Judaism- whether its considered an identity or just a set of religious values varies from person to person. There’s no one-size fits all label so why keep trying to fit these types of things into one? It just looks like it creates more confusion instead of clearing it.
It has to do that it is not true. Semite is not an ethnicity. Very few people in the world go around calling themselves “Semites”. And even then in a scientific-linguistic context, but not for the purposes of real life and real group identities.
Arabs (they’re technically Semites you know) are an example of that.
What is the Jewish ethnicity?
Do we really have to go over this again and again? It should be pretty straight forward: Jews.
Without trying to slight libertarianism, there’s plenty of antisemitism on this board alone, just look at the cranky holocaust denial stuff.
“Holocaust denial” =/= anti-Semitism.
Judaism is the oldest tribal religion.
Oldest? No, but it’s one of the few major religions that still has it’s tribal qualities, that it’s a folk religion. Most folk religions (like Asatru/Heathenry) get accused of racism because of the ‘folkish’ beliefs, that’s it’s for a specifical cultural and ethnic group. You hardly see anyone call out Judaism for it’s folk beliefs (I don’t care otherwise since I’m part of a folk religion).
“Holocaust denial” =/= anti-Semitism.
Not necessarily, but a pretty good rule of thumb to go on is that if somebody is outright denying the holocaust they’re a right wing crank with some grand narative of the Jews controlling history.
How is someone denying the Holocaust? That 6 million people weren’t killed by zyklon-b gas chambers because the supposed chambers cannot do such things nor can the mass gravesites be found? When you look at the finer details, you realize it’s bullshit.
“Most of those people (prob. all of them) were not Jews but atheists. Jewish is a religion. For one thing, I don’t see how you can be an observant Jew and a marxist and/or socialist anarchist at the same time.”
I think you dodged the fact that all of the ‘atheists’ socialists, who can still be cultural Jews, are not anti-semitic. I’m still waiting for any contemporary list of anti-semitic people. Like in academia or journalism, which is where most of the left is.
Maybe not Marxist, because Marx was against all religion, since it is an opiate of the masses. (I don’t think it is unfair to criticize religion or its effects – even if not in the exact same way as Marx – since I consider anything worth debating). But I don’t see why not a socialist anarchist. There are probably people of all religions in socialist anarchism at some point. It’s not unusual for Christians or Jews to search the Bible for inspiration towards some form of anarchism, usually a type of communalistic one. For more:
You cannot be anti zionist without being anti the state of Israel sine zionism is about forming and keeping a state of Israel.
Of course the anti semites have tried to relabel zionism as the idea of an ever expanding state of israel which is quite false.
Also there are very few socialist members of the Knesset.
The left has become anti semitic because they see Islam as being anti western and Islam is opnely anti -semitic.
“The left has become anti semitic because they see Islam as being anti western and Islam is opnely anti -semitic.”
Your post was mostly a non-sequitur, but especially this one. This literally makes no sense.
The left is now Islamic, too, in addition to being anti-semitic?
I guess this is what happens when people’s imagination runs away with them.
Zionism is not only the state or of having it called ‘Israel’, though I don’t see anything wrong with being against the state. It is the agenda of having a pure ethnocracy within a certain territory. And specifically state intervention towards this end: military if necessary. It is, of course, possible to concieve an Israel that gives equal status to Christians and Muslims and atheists. Just as I think it is not unreasonable to do in any other country on Earth. But Zionism is the state of Israel plus a goal of the pure ethnocracy. If you read the Jewish press, there is always ‘fear’ of Jews not caring enough about religion. Or there being a degeneration in values. And the need for Rabbis and politicians to work together to propagandize.
Many people were zionists in the early twentieth century when it meant Arab-Jewish cooperation. But that definition is no longer in vogue. It really has no definition, other than what the majority of the Israeli leadership gives it at a certain time. Just like any nation’s foreign and domestic policy changes over time. Any reference to it, I suspect has to do with current policy. Which is toward building new settlements.
“This is an odd question, because I’ve never heard such a thing. Generally it’s the socialists and collectivists who are defending all sorts of “minorities” and Jews because of the so called Holocaust. Don’t forget that Marx was ethnically a Jew.”
Er… how did this one slip past? Did you just call it a “so called” holocaust Bert?
Also, who is this Laelle Gfaerwynd person? Is it someone you know Bert? I find it odd that the first post this person makes is in support of a nasty little comment such as the one you just made.
Oh my! Well greetings and hello there Good Sir Consumariat. Many thanks should be in order for your acknowledgment of “this Laelle Gfaerwynd person” by name on “this Laelle Gfaerwynd person’s” very first post with this forum. Although, may it be known that “this Laelle Gfaerwynd person” did not know that your permission, Good Sir Consumariat, was required in order to make said first post and/or to whom. Given this faux pas, please accept “this Laelle Gfaerwynd person’s” sincerest apologies, Good Sir Consumariat.
Now, Good Sir Consumariat, since you specifically addressed Bert with the intriguing questions that you posed, you may prefer that Bert answers said questions, but, as “this Laelle Gfaerwynd person” is already in the forum right now, well, if you don’t mind, Good Sir Consumariat, “this Laelle Gfaerwynd person” can quite easily and most honestly answer your questions:
-
“This Laelle Gfaerwynd person” frequents the Mises website very often, and, Good Sir Consumariat, you would be correct that this is “this Laelle Gfaerwynd person’s” first post within a Mises forum discussion. In all other matters, “this Laelle Gfaerwynd person” shall plea the 5th.
-
“This Laelle Gfaerwynd person” does not personally know Bert. “This Laelle Gfaerwynd person” has no idea who Bert is – not in any capacity whatsoever – other than reading the comments posted by Bert in this forum.
Furthermore, “this Laelle Gfaerwynd person” was not supporting any “nasty little comment” that Bert made or that was made by any other individual respondent in the forum. In all actuality, “this Laelle Gfaerwynd person’s” response of “agreement” was to Bert’s first statement:
“This is an odd question, because I’ve never heard such a thing.”
Truth be known, “this Laelle Gfaerwynd person” had nearly the same initial response (to the proposed discussion forum question) as it just seeming somewhat “odd” simply because of “this Laelle Gfaerwynd person’s” preconceived notion that socialists and collectivists would be the last people on earth to be categorized as “so anti-Semitic.” It was just an “odd” thing to consider is all. Sorry for any inconvenience or confusion that “this Laelle Gfaerwynd person’s” post may have caused you.
Hereafter, 'this Laelle Gfaerwynd person" shall be known simply as “Laelle Gfaerwynd.”
Thank you for your time Good Sir Consumariat. Laelle Gfaerwynd bids you a fond Adieu.
Er… how did this one slip past? Did you just call it a “so called” holocaust Bert?
Also, who is this Laelle Gfaerwynd person? Is it someone you know Bert? I find it odd that the first post this person makes is in support of a nasty little comment such as the one you just made.
I do not know Laelle, but if I took a wild guess I would say it was some of the other users who also have had similar stances on the Holocaust, but that user says it’s their first post on this forum.
Yes, I said “so called” Holocaust. Nor is that a nasty comment. It’s the most truthful comment I can give. I (and others) have extensively discussed the Holocaust and WWII on other threads and it would be tiring to discuss it again (like many things on this forum that reappear and reappear and reappear constantly - how many times can someone ask what the libertarian position on abortion, atheism/religion, nuclear power/weapons, intellectual property, and ownership of roads be? Can’t someone just use the search function?). It would make it a lot easier on me and yourself to search those previous threads before commenting further.
Hans Hoppe explains in his video about religion that Judaism is internally communist and externally commercial. That is why they have long been hated in Europe and colonies by communist types.
-
The left is openly pro Islam. In the UK ,in the US ,in Europe. That is clear.
-
ZIonism refers to the establishment of a state of israel. It does not refer to an ethnically pure state indeed Herzl specifically said that it would be no such thing. Zionism is also not ‘what is raleis do’ nor ‘what the left say it is’.
-
what is this 'jewish press" ? Religious Judaism is certainly not synonymous with zionism.Indeed many religious jews are anti zionist.
-
Since you claim that Zionism is what the Israeli leadership define it as then please give me a definition that an israeli leader has previously given of what constitutes zionism>
There can be various reasons for this tendency of the leftists, I can track down at least one reason, namely their hatred against capitalism and the western world.
Leftists (here in Europe) tend to disapprove of the western civilization, since it equals capitalism. I think that this is the clue to theis anti-Israel agenda; considering the leftists reasoning (western civilization=capitalism) they must undermine our culture, hence they become some kind of multiculturalists, i.e. they say that every culture is equally worth. Thus, to negate the obvious values of west and in the long run Israel, they start to oppose Israel. In reality, of course, Israel is a much better nation than any of their arab neighbors, since it embraces a more “western culture”, namely individual rights and capitalism.
Who claims this?
Go to the Stormfront website and you’ll find plenty of people that claim the Jews control the Fed and blame them for the financial crisis (along with the parasitism of Blacks and Hispanics). They also blame Jews for what they call “Marxism.”
This is absolutely correct. In Malmo (southern Sweden) jews have been forced out of teh city by Muslims and the leftist mayor supports them)
http://www.libertiesalliance.org/2010/02/14/islamic-anti-semitism-in-malmo-causes-jewish-exodus/
“Jewish” is basically a synonym for capitalist.
Anti-semitism was always about a) Envy. I.e. Jews are successful people because they are good capitalists, and more collectivist, less successful people saw them rising faster than them and became angry. Same with the Chinese in Malaysia, Huguenots in France, etc. b) The belief that Jews cause greed in the world. And as we know leftists think that all the worlds problems are caused by “greed”.
Marx was a self-hating Jew, his early writings were angry rants against the Jews. Only later he changed “Jew” to the more general “bourgeoisie”. Marxism is in it’s entirety based on anti-semitic thought. (The notion that all our troubles are caused by a leeching oppressor-class, that we have exterminate to liberate the masses.) Another reason why it’s laughable to place Naziism on the other extreme of the political spectrum.
Anti-semitism was always about a) Envy.
Anti-Semitism and National Socialism have more to do with cultural preservation than envy. They see the Jews as parasites that can’t live on their own, but must find a host culture to live off of. I don’t know why anyone would be envious of Jews.
From Lords of the Left-Hand Path by Stephen Flowers. Chapter 6: Lucifer Unbound - The Devil and Karl Marx.
Marx claimed that his theories were purely “scientific” or rationally based, that he merely had the clearest view of historical change and its causes. But as it turns out his work had an effect less like a prophesy and more like a sorcerous incantation. Essentially Marx’ view of history appears uncannily like that of Judeo-Christian tradition – only its causal agent has been revaluated from “God’s Plan” to “historical dialectic.” In the former there is an initial Edenic period, broken by man’s transgression against God’s law. This is followed by a long period of tribulation ended first by the incarnation of the Messiah who brings the program for salvation – the Evangelium – which is to be enacted by his earthly followers (the Church). Once this program has been spread world-wide, evil will be vanquished and a new paradise will be established on earth. The Christian version of this is, of course, highly spiritualized, while the Judaic remains largely materialistic. The Marxist view similarly posits an early period of primitive communism, broken by the institution of private property (= Original Sin) and slave labor. This is followed by successive economic stages of feudalism and capitalism. The beginning of the end of the capitalistic phase is heralded by the Marxist theory as a program for “redemption” – historical dialectic – which is to be enacted by socialist revolutionaries (the International). Once revolution is spread world-wide, capitalism will be vanquished and the classless, perfected Communist society will be established on earth. Such parallels between Marxist and Christian and/or Judaic views of history have also been posited by several scholars in the past.
Although Marxist theory may be increasingly discredited as political systems based upon it fail and prove to be programs for ever more inefficient and intolerant systems than those the theory was designed to overthrow, elements of Marxist thinking have definitely permeated into popular political culture in the form of such things as notions of “political correctness.” The concept of “political correctness” (even the connotations of the phrase) stems from Marxist orthodoxy and is based on the premise that there is an ongoing struggle by a variety of suppressed groups who are at present viewed as being relatively powerless, e.g. women, African Americans, Hispanics, the physically challenged. It is their collective aim (each group individually) to wrest socioeconomic power from those who have it at present. This is Marx’ “class struggle.” Furthermore, those groups are assured by Marxist theory of fighting the good fight, the moral fight, because the historical dialectic (or the Marxist “God”) is on their side. Their morality and their future victory is assured by the very fact that they are currently powerless. This is why, for example, blacks cannot be considered “racists,” or women “sexists,” at least according to this theory based in the Marxist historical dialectic.
Well those are Nazis. But OP was talking about Communists?