Is this anti-semitism?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1471 of them)

It's very tricky. Nearly 18% said Judaism was “intolerant” -- even that isn't necessarily anti-semitic; I would saw that Islam, or any faith, really, is "intolerant" too. The Holocaust point is probably more worrying -- this was a cross-Europe poll, so held in countries considerably more culpable in this respect than the UK. Many quasi-Leftists fall on this position when attacking Israel, which is a vile position to hold, lacking in sympathy -- and I'm speaking as someone who is critical of Israel.

― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:39 (9 years ago) Permalink

I've often thought the biggest problem with the often nebulous and knee-jerk accusations of anti-semitism is that there is an extri special word for it (ie it ain't called Anti-Judaism). Islamophobic is incleasingly being brought in to mean a similar kind of thing for Islam - though certainly not as loaded. But there is no real offical word for hating Christians.

― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:46 (9 years ago) Permalink

It's not vile to be desperately upset with Israel's treatment of Palestinians is it, given the circumstances of the founding of Israel from a political standpoint? Admittedly, the founding of Israel on the ground kinda started to whole treatment of Palestinaians thing thing, but...

― Dave B (daveb), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:48 (9 years ago) Permalink

Hmm, the Holocaust one I'm not entirely convinced about, Enrique. Some Jewish people argue, not that it is time to forget, but time to get out of a victim-casting obsession with past persecution. Not because they are self-haters, but because they think it helps Jewish culture move on, and because in certain hands, the Holocaust issue is almost used as a trump card in all arguments, which is obviously irritating.

I accept that “Jews should stop playing the victim for the Holocaust and the persecutions of 50 years ago” is anastily-worded statement and I'm not saying I would agree with it. And yeah, maybe it's not for gentiles to say any of these things anyway.

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:50 (9 years ago) Permalink

It's a bit vile to say that Israel only exists because the Jews 'used' the Holocaust as leverage, which is what a lot of revisionist leftists do in their attempt to undermine Israel's legitimacy as a nation. In its less nuanced uses, this is what the Finkelstein book does. Obviousy it shouldn't be used to justify current hostilities against the Palestinians, but I can understand why it was used back in the 1940s, when the area was a British mandate-colony.

― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:52 (9 years ago) Permalink

What we learned from the Holocaust is that it is a very wrong idea to separate people out according to religion/sexuality (remember Catholics and homosexuals also suffered there), place them in internment camps and then kill them. What we learned from apartheid is that it is wrong to separate people out by skin colour and deny them access to cities and areas and basic civil rights as if on a whim. I would suggest to Israelis of a 'pioneer' bent to learn from the Holocaust and apartheid the lesson about onetime victims relishing their turn on bully duty, and to find a way to resist.

― suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:00 (9 years ago) Permalink

i thought it said 'jews should stop "playing the violin" for the holocaust'... i wish they had worded it that way because i don't think nearly as many people would be in favour of stopping violins!

― jeremy jordan (cruisy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:01 (9 years ago) Permalink

Is it racist to say that a religion is intolerant? It would certianly be racist to say that Jews were intolerant.

It is not true that Judaism is intolerant, but saying it is might have all manner of motives, not necessarily racist ones. Although not excluding racist ones, either. For instance, someone might believe that Judaism is intolerant because its rituals can comes across as dogmatic and strict, such as not allowing you to use the car on a Friday. But this is not actually intolerance. To say that Judaism is intolerant implies that the religion or the culture has no sympathy for outsiders or other cultures. This is not true. Judaism, like Islam, is a religion of love and charity, which is not confined to the community but extends as far as loving the enemy.

Of course, I'm not talking about any particular state or government here, just the teachings of the religions.

― run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:02 (9 years ago) Permalink

Um, the Balfour Declaration dates back to long before the Holocaust.

― Ricardo (RickyT), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:03 (9 years ago) Permalink

How much of the fear and mistrust of Judaism comes from it being a non-evangelical religion (menkos Jews 4 Jebus notwithstanding).

― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:05 (9 years ago) Permalink

Um, the Balfour Declaration dates back to long before the Holocaust.

Sure it does, but the Holocaust was a major part of the ideological constellation that led to Israel being set up. As you know, the Balfour declaration was no road-map, and of course had its Nazi counterparts (ie setting up of Jewish homeland far away from Europe).

Judaism, like Islam, is a religion of love and charity, which is not confined to the community but extends as far as loving the enemy. But neither are interpreted like that, or at least they aren't so often. The problem is the conflation of race and religion -- I think Ed made me think on this. I don't think it's racist to take issue with faith -- no-one will call me racist for having a problem with Christianity's views on homosexuality, for example.

― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:10 (9 years ago) Permalink

You're right, Enrique, about no-one calling you racist for taking issue with Christianity's dogma on sexuality. But what about the statement that Judaism might be about love and charity in principle but is is not interpreted like that? Do you mean actual Jews don't act out of love and charity? Or do you mean gentiles don't regard Judaism as about love and charity?

If you think that Judaism is about love and charity but Jews don't act as if it is, then that's already sounding like an attack on the race not the religion to me...

― run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:14 (9 years ago) Permalink

Pete, that's not at the heart of it at all. The Romans/Greeks didn't really 'get' monotheism, but it's the crapness of Christianity and its prostletysing that created a great deal of anti-Semitic sentiment, what with chasing the money-lenders out of the temple yada yada and people judging ALL Jews as usurers/cash-obsessed/cleverer than. I'm pretty bloody thankful I went to school with thousands of Jews, because they had in their favour a belief in the power of learning and education being a pathway to aspirations. Their parents were the best agitators for getting stuff done for everyone in my town that I've ever experienced.

Again: all bigotry is a manifestation of the bigot's insecurity, usually unsubstantiated.

― suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:18 (9 years ago) Permalink

So, has anybody got any idea why someone would say that Judaism is intolerant? (I'm not asking if any of you are racist, I'm just wondering if anyone has any examples or good guesses about purported Judaic intolerance... And I mean the religion, not the state or Isreal or somesuch)

― run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:21 (9 years ago) Permalink

Hmm, interesting. I suppose I was thinking that the idea of not wanting to spread "the good news", being a closed community pretty much marks you out as The Other, but certainly the other factors you point out seem a fair bit more convincing.

How has Christianity dealt with the Jesus as king of Jews thing?

― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:25 (9 years ago) Permalink

Dave, you've already said it's intolerant of several things (like allowing you to use the car on a Friday). You also explained why this doesn't mean the same as 'intolerant' to you. I understand that, but 'intolerant' means different things to different people.

Perhaps the main point of this thread was that I hate ambiguously worded questionnaires, esp. if they're deliberately so.

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:26 (9 years ago) Permalink

because people conflate judaism with the state of isreal?

― Stringent Stepper (Stringent), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:30 (9 years ago) Permalink

Or with 'all Jewish people'.

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:33 (9 years ago) Permalink

I don't mean that it doesn't mean intolerant to me, I mean it is not what intolerant means. Intolerance is an unwillingness to endure differing opinions. Religious Law is not intolerant of those who break religious law. Laws are not opinions, so flouting the law is not a differing opinion either.

If you are a Jew, you do not drive etc on the Sabbath. This is a ritual by which you live a religious life. It is the code by which you get closer to god. That is not intolerant. Judaism would be intolerant if it forbid non-Jews to drive etc on the Sabbath.

― run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:34 (9 years ago) Permalink

good point, what about forcible removal of non-jews and 'pioneer' settling though?

― Stringent Stepper (Stringent), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:35 (9 years ago) Permalink

That's Isreal, not Judaism

― run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:37 (9 years ago) Permalink

Is a state intolerant for forbidding someone to open his business, or restricting his hours of busines by law on the Sabbath no matter what his religion?

― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:37 (9 years ago) Permalink

in·tol·er·ant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-tlr-nt)
adj.

Not tolerant, especially:
a. Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.
b. Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background.
c. Unable or unwilling to endure or support: intolerant of interruptions; a community intolerant of crime.

I'd say a) is pretty different to b)

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:38 (9 years ago) Permalink

That's Isreal, not Judaism
-- run it off (davebeec...), January 27th, 2004 1:37 PM.

because people conflate judaism with the state of isreal?
-- Stringent Stepper (stringen...), January 27th, 2004 1:30 PM.

there you go mate

― Stringent Stepper (Stringent), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:39 (9 years ago) Permalink

the State may well be intolerant if it restricted business hours for citizens who don't share the law of the Sabbath, but the religion isn't intolerant because the state does this.

― run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:40 (9 years ago) Permalink

So, if the problem is the conflation of the state and the religion, does that mean it is racist to say that Judaism is intolerant instead of saying that Isreal is intolerant?

― run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:41 (9 years ago) Permalink

not racist, I mean anti-semitic...

― run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:41 (9 years ago) Permalink

Huzzah, The UK is intolerant (no shock there....)

― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:42 (9 years ago) Permalink

Well, a lot of places in London settled by Jews had Sunday trading by dint of being closed on Saturday for Sabbath: see Brick Lane/Whitechapel, Golders Green/Hampstead.

― suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:44 (9 years ago) Permalink

the religion isn't intolerant because the state does this

I don't know enough about the tenets of Judaism to go into it, but by analogy -- it *is* intolerant if it sanctions the law, surely?

Judaism != Jews, maybe, run it off? It's clumsy, but race and religion are not the same. So it isn't racist to criticize a faith? I doin't know.

― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:46 (9 years ago) Permalink

Religious Law is not intolerant of those who break religious law.

Surely religious las IS intolerant of people who break it. I'm guessing there must be punishments for transgression, even if it's just an evil look during church - and that kind of emotional punishment can be extremely effective/painful, especially in close-knit communities and ones where the people have a God's good will yo lose.

Laws are not opinions, so flouting the law is not a differing opinion either.
If you are a Jew, you do not drive etc on the Sabbath. This is a ritual by which you live a religious life. It is the code by which you get closer to god. That is not intolerant. Judaism would be intolerant if it forbid non-Jews to drive etc on the Sabbath.

-- run it off (davebeec...), January 27th, 2004.

Laws are opinions, they're (usually(should be!)) the opinion of the majority as to how individuals should behave.

Also, not being allowed to drive on a Sunday (or Saturday) IS intolerant: intolerant toward Jews. I think most religions are least tolerant of their own.

― mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:52 (9 years ago) Permalink

Laws are opinions, they're (usually(should be!)) the opinion of the majority as to how individuals should behave.

That's a bit of a shallow view of jurisprudence.

― Ricardo (RickyT), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:55 (9 years ago) Permalink

jurisprudence = ideological screen for repressive state apparatus

― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:00 (9 years ago) Permalink

how could a religion as old as the hills sanction a state as young as Isreal? Still less the acts of the leaders of such a state.

The ideological screen idea is itself an ideological screen.

― run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:34 (9 years ago) Permalink

Ideologies don't screen. They are productive not obstructive. Eagleton at one point uses the example of the phrase "the Prince of Wales is a nice chap". This is ideological because it produces a certain effect (support for the Royals as people) not because it hides the real social relations (Royals are social leeches, or etc). The fact that it makes no mention of politics, economics, and so on does not mean that it is a screen any more than a black and white photo can be said to be a screen against colour.

As such, juridprudence is not an ideological screen; it is ideological. That doesn't mean it is no different from other ideas or opinions. Opinions that are ratified and authorised are not opinions in the same way as opinions that are not.

― run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:41 (9 years ago) Permalink

Sorry -- it was just my little joke. Nonetheless, I think it's interestingly provocative to call laws 'opinions'.

― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:46 (9 years ago) Permalink

yes, I agree.

― run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:02 (9 years ago) Permalink

Hey, we Jews are barely tolerant of each other, let alone the rest of you.

― Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:12 (9 years ago) Permalink

Enough with the kvetching!

― suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:41 (9 years ago) Permalink

kvetching - one of my favourites. A friend calls her young baby a kvetch box

― run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:47 (9 years ago) Permalink

Every time you moan you have to put a coin in the kvetch box.

― Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:55 (9 years ago) Permalink

[all babies are young, aren't they... doh!]

― run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:59 (9 years ago) Permalink

Laws are opinions, they're (usually(should be!)) the opinion of the majority as to how individuals should behave.
That's a bit of a shallow view of jurisprudence.

-- Ricardo (boyofbadger...), January 27th, 2004.

Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law isn't it? Isn't what I've said what that all boils down too?

Where _is_ the depth?
It's simple isn't it?

― mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:00 (9 years ago) Permalink

Can you explain how it all boils down to opinion?

― run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:01 (9 years ago) Permalink

Hey, we Jews are barely tolerant of each other, let alone the rest of you.
-- Chuck Tatum (sappy_papp...), January 27th, 2004.

See! Told you!

And more kvetchup please!

― mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:01 (9 years ago) Permalink

Laws (attempt to) make people behave in the ways other people _think_ they should behave.

How humans should behave is a matter of opinion. Different religions, for example, havie differing opinions.

― mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:02 (9 years ago) Permalink

Sorry -- it was just my little joke. Nonetheless, I think it's interestingly provocative to call laws 'opinions'.
-- Enrique (miltonpinsk...), January 27th, 2004.

To clarify, laws themselves aren't exactly opinions, but what they attempt to enshrine as 'right' and 'wrong' ARE opinions.

― mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:05 (9 years ago) Permalink

I might break the law even though I agree with it generally, but I may also break the law because I have a different opinion as to what is 'rihgt' and what is 'wrong'.

― mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:06 (9 years ago) Permalink

who are these other people? Don't the laws apply to the people who write them? (Seriously)

If laws are backed by the state (and, after all, that's what makes them laws, rather than guidelines or codes or something else) then they are not just opinions, they are sanctified, ordered, institutionalied, backed up by the criminal justice system etc. I'm not saying power and hierarchy and stuff aren't involved -- of course they are -- but laws don't get to be laws without going through a socially sanctioned process.

The case of breaking the law because you have a different opinion (civil disobedience etc) does not mean that the law is treated as opinion it means that laws are seen as arbitrary and changeble, so that collective action can bring about social changes that force laws to change.

― run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:07 (9 years ago) Permalink

Yes they do apply to those that write them (or they're supposed to).

Yes, they are socially sanctioned, they are the combined opinions of a lot of people.

― mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:09 (9 years ago) Permalink

Skipping 1371 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/128998/poland-undead-gravestones

― Mordy, Thursday, 18 April 2013 02:35 (1 month ago) Permalink

This is an interesting article:
http://nymag.com/news/features/east-ramapo-hasidim-2013-4/

and it raised some uncomfortable questions for me about anti-semitism and prejudice. You have this discreet and distinctly identifiable group of people behaving, I think, pretty badly to the rest of the population of their area, and they happen to wear an identifying costume and quite deliberately separate themselves from the rest of the community. Under the circumstances, it's not surprising that people are going to say "the Jews" do x and y, even though it's really just this sub-sub-set of Jews. Is that anti-semitism?

― huun huurt 2 (Hurting 2), Friday, 26 April 2013 14:23 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

That's anti-hasidism. Those dudes are jerks.

― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 26 April 2013 14:25 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

Some of the staff where I'm working got called anti-Semitic, in an insane email, by one of our "customers". Despite the fact that no-one knew this person was Jewish. So, that wasn't anti-Semitism.

― Tom D (Tom D.), Friday, 26 April 2013 14:43 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

That article is really upsetting. It seems like the end hits a strange note? Where he goes to sit shiva and is all blah blah community "oh you have to see us in our time of grief to really understand" what the shit? THE SCHOOL DIDN'T HAVE RUNNING WATER. OR CLASSES. Don't educate your own kids if you don't want to, unfortunately that is still your prerogative to have them not learn English or history or in the case of the girls, anything, really. But to systematically dismantle the public school system, in cold blood, because you don't actually care about it or any of the people affected by it because they're not you, and anyway they're unclean, corrupt, and you're a religious extremist, is HORRIBLE. That makes you horrible.

― lets just remember to blame the patriarchy for (in orbit), Friday, 26 April 2013 14:46 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

This post kinda brought to you by living around Satmars for a year and having just read Unorthodox: The Scandalous Rejection of My Hasidic Roots.

― lets just remember to blame the patriarchy for (in orbit), Friday, 26 April 2013 14:49 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

There are a lot of different chassidic groups. New Square is particularly extremist (they have their own little city!).

― Mordy, Friday, 26 April 2013 14:49 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

i think we can always fairly object to the actual actions of a specific group acting together - even if that group happens to share an obvious characteristic in common, and even if that shared characteristic is often the target of bigotry. reacting to what we perceive as bad behavior isn't really prejudice, it's post-judice (though the one can certainly inform the other).

problem arises when we extrapolate out from the actions of the distinct actor-group in question, expressing large-scale prejudice about anyone who happens to share the characteristics we perceive them as having in common. so it's fine to object to the specific actions of the hasidim in that particular neighborhood, but expressing it as "the jews" do x and y is always gonna be anti-semitic.

― controversial vegan pregnancy (contenderizer), Friday, 26 April 2013 14:50 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

Satmar is also really extremist. And they also have their own city! (Kiryat Yoel, supposedly the poorest city in America.) They used to feud a lot w/ Chabad. xp

― Mordy, Friday, 26 April 2013 14:50 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

Yes, I know. I know there are different groups (does anyone actually call them courts?) and I made a little study of ultra-orthodox life and beliefs for a while there. My manager's sister was Lubovitch and lived by me in Crown Heights and went to her daughter's wedding, and then lived in South Williamsburg, all that insanity, plus was just really curious. Mostly I'm interested in people who get out, who deprogram. Also my conclusion is basically that religion makes people terrible.

― lets just remember to blame the patriarchy for (in orbit), Friday, 26 April 2013 14:55 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

It's kinda weird imo that ppl keep posting to this thread asking if it's okay to be angry at particular groups of Jews.

― Mordy, Friday, 26 April 2013 14:55 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

No one calls them courts in 2013.

― Mordy, Friday, 26 April 2013 14:56 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

or in the case of the girls, anything, really

in some hassidic sects the girls actually learn much more "wordly" stuff than the boys, because the boys are busy being torah scholars. I don't know particularly about the satmars though.

― huun huurt 2 (Hurting 2), Friday, 26 April 2013 14:56 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

Kiryas Joel is not a city. It is a village within the town of Monroe.

― tokyo rosemary, Friday, 26 April 2013 14:57 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

I don't really grok the distinctions between cities/villages/towns/etc. Is it just about population size?

― Mordy, Friday, 26 April 2013 14:58 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

in some hassidic sects the girls actually learn much more "wordly" stuff than the boys, because the boys are busy being torah scholars.

I would get really really happy to see dads with their boys AND girls at the public library on Sundays, especially after reading on Orthomom (I think?) that it was so controversial to some people.

― lets just remember to blame the patriarchy for (in orbit), Friday, 26 April 2013 15:02 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

― tokyo rosemary, Friday, 26 April 2013 15:06 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

The author of Unorthodox supposedly went to the library every weekend with her mother.

― Mordy, Friday, 26 April 2013 15:09 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

On the other hand, I got suspended from my Yeshiva in 9th grade for illegally visiting the library.

― Mordy, Friday, 26 April 2013 15:09 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

Haha well yeah, her mom, who was gay, and who left the community.

Orthomom, though, was a blog I followed for a while, after that guy who did the secret one, I forget his name now....

― lets just remember to blame the patriarchy for (in orbit), Friday, 26 April 2013 15:22 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

The Reluctant Hasid? Something like that. There was an uproar about his identity and he may have stopped blogging.

― lets just remember to blame the patriarchy for (in orbit), Friday, 26 April 2013 15:34 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

since we are on the subject, I might as well encourage you to read my friend's piece:
http://narrative.ly/culture-crossings/heretic-hasidim/

― huun huurt 2 (Hurting 2), Friday, 26 April 2013 15:59 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

orbit is "Unorthodox:" a worthwhile read? I have to be pretty selective about my extracurricular reading these days, so I try to choose wisely.

― quincie, Friday, 26 April 2013 16:08 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

It's exactly what you think it is, sensational and very clear about who the good and bad guys are. I wouldn't spring for it if I were you, I read it in...a day?

― lets just remember to blame the patriarchy for (in orbit), Friday, 26 April 2013 16:29 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

Oh the orig blog I started reading was the Hasidic Rebel, I think. Hurt, will read that article more carefully when I'm at computer.

― lets just remember to blame the patriarchy for (in orbit), Friday, 26 April 2013 16:30 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

Oh hah he's quoted! Is that the same Pearl who did the docu about her family's divan?

― lets just remember to blame the patriarchy for (in orbit), Friday, 26 April 2013 16:33 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

Oh no sry that was Pearl Gluck.

― lets just remember to blame the patriarchy for (in orbit), Friday, 26 April 2013 16:34 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

I don't think so but IDK, she's mainly a photojournalist

oh xp

― huun huurt 2 (Hurting 2), Friday, 26 April 2013 16:34 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

I tried to read Hurting's link at Dunkin Donuts, and it was blocked as "pornography."

― tokyo rosemary, Friday, 26 April 2013 20:34 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

http://www.timesofisrael.com/new-gateways-to-old-hatreds/

― Mordy, Monday, 6 May 2013 18:27 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

I really want to post the Times piece about Nueva Germania, Paraguay somewhere but I don't think this is the right thread. So interesting though.

― huun huurt 2 (Hurting 2), Monday, 6 May 2013 18:40 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

I haven't seen it yet but I think the doc is here:

― Mordy, Tuesday, 7 May 2013 21:56 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

the first minute of that came off as hysterical agit prop, didn't really need to watch more

― huun huurt 2 (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 7 May 2013 22:02 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2013/05/why-are-human-rights-organizations.html

― Mordy , Thursday, 9 May 2013 14:08 (1 week ago) Permalink

about half-way down the page:
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/religiousfreedom/index.htm#wrapper

― Mordy , Monday, 20 May 2013 19:51 (2 days ago) Permalink

Venezuala?!

― four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 20 May 2013 20:28 (2 days ago) Permalink

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-disappearing-jews-of-malmo-sweden.html

― Mordy , Tuesday, 21 May 2013 12:51 (Yesterday) Permalink

http://jonathanturley.org/2013/05/21/greek-politician-screams-heil-hitler-in-parliament-during-debate/

― goole, Tuesday, 21 May 2013 14:21 (Yesterday) Permalink

god bless america, tbh

― Mordy , Tuesday, 21 May 2013 14:28 (Yesterday) Permalink

The rise of the Golden Dawn movement obv is a tragic development, but the extremism of the “Golden Dawn” movement in Greece, which is now reaching out to other European countries? Really, which ones?

― Le Bateau Ivre, Tuesday, 21 May 2013 15:51 (Yesterday) Permalink

Not sure what's meant by that either, I mean, Hungary's rancid with anti-Semitism but there's no connection to what's going on in Greece.

― Bees Against Racism (Tom D.), Tuesday, 21 May 2013 15:54 (Yesterday) Permalink

GD-movement is a typical national movement that is being ridiculed and smdh'd at by all of Europe iirc, also the Medditerranean countries

― Le Bateau Ivre, Tuesday, 21 May 2013 15:56 (Yesterday) Permalink

Not to deny it's dangerous, mind, but I've yet to hear of movements outside of Greece that are following the footsteps of those fools.

― Le Bateau Ivre, Tuesday, 21 May 2013 15:57 (Yesterday) Permalink

andersbreivik.jpg

― goole, Tuesday, 21 May 2013 15:59 (Yesterday) Permalink

While it isn't as organised and popular as Golden Dawn, this brand of fascism is rampant in Eastern Europe.

― Van Horn Street, Tuesday, 21 May 2013 16:00 (Yesterday) Permalink

though his relationship to antisemitism is not quite as ahem direct iirc

― goole, Tuesday, 21 May 2013 16:01 (Yesterday) Permalink

andersbreivik.jpg

― goole, dinsdag 21 mei 2013 17:59 (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Huh? A lone wolf psychopath isn't exactly a good example of anti-semitism. His primary motive was anti-islam.

― Le Bateau Ivre, Tuesday, 21 May 2013 16:06 (Yesterday) Permalink

i think calling him "lone" (or even psychopathic) is a stretch, given the bridged online-irl community he came out of. but you're right about islam, in his/their case

― goole, Tuesday, 21 May 2013 16:10 (Yesterday) Permalink

I think I have an Ikea product called Malmo

― 0808ɹƃ (silby), Wednesday, 22 May 2013 00:52 (8 hours ago) Permalink

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.