Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - AndrewBole

Pages: [1] 2
Politics & Religion / Re: Hamas' Godless Killers
« on: November 20, 2012, 03:58:15 PM »

"The task of weakening Hamas’s capacity to do harm would be helped, though, if a watching world displayed a greater intellectual honesty when looking at Hamas, and at Israel’s efforts to deny Hamas the capacity to kill. Perhaps those rockets fired at Jerusalem will promote a greater clarity of thought and thence of judgment."

Now to clear the air first, there is no doubt in the case presented who the agressor is nor who incited this particular event.

but it would likewise, do people very good were they to display greater intellectual honesty when looking at Israel retailation policy and Hamas' actual capacity to kill.

Some numbers regarding victims during operation Cast Lead and since....mind the block about minors and kids.

One thing seems certain. The IDFs capacity to kill is looking quite more daunting than Hamas'.

 Article 52 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions provides a widely-accepted definition of military objective: "In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage"

Good thing Protocol 1 (victims in international conflicts) and protocol 2 ( non international conflicts) have not been ratified let alone signed by Israel. They were however signed by Iran. Perspective ?

woof from Ljubljana

Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential
« on: February 01, 2012, 04:53:18 PM »
whats the latest on the Tea party?


IF a Democrat wants to point out I am betting against the economy of the US for political reasons the answer is - YESIREE!


Politics & Religion / Re: Chomsky
« on: January 25, 2012, 01:53:12 PM »
guys, as much as I like to debate stuff, please keep this thread contained of all else, BUT formulated questions for the man.

If you already posted something, try to rephrase the meaning of your post or rearrange the "critic" of the person you are referencing, so that we may put together a nice questionnarie/interview, that he will be able to answer in a nice, concise manner.

Politics & Religion / Re: Chomsky
« on: January 24, 2012, 12:40:22 PM »
1st off, Crafty please delete all posts that arent directly supporting the effort to gather up a decent "questionnaire"

I'd like to know what guilt Chomsky feels for his support for Pol Pot and his denial of the Cambodian holocaust.

since we want the guy to actually respond to us, we would need a certain level of cultural dialogue present. So let me try to rephrase, and tell me if you agree with it

"What are your thoughts on certain critics that you have supported the Pol Pot regime with its countless deaths and suffering and in doing so, also agreed with the Cambodian holocaust to a certain degree?"

I'd like to know what incident or incidents between him and his parents made him develop a hatred of his Jewish ancestry and propelled him towards consorting with antisemites and holocaust deniers.

innapropriate, rephrase the question or be more specific with what do you wish to acheive with the question

is that it though ? Nothing else ? Find some more of your "critics", extract their main point and write it here. Lets challenge his claims, study him. Unless of course you just want to drag him throguh the mud and call him names.

Better be prepared though, you wont get trivia style answers. Get ready to read some books. The man is ready to dance, hard. I have already asked him about Bogdanor, and some other harsher critics on his linguistics academia front and he pointed me to 3 of his (Chomskys) books where Bogdanors claims are actually put into context and Im beggining to see why he said, he usually doesnt even respond to contacts asking him about it.

anyway, try to find more. And no littering with your hatemail either. Just the link of the article, or reference or whatever, and under it the main point of the critic.

Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom
« on: January 17, 2012, 01:32:06 PM »
cant pick sides at this point, but several purely technical issues at hand present even greater moral and criminal issues if SOPA gets passed. Simply said, the technical side of HOW it will actually work, is very shady indeed

it builds upon the protect IP act from 08


3C1 and 3C2

"Requiring search engines to delete a domain name begins a worldwide arms race of unprecedented 'censorship' of the Web," Cerf wrote in a letter to Chairman Lamar Smith that Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) presented to the panel Thursday.

"Much of what will happen under SOPA will occur out of the public eye and without the possibility of holding anyone accountable. For when copyright law is made and enforced privately, it is hard for the public to know the shape that the law takes and harder still to complain about its operation."

In addition to domain-name filtering, SOPA would impose an open-ended obligation on Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to prevent access to infringing sites. This means that SOPA would impose an unprecedented responsibility on ISPs to scrutinize and screen all user traffic.  Preventing access to specific sites would require ISPs to inspect all the Internet traffic of its entire user base....  

Now that bolded part sounds frigging scary. A move worthy of Stalinesque state control  :mrgreen: If only there was such fiery support of the state in the fiscal and monetary sector, teeheee  :evil:

all in all, I think the majority of the tech savy experts that counter the bill is not on its "moral" stand, but on its technical inferiority. It will be more costly, less user friendly, a downright b!tch to finance and it will only drive the pirates deeper underground.

Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential
« on: January 11, 2012, 02:35:21 PM »
im sure you have seen this elsewhere,

but without further ado, I give you

vermin supreme

Politics & Religion / Chomsky
« on: January 08, 2012, 10:53:21 AM »

well as some of you may know, Ive said im gonna try and get Chomskys direct insight to some of his claims regarding Israel/Palestine and his critics. I have been successfull. While he declined participating on the actual forum, he will take some time off his busy schedule and answer our questions.

So we will do it like this. For the next week, till Sunday, any type of question you have, please put together a consice, formulated question, so we wont get misfires with questions being too complicated or referencing too many other sources. Premise has to be simple, quickly understood, and within the scope of an answer via email. You may post more of them if you wish.

We will choose 5 most appropriate ones, and send them to him. I will make sure he gets them, and coordinate the rest of the comms with him



Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« on: December 16, 2011, 07:35:21 AM »

Tell you what. I will contact Noam myself. Try to get one of my contacts on MIT, to succesfully transfer the mail, refer him to this page, or at the very least try to get him to comment the smear you posted. Lets see what he has to ?

Lets make an experiment

After years of ignoring such allegations, former CIA analyst and marine intel officer Robert Steele read Webster Tarpley's book and has joined the chorus of colleagues such as William Christionson, Robert Baer and Ray McGovern and concluded that in the very least, the neocons allowed 9/11 to occur and were at some level involved in the larger plot.
Marines, in on it. CIA in on it. Not so savvy as you thought eh ? Clandestine much

Such CIA affiliations have in fact been alleged by various sources. If you disregard the allegations merely on the basis of those making the claims and feel that former Yugoslavian president Slobodan Milosevic's death during his war crimes tribunal was in fact a product of his ailing health alone and not an assassination plot by such interests as he was alleging prior to his death, you may want to bookmark this section and refer back to it later after we demonstrate irrefutably that Western intelligence and their allies, not the "Axis of Evil" they so bizarrely referred to in the wake of 9/11, were involved in the 9/11 attacks and an increasing amount of smaller events since then.

Milošević and the Balkan mafia. Innocent, right ?

Bin Laden in Sweden. Undercover operative. He even sports the hippie style. Innocent, right ?

Another case

Setllers came to america, killed, massacred or deliberately affected natives with smallpox to diminish the population. From the lowest estimate, 2.5 million (1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus. Knopf. ISBN 1-4000-3205-9. ) to the highest estimate, 35 million ((1992). American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0195075816. )

Now America is morally above, critically acclaimed, the protector of the weak, the safehaven of the poor, and the unfree. Fraud.

America is Evil to the bone. And a sneaky one at that too. Kills you, takes your land, then tells others how to be moral. Chomsky was right after all. Nazis were at least honest about their intentions.

What is common to these above constructed allegations and my "comments" to them ? Besides the fact, that they use the same rhetoric and modus operandi as yours, they utilize constant logical phallacies and failed relevance.

You see GM in a serious conversation, where one has or wants to proove a rational point, the train of thought needs to follow a certain logical structure. Argumentative structure. Already the wise Socrates, saw it as a big problem, when people came about, spouting anything they heard, picked up, or read on some stone, as right. So much so, that he made up his own way of conversing with such folk, he called it elenchos. His successors, mostly Aristotle, had enough of the dimwits chasing ghosts and spouting others, he decided to make a complete system of logic and argumentative reasoning. It is called Organon.

Logic as the basis of a rational argument supereeds „fact“, tenure, fraud, smear...etc. Because it is what holds it firm in the first place. It is what makes the usage of „fact“ true, or not.

You can find a quick overlook here. Make sure you start referencing it as frequently as google.

add to that a list of all the logical phallacies, starting with your favourite one

a logical phallacy means, that an argument is invalid as long as it uses this kind of logic.

Im all for critique. Truly, its what I like best. Hell I read Christopher Hitchen on several accounts. Foucuaults critique, fascinating, even the most hardcore Derridean deconstructionists, Dennet, Harris, Webber...etc. This is field of theory. There are views, not facts. This isnt science. People disagree.
HOWEVER, if any criticism is to be taken seriously, its form needs to follow certain guidelines. What you usually post, are attacks against the man, usually against him as a persona, to discredit him, presidential elections style, without ANY kind of factual proof, only circumstantial evidence.

The Taupe case, busted, the Rollins letters, busted, the alleged anti semite collaboration, busted. Its all there, if you read everything. In any case, lets hope the man himself will shed more light on it.

Take any single great mind in history, and you will see they were greatly controversial if not only outlawed for crimes against humanity, God, culture, or otherwise. Frauds eh. Descartes, father of the West, fraud. Galileo, fraud. Kopernik, fraud. Socrates, fraud. Spinoza, fraud. Leibnitz, fraud. Voltaire, fraud, Faraday, fraud. Reinhold, Jacobi, Kant, Hegel, Fichte, all frauds. Einstein, Hawking, proven wrong. Frauds.

Let me clear it up for you: Because a common tactic of the left is to claim the National SOCIALIST German Worker's Party was somehow right wing in it's orientation, rather than one of the evil offspring of Marx's ideas.

Ah, shame. I was expecting excerpts from the nsdap political program, and its connetion to the contemporal left-wing doctrine, or at the very least Mein Kampf, that shows ties to the manifesto, or the Engels scriptures, or the Theses on Feuerbach. You know, something that I can actually connect into a thesis. But at least its a good one, to brainstorm with my colleagues over some juice in a saloon.

Come to think of it, from a pure epistemological standpoint, you are right man. Anything that you read, has an effect on you. This is the true Hegelian negative, which is actually a positive negative, that connects the thesis, with antithesis into a synthesis. Damn, you got me thinking now....

Nice one

@ Marc

Easy there. For someone claiming to be „as far right as they come“ you sure dare a lot.

Lets wait and see. I do not agree, with the notions on Europe. But this is for another topic, another day. Ever since it came into fruition, even in the times of the EGS, we were constantly getting the demography remarks, the „youre done“ arguments. But the sole fact remains, as long as Germany is at world peak economy, and at the moment it most definitely is, EU has a substantial leverage. When stuff goes awoll in Germany, that is a huge red flag. Then you have the Russians, which everyone and their mother throws stones at, and the Chinese of course. The communists will save us once again I hope.

If you wish, the only officially confirmed source by the Commision on raw matters EU, go here :

Concerning other things Israel, I agree here. Like I stated already, that the marginal forms of rebelion are doing more harm than good in alot of the cases of the „war effort“. I am not an expert on politics, so I will not play one. But if you go listen to any of the links above, from Chomsky or BtSelem, its stated black on white, which resolutions were vetoed by Israel, which by USA and when, which international human rights laws were violated, security council laws violated...etc. Neither side here has the ethically superior ground.

Like I said, plain and simple, the two will need to find common space, in the terms of a social contract.
Jumping back to our earlier conversation concerning the logical consistency vel non of Hitler's claims to Sudenland and the Jews claims to Israel:

You are not reading this correctly. Im not using the particularities of the treaties to show how and why the repercussions failed. I said that Hitlers claim to Sudetenland, lied on the same „historical“ necessity argument that the Jewish claim Israel, and Palestine. I used the example to see if you agree with Hitlers claim in that specific example, and why/why not.

Sadly I have to resign gentlemen, a day and a night of workload behind, I have to catch up. Marc, if you wish we may continue this via email, but my answers will be slow.

I will report back with any news from the Leftist anti semite.


Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« on: December 15, 2011, 08:01:53 PM »
Well!  Lively exchange so far! (and 9 posts have been made while I was on the phone and writing this!)

For myself, I'd like to get back to this (there's stuff in your reply to my previous post that I could go into, but I sense too much water has gone under the bridge since then):

"While Ahmadinejad indeed acts a madman, I have doubts that if push comes to shove, the nuclear tools would be just flying everywhere. They have much too much to loose. Do you think they would nuke the terrtiory, then go live there afterwards ? The whole area would be destroyed and impossible to settle for at least 50-100 years or more, dunno the facts, im no physicist. I severly doubt that solution, although you never know with crazy folks...Besides that, they would get insurmountable number of enemies, from states in their direct proximity, due to fallout and the like, not to mention the reaction of the international community"

If YOUR butt were on the line (and you weren't such a fan of Chomsky  :-D ) this might carry a tad more weight  :lol:  

As for "The reaction of the international community"   :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:   Be serious please
1 These are the men who sent waves of children against the Iraqis to clear mine fields for the soldiers to follow.  You think the bleatings of the UN are going to matter to them?   They will be the strong horse of the neighborhood, and everyone will kneel to them in gratitude for killing all the jews, chant "Allah Akbar!" and about how death matters more to them than life.  

hi Marc

yes I agree it is a bit of an out landish claim. But I have faith (and Im an agnostic !!) How does reading stuff from Chomsky (far from being a fan) affect the weight ? Well in regards to "butts" on the line i live closer to them than you  :mrgreen:
But yeah, I agree that the usual UN gibberish is not to be taken seriously, but in the case of a nuclear explosion that close to Europe... I think you are being to direct here.

yes you may also look at the extremists that way, but alas, that is but one facet of the populace. Like I said,  you have all sorts of passive, non agressive forms of revolt. And we all know how quickly can monstrocities cease, when there is a big player pressing (or not pressing) strings in the background....hint - Bosnia

And the case of "kneeling" for killing all the jews......again, cannot say for a fact. I may be too young, but I am carefully conservative here. Who knows, living among nuclear debris and fallout...I dunno, its 5 in the morning, my brain is melting slowly. I guess what im trying to say is, there is too much on the line for other countries, closer, that would bring more complications down in the case of the nuclear solution.

Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« on: December 15, 2011, 07:21:56 PM »
Unless the Rollins letter in 1982 ended with “oh by the way I publish neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic books” what is Chomsky to know about him?

I dunno, but Chomsky has a long history with Holocaust Deniers, so you want to argue that this was a fluke?

ask him

Notice in the 1982 letter he condemns “good Germans” and laments the exploitation of the memory of victims of the Holocaust, why would he do so if he held the beliefs of a neo-Nazi anti-Semite?

Because a common tactic of the left is to claim the National SOCIALIST German Worker's Party was somehow right wing in it's orientation, rather than one of the evil offspring of Marx's ideas.

AHHAHAHA, brilliant. And I suppose the Communist Party was its Good offspring. Id like to hear more of this ? If it holds you very well may have given me extra special stoff, for my post graduate.

Chomsky, himself a Jew who lived for part of his life in Israel, is a threat to the Israeli government (and certainly not to its people) because he has been very critical of its human rights record. No government should be exempt from criticism, especially on those grounds.

How does Israel's human rights record match up to China's, or Communist Vietnam, or Pol Pot's Cambodia, all of whom Chomsky has praised? Why the selective outrage? Couldn't be anti-semitism, could it?

slippery slope, logical fallacy. Insuficient argument. Cant se relevance, you do grasp the notion of anti semitism right ?

GM, I beleive I expressed this already when we had our blasts with Said. I am not taking sides in the Israel PAlstine dispute. I am not pro Palestine nor Pro Israel. I dont actually have much interest in it otherwise, and to this day I do not know which side to "actively" support. I rain down on stuff here, only because the method by which guys here can argument some stuff for the sake of "history". But I get dragged along into other discussions sadly, on the account of my work, that is waiting behind me on the desk. But no matter...

Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« on: December 15, 2011, 07:02:38 PM »
GM, BOTTOM LINE : If you write to Chomsky he writes you back.

Do it. Lets see what the answer is.

I will. I'm curious if he still wants to praise Pol Pot and Mao.

cant wait

Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« on: December 15, 2011, 06:50:22 PM »
thank you for the patronising tone. You rock.

again, ad hominem. Logical fallacy. I have a friend that denies the Holocaust. Does that make me a fraud too ?

Further more, to what you posted again - hats of, great source.

some comments :

1) why aren’t Rollins letters included?
2) Chomsky maintains an open door with letters and responds to all, often devoting 6 hours a day. Is Chomsky expected to meticulously screen every piece of mail he receives (well actually in the days of the Unabomber they were but I digress), and find out who the writer is? And again keep in mind these are from pre-internet days.
Unless the Rollins letter in 1982 ended with “oh by the way I publish neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic books” what is Chomsky to know about him?
Notice in the 1982 letter he condemns “good Germans” and laments the exploitation of the memory of victims of the Holocaust, why would he do so if he held the beliefs of a neo-Nazi anti-Semite? While in the 1992 letter he refers to Holocaust Deniers as “far out nuts”!

There are no facts here, only a misconstruence of Chomskys writings. And how does ending occupation of & settlement development in the West Bank call for a new Holocaust?

These letters prove nothing. Where in these letters does Chomsky say “I deny the Holocaust ever happened.” He doesn’t.

Besides, nothing about Chomsky is “misconstrued” in this article. The letters are there, in their entirety, for all to read. People can draw their own conclusions

Smearing Chomsky in this way will only work for an audience that is either (a) thoroughly ideologically committed to a pro-Israel position already, or (b) unlikely to open one of Chomsky’s books to measure his views against your descriptions of him. I suspect your distortions will backfire on those who do choose to check for themselves, because they will see how dishonest you’ve been, thereby discrediting by association any debate on Israel/Palestine that might come from honest figures on your side, thus feeding into, rather than combating, anti-Israeli and antisemitic (for those who can’t tell the difference) sentiments.

By all means expose genuine holocaust deniers if you really think anyone takes them seriously. Holocaust denial seems to be relatively common in Arab states that neighbour Israel, but in the rest of the world, holocaust denial is so marginal that the mainstream views it as utterly laughable and just not worth thinking about or critiquing.

Chomsky, himself a Jew who lived for part of his life in Israel, is a threat to the Israeli government (and certainly not to its people) because he has been very critical of its human rights record. No government should be exempt from criticism, especially on those grounds.

Without including the actual letters, this come across as a smear job.

GM, BOTTOM LINE : If you write to Chomsky he writes you back.

Do it. Lets see what the answer is.

Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« on: December 15, 2011, 06:37:06 PM »
gah, now he brings up Guillaume. La vielleTaupe, where have we heard that again ? Oh I think they were refered to as the "neo Nazis" in the case with collaborating with Sayid.

You want to see neo nazis ? Come to Berlin one time, and Ill take you to a street, and a nice biker bar. Better dont have any hair on your head though.

Guillaume et the gang REUSED THE NAME OF THE PUBLISHING COMPANY LAVIELLE TAUPE, which in the beggining published philosophy texts, that Chomsky AND  Said sometimes worked with. AFter the thing went zugrunt, along came Guillaume, the ultra left radicalist, who brought the place up, REUSED THE NAME and started his own propaganda of anti semitic craze. Much of the previous collective condemned the act, and thought it a sad decline of an otherwise compelling intellectual. Chomsky and Said also fall in this bunch of "previous" collective.

Look, GM, google whatever you want, but be mindful of what you read and how you read it. There is a certain manner as to how people are critisized, and if its a well versed, argumented dialogue, that speakers, intellectuals, philosophers duly embark in. But not like this,   I dont have time nor the strength to answer and reply to any shit you dig up on anyone from the bowels of the internet and quite frankly I dont care anymore.

Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« on: December 15, 2011, 06:23:42 PM »
OF course they can, and they must be critisized. But, in what way ? And especially with what etiquette ?

if you do post Kamms note, read it in full, and then the response from Chomsky. Just like I said with the Said debate

Why does the left depend on lies, if they are just "speaking truth to power"

See, theres politics again. Chomsky is not a politician. And he is not the political left, by a long shot. He is a critic of the uttermost European tradition, especially that of the German and French enlightenment

And the quotes you posted there, how is this fact GM ? It is heresay at best. Facts, fantasies, he is stupid, everything he says is wrong, blahblahblah. Lets see what Paul Postal of the New Yorker has graced us with, or Sidney Hook of the Humanist

ah Bogdanor, I was waiting untill you will bring him up.

not to mention that he does not want to confront Chomsky in person at all, the way he is discrediting him is complete and utter bullshit. Just read the posts you copied here. The alleged "lies", half of the stuff isnt even lying, just disagreeing. But obviously you need to discredit the Left wing idiot, and say he is lying.

The very first quote you put here, you can see Chomskys whole point in his book The Golden Age Is In Us, which of course Bogdanor nowhere uses in full, just out of context references to the actual thoughts, nor does he paste full references.

or the Soviet crimes quote. Take a look at what Chomsky offers in the context of this quote in World orders, Old and New. Some evidence, this time in the form of testimony from a Guatemalan refugee, that in fact his assessment as we approach the 90's was true. Reasonable people might disagree. Chomsky if he were so inclined might offer additional evidence to support his claim. Bogdanor might offer counter evidence. All good. It's not a lie in any case. But of course, his critics somehow have a way of misusing his actual works in total or somehow forget to paste where their "lie" is coming from.

Lets look at another, the China one. Once again Chomsky goes on to source that claim here ( and otherwise discuss the complexities of regarding it as expansionist. If Chomsky has been misled by his sources (Ginsburgs and Mathos) this cannot be called a lie.

and so on and so on

Endless lines of ad hominem arguments, I cant accept this GM.

Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« on: December 15, 2011, 06:02:25 PM »
ok another kind of credibility post. Ad hominem ?

Oliver Kamm is quite a well known journalist, and a critic of Chomsky. Usually intellectuals have critics. Why ? Because they are dissidents, they think differently and act differently aswell.

but still, how does this fact alone anyhow degrade him ? Even if he were cought in his own bind, people get stuff wrong, why is this a case for the petty gibbersih name calling ?

And obvious flaws, detachment from reality sound very poetic, id like to hear or read some more of this.

Kamm Chomsky polemic is hardly black and white. And is quite known. As with the Said "frauds" you posted, there is hardly ever a quote/post here that deals with actual thoughts from the person being charged

Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« on: December 15, 2011, 05:50:49 PM »
ah yes, I see what you mean with fourth solution

While Ahmadinejad indeed acts a madman, I have doubts that if push comes to shove, the nuclear tools would be just flying everywhere. They have much too much to loose. Do you think they would nuke the terrtiory, then go live there afterwards ? The whole area would be destroyed and impossible to settle for at least 50-100 years or more, dunno the facts, im no physicist. I severly doubt that solution, although you never know with crazy folks...Besides that, they would get insurmountable number of enemies, from states in their direct proximity, due to fallout and the like, not to mention the reaction of the international community.

although I think they are actually far behind with obtaining the actual weapon, the talks lately, IMHO are purely Machiavellian diversions. What they are getting with this, is a different bargaining solution. Lets use the lowest estimate, that Israel has 75 nukes (highest are around 400s), which is more than enough for the cataclysm. Iran would eventually get 1. Underpowered, yes, but also more than enough to cause the end.

but, it is a more balanced position to enter negotiations from. The prospect of the end of man, has brought the longest era of peace in Europe in history of humanity. Call me naive, but I call bluff on Ahmadinejad and the Big Mushroom, if Iran indeed comes up with the weapon, which I heavily doubt it will, unless it gets stolen, sold, or the like


Chomsky hardly ever praises Workers paradises GM, let alone North Korea. His political spectrum, if anything, is Anarchism, which is as far away state control as possible. And again, the antiWest bigotry comment is well misplaced, in my opinion. The role of the critic is to do what ? Critisize. And since philosophy of language and philosophy in general is at heart a critical doctrine, at least since the dialectic of Enlightenment that he is following, its what he does.

Ok show me an example of his Anti-Semitism, and what an Anti-Semite is for you today

Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« on: December 15, 2011, 04:52:04 PM »
an example of fatalities during operation "cast lead"...

make your own mind, on the safety issue

these spring to view first

mind the "Palestinian minors killed by Israeli security forces " and "Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces " and compare them to Israeli civilians and security forces, for example

here are the "until" and "after" fatalities

Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« on: December 15, 2011, 04:44:05 PM »
hi ccp,

thanks for the reply.

What exactly do you mean ? Can you elaborate on the fourth solution, or what exactly the interviewer posts as midevil, stupid...

Well, usually the point of an interview of a well known intellectual is to hear his smuggly point on what is best for all of us, dont you agree ?

They simply want that piece of land the size of NJ

Palestine since 1946, following the initial division, the UN partitioning and year 2000

keep in mind though that this is a symbolic map. A big part of the palestinian loss of land is because of their strict no bargain chip-policy, which usually resulted in warfare. It is also warfare that resulted in the now occupied lands, that Israel doesnt want to back off from, claiming safety issues. This is in part what Chomsky says that the radical forms of rebelion in Palestine are making it harder for them to reach a better solution. But still, this is might makes right on every level. Check the statistics link lower on some actual raw numbers

a couple interesting links from Btselem : The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories

Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« on: December 15, 2011, 01:07:57 PM »

Dont you think the logic that somehow thinkers that critisize a certain country should go somewhere more akin to what they are saying, is a bit childish? The very role of a philosopher, thinker is to see holes and critique. If Chomsky or anyone else for that matter says something against liberal capitalism, or violations of freedom of press or anything of that sort, doesnt mean he doesnt WANT to live in the USA. Of course not, ironically, the fact that most of the intellectual think tank (For now at least) operates within the USA is because the USA still is the most prosperous area in that regard, as far as academia and rights of speech goes.

Just from the suggested videos alone you could look at some videos where Chomsky razes Obama to the ground, and the whole „ethos“ or better yet, „pathos“ of the American Left. Chomsky is anything but, what you call a leftist liberal.
But still, how does that imply the logic of „if you dont like it here go somewhere else ?“

But all in all, ive been to one of his discussions, live. He is a very approachable dude, incredibly systematic and will hear anyone out, so I urge you, if you think you have all the answers, please, go to one of his talks, wait for the Q and A and show him wrong infront of everyone there and the world, if the event will be filmed. Better come well prepared.

Every single event in known history, that brought the society to a higher plain in the dialectic of progress, found its roots in the dissident thinkers, and the ones who constantly critisized the established order. And most of the time were even forced to live elsewhere because of it. The rights and liberties you have in the USA and are so damn proud of, have been settled on blood, tears and more blood. And those people who ignited their roots, those who dared to think otherwise, usually paid with their life for it.

As pertaining the video you doubt a touching one...
but course there are charming stories everywhere, no area of man can simply be divided to evil and good. There are stories of evil and stories of good everywhere, and we all know very well you can look them up on the internet. But lets stick with the Said quote that TV as a medium is a distorted one, and leave this type of „propaganda“ out of it

what part of the Said video you think wasnt profound ?

And I find it beneath you to operate constantly within this political tone. Fraud here, fraud there. Ad hominem arguments are a serious logical phallacy.  At least honor the dead, even if you dissagree with them.

Thats the politics show. „We dont like that bloke, get up dirt on him so he looses credibility.“ Doesnt work like that. Is everything politics to you ?


Marc. Im sure you can read between the lines.

It was an argumentative example. The author GM posted, claimed that somehow liberal Wests tactic in the middle east is akin to the Chamberlanian move to give to the Germans what wasnt theirs to appease the general state of conflict.

I then explained the Sudetenland case, that in fact the opposite holds true, that if you use the logic that the Jews have history at their backs and claims to Israel, Hitlers claim to Sudetenland was completely legitimate.

The holy roman empire comment was also aimed at this, since Sudeten Germans were living in Bohemia nearly 1000 years, (like the Jews argument – been living there longer) since and throughout the Empire, and it is on this logic that Hitler claimed it as German, and also annexed Austria. But obviously, violated all sorts of international rights, constitutions, state sovereignty, etc. and that is the whole point.

The fact today is, we share the world. There are certain things we try to conform to, to make living easier for everyone.

You are equating all Arabs with their form of islamic fundamentalism „rebelion“. Which is only a part of the revolt. But the most vocal one for sure. You have all sorts of secular, less drastic and passive forms of expression, which btw Chomsky talks a whole lot about. You have the workers movement, the freedom of women movement, the democratic movement, the student movement, etc. Saying what a section of Arabs have in mind for Jews to conclude that indeed all arabic world shares the notion is ridiculous, no ? Just like Im sure you wouldnt claim that indeed all rednecks are stupid, and since rednecks live in America, all Americans are stupid rednecks.

Also, calling anyone who attacks the pro Jewish argument an anti Semite is absurd. There are so many levels to this problem, calling anyone names is basically just a way out. The „point and tell“ way out.

My argument is aimed solely at the logic with which you, and others of course, constantly use to base Israels „right“ to the land, which is through historic claims.


It can only be solved politically, and diplomatically, with the citizens, and everyday humans living there in mind.

And it already has been. The major gripe here is, Israel and USA go all rambo on everyone there, playing the victim but at the same time wielding the biggest atomic arsenal in history. And violating every possible international law and arrangement there is.

And there isnt only onle solution to the problem. In fact there are 3.
moar Chomsky love, rrrrrrrrr.



The tribes case was an example that connecting the land to one specific tribe and thus basing his claim to a „land“ is impossible and completely irrational. The Native Americans have been living in Americas way longer than the modern citizen, but I dont see anyone talking about them haveing the rightful claim to the land, neither after their genocide at the pinnacle of the USA state formation.

If anything, you are alot more connected to that genocide, come on, lets see you  working. Start a group, make a rally or something. Occupy Indian street.

I fail to see what you are aiming at ? Somehow that Muslims, that formed later, do not stem from any of the original tribes ? Or that they are out of the question because they came later?? 

guys, simply put. Who was where first, is irrelevant, is not an acceptable argument in this, nor any serious historical debate. Modern nations form as a result of identity, national spirit and objetive comformity to a certain traditional core. Linguistical, ethnical and political borders are separate entities, which do not allow equation.

You have different nations who speak the same language, you have same nations that speak different languages and have one nation with separate borders, several nations within same borders...etc.

The case solution here is age old Rousseauean one, that of a Social Contract.

Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« on: December 15, 2011, 06:02:48 AM »
like Chamberlain's offering of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, a sop thrown to terrorism.

A sop thrown to terrorism. Since the author is a screenwriter, I cant but think that this is some double bind screenplay joke that I dont understand. But its so appropriately ironic, because the exact same argument can be used against Israel.

From the first link I pasted above :

INT:Prof Said, do the Zionists have any historical claim to the lands of Israel ?
Of course. But I would not say that the Jewish claim is the only claim or the main claim. It is A claim among many others. Certainly the Arabs have a much greater claim because they have had a longer history of actual residence in Palestine than the Jews did. If you look at the history of Palestine, there has been some very interesting work done by Biblical archeologists you will see that the period of actual „Israelite“ dominance in Palestine amounts to about 200 to 250 years.. There were also jebusites, kanaanites, philistines and many other people in Palestine, at the time and before and after. And to isolate one of them and say THATS the real owner of the land, I mean that is fundamentalism.

With the dissolution of the Austro Hungarian empire many ethnical groups vanished, in the sense they suddenly became parts of different national identities. One of the big examples of this are the Sudeten Germans, the other, for example are the Hungarians which to this day have half a million of „their own“ living in Slovakia, which amounts to 10% of the entire population.

 In the 30ies there were 3.5 million Sudeten Germans living in Czechoslovakia, they comprised little over 35% o the entire ethnic spectre (which as a state was born in 1918, specifically at the Treaty of Versailles). „Ethnic Germans“ mostly lived in a region called Bohemia, before AH in the Holy Roman empire since the early part of 12th century. Almost a 1000 years. But Sudetenland was given to Czechoslovakia, or better yet, was acknowledged AS part of Czchekoslovakia in the afore mentioned peace conference in Paris. So ethnic Germans were now living in Czechoslovakia.

From the misleading „historical“ prism – which doesnt include anything „historic“ at all, just collected  and modified data, to support a claim – that usually the pro-Israel people like to use so much with the conflict, isnt this offering from Chamberlain to Hitler not only completly in tune with „historic neccesity“ but also completely justified ?

Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« on: December 14, 2011, 06:26:42 PM »
GM, with love just for you

from your daemons themselves. Hear them out

Edward Said on Palestine, Iraq, and U.S. Policy

A Conversation with Noam Chomsky on Palestine/Israel by Frank Barat

Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness
« on: September 26, 2011, 06:30:01 AM »

YES !!!

Martial Arts Topics / Re: European “Gathering of the Pack” 2011
« on: July 22, 2011, 03:19:28 AM »
Couple of words from me too........albeit a bit late

Incredible weekend. Met heaps of new, awesome people. In no particular order, props to C-Dog IVan from Norway, the Bulgarian bunch Pavel and Kosta, Cro Dog and his awesome team, Aberdeen clan who were bringing the spirit of the highlanders to the center of Europe, The French Connection, Pascal, Jerome C-frisbee dog and Sylvie, the incredibles Thorsten C-Lena Dog and Kostas C-spartan Dog with their unvavering resolve, Kai S-Suicide Dog and his crew, who brought great skills to the dancefloor, then of course Sword Dog for his knowledge and info on fighting and especially for the Lichtenauer references and chats, and everyone else who I am sure I have forgotten to mention here, but will surely keep in touch one way or another.

Thanks to Guro Crafty and Guro Lonely for all the input and sharing of knowledge without which I would probably lay in a hospital with a 3 sec and a baseball marking on my forehead.

Special thanks to C- Gong Fu, Crossover Dog and Spider Dog for the beating and experience you gave me through the gentle kisses of rattan and baseball :)


Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« on: June 14, 2011, 06:30:22 PM »
Im sorry I dont know what you mean with the „fake but true“ phrase.

Depth of corruption, lack of integrity, anti western, pro communist, frauds, agenda...

These are all words I read and hear all the time in the media. Usually the type of media that wants to divert the attention to something else, and creating an elevated state of panic. This point and curse maneuvre seems to have some universaility to it. Shock and awe, hell yeah.

You speak of Academia like its a coherent whole, „us against the world“ type of an institution, that holds its own in a sea of predators. Well here is some first hand insight : even at hardline scientific cathedras, you would be hard pressed to find phds that agree on something. Viscious competition and backstabbing is common just as it is common in management or sports.

These delusions you have about a leftist communist hidden agenda rising from the bowels of the academia and eating up what good is left, is a hardcore anachronism. One that kindly shows your age. This left-right, us-them, red-blue dichotomy portrayed here, is long gone in university circles and otherwise. Dont overjudge the thinkers circuit. Dont fall in the same old trap, when discussing theory. Know the place of theory and know the pople whos job it is to study it. It is its role to be brutally to the point, agressive, unorthodox and radical. It is intentionally contraveresed, and split from practice. Academia, coming from the ancient greek Akademeia, is supposed to be, what it literally means, the cultural accumulation of knowledge, its development and transmission across generations and its practitioners and transmitters. What you do with the gained knowledge, is another thing.

But the spectres of communism still haunt old cellars I see. Here I am afraid, I will just have to let it go, as your ways may just be too ingrained to accept anything else.

I love it how you write about postmodernism and marxism like they have anything to do with todays left.Or how you brace them aside like noones business. Ironically, it was a neocon pioneer who skyrocketed the idea of post-modernism (which as an idea, is about 150 years old, the father being no other than G.W Hegel) into the scope of the world, his name was Francis Fukuyama.

Dont act like you have seen the light. You are no different to any other leftist or rightist or whatever you want to call it, who reads a book or two, and thinks everyone else is stupid and blind. Dont be so naive. It used to be enough to be an ideologically biased, info stuffed hardliner. Not anymore. Nowadays, if you want to get heard, you need to read everything, fullstop.

If there is a lecture to be had from todays time and age, if there is a lecture to be had from post-modern crisis of human thought, its that today there is no one true light that illuminates the blind anymore. There are only different stories. Only shades.

But I presume to understand, you were coming up in a time where stories were taken literally and the light was still one and true (for both sides).

I hate to be an old trumpet, and hate it even more to disprove this dubious attempt yet again, but necessity prevails. GM makes things sound so simple. Now its my sacred duty to complicate them and carve the way forth for truth, so it may never rest buried under piles of rubble.

Lovely article. Very nice rhetoric used, again. Weiner is such a gentleman.

Be especially mindful of the reply an Egyptian jew whom Weiner had interviewed, named Andre Sharon sent to Weiner himself, and the Times editorial, after the published article. Cannot quote in full, too long.

Said had been a fellow student but that because St George's was closed for two years after l948, Said had graduated from Victoria school in Cairo. Boyadjian emphasizes to CounterPunch that he most explicitly told Weiner that Said had been a fellow student, and that he finds it "unbelievable" that Weiner should have suppressed their conversation in his Commentary article, adding that "people like Weiner have an agenda but no principles".

….we talked to Michael Marmoura, now emeritus professor at the University of Toronto, who well remembers teaching Said at St. Georges, saying he was ''a bit of a rascal, very naughty,'' and whose father baptized the infant Said in an Anglican church in Jerusalem. Yes indeed, Marmoura says, the Saids were well-known as an old Palestinian family.

Charles Lane, editor of the New Republic, confirms rumors that his magazine was offered Weiner's essay before Commentary. Lane says that Weiner had refused to "look at the galley of Said's memoir and take it into account. Discussions broke off at that point." Weiner then brought the story to Commentary.

Israel Shahak - who is a Holocaust survivor and an Israeli human rights activist - said: "Commentary is a monthly of the most rightwing Jewish views, and the most conservative views in America, so I am not surprised by this attack."
Mr Shahak said that the argument over how the Said family left did not affect Prof Said's status as a refugee. "This is like saying the Jews who escaped from Germany before the war were not kicked out," Mr Shahak argued. "The main argument is that they were prevented from returning to their land. This is what it is about."

And the response from Said himself :

The only problem with the current hullabaloo, at the outset, is that during his three years of assiduous research Weiner never once contacted or in any way spoke to me, an extraordinary omission by a man who pretends that he is both a scholar and a journalist but actually uses the methods of neither one nor the other. Another fact about his method is that he did not properly consult my memoir, Out of Place, completed in September 1998, and to appear next month.

I have never claimed to have been made a refugee, but rather that my extended family, all of it -- uncles, cousins, aunts, grandparents -- in fact was.

By the spring of 1948, not a single relative of mine was left in Palestine, ethnically cleansed by Zionist forces. Commentary's Weiner does not mention that, allowing himself the preposterous claim that my memoir (begun in 1994 and completed in 1998) was written to refute him in 1999.

Weiner says that we didn't try for reparations, thereby deliberately obfuscating two facts: that my father did in fact try to sue the Israeli government for reparations and, second, that by l950 the law of absentee property passed by Israel had converted all Palestinian property into Israeli property, illegally of course. No wonder our efforts were unrewarded. He says that I didn't attend St George's School. This is an outright lie. He does not admit that the school's records end in l946 and I was there in 1947, or that my father and cousins had attended the school starting in 1906. Had he been a decent researcher, he might have sought out one of my classmates

In the body of his article, he does not name the people he allegedly talked to "on four continents" or the documents he consulted, what exactly they said, or when, and in answer to what question.  
If someone like Edward Said is a liar, runs the argument, how can we believe all those peasants who say they were driven off their land? The Likud argument (Weiner's) is that the land all belongs to the people of Israel, since it was given to them by God. All the other claimants are therefore prevaricators and pretenders.

Luckily, several survivors of 1948 from my family are still alive and well. My oldest cousin, the last person to leave our Talbiyeh house, is 80 years old now and lives in Toronto. Why was he not contacted? As my widowed aunt's oldest son, he negotiated with Martin Buber and took him to court when he refused to leave the house after his lease was up and our family returned from a year in Cairo. What about our neighbours, other relatives, friends, members of the church community? They were never contacted. Several children of the pastor who baptised me are still alive also: they could have been contacted. No: what Commentary wants is not the truth but the Big Zionist Lie

And of course, the elegant finish, proving only what JDN already said about Said (pun intended) and why the Annales will know the bigger man.

I have always advocated the acknowledgement by each other of the Palestinian and Jewish peoples' past sufferings. Only in this way can they coexist peacefully in the future. Weiner is more interested in using the past -- either an individual or collective past -- to prevent understanding and reconciliation. It is a pity that so much time and venom as he has expended couldn't have been used for positive purposes.

You prove time and again you havent actually read a WORD from Said himself. God forbid reading something and expanding your arsenal and getting a glimpse of something different. Only the dubious attacks on his crediblity from an interview. Burn the heretic.

He did however learn, like Said and Ward Churchill that as long as you fabricate a narrative that pleases the leftist paradigm in academia, you can coast along on that alone with all the rewards the system can confiscate from those that actually do tangible work.

Said hasnt pleased anyone in the "academia". If anything he was a radical loose cannon and a controversial persona, causing uproar everywhere he went and with anything he has written.You speak so foul of the academia like its supposed to be gulity of something, but you havent a slightest clue as to what it is and what it does. And here a 25 something year old European has to tell you about it. Its precicesly THIS FACT alone, that someone like Said got a permanent seat at Columbia, which truly shows that America still is one of the greatest countries in the world to live in.

That it still cherishes and nurtures radical views, para-doxa intellectual insight and isnt afraid of challenging thoughts, shows and tells me everything I need to know.

They value knowledge, new ideas and openminded spirit. This is the true gem of America, for me. Not some opportunistic, free, economical safeheaven mumbo jumbo. Why do you think most of the elite, influential thinkers in America arent American at all ? Because they can excell there, and nowhere else.

In Europe, with all its pompous noise and noble stance, a black president, sadly, cannot happen yet. That alone, should make you feel proud to be American.


I agree with your doubts about the intent of the media. The vids may very well be staged. Apart from the few ones, where IDF soldiers shoot tied civilians point blank range, with high ranking officers present. Even that, I guess, we could put up for scrutiny. But then again, how do we know that Fatah vs Hamas tragedy from the vid Kostas posted really is what you are saying ?


I havent forgotten about your idea of the Saddam surrender statement, mate. The actual document would be next to impossible to find I think, since if indeed it does exist it should be located in the Iraqi national archives in Baghdad.If they still stand. Or maybe in America somewhere. Ill ask around a bit.

Keep in mind though, I am not speaking my personal stance here, I have attenuated this several times. I just hate it when information is presented one dimensionally, forfeit and out of context. This is the sole reason of all my posts on this forum.

Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« on: June 13, 2011, 08:02:25 PM »
Interesting that one so ignorant as myself keeps having to school you on the academic frauds you cite as sources, eh Andrew?

meh, frauds ? Like the Said "fraud" that i wrote some 600 words about how it was fabricated and devoid of any proof from the side that attacked him ? Counter proof from 5 different sources, forgot to read that I presume ?

Ah, so how exactly is chomsky a "fraud" ? By the geometrical standards from the article, every single one of us on this forum, we are all frauds. "Experts" on whole spectres of experties, horizontal, vertical, spherical, you name it. From war, to religion to economy and government and beyond, we all know what to do. Bedroom strategos.

I wrote a mastodon of an essay again, but just deleted it.

Just read a book from someone you dont agree with once in a while. Not shun it. Read it, study it. With the same glasses you read what you go to bed with every night.


thats all,


Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« on: June 13, 2011, 03:49:21 PM »
Before you bombard me with videos of palestinian violence, dont take this as a pro or contra anything.

Just, the level of one sided narrowmindedness and conclusion skipping around here is sometimes mindboggling.

mind the brick bashing against skull and limbs on a downed civilian at 0:47 and 1:02

map of settler outgrowth

orthodox jewish rabbis, calling for reducing the killings of women and children in gaza. Mind the presence of police.

palestinian police uniforms. Headshots from point blank. Execution.

cool scenery bro.

Your ethnocentrism is obviously blinding you to the sublime beauty of islamic culture and sharia.

Yes, blind as a bat in daylight. Nothing to see here, move along.

Do I get an A, Andrew?

Hmmmm. We learned alot about reading several sides of the picture, havent we GM ? Id say F for reason, and A for ignorance.

Hi Doug. Thanks for the kind words.

Your argument is perfectly valid. It is also along the lines of many of marx' critiques, especially coming from people of anglosaxon thought tradition and also, to a point, lifestyle.

Before I go further, you have to take into account that to some extent, the word „capitalist“ used today is an anachronism compared to 1867 or so. Today capitalist means a whole lot more than it did before, and on the other hand, the word „burgeois“ practically doesnt even exist anymore. The catch here is, the term „capitalist“ meant several other stuff about ownership and production relations compared to what it means today. It was less "layered", if you will....  the „entrepreneurial“ use of the word „capitalist“ that you mostly described, and is generally in use today, was packed into that same context also.

If you look at Marx' 3 main production factors, they are work, land and entrepreneurship, which takes into account mostly everything that you have written above. Marx goes further, when he even says, to use an anachronism, that managers actually contribute and support to the improvment and advancement of production and forces of production.

The other part of your answer can be tackled with the fact that marx generally understands two types of work, simple and complex. Complex work is work with inherent need of subsequent knowledge to sustain it. Simple work is work, without the need of knowledge to sustain it, i.e. You only need to be shown one, or two times how to dig a ditch, whereas to be an IT engineer you need to constantly educate, and evolve to keep up with the stream.

So when I say "A capitalist is someone who lives off the surplus of someone elses work." the capitalist is used in historicist terms. Perhaps it was insufficient explaining on my part. In the terms of the times, so to speak. So after this brief explanation, let me continue upon that quote

The capitalist, or the burgeois (the evil bad ones) are those that get reciprocally far more output than they have invested, and do so on the account of the worker, or the proletariat, or anyone who offers his expertise on the labor market.  Here comes the connection with the failing profit rate. Simply speaking, it implies that the circle of the owners will get narrower, and the dispersion a lot greater, hence after a while the owners will have more and more problems finding people who would buy their product. This consist part of the argument that the Austrians use a lot, that crisis is the kernel of capitalism, where through marxist prism it really does reverse the situation, because it erases parts of the products that cannot be sold anymore, and lets say rebalances the equation.

 Generically put, Marx' point was just, that the relation worker-capital-owner is gravely  unfair for the worker, compared to what each party puts in and that the respectful distribution of wealth is even less fair. Today this rings more true than even 100 years ago, where average salary ratio within a big company was cca 1:20, today it is 1:300.

This points one of the more viable critics of his analysis, which I am also currently reading up on in Leszek Kolakowski's, Main Currents of Marxism, that he didnt explain or progress the term of „value“ of the input enough, which he merely grazed with his concept of communitiy viable product (im not entirely sure the translation is correct, basically it should mean products that the community needs, values).

hope more is clear, I will have a hard time responding in the next 14 days again, due to obligations, but make no mistake, I will read everything :)


@ guro Crafty,

For example, you mention "Hegelian dialectic".   I have heard of this more than once, and would LOVE to be able to drop into conversation as you have here.  Would you
please help me out?

Its a huge topic. But all in all, like with most thinkers, their output changes with age, and so did Marx'. Young Marx was different to late Marx and both took ground in the roaring times of the Hegelian „end of philosophy“. The ontologic base of Marx is taken from Hegel, but turned upside down. Not to go too deep for my own good here, I hope these two examples will provide easiest understanding, I quote wiki, because the examples are perfectly sufficient  :

Hegel describes a dialectic of existence: first, existence must be posited as pure Being (Sein); but pure Being, upon examination, is found to be indistinguishable from Nothing (Nichts). When it is realized that what is coming into being is, at the same time, also returning to nothing (in life, for example, one's living is also a dying), both Being and Nothing are united as Becoming. It is Hegel's account of how being is ultimately comprehensible as an all-inclusive whole. Hegel asserted that in order for the thinking subject (human reason or consciousness) to be able to know its object (the world) at all, there must be in some sense an identity of thought and being.

Here is Marx' response, Hegelian philosophy supposedly being too much of an abstract ideal, not in the sense of perfection but in the sense of the idea, the Platonic eidos.

The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.

My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life-process of the human brain, i.e. the process of thinking, which, under the name of ‘the Idea’, he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of ‘the Idea’. With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.
(Capital, Afterword, Second German Ed., Moscow, 1970, vol. 1, p. 29).

More seriously now, as I read your response I am impressed with your rip-snorting condescension, (rather inconsistent with your mission "to open up the situation so that I can pave way for more appropriate questions" yes?) but as best as I can tell, you offer the youtube clip of that Slovenian professor as your substance

True, guilty as charged, the condescending tone might have been intentional, for which I appologize. Sometimes, situation gets the best of me, more so when reading articles that shun ideas to the trashbin like its nobodys business, especially ideas that are based on the pinnacle of Western tradition of thought.

Žižek wasnt used only as a substance. Do not underestimate him, he is an incredibly deceiptful thinker, lightning fast and productive like noone Ive never seen. Had the honor of lisening to him at the university before he became senior researcher. You have to dig through videos a bit, because his radical TV persona is based on shocking the listener early on, since talking pure philosophy tends to scare people away too soon. If you have the chance, and the ear (some people find him impossible to listen to, because of his speaking disorder and the trance that begets him when speaking) I encourage you to watch some of his interviews and speeches, just keep in mind though, he can be really brutal sometimes, when putting his point across.

I share GM's response to your example of China's successes as being those of Marxism.  (IMHO the more accurate term would be "fascism", but that is not really the point)  Also I would most certainly add a) China's extraordinary rape of the environment and b) the many good reasons to wonder if it is in a huge bubble.


I hate to break this to you Andrew, but China is getting rich though capitalism.

No harm done GM. And I agree with the rest of the quote, apart from the thing cited below this.. Thats why I said radical corporate communism. My whole sentence was somewhat of a pun to trick you a bit (since China is communist only by way of the ruling party), which you have duly noticed yourselves, but main point was, Marxist economy doesnt exist. If you find such a thing, I will gladly seek it through. What you DO have however, is Marxist analysis of not only capitalism, but of all socio-economical formations. And then you have political figures, who have (ab)used Marx' findings, and started making their utopias. Marx himself said „ I have no intention of being a prophet“.

The Chinese laugh at "worker's paradise" slogans.

Marx notion of worker is not a phyiscal worker. Blue collar mexican doing 8 to 2000. A worker in his view is anyone who lives off the fruits of his work. From janitor to a soldier to a university teacher. A capitalist is someone who lives off the surplus of someone elses work. Workers paradises were constructs of later men, who sought to „unite the proletariat“. If they misread it intentionally or just as a means to an end, I do not know.

Did you know that, all but one decree of the Communist manifesto have already been incorporated.Only the abolition of private property has remained off charts, but even that is starting to manifest itself in a modern form through cybernetic commodites and the problem of ownership on the Internet. The nordic states,the social states, are the closest version to what „Marxist economy“ could be said to imply, based on its inherent critiques of capitalism..

IMHO to serve your stated mission, the Fromm URL would have been a better place to start, particularly if you were to have deleted  "I doubt anyone will get halfway even into the first article, but at least my consciousness will be at rest, since there is no way of getting anything across here with writing your heart out."

Again, guilty as charged. I digress, the tone was misplaced. Doubting anyone will get halfway was meant beacuse I thought you would find it that boring, not in the manner that you would not understand it or anything.

@ Doug

It seems to me that we could resolve this dispute by referring to the failed, oppressive economic and governmental systems of these failed states as 'Stalinist' rather than socialist, communist or Marxist.  Same goes for describing or warning about any the same moves here and elsewhere toward a more powerful central government and away from the constitutionally limited government we once knew, based on individual liberties explicitly including economic liberties and thankfulness to God.  I, for one, would be happy to start referring to these programs, policies and proposals as Stalinist and quit smearing the confusing and misunderstood work of Karl Marx.

Nicely written.

If the real thrust of Marx's work would give us specific insights into how to solve current economic problems, please post.

I dare not to write about stuff, that even current Noble prize winners, and economical hardliners cannot rightfully predict. To top it off, I am not really knowledgable on it. What can be said though, is that the problem of the falling profit rate (in marx' terms), is to some extent, one of the indicators that started to plunge the crisis into next gear in 2007/08. And Marx, after Ricardo, wrote to oblivion about it, how it is the demise of capitalism, already 200 years ago. If you agree with it, or find it problematic, I strongly suggest you study the topic on your own, and make respectful conclusions, as it is with all serious work, you must absorb it yourself.

Why would anyone who is rational fight against other people's religion if it is peaceful and consensual?

Look up the notion of Alienation, and what it implies. In short, it was one of his critiques, that human relations are degraded to relations between objects, because of capital, and man is slowly becoming alienated to his natural sein. Like you cited, Marx' fight against God is that against the Idol. The symbol of the religion as institution, the Church.... „those who attribute the opinions of the masses to the gods“

kind regards to all


ahhh GM, again you use the same train of thought I have tried to approach again and again and again, but yet you dont wish to hear it, or what ?

things are of course much more complex than you would like them to see.

I think I have written to some legnth about your implication of Marx with epic failures, havent I ? Marxism /= Stalinism /= Leninism /= Maosim....

lets make a simple logical test :

1) Do you blame st Augustine for all the wrong doings in history in the name of the church and Christianity with all its branches ? Since he is its theological and ideological father, he is surely also guilty of all the crimes of the inquisition, the protestants, the Zwinglians, the Luterans, the Anglicans, Calvinisits, the orthodox...

 Funny you should mention economic failures of Cuba, then again which country is the one that everyone and their mother is talking about in the USA and the world ? Is it China ? OH yes. Which makes it very funny actually, since their version of a most radical corporate communism is starting to prove something really serious to everyone. And people are getting scared.

Marxism is the opiate of academics

hehe, nice quote. I guess it works the other way around too

Capitalist maxim : The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.

Bertrand Russell

And what exactly GM, should I clear up ? Write 700 words long posts only to be bombarded by divergent articles by some blogger or a failed journalist ? There are several ways with which you must look at Marx today, and the weakest version of them all is the revolutionary, which ironically, of course, is what everyone ever only looks at, because its the easiest one to make fun of. The versions which have resounding effect even today and where people tend to get scared and start to freak out, because you actually need to have serious background from the philosophical era that preceeded him are Marx as a humanist, critic of capitalism, philosopher of history and his supplement of Hegels transcendental idealism.

These debates have an inherent flaw. Under the pretense of objective "critical thinking", they are still just vulgarily dogmatic. If I am defending an opinion, it doesnt mean I am 100% for it and against the other. I have said this several times. I am not for socialism, I am not for communism in any manner they were "implemented". I think the way they were approached was too naive. I lived through it, although most of my memories from the time are potent with images of great cameradery, national spirit and just pure nostalgia, there werent really much differences to the way we live now. Well, maybe its harder to find a job today.

a while ago when I was studying Keynes, I also picked up as much as I could from Schumpeter, Mises, Hayek, Friedman. This is not science, nor fact, that you can somehow prove. Truth is a constellation.

  What I am trying, is to open up the situation so that I can pave way for more appropriate questions. The wrong questions are far more dangerous than wrong answers. Which incidentally, in traditional dogmatic tone worthy of preety much any text on religion, is what you are trying to prove I provide all the time, wrong answers. This is in a nutshell, what I am trying to do with all my postings. Not convince you to form an opinion the same as me, but to widen your opinion with others, that you may not have heard or come across yet.

And this is also why I hate this talking through a medium of articles and references, because it is at its core, a simple clash of dogma, reminiscent of the old rhetoric, "this is true, because my pater said so", "no that is wrong, because MY pater said different". Theres nothing "debating" about that. Nor is it critical. Its just providing what you think holds true, but lacking the ability to formulate it yourself. You remind me of the old party nomenclatura that held speeches in the countryside and always started the talks with : "Gentlemen, the international situation is getting worse!" ....."why, comrade, is it getting worse ?"....." Because it is not getting better".

But here you go, articles from Erich Fromm on Marx.

its the shortest, most concise link I can provide that has a more serious tone. I doubt anyone will get halfway even into the first article, but at least my consciousness will be at rest, since there is no way of getting anything across here with writing your heart out.

Martial Arts Topics / Bystander : This is America
« on: May 29, 2011, 05:39:26 PM »

He believed in the future the proletariat — urban workers — ...

I stopped taking her seriously after this. clearly miss Hoyt should stick to writing fiction novels and take another hard look at what they tought her about Marx in Portugal. Or better yet, read another book about it.

There are so many holes in this article Im a bit reluctant to even comment it.

Proletariat is a very specific concept in raw Marx theory and it sure isnt blue collar urban workers. Like most of the heresay marxists "critics" she takes the term proletariat and understands it in its original, Roman use, of people who were landless and without property. Wrong to the bone. The notion of class, and implicitly of class strugle has nothing to do with social or economical classes or otherwise, it is a unique, basic premise, built on Hegelian dialectic.

Marx managed to be an economist who did not understand the most fundamental concept of economics: value.

Marx was an economist as much as mrs. Hoyt is a philosopher with this subpar reflecting on Marx.

Respect for private property erodes. Wealth is seen as evil and humans as drains on the system

She hasnt the slightest clue about what abolition of private property means.

And furthermore, ALL wealth is theft.

Even more, the lone notion of marxian private property is unknown to her.

Marx managed to be an economist who did not understand the most fundamental concept of economics: value.
It is thought he based his theory of value on David Ricardo, who was already considered erroneous and out of date when Marx used it. Which is no wonder, because no functional economy can be built on Marx.
Marx believed that raw materials + labor = value. The more the raw materials were worth or the more labor put into transforming them, the more the end product would be worth. No other considerations applied.

hahahaha, excellent.  Im sure she read the whole 3 parts of Das kapital, where the only thing he is analysing is how the owner, the worker, value and surplus value is generated and acclaimed. Funny how she puts it so simple again, when in reality there are myriads of controversies, empirical and counter empirical evidence supporting both sides of the falling profit rate fiasco. And the Ricardo pun, oh my god. Such voluntaristic claims are worthy of the most hardline freshwater economists, who think economy is one big balanced whole that can live on its own, where laws of physics apply.

This holistic critic of supposedly "what marx really said" is making her look even more dubious than those who look at Marx holistically today and take him seriously. What is timeless and incredibly deep in marxist philosophy is his method of understanding time and mans place within his creations. But there are countless people who, 200 years later, take specifics of his studies, who cannot even be taken as current empiry, and just shun him like a kid on the block. Narrowminded blobs in my opinion.

These types of articles of semi read, self thought and proclaimed critics, should be read with supreme caution, or maybe even not at all. Before you can even start to grasp the sum of his philosophy, you have to be at least partly knowledgable on the german transcendental idealism of Hegel, Schelling and to an extent Kant and Fichte on which Marx basis lies. It is really not the time nor the place to seriously debate this topic, because hardcorde philosophy underlines it, which is hard to talk about even in real life, let alone on an internet forum, where anyone can play and act the connoseur with google opened up in another tab.

And lastly, debating philosophy is not about giving answers, its not about who is right or wrong.

I provide a link to one of the most famous Slovenian thinkers of all times, marked by Times as one of the most influential thinkers in the world, besides Noam Chomsky. In my terms he is the true modern Marxist, and also one of the easiest entries to start reading seriously about Marx, without getting bored to death at page 5.

He is a true philosopher. Opens up crazy problems, is incredibly fun to listen to, provocative and isnt afraid to defend his wild claims.

Politics & Religion / Re: Anti-semitism & Jews
« on: May 12, 2011, 06:27:15 PM »

Thank you for the kind pause. I take it as the calm before the deep plunge.  :lol:

Since I will not be online again for a while, do continue to write as you see fit after reading this.

A cynic such as myself would say that liars have a hard time keeping lies straight, and that sociopathic "prophets" get divine guidance that suits their needs from moment to moment.

I can agree with this. But this indirect reading of sacred texts is really, way more modern, than it is traditional. What you wrote above is true for basically all sacred texts. And more. Keeping lies straight, was a big thing at the time when most of these were written, beacuse transcedence wasnt the only thing that they were used for. Crowd control back then was way more literal, way more direct, to what it is today.

One of the biggest things in modern religious studies, which I think will greatly change the way we look on ancient ontology, is, and I am paraphrasing of course, not whether what for example Muhammad said is true or not, but rather what did it mean at the time. Of course you cant degrade all of the context to this zero level historicism, but at least you acheive the shift in hermeneutics, through which it is alot easier to understand where and why alot of the texts get so extreme.

I like this post. Bukay is a cool dude. Although I do not beleive in the Huntington bullshit he is trying to pull off (which is maybe a topic for some other time), his stance on Islam fundamentalism is extreme, but systematical and critical, which I like a lot.

Of course the compulsion quote above is not a be all counter balance to your radical opinions. And of course it is not ONLY radical neither. Just like Jihad is not internal struggle alone it is NOT ONLY holy war. Bukay says this in your quote anyway, I just wanted to bring it up more clearly. I also totally agree with his stance about actual extremism today, and the academia pun is also funny and true to an extent. Extremism IS an actual threat of course. But going overboard again and saying everything Muslim/Islam ever was, is and will be only evil and deserves our rightful hammer of Good is again, completely off. The problem of ALL sacred texts, Islam is no specialty here, its just more actual because it is all around media today, is that radical interpretation tend to get the best of it.

But other part of the problem lies also in the fact, that the great leap that the West did, where it shook of the shackles that still burden the East, are the social revolutions. So a comparison of a Muslim state against a Western state is unfair, to an extent. Because you arent comparing the same stuff. The very worst things that happen there, arent happening in our places anymore, but not because of religion being benign, or different, but because of the social struggle that brought us out of that dogmatic dialetic, and forcing religion into a different strata of society. See, Marx again :D

Know that there are countless authors who are writing on the topic and there is no ONE author that knows the true answer. They all back their claims, their versions, their interpretations of facts. And one reads authors that have similarily aligned versions. Which is perfectly ok. But when such reading becomes automatic, you are becoming identically dogmatic like the very thing that you are trying to disprove. And here comes the point of most of my incursions on this forum, that to get a better perception on things, instead of reading authors that have similar claims like you, take a step back, read more than one author, especially from different sides of the polemic and then, create your own opinion.

Keep in mind again, that even though I may come across as a sympathiser of Islam, or Arabs or anything, in reality I am harshly against religion, as an organised institution. As a man of faith I fall somewhere in the famed Einsteinism „deeply religious non beleiver“. What I do have a problem with however is when things get taken out of context, and are being put across as overly simple and are used for means to some other end.

Politics & Religion / Re: Anti-semitism & Jews
« on: May 12, 2011, 04:34:48 PM »
Warning, mega post.

Cmon, GM why cant you write normal posts like everyone else ? It would be most appreciated if instead of an array of articles to prove your point, you would put together something of your own accord. It is only because of my infinite patience that I backtrace and dig up points you want to move across, from your post-al bombardment.


Andrew, do you understand the role of naskh in islamic theology and why the "verses of the sword" override the nicer verses like what you posted above? Can you tell me where in the muslim world there is the freedom of religion?


Rampant simplifications.

Naskh, or abrogation is a term used mostly in exegesis for contradictory material between the Qur'ān and the Sunna. In its historiographical use, naskh usually incorporates the replacement of an earlier tradition with a chronologically newer one.

Last 200 years give or take there has been serious objection to the idea of naskh within Muslim interpretatons themselves whereas many modern scholars even reject it.

Weiss-Asad one of the most influential muslims of the 20. century, outright refutates the very notion of abrogation.

The harshest argument counter abrogation is the sole fact that there are NO secondary sources within the Hadith literature on the problem of abrogation.  

You have a grave misunderstanding of not only how traditional religious texts are being read and interpreted on scholarly level but how history in general is being written today. I know for a fact Bostom is aware of the details because I remember reading some of hist stuff on tafsir a while ago, but obviously he has a similar urge to suddenly forget the things that may counterbalance his work.

The problem with bloggers like Bostom and amateur historians ala Menzies,Voronov, and others, while they do mostly work with generally good and credible data analysis and „facts“, they are (intentionaly or accidentally) clueless to the modern methods of historiography, theory and philosophy of history. In Bostoms case, the general tone of voice is strident and propostreously anti-Muslim. There isnt a problem with this per se, but it is coupled with selective works designed to pick out the worst examples of anti-Christian and anti Jewish behavior by Muslims, usually in time of war and threats to their own destruction, and this is what is greatly bothering me. To make things worse he demonizes the so-called Islamic threat to Western civilization all thedamn time and the final word is more times than not confusing and quite frankly, irritating.

Claiming, especially in humanistics, that ONE thing has all the answers dead stop, is silly and ignorant. Its not exact science, where gravitational pull is 9.82 no matter how many times you drop the stone. Like already said, there ARE scientific METHODS being used though, which most of the guys dont care to look at. These things are mega collages, and if you want an objective all around view, alot of the times you have to read what you think is propostreous and wrong. Then again, maybe at that point, its too late :)

You provide articles, I provide books. Heres one of the more important issues for the topic at hand, interpreting sources (primary, secondary, first hand, second al) in Islamic historiography :

The Sources of Islamic Law: Islamic Theories of Abrogation, John Burton

To also portray the other side of the coin, which often means diametrical opposites, read up on Montgomery Watt and Alfred Guillaume for example.

Do you understand the concept of just war, or is it bad because it has the word war in it?

War is bad, mmmmkay ? This alone could be a week long debate, again, there is no one, monographic answer to what Just war is. I wrote it as an example, just as there is no one monographic answer to what Jihad is. Like Guro crafty says, theres levels and then theres levels.

You have Ciceronian Bellum iustum concept, Augustinian, Aquinian, Skabimierz...itd. Since Grotius, Just war was replaced with international law, being codified and embraced in a set of rules. Before that though it was a very neat concept for waging war upon whoever you didnt like, or wanted something from, but didnt have a formal cassus belli. Something similar to the War on Terror.

all in all, my point was that throughout history Christians in this manner werent any different to Muslims, in fact they were far worse.

And the crusades grew out of what? Let's try hundreds of years of islamic aggression, enslavement and occupation of europe before the first crusade happened. I'd think as a european historian, you'd know this. Cause and effect and linerar history, do you think the islamic brutality experienced by the europeans might have shaped how they then fought in the crusades?

Simplifications, half truths.

While it is true the goals of the crusades were to take back lost lands, a great number of campaigns were  waged against pagans, Balts, Slavs, Jews, Greek and Russian Orthodoxy, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians, and political enemies of the various popes. There were also situationary allegiances between and within sides, like the Christian alliance with the Rum sultanate during the 5th crusade for example. Some of theexpeditions were diverted, which in the 4th crusade even resulted in the sack of Christian Constantinople and the partitioning of the Byzantine Empire between Crusaders. Thank god for plenary indulgence.

The hundreds of years of aggression, enslavement and ocupation of Europe rings so horridly plastic its almost ripe for Hollywood.

Most of what we know from ancient Greek thought, came through Muslim scholars and literates, reevaluation of Aristotles thought and Neoplatonism, spherical trigonometric functions got its basic modern form, great advancements in astronomy, navigation on sea was highly developed by the predecessor of the sextant, it was only through early Arabic translations that medieval Europe rediscovered Hellenic medicine, Galen and Hippocrates.

And a word about non Muslim subjects under Sharia Law....I beleive I wrote about this already, but what the hell, Im sure it cant hurt.

Dhimmi is one of those incredibly misinterpreted and misused words for the topic. Basically, dhimma were provided rights in return for taxes. Dhimmi were excused from Muslim duties but otherwise equal under the laws of property, contract and obligation. Dhimma had more rights and freedoms than any other social and religious minority in Europe during the whole Middle Ages under any type of rule.

Sometimes they even allowed cases of behavior that Muslims found repulsive. One example was the Zoroastrian practice of incestuous "self-marriage" where a man could marry anyone from his kin, even males. According to Qayyim, the famous Islam Sunni scholar, non-Muslims had the right to engage in such religious practices even if it offended Muslims, under the conditions that such cases not be presented to Islamic Sharia courts and that these religious minorities believed that the practice in question is permissible according to their religion.  Dhimmis were even allowed to operate their own courts following their own legal systems in cases that did not involve other religious groups, capital offences, or threats to public order.

Not only is the enslavement comment ridiculous, its outright wrong.

Islamic law and custom prohibited the enslavement of free dhimmis within lands under Islamic rule in the time of the Caliphate. Pickup anything from Bernard Lewis, his insight on this particular topic is excellent. Then again, these things are not binary, nor simple.

So, an outline, as you can see, is far from the neatly sacked, half baked information you provided, to prove your point.

I offer you sources for the other side too, so you wont accuse me of only working from the other side of dogmatic belief, here are a couple of authors that not only refute the Islamic golden age, but write it off as a myth. Personally I hate the style with which the books are written, and the scientific apparatus is crumbling, but here you go anyway :

Srđa Trifković, Sword of the Prophet
Dr. Shoja-e-din Shafa, Rebirth

And then, heres two of the books from mandatory literature for my general medieval history exam.

Fernand Braudel, History of civilizations and Jacques le Goff, Medieval Civilization, 400-1500

Andrew, before you cite academics like Edward Said (Edward Sayid), you might want to examine their agendas and how the truth might not be one of them. Look up Ward Churchill as another academic who understood that as long as one is sufficiently post-modern and leftist, actually scholarship is not required.

Oh man, I kinda hoped you will have sprung that trap. Like all stories, this one too, has more sides.

Ok, lets begin. Weiner never interviewed Edward Said. Asked about this, he said that after conducting research that lasted three years, he saw no need to talk to Said about his memories or his childhood: „There was no point in calling him up and saying, 'You're a liar, you're a fraud.'" Wow, very investigating reporting like.

The  journal „Nation“ and Christopher Hitchens wrote that schoolmates and teachers confirmed Said's stay at St. George's.. Then New Republic editor Charles Lane said Weiner had offered to sell him the essay on Edward Said but that discussions over publication broke off when Weiner refused to "look at the galley of Said's memoir and take it into account."

Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair of Counterpunch interviewed Haig Boyadjian, who reported telling Weiner that he had been Said's classmate at St. George's, a fact Weiner omitted mentioning.

Amos Elon, biographer of the founders of Israel, wrote in The New York Review of Books that Weiner failed to disprove that Said and his family sought refuge from the war outside Palestine, as did hundreds of thousands of other Palestinians at the time. The fact remains that shortly afterward the family's property in Jerusalem was confiscated. Said and his family became political refugees as the result of the Israeli government's refusal to allow them to return to the country of their birth.

Now, Its a fact, the family left Jerusalem when he was a kid, but the war and violence were so booming, that it became impossible for them to function. Like Holocaust survivor and Israeli human rights activist Israel Shahak says on Sayids refugee status : "This is like saying the Jews who escaped from Germany before the war were not kicked out. The main argument is that they were prevented from returning to their land. This is what it is about.“

In reply, Weiner accused Elon of dishonesty, and Hitchens of making himself into „ a poster boy for Palestine." Again, brilliant counter argumenting. Go get'em tiger. Said observed that several publishers of a conservative magazine, had attacked him in three long articles and that Weiner's was the third in the series. Said commented that the article about his early life was "undercut by dozens of mistakes of fact."

Even if all that were true or at least parts of it, I couldnt care less, to be honest. I dont care. Sayid could be a transsexual gay church pastor on crack for all I know. If his work has ground and value, Ill check it out. How can you jump to conclusions that if parts of his Bio are untrue, his whole persona is a compulsive liar ? His concept of Orientalism is stil a very burning one, with alot of debatable pro and contra points. Apart from Maria Todorova, Bernard Lewis and a few others, he is for me one of the better writers concerning the whole Orient-Occident polemic.

What kind of rhetoric is this GM ? So what, lets say that because Chomsky was part of several political (and otherwise) controversies, he surely is not a man of worth and should be discouraged to read ? And somehow his intent is not Truth but something else ? But still the fact remains modern linguistics could not stand if not for him, first coherent critiques of Skinners Behaviorism that shook ground of modern psychology, far reaching implications on cognitive sciences, and one of the first  noted critiques of post-modern and post-structuralist thoughts.

Man if you want to limit yourself and your horizons like this, go ahead.

Heres the sources :

Amritjit Singh, Interviews with Edward W. Said (Conversations With Public Intellectuals Series). Oxford: University Press of Mississippi, 2004: pp. 19 & 219.

Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, Commentary: 'Scholar' Deliberately Falsified Record in Attack on Said, Counterpunch September 1, 1999, accessed February 10, 2006

Christopher Hitchens, The "Commentary" School of Falsification, The Nation, 2 September 1999. Accessed 6 February 2010.

aand for the other side, Weiners article that GM posted, with Craig Offman, Said critic blasts back at Hitchens,, 10 September 1999. Accessed 5 February 2010.

Make your own judgement to who is the scapegoat here.

And who were the first non-africans to take part in the african slave trade? Long before the europeans ever were involved.

I dont see how this partakes to the quoted number from me.  Islam views on slavery are VERY concise, and alot is said on the topic. The Qur'an, Muhammad, and majority of Islamic theologians, all stated that humankind has a single origin and rejected the idea of certain ethnic groups being superior to others. The legendary, Arnold Toynbee, british historian, said it nicely : "The extinction of race consciousness as between Muslims is one of the outstanding achievements of Islam and in the contemporary world there is, as it happens, a crying need for the propagation of this Islamic virtue."

Not to go into too much detail here, fact is alot of the views got distorted ESPECIALLY after huge influence of the great Western pillar Aristotle (whom many muslim scholars such as Avicenna and Averroes are credited that we even know of his existence and works) and his view that certain ethnic groups are slaves by nature, and also the influence of the highly ethnically discoherent Jewish Geonim academies.

Know this though, that a religious imperative was never the driver of the slavery impetus. Arab slave trade even started way before Islam ever began spreading. The status of „slave“ was completely different to what we may imagine under the meaning of the word now. They had to be dealt with in accordance of the Islamic law, especially during the Umayyad and Abbasid eras, slaves were allowed to earn their living if they opted for that, otherwise it was the masters duty to provide for that. They also couldnt be forced to earn money for their masters unless with an agreement between them both. If the slave agreed and he would like the money he earned to be counted toward his emancipation then this was written in the form of a contract. This contract is know as a „mukataba“. The slaves usually bought themselves to freedom. Although the owner did not have to accept the request for freedom, it was considered praiseworthy to do so.

Now Im not saying they wore jewels or held their POW and others with silk gloves. Im just saying, these things are not black, not white, nor grey, satin or infrared. They are f***g chaotic and all over the place, without one true, unwavering answer. You need to GRAVELY widen your horizon of knowledge if you want to make deeper connections here. You can pin point circumstantial evidence everywhere you want in the historic timeline, but sadly, that doesnt count for much.

@Guro Crafty,

I find your response here quite remarkable.  It is PRECISELY as simple as whether Israel has a right to exist and to defend itself or not!!!  Annale slice and layer all you want to concerning the etymology of the terms Palistine/Palestinian, Iran/Aryan, Jihad/Kampf but the simple facts are :........

Well to a point of course it is as simple. But then again, the answers are simplifications too.
Most of the facts are bound to the Arabian hatred towards Jews. Ok, when you are spending all this time about the resoltuion, spend at least a day thinking about the problem. The Arabian Exodus was a grave and tragic event, no doubt here, but treating the symptom will usually not get you very far. It will only sharpen the sword and deepen the hate gap.

I stand by my initial post here, the underlying problem is that of identity. Identity, whether its natural, or historical law, always searches for its roots, because of the ideological apparatus. Roots lead to ethnogenesis and ethnogenesis leads to history. Thats why they say history is an apparatus of the state, because it „formally“ places a nation and its tradition on the map. It is its door to existence. Sad thing is, like I already said, that both sides have grown so accustomed so fighting, it has become symptomatic, almost to a point, where sides have forgotten what the origin of the conflict is.

And this is where I chime my 2 personal cents. At this point, off the record, I blame the politicial noise gets intentionally very loud, because certain subjects do not want to settle the conflict, as turbulent West Bank is a very nice opportunity maker excuse. A Just War-like one. Also there is the fear of cascading, if any side gives in or settles for something, there will be swarms of similar uprisings from similar surrounding cases the next day all around the Globe.

As GM has already clarified, his comments were directed to the entirety of Marxism, the over twenty million killed by Stalin et al, the 50-70 million killed by Mao, etc.

And I write again, that the „entirety of Marxism“ is a dangerous misconstruct. Contrary to what you guys may think, or have heard overseas, Marxism is not a holistic, homogenous, ideologically coherent whole, where the State takes your candy. Far from it. In approx. 100 years of its scholary existence it has grown so divergently that by now you can hardly follow it. It has branches, sub branches, connections, ifluences, contradictions, structuralist, post structuralist incursions, addendums of critical name it. To just shrug it off and throw it all away into one barrel is somehow shortsited, not to mention incredibly ignorant. You can blame Marx for all you want that has the prefix „comm-“, but in effect you simply cannot equate the horrific doings of afore mentioned men, with incredibly subtle and deep reaching marxist ontology and philosophy of history.

If this „entirety“ holds true, then may we not say that St. Augustine is guilty for all the horrors done in the name of the Christ since he is the theological father of the Christian religion, and most other theologians and paters and mystics that evolved the dogma were deriving from him anyway ? Of course we cant, even though his influence is far more direct and more straightforward than Marx' ever was to his successors.

Unless,  the Christian notion of original sin is so embedded in your symbolic order. In that case I can accept this transferral of guilt to and from the „source“, but you must warn me of this earlier, because it inevitably enforces a very different kind of debate.

PS:  I have looked in vain for your statement of your guiding philosophy "Annales Marxism" was it?  I would like to read up on this a bit.  This is what I have found so far-- is this it?

I wrote Annales Marxism as a type of intern joke I like to say. Because the Annales school was the school that has generally replaced the marxist interpretation of history in most of Europe, and they consider themselves a purificated, perfected and most progressive historiographic school to date. Which arguably, they are, but I like to contradict, especially the french :D :D

If you would like to read up on some of that I strongly suggest : Fernand Braudel, A history of civilizations and Lucien Febvre, The Rhine: Problems of History and Economics. They should be rather easy to find.

Must be some of that "Islam, with its unique religious ontology" I've been told about.

The way you are limiting yourself in thought, I too, could not have seen it any other way. A bit less Jihad Watch, a bit more library.

Politics & Religion / Re: Bin Laden dead
« on: May 10, 2011, 03:02:25 PM »
I wont go into great lenghts here, because I am still putting together the mega response in the Anti semitism thread, and I do not want to open two fronts at once, but GM, how exactly does the fact that osamas posters have big sales, connect with peacful or not so peaceful Islamism ?

I am sure the topic is way more volatile in the US, but overseas the man, is somewhat an icon, albeit a very controversial one. His rise, fall and eventual death are now a thing of the annales, and like all annales of controversial people, they leave an impression, a romanticised, poetic reverberation. Like a Byronian fallen angel, almost.

Here, his death is mostly taken with a distrustful resignation of Americas crediblity.People were shrugging the news " Empire killed the man" left right and centre. "Wow tough it out Empire, you just might hit base 2". Today alone Ive seen 3 college juniors walk around downtown with a che-guevarra-like Osama face outline, that said : "Heaven is great". Surely this must mean Islamification (the evil one) of Europe is just about finished ???

I tapped alot tonight, so the lack of oxygen in the brain might disrupt the thought flow of the post  :mrgreen:

Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Economics
« on: May 02, 2011, 07:26:57 PM »
uh ohhh, let the hounds loose !!!

The Triumphant Return of John Maynard Keynes
Joseph E. Stiglitz

NEW YORK – We are all Keynesians now. Even the right in the United States has joined the Keynesian camp with unbridled enthusiasm and on a scale that at one time would have been truly unimaginable.

 :evil: :evil:

Politics & Religion / Re: Bin Laden dead?
« on: May 02, 2011, 08:47:11 AM »

Politics & Religion / Re: Anti-semitism & Jews
« on: May 01, 2011, 07:22:38 AM »

man, I see you guys were productive. Anyway, my reply is in the works, but at the time I am too held back at work to finish it. Stay sharp !

Politics & Religion / Who killed more?
« on: April 27, 2011, 09:04:53 AM »
A more accurate evaluation would be to compare the violence from muslims globally vs. the violence from christians. You see many honor killings in the Bible Belt? I know the Baptists are famous for suicide bombings. Everyone has of course seen where Lutherans flew planes into the WTC. Remember when Catholics butchered those kids in Beslan? So why are so many horrific acts done by those motivated by christian theology and so few by muslim theology?

Or is it the other way around?

Ok, guro Crafty said above that this is not an echo chamber, that we seek truth ? In my whole life I have maybe seen one or two cases of such virulent one sided stubornness. Man even my college kids can be brought to senses easier.

 Violence from muslims globally vs violence from christians you say. The horrible truth is that, numerically and statistically speaking, Christian Civilization is the bloodiest and most violent of all civilizations in all of history, and is responsible for countless deaths. Even so, Muslims will never associate this with the teachings of Jesus, peace be on him.

Saint Augustine’s cognite intrare (“force them to convert”). In fact the Qur’an says the exact opposite: There is no compulsion in religion ( 2:256 ). Augustine had a frightening idea that all must be compelled to subdue to the true Christian faith.
Hundreds of thousands were tortured and slaughtered in the name of Christianity during the periods of the Arian, Donatist and Albigensian heresies

Still, Augustine remains one of the key figures in understanding the philosophy of the Christian theologic tradition. Hows that for an irony.

Thomas Aquinas, another key figure in Christian theology, has even perfected the concept of Just War.

Then lets see, the Crusades. 10 of them including the Northern ones. The European armies were saying, as they slaughtered both Christian and Muslim Arabs: “Kill them all, God will know his own.”

Europe's Reformation and Counter Reformation Era. TWO THIRDS of the European Chrstian population was slaughtered in this era.

The African slave trade, that claimed the life of approx. 9 million souls.

Colonial conquest. Estimates for the number of Native Americans slaughtered by the Europeans in North, Central and South America run as high as 20 million within three generations.  

In the 20th century alone

Western and/or Christian powers have been responsible for at least twenty times more deaths than Muslim powers. In this most brutal of centuries, we created incomparably more civilian casualties than have Muslims in the whole of Islamic history.

   a)  In the 20th century, Rwanda, 1994. Witness the slaughter of 900,000 Rwandan in a population that was over 90 % Christian. Reports indicate the percentage of Muslims in Rwanda has doubled since the genocide due to Muslim sheltering and protection of Tutsis and to Hutus' during the genocide. Read up on Emily Wax' "Islam Attracting Many Survivors of Rwanda Genocide“.

   b) 1992-1995 Bosnia. The genocide of over 300,000 Muslims and systematic rape of over 100,000 Muslim women by Christian orthodox Serbs

Add the numbers of ONLY those two incidents and try to compare them with the toll of muslim extremism in 20th and 21th century.

All I want when I write this mega essays is that you would catch a GLIMPSE of the other side, that maybe, just maybe what you think is so engrained in your brain, of which you are so sure that it is 100% undoubtedly true, DOES have a different point to it. This is what I mean by objective. There are no objective research in and of themselves, since any analysis is already a filtering of the author. What IS an objective analysis is reading (from your part) all the different points and opinions that constitute a problem, making a constelation of facts and concepts, so you can grasp the totality and fullness of the subject at hand. Otherwise you are just a saloon thinker know it all who sings his versions to ears that want to hear them.

It's good that you've started reading up on islamic theology. If you actually develop a good grasp of it, you'll find that all the politically correct slogans you've made about it are utterly bogus.

What I meant with research is, I actually go and read your articles and research the authors backgrounds and dig up my uni work and research while answering. Like stated a while ago in the Fascism thread, one of my main areas of research is history of South Eastern Europe (Balkans) and philosophy of religion. I consider myself an Annales school Marxist through and through. I will get to that in a bit.

And what you would discover, after reading actual scholars that focus their lifes research around this topic, not random bloggers and journalists ala Solway and Bostom (who is BTW an Associate professor of Medicine) is that there is NO SUCH THING as politically correct slogans in ancient texts, because they need to be treated historically, otherwise they are just another anacrhonism used as a political tool. What you would also discover is that it is a continuous dialogue between the past and the present that filters and recycles the problematic, constantly sharpening the ordeal and finding new dilemmas.

In no particular order here are a few from all kinds of different winds, so you wont ask for Objective stuff anymore :

Arthur John Arbery, Edward Sayid, Józef Bielawski, Karen Armstrong...and a few others who doubt the traiditional exegesis of Qur'an, John Wansbrough, Michael Cook, Martin Hinds, Patricia Crone...a few sunni and shia scholars, Mahdi al-Modarresi, Mohammad Ali Abtahi, Mohsen Kadivar, Abū Ḥanīfa, Al-Fakihi, Averroes...etc.etc.

This is just a few I consider a must study to get a short outline to the whole problematic spectrum, before even contemplating anything in more depth. Havent even included most of the bigger modern players, since most of their work cannot be understood without understanding the basic classic woodwork.

To all interested parties, here is a rather long-ish article by Patricia Crone, that speaks of the historical problematic of understandind classic terms with modern eyes. An actual professor for Islamic studies from Princeton about the history and the origin of the term Jihad. Highly recommended for anyone who doesnt wear ideology glasses with too much pride :

The concept of cause and effect and the linear nature of time well predates any marxist psuedo-science. I would note that you'd probably be in a good position to look at the horrors that marxism has inflicted and I'd think would want to reject anything tainted by it.

Oh man what can I say here ? Marxist pseudo-science, linear nature of time...cmon, GM. You arent talking to a saloon ear that wants to be fed. I really do not wish to spoil this off topic, but such spam riles me up.

First of all, the main building block of what you call pseudo-science is Marx and Engels materialistic INTERPRETATION of history. Last I checked neither of those two have anything to do wtih science. What they do have to do with is a scientific METHOD. What linear nature of time here means, of course, is not cause and effect, but rather simply put, that things move solidly in a specific direction without derailing, being fueled by a deus ex machina, in marxist sense, the class struggle.

And second of all, the horrors of Marxism here werent really horrors at all, and most certainly they werent Marxists horrors. I beleive you refer to Yugoslavia. All recent studies and polls show that a vast majority of people said life back then was a lot more lax, less stresfull, happier and freer. Almost 0% crime rate, no unemployment, free health care with one of the best surgeons and doctors in central europe, a solid school system, sure work after graduation, economical vertical mobility, great national spirit and cameradery...I am not going to deny the facts here though, there were problems, and holes, and everything. But like there arent any now ? There are, alongside most of the positive facts said above, gone, and ¾ of the state of ex Yugoslavia set in turmoil and thrown 60 years in the past due to nationalist agendas and psychotic delusionists.

Yugoslavia was not Communist, but very openly socialist with the ideology that was INFLUENCED by Marx and subsequent thinkers. Feudalism, socialism, communism etc. are merely socio-economic formations, modules that have their place in Marxist thought. Comunism by far does not equate Marxism. What everyone tends to forget or fail to look up is that dialectial materialism, the most important drive behind the communist craze in 19.and 20. century, wasnt even Marx' work but Engels and Lenins adaptation of it, with some Hegels dialectics and Feuerbach materialism. At the split of the french party into reformist and revolutionary Marx himself wrote to Lafrague : "if that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist".

About the Hadith comments, I strongly advise you to read some of Patricia Crones opus. It will most definitely do you good.

@Guro Crafty

I have just noticed your post when I finished writing this, and thank you for some of the more articulated opinions, which I will sadly need to adress another time, as writing this in the last few days has put me in some SERIOUS behind time at work.

I will write this short response though, to tackle what I feel is the general vibe of your post. As much as I hate writing this but as a historian and philosopher, my task is not to give answers, to offer solutions. This very well might be the task of something else, politics, religion, warfare, science, I dont know. My task here is to RIGHTFULLY articulate the problem, so that the solution will be as most thorough as possible. And a huge part of this rightfull articulation is to problematise, open discussions, polemics, different builds, different views etc. because most frequently, the way we structure and view the problem, is part of the problem itself.

So in short I cannot honestly answer you to the question : does Israel have a right to exist?  Does Israel have a right to self-defense? I mean of course from the basic context, there is no doubt that it does, but my pitch is, that the problem is WAY more layered and structured than this basic question.

The additional problem, like I said earlier, is that everything is colored and smudged by political rhetoric and different agendas, which makes an already difficult task of discovering national identities, ethnogenesis, ethnonyms origins, etc. impossible. I mean even with a tiny, insignificnat country such as Slovenia, there are hefty, fiery discussions about our past, that cannot be forgot, and to this day form the basis of political dialogue when warming up for the voters base. Who was pro who was contra. At one point it constantly divides the nation and makes tension, on the other hand it completely halts any type of cultural progress.Very sad.

But in such an extreme case as we talk about now, with so much blood spilled and revenges taken, I fear that this is slowly becoming symptomatic.

EDIT : Btw that wiki picture isnt from wiki its cited from B'Tselem, israeli information center for human rights in occupied territories.

Politics & Religion / Re: Anti-semitism & Jews
« on: April 26, 2011, 07:18:29 PM »
This is long. Probably my last incursion in this, I am loosing to much time with this type of research.

The arabs that lived in Israel and fled awaiting the jews to be pushed into the sea were not "Palestinians", they were arabs. The "Palestinian" claim is like Americans of european ancestry claiming they are member of the Lakota tribe because they lived in Fargo.

Ok, first of all. These things are far from solved and noted like you portray them to be. The only thing that is clear to someone who „knows the history“ is that it cant even be called history. What it is, is an open discussion panel on principal historic conceptions and facts based on scientific apparatus, that are inherent to historical studies. One sided interpretations of facts or sources of any kind that nudge the totality of context in your favor isnt exactly an objective debate, unless of course you want that ? Hmmm, where have I spoken of indoctrination before ??

Again, History means a very specific thing, we are loooong past the 19.century Rankean notion of „wie es eigentlich gewesen“ that history is a sequence of tools that search for what „actually“ transpired.

This a very Marxist linear traditionalistic perception of time, which makes me surprised, since a while ago you actually encouraged me NOT to read anything with the term Marx in it.

The islamic ideal is the "umma" rather than ethnicity based nations...

Second of all, I see you have adopted the Solway method of understanding what a nation is. OR you just dont read what I write. Ethnicity and nation have absolutely nothing in common and are in no shape or form connected as pre or post (if thats even a word) requisites. And I have no idea what the city of ancient Sumer, Umma has anything to do here ? Unless you mean the Ummah, collection of nation states. You oversimplify here, since ummah can be understood in several meanings. One is the context of the so called pan Arabism (connected to the arabic nationalism, that all arabs comprise a single nation, etc etc). Then we have the context of Islam :

The phrase Ummah Wahida in the Qur'an (the "One Community") refers to all of the Islamic world unified. The Quran says: “You [Muslims] are the best nation brought out for Mankind, commanding what is righteous (Ma'ruf, lit. "recognized [as good]") and forbidding what is wrong (Munkar, lit. "unrecognized [as good]")…” [3:110].

On the other hand, in Arabic, Ummah can also be used in the more Western sense of nation, for example: Al-Umam Al-Muttahida, the United Nations.

The dialect of levantine arabic spoken in that region doesn't even use a "P" sound. "Filistin" is as close as then can get to saying "Palestine".... 

Ok, which dialect ? Which specific region ? There are several dialects of levantine arabic. And for the record, the dialect spoken in the region is actually called Palestinian Arabic, it has 3 subgroups : Rural, urban and bedouin. Whereas each of them has tremendous differences not only in phonetics but in grammatical structures.

There are noticeable differences between Palestinian Arabic and other forms of Levantine Arabic such as Syrian Arabic and Lebanese Arabic. However, none of these is invariable, given the differences of dialect within Palestinian Arabic itself.

Until relatively recently the Arabic spoken in the Ottoman sanjak of Syria was considered a single Syrian dialect, see F. Crow if you are more interested in this.

And what kind of role does phonetics play here ? Anglo saxon languages also dont use the word Č, for Črna gora for example, but you call it Montenegro, which is a literal transliteration of the word. How does that make the concept of a Montenegrean nation not viable just because it is pronounced differently in native tongue ??

"Palestinian" is a modern propaganda construct.. The "Palestinian" identity is false to anyone who knows the history.

Ok, lets see now. 717 BC, annales of Sargon 2, the akkadian, records the region as Pilistu.

Herodotus, as far back as 430BC in his Histories, clearly speaks of a wider area than the Philistia from the bible. He literally refers to a "district of Syria, called Palaistinê" (Herodotus' Description of the East Mediterranean Coast, Anson F. Rainey, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 321 (Feb., 2001), pp. 57–63 )

340Bc, Aristotle speaks in his Meteorology, "Again if, as is fabled, there is a lake in Palestine, such that if you bind a man or beast and throw it in it floats and does not sink, this would bear out what we have said.“ (

100 AD, Plutarch, in Parallel Lives : "Armenia, where Tigranes reigns, king of kings, and holds in his hands a power that has enabled him to keep the Parthians in narrow bounds, to remove Greek cities bodily into Media, to conquer Syria and Palestine, to put to death the kings of the royal line of Seleucus, and carry away their wives and daughters by violence." (

lets skip a few years, too many to point out.

1225AD : Yaqut al-Hamawi, Dictionary of Geographies "Filastin is the last of the provinces of Syria towards Egypt. Its capital is Jerusalem." (Guy le Strange (1890). Palestine Under the Moslems from AD 650 to 1500 )

1856 AD : James Redhouse, An English and Turkish dictionary: Regarded as the original and authoritative Ottoman-English dictionary, translates Holy Land as dari-filastin (House of Palestine)

So, construct of Palestine, land of Palestine, Palestinian people, Palestinian territory are all different horses.You do not perceive that the situation has many different levels on which it is problematic. The ethnogenesis of the Arabians, Palestinians, Jews whoever you wanna take isnt really anything special, you have impossible cases like these and even worse, with complete lack of ALL primary sources all over the place in Europe, but the catch in this specific case is, it is the most potent, most viral case of political inflammation and misuse, or better said ab-use of, what is generally a perfectly normal case of historical progression/analysis.

Are you claiming that Iran just coincidentally decided to become Iran rather than Persia in 1935? What of all the muslim member of the SS? Coincidental again?

Not at all. I wonder whom are my hours of writing this dedicated to. Shortly repeating myself, at that time the word „Iran“ went in international use, correctly stated by you, the act of „change“ was set in the wake of the NSDAP influence, but the word itself hasnt got anything to do with it.

You can read up on the word ĒRĀN, its phonetics, and history in more detail here :

And some more info about the muslim members of the SS which you like to bring up so fast in other topics also. It sounds very useful, as an argument to your cause. All the muslims in the SS. Legioons and legions of them.Untill you start digging around of course. Let me do it for you, if you will even read it that is.

The notorious Waffen Schutzstaffel, or the Wafen SS was a MULTI ETHNICAL force of the Reich. It comprised people from Muslim Bosniaks, to Catholic Croats, to Orthodox Serbs and Soviet Muslims, to Finnish, Bulgarian, Netherlandian and even British nationals.. Its main objectives were to aid in fighting the more and more troubling local Partisan forces in Yugoslavia, Russia and to an extent Poland. Although they werent directly connected in the Holocaust, they were used in the more drastic cases of military violence and killings. Besides the largest Russian Cossacks division, the biggest division of non German SS personnel were the Croatian Hanđar divisions, that included around 20 thousand Bosnian Muslims ( who were, by the way, considered ethnic Croats during WW2), which was by and large the biggest muslim division in the whole military apparatus of the Reich. There was a reason behind this, since Himmler had an idea that the Balkan Muslims were special, and different to other Muslims in the case that they were neither Slavs nor Turks, but actually Aryans that adopted Islam.

Additionally, there were pockets of SS units consisting primarily of American, Indian, some Arabs, Tartars amongst others. The numberwork on the aforementioned is based on gueswork at best. In fact, there were even units, such as the Dirlewanger brigade that accepted persecuted peoples such as Homosexuals, Gypsies and political prisoners.

This opens up a very specific, different and mindboggingly deep topic of collaborations during the WW2, but lets just put it this way. Most of the collaborators sought to work with the Nazis in specific ways that would let them realize some of their own nationalistic/rasistic proliferation of their specific space/state, most probably from some semi-deluded history of half truths. Slovenia had a very grey post WW2 period of dealing with collaborators, and I guess you wouldnt try to argument  the fact since part of my nation worked with the Nazis, that our underlining reasoning had something to do with the Jews ? What about Vichy France ? The Quisling Norway ? What about your own, American SS brigade, the George Washington brigade ?

I find your oversimplifications of the matters in this case, strongly disconcerting.

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."
Note that the islamic antipathy towards jews long predates the existence of Israel.

Oh man GM, you have a way about you. You can twist and attenuate parts of a text so far out of context to suit your view on things, I almost see it fascinating. Almost.

For starters, Hadith are narrations concerning the deeds of the prophet Muhammad and are regarded by even the most traditional Islamic schools of jurisprudence as merely prisms through which better understanding the Qur'an, the socalled Qur'an exegesis. The texts were gathered and evaluated in bigger collections only in the 9th century and to this day are being investigated by even Muslims scholars of being authentic or not. Their semantic value, however, is unquestionable.

There are also different versions how Shia and Sunni muslims look at Hadith. Generally they both accept the authenticity of the majority of the Hadith, though they often disagree over the authenticity of certain hadith or how others might be interpreted, and have different canonical collections. Shi'as also believe that narrations of the Fourteen Infallibles, especially Ali bin Abi Talib, are valid as hadith, whereas Sunnis accept only narrations traceable to Muhammad.

What on earth are you trying to prove with this ? Islamic antipathy ? The worst, most hardocre „antipathy“ towards Jews was built, improved and perfected in Europe indicrectly because of the Catholic church. „They killed Jesus, they must suffer“. I am so tired of writing history lessons, but just for fun, lets do one more.

From the 9th century CE, the medieval Islamic world classified Jews (and Christians) as dhimmi, and allowed them to practice their religion more freely than they could do in medieval Christian Europe. Under Islamic rule, there was a Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain that lasted until at least the 11th century.  It holds true though, that despite the Qur'an's prohibition, Jews were also forced to convert to Islam or face death in some parts of Yemen, Morocco and Baghdad several times between the 12th and 18th centuries. Faced with the choice of either death or conversion, many Jews and Christians emigrated. Some fled east to more tolerant Muslim lands.

During the Middle Ages in Europe some of the worst times for Jews transpired in many places, with blood libels, expulsions, forced conversions and massacres. A main justification of prejudice against Jews in Europe was religious. The persecution hit its first peak during the Crusades. In the First Crusade  flourishing communities on the Rhine and the Danube were destroyed. In the Second Crusade the Jews in Germany were subject to several massacres. The Jews were also subjected to attacks by the Shepherds' Crusades. The Crusades were followed by expulsions, including, in 13.century, the banishing of all English Jews; in 14 century, the expulsion of 100,000 Jews in France; and in 15century, the expulsion of thousands from Austria. Many of the expelled Jews fled .

In medieval and Renaissance Europe, a major contributor to the deepening of antisemitic sentiment and legal action among the Christian populations was the popular preaching of the zealous reform religious orders, the Franciscans and Dominicans,, who combed European promoting antisemitism through their often fiery, emotional appeals.
As the Black Death epidemics devastated Europe in the mid-14th century, annihilating more than half of the population, Jews were used as scapegoats. Rumors spread that they caused the disease by deliberately poisoning wells. Hundreds of Jewish communities were destroyed.

So yeah lets judge Christianity by Exodus, Leviticus, Job and Revelations. Kill those that work on sabbath, sell your daughter as a slave, stone gays, beat slaves, even God negotiatiating with the devil just to prove a point ! A haaaaaa.

Politics & Religion / Re: Anti-semitism & Jews
« on: April 24, 2011, 02:06:34 PM »
Tail wags everyone.

Buckle up, this is long.

Ok, about the I recall correctly I first saw it in a Nouvel Observateur version quite long ago, when I was visiting mother in France, but I am not definitive on that.  Recently I found it in this article from Tristam, but since the pic is mutilated with ads, I looked for another one.

@ GM : Mannn, you are a hardliner no doubt. But last I checked we are talking on a DISCUSSION forum, not a linking referenced articles forum. In contrast to you I can link you AT LEAST 15 articles from different sources and different viewpoints that tackle different areas of interest on the topic, not just those that stick to my version. Make that twice as many books. But what will we acomplish with this ? Im writing my ass of here, thinking and argumenting my point, but for you linking articles and sources that support your view on things is a self suficient argument in a debate. Actually I would rather call shoving other peoples opinions down your collegues throats,  indoctrination.

Moreover, seems like you havent really read my post that well. Citing Solway will hardly get you credit points with people in the know, but ok ill play. First of, some of what he talks about in the article is exactly the same stuff I have already written in my post.

“Palestine,” it does not exist.

 Gee diddly do, oh really. What he calls „Palestinianism“ is really a „coming together“ of a people, a national identity, which of course hasnt existed before 18 century for the simple fact, that nations and states in the modern term (monoply on violence, subject/sovereign, centralised government, etc. ) havent existed anywhere.

Word Palestine alone is a cognant, that derives fom the archaism „Philistine“ or Land of the Philistines. They were a people, apparently of Aegean origins, who occupied the southern coast of Canaan in Iron Age. The fact that there are archaic greek, byzantine greek AND Latin words for Palestine derails the argument that „Palestine“ is a modern construct. It is and WAS a conventional name since around 5BC up to the 1948 war to describe a region between the Mediterannean and the Jordan river. Like most of the stuff in history its borders changed, bent,destroyed, reappeared, etc..the area has given ground to the most diverse and dominant cultural forces in history. From Persians, to Greeks to Seleucids to Romans,then the Arabian conquest, Abbasids and Umayads, to Byznatine rule, Crusaders, Mamluks to Ottoman rule. In most of these cases the lands were divided differently, since they had different socio-economical formations, from slavery to european feudalism to byzantine feudalism to Ottoman Beylerbey provincial administration. This alone makes it IMPOSSIBLE to draw any type of historicistic conclusions of what we think of Palestine today, used to mean.

The historical record conclusively shows not only that there was never any such thing as a Palestinian nation but also that there is no Palestinian ethnicity—in the sense that there is a Jewish or Tibetan ethnicity

I would most certainly like to see these historical records, and what they entail that shows a nation as „a nation“. Solway typically misadresses the term nation from a modern standpoint, whereas, again, nations in that modern context can start being thought of in above mentioned manner from about 1800. Traditionally every person that individualised himself with the traditional core ethos of a certain group was thought as a member of that group. Thats why the different ethnical structures in Europe varied so harshly. Take the term Germanians for example. To your average person, it calls to mind, giant, violent, noble savages, wheres in truth, Germania was a name for a region, and the  notion for a historical ethno lingusitic group that used Indo-European Germanic languages.  Germania was inhabited by different tribes, including some Celtic, Baltic, Scythian, and proto-Slavic peoples. The tribal and ethnic makeup changed over the centuries as a result of assimilation and, most importantly, migrations. The Germanic people spoke several different dialects.

In some cases, especially involving transnational migration, or colonial expansion, ethnicity is linked to nationality. Anthropologists and historians, following the modernist understanding of ethnicity as proposed by Benedict Anderson, see nations and nationalism as developing with the rise of the modern state. Thus, in the West, the notion of ethnicity, like race and nation, developed in the context of European colonial expansion.In the nineteenth century, modern states generally sought legitimacy through their claim to represent "nations." Nation-states, however, invariably include populations that have been excluded from national life for one reason or another. Under these conditions—when people moved from one state to another,or one state conquered or colonized peoples beyond its national boundaries—ethnic groups were formed by people who identified with one nation, but lived in another state.

Is there such thing as an American ethnicity ? Is/was there any such thing as Czechoslovakian ethnicity ? Is there na Italian ethnicity ? This implication that the nation cannot exist or have history since it does not have intro and outrovertive reflective ethnicity is completely irrelevant.

Again Solway makes a common mistake of „amateur historians“ who do not recall the differences between national, political and ethnical borders, which ARE NOT and DO not imply the same conclusion.

1967 is the founding year of the hypothesis now known as “Palestine.” What we call “Palestinian history” has just celebrated its forty-first birthday!

If anything what he should have written there is „what we call as Palestinian peoples history“. Even that would have been horribly wrong. What hypothesis ? Palestinian what, people or land ? Or both ?  Palestine within Byzantine borders meant something different to Palestine under the Assyrian empire and something different to what the WZO proposed at the 1919 Paris peace conference.

As I already wrote, the endonym „Palestinian“ as a concept of a nation of the Palestinian people by the Arabs of Palestine began just before WW1. And this concept still changes to this day.

Solway really should stick to poetry and literal critique.

@ Guro Crafty

Thank you for the thoughts. I look forward to reading your post.

Before I finish, a few words about the Nazis, Iran, Aryans, Persia, etc..

First off, we need to settle something regarding  the word Aryan. It is a loanword from sanskrit Arya, meaning Noble. It can imply several different things.

In scholary usage it refers mostly to the Indo Iranian languages and their speakers. In dated usage it refers to Indo European languages and their speakers.

Besides that, the word is getting thrown out and about, to whatever meaning and reason. From Hindu nationalists, to Nazi racial theory, the „nordic“ type of person with blonde hair, blue eyes, high growth, to the white supremacy theory about the peoples who are native Indo-Europeans of the Western or European branch of the Indo-European peoples, as opposed to the Eastern or Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European peoples.

What you guys, and Gms article say above is propagandist misconstruction at its finest. Even though It holds true, that the Shah had nascent ties to Nazi Germany, it was not, by any means the reason they changed the name from Persia to Iran.The  Zend persian „ariya“ refers to „venerable“ or even a national name.

The term „Iran“ has been in use natively preety much since the Sassanid empire, up to the year 1940, when the term became known internationally, and replaced the ethnonym Persia. Both "Persia" and "Iran" are used interchangeably in cultural contexts. The name "Iran" is a cognate of "Aryan", and really roughly means "land of the Aryans"and in modern Persian derives from the Proto-Iranian term Aryānā, first attested in Zoroastrianism's Avesta tradition.  In historiography, Ariya- and Airiia- are even attested as an ethnic designator in Achaemenid inscriptions.  

When reading about Hitler and his ideology and propaganda et al. You have to be very careful, since he is an epitome of „picking what you like from all around and stuff it into one big neat pile of WTF“. At one point in his „career“ he became obsessed with finding the pure race, and traveled almost off world to find his agenda. From aryans in Iran to Tibet. Now as some may know he was obsessed with Nietzsche, although he read it in a completely oppurtunistic manner. Nietzche on the other hand had a thing (to put it bluntly :)) for Zoroaster/Zarathustra the prophet. Through this prism he started to plow around Iran to find the „aryan“ he read so largely about in Zoroaster texts, sadly little did he know that this „aryan“ meant something totally other to what his version of „aryan“ was all about. The reason why alot of Iranians/Persians got excited about the book was, since it was promoted as a book that promotes the domination of the aryan race, the aryan ideology. Needless to say, the aryan race in that or any other context doesnt exist, and what they read about, and were so excited about was not their Aryan, but that of the NSDAP.

Politics & Religion / Re: Anti-semitism & Jews
« on: April 23, 2011, 07:34:05 PM »
Hello all !

Since my note has flown in a bit of a different direction, let me explain some stuff further.


There IS a Palestinian homeland-- it is called Jordan.  The West Bank used to be part of Jordan, but because of Arafat and PLO perfidy, they fg abandoned it.

Here I am afraid, things are a bit more complicated. Jordan, is NOT palestinian homeland. When shuffling with historicisms, one has to be careful. Palestinian people, means something else than Palestinian descent, and Palestinian state. Most Arabic speaking Palestinians are of the Levantian descent with origins from Palestine, Israel, Gaza and West Bank. The Palestinians from Jordan, are part of the big Palestinian diaspora, a consequence of a bigger wave of exodus of peoples of Arabic descent (and of course Christians) in 19.century, under the oppression of the Ottoman rule and NOT only the wars in 48, and 67 as most people think.

It holds true however, that around 60% of Jordanian nationals are of Palestinian descent (again, do not mix with Palestinian people, Palestinians, because it is not the same stuff etc.) and have the biggest diaspora percentage. Palestinians have mostly Mediterranean genetic ancestry, and represent the descendants of ethnic groups that lived in the area since at leat 1.5 millenia ago. The descendants „accepted“ the muslim culture only after the the Muslim golden age, their conquests in the 6th and 7th century. The question of distinct national identity I will leave out of this debate since it is gravely debated area even as we speak. What holds ground thought, that the start of the national identity in both cases, started only in the 19.century, as with most other countries in the world. The first popular use of endonym "Palestinian" as a concept of a nation of the Palestinian people by the Arabs of Palestine began just before Franz Ferdinand was shot i.e. WW1.

Seek Civantos, Ignacio Klich, Geoff Lesser and even Helen Shiblak (Jewish scholar) for high level expert research on the topic.


Mein Kampf was a best-seller throughout the Arab word (Under the name "My Jihad" if I am not mistaken) in the 1930s, well before WW2 and Hitler's final solution.  Jews have been the majority population of Jerusalem since 1500, and due to Islamic oppression (dhimmitude) nearly as many Jews emmigrated to Israel from Arab countries as did from Europe.

I do not understand the Adolf comment, hence I will rather not comment it. I will however tackle the majority pop numbers.
First of all, any and all population data pre-1900 is based on guesswork at best,from travellers, merchant diaries, organisations...etc. One of  the only primary sources on the topic is the so called Ottoman Tahrir Defter (think of it as a tax census book). If you specifically need sources, you can check the „Turkish tax register, Jewish history timeline“ for exact numbers, but for the year 1553, the estimated number of Jews is 2 thousand, and Muslims 12 thousand (for Jerusalem only). Only in the second half of 19.century the numbers are placed on a more even table, around 5.5 thousand on each side, which coincides with the reason stated above, extremely harsh Ottoman religious doctrine and exodus. Check „Ellen Clare Miller, Eastern Sketches – notes of scenery, schools and tent life in Syria and Palestine. Edinburgh: William Oliphant and Company. 1871“  if you wish to analyze exact numbers and the difficulties ANY demographic analysis pre 1900 entails.

At the end of 19.century, during the 5 Aliyahs, or the immigration periods, an estimated 3.million Jews migrated to Palestine area, under the Zionist motives, mostly from Europe. In the Modern era, apart from a few natural disasters, the only reason for Jews immigrating from „Arab countries“ is because of the Ottoman restrictions on Zionist land acquisition and immigration. Settler numbers prior to that are marginal, compared to the Aliyah migrations from Europe.

The first big step in the question that I partly opened with my answer is the year 1917, and the Ottoman defeat under Britain and the passing of the Balfour declaration. Quote :

„His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."[ „

Wiki : The declaration was made in a letter from Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Baron Rothschild (Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild), a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. The letter reflected the position of the British Cabinet, as agreed upon in a meeting on 31 October 1917. It further stated that the declaration is a sign of "sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations."


It is the Jews who are surrounded and who have had to fight for their very lives against Arab onslaught many times and who haved lived for decades with their women and children specifically targeted by suicidal killers (whose families were paid $25,000 a hit by Saddam Hussein by the way).  Despite this, Israeli Arabs are citizens who vote and can bring lawsuits (which they sometimes win) have their mosques and their religion.  Find me this in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, etc!

For the first part of the comment, see what I wrote above, histories of nations (mind the word story in history) tend to be very complicated fishies, very easily bent and broken.

 I have nothing to add to your „exercising ones religion“ comment, it rings completely true. But we do not debate modern day ideologies here, rather opposite, if anything, we should debate ancient ideologies, since they are the root of the poisonous wound.

About the killings, and terror attacks etc. I post this table from 2008, about the „effectiveness“ of the Palestinian war machine


Yet despite all their genocidal attacks on the Jews, good people such as yourself do not hold the Palestinians to blame for the natural consequences of their actions.  Indeed you speak of the Jews surrounding the Arabs/Palestinians!?!

I will not comment on the video links, I do not consider this type of argumenting viable for such a seriously delicate topic. Likewise I can return the favor with the link to the Massada2000 website and the s.h.i.t. list, and give you a counter argument for the frightenly imbecilic zionistic groups, but where would that lead us ?

All in all, in the first posting I may have come across ignorant for which I am sorry, but truth be told, the only reason I have, is, ironically, the same one with which you have attacked my reasoning. You saw them purely as terrorists, I posted that, as a balance check to the other side, whereas in reality my personal opinions on the whole matter are very mixed, and quite frankly, not appropriate for this portion of the forum.

I appologize if I hurt anyones feelings with the first, unexplained answer, I may have acted out of line. I am sorry.


Politics & Religion / Re: Beck Soros anti semitism
« on: April 23, 2011, 06:32:29 AM »
I don't know how much influence Soros had in all that is going on in the Middle East using his denial of being a "puppit master" his terminolgy.  It is interesting he used this term as a Mickey Mouse puppit was thrown at me while Katherine and I were stuck on a highway while moving from Fla. to NJ some years back by the group of people who have been stealing all her music lyrics.  I find it odd Soros himself would use this adjective if he were *not* a puppit master.   In any case it is hard to know what is going on behind scenes.  Beck is in my view doing a service trying to connect dots.  I have learned not to underestimate the power of wealthy people who certainly *can* manipulate average people easier than I ever imagined.  One thing does seem certain and that is what we see in the Middle East is exactly as Soros has been hoping for for many years.  It is as he calls it the Jewish Right that is the problem.  Isn't it interesting that this survivor of the Holocaust is himself now blaming some Jews for what it the main problem in the Middle East??

See Soros below:  "Israel is unlikely to recognize its own best interests because the change is too sudden and carries too many risks"

Oh really?  

****February 03, 2011

Soros: 'The Main Stumbling Block Is Israel'

President Obama personally and the United States as a country have much to gain by moving out in front and siding with the public demand for dignity and democracy. This would help rebuild America's leadership and remove a lingering structural weakness in our alliances that comes from being associated with unpopular and repressive regimes. Most important, doing so would open the way to peaceful progress in the region. The Muslim Brotherhood's cooperation with Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel laureate who is seeking to run for president, is a hopeful sign that it intends to play a constructive role in a democratic political system. As regards contagion, it is more likely to endanger the enemies of the United States - Syria and Iran - than our allies, provided that they are willing to move out ahead of the avalanche.

The main stumbling block is Israel. In reality, Israel has as much to gain from the spread of democracy in the Middle East as the United States has. But Israel is unlikely to recognize its own best interests because the change is too sudden and carries too many risks. And some U.S. supporters of Israel are more rigid and ideological than Israelis themselves. Fortunately, Obama is not beholden to the religious right, which has carried on a veritable vendetta against him. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is no longer monolithic or the sole representative of the Jewish community. The main danger is that the Obama administration will not adjust its policies quickly enough to the suddenly changed reality.****

As for Beck I have mixed feelings about him.  I watched his show for a few minutes yesterday when he had the 12 yr old Asperger's boy who is a mathematical genius on his show.  There is just something about Beck - he is just so goofy.  I can't watch him for more then a few minutes.

a quick symbolic reminder of the "problem" in the Middle East

ever wondered why sun tzu said, give a surrounded enemy a way out ? What I see in the midst of this conflict, that drives the majority of the so called global geopolitical sphere is an incredibly hotblooded minority, with burdens of history that little other Western countries can compare, cornered, nay, squelched between two pillars, without a way out, fighting to the death. And some of you guys want to tighten the squeeze.....
It should be noted that the Arab states were hardly ever united before our century. They were constantly disputing over territories, oil revenues, clean water, etc. But lately, one thing has united them: the destruction of the state of Israel, and Iran is apparently the leader.

Politics & Religion / Re: Iraq
« on: April 16, 2011, 05:53:06 PM »
Im really keen on hearing you guys' the story on what SHOULD have been done in Iraq ?

Politics & Religion / Re: 'America Alone'
« on: March 19, 2011, 06:07:41 PM »
Hi Marc.

Thank you for the extensive reply and comments and sorry at the same time for the late response.

here goes :

When I visited Slovenia last year to do the seminar for Borut, I liked the country and its people very much.  That said, when I hear the line you offer here, the following comments/questions occur to me:

The name of this thread "America Alone" comes from a book by Canadian intellectual Mark Steyn.  In AA, the bulk of Steyn's analysis is through the analytical methods of demographics.   What you say here may be true, for now, of Slovenia and other parts of Europe, but the larger picture painted by MS is that Europe is not replacing its indigenous populations precisely because of the tax and regulatory burdens being placed upon those who would work and support themselves in order to raise families and that in order to continue the wonders you describe above this leads to allowing substantial immigration by populations (e.g. Arab and Turk) not committed to Euro values but to other ones which are inconsistent with Euro values and that therefor the foundations for a large clash are being built and that it could get very ugly.

The socialism comment was more of a pun than anything. Though some of it rings true. I am aware of Steyns book. We shared some thoughts at a debate about it at a seminar in uni. Generally it is a very amusing book, that opens some very solid questions, but all in all it falls a bit flat on its face with some of the conclusions. Mainly, that demographics is only a part of, lets call it, interobjective stability. Here I link you the main official statistical database for the Euroland :    It is a very nicely layed out database, with preety much every piece of data one can gather. In any further outlandish ventures about Europe, and specific countries within, I heartily recommend checking this site first. Although keep in mind it is raw statistical data, so if you dont have an eye for it, better keep away :):)

I cant, for some reason link specific tables, but hopefully, you will see the primary subtopics that I have opened, which show you some of the conditions from certain countries with questionable demographic potential in the last 15 years, that have been actually, relative to other countries, going up. In the general indicators of investment stability, unenployment rates, administrational transparence (i.e. corruption), low crime rates, favorable gini coefficient ratings, wealth dispersion,  and yes Slovenia is among them. To sum up this part of the conversation, I do not beleive the current trend of demographic redux ALONE, will have a generally negative influence. These kinds of trends have been popping up thruought history, and while they can be understood as an indicator, they only ever become dangerous when coupled with a different polarity which can make a volatile combination. I guess in favor of your commentary, this could be the Islamist problem.

To maybe further my position more, the demographic DOES pose a financial problem and with it an immigration one. With the "baby boom" generation starting to retire, there is a problem with the working potential, which is way lower, to fund the pension system, which is, at least in Europe, since Bismarck, "pay as you go" as opposed to the funded version. And this could be remedied to a great extent with actual LOWERING of immigration policies. Put in generic terms, if there are 500 doctors missing in Slovenia, they could easily be brought here from somewhere else and fill the fiscal gap. Of course there is the problem of language and assimilation and all that, but it is enough to ilustrate.

Besides that, what I already wrote somewhere else, I have alot greater fear/respect/scare factor from incredibly gifted scientists, coming from the "Islamic" continuum. Because, If I dare venture into philosophy of religion for a second, their theologic structure of the total otherness of Allah, Islam as a religion, accepts SO MUCH easier, all the findings of modern science (quantum mechanics, bioethics,..) that pose all sorts of incredibly uncomfortable questions for Christianity.

MARC : I have no idea at all about the gypsies, except that I know that Hitler had it in for them almost as much as he did for my people. (I am Jewish).  But what does this have to do with the arrival and growing strength of Islam in Europe.  Islam is NOT just another religion, it is a theocratic political doctrine as well, and one that has profoundly fascist elements (think of the various death fatwas and various murders (a.k.a. honor killings) for writing books, drawing cartoons, dating infidels, changing to other religions and so forth.

The gypsy comment was but an example, of what the type of rhetoric I was trying to portray in my initial comment, is starting to do in some of the  more problematic parts. It is starting to get the "glare and scare" type of undertone, that the German propaganda started to get in the mid 30s.

And NO, not at all the Fascism comment wasnt directed at you, please forgive me. Only now I see, it turned out a little fishy :):) I meant my friends from England and the USA, lets call them my peers.

MARC : "
Part of the Mark Steyn hypothesis is precisely that, due to demographic trends, the Germans ARE going to places you fear they will go.  Already they begin their dance with Russia again.

Yes this part I remember. Although personally I think it goes way overboard. Mere demographic trends wont trigger this by a long shot. Not to mention that Turks, the primary immigrators there, are one of the best assimilated foreign groups in whole Europe. I cant speak from experience though, maybe some other German friends can ? What is true though, and that stands for everywhere, that immigrators usually inhibit the lower echelons, and with this all the grime that happens down low ( :D :D ) although one of the subgroups from Eurostat can show you, that within 2 generations, they start to get higher, utilizing the relatively favorable vertical mobility options in Germany. I cannot comment the dance with Russia, as I am afraid we will be falling into deep ideological discrepancies here. Ultimately though, I most definitely approve of this dance.

MARC : "Well, putting aside the reference to Ireland because I don't know to what you refer smiley my understanding is that Europe was doing diddly to stop the terrible situation that was developing in the former Yugoslavia and that it was America, a bit under Bush 1 and much more under Clinton, that stepped in to stop a gathering genocide.  Of course you know of this history much better than me and I stand ready, willing, and able for you to add to my understanding of these matters."

ahhh, this could end up into pages upon pages, but putting it in the manner of "nobody did anything so we came in and sorted the whole ordeal" is way too naive. Generally the situation was/is 1000 times more complex. Yes the international community did respond, but too late and with totally innapropriate force. Dropping a few bombs and saying mission accomplished wasnt alot different to that legendary Iraqi general who was claiming he is routing US forces, while you could see his soldiers surrendering in the background. The only positive thing, that DID have an effect, and still has, were the peacekeeping forces, which were mostly European.Genocide(s) happened long ago before anyone arrived and even after they arrived. One of the two biggest slaughters of the war, which I will not mention here, as I do not want to offend potential viewers from the countries that got the lesser end, was even funded by the US forces and the CIA. Offering air support, intel, and assets to spawn guerilla groups to enter cleansing of ethnic pockets. Anyway, way OT, for another time perhaps.....lets go on

MARC : "
Again we circle the same point-- is the underlying problem the rhetoric of those concerned by the trends resulting from demographic contraction, or is the underlying problem the demographic contraction caused by an overburdensome socialistic state and multi-culti wimpiness?

Socialistic state does not exist anymore. Not in its prime context at least. Perhaps in N Korea and Cuba. But those are more for show than anything else. Not underlying problem, but my great concern for the rising violent nationalism is the rhetoric, BECAUSE it starts fueling the demo issue in the manner I spoke of above. Just like the Jewish question and its solution (which was something common throughout European history, not something the NSDAP made up) started fueling the cultural, ethnical and economic difficulties, hyperinflation and all, basically to support a crazy mans crave for power. This is again why I say demographic issues alone arent a sole cause for alarm. Coupled with slight shifts of wellbeing, economic downsides AND viscious primitive yellowpress propaganda and I am starting to hoard weapons. Usually in hard times, people always look for a scapegoat and at the moment, Islam is precisely that. And to bend the will of the people, especially bored, depressed and poor, yellowpress propaganda works wonders.

MARC : "
"Maybe some time in the Muslim neighborhoods of Paris or Rotterdam, where the police fear to go, would change your mind?"

I am unsure of this comment. Surely I cant understand it as an argument against Muslims in general ? I mean ANY time in ANY neighbourhood where police fear to go would change my mind. Hell the most scared I am in Paris is in any given LAfayette mall, seeing men in scarfs with makeup and leather jackets with a handy purse. But yeah, coincidentally, what you bring up here, the occurence of modern day apartheid and slums are one of my main arguments why liberal capitalism in its Western perfected form, with all its freedoms and independences cannot and willnot be able to tackle this. On the one hand you claim any interjection of the state as "socialism" (which is a farcry from it actually) on the other hand you would put all sorts of barriers and laws and general state interference etc. to help save what you hold dear and claim that it works best WITHOUT the state. Hmm.

The quasi left commentary was intended at the general status of the political Left, at least in Europe. It is nonexistent. Thats why I said quasi left, as an inert movement without smell, taste nor color.

MARC : "Illiterate American that I am, the term Odoacer goes right over my head with nary a look back smiley but I find what you say here to encapsulate the essence of something I do not understand at all.  How on earth is Europe better off as Eurabia?!?"

Odoacer was a germanic foederati general that succeeded/brought down Romulus Augustus as the Rex Italiae in the 5th century, marking the end of classical era of the Roman Empire. What most people imagine as a decline into barbarism and plunder was actually a very prosperous age, in many ways better and fairer than before. I hope this makes my Eurabia parallel clearer !

with best regards

a very tired Andrew !

Politics & Religion / Re: 'America Alone'
« on: March 14, 2011, 07:35:14 PM »

Isn't it better to be "poor" in American than to be poor throughout most of the world? If we examine the gang and drug infested areas in urban America, what policy solution do you advocate that hasn't as of yet been attempted?

Being poor in Slovenia is great. We are still socialist by heart. You know, the true kind. Free healthcare, free education, miniature crime rate, no gang activities, sub euroland average unemployment rate, no segregation, very good non expensive food !!

A word on Islam in Europe,

I add to the above finding of an European collegue, that the clouds seem darker from the other end. Islamization of Europe ? What ? Gentlemen, this is a modern migration of peoples. This doom and gloom article mongering tactic is something alot of the rilers are doing. "Look, look people. The gypsy stole an apple. We told you, the gypsy is a thief. Put up walls and barriers so the thief cannot reach you anymore".

 It is with exactly the same rhetoric, and because of it, that I get from reading most of articles from GM, that Europe is starting to get alarmingly high nationalist responses, more and more so. Poland, Spain, Greece... Hungary (damn they are my neighbours!!) now has outspoken Fascist leadership. And I dont mean this in a recycled American anti freedom kind of context. Lynch the mystic, purge the unclean in the truest sense of the form. Paramilitary guard groups walking around Roma districts. To control the immigrant. To have a lid on the foreigner. Openly stating they will once again grant the state of Hungary direct access to the sea, like it used to have. No matter though, most of my American colleagues throw the term Fascism around like its used underpants. Im used to it.

Thank the gods that the Germans are relatively normal at the moment. When shit goes downhill there, better put on a mask, because shit will be flying everywhere.

Europe, especially with its patient, the Balkans, is a fascinating tutti frutti melting pot of jenesaisquoi.. Or should I say stove?  With countless long forgotten grudges and vendettas that can be brought up to speed with the flinch of an eye. Depends on the need of course. We cant even decide what we want to be (tut tut, Ireland).

 And that stupendous rhetoric that I speak of above, VERY dangerously and carelessly incites the population. All you need is to bend the will of the Serbs, through some twisted, half assed "affair" and you get genocide veterans lining up in parliament to ANSWER THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. And when you get a madman up in there, you get mad men everywhere around here again. And once more you will have people citing Star Wars over the news : "So this is how liberty dies...With thunderous applause."

I am affraid the time of simple polar ideology is past us. We can no longer speak the way we (or should I say you, I am still a kid, basically) were able to speak in the 80s and the roaring 90s. Its not a us vs them question anymore. Its a us vs us, if anything. And people, especially the younger generations, are starting to feel this.

To sum up, I am not afraid of the Islamization of Europe in the slightest. What I AM affraid of is this terribly misplaced narrative of an elated state of panic, that seemingly more and more anti-quasi left (true left doesnt exist anymore, not in Europe anyway) are utilizing. The pointing fingers and affair hunting. People are bored. The political continuum doesnt have any creative incentive since the great Fukuyama spoke. Much to our/his demise he corrected himself, and said he might be wrong. At least he is courteous. Its all just "you steal, he steals, they all steal.... corruption everywhere, incompetent politicians, foreigners invading our land, taking our jobs, bureaucrats using the worker, rocket shield here, walls there...," blah blah blah. This inert dubiosity has caused us yet again to reap what we have sown. People with a stingy ear for yellow press. All this is, is just yellow press.

Eurabia will come to pass, just like Rome has continued in the mantle of the Odoacer for a good century. In alot of ways, better off than before.

If a push comes to a shove here, I rather have petty social and religious incidents than a war in Europe. Again. GAHHH.

Martial Arts Topics / Re: Guro Poi Dog
« on: March 14, 2011, 05:43:36 PM »
Congratulations Guro Poi Dog.

guro Crafty,

Thank you for the kind words, again.

I follow a few foreign bloggers and op-eds for a while now. Ive added stratfor and a few others, that Ive seen from this forum, to the repertoire to get an even broader sense of the picture. Ive always disliked using only sources that prove my view on things. I chew it all, left right and cetre. Generally speaking, I like Project Syndicate, from Stiglitz, the most

Ill leave Krugmans status for a different topic, but leave a few words on your input

Not to bump on this too much, I would only comment your "Economic Fascism" claim. Americas combined debt, this year included is almost 100% of yor GDP. Debt enslavement.... What the "Keynesians" of today claim is hardly Fascism, general idea is, that to jump start the economy, credits and raise in that debt by about 5% (some say 3%, some 7%, lets stick with middle ground) are needed to break level, to infuse the private sector investing again. Yes you would make your debt bigger, only by the smallest of margins, but the economy would start running. Which is the first step to do here, as I understand it is also the wisest. Not do that and the economy stays still, or even starts stagnating AND attempts at finding a solution are null.

sorry ppulatie, for stealing the topic, :hugs

my humbles worth


EDIT : I present a very informative article from Joseph Stiglitz about the topic of the OP....

great topic.

If I may chime in on the debate with a bit of an OT comparative question, or subjective opinion of an expert.

what do you make of Paul Krugmans fixation on Canada lately ? He seems to linken it to the american household debt problem and how financial stabilization wont fix much things, but portrays it as even worse ? Im a bit confused....heres an example

thanks for any input


Martial Arts Topics / Re: R.I.P. C-Desert Dog
« on: February 21, 2011, 03:15:53 PM »
oh my god, I am lost for words.....I really dont know what to say here. Big, big tragedy. Wife and 3 kids.....

condolences, rest in peace Abu

Pages: [1] 2