to realise this) I had completely lost my ability to fight while drunk.
When you're young instinct and natural strength tend to guide you through the tight spots in a blue, but as one ages both those disappear leaving this drunken fool swaying in the breeze talking shit and punching the air.
That image may be an embarrassing image but there is a worse one: Two drunken fools swaying in the breeze, talking shit and punching the air - generally the upshot of arguing with someone equally drunk.
I don't wanna reduce this board to some tedious 12 step 'sharing'. Especially since I do still drink, just not as excessively as once. However that requires being careful about what I do drink. Spirits (liquor) in any form including old favourites such as Armagnac are now completely outta the question (sigh!) - I have yet to develop the ability to have just the one Armagnac - for all the usual reasons in particular it's wonderfully complex flavour melded with the feeling of warmth emanating outwards from the cockles of the heart that a sip can induce.
I still make the same error around drinking as I always did regarding other people's intoxication. Usually sober when surfing the net (never been one to drink at home preferring the company of complete strangers even psychopaths, to my own when drinking) I often falsely assume that everyone else is unintoxicated as well. The error is compounded by the time difference ie it's usually 9.00am here when when the europeans are just getting a glow on at 9.00pm.
I'm sure there have been times when I have taken some remarks here, made intemperately in jest by some contributor relaxing over a bottle and a glass at the end of a hard week, far too literally but in the cold light of day words made intemperately in jest by an intoxicated person still carry the same power as they would at any other time.
Shit talked over a bar tends to stay there, but blogs like emails exist outside the environment they were written in, which is why I'm grateful I don't drink and blog.
Otherwise even more passive aggressives would be 'not speaking' to me while others would be shouting at every post.
It would be good just once to have a discussion about the propaganda oriented politicisation of the european genocide of Jewish people without it being side tracked by accusations of racism.
All that ever does, to use a well worn cliche; is increase the heat without a concomittant increase in light shed upon the issue.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Jul 22 2007 23:46 utc | 150
Bravo Did, I'll drink to that!
If I hadn't sd, it, I'm glad your back.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jul 23 2007 0:33 utc | 151
It would be good just once to have a discussion about the propaganda oriented politicisation of the european genocide of Jewish people without it being side tracked by accusations of racism.
I think this is only possible in an environment where there is absolute intolerance for the employment of any of the tropes of anti-semitism, and an awareness of how omnipresent anti-semitism is in European culture. I'm not sure it can be done. In fact, I have heard more productive discussions between Israelis and Palestinian Arabs directly than when Europeans or Americans are involved.
The perfect illustration of the difficulty was in the infamous essay by Jostein Gaarder. What Gaarder tried to express, and I have no reason to doubt his sincerity, was that he was outraged by the use of cluster bombs on civilians by the Israeli Airforce. You'd have to be a pig to disagree. Such bombardments are vile atrocities. However, Gaarder was unable to express the opinion without bringing up a long-standing European excuse for anti-semitism: the Jews rejected the Mercy of the Savior and clung to a cruel and hateful tribal religion. This trope, most famously expresed by Martin Luther, is so embedded in European culture that the anti-semitic party in Hungary is able to use "humanism" as a code term well understood by its adherents to mean "anti-jew".
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 23 2007 0:55 utc | 152
Laboratory for a Fortressed World
Naomi Klein
And that is why the chaos in Gaza and the rest of the region doesn't threaten the bottom line in Tel Aviv, and may actually boost it. Israel has learned to turn endless war into a brand asset, pitching its uprooting, occupation and containment of the Palestinian people as a half-century head start in the "global war on terror."(...)...in a way Friedman is right: Israel has struck oil. But the oil isn't the imagination of its techie entrepreneurs. The oil is the war on terror, the state of constant fear that creates a bottomless global demand for devices that watch, listen, contain and target "suspects." And fear, it turns out, is the ultimate renewable resource.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jul 23 2007 0:56 utc | 153
Ahhh, forgot to mention, the above is via the latest installment in David-Baptiste Chirot's series of visual poems.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jul 23 2007 1:05 utc | 154
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jul 22, 2007 8:56:21 PM | 153
Interesting article. In my usual crass way, I will point out that Israel is so terrible that it has caught up with the UK as an arms exporter, meaning that the UK should boycott Israeli academics and prevent them from free exchange of data with the UK universities that feed the UK arms industry. The algebra of morality is astoundingly complex.
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 23 2007 1:55 utc | 155
citizen @ 148: "What is the fundamental difference between normal mass state violence and episodes of mass psychosis?"
Good question citizen. But I feel a bit stumped by that one. Whatever we were before Election 2000 and the coup d'etat, we're a different nation today. At the moment America's smack in the middle of a constitutional crisis. Straight ahead is the Mother of all Showdowns. I hope the country will somehow make it, with its civic virtues restored. The alternative is mass psychosis. I hope we don't go there.
Hiya back U$! I've no doubt you're correct in your assessment that this discussion cannot be had,as long as old terminology, that carries with it old sub-texts, is used but I also reckon that some of the heat comes from assumptions by some MoA contributor or another that those tropes were there when they weren't present, implied or insinuated.
I maintain that if we really want to have this discussion, which I believe is essential for getting a handle on how it that so many people are being murdered by the empire each day, all of us have to work harder at keeping the thing on track.
I say that acknowledging that my piss weak attempt to keep the discussion on relevant issues failed miserably.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Jul 23 2007 2:49 utc | 157
the irony here is that by condemning the US intervention as illegal, which it most definitely is based on charter 51, leftists risk abnegation of a central tenet of left-liberalism--the belief in a foundational morality binding all humans regardless where they have the misfortune to live.Slothrop, you again construe the issue by painting matters in black and white, basing your argument on the premises that if it ain’t bombs, it ain’t help. This flaw in your thinking leads you to the conclusion that ‘leftists’ (if I may borrow your term, meaning presumably proponents of non-violent actions) are prepared to accept dictatorships, just as long as they don’t violate article 51. But far from it. By rejecting military intervention one does not reject intervention per se – just as choosing not to own a car doesn’t express one’s dislike for transportation. To me it seems that not acknowledging this one-to-many relationship between intervention and war, with the latter being merely one of many types of the first, you rob yourself of a vision for better outcomes with lesser carnage, or as Maslow put it, "When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”
Having said that, I do agree with you in as much as that I also recognise the innate risk in categorically excluding military attacks on sovereign nations. Assuming that no other forms of intervention are contemplated and acted upon, this could indeed lead to autocrats getting the idea they can unleash mayhem on internal opposition without having to face the music, and thus article 51 providing some sort of immunity to world opinion. This problem can however be overcome by employing other measures to deliver unpleasant consequences for tyrants, actions which not entail mass casualties amongst the civilian population. There is plenty of room in Maslow's tool box.
What the fathers of article 51 failed to appreciate is that by removing aggressive war as an option to settle international disputes without laying out workable alternatives, violations of their article were guaranteed. In order to diminish the risk of complacency and inaction, this lack of clearly stated viable alternatives needs to be rectified by the world community. But in the meantime we can not allow ourselves to be drawn into the bastardry of aggressive war.
my second point follows from this. the world is screaming for humanitarian intervention: congo, sudan/chad, checnya, palestine, etc. yet, the usual int'l law disaccommodates humanitarian intervention because of the unlikely creation of consensus among states.And just to underline my point, your equation of
war = humanitarian interventiondoesn’t hold water. What is asked for is humanitarian help, not aggressive war against whole nations. If you have a look at synonyms for ‘humanitarian’ you’ll find words like caring, kind, gentle and compassionate, none of which come to mind when contemplating the meaning of war.
Posted by: Juan Moment | Jul 23 2007 12:11 utc | 159
one hundred and fifty one
& we were/joined by subversives/in foolish moves/we might have
made a fortune/while discussing milton/with the saints/who swore black
& blue paintings/were sold easily/to wellwishers/who wore waste
& always spoke/from the corners/of their mouths/like elegant gangsters
from forties films/where everyone was/on the take/& went down
nightly to harlem/to get fix/from art pepper/perhaps imitating black
man on other/side of city/sitting in studio/painting pretty picture
before he became/married to museum/of modern art/he was poor
mark rothkowitz/who really wanted/to be scholar/of the torah
reading a chapter/or a verse/in private place/where he’d worship
to whatever god/was left after/city of riga/fell to kingdom/come with all
stories of scherezades/that used to/fill that town/even during pogroms
a dirty joke/was always told/at the bootmakers/to one of/his gentile friends
of whom himmler/once spoke clearly/when he was/speaking of good
jew he said/when planning final/solution he sought/this perfect pedagogue
who preffered chickens/even though vegetarian/like his master
he was once/asked if perhaps/there was good/jews to be/had he thought
one hundred and fifty two
some could be/saved from source/he was silencing/in the east
but he broke/thought & said/that every one/had good jew/that everyone had
their good jew/was our misfortune/he had said/hoping it would
become song/like horst wessel/lieder he learnt/to sing loudly
with his boys/when they were/trampling through snow/somewhere near stalingrad
he could hear/sound of shattering/glass inside shell/of a city
& he knew/it was not/synagogue this time/it was inside/head he held
as austrian intellectual/drifted past him/& vomited behind/a burning tank
where he might/meet an acquaintance/& discuss hofmanstahl
before next shelling/from that city/that was inside/the world’s heart
wherever that was/it has gone/a long time/& this understood
by mr nixon/so recently deceased/on my anniversary/who remade asia
in his own/image he sold/to baptist preachers/when they sought
a room in/the white house/when they had/day to spare/in washington city
after seeing negroes/shoot each other/in the streets/like they had
one hundred and fifty three
been told tellingly/by a boy/from state department/who held degrees
from three european/universities that had/reputation for scholarship
before the storm/most was modest/especially learning language
of the landlords/who you might/have seen in/interludes in opera
that were elaborate/short stories that/they couldn’t sell/to television tycoon
who is now/running modern italy/from an office/decorated by dancers
from some company/perhaps from houston/somewhere in texas
certainly from country/where everyone is/falling over once/inside interior space
wherever that it/you will find/your family feuding/over of argument
you had thought/was over once/you had bribed/teacher who told
you difference between/silver & gold/pride & shame/translating the taboos
you would pay/homage to heroes/who were all/heretics at some
time a larceny/you had learnt/from the best/it is said/by mr baudelaire
oh how weary/i am how/weary i have/been for many/years already of
this need to/live twenty four/hours every day/he had written
to his mother/who sought solace/from corrupt clerics/whom she knew
as good men/go they were/not so bad/after all is/said & done
one hundred and fifty four
knowing her son/would join haunted/who had begun/wandering with winds
through most modern/& civilised cities/that are in/retrospect only ruins
that are no/better than old/ones we read/about after ascension
of all angels/we might have/read about augustine/for example another
who was carrying/note in hand/as he was/going to give/message to messiah
who was about/to confront crowd/with some good/news he couldn’t
sell to anyone/but the boy/who might today/join hamas in/hebron after hell
it is said/after good doctor/came in shooting/with the guns/he had bought
somewhere in brooklyn/it is mentioned/in a report/i’m not reading
because my heart/breaks too often/to read much/more to mention
day to day/events in middle/east or west/north or south/wherever that is
you can take/compass & ruler/that i’m carrying/because i am
not going anywhere/except these memoirs/that are defiling/minutes of past
i do not/want to live/again even anecdotally/at this time/or any other
because i have/witnessed that experiment/& i have/sent back invitations
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jul 23 2007 13:43 utc | 160
What is asked for is humanitarian help, not aggressive war against whole nations.
I doubt that would have been a popular opinion among the soon to be dead, raped, beaten, people at Sbrenica when the Dutch soldiers moved out of the way without firing a shot.
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 23 2007 19:32 utc | 161
ck, you are right, this tragedy was certainly avoidable. The fact that the 400 Dutch soldiers left in the area, with no fuel in their vehicles, were unable/unwilling to defend the “safe haven” of Srebrenica, is a sad fact and will be a dark moment in UN history in general, and Dutch involvement in particular.
In this context though it is the wrong example. In my above comment the issue was aggressive war, in other words the crime of starting a war against whole nations. The Dutch soldiers, should they have protected the Bosnian men and women with the help of any military equipment available to them, would have done so in a defensive capacity. There is a difference ck. Using military means to protect potential victims is one thing, bombing raids on cities loaded with civilians is another.
Posted by: Juan Moment | Jul 23 2007 21:26 utc | 162
Juan Moment:
You are correct, but I think Slothrops question is not so easily dismissed. If nation A is, say, committing genocide on an ethnic group within its borders, is there a moral imperative to use violence, if necessary, to put a stop to it? The point the slothrop makes is that national self-determination is a weak moral principle. The counter-argument, that most interventions are clearly not based on moral principles evades his question.
The government of Zimbabwae is acting within its own borders. But does that mean it is inviolate?
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 24 2007 2:15 utc | 164
i never sought here to justify the hamheaded occupation. i'm only pointing out that cosmopolitan law (which has a growing support in int'l law) is necessary if humanitarian intervention of any kind is to be justified. and it is likely only the most powerful countries will seek to unilaterally intervene.
our reality is cosmopolitan, increasingly so. this is true whether the US cynically botched an intervention-cum-occupation, or not.
Posted by: slothrop | Jul 24 2007 2:22 utc | 165
citizen k- you'll have to find a better example than zimbabwe since the problems there are largely due to the acts of outsiders
Posted by: b real | Jul 24 2007 3:17 utc | 166
It was Jews, gypsies, and gays. The Nazis systematically murdered Jews, gypsies, and gays. When do the gypsies and gays get a a few feet of space in the Holocaust museum?
Posted by: noodle-soup | Jul 24 2007 3:58 utc | 167
@166,
coverage of isssues in Africa (Zimbabwe, Darfur, Somalia, Rwanda ...) by the Western main-stream media is always seriously flawed.
its always seems from the reporting that the writers/editors have already made up their minds about the story before it even happens.
hence, if a masssive genocide should occur in Africa, regardless of the circumstances, we can be sure it will be reported as purely self-inflicted.
in fact this has already happened. Most Westerners are not aware of the key & decisive roles that USA & France played as actors in the events leading up to the Rwanda genocide.
Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jul 24 2007 8:06 utc | 168
It was Jews, gypsies, and gays. The Nazis systematically murdered Jews, gypsies, and gays. When do the gypsies and gays get a a few feet of space in the Holocaust museum?
Posted by: noodle-soup | Jul 23, 2007 11:58:24 PM | 167
In an alcove dedicated to the "Mosaic of Victims", an authentic gypsy caravan stands beneath images of gypsies and Jehovah's Witnesses and mug shots of German men arrested on charges of homosexuality. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,3937936,00.html
When do people stop repeating bullshit from neo-nazis as if they were fact?
Posted by: | Jul 24 2007 14:32 utc | 169
citizen k- you'll have to find a better example than zimbabwe since the problems there are largely due to the acts of outsiders
Posted by: b real | Jul 23, 2007 11:17:11 PM | 166
Those citations you give are worthless garbage. It is easy to find refutations
http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/zwe-summary-eng
but one should be able to get the smell of secret police, torture, show trials, and mass starvation directly from the propaganda by now.
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 24 2007 14:37 utc | 170
citizen k - you're simply wrong by dismissing those outright as "worthless garbage". here, consider this
Posted by: b real | Jul 24 2007 15:13 utc | 171
b real: I read it and laughed. In our world, people can be both great liberation leaders and vile dictators. Mao was a hero of the resistance against the Japanese and the KMT, but he was also a monster. Simon Leys, who I do not agree with on other politics, made a brilliant observation that the French were blessed to have a semi-democratic system strong enough to allow them to fire de Gaulle after liberation and the Chinese were cursed by their inability to send Mao off to sit on a farm and sign autographs. Mugabe is a criminal, now. His "land program" has caused mass starvation and is a textbook example of corruption, incompetence, and oppression.
Listen, if an anti-semite says that Israeli use of cluster bombs against civilians is a war crime, he can be right and he can also be a scumball anti-semite. These are different things. The joy that racists take in the collapse of Zimbabwe does not fill one belly in Zimbabwe.
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 24 2007 16:08 utc | 172
b real,
Heres an article that I consider one of the best on Zimbabwe:
http://www.counterpunch.org/elich05072005.html
This one below iss worth checking out too:
http://www.counterpunch.org/gowans03232007.html
Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jul 24 2007 16:24 utc | 173
everything was OK in Zimbabwe until the British & USA reneged on their promises (signed at the Lancaster Agreement -- 1979) to help fund land reform i.e the return of lands forcibly stolen by Whites.
and Mugabe was supposed to go along with it & betray his people
the racism in this picture is clearly in the USA & Britains decision to reward White exploitation
Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jul 24 2007 16:41 utc | 174
Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jul 24, 2007 12:41:14 PM | 174
Stop the presses: UK and USA renege on promises, screw over African nation! The problem is not that the US and UK behaved like they always do, it is that Mugabe has clung to power by destroying all possible threats. Mugabe was supposed to go along with it and FEED HIS PEOPLE. The job of the government is not to make quixotic stands, but to get the best deal possible. Zimbabwe has a relatively low population and high level of natural resources.
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 24 2007 16:55 utc | 175
citizen k@175,
you might actually have a good point if you could show that USA/UK really does have the interests of poor Zimbabweans (as well other poor folks in developing countries) at heart
to the contrary there is undisputable & extensive evidence that USA/UK govts put corporate, resource & race interests far above humanitarianism.
by the way, Mugabe's overall record is no worse than Ethiopia's Zenawi. Even despite all the West has done to undermine Mugabe & forment trouble using his political adversaries. But Ethiopia gets off with no more than a slap on the wrist for playing along with USA interests.
Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jul 24 2007 17:35 utc | 177
It was, to be honest, more of a snort than a laugh.
Your question, however, made me laugh out loud.
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 24 2007 17:35 utc | 178
jony_b@177
I don't get it. Why does the ill will and bad motivation of the US and UK excuse Mugabe? Do Zimbabwaens deserve starvation and secret police because the US/UK are not very nice?
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 24 2007 18:05 utc | 179
As I said, there would have been no Crusades without Christians, no Jihads without Muslims and no Holocaust without the Jews. A plague on all of them (and on any other religion that thinks it alone knows what 'god' is).
Problems like Mugabe would be easier to solve if we didn't have all that religious garbage around our necks. Imagine how much positive energy would have been freed up to solve the real problem of hunger, for instance, if we hadn't had a hundred years of Catholic-Protestant hatred in Northern Ireland, Christian-Jewish hatred in Nazi Germany, Christian-Muslim hatred in Bosnia, and didn't still have 6 decades of Jewish-Muslim fratricide in Palestine, Al Qaeda, global Shi'ite-Sunni enmity and other 'differences' of 'belief' to deal with....... Millions of people killing each other because they 'believe' differently. Pathetic.
It's sad being the lone voice on this Board complaining about the inherent, insane stupidity of religion per se. We wouldn't need this thread if the world collectively had even half a brain.
Posted by: Parviz | Jul 24 2007 18:47 utc | 180
As I said, there would have been no Crusades without Christians, no Jihads without Muslims and no Holocaust without the Jews.
What a wacko list
Crusades -> christians attack middle east (and jews on way there)
Jihads -> muslims attack whatever
Holocaust -> jews are attacked.
Which one of these is not like the others?
Note that gypsies, homosexuals, and labor activists went to the death camps too.
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 24 2007 18:58 utc | 181
Land Invasions and the 'Third Chimurenga'^ There are many accounts of the background, history and struggles over land in what is now Zimbabwe, the racially-skewed dual land tenure system that existed, and efforts to preserve or overthrow this system (for example Herbst 1990; Greenberg 2004; Maundeni 2004; Palmer 1977; Ranger 1985). After independence from Britain in 1980, resettlement did take place, but constitutional restraints, lack of resources and "limited political will" (Sachikonye 2003:17) meant that only 48 000 households were resettled instead of the desired 162 000 by 1989 (for accounts of resettlement in the 1980s and 1990s see Akwabi-Ameyaw 1990; Goebel 1999; Mufuka 1991). Land reform was also constrained by a shift in macro-economic policy, from a socialist to a liberal approach, under the Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (ESAP) at the beginning of the 1990s (Moyo 1995). The adoption of liberal, market-oriented policies did more to entrench existing white land holders than address the need for land among needy black Zimbabweans. Meanwhile, Zimbabwe's population exploded from seven million in 1982 to eleven million by the late 1990s, making for even greater overcrowding and land hunger in the communal areas. Britain, a major donor, froze aid for land reform in 1994 when farms acquired to alleviate rural poverty were revealed to have been diverted to the political elite. However, at the 1998 Donors Conference on Land, Britain agreed, in principle, to resume its GBP 47 million funding for land reform. Nevertheless, after losing a constitutional referendum in Eebruary 2000, President Robert Mugabe claimed Britain had broken promises made at the Lancaster House Agreement"* in 1979. This was used as a major reason by ZANU (PF) for launching the 'Fast-Track Land Reform' programme, timed to perfection as a tool to win back support for his party.ZANU (PF) lost its popularity in the late 1990s due to economic downturn, currency collapse, food shortages and unemployment, coming under pressure from an increasingly dissatisfied electorate and a newly formed and strong opposition party. 'My Life Got Lost': Farm Workers and Displacement in Zimbabwe. By: Hartnack, Andrew. Journal of Contemporary African Studies, May2005, Vol. 23 Issue 2, p173-192
2 million farm workers were displaced by mugabe's reforms.
Posted by: slothrop | Jul 24 2007 19:07 utc | 182
comandante strawman says "Why does the ill will and bad motivation of the US and UK excuse Mugabe?"
heh. now you've made me chortle :)
you know very well -- assuming you read the articles -- that nobody there or in this thread made that claim.
you put up zimbabwe as a case for arguing on the principles of external intervention. i've offered prima facie evidence of facts that show external intervention is already in motion. pick a better example & leave the sophism at home.
Posted by: b real | Jul 24 2007 19:09 utc | 183
mugabe'd be our man, if he wasn't so black, apparently:
A similar lesson applies to the use of anti-imperialism as an opposing ideology. The Mugabe regime has been very effective in broadening its appeal through its use of an anti-imperialist ideological offensive, while domestically carrying out a very specific, repressive class project. The language of anti-imperialism has mobilised the collective language of the nation, in ‘nationalist forms of globalisation politics’ that attempt to conceal elite accumulation, and use popular mobilisation for authoritarian politics.55 There are several reasons for theAfrican and ThirdWorldist support for Mugabe’s rhetoric. These include the latest predatory phase of American imperialism56 alongside what Rao calls an ‘insidious return of normative defences of empire’, which very easily evinces a defensive anti-imperialism.57 The dangers of the authoritarian appropriation of a potentially progressive discourse have been well summarised by Blade Nzimande:. . . what Zimbabwe does illustrate (once more) is that the demagogic appropriation of a progressive nationalist discourse by a bureaucratic capitalist stratum invariably drives a wedge
between radical third world nationalism and democracy. It ends up leaving former elites as the active champions of democracy. We need to challenge the monopoly of the nationalist discourse
enjoyed by this stratum, just as we need (certainly here in SA) to challenge the dominance of the discourse on human rights by conservative ethnic minority forces, who use the discourse to defend ill-begotten wealth from the past. A working class and popular appropriation of both the national
and the democratic is critical.58For the authoritarian nationalists in Zimbabwe, this appropriation takes place against what former Zimbabwean Minister of Foreign Affairs, Stan Mudenge believes to be ‘themutation of European and North American “socialists” and even some “communists”, from “progressives” in the 1960s
and 1970s to neo-liberal reactionaries today’. A similar position was taken by ruling party intellectual, Tafataona Mahoso, who has written that the revival of African nationalism has taken place as a result of the ‘bitter sense of betrayal which the Africanmajority feel at the hands of a new breed of neo-liberal African “reformers” and their Western allies, the socialists and progressives of yester-year’.59 The Zimbabwean Crisis and the Challenges for the Left
B Raftopoulos - Journal of Southern African Studies, 2006
Posted by: slothrop | Jul 24 2007 19:42 utc | 184
b real:
1) Try reading the exchange before making snide comments:
Jony_b writes:
you might actually have a good point if you could show that USA/UK really does have the interests of poor Zimbabweans (as well other poor folks in developing countries) at heart
and my comment is a direct response to that.
2. You may be convinced by the usual complaints of dictators that "outside agitators" are the only ones making trouble, but I'm not. A Zimbabwae government that has to expel the South African Trade Union council to keep it from talking to NGOs has identified itself.
Posted by: | Jul 24 2007 20:27 utc | 185
Parviz:
I would agree with you that human critters are badass violent territorial animals wreaking havoc all over the world, but I suspect that the religious element tags along after the fact as a rationalization. I mean, Dubya ain't _really_ Christian, now, is he, despite what he says about God telling him all those things.
When I read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel a couple of years ago, I was struck by the cold immorality of his descriptions--societies wiping out other societies, not for religious reasons, but simply because they could and did. They were multiplying and they wanted more food. Power will out. Religion explains it later. "God said we could,'cuz he's our God and he's bigger'n meaner than your god."
Posted by: catlady | Jul 25 2007 4:02 utc | 186
"What a wacko list
Crusades -> christians attack middle east (and jews on way there)
Jihads -> muslims attack whatever
Holocaust -> jews are attacked."
There you go again, trying to portray Jews as the only non-aggressive religion via revisionist history: Besides the well documented massacres of the Sabra/Shatila camps by Jews, the entire foundation of modern Israel was tainted by terrorist acts. By every modern definition Ben Gurion was a terrorist. The American Council for Judaism wrote extensively on Israeli terrorism and actually tried to prevent it. Yes, there are good Jews, just as there are good Muslims and good Christians, but the racist and expansionist goals of all 3 outweigh their benefits, as symbolized by 6 decades of Israeli humiliation of the Palestinians who were blameless for the Holocaust.
NOW do you get the point?
Posted by: Parviz | Jul 25 2007 4:14 utc | 187
catlady, it's a question of the chicken-and-the-egg. You believe that bad people exist and use religion as a tool, while I believe that religion breeds evil people and gives them both the inner strength and the legitimacy to create havoc of a magnitude that wouldn't otherwise exist.
Religion is, if you will, a psychological 'nuclear bomb', and just as nations shouldn't be trusted with nuclear weapons people shouldn't be trusted with religions. You have an example, on this very page, of Citizen K claiming the Jewish religion is, contrary to Islam and Christianity, exclusively non-violent!!! He tries to portray Jews as always the victims, while history proves otherwise. Religion encourages blind obedience and fanaticism even in highly educated people (in which category I place Citizen K). Jews think they are 'God's chosen race', as do many other religions. This is in itself an abomination and an insult to all humanity. Such clearly racist statements and beliefs have been a major cause of wars throughout history, not to mention the main incubator of ignorance and intolerance.
Anyone wanting to find 'god' should look inside his/her own soul and not go to mullahs, priests and Rabbis for (mis)guidance.
Posted by: Parviz | Jul 25 2007 4:31 utc | 188
citizen k @185
(1) i most certainly did read jony_b_cool, though i did not read into his comments an exoneration of mugabe, the party, or the police or any other govt institutions like you apparently did. we really are (or should be) talking about more than simply the "will" and "motivation" of the u.s. & u.k. here - concrete actions, policies & support for creating/growing anti-democratic revolutions, economic sabotage, & a constant propaganda campaign of demonization & mis/disinformation. and there are other internal, regional & int'l actors, as well. i'm not sure why you're seemingly willing to let the meddlers off the hook for their role in creating an environment of "starvation and secret police" in zimbabwe, designed to make life so bad that the people turn against their president, if you truly do care about the well-being of zim population. and nobody here said mugabe was an angel either, so call your strawmen off.
(2) at least you said "may"
thanks for the references slothrop. will check into them. the one that states "Robert Mugabe claimed Britain had broken promises made at the Lancaster House Agreement"* in 1979. " sounds dishonest, though. i think it's a matter of public record that blair openly reneged on those promises, so the bias in the writeup is suspect.
also, zimbabwe's independence was won on an anti-imperialist ideology, so it's not like mugabe is cynically reviving anti-imperialist "rhetoric" to mobilize under nationalism. for instance, my grandfather in zambia (formerly northern rhodesia), has been a loyal member of kk's UNIP party since independence in '64. they helped mugabe come to power, providing bases etc for the resistance to the rhodesian govt. from what i understand, there is still a lot of support for the one-party, participatory democracy model. anyway, lot of complex dynamics & history in these independence mvmts which believed that in order to break free from their experiences under capitalism and achieve a socialist transformation of society more in line w/ traditional communal cultures pre-colonial conquest required a push for mass mobilization (one-party states).
Posted by: b real | Jul 25 2007 4:52 utc | 189
There you go again, trying to portray Jews as the only non-aggressive religion via revisionist history:
No. That's not what I wrote at all. Not even close. I was pointing to an obvious logical inconsistency in your argument. At best, your point is sheer ignorance: the Nazis did not need religious reasons to exterminate Gypsies. But I think that it overly generous. On the face of it, blaming the Jews for the Holocaust is worse than ignorant, but of a piece with your claim that Jews cause anti-semitism.
Posted by: | Jul 25 2007 4:58 utc | 190
b real:
There are three separate issues that you are conflating.
1) Slothrops argument that "national sovreignty" is a poor basis for morality. Most states are amoral, many are worse. Slothrop points out that the emphasis on national self-determination is not consistent with e.g. the idea that human rights are primary values.
2) Whether Mugabe's government is an example of a "worse than amoral" state. You have offered several defenses of Mugabe based on (a) the identities of his critics, (b) transparent propaganda about "outside agitators" and (c) complaints about the motives of the US/UK. None of those address the clear verdict of Amnesty International or the expulsion of the fact finding mission from COSATU or any number of other instances that indicate in fact Mugabe has installed a despotic police kleptocracy.
In particular, this statement of yours makes no sense at all
"also, zimbabwe's independence was won on an anti-imperialist ideology, so it's not like mugabe is cynically reviving anti-imperialist "rhetoric" to mobilize under nationalism."
That's like arguing Napoleon came to power on revolutionary ideology so it's not like he wants to be an emperor or something. I'll also note that Mugabe did not create independence all by himself, he was part of a couple of allied movements and many of his compatriots in the struggle are in jail or exile.
3) Whether there is an existing intervention from the US/UK. I don't see the relevance of that. I will note that there is strong sentiment in South Africa for an intervention, and I think it would be an excellent idea. The collapse of Zimbabwe is a danger to South Africa.
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 25 2007 5:08 utc | 191
You have an example, on this very page, of Citizen K claiming the Jewish religion is, contrary to Islam and Christianity, exclusively non-violent!!!
I'd call you a liar if I thought you had the ability to understand what you write.
Come on, you don't have the excuse of a long time passing now, cite where I said that the Jewish religion was non-violent.
Posted by: citizen k, | Jul 25 2007 5:12 utc | 193
Great! So you agree it IS violent? You can't have it both ways. Is it or isn't it?
And that stuff about gypsies and homosexuals is a cop-out, a diversion from the real point, which is that religion has caused more suffering than other phenomena. I never wrote that no other phenomenon other than religion has caused human suffering. So don't twist my words. It never works.
By the way, regarding homosexuals, as far as I can judge the monotheistic religions all condemn homosexuals as sinners, so maybe that's why they were 'persecuted' by Hitler and others.
And in the interests of fair play, would you care to mention instances of Jewish terrorism? If not, I will.
Posted by: Parviz | Jul 25 2007 5:38 utc | 194
All religions are often violent. If you could read what I write instead of making up stupid arguments you think I should be writing, you would see I mentioned the current (sephardic) Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem who urges the faithful to kill heretical Jews (like me). What you wrote however was that "There would have been no Crusades without Christians, no Islamic Jihad without Muslims and no Holocaust without Jews." That's fucking stupid and implies that Jews brought the Holocaust on themselves - which is worse than stupid.
As for Jewish terrorism, if you had actually read Talmud instead of some warped treatment, you'd see a lot of unsympathetic discussion of the gross violence and terrible damage caused by Roman period Jewish terrorists called the "Zealots". The Rabbis gave this subject a lot of thought because the Jewish resistance to the Romans was fatally compromised by these thugs.
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 25 2007 5:57 utc | 195
"There would have been no Crusades without Christians, no Islamic Jihad without Muslims and no Holocaust without Jews." That's fucking stupid and implies that Jews brought the Holocaust on themselves - which is worse than stupid.
You see, you go ballistic, like most Jews, at the mention of the word 'Holocaust' and don't delve deeper into the meaning of what I'm saying, which is a statement of logical (not emotional) deduction:
If the Jewish and Christian religions had never existed, do you think that a Holocaust would have been even remotely possible or even conceivable? Do you believe that, without these religious identities, 6 million people (+/-) would have been selected for execution? Do you think that Islamic terrorism could ocur without the incubator of Islam that condemns 'nonbelievers' to Hellfire?
Religions, yours included, create the breeding grounds for prejudice, hatred, ignorance and shameless arrogance. The 'good Jews', the 'good Muslims' and the 'good Christians' are those whose intellects defy religious orthodoxy and reject the narrow confines of their respective religions. These people manage, through extraordinary intellectual courage and effort, to detoxify themselves from religious brainwashing and focus on human beings as interconnected elements of mankind, not as religiously stigmatized deviants in permanent ideological conflict with one another.
If you want to 'get religion', I suggest you get rid of it.
As for my comments being 'stupid' and 'fucking stupid', well, you're entitled to your opinion.
Posted by: Parviz | Jul 25 2007 7:17 utc | 196
As for your defence of the Talmud, and your claim that I never read it (= calling me a liar), here's an extract that would give even Stephen King nightmares:
From the Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin:
MISHNAH. THE MANNER IN WHICH BURNING IS EXECUTED IS AS FOLLOWS: HE WHO HAD BEEN THUS CONDEMNED WAS LOWERED INTO DUNG UP TO HIS ARMPITS, THEN A HARD CLOTH WAS PLACED WITHIN A SOFT ONE,7 WOUND ROUND HIS NECK, AND THE TWO LOOSE ENDS PULLED IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS, FORCING HIM TO OPEN HIS MOUTH. A WICK WAS THEN LIT, AND THROWN INTO HIS MOUTH, SO THAT IT DESCENDED INTO HIS BODY AND BURNT HIS BOWELS. R. JUDAH SAID: SHOULD HE HOWEVER HAVE DIED AT THEIR HANDS [BEING STRANGLED BY THE BANDAGE BEFORE THE WICK WAS THROWN INTO HIS MOUTH, OR BEFORE IT COULD ACT], HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXECUTED BY FIRE AS PRESCRIBED. HENCE IT WAS DONE THUS: HIS MOUTH WAS FORCED OPEN WITH PINCERS AGAINST HIS WISH, THE WICK LIT AND THROWN INTO HIS MOUTH, SO THAT IT DESCENDED INTO HIS BODY AND BURNT HIS BOWELS. R. ELEAZAR B. ZADOK SAID: IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT A PRIEST'S DAUGHTER COMMITTED ADULTERY, WHEREUPON BUNDLES OF FAGGOTS WERE PLACED ROUND ABOUT HER AND SHE WAS BURNT. THE SAGES REPLIED, THAT WAS BECAUSE THE BETH DIN AT THAT TIME WAS NOT WELL LEARNED IN LAW.
And you call this horrific gibberish a religion?
Posted by: Parviz | Jul 25 2007 7:38 utc | 197
@Parviz - 180
It's sad being the lone voice on this Board complaining about the inherent, insane stupidity of religion per se. We wouldn't need this thread if the world collectively had even half a brain.
Lots of folks here agree with your position (for example - beq said so upthread).
"Collective brain" - I doubt we will ever get there ...
Post 108 is so far upboard, and so brief, that I forgot about it ;-)
Posted by: Parviz | Jul 25 2007 11:56 utc | 199
As for your "Collective brain" - I doubt we will ever get there ..., I reluctantly have to agree: If we have people on such a great, high-powered intellectual board still motivated in their arguments by the religious stamps in their I.Ds, then I don't hold out much hope for the uneducated Jews and Muslims who shake their heads fiercely to force the religious texts more quickly into their indoctrinated brains.
Posted by: Parviz | Jul 25 2007 12:04 utc | 200
The comments to this entry are closed.
My conclusion is that you are repeating themes from the racist right in Germany...
c-k. You'r obviously manipulating here.
You are stating that whenever an argument is used by some idiots that also does mean that other who use that possibly well grounded argument are idiots too. That is certainly not the case.
What you say does not do anything in anyway to refute that argument. That argument indeed may be well grounded.
It's a stupid way to argue at all, but it is ,incidently?, quite typical for defenders of illegitimate endevors. In your case, maybe, absolute Zionism?
Some obviously fall for that - don't expect people here to do so.
Taking that way makes you an unreliable source of information. You'll not get any respect for being such.
Posted by: b | Jul 21 2007 20:18 utc | 101