Once a Jew…?
by Paul Eisen
Sunday, April 1st, 2012
We’re all agreed then, we’re all anti-Semites now but lurking underneath are the questions: What is a Jew? And, once a Jew, always a Jew?
Up till now, or at least for the last 6 or 7 years, I’ve seen Jewish specialness as a voluntary condition (albeit a pretty hard one to shake off) and I’ve noticed that it ranges all the way from the religious Jew’s ‘light unto the nations’ to the Marxist Jew’s ‘workers of the world unite’. But in the discussion around the article “We’re all anti-Semites now” some opposition was voiced – and from some surprising sources.
Gilad reminded me that my comparison of a Jew to a cauliflower wasn’t quite right. He pointed out that a cauliflower lacks consciousness and is therefore unable to relinquish its cauliflowerness but, by implication, a Jew can.
But he also noted “that Jewish culture lacks the means to restrain Jewishness – something to do with an inherent exceptionalist structure.” So, it’s in the nature of Jewishness to find it hard to give it up. I’ll buy that.
Then Dr. Mathis pointed out that Edith Stein’s conversion to Catholicism did not stop the National Socialists from assaulting her as a Jew. As Dr Mathis himself said, “You can deny your Jewishness as much as you want, but someone is always going to come along and remind you anyway”. I’ll buy that too.
But Dr. Mathis also told me that I’m Jewish because my parents were Jewish and when I asked exactly what was it I had inherited from my parents, he answered in a word: Identity.
“But surely”, I protested, “I can relinquish that identity”,
To which he answered “Ask Ernst Zundel if you can do that. Or Ingrid Rimland.”
So it seems that Ernst Zundel and his wife Ingrid, two supposed ‘Nazis’, also don’t quite see things my way.
And it’s true. In an email exchange with Ingrid some years back she reminded me of the story of the scorpion and the frog crossing the river toParadise. The scorpion tries to persuade a frog to take him on its back. ”But” says the frog, ”You’re a scorpion. If I carry you on my back, you’ll only sting me and kill me.”
“Of course I won’t sting you.” answers the scorpion, “If I stung you, you’d die but I’d also drown, so what would be the good of that?” Finally the frog agrees and the scorpion climbs aboard and off they go.
Halfway across the river, surprise, surprise, the scorpion stings the frog and, as both frog and scorpion sink beneath the waves, the frog, in his death agony looking first to heaven, then to the scorpion asks, “Why, why, why?”
To which the scorpion replies, “Why? Because I’m a scorpion.”
So, for Ingrid, just as a scorpion will never change, so a Jew will never change, simply because they can never change.
So, once a Jew…?
Now, a lot of people are now going to be jumping up and down yelling “Racist!” and “Nazi!” And certainly, when Ingrid first suggested this, I was a bit put out myself. “Are you saying that a Jew is a kind of human, like a scorpion is a kind of insect?” I asked. To which she answered ”Come on, Paul. Did I say that Gentiles are like frogs? Fables are shortcuts to facets of human nature.”
Well, I certainly don’t believe that a Jew will forever act in a certain way, but still, figuratively and allegorically there’s a lot in that tale. Jews often do seem to share certain chracteristics and they do seem remarkably resistant to change.
But why?
I suppose Ingrid and Ernst would say that different groups who have lived together for a long time will inevitably develop some shared characteristics. For example, I remember once when she claimed that, like so many Germans, she had no sense of humour (actually, she does and it’s quite delightful) and, when I protested, she asked me whether I had ever met a German stand-up comic (BTW, there is one now on the circuit in Britain but his celebrity rests very much on the fact that he’s a German) I think she also asked me if I had ever met a Jew who could write a poem to a tree.
Another time I was describing to her how, at times I found it quite thrilling to be the centre of attention. She thought that this was very Jewish indeed (I can’t disagree), but that for her, being the centre of attention was what she most disliked. She wrote how she had on so many occasions appeared before huge and rapturous audiences and each time, as they applauded, her heart was as stone. This essential difference between us was she felt, partly due to our respective Jewishness and German-ness.
Did I agree? Not entirely, but it was interesting and there is some truth in it.
I think people like her are far more subtle in their thinking than is often thought. They believe that these characteristics are the product of many subtle and interacting factors – including some biological ones. After all, people who live together, breed together.
Of course none of the above means that all Jews are funny and self-obsessed or that all Germans are dour and diffident or anything else for that matter…… or does it?
So there we have it from three totally different sources – A celebrated artist/anti-Zionist activist, a Jewish- Zionist academic/activist and a couple of ‘Nazis’ – Once a Jew, always a Jew.
What do you think?
Posted by Paul Eisen
on April 1, 2012. Filed under Ideology,Jewish Matters.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
139 Responses to Once a Jew…?
You must be logged in to post a comment Login
Laura Stuart
April 1, 2012 at 4:57 pm
I think once a Jew always a Jew, there is no way out!
I was discussing Brother Nathaniel last year with Gilad and he called him a “good Jew”, so changing or leaving your religion is not enough.
Paul Eisen
April 1, 2012 at 5:22 pm
“I think once a Jew always a Jew, there is no way out!”
Yes, but why?
Laura Stuart
April 1, 2012 at 5:26 pm
Well you need to ask Gilad why he said it. To me an ex Jew is exactly that but evidently to a Jew there is no such thing.
ariadna
April 1, 2012 at 9:26 pm
I don’t believe that “once a Jew always a Jew.”
The three legs of the tripod of Jewishness are (1) religion; (2) cultural identity; and (3) ethnicity (Ashkenazi).
Of these, only #3 is outside of the person’s control but also irrelevant.
Itzhac Shmuelson Katsov looks (and behaves a lot) like a Russian, Carlos José Timmerman like a Hispanic, etc.
A Jew who retains (1) and/or #2 remains a Jew, but a Jew in the first category may not necessarily share the “jewish” behaviors, patterns of mentality, and ways of relating to the non-Jewish world with the #3 Jew: he is simply… a decent human being who happens to be a Jew.
I think it more accurate to state that in the Western world (the “first” world),
“A jew will most likely almost always remain a Jew” only because there are NO INCENTIVES to change.
The downsides to identity change for such a Jew are legion; the loss of “privileges” quite large, the payoff not bankable.
In the western world, to paraphrase a famous Jewish American comedian (whose equally famous movie star shiksa wife converted to Judaism…):
“It’s good to be a Jew”
How many people–Jews or non-Jews– have what it takes intellectually and ethically to look deeply into themselves (because, to bastardize Pope “the measure of Jewishness is the Jew”) and, having identified a deeply flawed received worldview, to distance themselves, cut themselves off from the pack and forge a personal identity in line with their own conscience?
fool me once...
April 1, 2012 at 11:40 pm
Initial thoughts;
I went to a talk by Naturai Karta Rabbi Aaron Cohen recently where he passed a comment on what is a jew. He said the adherence to the religion is key to what makes a jew a jew. He went on to say it was the advent of “zionism and it’s child (israel)”, with it’s secularism, that has led the jews away from the true teachings of judaism. Which, if strictly adhered to, would not have led to todays jewish state.
The NK jews are very likable, and Rabbi Cohen is a good story teller. When he recounted his visits to the ME you could see he too, like you Paul, enjoyed being the focus of attention.
The zionists at the talk were huddled together, notebooks in hand, waiting to express jewish suffering. It wasn’t long before an incident of nazi swastikas daubed on the local university campus was brought up, mumbles of holocaust, the Iranian nuclear threat…. basically anything to justify the war mongering policies of their “fragile israeli state”.
Once a jew, always a jew? Possibly. From what I recently witnessed it would certainly take a lifetime or life changing event to dismantle the jewish identity construct for these particular individuals.
Paul Eisen
April 2, 2012 at 7:06 am
It would be nice if Rabbi Cohen were right – that religion is what makes a Jew into a Jew. But if he’s right why do so many fiercely secular Jews insist on calling themselves Jews?
And if they’re not Jews, what are they?
aemathisphd
April 2, 2012 at 5:47 pm
Clearly, he is not right. My atheist, far left father-in-law (at whose home, as a boy, communist party cell meetings were held) certainly identifies as a Jew. Any implication that his Jewishness is based in religion is a point he’d strongly deny.
However, that he is a Jew is very much tied into the fact that he is descended from people who lived in Eastern Europe who adhered to Judaism and who lived in a closed society that practiced militant endogamy, giving rise to an ethnicity over time. Nor would he deny that aspect of his being a Jew.
aemathisphd
April 2, 2012 at 5:52 pm
Incidentally, there is no way in hell that this rabbi would ever deny that a Jew like my father-in-law is Jewish. He might be a heretic or an apostate, but he’s still a Jew in anyone’s book. He could have converted to Christianity, and Orthodox rabbis would still consider him to be a Jew — just a really bad one.
searching
April 2, 2012 at 12:47 am
Interesting question, many different answers.
I don’t like to stereotype and put every Jew to one big bag called “Jewishness”, which mixes them together to the point that are all alike.
However, I agree that there is a phenomenon called “Jewishness”. Gilad probably explained this in his recent book ,which caused the wrath of “Jewishness” all around the globe, which is actually a visible proof that such a phenomenon exists, otherwise, why they would bother.
I think is it also interesting why Jews do not allow anybody, especially goyim ,to talk about their “jewishness” like this is some kind of a secret that breaking it would cause the poor , mother Earth to disappear?
Is it some kind of a sacred, sanctimonious, big no, no subject to touch??
We should all bow in front of the “eternal” victim (on one side, opressor on the other), and pretend that we don’t see THE other, ugly side??
who_me
April 2, 2012 at 7:13 am
from what i’ve read and heard, much of our personality development occurs by age 5. what we experience during the first 5 years imprint the strongest and have a lasting effect on how we become as adults. the once a jew, always a jew idea could very well be true, but then it would also apply to other religions and cultures. i’ve met many a catholic who had dropped the religion, but still subconsciously kept some the harmful facets of it, despite their overt intention not to. a lot of this probably depends on how deeply the person was pumped full of the religion and culture when young, and how strongly they may oppose the influence now. and the force of their own personality in overcoming this early experience growing up.
how others in the religion and culture may view this rejection is up to them. i suspect jews who insist other jews who have opted out are still jews are expressing their own prejudice and wishful thinking. same for any other peoples of other religions and cultures. part of it is they may not be willing to admit to themselves that someone elses rejection of their culture or religion is valid, since it would then cause them to look inside more. another part may simply be control freakism, a very strong personality and cultural trait that is nurtured in many.
so in brief summary, i doubt “always a jew” is any more valid a human trait than in most other religions and cultures that have a strongly developed sense of internal cohesion and loyalty (tribalism). i think our own personalities are the stronger influence on whether we become conformists, rebels or something in between.
Jonathon Blakeley
April 2, 2012 at 8:02 am
Genetics and Memetics. You can not deny your genes, but you can change your memes (your mind).
So genetically Paul you are a Jew, You dont have to affirm your Jewishness but you choose to.
Paul Eisen
April 2, 2012 at 8:41 am
Yes, but what does it mean that someione is genetically a Jew?
And to what extent and in what way do those genes and memes correlate and interact?
aemathisphd
April 2, 2012 at 5:45 pm
In so far as ethnicity is something that is partially transmitted genetically, I think it’s important to acknowledge that some of being Jewish is inherited.
However, I also think it’s a mistake to assume that ethnicity is a purely genetic construct. Clearly post-communist Yugoslavia and the Punjab provide strong arguments that ethnicity requires much more than chromosomes.
But that doesn’t mean the ethnic aspect can be denied, either.
who_me
April 2, 2012 at 9:27 am
Paul Eisen
i doubt genes determine religion and culture. what they determine is physical variables and possibly mental traits (which probably will turn out to be physical as well). the predisposition towards some “jewish” traits that people might have are perhaps better explained by the underlying basis of those traits. and this would be true of any other religion or culture. the things stressed as “jewishness” are also in other religions and cultures to lesser and greater degrees. the environment the person grows up in then fills in the specifics with learned behaviour that compliments their genetically inherited physical make up. take a jew, or any other person, as a small child, before cultural or religious imprinting have far advanced, and place them in another culture with another religion. after they mature, that person will be indistinguishable from other people of that other group. they may differ in some ways from “the norm” of that group, but no more or less than others in it might.
etominusipi
April 2, 2012 at 12:57 pm
just on the semantics, but why is ‘New York Jew’ a frequent expression, but ‘London Jew’ seldom, if ever, used? (at least within the admittedly narrow confines of my personal xperience).
the hippopotamus in this room is, of course, the notion of ‘identity’. this is a much more complex idea than most discussions seem to allow.
but for sure, whatever else Jewishness is, the concept of Jewishness, diverse as interpretations of it would be, functions as a plexus within a larger identity system, a plexus which, as in the case of the central nervous system, is constituted by a whole family of intricately related ‘identity memes’ each of which has its own distinct historical, cultural and symbolic roots and associated behavioural traits etc.
‘Londoner’ is similarly a memic identity-plexus, though it is demonstrably less coherent and far less elaborately developed than ‘Jewish’.
so a part of the answer to my original question might be that for cultural-historic reasons the memic plexus ‘Jewish’ contributes to the ‘New Yorker’ plexus, and is thence semantically compatible, whereas this is not so for the ‘Londoner’ identity (for reasons it might be of interest to investigate)
ariadna
April 2, 2012 at 2:56 pm
True. NYC is “Hymietown” but London is not.
I don’t believe the Jewish power is less in London than in NYC but it is perhaps less visible to everyone than it is in NY, where from the software computer shops on the 34th (I think) St exclusively owned and operated by bekippaed Jews who speak Hebrew in the store, to the Garment district where you are encouraged to buy by being told “Come on! It’s a steal. I don’t even sell at this price to Goyim,” to Wall Street, to the affluent Upper West Side, it does indeed seem to be Hymietown.
In a city infamous for its brashness and rudeness, “jewish” adds another flavor, called chutzpah. In NYC a Jew prides himself of elbowing his way through in a “NY minute” because speed of acquisition is what counts, and he doesn’t dream of being knighted.
aemathisphd
April 2, 2012 at 4:39 pm
What a quaint, colourful little sketch of New York. It reads like Der Stürmer.
I don’t suppose you’ve actually been there?
(It’s West 42nd Street, by the way, where the electronics stores run by Israelis are, and they’re almost entirely secular Jews. If you want religious Jews, go to the diamond district, but don’t expect them to speak Hebrew; they speak Yiddish or, you know, English.)
ariadna
April 2, 2012 at 5:13 pm
Ok, then, 42nd St, it’s been years since I went looking for software there, but if those Israeli jews are secular Jews they must be in disguise judging by how they are dressed and barbered.
Paul Eisen
April 2, 2012 at 5:31 pm
Yes, I can see how Ariadna’s description of Jew York (sorry!) might be alarming but I look at it like this:
When I used to go on demonstrations some Palestinian/Arab/Muslim kids used to turn up wearing martyr bomber headbands and everyone used to tut tut. I did too at first, but then I got to thinking that it’s not for the oppressor (or anyone else for that matter)to tell the oppressed how they should resist.
I experienced the same when I was researching the Holocaust and came across anti-Semitic cartoons. at first I was horrified but then again I realised that these people are being beaten down by Jews and the same applies.
who_me
April 2, 2012 at 7:14 pm
etominusipi
“(for reasons it might be of interest to investigate)”
sheer numbers probably accounts for a lot of the difference. nyc is probably 1/3 jewish, or more, in london the jewish percentage is probably less than a 20th. the obnoxious pushy attitude of new yorkers may not be a jewish caused thing, sine much of that region of the usa is full of pushy, obnoxious people. it seems to be a regional personality trait. could be the outlying areas are copying nyc, it’s “the big apple” afterall. there is a lot of “monkey see-monkey do” to the make-up of americans in the northeast.
aemathisphd
April 2, 2012 at 3:44 pm
Not crazy about being dubbed a “prolific Jewish/Zionist commentator” at your blog, Mr. Eisen. I’ll go with three of those four epithets, but I’m curious to know why you (and others here) dub me “Zionist.”
Again, if I were a Zionist, I’d scarcely hide it, but as I don’t consider myself to be one, I’m curious to know the rationale by which I am considered such.
Jay Knott
April 3, 2012 at 2:10 am
I can explain why I called you a Zionist, ‘aemathisphd’. Initally, I said you are not a Zionist, because you expressed support for the ‘one state solution’, wherein all inhabitants of Israel, plus the descendants of those who were kicked out, are allowed to live there with equal rights.
But then you said something which made me change my mind:
http://www.deliberation.info/baroness-ashton-and-jewish-sensitivities/comment-page-1/#comment-2561
You criticize some Israeli policies, and support others. It’s like this. Suppose I criticize some aspects of British rule in Northern Ireland, like the Bloody Sunday massacre of 1972, but agree that it was right to imprison IRA members who murdered British civilians. I would be supporting Britain’s right to rule Northern Ireland. If I did not support that right, I would argue for the immediate release of all Irish POWs, and the withdrawal of British troops.
It’s no good me saying that some of these IRA men have committed horrendous crimes (which they did) or that they are religious reactionaries with a progressive front (which they were). Northern Ireland is part of the UK, or it’s part of the Republic of Ireland.
Either Jews have the right to impose racial supremacy on non-Jews in Palestine, or they don’t.
If an average Joe thinks that Palestine should be more or less as it is, that’s a mistake. But for a very well educated Jew to defend Israel’s legitimacy on the grounds that it exists, that’s someone who has a choice. If a white European mildly hints at ethnic identity, let alone supremacy, they are a pariah, and in Britain, they can ev
en be locked up. But Jews who defend ethnic supremacy are regarded as progressive, if they even criticize it a little bit.
You are allowed to defend Jewish supremacy, and you should be allowed to defend it. But it’s not just an academic debate, it’s our blood and treasure being wasted for your ethnic privilege.
aemathisphd
April 3, 2012 at 3:18 pm
“Suppose I criticize some aspects of British rule in Northern Ireland, like the Bloody Sunday massacre of 1972, but agree that it was right to imprison IRA members who murdered British civilians. I would be supporting Britain’s right to rule Northern Ireland. If I did not support that right, I would argue for the immediate release of all Irish POWs, and the withdrawal of British troops.”
Sorry, but you’re wrong.
You can denounce terrorism (assaults on civilians) but agree with the general cause of an organization (the PLO or the IRA — and I have supported both).
As long as the IRA kept its attacks on British soldiers and/or government institutions (but not civilians), I don’t have a problem with what they were doing.
Ditto the PLO or any other Palestinian liberation organization.
Jay Knott
April 4, 2012 at 12:00 am
Aemathisphd – yes, you can recognize an organization or a state, and still criticize it. For example, I criticize the Swedish government for the laws under which it is trying to prosecute Julian Assange. But it would be absurd to say the Swedish government’s rule over Sweden is illegitimate. Other regimes are more controversial – British rule in Northern Ireland. At the other extreme, I don’t regard Israel as controversial at all. Racial supremacy is not controversial, so unlike you, I do not criticize the Israeli government. It doesn’t matter what I think, but Western governments’ formal position matters. For example, Britain derecognized white Rhodesia, and its fate was sealed. If acting consistently with their principles and interests, the Western governments would treat Jewish supremacy the same way they treated white supremacy. The big issue is why they make an exception for your ethnic privileges.
Paul Eisen
April 2, 2012 at 5:21 pm
Okay Dr Mathis.
Why aren’t you a Zionist?
aemathisphd
April 2, 2012 at 5:42 pm
I think it has something to do with the why the term is defined.
I am not a Zionist because I do not necessarily believe that a Jewish state is a good or necessary thing. Further, I tend to see Zionism as an outdated philosophy anyway: There already is a Jewish state, so supporting the idea of a Jewish state seems, to me at least, to be a little like supporting a Russian state or a Vietnamese state. They already exist.
Ultimately, I will be satisfied with a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that both sides accept. I used to vehemently support a two-state solution; now I can see the virtues of a one-state solution, although I would be concerned with the safety of a Jewish population in a single state, though I believe it would be reprisals for the excesses of Israel that would be the cause of friction in such a state and not any inherent conflict between Jews and Arabs.
Is that clear enough? I’m not sure. I’m happy to answer specific questions.
ariadna
April 2, 2012 at 6:16 pm
Is it fair to summarize it as:
– A Jewish state may not be necessary or good
BUT
1. It already exists and it is pretty much like the Russian or Vietnamese state so there is no need to support (or, the corollary) DISPUTE it
2. A one-state formula that is not a Jewish state would pose dangers to the Jews in it.
If so, then you seem to be a zionist who just doesn’t like the label.
Try to re[ply without the tiresome ‘fascist!’ ‘anti-semite!’ tirades this time, please
aemathisphd
April 2, 2012 at 6:48 pm
Please look up “straw man” in a dictionary. Do it now. I’m sick of using the label and you clearly not understanding it.
aemathisphd
April 2, 2012 at 6:53 pm
(1) No, you’re incorrect. That there is no need to support THE IDEA of a Jewish state when one already exists. Further, I said nothing about opposing or not opposing either the idea or the state itself. Thus, anything else you’ve stated strikes me as irrelevant.
I used to support the idea of a Jewish state and a Jewish state itself. I no longer support the idea or the state per se, although see (2).
(2) A one-state formula that is not a Jewish state would indeed pose a threat to the Jews in such a state. Those threats, however, need not and should not be threats that are greater to the threats to any other citizen in the state. I.e., everyone should have an equal stake. Nor should those threats prevent that one state from being something other than a Jewish state. What I would specifically want to see is governmental assurances to all citizens, regardless of who they are, that some rights will be inalienable and some things that can never be done to the state itself that will put its minority population at risk.
I would, by the way, really like to see Israel do those things for its own minorities today. It does so on paper but not in reality.
aemathisphd
April 2, 2012 at 7:01 pm
Incidentally, for an idea of how such a state could be run, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consociationalism
Paul Eisen
April 2, 2012 at 6:55 pm
I’ve never really understood the term “Zionist”. If it just signifies someone who wants a Jewish state in Palestine then that’s clear enough. But when it’s used (as by Gilad in his ‘anti-Zionist Zionists’) then it seems to roughly mean ‘Jewish supremacist” or Jewish political activist”
aemathisphd
April 2, 2012 at 7:01 pm
But there are plenty of Jews with supremacist positions who aren’t Zionists (many varieties of Orthodox and Chasidim) and plenty of Jewish political activists who aren’t either (Trotsky comes to mind).
So I think that’s inaccurate.
Paul Eisen
April 2, 2012 at 7:37 pm
Yes, that was the point I was trying to make – that if used only about Israel, it’s fairly clear but the term is used for ant-Zionist Jews. Lenin called the Bund ‘Zionists with sea-sickness’.
aemathisphd
April 2, 2012 at 7:53 pm
I assume Lenin used that description because of the Bund’s desire to unify on the basis of ethnicity. (As a socialist organization, it could scarcely be on religious grounds.)
I’d nevertheless have to disagree with Vladimir Ilyich. I think inherent in the idea of Zionism is nationalism, or separatism at the very least, and without it you don’t have ZIonism. The Bund, while it certainly had aspects that could be classified as separatist, participated in the overall political process in the Russian Empire. As such, it was not really separatist — merely a special interest group and socialist party.
Paul Eisen
April 2, 2012 at 7:57 pm
I always thought that Lenin was referring to Jewish supremacism – secular chosen-ness.
aemathisphd
April 2, 2012 at 8:01 pm
But such an assessment ignores the reality of anti-Semitism in the Russian Empire.
This is the primary failure of your analysis, Mr. Eisen, if I may say so, and precisely why Joel Finkel criticized you. You either ignore anti-Semitism or chalk it up to Jewish behavior. What, exactly, were secular Jewish workers in Minsk in 1899 doing to stoke up anti-Semitism?
Lenin believed communism would get rid of anti-Semitism, which is why he was critical of the Bund. He was critical of Zionism for other reasons — nationalism in particular, which he found retrograde and bourgeois.
Paul Eisen
April 2, 2012 at 8:12 pm
But anti-Semitism existed in the Russian Empire fundamentally for the same reasons that it exists today – Jews were driving everyone nuts.
You speak as if anti-Semitismm is like the weather – it just happens because people need someone to hate.
Well, sometimes people do need someone to hate but why do they always hate the Jews?
I’m sure Lenin opposed anti-Semitism – most people do – but my guess is he made that remark in a moment of exasperation as a Russian because the Bund got on his nerves – just like Jewish activists get on everyone’s nerves now.
“What, exactly, were secular Jewish workers in Minsk in 1899 doing to stoke up anti-Semitism?”
Probably what the likes of Tony Greenstein does all the time and, i’m afraid to say, what you’re doing now.
aemathisphd
April 2, 2012 at 8:29 pm
“But anti-Semitism existed in the Russian Empire fundamentally for the same reasons that it exists today – Jews were driving everyone nuts.”
You can claim that, but you couldn’t possible substantiate it if you tried. Jews were still largely living apart from the rest of the population of the Russian Empire until 1917 — and even longer than that in Ukraine, Belarus, and elsewhere on the borders of the USSR — something that blows your theory out of the water.
“You speak as if anti-Semitismm is like the weather – it just happens because people need someone to hate.”
Well, they do, but that’s beside the point.
“Well, sometimes people do need someone to hate but why do they always hate the Jews?”
In Russia, it’s always been because their religion is different. No Enlightenment in Russia means little in the way of accepting differences in religion.
Certainly since the late 18th century with partial — and temporary — liberation of the Jews in the Russian Empire, other reasons emerged, but at its core was a hatred of the Jews for killing Christ.
“I’m sure Lenin opposed anti-Semitism – most people do – but my guess is he made that remark in a moment of exasperation as a Russian because the Bund got on his nerves – just like Jewish activists get on everyone’s nerves now.”
The Bund certainly got on his nerves. So did every other party other than the Bolsheviks. This was far more true of socialist and Marxist parties than centrist or right-wing parties, who posed no real threat. Ergo, attempts were made to marginalize the Bund when, in fact, the majority of Jews belonged to it.
(By the way, it appears it was Plekhanov who made this statement and not Lenin).
“What, exactly, were secular Jewish workers in Minsk in 1899 doing to stoke up anti-Semitism?”
Probably what the likes of Tony Greenstein does all the time and, i’m afraid to say, what you’re doing now.”
In other words, you don’t know. But clearly, whatever it is, it was their bad and entirely their own fault
Wonderful, Paul. You’ve demonstrated your profound ignorance of history. Well done.
aemathisphd
April 2, 2012 at 5:43 pm
*way the term is defined (though “why” works too)
who_me
April 2, 2012 at 7:06 pm
ariadna
“If so, then you seem to be a zionist who just doesn’t like the label.”
i believe the term is hasbara? anyway, why would aphid continue posting his defense of jewish supremacy, zionism and israel and call all those who disagreed an antisemite if he wasn’t a zionist? they are specifically told to pretend they are not zionist or pro-israel. i guess they think this fools the foolish goyim. one sees this role playing crap all over the web from israel’s thweethearts..
aemathisphd
April 2, 2012 at 7:11 pm
You’re an asshole.
who_me
April 2, 2012 at 7:21 pm
“You’re an asshole.”
you know, aphid, if you want to “make friends and influence people”, it’s better to come clean when caught in an obvious deception than it is to start throwing insults around like a spoiled child throwing a tantrum and tossing all their toys out of the pram.
you will need to learn how better to control that childish temper of yours if you are to become a useful asset of israel in the war to keep the goyim in check.
aemathisphd
April 2, 2012 at 7:23 pm
What do you contribute to this conversation besides idiotic conspiracy theories and drool?
Paul Eisen
April 2, 2012 at 8:00 pm
Dr Mathis
If you use foul and abusive language I won’t engage in any discussion with you.
aemathisphd
April 3, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Nice try, Paul.
Cornered on the issue of your lack of knowledge of basic facts of history and unwilling to support any of your inane claims with actual evidence, you’ll instead take issue with my calling someone a “foul and abusive” name — which, by the way, I did in response to his calling me “aphid.”
I guess that’s OK, Paul, because there’s a long (and, we must assume, justified) tradition of labeling Jews as insects.
You disgust me.
fool me once...
April 3, 2012 at 8:33 pm
Gentle down Mathis, remember, people are enjoying and learning from the exchanges between you and Paul. But when you start throwing in the heavy insults, well it’s not on. Calling you aphid is just a light-hearted play on your commenter name.
Cast your mind back to what we discussed last week, humour, as in, sense of.
Here’s a little tune to help you lighten up and relax;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fsKP-EtByA&feature=fvwrel
(btw wasn’t it a jew who called the Palestinians insects?)
Paul Eisen
April 3, 2012 at 8:41 pm
I think Rafael Eitan called Palestinians something like “Drugged cockroaches in a bottle”
BTW, Mathis’ comment about there being a long history of likening Jews to insects reminded me of a Jewish girl from New York who told me she thought that prejudice against redheads was eessntially anti-Semitism
aemathisphd
April 3, 2012 at 9:20 pm
Yes, by all means, this was the first instance of any person, Jew or Gentile, calling any other person, Jew or Gentile, an insect.
Paul Eisen
April 4, 2012 at 6:14 am
No, of course it wasn’t. But Jews haven’t been likened to insects anymore than anyone else.
Wasn’t your remark a tiny but illuminating example of Jewish ‘specialness of suffering’?
Jay Knott
April 3, 2012 at 11:46 pm
I agree. There’s no ‘Atzmon Party’. I’m open to aemathisphd’s arguments as well as ariadana’s, and if he’s right, I’ll say so.
Jonathon Blakeley
April 2, 2012 at 10:14 pm
Once a Jew always a Jew is as I said we are partly genetic and partly memetic. The Biological genetic is hard to determine without gene sequencing or tracing family trees.
The memetic component of “Jewishness” or any other culture can be learned and not inherited. It is really how much we reinforce memes and ideas that make them into ideologies of whatever nature. Perhaps what we would should be doing is questioning whether some memes are ethical and valid or not.
You may be born Jewish but
You are only a Jew if you choose to be so, by reinforcing the memes and rituals of Jewish culture.
ariadna
April 3, 2012 at 1:00 am
“In Russia, it’s always been because their religion is different. No Enlightenment in Russia means little in the way of accepting differences in religion.”
The Russian Orthodox Church is no different than the its siblings–Serbian, Bulgarian, Romanian and Greek. In none of those countries was there Enlightenment.
But only in Russia there were pogroms and their spark was not the periodic revelation among peasantry that Jews killed Christ. In all of those countries Jews lived in separate enclaves (by choice of their rabbinical leaders except in the shtetles in Russia).
In all of those countries the Jews engaged in usury and acted as overseeers of domains of often absentee native owners, a capacity that made them more hated (because more directly visible) than the owners.
They were perceived as oppressors. The only difference between those other countries and Russia was one of what could be called “critical mass.”
It is plausible that a hated “alien” minority is perceived as bigger threat over a certain threshold.
One reason that emerged in Russia immediately after the October revolution is revealed by Soljenitsyn in “200 Years Together.” Lenin promised Russian two things: peace (WWI) and land redistribution. Nevertheless as soon as the Bolsheviks came to power both the Peace decree and the Land Decree took second seat to be done 3 months later and the first decree that was passed was the law against anti-semitism that punished instigation to and acts of anti-semitism (not clearly defined and therefore open for wide interpretation) with penalty up to execution.
This in a country that had been dubbed “the prison of peoples”–tens of nationalities–yet one group and one only was to be protected, one that represented less then 1% of the population.
The Russians’s feelings of anti-semitism were to grow in response but remain hidden.
aemathisphd
April 3, 2012 at 3:35 pm
“The Russian Orthodox Church is no different than the its siblings–Serbian, Bulgarian, Romanian and Greek. In none of those countries was there Enlightenment.”
Well, you’re wrong on two counts here: (1) The Russian Orthodox Church IS different, and it sees itself as different. While it’s true that its theology is the same as the other Eastern Orthodox churches, its liturgy is different, and it has traditionally rivaled the Greek church in particular for primacy over Eastern Christianity; and (2) There have always been pogroms in Romania. Bulgaria and Serbia less so, and in Greece even less so than that, but it’s not like they were unheard of.
“But only in Russia there were pogroms and their spark was not the periodic revelation among peasantry that Jews killed Christ. In all of those countries Jews lived in separate enclaves (by choice of their rabbinical leaders except in the shtetles in Russia).”
Wrong again.
It isn’t that the Russians only periodically remembered the Christ-killer myth. It’s that their government and the church would only periodically whip them up using that myth. Typically this would happen when the government was in trouble in some way, e.g., 1905.
“In all of those countries the Jews engaged in usury and acted as overseeers of domains of often absentee native owners, a capacity that made them more hated (because more directly visible) than the owners.”
This is somewhat true, of course, but it leaves out two critical factors in this consideration: (1) Who’s defining what usury is, and can you, in fact, document actual usury by Jewish lenders in Russia? and (2) Why did Jews lend money? I.e., were the guilds open to them? Could they own land? Yes? No?
The answer is “no” in both cases.
When you’ve been left few options for employment because of religious prejudice and the government is only willing to allow you to lend money — usually because it’s taking a cut of the interest anyway — then you do what you have to so you can feed your family.
Incidentally, the vast majority of Russian Empire Jews, living within closed communities, fulfilled the positions of small towns — blacksmiths, merchants, etc.
“They were perceived as oppressors. The only difference between those other countries and Russia was one of what could be called “critical mass.”
It is plausible that a hated “alien” minority is perceived as bigger threat over a certain threshold.”
But the Jews posed no real threat. This is the point that seems to be missed. In the late 18th century, when they were relegated to the Pale, they were utterly powerless and at the mercy of the Tsar and the church. That a small number of Jews found some measure of power over the next 100 years or so was entirely a matter of non-Jews supporting these Jews in their ambitions. And, by the way, none of them sought power as Jews — they sought power under political ideologies that are, in fact, quite different from traditional Jewish values (e.g., socialism and Marxism).
“One reason that emerged in Russia immediately after the October revolution is revealed by Soljenitsyn in “200 Years Together.” Lenin promised Russian two things: peace (WWI) and land redistribution. Nevertheless as soon as the Bolsheviks came to power both the Peace decree and the Land Decree took second seat to be done 3 months later and the first decree that was passed was the law against anti-semitism that punished instigation to and acts of anti-semitism (not clearly defined and therefore open for wide interpretation) with penalty up to execution.”
Let’s for a moment assume this is true, OK? And I’m not conceding that it is — I’d actually like to see proof of it.
First, there’s a major factor you’re leaving out, which is that Lenin had to immediately go to war with foreign interlopers once the Bolsheviks took power.
By the way, Lenin in fact promulgated the peace decree almost immediately (the same month as the revolution) and then honored it by signing the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany and ceding a huge amount of land to Germany to get out the war. That kind of makes Land Reform a difficult thing to accomplish, both because you’re fighting foreign invaders now on twelve fronts and because you’ve traded a huge portion of your farming land for the peace you promised.
Second, IF AND ONLY IF it’s true that this decree against anti-Semitism was promulgated when you say, you must take into consideration the massive number of pogroms that these invading armies levied on the Jews in Ukraine, along with the Ukrainian peasantry whipped up by the so-called White Armies.
Now if you’d like to offer evidence of this decree, then please do. Do not say “Solzhenitsyn wrote it.” You and I both know that his book hasn’t been translated into English, though I can read French and (with difficulty) German.
“This in a country that had been dubbed “the prison of peoples”–tens of nationalities–yet one group and one only was to be protected, one that represented less then 1% of the population.”
One percent of the population that had two things, from Lenin’s p.o.v., going for it (or against it): (1) They were traditional victims of governmental oppression; and (2) They would naturally side with the Bolsheviks if provided such a decree.
“The Russians’s feelings of anti-semitism were to grow in response but remain hidden.”
Until the Nazis came along and allowed them to “express” it.
Now kindly show proof of this decree. Thanks in advance.
ariadna
April 3, 2012 at 4:49 pm
#1. Don’t teach me orthodox christianity despite your arrogant impulse. I was raised in it. The religion is IDENTICAL in Russia, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria and Serbia. The churches are autocephalous and the liturgy is in the vernacular in each country but the religion is identical and that’s what we were talking about despite your usual dishonest debating shticks.
#2 There have NEVER been pogroms in those countries; if you claim otherwise, prove it.
Try not to use the Wiesel legerdemain whereby he said was sent to concentration camp by the Romanian gov., deported from Transylvania. When he was challenged on this because Transylvania was under the Austro-Hungarian empire at the time he said “yes but the Romanians in the train station were glad; they were smiling.”
I don’t care to “define what usury is” or why the Jews engaged in it. You are intentionally dense? The Russian mujiks did not have it explained to them. That’s what they saw and felt and that’s what they reacted to and that was what I said. Is this too hard for you?
Re Soljenitsyn–if you want proof read Deux Siecles Ensemble–you say you read French.
“One percent of the population that had two things, from Lenin’s p.o.v., going for it (or against it): (1) They were traditional victims of governmental oppression; and (2) They would naturally side with the Bolsheviks if provided such a decree.”
The number of “traditional” victims of the tsarist regime was quite large, khazaks, turkmen and many, many more.
You are also trying to have your cake and eat it: the jews were the downtrodden oppressed tiny minority who had no pwer whatsoveer but Lenin felt it was vital to please them first in order to attract them to bolshevism.
aemathisphd
April 3, 2012 at 5:43 pm
“#1. Don’t teach me orthodox christianity despite your arrogant impulse. I was raised in it. The religion is IDENTICAL in Russia, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria and Serbia. The churches are autocephalous and the liturgy is in the vernacular in each country but the religion is identical and that’s what we were talking about despite your usual dishonest debating shticks.”
Dishonest? Please. I cleaned the floor with you on the issue of the “decree against anti-Semitism.”
“#2 There have NEVER been pogroms in those countries; if you claim otherwise, prove it.”
Anyway, pogroms in:
Greece: Pogrom in Salonika (1931)
Romania: Too many to count, but most notably Iasi during WWII
Bulgaria: Pogroms during Russian invasion (1876)
Serbia: Sabac (1865)
You can look all these up yourself. Shall I continue?
“Try not to use the Wiesel legerdemain whereby he said was sent to concentration camp by the Romanian gov., deported from Transylvania. When he was challenged on this because Transylvania was under the Austro-Hungarian empire at the time he said “yes but the Romanians in the train station were glad; they were smiling.””
Really? Because there was no Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1944. It ceased to exist in 1918. Want to try again on that one?
“I don’t care to “define what usury is” or why the Jews engaged in it.”
You are satisfied to demonstrate your ignorance. Good!
“You are intentionally dense? The Russian mujiks did not have it explained to them. That’s what they saw and felt and that’s what they reacted to and that was what I said. Is this too hard for you?”
When are you going to get that your simple allegation counts for nothing?
“Re Soljenitsyn–if you want proof read Deux Siecles Ensemble–you say you read French.”
You are required in making that allegation to provide a page number or a chapter at the very least.
Or you can concede the point, as I proved you wrong elsewhere.
“The number of “traditional” victims of the tsarist regime was quite large, khazaks, turkmen and many, many more.”
Quite true, but the Jews had really sort of taken precedence among victim groups. Which other groups were forced to live within a particular zone?
“You are also trying to have your cake and eat it: the jews were the downtrodden oppressed tiny minority who had no pwer whatsoveer but Lenin felt it was vital to please them first in order to attract them to bolshevism.”
…because the White Armies were massacring them in Ukraine. Are you unable to read?
ariadna
April 4, 2012 at 5:18 pm
You are a waste of time: others’ and yours, mainly because you are a dishonest debater, as you proved over the issue of academics who lost their posts because of the accusation of being “holocaust deniers.”
You countered that it didn’t happen to anyone and asked for “proof,” and when given Norm Finklestien as an example you said (dishonest shtick #1 of twisting the other person’s statement): “he is not a Holocaust denier.” Nobody said he IS, only that he was accused of being one.
When given numerous links of such accusation and vilification you retorted (dishonest shtick #2 of deflecting and nitpicking): “he did not have tenure.”
You did the same again.
You have not read Deux Siecles Ensemble and you counter with paste-ups from wikkipedia, again deflecting and nickpicking, then you strut about claiming you “did the floor” with me.
You can far more easily “do the floor” with yourself since you are so close to it.
I wasted quite a bit of time with this. I reread relevant portions of Deux Siecles, and while I misremembered details, what I noted was that the Tribal behavior that comes through (S, does not editorialize, he simply lists data from archives) was even more striking and in full evidence before what turned out to be for all practial purposes the second decree for punishment of anti-jewish manifestations:
1 March 1917 24 hrs before the Tzar’s abdication and the famous Decree #1 that demobilized the officers Duma declares “the abolition of all confessional discrimination. The Jews henceforth receive the right to become officers in the army, enlist in the Bar; the numerus clauses is abolished in universities, they can purchase land even if in the name of a company (previously companies could not purchase land, only individuals).
At the request of Jewish members in the Duma (Provisional gov), jews are not mentioned in the resolution, the word ‘confessional’ being deemed sufficient.
Deputy Sliosberg, however, requests that a comprehensive list be drawn with all the rights previously denied to Jews, and appended to the decree, including the limitations of residenece, although that had been abolished by the Tzar in 1915.
Duma deputies Friedman, Grousenberg and Miliukov make impassioned speeches about the “persecutions and humiliations suffered by the 6 million […] souls of Jews, greater than any ever suffered by our people.” Grousenberg adds that “the shameful terms usurer and interest that stained our people are words that a Jewish child only learns when going to school, isolated by contempt.”
[Hmm, nothing about the accusation of jews having killed Jesus?]
The most rapid and consequential change is seen in the judiciary. The lawsuit brought against a self-confessed crook D Rubinsteion is dropped and the Extraordinary Commission (Cheka) launches a lawsuit against all the judiciary commission, including all instruction judges—involved in his prosecution. The new Extraordinary Commission also drops the actions started against Simanovich and Manus (accused of having spied for Germany). The Justice Minister is arrested. Judge Maklevich is dismissed for having stated at some point that he was not aware of pogroms.
Actual charges were no longer necessary: an attitude of ‘anti-semitism’ or ‘nationalism’ was sufficient. Hundreds of people across Russia were arrested for such “state of mind” (etat d’esprit). Yet none of this elicited (‘suscita’) any pogroms, despite increased warnings in the newspapers that they were “about to happen.”
March 5 A Special Commission was created “to establish liaison with villages “to detect any tendency to sow ethnic discord.”
“It is indispensable to take radical measures on the spot [!] against those who incite to pogroms,” it said.
Until April newspapers published 2 or 3 articles every week alerting to “possible preparations for anti-Jewish pogroms.”
Who really governed Russia from the spring to the fall of 1917? Not the Provisional Gov,. which had neither the power nor the will but the Executive Committee of Petrograd, replaced in June with the Central Executive Committee of the Soldiers and Workers (one former officer, no worker), whose Bureau had 9 members, of which 4 were Jews (initially 5 but Goldman defected): Gotz, Dan, Lieber and Mandelstam. Alongside, the CEC of the Peasants had 30 members, 3 of whom were peasants; 7 were Jews.
Soljenityzyn: “it is not the origin of these Jewish people that is the issue, but their a-national and anti-Russian attitude.
In May, after two months of silence the identity of the CEC members was quasi-revealed using pseudonyms. On hearing Zinoviev’s and Kamenev’s names, shouts erupted from the Plenum: “Give us their real names! Why is Boris Katz called kaenev, Louria is Larin, Mandelstam is Liadov and Schotman, Danilov?”
A man as hard to suspect of anti-semitism as Nabokov noted with humor:
“The October 1917 reunion of the Komissars could without hesitation be called the Sanhedrin. The Jews were in crushing majority.”
I have barely got as far as July…
To be continued
aemathisphd
April 4, 2012 at 5:53 pm
“You are a waste of time: others’ and yours, mainly because you are a dishonest debater…”
I’m not going to go over this with you again. Anyone interested in seeing who attempted to move the goalposts can check the conversation themselves. I stand by every word I wrote.
“You have not read Deux Siecles Ensemble and you counter with paste-ups from wikkipedia, again deflecting and nickpicking, then you strut about claiming you “did the floor” with me.”
“Wiped” the floor is what I wrote. This is a good indicating of how you work — you change a word here and there and then think you’ve disproved something.
“1 March 1917 24 hrs …”
A couple of points to make here:
(1) This was before the Bolsheviks took power. Therefore, this isn’t Lenin’s doing. So you’re proving yourself wrong on this one.
(2) All the quoted legislation says is that Jews will no longer be discriminated against. Do you have a problem with that?
“Actual charges were no longer necessary: an attitude of ‘anti-semitism’ or ‘nationalism’ was sufficient. Hundreds of people across Russia were arrested for such “state of mind” (etat d’esprit). Yet none of this elicited (‘suscita’) any pogroms, despite increased warnings in the newspapers that they were “about to happen.””
Look, we’re going to get a lot farther with this if you would at least cite page numbers to the French edition. Then I can check them myself and check Solzhenistyn’s own notes. OK? Can you do that please?
“Who really governed Russia from the spring to the fall of 1917? Not the Provisional Gov,. which had neither the power nor the will but the Executive Committee of Petrograd, replaced in June with the Central Executive Committee of the Soldiers and Workers (one former officer, no worker), whose Bureau had 9 members, of which 4 were Jews (initially 5 but Goldman defected): Gotz, Dan, Lieber and Mandelstam. Alongside, the CEC of the Peasants had 30 members, 3 of whom were peasants; 7 were Jews.”
I think the above statement about who really governed Russia is a MASSIVE oversimplification. Yes, there was a division of power between the Provisional Government in Moscow and the Petrograd Soviet. This is standard history. If it were the case that real power was being held by the Petrograd Soviet the whole time, Trotsky wouldn’t have been arrested that very summer.
“Soljenityzyn: “it is not the origin of these Jewish people that is the issue, but their a-national and anti-Russian attitude…”
I should probably mention at this point that I’ve met two of Solzhenistyn’s three sons… Just sayin’.
“A man as hard to suspect of anti-semitism as Nabokov noted with humor: “The October 1917 reunion of the Komissars could without hesitation be called the Sanhedrin. The Jews were in crushing majority.”
You do realize that this is not the Nabokov you might think it was, right?
ariadna
April 4, 2012 at 6:38 pm
“I’m not going to go over this with you again. ”
Promises, promises.. but you always lie
The bit about “wiped” vs “did” the floor is priceless nit picking and deflecting. You are the most unself-conscious person I have met in a long time.
#1 and #2–You must have skipped whole paragraphs of my response.
As for page numbers in Deux Siecles-read from p. 30 on–there are lots of cross references so it goes on and off from there
“You do realize that this is not the Nabokov you might think it was, right?”
Who “might” I think he was? He was the novelist’s father.
Oh, no! Let me guess: he didn’t have tenure either!
So then Soljenitsyn’s statement quoting him must be erased, right?
“I should probably mention at this point that I’ve met two of Solzhenistyn’s three sons… Just sayin’.”
Shoot! You should have STARTED with that. I wouldn’t have dared talk about Soljentsyn with someone like you then, who met his sons.
I feel so small now, realizing I only knew someone who went to school with them in Vermont…
aemathisphd
April 4, 2012 at 7:40 pm
“The bit about “wiped” vs “did” the floor is priceless nit picking and deflecting. You are the most unself-conscious person I have met in a long time.”
Luke 4:23…
“As for page numbers in Deux Siecles-read from p. 30 on–there are lots of cross references so it goes on and off from there.”
OK, I’m going to have to get an interlibrary loan. This will take a while.
“Who “might” I think he was? He was the novelist’s father.”
That’s correct. I just wanted to be sure an appeal to authority was not being made.
“Shoot! You should have STARTED with that. I wouldn’t have dared talk about Soljentsyn with someone like you then, who met his sons.
I feel so small now, realizing I only knew someone who went to school with them in Vermont…”
I mention this only because I might have a marginally better insight into what Solzhenitsyn was trying to say.
By the way, the boys’ mother is half-Jewish.
fool me once...
April 4, 2012 at 8:29 pm
“I should probably mention at this point that I’ve met two of Solzhenistyn’s three sons… Just sayin’.”
Hey Mathis, here’s an opportunity for you to go up in everyones esteem. If you’re implication of friendship is true and your not just some sort of Fraiseresque Solzhenitsyn groupie, phone up Sol’s sons now and get them to confirm your friendship with them, here on deLib. Shouldn’t be too difficult if they give even the smallest of shit’s about you. Otherwise your claim to fame is empty, just like me saying I’m mates with Gilad coz I made him chuckle on a forum. You brought it up , now it’s up to you to back it up. You’ve got 2 hrs and counting.
Btw over here, we see you as the Fraiser Krane of deLiberation…Just sayin’.
aemathisphd
April 4, 2012 at 10:04 pm
Asshole.
ariadna
April 5, 2012 at 2:24 am
“I mention this only because I might have a marginally better insight into what Solzhenitsyn was trying to say.”
He met S’s sons and that gave him more understanding of what the father was trying to say in a book he has not even read! And this guy has a PhD degree in Lit?!?! Amazing. But then didn’t GW Bush graduate from Yale?….
Paul Eisen
April 3, 2012 at 5:19 pm
“Why did Jews lend money? I.e., were the guilds open to them? Could they own land? Yes? No? The answer is “no” in both cases.”
Absolutely. I can just see the poor Jewish banker pacing the carpets of his penthouse apartment wishing he could shovel shit with the peasants.
“..then you do what you have to so you can feed your family.”
Oh yes indeed, but when it comes to fleecing the goyim, you not only do what you have to do, you enjoy it. Shakespeare got it dead right with Shylock.
“Incidentally, the vast majority of Russian Empire Jews, living within closed communities, fulfilled the positions of small towns — blacksmiths, merchants, etc.”
Yes again – just like the loads and loads of thoroughly decent Jews today who will pay dear for your activities
“And, by the way, none of them sought power as Jews — they sought power under political ideologies that are, in fact, quite different from traditional Jewish values (e.g., socialism and Marxism)”
Oh sure. The very essence of Jewish power as forever practised by Jewish leftists .
aemathisphd
April 3, 2012 at 5:44 pm
You sicken me, Paul. Really, you do.
What makes you think that you aren’t just as much a Jew as I am? I’d really like to know.
ariadna
April 3, 2012 at 6:42 pm
What makes you think that you aren’t just as much a Jew as I am?
Did Paul ever say he is not a Jew? Prove it.
That he is nothing like you even a bat caught in klieg lights can see.
Paul Eisen
April 4, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Dr Mathis
There’s no need for this. Of course I’m as much a Jew as you are. In many ways my position could be seen as intensely Jewish.
If you want to put it in Jewish terms, you could say that I oppose worhipping false gods – and that includes Jewish suffering and the Jewish people.
aemathisphd
April 3, 2012 at 5:45 pm
If by “forever,” you mean “since 1917,” then sure, I guess…
You are totally and utterly ignorant of history, Paul. You should keep your mouth shut and not appear proud of your ignorance.
Paul Eisen
April 4, 2012 at 2:55 pm
No, by ‘forever’ I meant like the Eternal Jew. I’m not as literal as you.
aemathisphd
April 3, 2012 at 5:46 pm
Oh, one more thing, Paul: Please provide a single example of a rich Jewish banker in Russia pre-1917. OK?
Paul Eisen
April 4, 2012 at 2:57 pm
Sure, you know the guy – in the penthouse apartment in downtown Pinsk.
aemathisphd
April 4, 2012 at 3:12 pm
That’s precisely my point.
I submit that there were no Jewish bankers in Russia pre-1917 — and probably not post-1917 either, since the banks were taken over by the government. We would both agree, I think, that Jews in Russia were persecuted, in part, because of the actions of a small group of Jewish bankers in other countries.
The difference between you and me (well, one of them) is that you seem content to blame those Jewish bankers for the way those Russian Jews were treated. I would prefer to blame those Russian bigots who refused to make distinctions and merely lumped all Jews everywhere together into one monolithic entity.
Paul Eisen
April 4, 2012 at 3:17 pm
But Jews choose to be lumped together. That’s why they get so worried about killing Christ.
Also, and less controversially, the ‘gentle Jews’ of today choose to side with their highly culpable fellow-Jews rather than their innocent non-Jewish neighbours
aemathisphd
April 4, 2012 at 3:29 pm
Except I don’t think that’s true. I think the average Jew with a social conscience feels deeply conflicted about the conduct of other Jews, particularly those in Israel and very particularly vis-à-vis the way Israel treats the Palestinians.
I don’t know what it’s like in the U.K., as I’ve only visited, but in the U.S., Jews played a key role in the American Civil Rights movement. I imagine (disabuse me if I’m wrong) that you feel that American Jews operate under a kind of cognitive dissonance whereby they will fight and put their lives on the line to give black Americans the right to vote but they will give a blank check to Israel to do what it likes to the goyim over there.
That notion simply isn’t true for the vast majority of American Jews. Rather, they agonize over what Israel does, while being doubly concerned because it is their fellow Jews doing these things. I’m sure (again, correct me if I’m wrong) that you would prefer these Jews disavow their tribal loyalties and come up on the right side. I would suggest that this preference reveals an ignorance of the role anti-Semitism has played in Jewish insularity. I would further suggest that you request this rejection of tribal loyalties only from Jews.
Paul Eisen
April 4, 2012 at 3:43 pm
Sure they do (In my younger, less moderate days I used to refer to it as ‘Jewish breast-beating’) but they don’t tell their ‘leaders’ where to get off do they?
And even those very few that do, at the end of the day they’ll still always support Jewish exceptionalism. I know all this to my own cost.
BTW, the Jewish relationship to black civil rights to which you refer also needs some careful examination.
aemathisphd
April 4, 2012 at 3:48 pm
“Sure they do (In my younger, less moderate days I used to refer to it as ‘Jewish breast-beating’) but they don’t tell their ‘leaders’ where to get off do they?”
Well, there was myself standing on a chair berating an Israeli consul. And it’s not like I was alone in that room. There was a lot of anger directed at that guy — far more than the amount of support he was receiving. That the rabbi of the shul was a member of Rabbis for Human Rights who is currently a major Jewish figure in BDS.
Those are examples; if I bothered to think about it for a second, I’m sure I would find more.
“And even those very few that do, at the end of the day they’ll still always support Jewish exceptionalism. I know all this to my own cost.”
If that means they that they will rarely shed their tribal loyalties, then I agree with you. i just wonder why you find Jews to be singular in this respect.
“BTW, the Jewish relationship to black civil rights to which you refer also needs some careful examination.”
Really? What the hell for?
ariadna
April 4, 2012 at 7:40 pm
“Jews played a key role in the American Civil Rights movement.”
As they did in the slave trade.
Cognitive dissonance, shmissonance–each was deemed “good for the Jews” in its time.
http://www.blacksandjews.com/MarcLeeRaphael.html
_________
Disclaimer: not known if this rabbi has ‘tenure’:
aemathisphd
April 4, 2012 at 8:09 pm
Wow! You can cite one Jew who supports your point of view. It must be true, then!!
ariadna
April 4, 2012 at 9:38 pm
“You can cite one Jew who supports your point of view. It must be true, then!!”
So… it has to have ben a Jew who said/wrote it but… more than one.
How many?
aemathisphd
April 4, 2012 at 10:06 pm
It would nice if you were able to show that it was a predominant point of view among anyone. That would be anyone without a dog in the race, so leave out Black Muslims and Jews.
ariadna
April 4, 2012 at 11:58 pm
Ah, so now veraciity/credibility depends on whether it is (1) a “predominant point of view” and it is expressed by .. say, amazonoan tribes–who else would not have “no dog in the race”. acc. to you..
aemathisphd
April 5, 2012 at 12:50 am
No. I’d want a majority of historians who’ve studied the issue. That would be fine by me.
But guess what: That’s already been done. You’ll never guess what they found.
Jay Knott
April 5, 2012 at 4:49 am
All this amounts to is saying Jews tend to defend their ethnic interests better than anyone else. When it’s white supremacy, they are heroic anti-racists. When it’s Jewish power, they’re ‘deeply conflicted’. Because they’ve suffered. Unlike East European gentiles.
It’s a fallacy using argument from authority, like you do (below) when you refer to “a majority of historians who’ve studied the issue”. Unfortunately, history is part of liberal arts rather than science. American liberal arts departments are sewers of political correctness.
aemathisphd
April 5, 2012 at 2:41 pm
An argument from authority is only a fallacy if the source appealed to actually lacks authority. Your personal opinion that liberal arts departments are “sewers of political correctness” doesn’t change the fact that trained historians are experts. In fact, all you’re doing is making a fallacious appeal to emotion.
ariadna
April 5, 2012 at 3:25 pm
If you only wanted one example pick the one you like most.
Soljenitsyn –Deux Siecles Ensemble, p 115:
“An American researcher, Anthony Sutton, retrieved (with a delay of half a century) archival documents; he informs us that, according to the report sent in 1918 to the State department by the US ambassador in Stockholm, “among these “bolshevik bankers” one finds the sadly famous banker Dmitri Rubinstein, which the February Revolution freed from prison, who also had stock investments in Stockholm and made himself the financial agent of the bolsheviks”; “one also finds Abram Jivotovski, a relative of of both Trotski and Lev Kamenev.” Among the “sindicalists” [trade unionists] there was Dennisov (the former Bank of Siberia), Kamenka (Bank of Azov-Don) and Davidov (Bank of the Foreign Trade). Other “bolshevik bankers”: Grigori Lessine, Shifter, Iakov Berline and their agent Isidor Kohn.”
There were also the “ghosts’ who left the US and reentered Russia, now “revolutionaries” all.”
If you only wanted one example pick the one you like most.
aemathisphd
April 5, 2012 at 4:07 pm
Yeah, the problem is that Sutton is not exactly the most reliable source on the issue of banking conspiracies. (In fact, given much of the reading I’ve done about Solzhenitsyn’s book, as I await my interlibrary loan, it seems in keeping with this work that he cites an unreliable source to fit his thesis, such as it is.)
One of Sutton’s most popular claims is that Kuhn & Loeb in NYC, via Jacob Schiff, funded the Bolshevik Revolution. This is a patently false allegation. Schiff heavily funded the February revolution and then pulled his funding when the Bolsheviks took control. His stance was, in fact, typical of Jewish bankers in Russia and abroad in 1917.
There’s a very good explication of the work of Sutton here:
http://www.conspiracytheories.us/a-debate-with-anthony-sutton
Regarding Dmitri Rubinstein: He was jailed by the Tsar, to whom he had been lending money. I’m not sure how that qualifies as a Russian Jew exploiting his Gentile neighbors, but I’m open to discussion. Notably, Rubinstein was freed, as noted, by the February revolution but fled in the wake of the Bolsheviks. His son, Sergey, became a banker in the U.S.
Finally, offering bankers as an example of Jews exploiting their neighbors kind of makes MY point, not yours. Jews being subjected to pogroms in the Pale were not the same (very small number of) Jews in banking, particularly in banking in Russia. Unless you want to argue in favor of collective punishment, which I’m not sure you do.
ariadna
April 5, 2012 at 11:08 pm
“the problem is that Sutton is not exactly the most reliable source..”
Aren’t ALL sources (1) “unreliable; (2) insufficient in number when it suits you?
“Finally, offering bankers as an example of Jews exploiting their neighbors kind of makes MY point, not yours. ”
Keep up with the many “points” you’re making, will you?
You had said there had been no Jewish bankers before the Revolution–oops! there had been quite a few.
“In fact, given much of the reading I’ve done about Solzhenitsyn’s book, as I await my interlibrary loan, it seems in keeping with this work that he cites an unreliable source to fit his thesis, such as it is.”
You have not yet read his book, only “about” it–presumably only from “reliable” sources– and you already distrust him so… maybe the certainty you expressed earlier about how his sons would react needs to be revised also:
“They would be deeply offended that their father’s work was being used in the manner that it is on this forum.”
You are ridiculous and hilarious–but of course I mean it in a nice way….
Paul Eisen
April 5, 2012 at 6:06 pm
“trained historians are experts”.
Unfortunately this is just not so. In so many instances, our historians are ‘court historians’ – experts at peddling the prevailing ideology.
aemathisphd
April 5, 2012 at 6:23 pm
Yeah, and they’re also mostly right.
The one thing historians have going for them, which non-historians don’t, is that they’ve been trained in historical method. None of your “revisionists,” with the exception of Mark Weber, has been so trained. As such, guess what he did? Admitted the Holocaust happened and called it a day.
Eldon
April 5, 2012 at 7:20 pm
How Relevant is Holocaust Revisionism?
By Mark Weber
A major reason for the lack of success in persuading people that conventional Holocaust accounts are fraudulent or exaggerated is that — as revisionists acknowledge – Jews in Europe were, in fact, singled out during the war years for especially severe treatment.
some revisionists insist that their work is vitally important because success in exposing the Holocaust as a hoax will deliver a shattering blow to Israel and Jewish-Zionist power. This view, however, is based on a mistaken understanding of the relationship between “Holocaust remembrance” and Jewish-Zionist power.
But in spite of years of effort by revisionists, including some serious work that on occasion has forced “mainstream” historians to make startling concessions,3 there has been little success in convincing people that the familiar Holocaust story is defective.
This lack of success is not difficult to understand.
Paul Eisen
April 5, 2012 at 7:59 pm
Well he certainly didn’t admit it here.
Is there more or is there another reference where he does admit it?
Just to recall the 3 elements in dispute:
1. State plan to exterminate all Jews
2. Homicidal gas-chambers
3. Six million fatalities
Eldon
April 5, 2012 at 8:22 pm
Here is some more from
” major reason for the lack of success in persuading people that conventional Holocaust accounts are fraudulent or exaggerated is that — as revisionists acknowledge – Jews in Europe were, in fact, singled out during the war years for especially severe treatment.
This was confirmed, for example, by German propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels in these confidential entries in his wartime diary:5
Feb. 14, 1942: “The Führer [Hitler] once again expresses his resolve ruthlessly to clear the Jews out of Europe. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that they are now experiencing. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness.”
March 27, 1942: “The Jews are now being deported to the East from the Generalgouvernement [Poland], starting around Lublin. The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely, and there’s not much left of the Jews. By and large, one can say that 60 percent of them will have to be liquidated, while only 40 percent can be put to work. The former Gauleiter of Vienna, who is carrying out the operation, is proceeding quite judiciously, using a method that is not all too conspicuous. The Jews are facing a judgment which, while barbaric, they fully deserve. The prophecy the Führer made about them for having brought on a new world war is beginning to come true in the most terrible manner. One must not be sentimental in these matters.”
April 29, 1942: “Short shrift is being made of the Jews in all eastern occupied territories. Tens of thousands of them are being wiped out.”
No informed person disputes that Europe’s Jews did, in fact, suffer a great catastrophe during the Second World War. Millions were forced from their homes and deported to brutal internment in crowded ghettos and camps. Jewish communities across Central and Eastern Europe, large and small, were wiped out. Millions lost their lives. When the war ended in 1945, most of the Jews of Germany, Poland, the Netherlands and others countries were gone.
Given all this, it should not be surprising that even well-founded revisionist arguments are often dismissed as heartless quibbling.”
Eldon
April 5, 2012 at 8:49 pm
More from Mark Weber
“I do not like to say that the ‘Nazi gas chambers never existed’, in part because I do not regard myself as any kind of specialist of ‘gas chambers’ and in part because I avoid making such categorical statements.”
Eldon
April 5, 2012 at 9:31 pm
Weber admits in this interview that “I believe Jews were gassed” and says that Revisionism has already done as much as it can, He takes some serious stick from the callers. http://www.archive.org/details/DeannaSpingolaAndMarkWeber-ADiscussionOfHistoricalRevisionismWork
Hamassacre
April 3, 2012 at 10:28 am
You know they’re linking to this site on both Stormfront and JewWatch now?
Heil Hitler chaps! Keep up the good work xx
Paul Eisen
April 3, 2012 at 10:51 am
This business of who links to what is just the internet version of ‘guilt by association’
If this is indicative of your contributions to deLiberation, I hope you flit away soon.
Jay Knott
April 3, 2012 at 1:52 pm
Far-right sites often link to moderate pro-Palestine organizations. When Zionists point this out to try to discredit Palestine solidarity, the best answer is “oh really? I’ll have to check it out”. That shuts them up.
who_me
April 3, 2012 at 11:14 am
mention greenstain and israel’s queen come running…
ariadna
April 3, 2012 at 2:11 pm
What’s with your nick? Hamas persecutes gays, doesn’t it?
deLiberation
April 4, 2012 at 8:54 pm
We can not control who links to this website. At the moment this a matter of free choice, I am sure you would like to restrict this and many other things.
solar
April 5, 2012 at 12:25 am
‘We can not control who links to this website.’
But you sure know how to attract the Klansman links, don’t you, Jonathon?
Are you secretly proud of getting white-power publicity?
deLiberation
April 5, 2012 at 12:37 am
I happy the material on deLiberation is spreading far and wide and opening minds wherever they may be.
aemathisphd
April 5, 2012 at 12:50 am
You don’t really think those minds at Stormfront can be opened, do you?
Roy Bard
April 5, 2012 at 7:40 am
Alexa says that Solar is a liar
solar
April 5, 2012 at 12:23 am
It means they recognize their brethren at this snti-Semitic board.
A smarter person would stop and wonder why the site he was editing was being approved by infamous racists like Stormfront, and might even stop to consider whether that’s a good thing.
But JB – well, as he has demonstrated again and again, I don’t think he can be coaxed into doing any actual thought.
Paul Eisen
April 5, 2012 at 9:03 pm
I’m afraid I still can’t see where Weber has conceded those three areas in dispute.
In fact, apart from that last remark about the gas-chambers (Can you tell me where he said that? I’m not disputing that he did but I’d like to see the context), everything he says is perfectly in line with revisionist thinking – that the final solution was a thoroughly brutal attempt to ethnically cleanse Europe of Jews which resulted in massive loss of life.
This is a horrible enough crime which, for whast it’s worth, moves me far more than any of the Holocaust nonsense.
who_me
April 3, 2012 at 11:22 am
ah, poor baby.
aemathisphd
April 3, 2012 at 3:53 pm
Additional evidence for Ariadna:
(1) The Council of People’s Commissars’ decree against anti-Semitism was promulgated on July 27, 1918. See several sources here:
Link
(2) The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, by which Russia permanently withdrew from World War I, was signed March 3, 1918:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk
(3) In my calendar, March comes before July.
(4) The Bolshevik Revolution took place on October 25, 1917 (Old Style calendar).
(5) The Decree on Land Reform was made by Lenin THE NEXT DAY:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_on_Land
with the Central Committee promulgating a law in February.
(6) In my calendar, February comes before July.
Jay Knott
April 4, 2012 at 12:03 am
Now we know why the Bolsheviks changed the calendar – so 1918 comes before 1917, July before March, and February before July.
Eldon
April 3, 2012 at 8:02 pm
aemathisphd
No need to take the permanent commenters “adrianda (guess she writes here even when she sleeps) and who_me” seriously.
Adrianda got a task to jump in and ask for evidence all the time….. see her answers…….. a masterpiece of ignorance.
she asked for evidence regarding Jonathan Azaziah been kicked off from this site….. I provided her with his answer and a link where he stated it…… she will never admit she is wrong…….
if Eisen writes “For me, there seems two possible meanings. The first is someone who opposes all Jews simply because they’re Jews.The first is of course absurd.In all my life I’ve never come across anyone who opposed Jews just because they were Jews”.
In All my Life……. meaning in all his life experience…… compared to 2000 years of Jewish persecution all over Europe “just because they were Jews” …..
Becomes an Absurd….I don’t see any base to debate with such ignorance.
Paul Eisen
April 4, 2012 at 4:10 pm
Well, first of all, well done for berating the Consul – I take back all the nasty things i’ve said about you – but in the main I’m unimpressed with RHR and the rest of them. What most of them really want is for Israel to stop behaving quite so badly and stop embarrassing them in front of their friends. And even thsoe who do go further, just mentioning questioning Jewish suffering and then stand well back.
If you really want to stand up for Palestinians, go stand vigil with Henry Herskovits – you can read about him here: http://www.deliberation.info/henry-my-dad-and-me/
Regarding their tribal loyalties – in this instance it’s not relevant whether Jews are singular in this respect, the fact is it’s wrong.
Finally, Jews and Blacks – check out current Black thinking on Jews and the slave trade, Jews and the NAAACP. etc etc. It’s a revelation
aemathisphd
April 4, 2012 at 4:31 pm
“Well, first of all, well done for berating the Consul – I take back all the nasty things i’ve said about you – but in the main I’m unimpressed with RHR and the rest of them. What most of them really want is for Israel to stop behaving quite so badly and stop embarrassing them in front of their friends. And even thsoe who do go further, just mentioning questioning Jewish suffering and then stand well back.”
That’s because there is no questioning of Jewish suffering. It existed. It must be acknowledged.
Look, I don’t want to trade in platitudes here, but it would go a long way on the Israeli side if the Palestinians would acknowledge that Jewish suffering was a fact of history. (Equally important, it would be vitally important for Israel to acknowledge the suffering they have inflicted on the Palestinians.)
By the way, it goes much, much further than being embarrassed. It has to do with our parents having taught us right from wrong and then, in many cases, insisting that a different set of rules should apply to Israel. We look at our parents and we tell them, “Bullsh*t. I don’t accept that. If anything, we should be holding Israel to a HIGHER standard of conduct.”
Example: My aforementioned father-in-law, a red diaper baby and fellow traveler himself, gets downright defensive when I prod him over Israel’s responsibilities regarding the Holocaust. I see this as a massive inconsistency in a man who, otherwise, has a very deep sense of social consciousness.
But it’s important for me always to remember that when this man, my father-in-law, was fifteen years old, he learned that millions of Jews, including his grandfather’s entire family in Lithuania, had been murdered.
This is a small anecdotal example to perhaps extrapolate to a much larger extent when consider why Jews, in general, support Israel.
I realize that you’d deny much of what the Jews went through under the Nazis, but I don’t, so it’s relevant, at least to me.
“If you really want to stand up for Palestinians, go stand vigil with Henry Herskovits – you can read about him here: http://www.deliberation.info/henry-my-dad-and-me/”
I’m aware of Herskovits. If he thinks that what he’s doing is making any kind of difference, then he’s more deluded, dare I say it, than you. Rather, he should be trying to hit Israel where it counts — in the pocketbook. A bunch of alterkochers going to shul aren’t going to change their own minds about Israel; it’s just going to reinforce their Zionism even further.
“Regarding their tribal loyalties – in this instance it’s not relevant whether Jews are singular in this respect, the fact is it’s wrong.”
But it is relevant because tribal loyalties are reinforced by experiences of persecution. It’s also relevant because of this tribal loyalty is being denounced while all other tribal loyalties are being accepted, then it’s a double standard, and double standard are always wrong.
“Finally, Jews and Blacks – check out current Black thinking on Jews and the slave trade, Jews and the NAAACP. etc etc. It’s a revelation”
It’s a revelation if you buy it. Tony Martin is the big name in that field. He’s been proved entirely wrong a million times.
Were there Jewish slave traders? Of course, there were. But they were outnumbered massively by Arab Muslim and native African slave traders, not to mention European and white North American traders. Further, the entire argument is a bit academic, as without a demand by Southern whites for slaves, there wouldn’t have been a trans-Atlantic Slave Trade to begin with.
Jews were among the founders of the NAACP. I don’t see the issue or problem with this.
aemathisphd
April 4, 2012 at 4:32 pm
*”Israel’s responsibilities regarding the Holocaust” should be “Israel’s responsibilities regarding the Palestinians.”
Call it a Freudian slip
Paul Eisen
April 4, 2012 at 5:11 pm
“That’s because there is no questioning of Jewish suffering. It existed. It must be acknowledged.”
Of course jewish suffering existed, the question is, can it be examined and is it in any way special?
“…but it would go a long way on the Israeli side if the Palestinians would acknowledge that Jewish suffering was a fact of history.”
I find this quite disgusting. Why should Palestinians be concerned with Jewish suffering (Leave asiide that it is precisely the exploitation and falsification of that suuferring that is used to justify their own suffering. I find this disgusting because it smacks of rubbing the victim’s nose in it.
“But it’s important for me always to remember that when this man, my father-in-law, was fifteen years old, he learned that millions of Jews, including his grandfather’s entire family in Lithuania, had been murdered.”
I’m afraid your poor father-in-law is both a perpetrator and victim of Jewish delusion and dishonesty . In my daily life I meet plenty of people who have suffered as much and maybe more than your father-in-law. Like him (or his relatives), they have been brutally expelled or had to flee persecution. But they don’t spend the rest of their lives worshipping it and, even more, they don’t use it as an excuse to justify their own bad behaviour.
Regarding henry, that you say what you say reinforces for me the world-class effectiveness of Henry’s acrtivism. Believe me, when you shouted at the Consul, you bothered no-one it just gave ammunition to people like you to dsay how great Jewws are. But when Henry stands outside the beth Israel in Ann Arbor of a Saturday morning – they sit up.
“But it is relevant because tribal loyalties are reinforced by experiences of persecution.”
No, this tribal loyalty is not only reinforced by experiences of persecution but more created by it. And a great deal of those experiences are firstly self-inflicted and secondly, falsified.
Regarding Jews being held to higher standards – what else do you expect for the chosen people? Seriously, the converse is true. If Jews were only held to the same standards as others – boy, would you then see some changes.
Finally,Jews and Blacks. I disagree with your facts but, as with the Holocaust, I really can’t go into that kind of thing now.
Regarding your last point about Jews being excused because it was Whites who wanted the slaves, you remind me of the Jewish tavern-keeper in my story http://www.deliberation.info/pogrom-whose-to-blame/ He believed it was the goyim’s fault for having a drunken priest. That kind of It’s-not-my-fault-he-made-me-do-it kind of argument should be kept for the playground.
And Jews founding the NAAACP? Didn’t they just and doesn’t that just characterise their whole attitude to the people they were helping. Jews in the NAAACP were like Jews in the PSC patronising and, in the end, primarily looking after Jewish interests.
BTW, that is not to say that there weren’t individual Jews who genuyinely did great work – but, as ever, the good ones pay for the crimes of the bad ones.
Jay Knott
April 4, 2012 at 11:32 pm
I’ve heard about Jews in Lithuania, and the rest of Eastern Europe. Many times. I heard not a squeak about Lithuanians in Lithuania until I met some Lithuanians. They claimed that Jews were way overrepresented in the commissariat which murdered their relatives. I don’t know if it’s true. But I don’t know if the Jewish story is true either. I do know which is the dominant narrative.
As for Jews in the civil rights movement, somehow I’m not impressed. I question the official black version of American history just as I question the official Jewish version of European history.
aemathisphd
April 4, 2012 at 11:35 pm
“They claimed that Jews were way overrepresented in the commissariat which murdered their relatives. I don’t know if it’s true.”
It isn’t.
Jay Knott
April 5, 2012 at 2:14 am
That settles that then.
Paul Eisen
April 4, 2012 at 8:59 pm
I think citing this fact or that fact to support one’s point of view is largely a waste of time. There are plenty of facts that myself and Dr Mathis might even agree on but we will still disagree.
For example, we both would agree that Jews in Czarist Russia were largely poor. For Dr Mathis this might mean that they were powerless and therefore anti-Semitic attacks on them were indefensible. I could argue that it’s irrelevant hoq poor they were – they weren’t poor enough not to be contemptuous of, and perhaps exploit their non-Jewish neighbours – thus the attacks are understandable and maybe even justfiable.
This is just an example off the top of my head but my point is that the differences between us are ideological.
ariadna
April 4, 2012 at 9:40 pm
Not only ideological.
I think it is a matter of character as well.
aemathisphd
April 4, 2012 at 10:05 pm
Well, then we agree, Ariadna.
ariadna
April 5, 2012 at 1:53 am
I doubt it. We don’t seem to use the same lexicon.
Character shines through. Or not. Some people have integrity– no lies, prevarications, shell games. Paul is one of them. He also displays an incredibly patient compassion–not stepping down into the gutter to respond in kind to rude, abusive insults.
That’s character. It’s an INDIVIDUAL trait. You have it or you don’t.
aemathisphd
April 5, 2012 at 2:54 am
Well, isn’t he just a marvelous guy. Ein prima Jude!
ariadna
April 5, 2012 at 3:27 pm
Don’t be so churlish and ungrateful: you did get a little attention just by talking about him.
Laura Stuart
April 5, 2012 at 7:32 am
Paul has more experience than the rest of us at dealing with wayward and possibly intellectually challenged children.
“Now let us go this one more time”. .. .
aemathisphd
April 4, 2012 at 10:04 pm
“I could argue that it’s irrelevant hoq poor they were – they weren’t poor enough not to be contemptuous of, and perhaps exploit their non-Jewish neighbours – thus the attacks are understandable and maybe even justfiable.”
And yet, if asked to provide an example of such a case, Mr. Eisen can’t.
And that’s why he is challenged to present facts. And that’s why he won’t.
fool me once...
April 4, 2012 at 10:52 pm
On April 4, 2012 at 10:04 pm, Dr Mathis called me an “Asshole.”
See what I mean Mathis, it’s very easy to imagine you living out a script from Fraiser. Sat behind your imaginary microphone, telling the “listeners” how it is. Dismissing people as worthless, who don’t concur with your world view.
You made, what you thought was, a big name drop brag, so don’t you think you should prove it?
“I should probably mention at this point that I’ve met two of Solzhenistyn’s three sons… Just sayin’.”
Is that going to be your epitaph?
aemathisphd
April 4, 2012 at 11:37 pm
Thank you for quoting me directly. I said I’d met them; not that they were friends of mine.
That being said, I can assure you of two things about them: (1) Their mother is half-Jewish; and (2) They would be deeply offended that their father’s work was being used in the manner that it is on this forum.
If you feel like hunting them down and asking them yourself, then by all means do. When their father lived, as Ariadna correctly accounts, in Vermont, the CIA used to tap the telephone.
ariadna
April 5, 2012 at 1:55 am
“When their father lived, as Ariadna correctly accounts, in Vermont, the CIA used to tap the telephone.”
Do tell us more. The only forays of yours that are not tiresome are the ones in the left field.
aemathisphd
April 5, 2012 at 2:59 am
Nothing else to tell. One of my very close friends dated one of the sons — incidentally the one son I never met. He was still in Vermont when I met the other two. The second son was in town to visit the third, who was himself in school (conservatory) at that time where I live. So I met them.
Anyway, when my friend, who met the sons in Vermont, where she was enrolled in an intensive summer language course to learn Russian and where Solzhenitsyn’s sons worked as tutors, used to call up there to Vermont to speak to the son I never met, they would apologize for a clicking on the phone line, which they claimed was the CIA tapping the telephone. That’s the end of that story.
(By the way, as you might suspect, Solzhenitsyn’s children are deeply conservative. And a quarter Jewish; did I mention that?)
However, there is an analogue in my own life: My former brother-in-law, who is an Arab Muslim, found in the weeks following 9/11, that when he spoke to his mother in Casablanca, he would here a click on the line anytime they said “Al Qaeda” or “Osama bin Laden.”
So apparently, at least before fiberoptic cable, when your phone was being tapped, you’d hear a click on the line. I suspect the FBI was tapping my brother-in-law. CIA for the Solzhenitsyn family. Different bailiwicks.
ariadna
April 5, 2012 at 3:55 pm
You responded to this:
“Do tell us more. The only forays of yours that are not tiresome are the ones in the left field.” ?!?!
I do not believe that someone as well educated as you are (you so told us “Are you aware that I have a PhD degree…?), has not taught himself to recognize irony at least by its outer shape, the way a blind man reads Braille by touch.
I think you knew that I was not asking you to regale us with the trivia of your personal life, enhanced as it is in your own eyes to portentous significance by the cameo appearances in it of relatives of famous people against whom you brushed in passing.
Yet you plunged into it. “Nothing else to tell” introduces five paragraphs of “nothing.”
The same thing when I asked if S’s sons are ‘quartoons’ (or maybe ‘octaroons’?) and on what side of her lineage is S’s wife jewish. You actually went into your literal-minded pedantic explanations, you poor man.
It is the only feature you display arises a tinge of compassion: your obvious pressing, almost audibly panting, need for attention, never fully satisfied.
You try everything, including the triggers you might have learned as a spoiled brat for whom negative attention is better than none: bullying, insults, gutter language, rudeness.
A fate worse than death for a bully is to be so boring that people stop paying him attention and that’s what really scares you.
If you are capable of gratitude for delaying it, you owe it at least to me and fool me once. Big time. Say “Thank you.”
ariadna
April 5, 2012 at 2:05 am
I appreciate the elegant introductory phrase that precedes his non-sequitur:
“I should probably mention at this point…”
Yes, you should by all mention it and this is exactly the point where it should be done…. As apropos as a Sam Weller anecdote but without humor.
Paul Eisen
April 5, 2012 at 7:42 am
““I could argue that it’s irrelevant hoq poor they were – they weren’t poor enough not to be contemptuous of, and perhaps exploit their non-Jewish neighbours – thus the attacks are understandable and maybe even justfiable.”
And yet, if asked to provide an example of such a case, Mr. Eisen can’t.”
Dr Mathis,
Are you really unable to see how absurd this comment of yours is?
aemathisphd
April 5, 2012 at 2:39 pm
Please provide an example of a Russian Jew pre-1917 exploiting his non-Jewish neighbors. That’s what I’m asking for. One example.
Laura Stuart
April 5, 2012 at 12:55 am
Harrys Place have linked to us before so Stormfront would not be the first Racist/Fascist website to link to us.
Jay Knott
April 5, 2012 at 3:15 am
Google:
‘site:davidduke.com deliberation.info’ – nothing
‘site:stormfront.org deliberation.info’ – nothing
‘site:hurryupharry.org deliberation.info’ – nothing
‘site:hurryupharry.org stormfront.org’ – great minds think alike…
ariadna
April 5, 2012 at 2:10 am
(1) Their mother is half-Jewish;
It’s good you looked into it. Which half? These things are important–maternal side or paternal? So the kids are octoroons then?
(2) They would be deeply offended that their father’s work was being used in the manner that it is on this forum.
You only met them but ascertained that they would be offended or is it just a hunch? We know you like to have PROOFS.
aemathisphd
April 5, 2012 at 3:08 am
(1) Her mother was Jewish, making her Jewish by Jewish Law and, yes, her children Jewish also. However, I’m nearly positive she would have converted to Russian Orthodox before marrying Solzhenitsyn. He was, as I’m sure you’re aware, rather religious.
(2) No, not only did we discuss these things at a dinner party, but they also translated for their father on these topics in an interview he gave to 60 Minutes in the United States between the time the USSR disintegrated and his return to Russia — I’m guessing around 1992 or 1993.
aemathisphd
April 5, 2012 at 3:13 am
On Natalia Solzhenitsyn’s Jewish mother, see the article on Solzhenitsyn in a 2001 issue of the New York. The author was David Remnick. If you have good library access, you can probably find the issue number; alternately, I’ll look it up for you.
ariadna
April 6, 2012 at 3:09 am
“I’ll look it up for you.”
Why don’t you do that, be a dear while I watch some paint dry.
Be sure to report back on this important issue–I’ll read carefully. If not me, who?
aemathisphd
April 6, 2012 at 1:33 pm
It’s the August 6, 2001, issue. Here’s the relevant paragraph:
SSolzhenitsyn’s new book is a peculiar one. For many years, he has had to face accusations of anti-Semitism. The reasons are complicated. His view of the world, shaped by an intense devotion to Russian patriotism, Russian suffering, and Russian Orthodoxy, is alien to many former dissidents, who have been quick to call him a hard-line nationalist, a tsarist, a Slavophile. What’s more, an intellectual like the mathematician Igor Shafarevich, who had once been allied with Solzhenitsyn, is, inarguably, anti-Semitic. In the seventies, some third-rate critics seemed to encounter his books with an accountant’s pencil, tallying “positive” and “negative” portraits of Jews, and sometimes found him wanting. Solzhenitsyn, in fact, is not anti-Semitic; his books are not anti-Semitic, and he is not, in his personal relations, anti-Jewish; Natalia’s mother is Jewish, and not a few of his friends are, too. It is true, however, that, as a Russian patriot, Solzhenitsyn has written of “the incomparable sufferings of our people,” and, as such, clearly does not believe in the uniqueness of Jewish suffering in the past two centuries or in the idea of the Jews as a symbol of persecution. Much of the new book is taken up with putting Jewish suffering into a wider context of Russian suffering; there is an insistent effort made to point out that the vast majority of the population, especially the serfs and then the peasantry, were deprived of their rights just like the Jews. Solzhenitsyn does not deny the persecution of Jews—the pogroms, the restrictions on university admissions, the general prejudice—but there is also a tendency to highlight any exaggeration of tsarist oppression or to measure Jewish suffering against the sorry state of nearly all Russians. In his text, Solzhenitsyn often seems irritated that there is a “taboo” against discussing “the Jewish question,” that one must either endorse certain notions of Jewish history and suffering or risk being branded a bigot. And yet, even as he describes and condemns the large number of Jews who took part in the revolutionary movement against the tsar, he is quick to disavow “conspiracies” and blames Russians and Russian failures—from the “arrogance of the nobility” to the “abandonment” of the peasantry—for the Revolutions of 1905 and 1917. “The highest circles of St. Petersburg nonetheless succumbed to the seductively simple explanation that Russia was in no way organically diseased, and that the whole Revolution was nothing but a vicious Jewish plot, part and parcel of the worldwide Judeo-Masonic conspiracy. There was one explanation for it all: the Jews!” he writes in “Two Hundred Years Together,” and goes on to say that, in fact, “it was our own Russian weaknesses that determined our sorry history’s downward vector.