Skip to comments.Anti-Semitism Part 1
Posted on 03/24/2019 3:22:56 PM PDT by Eleutheria5
Spontaneous essay on the nature of anti-Semitism and distinctions between that and other forms of bigotry.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
The Democratic resolution in condemnation of lactose intolerance and other things equates to silence, which is approval. The Nazis also claimed that Jews were disloyal to Germany, even though many had fought in WWI. It’s the same story over and over. The worst kind of anti-Semitism in my opinion is “anti-Zionism”. It refers back to that Soviet-Nazi propaganda book, and assumes Zionism means world domination.
He makes a lot of good points but I don’t think his basic analysis holds up.
His thesis that Jews were discriminated against and killed because of their superior accomplishments is not borne out by factual history. Its more complicated than that. It is correct that antisemitism is different from racism or antihomosexuality, but his comparisons to racism are not strong.
His description of American racism (against blacks)is more accurate but incomplete. There was a general pecking order to all new immigrants (largely free people) for a long time based on ethnic or national origins, position on the European map (northern or southern), amount of money or aristocratic vs. common background, and skin tone (even for whites). The black story was the most dramatic and lasting of all, but has to be seen against this backdrop of immigration.
His thesis that Jews were discriminated against and killed because of their superior accomplishments is not borne out by factual history.
I’m eager to hear the specifics. It certainly holds up with regards to Bogdan Chmelnicki in Poland, Spanish pogroms in the 14th Century, Expulsions in France and England, the depredations in Germany of Peter the Hermit’s mob during the First Crusade. The victims were Jews generally, but the motivation was envy and hatred for those uppity, too-smart-for-their-own-good, greedy Jooos! Even in Crown Heights in 1991, they were going after the Jooos! and their preferential treatment by police.
Your refutation, please.
Update. Here’s Part 2
No it doesn’t. Many Jewish (and other) scholars have examined and debated this question a great deal. It never boils down to one simple reason. For example often it involves political expediency or a ruler owing Jews money and not wanting to pay up or diverting public attention from some other problem by ginning them up against the Jews. Most of the time there were accusations of anti-Christian behavior. Although I do not endorse wikipedia as a totally reliable source, this article:
can give some idea of the multiple threads that went into English antisemitism prior to Edward I’s Edict of Expulsion in 1290.
Begging Malach’s pardon, but I’m publicly reproducing my reply to his private message here, just because I’m both lazy and pressed for time.
So here goes
I am not claiming that that is the sole reason for anti-Semitism. My point is that Booker T. Washingtons formula that works very well for blacks does not work at all for Jews. Having skills, accomplishments, etc., doesnt ever quell anti-Semitism, and it very often inflames it. Thus, it is in a different class than anti-black racism or lactose intolerance.
The actual cause of anti-Semitism has never been adequately explained. Jean Paul Sartre makes a stupid attempt to say that its only the disorder of the Bourgeoisie and that workers are spared, but isnt far off when he says that anti-Semites want to be impenetrable, a phenomenon that he explains at length. Dr. Schachter attributes it to fervent belief in Christianity or Islam, which to medieval minds meant that Jews, who reject both, were on the side of Satan to both Muslims and Christians. Theres something to that, but it doesnt explain modern leftards, communists and fascists, all of whom gravitate towards anti-Semitism.
I dont care why the goyim hate me, Im just pleasantly surprised when they sometimes dont. But the behavior of anti-Semites must be studied, the better to predict and guard against it. And the bottom line is, its not at all the same as racism, and shouldnt be lumped in with it just to protect Ilhan Omar from being treated the same as any other hater.
Now for some further elaboration.
Anti-black racists have a paradigm, that blacks are stupid, lazy, and out to nail anything in a skirt. The best way to refute that is Booker T. Washington’s way, by producing educated, cultivated and hard-working blacks who are an asset to their community and themselves.
Anti-Semites have a more complex paradigm, much more deeply rooted. I can’t trace it to its roots, any better than Sartre or Schachter could. But the common denominator is that Jooos! are up to something. Either they want to rule the world through a network of financiers, or perform Satanic rites with unleavened bread and infants, or just cheat in business. But their supposed smartness is really low cunning, and their supposed business acumen is really part of a vast conspiracy to do some damned thing or other. They’re also supposed to be physically puny and cowardly, and sneaky.
Ms. Omar is obviously anti-Semitic, and that’s not illegal, but it’s evidence that she should not be trusted on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and she’s an embarrassment to those Minnesota voters who chose her in good faith, thinking that she was a trustworthy, moral person who would advocate for Minnesota, and not against Jews, many of whom live in her district. She ought to be stripped of her membership in the Foreign Affairs Committee immediately, and of her membership in Congress in 2020. But those damned Eejitchins couldn’t even pass a resolution condemning her anti-Semitism by name, let alone do the right thing. Ten plagues upon them. It’s Jexodus time, not just for the Children of Israel, but for any mixed multitude who want out of the bondage of Eejit, too. Walkaway.
If you reviewed your posts you would see that I replied publically as well as privately.
I would not go to Sartre as an explainer of anything Jewish just as I would not go first to outside people (non-Jews) to explain my own people (Jews).
If you examine history you will not generally find in ancient times the same prejudices againt Jews that you find now or for the past 2000 years since the diaspora.
Jews historically have cut themselves off from other people in a number of ways which define the Orthodox practice of the religion. This refusal to become part of the larger group but to stand apart with specific rules and yet at the same time to be either successful or constantly springing back in spite of attempts to annihilate them seems to be one of the predominant reasons for Jew hatred.
Many of the other canards likely have arisen from this refusal which results in attributing demonic powers or desires for world domination.
Interestingly this quality is also characteristic of Donald Trump, although he is not Jewish and IMO this is separate from his family or sponsorship of Israel. He is an outsider and a reformer and he does not want to go along with the entrenched establishment but in fact to fight it becuase it is harming Americans, and he has been vilified for this since he began his presidential campaign. Outsiders have a very hard time if they do not want to join.
As far as Omar goes, she is spouting the Arab/Muslim party line, which is to identify the Jews as enemies who have to be destroyed and indeed this traces back to Mohammed who tried unsuccessfully to convert Arabian Jews and when he could not, advocated destroying them. First what she says is repellent and not in the best tradition of Americans which is to try to get past their differences. However second and third she has lied to her constituents (some are Jews) about her support of BDS, there is a good possibility she has broken immigration and marriage laws, and she is supporting known enemies of the US. All reasons why she should not be on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and IMO should not be a Congressional Representative.
IMO racism is now a word without much meaning. It is being applied to all sort of groups which have nothing to do with race. At the same time, the good part of American intent is very good, which is to leave an open field for people to advance and hopefully succeed in their own way.
I would not go to Sartre as an explainer of anything Jewish just as I would not go first to outside people (non-Jews) to explain my own people (Jews).
“If you examine history you will not generally find in ancient times the same prejudices againt Jews that you find now or for the past 2000 years since the diaspora.”
It was there. Alexandrians had a big pogrom during the reign of Emperor Caligula, who refused to protect the Jews, because they would not offer up any sacrifices to him.
“Jews historically have cut themselves off from other people in a number of ways which define the Orthodox practice of the religion. This refusal to become part of the larger group but to stand apart with specific rules and yet at the same time...”
And German Jews during the Weimar Republic...?
“...to be either successful or constantly springing back in spite of attempts to annihilate them seems to be one of the predominant reasons for Jew hatred.”
If we would stop springing back in spite of attempts to annihilate us, we would be loved and accepted? Why did they attempt to annihilate us, then?
“IMO racism is now a word without much meaning.” Thank the leftards for overusing it and misapplying it until it can mean anything. And when a word means anything, it means nothing. Only remedy is to either take the word back and recharge it with meaning, or find another one that can do better.
I am not going to refute you point by point but here is one example:
“It was there. Alexandrians had a big pogrom during the reign of Emperor Caligula, who refused to protect the Jews, because they would not offer up any sacrifices to him.”
2)you are proving my point
3)Caligula was crazy or at least weird
4)there is a difference—here I am referring to the ancient world—between singling out one group for extraordinary punishment when other groups would not receive the same level of punishment and punishing a number of groups for disobedience or whatever undesirable behavior.
My point is that antisemitism is not some kinf of black and white canvas.
The pogrom was in Alexandria. Believing one is a god is definitely crazy, but the anti-Semitism was in Alexandria. Further, Roman anti-Semitism was a good deal more understandable than medieval anti-Semitism, because Judaeans repeatedly rebelled against Rome. But in whatever form and for whatever reason, anti-Semitism has been a constant through the ages. Right now, the Persians are at it again. Same idea, different millennium.
Caligula was crazy in a number of ways and not the least towards his own Roman people, see his attempt to get his horse ennobled as a senator.
Rulers had their own quirks, attitudes and political goals but the official Roman policy was to accept or incorporate or otherwise tolerate religions other than their own.
The Jews were a colony in Alexandria. That others set on them with an excuse from the highest governmental level does not necessarily mean that these people were antisemitic but possibly driven by greed or envy.
You and many people look at the Jews through a lens of 2000 years of Diaspora persecution but that lens is colored by the fact that Jews during that period were groups of outsiders without their own physical country. I don’t think antisemitism is everywhere and I don’t think it is inherent in people. I do think that bad character traits are inherent in people just as good ones are, and these can be brought to the fore either on their own or by people with agendas.
“...does not necessarily mean that these people were antisemitic but possibly driven by greed or envy.”
Greed and envy makes anti-Semitism profitable, which is why being model citizens providing valuable services does not win friends, but attracts enemies. Want to loot the home of the Jooo! whom you owe money? Kill him? Rape his wife? Easy. Plant a dead baby in his home and then “find” it. Voila! Blood libel. Something similar, I’ll bet, happened in Alexandria.
From Wikkipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandrian_riots_(38
The Roman emperor Caligula did not trust the prefect of Egypt, Aulus Avilius Flaccus. Flaccus had been loyal to Tiberius, had conspired against Caligula’s mother and had connections with Egyptian separatists. In 38 CE, Caligula sent Agrippa to Alexandria unannounced to check on Flaccus. According to Philo, the visit was met with jeers from the Greek population who saw Agrippa as the king of the Jews. Flaccus tried to placate both the Greek population and Caligula by having statues of the emperor placed in Jewish synagogues. As a result, riots broke out in the city. Caligula responded by removing Flaccus from his position and executing him.
Riots again erupted in Alexandria in 40 CE between Jews and Greeks. Jews were accused of not honouring the emperor. Disputes occurred in the city of Jamnia. Jews were angered by the erection of a clay altar and destroyed it. In response, Caligula ordered the erection of a statue of himself in the Jewish Temple of Jerusalem, a demand in conflict with Jewish monotheism. In this context, Philo of Alexandria wrote that Caligula “regarded the Jews with most especial suspicion, as if they were the only persons who cherished wishes opposed to his”.
The sole source is Philo of Alexandria, himself a Jew, who witnessed the riots and afterwards led the Jewish delegation to Caligula, and requested the re-establishment of legal Jewish residence in Alexandria. Philo’s writings on the topic are found in two sources: In Flaccum (meaning “Against Flaccus”), which is wholly devoted to the riots, and Legatio ad Gaium (meaning “Embassy to Caligula”), which makes some references to the event in its introduction. Scholarly research around the subject has been divided on certain points, including whether the Alexandrian Jews fought to keep their citizenship or to acquire it, whether they evaded the payment of the poll-tax or prevented any attempts to impose it on them, and whether they were safeguarding their identity against the Greeks or against the Egyptians.
For serious research wikipedia is a very shaky source because of potential and unknown biases on the part of the editor(s).
Read this:https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3737571/posts for current inofrmation on one problem.
Differences of opinion can also hinge on translations from the original language such as Greek or Aramaic (Philo) so best to look at opinions by people who understand these issues/languages. I suggest primarily going to Jewish scholars although some others may be good.
Wikipedia will suffice for an outline of an event in ancient Alexandria under Emperor Caligula. There is no significant difference of opinion regarding Philo’s account of the basic facts. I don’t have Philo in front of me. If you would provide me a copy, I’d be happy to render a freehand translation from Aramaic or Greek, but if it’s in Latin, you’d have to ask someone else.
I have seen wikipedia slanted or omitting facts in areas where one would not ordinarily think someone would provide a biased approach.
The subject of Jewish history is an area where providing biased or incomplete information is entirely possible.
As for Philo, sorry, no copy.
So until we get ahold of Philo’s text and a good Greek dictionary for the difficult passages, we’ll just have to change the subject.
What about Lithuania. Until the 14th Century, they were still pagans there, and according to Tacitus they were still nomadic tribesmen in his time. And they had not so much as a drop of anti-Semitic sentiment. Then the young Lithuanian prince married the Polish princess and converted to Christianity, and their realms became one. And that’s when Lithuanians started making with the anti-Semitism, same as in Poland.
Then there’s also India. Rudyard Kipling wrote an anti-Semitic story about Jews in India once. Muslim terrorists tortured a rabbi (I knew him when he was a boy, and didn’t much like him) and his wife to death in Mumbai in 2008. But the Hindus have always been free of this prejudice. A small Jewish group, or tribe, or something, known there as the Bnei Yisrael, has lived there undisturbed for centuries, and the lost tribe of Menashe has lived in northeastern India since they became lost. The Menashites did encounter some persecution when they were wandering through China, which is why they have Chinese features (rape). But in India itself, they are perfectly at home, though most have either converted to Christianity or emigrated to Israel, where I have met them.
So are polytheists less susceptible to anti-Semitism than offshoot monotheists such as Christians and Muslims? Without Philo’s original text, we can’t draw any conclusions about pagan Alexandria, but the record with regard to medieval Lithuania and modern-day India does raise the question.
Religions that actively sponsor/command/encourage forcible conversion are more prone to being antisemitic because Judaism rejects conversion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.