Well, one quality of paranoid pamphleteering is that besides the sync points where it touches down to the 'cabals' and the revealing symptomatic terms of occassional racism ('breed') and the constant falling into the usage of 'They', besides all that it all seems so compelling.
Paranoia is a hallmark of rampant intelligence that has lost touch with the reference points of sense and the bodily reality that makes up the common life-world of 'meanings.' A paranoid tries to make meanings out of the phenomena that are at the edges of sensible reality: tries to draw conclusions from making networks out of the relationship of signs not grounded in the sensible world . . .. the parts all make sense but their being forced into an over-all coherent pattern is where the paranoid excells, its allways 'behind the scenes', its allways so obviouse as well, except that it is allways hidden . . .
Anti-Semitism has a special place in the paranoid schemata because of the history of Jews as a sub-culture in Europe never quite explainable in terms of the Life-world of common European discourse . . . they kept their world and culture despite the constant threat of violence, and since they could not be explained as an incorporated part of the life-world they became the Other within: the unexplainable agent
this, coupled with the fact that Jews historically were forbidden to work in many fields and were thus forced into fields considered taboo (travelling merchants, money-lenders, jewelers) they were seen as taking control of these realms. Because Jewish culture interfaced with Europeans pretty much exclusively at these areas Europeans created hysterical readings of just what jews were doing with those roles given them once they became successful with those roles.
this became the 'behind-the-scenes' kind of explanaition of the unexplainable (in European terms) . . .a behind the scenes which was also seen as within the very world of values of the common European
When Nihilism was unnavoidable due to the Industrial Revolution and the disenfranchisement of "God" (Death of God) as an intrinsic valuator(catch-all explanation) of the life world, Europeans looked for an explanation for their loss of control: their loss of self and the loss of all 'meaning' . . rather than accept that the forces came from the manner history unfolded, they looked at the most obviouse "Unexplanable" within their life-world: Jews became the scapegoat for Europe's loss of meaning .. . . .nevermind that Europe itself became 'Unexplainable' with the "Death Of God" (Historically/culturally speaking here you CHristians) the Jews became the paranoid defence mechanism Du Jour
and this residue persists, anti-Semitism is almost a default for paranoids as this historical dynamic is still under the surface as part of the history of Europe.
THe same can be said for Gypsy's except that Gypsies never took to the taboo occupations and never succeeded monetarily . . . so they never became the 'behind the scenes' kind of scapegoat merely the 'pest' kind of scapegtoat explanation.
anyway . . . just some thoughts
pflamm makes a good observation here. When I think of any of my associates that are conspiracy theorists, the main fear seems to be a secret society that controls the world and maneuvers it. And the Jews are always at the heart of this secret elite club. But this is chronic; these theories are usually given from the old generation to the new one, from the Rosicrucians and the Confessio fraternitatis Roseae crucis, Ad eruditor Europae to the post French Revolution Memoires pour servir a l'histoire du jacobinisme by Barruel which talked about a secret society bent on the destruction of the monarchy and papacy made up of mostly jews, with the French revolution being the final outcome of the "master Plan". There is always a need for a scapegoat; even a fictional one. An elusive bunge quality 'strawman'. It's sad to see that old lies don't die out. They only get stronger.
Could you explain that? Not that I like Buchanan or anything, but I'm not quite sure what you mean.
Cheers
Scott
Let me just say if the race for President of the US was a choice between Buchanan or Hillary Clinton I would vote for Clinton just to make sure Buchanan does not step foot in the White House.
pflamm makes a good observation here. When I think of any of my associates that are conspiracy theorists, the main fear seems to be a secret society that controls the world and maneuvers it. And the Jews are always at the heart of this secret elite club. But this is chronic; these theories are usually given from the old generation to the new one, from the Rosicrucians and the Confessio fraternitatis Roseae crucis, Ad eruditor Europae to the post French Revolution Memoires pour servir a l'histoire du jacobinisme by Barruel which talked about a secret society bent on the destruction of the monarchy and papacy made up of mostly jews, with the French revolution being the final outcome of the "master Plan". There is always a need for a scapegoat; even a fictional one. An elusive bunge quality 'strawman'. It's sad to see that old lies don't die out. They only get stronger.
EXACTLY! For once I agree with pfflam. I can not stand the tired old story of blame the Jews for everything. It is OLD and I am sick of it to the N'th degree.
Let me just say if the race for President of the US was a choice between Buchanan or Hillary Clinton I would vote for Clinton just to make sure Buchanan does not step foot in the White House.
He is very anti-Jewish in my humble opinion.
He makes me sick.
Fellowship
Agreed. But let me ask this, and again, I ask it in all sincerity, why is his (apparent) anti-semitism important to you?
Agreed. But let me ask this, and again, I ask it in all sincerity, why is his (apparent) anti-semitism important to you?
Cheers
Scott
I know many Jews I respect them and they are my friends. I think it is a sad day to sit back and allow people to spew conspiracy rhetoric that is racist.
I also would take offence at hate directed to Blacks or Gays.
I'm not being contrarian here. I honestly want to know how you explain/think about this.
Cheers
Scott
scapegoats in history have claimed too many lives. History can repeat itself if good men do not stand up to the evil ones who would promote the continuation of lies and paranoia.
I am rooted in a value system or world view of Justice and people like Pat Buchanan do not line up with my views.
scapegoats in history have claimed too many lives.
Indeed. The question I'm driving at here is what makes something a scapegoat and something else *not*?
Quote:
History can repeat itself if good men do not stand up to the evil ones who would promote the continuation of lies and paranoia.
You've got this aphorism wrong.
Actually, you've conflated two different quotes. The first is something like "Those who do not learn their history are doomed to repeat it."
The second is that "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" (Edmund Burke)
Those two quotes do not necessarily have anything to do with one another. In fact, it could be argued that in the sense you're using them, they are potentially antithetical to one another.
I'll ask the question in a more pointed way: are anti-semite politics more distasteful to you than anti-arab politics?
Indeed. The question I'm driving at here is what makes something a scapegoat and something else *not*?
I'll ask the question in a more pointed way: are anti-semite politics more distasteful to you than anti-arab politics?
Cheers
Scott
To respond to your first question what makes something a scapegoat and something else not I will say:
A given society must correctly identify its problems and not blame the problems on a false "scapegoat"
These lines can be blured depending on who is reviewing the data and it is this mis-reading of the data and wrong assignment of a wrong "scapegoat" that sorry minded political opertunists seek to harness and use for the wrong reasons which lead to injustice and continued hatred.
To respond to your second question "are anti-semite politics more distasteful to me than anti-arab politics? No not one ounce. It is equally distasteful to me. We must as a world allow for all peoples to live and exist and indeed this includes the palestinian people and the Isralies. In fact this should pertain to all peoples of the Earth.
Funny enough I saw this evening a documentary on the Bushmen of Southern Africa and how they are viewed by the others in the area as less than human. I strongly believe we all are human and are due our freedom, way of life and pursuit of happiness. I do not agree with those who seek to demonize a whole group of people no matter who they are.
[B]To respond to your first question what makes something a scapegoat and something else not I will say:
A given society must correctly identify its problems and not blame the problems on a false "scapegoat"
These lines can be blured depending on who is reviewing the data and it is this mis-reading of the data and wrong assignment of a wrong "scapegoat" that sorry minded political opertunists seek to harness and use for the wrong reasons which lead to injustice and continued hatred.
Well, to clear a few things up here... A "scapegoat" is a jewish tradition in which a local people sacrifice a goat which bears the burdens of that people's sins upon it. Its death therefore cleanses them of sin.
As for this line--"sorry minded political opertunists seek to harness and use for the wrong reasons which lead to injustice and continued hatred"--you might want to think long and hard about the implications of such a position. What makes one "sorry minded" or a "political opportunist"? How do we determine "wrong reasons"? How do we determine what leads to "injustice and continued hatred"?
It would be very easy for me to turn all of this back on to the current administration and its policies in the middle east.
Quote:
To respond to your second question "are anti-semite politics more distasteful to me than anti-arab politics? No not one ounce. It is equally distasteful to me. We must as a world allow for all peoples to live and exist and indeed this includes the palestinian people and the Isralies. In fact this should pertain to all peoples of the Earth.
I didn't mention the Palestinians. I mentioned the Arabs. And I only realized after you'd responded that I should've simply said "Muslims."
At any rate, so you're arguing that we should be tolerant of other peoples (Jews and Muslims) and their beliefs?
Ladies , and gentlemen could you please stay on topic.
I thought I was....these are questions that, however US-centric, are largely determining US foreign policy (and our "attitude" toward Europe is included in this) these days and thus have a significant bearing upon whether or not Europe is "irrelevant."
I thought I was....these are questions that, however US-centric, are largely determining US foreign policy (and our "attitude" toward Europe is included in this) these days and thus have a significant bearing upon whether or not Europe is "irrelevant."
Did I miss something?
Cheers
Scott
If you are right it will means that the question of relevance of Europe is more a question of perception of US people, rather than a strict reality.
Perhaps i was silly to answer this question in a strict rational way, and to forgot the psychological aspect of it.
As long as there is Lindt chocolate in Switzerland, dog shit on the pavements of Paris, fado in Portugal, all-night art deco cafés in Spain, weird fish dishes in Norway and everything in the city of Florence, Europe will be just fine.
Splinemodel - It is patently obvious that you know little about either Europe or economics?but do you know anything at all about socialism that you didn?t learn from half-baked right-wing ideologues? And why couch your argument in such biblical terms?
I was merely putting in argument in biblical terms in order to pressure fellowship's argument, which will have a religious motive to it since fellowship values religion, precisely Christianity. It's not really my nature or intent to wholeheartedly introduce spirtual beliefs into arguments about human-to-human involvements.
I know quite a bit about both topics. There are obviously people who know more than I do, but I'm not an economist or a politician. If you don't think I have any idea about economics or Europe, a non-backed-up one-liner isn't going to serve you well.
Another little observations. Often when I present an argument about the ineffective EU economic policy to a European, I get a response that's basically "It's not black and white" and there is little substance. I have yet to see a liberal or European on this board, aside from perhaps BRussell, ever put substance into an argument on such grounds.
Personally, I think that "social-democratic" (read:socialist) idealouges about things not being black and white are half-baked. . . and given the economic status of Europe vs. America, I think we can tell for sure whose economy is more effective at generating wealth and welfare. (You'll argue here unless you yourself have any knowledge of economics)
Apologies to Fellowship, since by being so rhetorical I was undeniably being a jerk, but I just don't like one line responses. If you're going to respond, back yourself up. . . That goes especially to a number of posters in this thread. you know who you are
Comments
Originally posted by pfflam
Well, one quality of paranoid pamphleteering is that besides the sync points where it touches down to the 'cabals' and the revealing symptomatic terms of occassional racism ('breed') and the constant falling into the usage of 'They', besides all that it all seems so compelling.
Paranoia is a hallmark of rampant intelligence that has lost touch with the reference points of sense and the bodily reality that makes up the common life-world of 'meanings.' A paranoid tries to make meanings out of the phenomena that are at the edges of sensible reality: tries to draw conclusions from making networks out of the relationship of signs not grounded in the sensible world . . .. the parts all make sense but their being forced into an over-all coherent pattern is where the paranoid excells, its allways 'behind the scenes', its allways so obviouse as well, except that it is allways hidden . . .
Anti-Semitism has a special place in the paranoid schemata because of the history of Jews as a sub-culture in Europe never quite explainable in terms of the Life-world of common European discourse . . . they kept their world and culture despite the constant threat of violence, and since they could not be explained as an incorporated part of the life-world they became the Other within: the unexplainable agent
this, coupled with the fact that Jews historically were forbidden to work in many fields and were thus forced into fields considered taboo (travelling merchants, money-lenders, jewelers) they were seen as taking control of these realms. Because Jewish culture interfaced with Europeans pretty much exclusively at these areas Europeans created hysterical readings of just what jews were doing with those roles given them once they became successful with those roles.
this became the 'behind-the-scenes' kind of explanaition of the unexplainable (in European terms) . . .a behind the scenes which was also seen as within the very world of values of the common European
When Nihilism was unnavoidable due to the Industrial Revolution and the disenfranchisement of "God" (Death of God) as an intrinsic valuator(catch-all explanation) of the life world, Europeans looked for an explanation for their loss of control: their loss of self and the loss of all 'meaning' . . rather than accept that the forces came from the manner history unfolded, they looked at the most obviouse "Unexplanable" within their life-world: Jews became the scapegoat for Europe's loss of meaning .. . . .nevermind that Europe itself became 'Unexplainable' with the "Death Of God" (Historically/culturally speaking here you CHristians) the Jews became the paranoid defence mechanism Du Jour
and this residue persists, anti-Semitism is almost a default for paranoids as this historical dynamic is still under the surface as part of the history of Europe.
THe same can be said for Gypsy's except that Gypsies never took to the taboo occupations and never succeeded monetarily . . . so they never became the 'behind the scenes' kind of scapegoat merely the 'pest' kind of scapegtoat explanation.
anyway . . . just some thoughts
pflamm makes a good observation here. When I think of any of my associates that are conspiracy theorists, the main fear seems to be a secret society that controls the world and maneuvers it. And the Jews are always at the heart of this secret elite club. But this is chronic; these theories are usually given from the old generation to the new one, from the Rosicrucians and the Confessio fraternitatis Roseae crucis, Ad eruditor Europae to the post French Revolution Memoires pour servir a l'histoire du jacobinisme by Barruel which talked about a secret society bent on the destruction of the monarchy and papacy made up of mostly jews, with the French revolution being the final outcome of the "master Plan". There is always a need for a scapegoat; even a fictional one. An elusive bunge quality 'strawman'. It's sad to see that old lies don't die out. They only get stronger.
Originally posted by bunge
No side of the issue (except perhaps the Buchannonites who are complete isolationists) supported a non-strategy.
It was my assertion that they did sit squarely on one side of the issue. The side of the issue that kept Saddam in power and maintained his tyranny.
If you support the status quo and it happens to be tyranny, then you support tyranny.
Nick
Yeah it's called the past. This is called the present. If you would like to discuss it please feel free to chime in.
And so there's no relation between the two?
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
Could you explain that? Not that I like Buchanan or anything, but I'm not quite sure what you mean.
Cheers
Scott
Let me just say if the race for President of the US was a choice between Buchanan or Hillary Clinton I would vote for Clinton just to make sure Buchanan does not step foot in the White House.
He is very anti-Jewish in my humble opinion.
He makes me sick.
Fellowship
Originally posted by Outsider
pflamm makes a good observation here. When I think of any of my associates that are conspiracy theorists, the main fear seems to be a secret society that controls the world and maneuvers it. And the Jews are always at the heart of this secret elite club. But this is chronic; these theories are usually given from the old generation to the new one, from the Rosicrucians and the Confessio fraternitatis Roseae crucis, Ad eruditor Europae to the post French Revolution Memoires pour servir a l'histoire du jacobinisme by Barruel which talked about a secret society bent on the destruction of the monarchy and papacy made up of mostly jews, with the French revolution being the final outcome of the "master Plan". There is always a need for a scapegoat; even a fictional one. An elusive bunge quality 'strawman'. It's sad to see that old lies don't die out. They only get stronger.
EXACTLY! For once I agree with pfflam. I can not stand the tired old story of blame the Jews for everything. It is OLD and I am sick of it to the N'th degree.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Let me just say if the race for President of the US was a choice between Buchanan or Hillary Clinton I would vote for Clinton just to make sure Buchanan does not step foot in the White House.
He is very anti-Jewish in my humble opinion.
He makes me sick.
Fellowship
Agreed. But let me ask this, and again, I ask it in all sincerity, why is his (apparent) anti-semitism important to you?
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
Agreed. But let me ask this, and again, I ask it in all sincerity, why is his (apparent) anti-semitism important to you?
Cheers
Scott
I know many Jews I respect them and they are my friends. I think it is a sad day to sit back and allow people to spew conspiracy rhetoric that is racist.
I also would take offence at hate directed to Blacks or Gays.
Fellowship
I think it is a sad day to sit back and allow people to spew conspiracy rhetoric that is racist.
I also would take offence at hate directed to Blacks or Gays.
[/B]
Why?
I'm not being contrarian here. I honestly want to know how you explain/think about this.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
Why?
I'm not being contrarian here. I honestly want to know how you explain/think about this.
Cheers
Scott
scapegoats in history have claimed too many lives. History can repeat itself if good men do not stand up to the evil ones who would promote the continuation of lies and paranoia.
I am rooted in a value system or world view of Justice and people like Pat Buchanan do not line up with my views.
Fellowship
scapegoats in history have claimed too many lives.
Indeed. The question I'm driving at here is what makes something a scapegoat and something else *not*?
History can repeat itself if good men do not stand up to the evil ones who would promote the continuation of lies and paranoia.
You've got this aphorism wrong.
Actually, you've conflated two different quotes. The first is something like "Those who do not learn their history are doomed to repeat it."
The second is that "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" (Edmund Burke)
Those two quotes do not necessarily have anything to do with one another. In fact, it could be argued that in the sense you're using them, they are potentially antithetical to one another.
I'll ask the question in a more pointed way: are anti-semite politics more distasteful to you than anti-arab politics?
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
Indeed. The question I'm driving at here is what makes something a scapegoat and something else *not*?
I'll ask the question in a more pointed way: are anti-semite politics more distasteful to you than anti-arab politics?
Cheers
Scott
To respond to your first question what makes something a scapegoat and something else not I will say:
A given society must correctly identify its problems and not blame the problems on a false "scapegoat"
These lines can be blured depending on who is reviewing the data and it is this mis-reading of the data and wrong assignment of a wrong "scapegoat" that sorry minded political opertunists seek to harness and use for the wrong reasons which lead to injustice and continued hatred.
To respond to your second question "are anti-semite politics more distasteful to me than anti-arab politics? No not one ounce. It is equally distasteful to me. We must as a world allow for all peoples to live and exist and indeed this includes the palestinian people and the Isralies. In fact this should pertain to all peoples of the Earth.
Funny enough I saw this evening a documentary on the Bushmen of Southern Africa and how they are viewed by the others in the area as less than human. I strongly believe we all are human and are due our freedom, way of life and pursuit of happiness. I do not agree with those who seek to demonize a whole group of people no matter who they are.
Bushmen link
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
[B]To respond to your first question what makes something a scapegoat and something else not I will say:
A given society must correctly identify its problems and not blame the problems on a false "scapegoat"
These lines can be blured depending on who is reviewing the data and it is this mis-reading of the data and wrong assignment of a wrong "scapegoat" that sorry minded political opertunists seek to harness and use for the wrong reasons which lead to injustice and continued hatred.
Well, to clear a few things up here... A "scapegoat" is a jewish tradition in which a local people sacrifice a goat which bears the burdens of that people's sins upon it. Its death therefore cleanses them of sin.
As for this line--"sorry minded political opertunists seek to harness and use for the wrong reasons which lead to injustice and continued hatred"--you might want to think long and hard about the implications of such a position. What makes one "sorry minded" or a "political opportunist"? How do we determine "wrong reasons"? How do we determine what leads to "injustice and continued hatred"?
It would be very easy for me to turn all of this back on to the current administration and its policies in the middle east.
To respond to your second question "are anti-semite politics more distasteful to me than anti-arab politics? No not one ounce. It is equally distasteful to me. We must as a world allow for all peoples to live and exist and indeed this includes the palestinian people and the Isralies. In fact this should pertain to all peoples of the Earth.
I didn't mention the Palestinians. I mentioned the Arabs. And I only realized after you'd responded that I should've simply said "Muslims."
At any rate, so you're arguing that we should be tolerant of other peoples (Jews and Muslims) and their beliefs?
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
At any rate, so you're arguing that we should be tolerant of other peoples (Jews and Muslims) and their beliefs?
Cheers
Scott
Greetings midwinter,
I think you know what I am saying at this point, indeed I believe it is just to recognize all peoples and to treat all equally.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Greetings midwinter,
I think you know what I am saying at this point, indeed I believe it is just to recognize all peoples and to treat all equally.
Fellowship
What I'm asking, FCIB, is what that *means*. And how far you're willing to take it?
You ignored the first part of my response, which I think was fairly important.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Ladies , and gentlemen could you please stay on topic.
I thought I was....these are questions that, however US-centric, are largely determining US foreign policy (and our "attitude" toward Europe is included in this) these days and thus have a significant bearing upon whether or not Europe is "irrelevant."
Did I miss something?
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
I thought I was....these are questions that, however US-centric, are largely determining US foreign policy (and our "attitude" toward Europe is included in this) these days and thus have a significant bearing upon whether or not Europe is "irrelevant."
Did I miss something?
Cheers
Scott
If you are right it will means that the question of relevance of Europe is more a question of perception of US people, rather than a strict reality.
Perhaps i was silly to answer this question in a strict rational way, and to forgot the psychological aspect of it.
As long as there is Lindt chocolate in Switzerland, dog shit on the pavements of Paris, fado in Portugal, all-night art deco cafés in Spain, weird fish dishes in Norway and everything in the city of Florence, Europe will be just fine.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Splinemodel - It is patently obvious that you know little about either Europe or economics?but do you know anything at all about socialism that you didn?t learn from half-baked right-wing ideologues? And why couch your argument in such biblical terms?
I was merely putting in argument in biblical terms in order to pressure fellowship's argument, which will have a religious motive to it since fellowship values religion, precisely Christianity. It's not really my nature or intent to wholeheartedly introduce spirtual beliefs into arguments about human-to-human involvements.
I know quite a bit about both topics. There are obviously people who know more than I do, but I'm not an economist or a politician. If you don't think I have any idea about economics or Europe, a non-backed-up one-liner isn't going to serve you well.
Another little observations. Often when I present an argument about the ineffective EU economic policy to a European, I get a response that's basically "It's not black and white" and there is little substance. I have yet to see a liberal or European on this board, aside from perhaps BRussell, ever put substance into an argument on such grounds.
Personally, I think that "social-democratic" (read:socialist) idealouges about things not being black and white are half-baked. . . and given the economic status of Europe vs. America, I think we can tell for sure whose economy is more effective at generating wealth and welfare. (You'll argue here unless you yourself have any knowledge of economics)
Apologies to Fellowship, since by being so rhetorical I was undeniably being a jerk, but I just don't like one line responses. If you're going to respond, back yourself up. . . That goes especially to a number of posters in this thread. you know who you are