The Weaponisation of anti-Semitism

[pancreas]

The obtaining of this conversation by hacking a private account is a prime example of antisemitism weaponised.

Sure.

[NoSleep]

Are you humouring me or do you really think it was an aggressive act?

[gilbertharding]

A more innocent time...I am sure the recipients of those finances didn't give two hoots about the belief system of the people that were funding their workforce.

...especially as the only reason Jews are associated by many with finance is because they were barred from other trades by (that's right) yer actual antisemitism.

(I think. I mean - if this isn't actually true, or I got something wrong, don't hang me for it. I'll go on a reeducation programme... anything).

[NoSleep]

That may have been more true in medieval times. The Crusaders borrowed money to go on their Crusades, then come back and killed the Jews they had borrowed their money from in their newly acquired "religious fervour".

Jews weren't barred from other trades, but Christians were forbidden by their religion to be money lenders (another reason for them to hold Jews in contempt).

[BlodwynPig]

One of your more ludicrous comments, pig.

Take off your pearls ... before swine.

[pancreas]

Are you humouring me or do you really think it was an aggressive act?

Of course I fucking agree.

[BlodwynPig]

Of course I fucking agree.

Are you at the festivities tomorrow?

[pancreas]

Are you at the festivities tomorrow?

Homofest 2019?

[mugwump ji sum]

...especially as the only reason Jews are associated by many with finance is because they were barred from other trades by (that's right) yer actual antisemitism.

(I think. I mean - if this isn't actually true, or I got something wrong, don't hang me for it. I'll go on a reeducation programme... anything).

The idea that they were forced into moneylending seems like typically lachrymose Jewish storytelling to me. They seem to have a history of moneylending going back to pre Christian times and were more than happy to travel around in tightly knit groups, financially exploiting the European masses, often under the protection of European elites. Their exploitative practices were the source of much of the friction that we dismiss as European antisemitism.
Even today jews are still prevalent in moneylending, though they have many other channels of influence now as well.

[Rizla]

Their exploitative practices were the source of much of the friction that we dismiss as European antisemitism.

My contention is that in reality 'racist' is just a derogatory term for white people and racism is an anti white concept.

actually can't be arsed. you need to get run over

[sponk]

The idea that they were forced into moneylending seems like typically lachrymose Jewish storytelling to me. They seem to have a history of moneylending going back to pre Christian times and were more than happy to travel around in tightly knit groups, financially exploiting the European masses, often under the protection of European elites. Their exploitative practices were the source of much of the friction that we dismiss as European antisemitism.
Even today jews are still prevalent in moneylending, though they have many other channels of influence now as well.

[BlodwynPig]

Homofest 2019?

Prod, i call it

[chveik]

The idea that they were forced into moneylending seems like typically lachrymose Jewish storytelling to me. They seem to have a history of moneylending going back to pre Christian times and were more than happy to travel around in tightly knit groups, financially exploiting the European masses, often under the protection of European elites. Their exploitative practices were the source of much of the friction that we dismiss as European antisemitism.
Even today jews are still prevalent in moneylending, though they have many other channels of influence now as well.

I'm no expert but that does sound a tad antisemistic.

anyway, surely we can talk about Israel without mentioning the Shoah, or the slave trade, or the moneylending. that would save us a lot of hassle.

[Satchmo Distel]

I think Walker's private message was antisemitic in that it revealed an illogical thought process whereby the guilt of Jewish group A (some Jews financing slavery) somehow balances out the victimhood of Jewish group B (Holocaust survivors) in a way she wouldn't do with any other group. For example, the involvement of some German women in the Nazi regime doesn't balance out the victimhood of a million German women raped by the Red Army.

Moreover she's balancing out across centuries and continents as if Jews have collective responsibility for their co-religionists in every continent and social system that has existed since Judaism first appeared - antisemitism 101.

[BlodwynPig]

I think Walker's private message was antisemitic in that it revealed an illogical thought process whereby the guilt of Jewish group A (some Jews financing slavery) somehow balances out the victimhood of Jewish group B (Holocaust survivors) in a way she wouldn't do with any other group. For example, the involvement of some German women in the Nazi regime doesn't balance out the victimhood of a million German women raped by the Red Army.

Which in turn does not equate to institutional antisemitism in the Labour party

[sponk]

Which in turn does not equate to institutional antisemitism in the Labour party

No of course not, but Chris Williamson and thousands of Labour supporters online have been defending her, so there is a big blindspot to AS in the LP.

Incidentally has anyone seen her film, The Lynching? The title is smug as fuck, but I might watch it anyway

[pancreas]

Racist bollocks

Er, die please.

[Barry Admin]

And that's a lengthy temp ban.

[ZoyzaSorris]

I think Walker's private message was antisemitic in that it revealed an illogical thought process whereby the guilt of Jewish group A (some Jews financing slavery) somehow balances out the victimhood of Jewish group B (Holocaust survivors) in a way she wouldn't do with any other group. For example, the involvement of some German women in the Nazi regime doesn't balance out the victimhood of a million German women raped by the Red Army.

Moreover she's balancing out across centuries and continents as if Jews have collective responsibility for their co-religionists in every continent and social system that has existed since Judaism first appeared - antisemitism 101.

I dont think she was saying that it balances it out at all, just discussing the complexities of history and how jewish people dont have a monopoly on suffering, wasnt she (albeit in a clumsy way, but god forbid someone go through my every piece of private correspondence with anyone)?

[Pdine]

Jews weren't barred from other trades, but Christians were forbidden by their religion to be money lenders

From what I can gather it was a lot more complex than this in both situations (Jews were banned from guilds in certain locations at certain times, Christians could lend money but usually in more constrained situations than Jews could).

[Buelligan]

I dont think she was saying that it balances it out at all, just discussing the complexities of history and how jewish people dont have a monopoly on suffering, wasnt she (albeit in a clumsy way, but god forbid someone go through my every piece of private correspondence with anyone)?

Precisely this.

But why bother considering the context, why consider the actual meaning of what she was saying, when it's so much easier to snip out part of a phrase, shear it of any meaning other than the one you wish to give it?  That's what so weird about this - why would anyone hack someone's private correspondence, sift through it and pounce upon four or five words, scrub out all of the others that might indicate a completely innocent intent and push it as a word-crime as hard as can be done?  Why would a group of people do that?

[object-lesson]

From what I can gather it was a lot more complex than this in both situations (Jews were banned from guilds in certain locations at certain times, Christians could lend money but usually in more constrained situations than Jews could).

Yes, this is a fantastically complex matter that I haven't grasped fully, but Jews certainly were barred from other trades and pushed into the occupations that became stereotypically linked with them. Obviously a short section of wikipedia is going to vastly over-simplify the matter, but it gives an idea of the situation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_antisemitism#Restrictions_on_occupations_and_professions


Not generally a fan of International Socialism, but this piece gives one way in to a subject which is clearly extremely resistant to simplification. It's so easy to misunderstand the whole area based on superficial knowledge, and it's a playground for anti-semites and also for accusations of antisemitism such as those aimed at Marx which usually rest on misunderstandings.

http://isj.org.uk/karl-marx-abram-leon-and-the-jewish-question-a-reappraisal/

[object-lesson]

i get why america is so bizarrely pro israel (weird southern baptist/evangelical prophecies about the return of jesus/ensuing apocalypse etc) but what's the deal back here in blighty?

There's a similar tradition of Christian Zionism here too, along with several other factors to do with our colonial history in the region and a long tradition of social democratic sympathy for the Israeli project, but I think it's mostly the perceived joint geopolitical interests Britain shares with the US in the region, especially since 1967.

For an insight into the historical background, this article from 1920 by Winston Churchill is absolutely fascinating. Zionism as a cure for the International Conspiracy of Bad Jews like Emma Goldman, Leon Trotsky and Rosa Luxemburg, Palestine a place for Good Jews to get together in one location:

Winnie:

But if, as may well happen, there should be created in our own lifetime by the banks of the Jordan a Jewish State under the protection of the British Crown, which might comprise three or four millions of Jews, an event would have occurred in the history of the world which would, from every point of view, be beneficial, and would be especially in harmony with the truest interests of the British Empire.

Full article:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Zionism_versus_Bolshevism

[José]

Winnie

the cunt

[kittens]

lads

i'm pissed
but this guy object-lesson
very newly signed up to this website, confidently diving in
i don't want to come off paranoid or conspiratually minded
but he's following a tactic i have observed from a number of recent sign ups whereby they build up some credentials and then start spreading bullshit

now. i haven't read it, but he just made a post linking to some website that had in its URL something about 'the Jewish question'. this is an anti-Semitic trope, innit. tbh i haven't read anything in that post but I'm just like, watch out, like. don't get taken in.
. this year we've had a fuckin bunch of people sign up, post plausible stuff in other threads, then start posting political stuff.
dunno like. just watch out is what I'm saying.
as i say, very drunk.
signed,
concerned kitizen

[Pdine]

Precisely this.

But why bother considering the context, why consider the actual meaning of what she was saying, when it's so much easier to snip out part of a phrase, shear it of any meaning other than the one you wish to give it?  That's what so weird about this - why would anyone hack someone's private correspondence, sift through it and pounce upon four or five words, scrub out all of the others that might indicate a completely innocent intent and push it as a word-crime as hard as can be done?  Why would a group of people do that?

If you want to delve back into the dark days of 2016 you can find me arguing with some cunt that Walker should not be demonised. Still though, it's fairly obvious why she was targeted, given her freely expressed views, and (I'd say) it's not really hacking for someone to deviously screenshot a private conversation. Walker deserves defence, but not uncritical defence.

We need to learn from how vulnerable the Labour Left was to this kind of criticism in 2016; vulnerable because we were an echo chamber full of people who had had the luxury of being politically irrelevant for over two decades. We were not prepared to have our assumptions and rhetoric examined so thoroughly so immediately. Walker's statements there were defensible at a stretch,  but three years later I think we have to acknowledge that we can't afford that kind of loose reference to debunked racist tropes even if they're deployed privately as part of an argument that has some justice. More generally we have a responsibility to all the causes we care about - particularly the Middle East with its tinderbox characteristics - to be disciplined and accurate in the words we say and the examples we choose. 

edit to add: that old thread I linked is worth a quick re-view. The issues that bubbled up one after another that summer were all defensible but also all could have been easily avoided with some care by Corbyn and others.

[Buelligan]

But this isn't about carefully avoiding being "caught".  Most, the vast majority of Labour members have not one antisemitic bone in their bodies.  I've seen nothing at all, ever, that would even indicate that antisemitism is more prevalent amongst Labour members than it is in the general population - if I had to guess, I'd say it was far less present. 

No, this is not about doing an antisemitism, accidental or not.  This is about ending Corbyn's leadership by any means necessary, it's about crushing BDS and making sure that everyone in Britain and the rest of the world receives the message that you cannot criticise Israel if you want to keep your job.

The vast majority of Labour members, have nothing to worry about being "caught" doing, except if they're targeted, in which case there's nothing they can do to avoid being pilloried EXCEPT TO NEVER SPEAK, PUBLICLY OR PRIVATELY, ABOUT ISRAEL, PALESTINE OR JEWISH PEOPLE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, even if they're Jewish themselves.

No apology is ever going to suffice because apologies are not the aim here.

[BlodwynPig]

Well said, the cowing of the left

[a duncandisorderly]

The vast majority of Labour members, have nothing to worry about being "caught" doing, except if they're targeted, in which case there's nothing they can do to avoid being pilloried EXCEPT TO NEVER SPEAK, PUBLICLY OR PRIVATELY, ABOUT ISRAEL, PALESTINE OR JEWISH PEOPLE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, even if they're Jewish themselves.

yes, this appears to be what's happening, though it's difficult to make out from the MSM. meanwhile, our new PM.... ffs. thatcher was a bad bastard, but this guy... whole new game.

[ZoyzaSorris]

lads

i'm pissed
but this guy object-lesson
very newly signed up to this website, confidently diving in
i don't want to come off paranoid or conspiratually minded
but he's following a tactic i have observed from a number of recent sign ups whereby they build up some credentials and then start spreading bullshit

now. i haven't read it, but he just made a post linking to some website that had in its URL something about 'the Jewish question'. this is an anti-Semitic trope, innit. tbh i haven't read anything in that post but I'm just like, watch out, like. don't get taken in.
. this year we've had a fuckin bunch of people sign up, post plausible stuff in other threads, then start posting political stuff.
dunno like. just watch out is what I'm saying.
as i say, very drunk.
signed,
concerned kitizen

This is certainly a genuine tactic, and one being employed at present by Slaphead McSexpest as an example, but I'm not sure object lesson is def one of these. The Jewish question just refers to an essay by Karl Marx (also Jewish) that is discussed in the article.