Chavez: man of the masses, protector of the weak, racist

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan


Yes, because heaven knows that "money hoarding Christ killers" has never historically been used to refer to Jews.

That phrase was used in a speech-what people missed, or wantonly ignored, was the CONTEXT of that phrase within the speech it was given.

Those that ignore context willingly are those who want to be offended.

[notyoueither]

It is hard to imagine appropriate context to use ******.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Edan


Yes, because heaven knows that "money hoarding Christ killers" has never historically been used to refer to Jews.

That is irrelevant. From the context it is clear that Chavez was referring to a class of people identified by their wealth and proclivity for betraying social reformers and champions of the poor.

The actions of primarily North American Jews and their ideological kin are in trivializing real anti semitic acts. Every time someone makes a frivolous claim of anti semitism in response to, say, a criticism of Israeli state policy that on the face of it has nothing to do with race, they make it that much easier for real anti semites to escape censure because of their crying wolf.

Hence, when my old university had a problem with a real Nazi wanting to enrol as a PhD student (and conduct interviews with Holocaust survivors to boot!), it was very hard for people like myself, my close friends and colleagues to motivate resistance to this obnoxious person – even though this person was publicly on record denying the holocaust, was a former high ranking member of a German neonazi political party, and was being sought by German authorities for, among other crimes, having performed bizarre medical experiments on human beings.

Since the small New Zealand Jews tend to be well assimilated and our culture is pretty much live and let live, we don't really get much in the way of domestic anti semitism, and the only stuff we hear about tends to come from overseas - primarily from North America, where ridiculous accusations seem to be the norm.

There was a case about ten years ago where an American Jewish academic came to New Zealand for a couple of years and left protesting our evil and anti semitic ways, especially in universities. So the media asked our New Zealand Jewish academics (one of whom was a former teacher of mine in Classics and Mediaeval Studies, and who is one of the most brilliant people I have ever met) what they thought. They all said he was insane and was notorious for never having had an unspoken thought. Unfortunately, people like him tend to dominate the headlines when it comes to accusations of anti semitism.

And it's not as if anti semitism is a major world problem right now. If people are actively trying to keep the Jews down, they are failing spectactularly. In most places anti semitism is on about the same level as prejudice against the Irish - it hardly exists any more. Most of the anti semitic acts I can recall are the work of adolescent graffiti artists who were just looking to do the most offensive thing they could think of (and it's hard to think of something more offensive than Nazi slogans). It's certainly small beer when you compare it with the crap that the Australian Aboriginals have to put up with.

What's even funnier is that North American Jews whine the loudest, when they have the least to complain about. If they are an oppressed class in the US and Canada, then sign me up for oppression. I could use the overachievement, wealth and cultural predominance.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap
Communism and Jesus's thinking fit into each other FAR more than capitalism and Christianity.

Greed after all is a mortal sin.

Monks were essentially communists. (thought not Marxists, aqnd one would hope some people around here would be smart enough to know the difference)

I'm neither Christian nor Communist, so it's no skin off my ass either way. Both need a lot of work imo.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Sikander


I'm neither Christian nor Communist, so it's no skin off my ass either way. Both need a lot of work imo.

In Damian Thompson's excellent book 'The End Of Time' about millenarian and chiliastic movements and creeds through history, he points out that varieties of Fascism and Nazism and Communism can be seen as being at heart secular variants of Judaeo-Christian millenarianism- something made more plain by the Christian Socialist parties in Europe.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom



In Damian Thompson's excellent book 'The End Of Time' about millenarian and chiliastic movements and creeds through history, he points out that varieties of Fascism and Nazism and Communism can be seen as being at heart secular variants of Judaeo-Christian millenarianism- something made more plain by the Christian Socialist parties in Europe.

well yes, and democratic socialism as well.

Jewish Socialist Movements, 1871-1917 : While Messiah Tarrried

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0197100295/qid=1137689109/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/002-9159288-0208863?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

from another source

"Irving Howe saw messianism as "the most urgent force in Jewish tradition, the force that could send a quiescent people into moments of transport and even collective frenzy (World of Our Fathers, p.223)." He saw socialism and Zionism as secular expressions of this force. The essence of Judaism, in his view, is the hope for a Messiah, which these movements have transformed into a commitment to radical political change."


Unfortunately its been years since i read World of our Fathers, but when i can i will look for the Howe quote.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
It is hard to imagine appropriate context to use ******.

Did Chavez use ******? NO.

OK, another utterly inane and irrelevant comment from NYE.....

[notyoueither]

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


well yes, and democratic socialism as well.

I'm amazed- you've replied in a thread, quoting me, and didn't take the opportunity to:

a) misquote me or misconstrue me

b) fabricate something which I don't hold to be true

c) question my credibility and ask for an immediate quote with (preferably) a list of twelve supporting authors, three of whom must be American liberals or Presbyterian New Englanders from the 17th Century

d) dive into the deep end and go all Beirut ballistic on me


Are we out of love now ?

Is this just a dull patch we're going through ?



Old L.O.T.M. of yore, I'm missing you, more and more.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom



I'm amazed- you've replied in a thread, quoting me, and didn't take the opportunity to:

a) misquote me or misconstrue me

b) fabricate something which I don't hold to be true

c) question my credibility and ask for an immediate quote with (preferably) a list of twelve supporting authors, three of whom must be American liberals or Presbyterian New Englanders from the 17th Century

d) dive into the deep end and go all Beirut ballistic on me


Are we out of love now ?

Is this just a dull patch we're going through ?

How does one respond to this? I could say nothing, and implicitly accept the charges of misquoting, fabricating, etc. Or I could challenge them and pointlessly restart an old flamewar.

I will simply say that I am, as always, trying to provide additional facts and context.

BTW, despite the complex relations of the Presbyterians and Puritans in England, the Puritans in New England never called themselves, or were called (AFAIK) Presbyterians. They belonged to Congregationalist Churches. Presbyterians in New England were generally the descendants of Ulster immigrants, who initially faced hostility in Boston. The largest concentration was in New Hampshire, where the name of the town of Londonderry, NH, preserves their memory.

When New Englanders moved outside New England, for example to New York, they often DID join Presbyterian churches, as the closest to their original faith. See Kevin Phillips, "The Cousins' Wars"