France’s New Burqa-Friendly Government

Jews don't riot because they don't have the numbers or the bravado to riot. They clamor instead. They intone. They badger. They scold. They vilify. They flip out. They bribe. It's like rioting but in a much more frail fashion.

Again, this moron holds forth, offering up nothing but wind, and an ill smelling one at that.

I would actually prefer if when discussing these types of things, people would not drag it into the "Jews" part of the Venn diagram from the Zionism, or the Israel, or the Hasbara part of the diagram. It can't be helped, sometimes. The Zionists know that they benefit by turning the conversation from one about Nations or Parties or Interest Groups, or Pressure Groups into a discussion about Jews. They know that there is an established set of guidelines when talking about Jews, where Jews allegedly have the upper hand and control who may say Jew, what they may mean by the word Jew, and when to say something is either Jewish or anti-Jewish. It is a time-built tradition of argument that it is my goal to destroy along with the War on Terror. It is an obstacle to peace and freedom, it has ruined our civilization, and should be swept away fearlessly. It is, however still useful to people with certain vested interests, so it gets ugly.

Still, even the most novice person doing Jewish Apologetics knows that the goal is to make it not about Jews if a Jew is doing something bad, and to make it about Jews if a non-Jew is simply criticizing behavior. They substitute odium inimicitiae for odium abominationis wherever possible. One of the most basic components of Hasbara is brokering when "it" is a Jew and when "it" is not a Jew, "it" referring to case. An even simpler component to the game theory of Jewish Apologetics is to apply the truth table to whether one is a "friend" or an "enemy" to Jews. Once friend-enemy has been established, then Jew/notJew is applied. Another fun game is the assignment or revocation of validity such as "source is accredited/discredited." Frontpage is largely a game of Jewish sources claiming a network of Jewish sources are "accredited" and certain opponents are "discredited." Where possible, they avoid blatant self-promotion (sometimes). The goal is always marketing and promotion of Zionists and boycott, blacklisting, and destruction of anti-Zionists. David Horowitz invited me into this big NP complexity parlor game by attacking several prominent professors, writers and rap musicians. That's why I do it. It is a hobby, and it is part of my career. Look at Frontpagemag now trying to pull in a rap PR promoter who is also a Hasbara agency (Ron Torossian). This is the sound of Hasbara Zionism trying to stay relevant past its appropriate century.

In the realm of cybernetics: I like that Frontpage and the DHFC are bound to a non-Markovian process of publication and that they can always be refuted or halted by a Markovian process. Their system is memory-based, and any simple memoryless process can defeat any individual writer or day's worth of bitter publication using only the current available state of their Hasbara machine.

I am willing, and also readily able to acknowledge that the governments of Palestine, France, Turkey, and literally almost every government is grossly substandard. I even spent four years getting a college degree in that field to prove it to myself. I am American, 98% French Ancestry, not Jewish or theistic, not Democrat or Republican. I do not have inherent racial or religious biases against Jews. I have taken turns interacting with, and where necessary, verbally abusing members of every major religion and various media outlets, mainly for stamping on peoples' rights, pushing for wars or meddling in the promotion of art, music and literature. I feel even more tempted to be involved when these groups push into police powers, gang organization, issuing manifestos and exhorting assassinations and mass killings which they try to deny later.

Regale me with what there is to envy.

OK, so nothing, then. I thought you were saying I envy Jews, and there was a big list of enviable traits that I pore over.

Wow. Are you implying that Jews have no admirable attributes? No achievements to be proud of? No positive contributions made to the world?

"If she can find one innate value of Jews that is not common to other people"

Interestingly, in an earlier post you listed a number of NEGATIVE qualities you identified as being associated with Jews. Here's the link to the page containing that post, followed by an excerpt of what you wrote:
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/04/09/gnter-grass-go…

"I think Shapiro tries to live up to the characteristics that people find odious about Jews … (e.g. smarmy, litigious, niggling, ultraconservative, obsequious, patronizing)"

You clearly didn't have a problem naming what you consider to be Jewish failings, but you seem at a loss to associate any positive attributes with the same group. If Jews are indeed a group, after all, surely they must have some identifiable traits that are "not common to other people", and it seems unlikely that every single trait would be bad. Some might even be enviable.

What if the "odious" traits you listed shouldn't be paired with Jews after all? It would be more convincing to argue that Jews have no unique strengths if you conceded that Jews have no unique weaknesses.

Perhaps negative stereotyping comes more naturally than group exaltation.

It seems to be a huge challenge for you to accept that when Jews "claim a 2000 year history of oppression", they are indeed "remembering their history", or at least the most salient and hauntingly memorable features of it. Instead, you dismiss this claim as "tomfoolery" or "baggage" that should be "shed". You seem to think that any mention of the historical mistreatment of Jews is nothing more than the opportunistic playing of the victim card. I couldn't disagree more.

It's not as though anyone is claiming that every year of that history was as terrible as a year of the Inquisition or the Third Reich. But it would be hard to find a century in that time period when Jews weren't falsely accused of authoring some calamity like plagues or poisoned wells, held to account for killing Christ, confined to a ghetto, barred from certain professions, denied various rights and privileges, had their property seized, forced out in an expulsion somewhere, massacred in a pogrom, and generally maligned, slandered, libeled, ostracized, picked on and scapegoated. I only wish it was nothing more than tomfoolery to claim such things. The historical record indicates otherwise. Railing against it or denying it won't change it.

Blacks in America have also had a long sad history. It's true that when blacks and Jews and gays and any other minority aren't being victimized in any way, they shouldn't play the victim. But when it's relevant to bring up that history, people must not shy away from it in fear of being ACCUSED of playing the victim. It's really a matter of discretion. Sometimes it's perfectly appropriate to remind people of historical events, whereas sometimes it smacks of opportunism.

It goes without saying that a black man who refers to the history of slavery isn't referring to his own personal history; the same applies to a Jew who for whatever reason refers to the Holocaust or the like. Don't confuse a purposeful allusion to one's heritage with an implied claim that one has actually been a part of that heritage. For instance, when Jews mention the Holocaust in the context of a debate over whether to strike Iran, those particular Jews don't need to have survived the camps in order to have sufficient authority to speak up. It's enough that they understand what fate could befall Israel, based on the impact their heritage has had on them, and how attuned they are as a result to the conditions favoring another attempted annihilation. In other words, a knowledge of history sharpens one's threat-detecting radar. Earlier you called this "overactive worry", but that's a lot more beneficial than stuporous indifference.

You can't forbid Jews or blacks or anyone else from referring to their people's history to make points they feel they must make, just because they weren't personally around to have suffered through the history they're discussing. We're all told from an early age to learn from history so as not to repeat it. That's the main reason, not personal opportunism, why you keep hearing the same troubled histories come up in debate.

"the recipient of such statements has the option of not identifying with ancient history"

This is where you err. Jews DON'T have the option of not identifying as Jews, and with all the baggage that entails. The Nazis proved that better than anyone. Our enemies periodically force us into a painfully identifiable collective, whether we like it or not. You do the same whenever you make a sweeping generalization like "Jews hate Muslims" or "Jews try the patience of nations" or "Jews overstay their welcome" and the like. Jews get lumped together. It's not a unique fate. It's shared by every minority, or even by every race, religion and nationality.

"Jews are some really rich really powerful Western white people"

That may be true for some Wall Street bankers or the ones at the top of the Hollywood food chain and a relative handful of others, but it's simply not true of most Jews. And if it was, it's surprising you don't find Jews "enviable".

"when they harp on being oppressed as a bulwark against criticism"

It's not so much "being" oppressed at it is "HAVING BEEN" oppressed for eons, or more accurately, being descended from Jews who were both recently and distantly oppressed. The history of oppression doesn't lose relevance just because there are successful Jews in the world. It's the CYCLE of oppression that matters. Jewish power in Weimar Germany didn't insulate them from being oppressed along with their poorer cousins across Europe. Similarly, a handful of powerful Jews today could very well join the oppressed masses tomorrow if the ancient pendulum of antisemitic persecution (alternating with periods of prosperity) swings again on cue once again.

I don't know the future, so I look to the past as a guide. You dismiss the past and look to the present for guidance. That's folly. The present tells us very little. It yields no pattern for study. But the past speaks volumes.

Devoting most of your post to a critique of my choice of the word "eons" was a silly digression. It should have been clear that I chose the word for dramatic effect, not because I truly believe Jews have been around since the Cretaceous Period. 2000 years of scapegoating is long enough and doesn't have any counterpart in history, as far as I'm aware.

Jews as commie oppressors? Soviet communists oppressed Jews and for many years made it very hard for Jews to leave the country.

As for the countries on your list, Jews expelled by Romans weren't exactly in a position to waltz into distant lands like China, India, Indonesia, Iceland, or the far reaches of Africa and Scandinavia. Naturally they didn't roam that far initially, and just as naturally, they settled where they had more in common with the inhabitants (with respect to language, custom, race, etc). They didn't "scrupulously avoid" places like India and China; such places are obviously much more exotic and alien to someone of Semitic, Middle Eastern descent. As for "judenrein", isn't that what most of Europe is today, rather than the West Bank?

You always couch things so negatively so as to portray Jews in a harsh light, while concurrently managing to make points that don't bear scrutiny. Impoverished people desperately fleeing the Roman sword didn't "scrupulously avoid" exotic lands thousands of miles away. They didn't have any such luxury.

The Romans reached their maximum point of geographical expansion not long after they massacred the Jews (in such great numbers that it should truly be dubbed Holocaust 1) and expelling the remnant. Rather than deteriorating, the Roman Empire hit its peak right around the time of the expulsion.

One can't say that Rome fell to the Christians because the Roman Empire became officially Christian after Constantine.

Try convincing Catholics and Protestants (especially in Ireland) that "Roman Catholicism became Protestantism".

Not sure if you're conceding the other points, but…

You're combining two unrelated things and suggesting that there's meaning in the combination.

Who would you expect Jews today to be familiar with, prominent Jews notorious for making outrageous comments or obscure historical figures?

The only Jews you champion are the ones who have enraged their fellow Jews in some way. They represent a tiny percentage of Jewry. That suggests you disdain all the rest. No wonder you're always being accused of bigotry. It's a perfectly logical accusation.

Nobody's obscure if you've studied them. My point was that more Jews would have heard of a prominent, contemporary Jew with controversial opinions like Norman Finkelstein than Agrippa. It's relative: compared to Moses, Agrippa was indeed obscure. To a historian, nobody's obscure. But most people aren't historians or even students of history. So I stand by what I wrote.

"Israelism is like a big trip backwards into the Middle Ages" — Only if you insist on taking such a callous, condescending, condemnatory view, and only if you cherry-pick the facts, such as highlighting the EDL as Israel's ally, while conspicuously omitting other allies like Harper's Conservative Party in Canada, to name just one. (By the way, I doubt FPM was endorsing the EDL; it was interested in showcasing the intolerant Muslims in the street). You seek to portray Israel as medieval (while denying any Fordian prejudice, of course), so you're careful to include only notorious entities like Breivik and "Skinheads" on your list. That's one very, very selective list you've got there.

A less mean-spirited view is that Israel's Jews must be thankful they have a place of refuge after terrible events like the Holocaust, the awful years of 1945-1948 (a period seldom discussed in Jewish history), and the expulsion of a million Jews from Arab lands. But a Fordian would always refuse to look at things from any perspective that dares to suggest that today's Jews are anything less than medieval barbarians. Maybe they're just relieved to finally have a state of their own and they're clinging to it for dear life, Fordian hecklers be damned.

And yes, I don't recall you championing any Jews besides Gilad Atzmon and other hated figures in the Jewish community. You've praised him numerous times. One would logically conclude that you endorse his severely anti-Jewish views. But perhaps you support Atzmon the same way you support Ford: only until you're shamed into denying it.

I'm not surprised you would disparage the very notion of not looking at something related to Jews with a "less mean-spirited view". If you can't put that filter on your lens, what's the point, right?

"Israel is a colony of the American Jewish Diaspora"

Yeah, right. I forgot that Herzl, Ben-Gurion, Dayan, and everyone else that paved the way for Israel's creation in the early-to-mid 20th century (including the Jews who were massacred by Arabs in pogroms, or expelled from Arab lands) was an American Jew. How silly of me to forget that Israel was created by Americans and for Americans. How could all those history books I read have omitted such a salient fact?

Israel is the same idea it always was. Its Arab and Muslim enemies hate it now no more than they hated it in 1948. The difference is that the Arabs have succeeded in recruiting many more rabid haters across the globe. The sneering Goliath is the massive aggregate Israel faces: the UN, the EU, Russia, China, Iran, Arab nations, Muslim nations, and so on.