Friday, September 30, 2011
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Yes Mearsheimer is a anti-semite. #tcot #jcot #antisemitism
RRD:Since Mearsheimer whines that the term is "undefined" I'll gladly define it for him. *Discrimination and bias against Jews for being Jews. Clear,now? Imagine a African-American who described himself as a self-hating African-American,and defended characterizing African Americans as lazy-water-melon-eating-rapists-of-white-women,on the grounds that,that told us something about a element of the Black Character?Imagine he circulated a paper by someone claiming that slavery was a myth?Imagine he compared the boycott of racist storeowner's goods by African Americans,to the boycott of the goods of African Americans by racist whites?What if he argued that today's African-Americans are worse(in any way)than the slaveholders who raped their slaves?Imagine he ascribed the murder and oppression of African-Americans(at least in part)to their "differences",or said that "they were trying to control the country";by fighting for their Civil Rights?Imagine the type of mind that would argue that the fact that African-Americans regard themselves as a race is responsible for racism?Imagine the type of mind that would argue that one cannot be racist
against African-Americans because they are not a race!
Exactly how many seconds would it take to drive that person from a university?How many distinguished historians would defend him--by saying that he can't be a racist,since he also says non-racist things?
How likely is it that Foreign Policy Magazine would permit a semi-defense of this writer,by said historian?
The question answers itself.
Should people argue with such a person?Should they treat this garbage as sincere intellectual discourse warranting a sincere reply? To argue with such scum is to dignify them.Or as Fishburne said in the movie Deep Cover when asked "What's the difference between a black man and a nigger?" "The Nigger is the one who would even answer that question"(fn1)
They should,however,ask a rhetorical question of Mearsheimer:What exactly is your definition of racism?Because if the same standard used by Mearsheimer is applied toward African-Americans,then Mearsheimer should find the above statements acceptable. The truth of the matter is that anti-semitism has never gone away.It's practitioners have simply become more sophisticated. This is not to say that all of Israel's most outrageous critics are anti-semites.There are critics whose hostility to Israel is just as delusional as the anti-semites--but whose hypocritical animus is motivated by other factors:anti-Americanism,hatred of all governments,sympathy with the "underdog"(whoever that may be at any particular moment.),etc.
But just as the fact that the term racism is occasionally misused does not require us(or morally permit us),to pretend that racism does not exist,so too the fact that the term anti-semitism is sometimes misused,does not permit us to pretend that
the term "anti-semitism" has no meaning,or that it means whatever Mearsheimer wishes it to mean.Nor is it necessary to indulge the whims of the oppressor and the bigot and the hate monger;or to concern ourselves with their feelings.(And YES I AM talking about Mearsheimer).And no,the whining of anti-semites to the contrary,it is not "censorship" to condemn evil;it is only censorship to prohibit the expression of evil ideas by force. John Mearsheimer's Disturbing Connection to a Notorious Anti-Semite | History News Network
http://hnn.us/articles/9-26-11/john-mearsheimers-disturbing-connection-to-a-n...
Why Jeff Goldberg is Wrong about Mearsheimer--Again | Stephen M. Walt
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/09/25/mearsheimer_responds_to_goldbe...
Oliver Kamm: Atzmon watch http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2005/03/atzmon_watch.html fn1
http://books.google.com/books?id=kRqhY8xwtwkC&pg=PA208&lpg=PA208&dq=fishburne...
against African-Americans because they are not a race!
Exactly how many seconds would it take to drive that person from a university?How many distinguished historians would defend him--by saying that he can't be a racist,since he also says non-racist things?
How likely is it that Foreign Policy Magazine would permit a semi-defense of this writer,by said historian?
The question answers itself.
Should people argue with such a person?Should they treat this garbage as sincere intellectual discourse warranting a sincere reply? To argue with such scum is to dignify them.Or as Fishburne said in the movie Deep Cover when asked "What's the difference between a black man and a nigger?" "The Nigger is the one who would even answer that question"(fn1)
They should,however,ask a rhetorical question of Mearsheimer:What exactly is your definition of racism?Because if the same standard used by Mearsheimer is applied toward African-Americans,then Mearsheimer should find the above statements acceptable. The truth of the matter is that anti-semitism has never gone away.It's practitioners have simply become more sophisticated. This is not to say that all of Israel's most outrageous critics are anti-semites.There are critics whose hostility to Israel is just as delusional as the anti-semites--but whose hypocritical animus is motivated by other factors:anti-Americanism,hatred of all governments,sympathy with the "underdog"(whoever that may be at any particular moment.),etc.
But just as the fact that the term racism is occasionally misused does not require us(or morally permit us),to pretend that racism does not exist,so too the fact that the term anti-semitism is sometimes misused,does not permit us to pretend that
the term "anti-semitism" has no meaning,or that it means whatever Mearsheimer wishes it to mean.Nor is it necessary to indulge the whims of the oppressor and the bigot and the hate monger;or to concern ourselves with their feelings.(And YES I AM talking about Mearsheimer).And no,the whining of anti-semites to the contrary,it is not "censorship" to condemn evil;it is only censorship to prohibit the expression of evil ideas by force. John Mearsheimer's Disturbing Connection to a Notorious Anti-Semite | History News Network
http://hnn.us/articles/9-26-11/john-mearsheimers-disturbing-connection-to-a-n...
Why Jeff Goldberg is Wrong about Mearsheimer--Again | Stephen M. Walt
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/09/25/mearsheimer_responds_to_goldbe...
Oliver Kamm: Atzmon watch http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2005/03/atzmon_watch.html fn1
http://books.google.com/books?id=kRqhY8xwtwkC&pg=PA208&lpg=PA208&dq=fishburne...
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Sunday, September 25, 2011
To those who call the #Teaparty racist:prove it. #tcot #tlot #aynrand
RRD:The casual slander of millions becomes passe after awhile.So I say to Mr.Freeman et-al;can you prove that the majority of Teapartiers are racist?Note that I do not say;can you prove that any Teapartiers are racist,because racists exist in every organization(including the Democratic Party*),but can you present objective,factual evidence that the majority of the Teapartiers are motivated by racism.
At this point let me define the word racism:
...."Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors. Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiat
es
between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men. Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination." Ayn Rand "Racism" from the Virtue of Selfishness.
RRD:It is not racist to oppose someone because of their political beliefs.Nor is it racist to oppose the welfare state(so long as you oppose it for whites as well as for blacks).It is not even racist to seek to disqualify someone for public office by claiming that they are not a American citizen(see the claims against John Mccain).Do those who make this casual slander actually believe,and do they actually expect us to believe,that a white Democrat seeking to enact the policies Obama has enacted,(and sought to enact)would garner the support of those who oppose such policies?Do they actually expect us to blank out of our minds the entire history of politics in this country?Are we seriously to believe that Rush Limbaugh would support a Democratic President if he was white?The answer is no;we are not expected to believe it.Those who make these accusations themselves do not believe this nonsense(except for some delusional fools on the Left,and on the Right,who don't understand how
the
game is played).What we are expected to do is to take time away from our attacks on Obama to try to prove a negative.These accusations of racism are no more sincere than are the "coughs",grimaces & "spontaneous" outbursts of laughter of a skilled sophist during a debate.When arbitrary accusations are leveled we should not waste time arguing with these people,we should simply say "prove it",and move on. *I wonder if those who argue that if a minority of the Teaparty were racist,that that would tell us something about the whole movement,also believe that FDR must have been a racist because southern Democrats were racist.And I wonder if this leads them to conclude that Social Security is "racist".
At this point let me define the word racism:
...."Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors. Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiat
es
between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men. Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination." Ayn Rand "Racism" from the Virtue of Selfishness.
RRD:It is not racist to oppose someone because of their political beliefs.Nor is it racist to oppose the welfare state(so long as you oppose it for whites as well as for blacks).It is not even racist to seek to disqualify someone for public office by claiming that they are not a American citizen(see the claims against John Mccain).Do those who make this casual slander actually believe,and do they actually expect us to believe,that a white Democrat seeking to enact the policies Obama has enacted,(and sought to enact)would garner the support of those who oppose such policies?Do they actually expect us to blank out of our minds the entire history of politics in this country?Are we seriously to believe that Rush Limbaugh would support a Democratic President if he was white?The answer is no;we are not expected to believe it.Those who make these accusations themselves do not believe this nonsense(except for some delusional fools on the Left,and on the Right,who don't understand how
the
game is played).What we are expected to do is to take time away from our attacks on Obama to try to prove a negative.These accusations of racism are no more sincere than are the "coughs",grimaces & "spontaneous" outbursts of laughter of a skilled sophist during a debate.When arbitrary accusations are leveled we should not waste time arguing with these people,we should simply say "prove it",and move on. *I wonder if those who argue that if a minority of the Teaparty were racist,that that would tell us something about the whole movement,also believe that FDR must have been a racist because southern Democrats were racist.And I wonder if this leads them to conclude that Social Security is "racist".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
