# Anti-Semitism, Anti-Capitalism and Conspiracy Theory



## phildwyer (Nov 16, 2012)

The other thread on this topic is now hopelessly bogged down in quarrels about whether individual posters are anti-semitic.

I hope we can avoid such discussions here.  They're not relevant at all.  The problem under discussion here will be the increasing tendency to attack anti-capitalism as veiled or even unconscious anti-semitism.

The connection between anti-capitalism and anti-semitism is indeed ancient.  In the modern world, we need only look back as far as the debates over usury to see how deep the conceptual and tropological connections lie.

Historically then, many anti-capitalists have been anti-semites.  The suggestion being made today, however, is that anti-capitalism is inherently anti-semitic.

I'm wondering several things.  How prevalent is this charge?  How much future potential does it have?  How can it be refuted?  And so on...


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 16, 2012)

it isn't anti-semitic at all to be anti-capitalist, i'm jewish myself and a marxist, marxism historically has always gone hand in hand with anti-fascism

what is linked with anti-semitism (but not always) is a theory about one type of capitalism ONLY but does not talk about the others.

i'm at work so haven't time to go into this now


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

I think taffboy and jazzz are so deep in anti-semitism they can't even see it.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 16, 2012)

> Historically then, many anti-capitalists have been anti-semites


 
they might well have been but their ideas (which reflected the prejudices of the time) were nothing to do with their ideas on capitalism, rather than being an intrinsic part of it


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 16, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> what about capitalism do they oppose though? what do the mean when they talk about capitalism. do they mention marxism and communism as well as being arms of the same conspiracy, etc.


 
Taking the liberty of moving this from the other thread...

Well I for one believe that finance capitalism is a conspiracy involving under a thousand individuals world-wide.  So that makes me a conspiracy theorist.  But I'd be rather upset if anyone called me an anti-semite.

I imagine there are millions of people in my position.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 16, 2012)

you're not an anti-semite, your'e just a wind up merchant


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I think taffboy and jazzz are so deep in anti-semitism they can't even see it.


 
FFS man, you're the one who suggested I start another thread, on which such personal issues can be avoided.  That's why I said this:



phildwyer said:


> The other thread on this topic is now hopelessly bogged down in quarrels about whether individual posters are anti-semitic.
> 
> I hope we can avoid such discussions here. They're not relevant at all.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 16, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> you're not an anti-semite, your'e just a wind up merchant


 
And yet my anti-capitalist credentials are fairly secure I suppose?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

if they are both blind to anti-semitism, how could they be made to see?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> if they are both blind to anti-semitism, how could they be made to see?


 
Oh alright then, have it your way.

It is mad and absurd to accuse people like this of anti-semitism.  By doing so, you legitimize the connection between anti-capitalism and anti-semitism.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Oh alright then, have it your way.
> 
> It is mad and absurd to accuse people like this of anti-semitism. By doing so, you legitimize the connection between anti-capitalism and anti-semitism.


Why are you talking about individuals here phil?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Why are you talking about individuals here phil?


 
Because you did, after I asked you not to.

I don't mind either way really.  But if we're doing individuals on here too, we now have two threads on the same subject.  Thanks to you.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 16, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> And yet my anti-capitalist credentials are fairly secure I suppose?


 
you've been doing this for long enough to know you're on the windup


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Because you did, after I asked you not to.
> 
> I don't mind either way really. But if we're doing individuals on here too, we now have two threads on the same subject. Thanks to you.


Phil, if you're not going to stick to the topic of the OP could you remove yourself from the thread so those of us who do can do so in peace. I trust that i won't have to ask again.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Phil, if you're not going to stick to the topic of the OP could you remove yourself from the thread so those of us who do can do so in peace. I trust that i won't have to ask again.


 
Alright, I'll just go back to the other thread then.

Why did you suggest I start another one?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 16, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> And yet my anti-capitalist credentials are fairly secure I suppose?


As our your a/s ones I expect


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 16, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> As our your a/s ones I expect


 
Sorry, this is incomprehensible.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 16, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Alright, I'll just go back to the other thread then.
> 
> Why did you suggest I start another one?


Do you do everything butchers suggests? And - if not - why did you do what he suggested this time? If he did in fact suggest it...


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 16, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Do you do everything butchers suggests?


 
Of course I do.  Don't you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 16, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Sorry, this is incomprehensible.


I expect your anti-semitick credentials are as secure as your anti-capitalist credentials.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 16, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> I expect your anti-semitick credentials are as secure as your anti-capitalist credentials.


 
Are you calling me an anti-semite?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 16, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> The other thread on this topic is now hopelessly bogged down in quarrels about whether individual posters are anti-semitic.
> 
> I hope we can avoid such discussions here.  They're not relevant at all.  The problem under discussion here will be the increasing tendency to attack anti-capitalism as veiled or even unconscious anti-semitism.
> 
> ...


Who has made this suggestion?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 16, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Who has made this suggestion?


 
Russell Berman, among many others.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 16, 2012)

Who?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 16, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Who?


 
Well-known author of _Anti-Americanism in Europe, _along with many other related texts.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 16, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Are you calling me an anti-semite?


I wasn't, as it goes, but if the cap fits...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 16, 2012)

Although given your well-known dislike of usury I wouldn' be surprised, phil, if you were antipathetick to our hebrew brethren


----------



## ayatollah (Nov 16, 2012)

I'm sure this is very "teaching my granny to suck eggs" for most of you, but just in case someone who doesn't know the basics wanders in :

In Europe , certainly for a thousand years, maybe longer, there has been a particular socially functional relationship between a minority of members of the Jewish Community and the lending of money. Simply because Jews were an outcast community everywhere, banned from most trades and professions - relegated to marginal trades and activities . Under all but contemporary (capitalist era) Christianity, (and identically to orthodox Islam today ) the lending of money for interest was seen as against Christian teaching. However, even under Feudalism the Kings and merchants often did require to borrow money (gold usually) to finance their various activities. So there was a "market gap" for the some marginalised Jews in their much oppressed communities to operate this despised but often much needed service. So in mediaeval times certain Jews built up a particular speciality in moneylending -- and of course were even more hated as a result . Often , as in 13th century York, but right across Europe the "Christian" Kings would organise a pogrom of Jews (including, conveniently their own moneylenders) just as their particularly large debts fell due. Established Jewish moneylenders were therefore well placed to prosper as Feudalism , based on rigid caste based traditional obligation and land ownership , was superceded by the much more dynamic capitalist mode of production.

So yes, Jews are well represented amongst the Finance capitalists of Europe and the world - because of their particular history in Christian Europe. But since the Middle Ages of course plenty of Non-Jews have also entered the money lending professions, particularly the many famous bank founding Scots in the British case, so any religious or ethnic census of the world's financial capitalist class would find it today to be a remarkably diverse grouping - with no connection whatsoever to ethnicity based "grand Global conspiracies".

It IS the case however that this ethnically diverse finance capitalist elite is constantly engaged in big and small everyday "conspiracies" against the majority of us all over the world - destabilising a currency here, backing a right wing candidate or regime there. But it is to quote the Godfather "just business". The Financial Capitalist class and their other capitalist sectoral allies just want our surplus value.. world domination is just a collective capitalist way to secure that, not an existential conspiracy aim.

Fascist theory takes a shallow but real insight - that there are distinct subsets within the overall capitalist classes, Financial capitalists and manufacturing capitalists as a key one ; exaggerates the actual distinction between them (For instance General Motors has for a long time made more profit from its finance capital activities than as a car maker), and creates a completely incorrect claim that manufacturing capitalists are more "patriotic" to particular nation states than Finance capitalism. Fascism also crucially misrepresents Finance Capitalism as being entirely under the control of a traditional historically demonised (in Europe) ethnic minority, the Jews. So Fascism (and other radical rightist " anti Big Capitalist movements) recognises on behalf of its often marginalised small mini business owner power base the unequal power of Big Capitalism against the ordinary citizen, and small businessman. But then by confusing and poisoning this genuine insight with racism and a false claim about patriotic and unpatriotic sections of capitalism overall, the fascist supporter is sent haring off to pogrom a distinct (historically victimised) social minority , The Jews - (of course regardless as to whether the individual Jews pogrommed are even a part of the Finance Capitalist Class)-- and capitalism as a whole sails on unimpeded.

It is of course too easy , as "Marxists" to think that "we" are well above this level of dire over simplification and racial stereotyping. But of course as has been discussed on another thread, Karl Marx himself has in some writings been guilty of some dreadful anti semitic comments (see "On the Jewish Question" for instance). So even Marx on occasion fell into the trap of identifying "Jewishness" as being implicitly tied up with the financial aspect of capitalism overall - almost as a "racial characteristic". Now this is bollocks, but that Marx too could fall into this trap once or twice shows the power of centuries of anti semitic religious/political propaganda - and the all too easy , but intellectually incredibly lazy, trap of believing that just because there are undoubtedly some very major Finance Capitalists who are Jewish, that therefore ALL of Finance Capitalism is a Jewish Plot against the rest of us.

Dave Spart rests his case.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 16, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Although given your well-known dislike of usury I wouldn' be surprised, phil, if you were antipathetick to our hebrew brethren


 
See, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

Pickman's finds anti-capitalism and anti-semitism to be inseparable.  If it were only he who felt this way, we could dismiss him easily enough.  But I suspect that his opinion is actually quite widespread on the contemporary Left.  We should work to make such opinions untenable.


----------



## ayatollah (Nov 16, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> See, this is exactly what I'm talking about.
> 
> Pickman's finds anti-capitalism and anti-semitism to be inseparable. If it were only he who felt this way, we could dismiss him easily enough. But I suspect that his opinion is actually quite widespread on the contemporary Left. We should work to make such opinions untenable.


 
I agree with you phildwyer, Pickman's comment
"Although given your well-known dislike of usury I wouldn' be surprised, phil, if you were antipathetick to our hebrew brethren"​is almost unbelievable. It IS an anti semitic statement, even in jest.  Are we to assume he's being "ironic" ? Surely so. If so it's in poor taste.

Altogether now "There is no automatic connection between moneylending and the ENTIRE Jewish people / ethnic group - any more than the claim that  black people gotta wunnerful sense of Rythmn  is true of ALL black people"  They are racial stereotypes, FFS.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 16, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> In Europe , certainly for a thousand years, maybe longer, there has been a particular socially functional relationship between a minority of members of the Jewish Community and the lending of money. Simply because Jews were an outcast community everywhere, banned from most trades and professions - relegated to marginal trades and activities . Under all but contemporary (capitalist era) Christianity, (and identically to orthodox Islam today ) the lending of money for interest was seen as against Christian teaching. However, even under Feudalism the Kings and merchants often did require to borrow money (gold usually) to finance their various activities. So there was a "market gap" for the some marginalised Jews in their much oppressed communities to operate this despised but often much needed service. So in mediaeval times certain Jews built up a particular speciality in moneylending -- and of course were even more hated as a result . Often , as in 13th century York, but right across Europe the "Christian" Kings would organise a pogrom of Jews (including, conveniently their own moneylenders) just as their particularly large debts fell due. Established Jewish moneylenders were therefore well placed to prosper as Feudalism , based on rigid caste based traditional obligation and land ownership , was superceded by the much more dynamic capitalist mode of production.


 
Your account is broadly correct, thanks for providing it.

There are other complications though. For example, early modern Christians believed that Deuteronomy allows Jews to take interest from Gentiles but not from fellow Jews. Widely believed, such ideas become self-fulfilling prophecies, and the consolidation of capital as a "Jewish" phenomenon sinks into the popular mind.

Then we have the construction of Judaism as a carnal, fleshly religion, which converges with the critique of capitalism as objectifying the subject, reifying consciousness and so forth.

Anyone who thinks that such ideas are obsolete has only to look at Pickman's Model's latest post above, in which he automatically assumes that anti-capitalism and anti-semitism are identical. HE IS NOT ALONE.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 16, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> I agree with you phildwyer, Pickman's comment
> "Although given your well-known dislike of usury I wouldn' be surprised, phil, if you were antipathetick to our hebrew brethren"​is almost unbelievable. It IS an anti semitic statement, even in jest. Are we to assume he's being "ironic" ? Surely so. If so it's in poor taste.


 
Of course you're right. 

However Pickman's is not necessarily the sharpest tool in the box, and I'm not willing to call him an anti-semite for this one statement alone. I suspect that he's confused about the relation between usury and capitalism.  But maybe I'm being too charitable today...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 16, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> See, this is exactly what I'm talking about.
> 
> Pickman's finds anti-capitalism and anti-semitism to be inseparable. If it were only he who felt this way, we could dismiss him easily enough. But I suspect that his opinion is actually quite widespread on the contemporary Left. We should work to make such opinions untenable.


you've previously suggested a certain association between jews and capitalism yourself. but let's not let your previous statements suggest what you think, as you're famously as honest as the day is long.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 16, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Anyone who thinks that such ideas are obsolete has only to look at Pickman's Model's latest post above, in which he automatically assumes that anti-capitalism and anti-semitism are identical. HE IS NOT ALONE.


er... i don't want to piss on your parade, but i wasn't assuming anti-capitalism and anti-semitism are identical, just as capitalism and philo-semitism are not identical. if you think i said what you say you think i said, you should get down to specsavers sharpish.

if anti-capitalism and anti-semitism are the same, then the pogroms in germany round the time of the first crusade were an outing for anti-capitalists. do you think that would be in any way a tenable position to hold? but it's the one you ascribe to me...


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 16, 2012)

The conspiracy better get their act together because I'm slaving away at the moment for £7.50 an hour on a zero hour contract. I'd quite like control of Hollywood and all the world's money and that


----------



## Barking_Mad (Nov 16, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> The conspiracy better get their act together because I'm slaving away at the moment for £7.50 an hour on a zero hour contract. I'd quite like control of Hollywood and all the world's money and that


 
You're moving in the wrong circles!


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 16, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> I agree with you phildwyer, Pickman's comment
> "Although given your well-known dislike of usury I wouldn' be surprised, phil, if you were antipathetick to our hebrew brethren"​is almost unbelievable. It IS an anti semitic statement, even in jest. Are we to assume he's being "ironic" ? Surely so. If so it's in poor taste.
> 
> Altogether now "There is no automatic connection between moneylending and the ENTIRE Jewish people / ethnic group - any more than the claim that black people gotta wunnerful sense of Rythmn is true of ALL black people" They are racial stereotypes, FFS.


you're calling me anti-semitick now? even though dwyer's on record saying there's an association between jews and capitalism?


----------



## ayatollah (Nov 16, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> you're calling me anti-semitick now? even though dwyer's on record saying there's an association between jews and capitalism?


 
For Starters, we , non racists, use a capital "J" for the word "Jew", and a capital "H" for "Hebrew". To do otherwise is to adopt a fascist/racist  format for the words.

I'm not calling you "anti-semitick" (sic)  or indeed, even anti-semitic as yet.. but your strange comment to dwyer :
"Although given your well-known dislike of usury I wouldn' be surprised, phil, if you were antipathetick to our hebrew brethren"​appears to intrinsically, by definition, link "usury" (lending for outrageously large rates of interest) to Jewishness (or "hebrew brethren" as you say). To make this completely  false linkage IS to express a racist, anti-semitic, statement. I hope you were being ironic.

There are lots of connections/associations  between the Jewish community and the development and growth of capitalism. None of them at all sinister. And lots of connections between lots of completely non-Jewish  merchants and manufacturers creating the roots of capitalism  in the growing towns of the Middle Ages too. I explained briefly in my post the reason for the early emergeance of Jewish moneylenders in medieval times. Nevertheless capitalism is not a Jewish conspiracy, or a conspiracy of Protestant Dutch merchants, or of Protestant British midlands ironfounders, or a conspiracy of any specific ethnic/religious  group.. it's just a 200 year old, dynamic, mode of production, now past its time to be replaced date .Has Dwyer ever suggested otherwise ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 16, 2012)

Right, so now you've called me a racist and have suggested i'm a fascist. An apology would be nice.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Nov 16, 2012)

My post may seem slightly off track for the present interesting debate but I feel I need some verification on a related point, and as I am no expert on the theme I wanted to ask for an opinion here from people who know what they are talking about.

Today I had a conversation with a colleague about the rise of fascism in Germany in the 30's. My understanding of what happened is that a divided left ignored the danger of the nazis because the communists followed Stalin's directive of seeing the Social democrats as more of an enemy. Then Industrial capitalists, scared of communism, like Krupps, and Ford, helped finance the nazis. In a nutshell the nazis come to the fore (aided by capitalists) taking advantage of the confusion and chaos offered by the left alternative.

My colleague, on the other hand, suggested another scenario completely. Namely that the financial Elite (jewish or not) abandoned Germany before the nazis came to power and moved to the United States, then, once there, they financed the nazis in order to lead europe into war and economic destruction thus allowing the United States to become the world's leading economy. This was, in his words, a deliberate plan to shift the axis of economic power from the old world to the new and was somehow led by Jewish finance.

Going by Ayatollahs eloquent post above this would seem a somewhat simplistic understanding of the ethnic make up of capitalist elites.

Anyway, I found the theory (my colleagues) interesting but hardly believable.

Is there any record of jewish capital financing the nazis other than the capital that was expropriated?


----------



## ayatollah (Nov 16, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Right, so now you've called me a racist and have suggested i'm a fascist. An apology would be nice.


 
I haven't suggested either. Read my posts.  Language, especially that apparently copying  already pre-established underlying assumptions , euphemisms, code words, and formats (eg, non use of capitals for ethnic groups)  employed by the fascist right, needs to be treated with extreme caution
If you aren't prepared to clarify/amend what you meant in your  apparently  strange comment to dwyer, then "ignorant" is the definition that springs to mind I'm afraid.And I'm truly sorry for you about that laddie


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 16, 2012)

If you're so hung up about capitals you haven't read a single one of my posts properly. The only reason i'm using capitals now is the phone puts them in automatically. When you say 'we non-racists' use capital j's for jews and h's for hebrew, what you're saying is people who don't are racists and possibly fascist. If you don't understand what you've written perhaps you shouldn't have written it in the first place.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 16, 2012)

i frequently don't write capital letters in posts, it only becomes suspicious if the person is writing every other word that should have a capital letter, with one. i don't think that's evidence of latent anti-semitism and i've never seen any evidence of that from PM


----------



## ayatollah (Nov 16, 2012)

Anudder Oik said:


> My post may seem slightly off track for the present interesting debate but I feel I need some verification on a related point, and as I am no expert on the theme I wanted to ask for an opinion here from people who know what they are talking about.
> 
> Today I had a conversation with a colleague about the rise of fascism in Germany in the 30's. My understanding of what happened is that a divided left ignored the danger of the nazis because the communists followed Stalin's directive of seeing the Social democrats as more of an enemy. Then Industrial capitalists, scared of communism, like Krupps, and Ford, helped finance the nazis. In a nutshell the nazis come to the fore (aided by capitalists) taking advantage of the confusion and chaos offered by the left alternative.
> 
> ...


 
No Jewish Financiers funded Hitler to my recollection.  Plenty of other Big  Financiers and major industrialists did though , not just German ones either, and they were full on  "Aryans". Did you know Henry Ford distributed that old anti semitic tract "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" through his US car Dealerships in the 1930's ?  And that the Swedish founder of IKEA was a fanatical Nazi ?  As  was the Founder of Philips Electronics. A lot of (non-Jewish) capitalists really liked the "Nazi social model" for their various societies in the 1930's, threatened by the rise of the Left and trades unionism... the Duke of Windsor too of course.  Sounds like your "colleague" is a follower of  a distinctly Nazi world view, with his completely made up "take" on the 1930-1945 period.

Some REALLY hard line Nazis have a really crazed varient on simple Holocaust Denial and claim Himmler was a Jew and devout Zionist all along, and murdered the 6 million to discredit Nazism and justify the creation of the state of Israel ! There really is no limit to the bullshit Nazis will concoct.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 16, 2012)

Anudder Oik said:


> Is there any record of jewish capital financing the nazis other than the capital that was expropriated?


 
i think your theory is closer to the truth, to say the fucking least


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

No such thing as Jewish capital


----------



## stuff_it (Nov 16, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i think your theory is closer to the truth, to say the fucking least


Of course loads of muppets giving credence to outlandish conspiracy theories instead of real life could easily in the wrong situation lead to similar happening again.


----------



## ayatollah (Nov 16, 2012)

I will repeat this just once more. The word "jew" spelt without a capital "J", or "hebrew" without a capital "H" is a specific fascist/racist  formulation of the term. Older dictioneries used to have the word "jew" included, as a term of abuse, denoting things like miserliness, meanness, trickiness, untrustworthiness. "jew" without a capital letter does not mean a member of the Jewish religion or community, but is a term of racist abuse no different to "nigger". Modern dictioneries, since the Holocaust, tend  not to contain this word .

Anyone, anyone, who spells "Jew" without a capital letter in a discussion of antisemitism in particular, is making a serious contextual mistake, if they are writing from an anti-racist perspective. This is not pedantry, it is politics.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

No, it's pedantry. A relic of your battles in the 70s. Move along Twat.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 16, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> I will repeat this just once more. The word "jew" spelt without a capital "J", or "hebrew" without a capital "H" is a specific fascist/racist formulation of the term. Older dictioneries used to have the word "jew" included, as a term of abuse, denoting things like miserliness, meanness, trickiness, untrustworthiness. "jew" without a capital letter does not mean a member of the Jewish religion or community, but is a term of racist abuse no different to "nigger". Modern dictioneries, since the Holocaust, tend not to contain this word .
> 
> Anyone, anyone, who spells "Jew" without a capital letter in a discussion of antisemitism in particular, is making a serious contextual mistake, if they are writing from an anti-racist perspective. This is not pedantry, it is politics.


it's pedantry of a rather shit sort.

incidentally, you seem rather keen on your capitals, capitalising (among other words) 'starters', 'financiers' and 'big' in recent posts. what's the politicks behind that?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

RevEaled as a LoON.


----------



## ayatollah (Nov 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> No, it's pedantry. A relic of your battles in the 70s. Move along Twat.


 Butchers you are a sad old Troll, go off and try and wind someone less gullible up.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 16, 2012)

oh - and dealerships and troll


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 16, 2012)

huh, i think he just doesn't like to put capital letters in his posts, doesn't make him a nazi. nor do i. I keep a sharp eye out for anti-semitic shit but accusing him of it on that basis is just silly


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> Butchers you are a sad old Troll, go off and try and wind someone less gullible up.


I'm not winding you up. You are Wrong. And if you are right it was in the past. Not now. Nor am i a troll.


----------



## stuff_it (Nov 16, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> huh, i think he just doesn't like to put capital letters in his posts, doesn't make him a nazi. nor do i. I keep a sharp eye out for anti-semitic shit but accusing him of it on that basis is just silly


You used a capital letter for I! Capitalist! 

Banhammer! BaNHAMMER!


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 16, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> You used a capital letter for I! Capitalist!
> 
> Banhammer! BaNHAMMER!


 
a worrying level of egocentricism unbefitting for a revolutionary comrade


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

Is this AYATOLLAH showing a rare glimpse of his shearer like secret comedy self - it better be.


----------



## barney_pig (Nov 16, 2012)

Are there two ayatollahs? The one who does the long theoretical posts is quite intelligent and I agree with much  he writes. The one that does these little posts which turn pedantic punctuation issues into points of political warfare is a twat.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

I prefer the latter, the former is little harman copier


----------



## Santino (Nov 16, 2012)

I wonder how many people on this thread believe that Jews are disproportionately represented among leading wealthy capitalists.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

And are jews disproportionately represented among the results.


----------



## stuff_it (Nov 16, 2012)

Santino said:


> I wonder how many people on this thread believe that Jews are disproportionately represented among leading wealthy capitalists.


I have to admit I've never given the subject much thought.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 16, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> ... a fanatical Nazi ... As was the Founder of Philips Electronics.


 
Gerard or Frederik? Philips as I understand it had quite a good record of protecting Jews (note capital letter) against the Nazis (sorry for capital letter).


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2012)

The very first thing I said on this thread was:"The other thread on this topic is now hopelessly bogged down in quarrels about whether individual posters are anti-semitic.  I hope we can avoid such discussions here."

That was soon followed by this:



Pickman's model said:


> Although given your well-known dislike of usury I wouldn' be surprised, phil, if you were antipathetick to our hebrew brethren


 
Pickman's, would you please explain this alleged connection between anti-capitalism and anti-semitism _without reference to the alleged personal bias of either myself or any other poster? _

Thank you.  And cut out this "our hebrew brethren" stuff too.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2012)

As i've said above I haven't said there is a connection between anti-capitalism and anti-semitism and it makes you look stupid to say I have

But there has been a long association of usury with jews whic predates capitalism. your well-known antipathy to usury means I would not be surprised if it turned out you had, er, perjorative views of jewish people. This does not mean I think you an anti-semite.


----------



## co-op (Nov 17, 2012)

"our hebrew brethren"


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 17, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> Anyone, anyone, who spells "Jew" without a capital letter in a discussion of antisemitism in particular, is making a serious contextual mistake, if they are writing from an anti-racist perspective. This is not pedantry, it is politics.


Oh fuck off you massive tit. 

It's nothing to do with racism and everything to do with the fact that people often write quickly on messageboards (apart from you with your tedious waffle which no one bothers to read).


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2012)

co-op said:


> "our hebrew brethren"


Another fuckwit I see


----------



## purenarcotic (Nov 17, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> I will repeat this just once more. The word "jew" spelt without a capital "J", or "hebrew" without a capital "H" is a specific fascist/racist formulation of the term. Older dictioneries used to have the word "jew" included, as a term of abuse, denoting things like miserliness, meanness, trickiness, untrustworthiness. "jew" without a capital letter does not mean a member of the Jewish religion or community, but is a term of racist abuse no different to "nigger". Modern dictioneries, since the Holocaust, tend not to contain this word .
> 
> Anyone, anyone, who spells "Jew" without a capital letter in a discussion of antisemitism in particular, is making a serious contextual mistake, if they are writing from an anti-racist perspective. This is not pedantry, it is politics.


 
One of the more bizarre posts I've read in quite some time.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 17, 2012)

Agreed, found that particular post hard to believe tbh!


----------



## co-op (Nov 17, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Another fuckwit I see


 
"Our hebrew brethren".

Going to defend it - or just get abusive?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 17, 2012)

co-op said:


> "our hebrew brethren"


!
Would you prefer "kike" or "Yid"?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2012)

co-op said:


> "our hebrew brethren"


 
I'm not sure that there's anything anti-semitic about that phrase.  It's pretty damned patronizing, but that's not the same thing. 

However my problem with Pickman's post was quite different:



Pickman's model said:


> Although given your well-known dislike of usury I wouldn' be surprised, phil, if you were antipathetick to our hebrew brethren


 
My problem with it is that Pickman's assumes that anyone who opposes "usury" must also feel distaste for "our hebrew brethren," as he puts it.

Surely Pickman's, you must know that's a rather dubious claim to advance?


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 17, 2012)

is this gonna be one of phil's usury threads?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> your well-known antipathy to usury means I would not be surprised if it turned out you had, er, perjorative views of jewish people. This does not mean I think you an anti-semite.


 
Actually, it does.

Anyone who has "pejorative views of jewish people" is an anti-semite.

So the fact that you believe I might have such views means that you think I might be an anti-semite. 

Doesn't it?

And why do you think this?

Because of my "antipathy for usury" and _for no other reason._

The inescapable conclusion is that you have somehow contrived to equate "usury" and "Jews" in your mind, so that anyone who dislikes one must also dislike the other.

So you have also identified anti-capitalism with anti-semitism.  Haven't you?

You see my points here I trust? 

Do you want to just start again on this one?


----------



## stuff_it (Nov 17, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> is this gonna be one of phil's usury threads?


I just thought of another film title: 'The Usury Suspects'










It's the new fish!


----------



## IC3D (Nov 17, 2012)

It's time to give the Co-op a manopoly on usary, funerals and delivered milk, the remaining Jews could form a commission for questioning the validity of their profits


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2012)

co-op said:


> "Our hebrew brethren".
> 
> Going to defend it - or just get abusive?


I don't see why you feel the need to attack it


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> I'm not sure that there's anything anti-semitic about that phrase.  It's pretty damned patronizing, but that's not the same thing.
> 
> However my problem with Pickman's post was quite different:
> 
> ...


It's not a claim i've advanced


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Actually, it does.
> 
> Anyone who has "pejorative views of jewish people" is an anti-semite.
> 
> ...


only you would want to go through all this again.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> only you would want to go through all this again.


 
We'll keep on doing it until you get it right.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> We'll keep on doing it until you get it right.


You've already got it wrong by asserting - against all the evidence - that you're anti-capitalist


----------



## hipipol (Nov 17, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> The other thread on this topic is now hopelessly bogged down in quarrels about whether individual posters are anti-semitic.
> 
> I hope we can avoid such discussions here. They're not relevant at all. The problem under discussion here will be the increasing tendency to attack anti-capitalism as veiled or even unconscious anti-semitism.
> 
> ...


Lord know what your other commentators have imbibed, but surely the socialist, anti-capitalist history is littered with Jewish participants, the early form of the state of Israel is in fact a socialist construct?


----------



## hipipol (Nov 17, 2012)

This is most bizarre, a thread superficially populated by posters seemingly aware of history have descended to state of  Newman and Badiel insults - thats you that is!!!!
As all know, Jews were prohibited from pretty much all economic activity by various Catholic edicts other than those of merchants, ie Trading
So, if everyone is forced to be a banker or diamond trader how can you then condemn them if they get good at it?
It was also vitally important to have both assets and skills that were portable, given that at any moment some vile adventurist - Simon de Montfort in England for example, Hitler rather more recently, are liable to use you as the political excuse to drive their claim for power - what the fuck is wrong with that?
Judaism is is NOT based on some desire to manipulate the non believing masses but rather to fulfill the needs of family and tradition
This finger pointing is absurd - let us focus on which end of the boiled egg you break first, far, far more relevant


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2012)

hipipol said:


> Lord know what your other commentators have imbibed, but surely the socialist, anti-capitalist history is littered with Jewish participants


 
That has not prevented many commentators from convicting Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky and sundry other Jews of anti-semitism, on the basis of their anti-capitalism.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> You've already got it wrong by asserting - against all the evidence - that you're anti-capitalist


 
More tiresome and distracting feeble rubbish and stupid nonsense from Pickman's.

I think your time on this thread may be coming to an end soon. Just a hunch.


----------



## hipipol (Nov 17, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> That has not prevented many commentators from convicting Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky and sundry other Jews of anti-semitism, on the basis of their anti-capitalism.


So, are conflating your view with said opinion?
Are you opposing?
More important
Does it matter?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2012)

hipipol said:


> So, are conflating your view with said opinion?
> Are you opposing?


 
Opposing.


----------



## hipipol (Nov 17, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> More tiresome and distracting feeble rubbish and stupid nonsense from Pickman's.
> 
> I think your time on this thread may be coming to an end soon. Just a hunch.


Picky, picky, picky
Can you not get you little pricky a licky?
This is simply the stupid whingeing of little boys yet to grow balls
Enough


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2012)

hipipol said:


> Picky, picky, picky
> Can you not get you little pricky a licky?
> This is simply the stupid whingeing of little boys yet to grow balls
> Enough


 
You're really stoned aren't you?

ETA: Oh I see it's your birthday.  That explains it.  Have a good one!


----------



## ayatollah (Nov 17, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I'm not winding you up. You are Wrong. And if you are right it was in the past. Not now. Nor am i a troll.


 Sorry but  you are nothing but a worthless, tiresome, troll Butchers. All you are into, ever, is proving how clever clogs you are, and  getting into pointless arguments with other posters.. if possible so you can bully them. Whilst never ever , anywhere, being honest or open about your own very dubious current politics. Pathetic.

For those , many posters, who think I am being tiresomely pedantic about claimed anti fascists mistakenly writing "jews" as opposed to "Jews". Try inserting "yids" in place of "jews", which in racialist abuse  terms is a direct  equivalent, and you all just might grasp the issue a lot better. Or try imagining arguing against past or present  racism used against Black Americans in the USA but using the term "niggers" as if it is a value free term which can be substituted without any problem for "Black American" or "Afro American".  Sorry to appear  "so 1970's - so concerned with old, boring, issues we've all gone waaay beyond man" to some of you, but the issues involved are still very much alive today. Language isn't ever value neutral, but is also a weapon of both oppression and liberation. Ask any South African Black or Afro American who has ever been called "boy" by a Whiteman.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 17, 2012)

So is this just all the beef from the old one, pretending to be a new thread? I can merge the two to save forum space.


----------



## cesare (Nov 17, 2012)

"j" instead of "J", doesn't really have the same RACIST impact as "niggers" instead of "people of colour".


----------



## ayatollah (Nov 17, 2012)

Yep, merge it immediately FridgeMagnet, it's the same thread, but that isn't actually phildwer's fault at all.

The quantity of unacknowledged deepseated anti semitic assumpions held by a number of posters who nominally see themselves as somehow nevertheless "right on radicals" and have been so busy witchhunting/tarring others as somehow "anti semitic", revealed on contributions to these two threads has been surprising and instructive.  Ignorance is obviously bliss to far too many posters.

More political education obviously needed.


----------



## JimW (Nov 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> "j" instead of "J", doesn't really have the same RACIST impact as "niggers" instead of "people of colour".


Yeah, but if you replace that with 'baby-murdering cunts' then it's really offensive. So what about that then, eh?


----------



## cesare (Nov 17, 2012)

JimW said:


> Yeah, but if you replace that with 'baby-murdering cunts' then it's really offensive. So what about that then, eh?


I think you mean Baby Murdering Cunts, you utter, utter bastard.


----------



## love detective (Nov 17, 2012)

are any other forms of informal punctuation racist? a semi colon where a colon should be for perhaps?

a missing full stop at the end of a sentence?


----------



## ayatollah (Nov 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> "j" instead of "J", doesn't really have the same RACIST impact as "niggers" instead of "people of colour".


 
"people of colour" FFS cesare, what are you then , transparent or something ? I'm a sort of yellowy , pinky,  sorta colour myself, but still  definitely another "person of colour".  "person of colour" is a racist euphemism for "nigger". "jew" simply is the equivalent historically of "nigger" in every way . Grasp the point or just go to the back of the class "Stupid Boy". Understand THAT insult MORON ?

But hey, you're cool right.. "sticks and stones".. you're not insulted at all right?


----------



## love detective (Nov 17, 2012)

calm down professor


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> So is this just all the beef from the old one, pretending to be a new thread? I can merge the two to save forum space.


 
No!  Don't merge them.  This thread was started as an escape from the other.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 17, 2012)

Uh huh.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> "people of colour" FFS cesare, what are you then , transparent or something ? I'm a sort of yellowy , pinky, sorta colour myself, but still definitely another "person of colour". "person of colour" is a racist euphemism for "nigger". "jew" simply is the equivalent historically of "nigger" in every way . Grasp the point or just go to the back of the class "Stupid Boy". Understand THAT insult MORON ?
> 
> But hey, you're cool right.. "sticks and stones".. you're not insulted at all right?


----------



## cesare (Nov 17, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> "people of colour" FFS cesare, what are you then , transparent or something ? I'm a sort of yellowy , pinky,  sorta colour myself, but still  definitely another "person of colour".  "person of colour" is a racist euphemism for "nigger". "jew" simply is the equivalent historically of "nigger" in every way . Grasp the point or just go to the back of the class "Stupid Boy". Understand THAT insult MORON ?
> 
> But hey, you're cool right.. "sticks and stones".. you're not insulted at all right?


You clearly aren't keeping abreast of the latest change in self definition. It's now "people of colour". You complete RASCIST.


----------



## ayatollah (Nov 17, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> No! Don't merge them. This thread was started as an escape from the other.


 Good try dwyer, But  the argumentarian troll faction  won't move on to a more unpersonalised discussion of this interesting topic. NOT their  game objective at all. Mainly, as has become astonishingly obvious, because the trollers faction actually have no clear grasp of the nature and features of anti semitism, its relationship to capitalism and anti capitalism...and in some cases appear to be personally polluted with deep unacknowledged anti semitic preconceptions.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> Good try dwyer, But the argumentarian troll faction won't move on to a more unpersonalised discussion of this interesting topic. NOT their game objective at all. Mainly, as has become astonishingly obvious, because the trollers faction actually have no clear grasp of the nature and features of anti semitism, its relationship to capitalism and anti capitalism...and in some cases appear to be personally polluted with deep unacknowledged anti semitic preconceptions.


 
One thing is certain: never again will their false aspersions of anti-semitism be take seriously around here. The flimsy veil of their anti-anti-semitism has been ripped asunder to reveal their naked deep unconscious preconceptions and profoundly polluting personal predilections, especially Pickman's.


----------



## cesare (Nov 17, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> No!  Don't merge them.  This thread was started as an escape from the other.


It would have been quite interesting if ayatollah hadn't started living up to his usernamesake and hi-jacked it, seemingly on your behalf. Oh dear


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> You clearly aren't keeping abreast of the latest change in self definition. It's now "people of colour". You complete RASCIST.


No, no it's people-of-colour, your refusal to use the dashes so what a massive racist you are ceasre.


----------



## cesare (Nov 17, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> One thing is certain: never again will their aspersions of anti-semitism be take seriously around here. The flimsy veil of their anti-anti-semitism has been ripped asunder to reveal their naked deep unconscious preconceptions and profoundly polluting personal predilections, especially Pickman's.


Oi!  I did the anti anti anti confusion thing last week. It might still be a goer though, worth a go for a while.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> It would have been quite interesting if ayatollah hadn't started living up to his usernamesake and hi-jacked it, seemingly on your behalf. Oh dear


 
Actually his first post was the best one on here yet.


----------



## cesare (Nov 17, 2012)

redsquirrel said:


> No, no it's people-of-colour, your refusal to use the dashes so what a massive racist you are ceasre.


Your deliberate refusal to spell my name correctly clearly demonstrates a misogynist bent that I'm disappointed, nay hurt, to witness.


----------



## cesare (Nov 17, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Actually his first post was the best one on here yet.


Hmm.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 17, 2012)

That's not me that's auto-correct, clearly Apple is institutionally sexist.

ETA And even more appallingly it doesn't correct 'jew' to 'Jew'


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> Oi! I I did the anti anti anti confusion thing last week. It might still be a goer though, worth a go for a while.


 
There must be a word for it though.  Like "anti-racism" or "anti-fascism," but designating opposition to anti-semitism in particular.  Not the same as "philo-semitism."  Can't be anything but "anti-anti-semitism" can it?


----------



## ayatollah (Nov 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> You clearly aren't keeping abreast of the latest change in self definition. It's now "people of colour". You complete RASCIST.


  Amongst whom ? Apologetic US  Liberals , including Middle Class Black Liberals, not wanting to use such a "divisive" term as "Black" or "afro American"and concealed US racists afraid to use the word "nigger".  I repeat, "people of colour" is a dreadful, apologetic identity-denying euphemism. "Coloured people" , "people of colour" - as opposed to what ? "Colourless, transparent, people" ? We are ALL "people of colour" FFS.

And compounding your identity as a MORON, cesare, my disagreement with the dreadful current US establishment euphemistic term "people of colour" can't by any logical construction make me "a complete racist". Try some rational thought boy.It'll hurt for a while, but you might get to like it,


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 17, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> Try some rational thought *boy*.It'll hurt for a while, but you might get to like it,


Perhaps you should try reading some posts eh. Fuckwit.


----------



## cesare (Nov 17, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> Amongst whom ? Apologetic US  Liberals , including Middle Class Black Liberals, not wanting to use such a "divisive" term as "Black" or "afro American"and concealed US racists afraid to use the word "nigger".  I repeat, "people of colour" is a dreadful, apologetic identity-denying euphemism. "Coloured people" , "people of colour" - as opposed to what ? "Colourless, transparent, people" ? We are ALL "people of colour" FFS.
> 
> And compounding your identity as a MORON, cesare, my disagreement with the dreadful current US establishment euphemistic term "people of colour" can't by any logical construction make me "a complete racist". Try some rational thought boy.It'll hurt for a while, but you might get to like it,


Excellent


----------



## cesare (Nov 17, 2012)

He even called me "boy" not knowing my sex or racial heritage


----------



## love detective (Nov 17, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> Amongst whom ? Apologetic US Liberals , including Middle Class Black Liberals, not wanting to use such a "divisive" term as "Black" or "afro American"and concealed US racists afraid to use the word "nigger". I repeat, "people of colour" is a dreadful, apologetic identity-denying euphemism. "Coloured people" , "people of colour" - as opposed to what ? "Colourless, transparent, people" ? We are ALL "people of colour" FFS.
> 
> And compounding your identity as a MORON, cesare, my disagreement with the dreadful current US establishment euphemistic term "people of colour" can't by any logical construction make me "a complete racist". Try some rational thought boy.It'll hurt for a while, but you might get to like it,


 
do you often need jokes explained to you professor?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2012)

Understanding why you don't call a black man a boy


----------



## cesare (Nov 17, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> There must be a word for it though.  Like "anti-racism" or "anti-fascism," but designating opposition to anti-semitism in particular.  Not the same as "philo-semitism."  Can't be anything but "anti-anti-semitism" can it?


Isn't it enough just to call someone a cunt?


----------



## cesare (Nov 17, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Understanding why you don't call a black man a boy


The joke is, though, that one of his laborious bloody posts had already pointed that out.


----------



## co-op (Nov 17, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> I don't see why you feel the need to attack it


 
Because I've only ever heard it used as a classic evasive, mealy-mouthed, middle-class English way of identifying yourself as a jew hater.


It's a real golf club special - "our hebrew brethren"  -  *smirk*


----------



## stuff_it (Nov 17, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Understanding why you don't call a black man a boy


No, you should spell it bwoi. 

/gets coat

(soz couldn't resist)

I agree that ayatollah seems to be at least two people, not sure if really two people or pissed up and sober ayatollah though...


----------



## Knotted (Nov 17, 2012)

.


----------



## co-op (Nov 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> You clearly aren't keeping abreast of the latest change in self definition. It's now "people of colour". You complete RASCIST.


 
I think you mean "people of color". RACIST.


----------



## cesare (Nov 17, 2012)

co-op said:


> I think you mean "people of color". RACIST.


Rejecting our national spelling makes you a double rascist and no returns.


----------



## elbows (Nov 17, 2012)

I wouldnt surprised if the use of the term 'people of color' peaked in the 90's, and since then there has been a lot more attention on people being able to reclaim negative and offensive words and use then as positive terms of identity.

In any case I understand that MLK said the following as part of his 'I have a dream' speech:

'It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned.'


----------



## two sheds (Nov 17, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> Try some rational thought boy.It'll hurt for a while, but you might get to like it,


 
I think you should apologise to cesare for that. Butchers' link should show you the dangers of calling someone 'boy' - it was one of the worst insults you could have used in the circumstances.


----------



## JimW (Nov 17, 2012)

co-op said:


> Because I've only ever heard it used as a classic evasive, mealy-mouthed, middle-class English way of identifying yourself as a jew hater.
> 
> 
> It's a real golf club special - "our hebrew brethren" - *smirk*


Have to say that's exactly the way it reads to me as well.


----------



## cesare (Nov 17, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> Sorry but  you are nothing but a worthless, tiresome, troll Butchers. All you are into, ever, is proving how clever clogs you are, and  getting into pointless arguments with other posters.. if possible so you can bully them. Whilst never ever , anywhere, being honest or open about your own very dubious current politics. Pathetic.
> 
> For those , many posters, who think I am being tiresomely pedantic about claimed anti fascists mistakenly writing "jews" as opposed to "Jews". Try inserting "yids" in place of "jews", which in racialist abuse  terms is a direct  equivalent, and you all just might grasp the issue a lot better. Or try imagining arguing against past or present  racism used against Black Americans in the USA but using the term "niggers" as if it is a value free term which can be substituted without any problem for "Black American" or "Afro American".  Sorry to appear  "so 1970's - so concerned with old, boring, issues we've all gone waaay beyond man" to some of you, but the issues involved are still very much alive today. Language isn't ever value neutral, but is also a weapon of both oppression and liberation. *Ask any South African Black or Afro American who has ever been called "boy" by a Whiteman.*



Not good to call someone "boy" willy nilly, then?


----------



## elbows (Nov 17, 2012)

As for the use of Jew without a capital letter, I thought the underlying issue is actually the use of the word Jew as a verb, which is offensive. 

In any case anyone with a functioning mind is likely to look at the context in which words are used, rather than presumptuous history lessons that take no account of the relaxed use of grammar etc in the internet age.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 17, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> The conspiracy better get theie r act together because I'm slaving away at the moment for £7.50 an hour on a zero hour contract. I'd quite like control of Hollywood and all the world's money and that


The conspiracy has got its act together, which is why you are a slave.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 17, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> Amongst whom ? Apologetic US Liberals , including Middle Class Black Liberals, not wanting to use such a "divisive" term as "Black" or "afro American"and concealed US racists afraid to use the word "nigger". I repeat, "people of colour" is a dreadful, apologetic identity-denying euphemism. "Coloured people" , "people of colour" - as opposed to what ? "Colourless, transparent, people" ? We are ALL "people of colour" FFS.
> 
> And compounding your identity as a MORON, cesare, my disagreement with the dreadful current US establishment euphemistic term "people of colour" can't by any logical construction make me "a complete racist". Try some rational thought boy.It'll hurt for a while, but you might get to like it,


 
Take a step back ayatollah, phil is trolling as usual but you seem to be taking this seriously - and you're coming across as mildly unhinged.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2012)

elbows said:


> As for the use of Jew without a capital letter, I thought the underlying issue is actually the use of the word Jew as a verb, which is offensive.


 
Exactly. Noun = OK: Verb = Offensive.

The case of adjectives is slightly confusing. "Jewish" is OK, as in "that's a nice Jewish hat you're wearing," but "Jewy," as in "stop eating all that Jewy food," is pretty offensive.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 17, 2012)

I think I just realised that one of my old bosses was an antisemite - he used to regularly say suppliers had 'jewed' him - and in my naivety I always thought he'd said they'd 'dued' him - always wondered how dueing someone meant you'd ripped them off.


----------



## love detective (Nov 17, 2012)

should have said Jewed him, the anti-semitic cunt


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 17, 2012)

No, the verb is indeed with lower case J.

Hence playable at scrabble.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 17, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> No, the verb is indeed with lower case J.
> 
> Hence playable at scrabble.


 
Proof, were any required, that Jazzz is indeed antisemitic, over to you ayatollah


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 17, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> The conspiracy has got its act together, which is why you are a slave.


 
great


----------



## Santino (Nov 17, 2012)

My dictionary hasn't got 'jew' as a verb. I've been gypped!


----------



## elbows (Nov 17, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> The conspiracy has got its act together, which is why you are a slave.


 
What job do you do that makes you so free?


----------



## fogbat (Nov 17, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> Yep, merge it immediately FridgeMagnet, it's the same thread, but that isn't actually phildwer's fault at all.


 
...


----------



## JimW (Nov 17, 2012)

elbows said:


> What job do you do that makes you so free?


Lizard-buffer-in-chief to the lords of the hollow moon.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2012)

Santino said:


> My dictionary hasn't got 'jew' as a verb.


 
That's because there is no verb "to jew."  It always comes with an accompanying preposition: "to jew up," "to jew down," "to jew out" and so forth.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 17, 2012)

elbows said:


> What job do you do that makes you so free?


Jazzz didn't say he thought he was free.


----------



## elbows (Nov 17, 2012)

Oh yes I forgot, 'awake'.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 17, 2012)

For God's sake someone play the White man on this thread; please.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 17, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> For God's sake someone play the White man on this thread; please.


White man? I'm a sort of yellowy , pinky, sorta colour myself, but still definitely not white. White is a racist euphemism for honky. Grasp the point or just go to the back of the class "Stupid Boy". Understand THAT insult MORON ?


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 17, 2012)

Santino said:


> My dictionary hasn't got 'jew' as a verb. I've been gypped!


The word created the biggest possible ruckus in scrabble that you could imagine. Of course, "Jew" - isn't allowed with a capital because it is a proper noun, but "jew" could therefore only be played as the offensive verb. Judith Grad decided this was no good, and instigated a campaign for the word to be taken out of scrabble, along with several other non-PC and offensive words, such as "fatso".

And she was initially successful. However, the tournament scrabble players were furious. They didn't much like words being retired from the dictionary. For at what point did they cease to be words? Who has the right to censor the dictionary? For scrabble aficionados, the 'bad' words had just as much place on the scrabble boards as the fluffy ones. After a bitter standoff, they compromised by having two dictionaries, one for tournament play and the other for general use.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 17, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> The word created the biggest possible ruckus in scrabble that you could imagine. Of course, "Jew" - isn't allowed with a capital because it is a proper noun, but "jew" could therefore only be played as the offensive verb. Judith Grad decided this was no good, and instigated a campaign for the word to be taken out of scrabble, along with several other non-PC and offensive words, such as "fatso".


 
fatso is an adjective. Never heard of the verb to jew though. With or without a particle. You're making this up.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 17, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> fatso is an adjective. Never heard of the verb to jew though. With or without a particle. You're making this up.


 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Scrabble_Players_Dictionary

wikipedia says true in which case well done jazzz, the monkey typewriter theory has been proved


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 17, 2012)

smokedout said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Scrabble_Players_Dictionary
> 
> wikipedia says true in which case well done jazzz, the monkey typewriter theory has been proved


 


> While reading OSPD 2, Judith Grad found several words she considered to be offensive, including "jew", listed as a verb with the definition "To bargain with – an offensive term".


Is that an Americanism? Or is that term prevalent in parts of the UK? OSPD 2 was out in 1991 so it's quite recent.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 17, 2012)

While I really don't want to get involved in this, I have definitely seen "jew" used as a verb, to mean to penny-pinch, cheat or swindle. "He jewed me out of fifty quid."


----------



## Sweet FA (Nov 18, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> "stop eating all that Jewy food,"





phildwyer said:


> "to jew up," "to jew down," "to jew out" and so forth.


 Cheers phil, red stripe choked all over my front you twat


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 18, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> Yep, merge it immediately FridgeMagnet, it's the same thread, but that isn't actually phildwer's fault at all.
> 
> The quantity of unacknowledged deepseated anti semitic assumpions held by a number of posters who nominally see themselves as somehow nevertheless "right on radicals" and have been so busy witchhunting/tarring others as somehow "anti semitic", revealed on contributions to these two threads has been surprising and instructive.  Ignorance is obviously bliss to far too many posters.


There's little that annoys me more than some _schmuck _ puffing themselves up as some kind arbiter of what is or isn't anti-semitic, when they're actually talking a load of shite.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 18, 2012)

JimW said:


> Have to say that's exactly the way it reads to me as well.


You've probably not been amid a large gathering of English Jews, then, cos that's OUR way (the polite one, anyway! ) of referring to our Israeli cousins.  We're Yids,  they're Hebes.


----------



## JimW (Nov 18, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You've probably not been amid a large gathering of English Jews, then, cos that's OUR way (the polite one, anyway! ) of referring to our Israeli cousins. We're Yids, they're Hebes.


Yeah, but there's always a difference with in-group humour (and have hung out in mainly Jewish groups so know what you're saying) but I'd steer clear of it myself on a public forum. Not that I want to get too language police or think PM is an anti-Semite, just best saved for family occasions.


----------



## co-op (Nov 18, 2012)

JimW said:


> Not that I want to get too language police or think PM is an anti-Semite, just best saved for family occasions.


 
FWIW I agree but he oozes public school boy and "our hebrew brethren" means something quite different when it comes out of one of their mouths and it'd be nice to see that admitted. He's in-group of course so I doubt it will but I'll point it out anyway.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Nov 18, 2012)

ayatollah is a DICK.


----------



## Santino (Nov 18, 2012)

Red Sea Pedestrian, anyone?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 18, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You've probably not been amid a large gathering of English Jews, then, cos that's OUR way (the polite one, anyway! ) of referring to our Israeli cousins. We're Yids, they're Hebes.


 
There is a long and noble tradition of fabulating about Jewish culture, especially useful when one wants a day off and can persuade the boss that it's Erev Meshuggeneh and one has to stay at home sticking marshmallows up one's nose, and that post is a superb example.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 18, 2012)

co-op said:


> FWIW I agree but he oozes public school boy and "our hebrew brethren" means something quite different when it comes out of one of their mouths and it'd be nice to see that admitted. He's in-group of course so I doubt it will but I'll point it out anyway.


Which in-group is he a member of, then? Bilderberg; The Urban monothought clique; Class War veterans anonymous?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 18, 2012)

Santino said:


> Red Sea Pedestrian, anyone?


Feh! You cross the Red Sea once, and no-one ever lets you forget it!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 18, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> There is a long and noble tradition of fabulating about Jewish culture, especially useful when one wants a day off and can persuade the boss that it's Erev Meshuggeneh and one has to stay at home sticking marshmallows up one's nose, and that post is a superb example.


It's built around the less than fraternal relations between the two, although to hear our Establishment talk, we're BFFs.
As for tabulation to Garner extra holidays, I'm sure I don't know what you mean!

(Places paws behind back, whistles innocently)


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 18, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> While I really don't want to get involved in this, I have definitely seen "jew" used as a verb, to mean to penny-pinch, cheat or swindle. "He jewed me out of fifty quid."


 

I've heard it used in the context of 'don't be jewish' to someone who is being tight.Which is clearly off.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 18, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> our hebrew brethren


 


Santino said:


> Red Sea Pedestrian, anyone?


 
Amusing as it obviously is for a certain type of mentality, the endless generation of racist neologism is far from the purpose of this thread.

The next person to use or invent an anti-semitic epithet will be reported and no doubt banned.


----------



## elbows (Nov 18, 2012)

Fuck off dwyer.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 18, 2012)

Do your own thread if you just want to make up funny names for the Jews. Call it "Funny Names For The Jews" if you like, for all I care.

But not here.  This thread is devoted to higher matters.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2012)

What a strange thread. Perhaps you can see why people get annoyed by the implication of anti-Semitism for stating a position that is opposed to circumcision. There are parallels between that and the unfair inference from opposition to usury made by pickman's here. It's a simple, probably willful, logic error, and very irritating to be at the wrong end of it.


----------



## co-op (Nov 18, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What a strange thread. Perhaps you can see why people get annoyed by the implication of anti-Semitism for stating a position that is opposed to circumcision. There are parallels between that and the unfair inference from opposition to usury made by pickman's here. It's a simple, probably willful, logic error, and very irritating to be at the wrong end of it.


 
There's been no 'inference from opposition to usury' by me, just direct deduction that someone who uses the phrase "our hebrew brethren", without any irony, on a thread about anti-semitism draws a  from me. Why? Because it's at best sneering and patronising (which is to say it's racist when applied to a racial group) and, apart from some pretty specific contexts, the classic call sign of an anti-semite. Funny that so few are prepared to admit it.


----------



## cesare (Nov 18, 2012)

co-op said:


> There's been no 'inference from opposition to usury' by me, just direct deduction that someone who uses the phrase "our hebrew brethren", without any irony, on a thread about anti-semitism draws a  from me. Why? Because it's at best sneering and patronising (which is to say it's racist when applied to a racial group) and, apart from some pretty specific contexts, the classic call sign of an anti-semite. Funny that so few are prepared to admit it.


Are you Jewish?


----------



## co-op (Nov 18, 2012)

cesare said:


> Are you Jewish?


 
Does it matter?


----------



## cesare (Nov 18, 2012)

co-op said:


> Does it matter?


Yes. I don't understand what's offensive about it and as you've decided it is, I wondered if you were in a better position to decide than me.


----------



## co-op (Nov 18, 2012)

cesare said:


> Yes. I don't understand what's offensive about it and as you've decided it is, I wondered if you were in a better position to decide than me.


 
TBH I thought it was obvious and a few people have agreed so it can't just be a personal thing.


----------



## purenarcotic (Nov 18, 2012)

cesare said:


> Yes. I don't understand what's offensive about it and as you've decided it is, I wondered if you were in a better position to decide than me.


 
As a Jew I can't say I'll be crying into my cornflakes over it either.


----------



## co-op (Nov 18, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> As a Jew I can't say I'll be crying into my cornflakes over it either.


 
Great well that's all ok then.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Nov 18, 2012)

I read "Our Hebrew brethren" as being in a similar vein to phrases such as "Our coloured cousins" -  Implicitly derogatory but, by avoiding the use of conventionally offensive epithets, anyone employing such phrases can deny any racist/anti Semitic intent. A snidey and rather cowardly way to communicate one's racism.


----------



## co-op (Nov 18, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> I read "Our Hebrew brethren" as being in a similar vein to phrases such as "Our coloured cousins" - Implicitly derogatory but, by avoiding the use of conventionally offensive epithets, anyone employing such phrases can deny any racist/anti Semitic intent. A snidey and rather cowardly way to communicate one's racism.


 
Bingo.


----------



## cesare (Nov 18, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> As a Jew I can't say I'll be crying into my cornflakes over it either.


I wondered if it was something similar to the use of "brother" "sister" "comrade" etc. Not something you'd get particularly bothered about but perhaps a bit eh if you weren't part of that fraternal/comrade group?


----------



## cesare (Nov 18, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> I read "Our Hebrew brethren" as being in a similar vein to phrases such as "Our coloured cousins" - Implicitly derogatory but, by avoiding the use of conventionally offensive epithets, anyone employing such phrases can deny any racist/anti Semitic intent. A snidey and rather cowardly way to communicate one's racism.


Yeah, button just said something similar but using "imagine a copper saying "our coloured cousins". That comparison only works if you can equate the use of "Hebrew" with "coloured" though, I suppose.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 18, 2012)

ididnt readit like that i've had antisemetic shit in the past and asthis goes this is pretty low  down onmy list of things to get pissedoff about

could be wrong tho. apologies for space bar fail


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 18, 2012)

ididnt readit like that i've had antisemetic shit in the past and asthis goes this is pretty low  down onmy list of things to get pissedoff about

could be wrong tho. apologies for space bar fail


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 18, 2012)

ididnt readit like that i've had antisemetic shit in the past and asthis goes this is pretty low  down onmy list of things to get pissedoff about

could be wrong tho. apologies for space bar fail


----------



## purenarcotic (Nov 18, 2012)

cesare said:


> I wondered if it was something similar to the use of "brother" "sister" "comrade" etc. Not something you'd get particularly bothered about but perhaps a bit eh if you weren't part of that fraternal/comrade group?


 
I don't think it's that really, it's just not something I feel particularly offended by.  People can choose to be offended by whatever they want, I was just offering a different perspective.


----------



## cesare (Nov 18, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> I don't think it's that really, it's just not something I feel particularly offended by. People can choose to be offended by whatever they want, I was just offering a different perspective.


Oh yeah, for sure. I was just trying to work out where the offence (if any) was, iyswim.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 18, 2012)

cesare said:


> Yeah, button just said something similar but using "imagine a copper saying "our coloured cousins". That comparison only works if you can equate the use of "Hebrew" with "coloured" though, I suppose.


 


cesare said:


> Oh yeah, for sure. I was just trying to work out where the offence (if any) was, iyswim.


 
The point is that the suggestion of kinship in "brethren" or "cousins" is clearly and obviously ironic. It's not so much the use of the word "hebrew".


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 18, 2012)

could bea bit patronisingbut its just pickmans being his usualself and thisis how i read it as, nothing to takepersonally


----------



## purenarcotic (Nov 18, 2012)

cesare said:


> Oh yeah, for sure. I was just trying to work out where the offence (if any) was, iyswim.


 
Well I think Frances has provided a pretty good explanation of where you could find offence in it, and that's presumably the same route that co-op is taking. 

I just don't see it myself.  I also thought Pickman's was Jewish, but perhaps I have got confused somewhere down the line.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 18, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> could bea bit patronisingbut its just pickmans being his usualself and thisis how i read it as, nothing to takepersonally


 
I'm not taking it personally at all but if there's a witch hunt against Pickmans and a chance of the Mr Brains faggots being lit, I'm hardly going to call for moderation and calm.


----------



## cesare (Nov 18, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> The point is that the suggestion of kinship in "brethren" or "cousins" is clearly and obviously ironic. It's not so much the use of the word "hebrew".


So, what I said about kinship in the brother/sister/comrade sense then (and which pure narcotic disagreed with).

Aaaaaanywaaaaay. It pretty much sounds like any offensiveness is going to be low level if at all.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 18, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What a strange thread. Perhaps you can see why people get annoyed by the implication of anti-Semitism for stating a position that is opposed to circumcision. There are parallels between that and the unfair inference from opposition to usury made by pickman's here.


 
No, they are entirely different.

Most Jews believe that it is impossible to be a Jew unless you have your son circumcised. So if you believe that it is immoral to have your son circumcised, you believe that it is immoral to be a Jew.

But no-one believes that it is necessary to practice usury in order to be a Jew. Therefore one can believe usury is immoral without believing that it is immoral to be a Jew.

And thus we see that Pickman's accusation is foolish and absurd as well as disgracefully scurrilous. There is no place here for such aspersions. Let me remind him of what I said in the OP:



phildwyer said:


> The other thread on this topic is now hopelessly bogged down in quarrels about whether individual posters are anti-semitic.
> 
> I hope we can avoid such discussions here. They're not relevant at all.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 18, 2012)

cesare said:


> So, what I said about kinship in the brother/sister/comrade sense then (and which pure narcotic disagreed with).
> .


 
Perhaps "comrade" confused things a bit - do you mean in the sense of people mocking swoppies by calling them "tovarisch" or whatnot?


----------



## cesare (Nov 18, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Perhaps "comrade" confused things a bit - do you mean in the sense of people mocking swoppies by calling them "tovarisch" or whatnot?


No, "comrade" is often used and not in a mocking sense.


----------



## purenarcotic (Nov 18, 2012)

No, phil, being against circumcision does not mean you think it's immoral to be Jewish.  Also, most people against circumcision are not against the practice, but are against the age at which it is performed, due to issues surrounding giving informed consent.  I can't imagine many people are concerned with what a grown man decides to do with his wang. 

You're making big, big leaps here.  It's nonsense.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 18, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> I also thought Pickman's was Jewish


 
Definitely not.  Quite the reverse in fact.


----------



## elbows (Nov 18, 2012)

What is the reverse of Jewish then?


----------



## purenarcotic (Nov 18, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Perhaps "comrade" confused things a bit - do you mean in the sense of people mocking swoppies by calling them "tovarisch" or whatnot?


 
I think he means the sort of 'in jokes' that you might make if you belonged to a certain group.  Like my best mate can call be a big lezzer and I would find it funny, because she is my friend and isn't using it in a derogatory context.  If somebody used it to dismiss a point I was trying to make or whatever, then I would have a much bigger problem with it. 

At least I think that's what @cesare is getting at?


----------



## co-op (Nov 18, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> could bea bit patronisingbut its just pickmans being his usualself and thisis how i read it as, nothing to takepersonally


 
You see this is at least partly what's interesting to me here; "Oh ignore him he's just being his usual self, don't take it personally" this is the verbal bubble that surrounds every workplace racist I've ever met. It's up there with "oh he's not racist, he hates EVERYBODY ho ho".

Getting off on being obnoxious or offensive is half the reason most racists I've met are racist - all the pseudo rational guff that they nail on top of it is just justification for the emotional need - this is why it's a bit pointless debating these things rationally with your proper racist, the 'reasons" are irrelevant, the emotional need is everything.

The fact that person a b or c doesn't find it offensive or not too bad doesn't alter the racist content one jot. I got called a paki when I was a kid and it didn't bother me at all, first time it happened I didn;t even know what it meant. Doesn't exactly mean it wasn't racist does it?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 18, 2012)

elbows said:


> What is the reverse of Jewish then?


 
If you have to ask, you'll never know.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 18, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> I think *he* means the sort of 'in jokes' that you might make if you belonged to a certain group. Like my best mate can call be a big lezzer and I would find it funny, because she is my friend and isn't using it in a derogatory context. If somebody used it to dismiss a point I was trying to make or whatever, then I would have a much bigger problem with it.
> 
> At least I think that's what @cesare is getting at?


 
So if you're Cesare's comrade you can call her a bloke? Oh, I give up.


----------



## co-op (Nov 18, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> The point is that the suggestion of kinship in "brethren" or "cousins" is clearly and obviously ironic. It's not so much the use of the word "hebrew".


 
At last, properly explained, I can't believe I didn't get there first, it just smells of it. But this is it; "brethren" - *smirk* = no jews here! (Thank God)


----------



## cesare (Nov 18, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> I think he means the sort of 'in jokes' that you might make if you belonged to a certain group. Like my best mate can call be a big lezzer and I would find it funny, because she is my friend and isn't using it in a derogatory context. If somebody used it to dismiss a point I was trying to make or whatever, then I would have a much bigger problem with it.
> 
> At least I think that's what @cesare is getting at?


(she) Yes, something along those lines if it's done in a taking the piss sense. But it's perfectly possible to express kinship without it being pisstaking. Also there's a biblical aspect to it at Hebews 3:1 where Paul uses it very definitely in a kinship sense.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 18, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> I'm not taking it personally at all but if there's a witch hunt against Pickmans and a chance of the Mr Brains faggots being lit, I'm hardly going to call for moderation and calm.


 


homophobe


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 18, 2012)

this whole threadis just bullshit tbh

or shouldthat be Bullshit


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 18, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> I've heard it used in the context of 'don't be jewish' to someone who is being tight.Which is clearly off.


It's also often used by Welsh people, who dlslike the phrase "to welch on" in relation to cheating someone. Honest!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 18, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Amusing as it obviously is for a certain type of mentality, the endless generation of racist neologism is far from the purpose of this thread.
> 
> The next person to use or invent an anti-semitic epithet will be reported and no doubt banned.


Cunt off, _Goy_-boy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 18, 2012)

co-op said:


> There's been no 'inference from opposition to usury' by me, just direct deduction that someone who uses the phrase "our hebrew brethren", without any irony, on a thread about anti-semitism draws a  from me. Why? Because it's at best sneering and patronising (which is to say it's racist when applied to a racial group) and, apart from some pretty specific contexts, the classic call sign of an anti-semite. Funny that so few are prepared to admit it.


Thanks for imposing your interpretation on me. Do you tell Muslims what does or doesn't constitute Islamophobia too?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 18, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> I read "Our Hebrew brethren" as being in a similar vein to phrases such as "Our coloured cousins" -  Implicitly derogatory but, by avoiding the use of conventionally offensive epithets, anyone employing such phrases can deny any racist/anti Semitic intent. A snidey and rather cowardly way to communicate one's racism.


So by that logic, anyone who uses a phrase such as "our Arab brethren" or "our Ugrik brethren" hates Muslims or Lapplanders.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 18, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> So by that logic, anyone who uses a phrase such as "our Arab brethren" ... hates Muslims.


 
The logic isn't bad.  Galloway might say it, Griffin might say it. Most non-Muslims wouldn't, though.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Nov 18, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> So by that logic, anyone who uses a phrase such as "our Arab brethren" or "our Ugrik brethren" hates Muslims or Lapplanders.


 
Admittedly a lot depends on the tone but yes, I'd tend to think anyone who used "our (insert demographic of choice) brethren" was possibly a bit suspect.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 18, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> No, phil, being against circumcision does not mean you think it's immoral to be Jewish.  Also, most people against circumcision are not against the practice, but are against the age at which it is performed, due to issues surrounding giving informed consent.  I can't imagine many people are concerned with what a grown man decides to do with his wang.
> 
> You're making big, big leaps here.  It's nonsense.


He's conflating the practice of a tenet of Judaism with Jewish identity _per se _. It's only some among the religious who insist trimming boys.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Nov 18, 2012)

co-op said:


> You see this is at least partly what's interesting to me here; "Oh ignore him he's just being his usual self, don't take it personally" this is the verbal bubble that surrounds every workplace racist I've ever met. It's up there with "oh he's not racist, he hates EVERYBODY ho ho".<snip>


 
It's not just racists, bullies and gobshites of many differing stripes have their behaviour if not legitimised, then at least made possible by others around them saying of their atrocities "Oh, that's just what he/she's like".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 18, 2012)

elbows said:


> What is the reverse of Jewish then?


Welsh, blates.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 18, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> Admittedly a lot depends on the tone but yes, I'd tend to think anyone who used "our (insert demographic of choice) brethren" was possibly a bit suspect.


I support our Arab brethren in Palestine.

Whoops!  Oh shit,  I must.be a racist!


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 18, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> He's conflating the practice of a tenet of Judaism with Jewish identity _per se _. It's only some among the religious who insist trimming boys.


 
Bullshit.  Secular Jews also practice circumcision.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 18, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Cunt off, _Goy_-boy.


 
Projecting again Panda?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Nov 18, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I support our Arab brethren in Palestine.
> 
> Whoops! Oh shit, I must.be a racist!


 
Except that I didn't come anywhere near to saying anyone who did the brethren dance "must be a racist". What I did say was that use of the phrase "our ...... brethren" made me wonder if the person using the phrase might be a bit dubious. Too long spent working alongside BNP types who were wont to refer to Pakistani blokes as "Asian gentlemen" - Nothing offensive about the phrase in itself, it's all about the way it's being said. And who it is saying it.

And is there not some inherent sexism in the word "brethren" when used to describe entire races?


----------



## Santino (Nov 18, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Bullshit.  Secular Jews also practice circumcision.


practise


----------



## elbows (Nov 18, 2012)

Our friends in the north.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 18, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Bullshit.  Secular Jews also practice circumcision.


Really? Most of them, all of them or just some of them?
The answer is, of course, "just some of them", for reasons of tradition, a minority.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 18, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Projecting again Panda?


No, Phil. I'm very obviously telling you to cunt off.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 18, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> Except that I didn't come anywhere near to saying anyone who did the brethren dance "must be a racist". What I did say was that use of the phrase "our ...... brethren" made me wonder if the person using the phrase might be a bit dubious. Too long spent working alongside BNP types who were wont to refer to Pakistani blokes as "Asian gentlemen" - Nothing offensive about the phrase in itself, it's all about the way it's being said. And who it is saying it.
> 
> And is there not some inherent sexism in the word "brethren" when used to describe entire races?


So you're not being judgmental,  nor implying that use of that form of words denotes anything except dubiousness?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Nov 18, 2012)

I don't think so.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 18, 2012)

co-op said:


> You see this is at least partly what's interesting to me here; "Oh ignore him he's just being his usual self, don't take it personally" this is the verbal bubble that surrounds every workplace racist I've ever met. It's up there with "oh he's not racist, he hates EVERYBODY ho ho".
> 
> Getting off on being obnoxious or offensive is half the reason most racists I've met are racist - all the pseudo rational guff that they nail on top of it is just justification for the emotional need - this is why it's a bit pointless debating these things rationally with your proper racist, the 'reasons" are irrelevant, the emotional need is everything.
> 
> The fact that person a b or c doesn't find it offensive or not too bad doesn't alter the racist content one jot. I got called a paki when I was a kid and it didn't bother me at all, first time it happened I didn;t even know what it meant. Doesn't exactly mean it wasn't racist does it?


so you're saying i'm racist.

could you come up with some evidence for that assertion which would bear the slightest examination?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 18, 2012)

co-op said:


> There's been no 'inference from opposition to usury' by me, just direct deduction that someone who uses the phrase "our hebrew brethren", without any irony, on a thread about anti-semitism draws a  from me. Why? Because it's at best sneering and patronising (which is to say it's racist when applied to a racial group) and, apart from some pretty specific contexts, the classic call sign of an anti-semite. Funny that so few are prepared to admit it.


you're like ayatollah only without the wit, intelligence, bonhomie and charm.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 18, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> I read "Our Hebrew brethren" as being in a similar vein to phrases such as "Our coloured cousins" - Implicitly derogatory but, by avoiding the use of conventionally offensive epithets, anyone employing such phrases can deny any racist/anti Semitic intent. A snidey and rather cowardly way to communicate one's racism.


you read it wrong then.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 18, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> No, they are entirely different.
> 
> Most Jews believe that it is impossible to be a Jew unless you have your son circumcised. So if you believe that it is immoral to have your son circumcised, you believe that it is immoral to be a Jew.
> 
> ...


to remind you: i said i would not be surprised if it transpired you were an anti-semite, given the amount of time you've devoted to attacking usury. this is not to say that all jews are usurers, or that all usurers are jews. but usury has been used for centuries as a slur against jews. you seem to be basing your claim to be an anti-capitalist on your opposition to usury. however, usury is by no means a novel phenomenon, and was being used as a tool by anti-semites to whip up anti-jewish sentiment hundreds of years ago, well before capitalism emerged. you're no anti-capitalist. and it may be you're no anti-semite: but i wouldn't be surprised if it turned out you were.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 19, 2012)

elbows said:


> What is the reverse of Jewish then?


 
hsiweJ


----------



## stuff_it (Nov 19, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> Admittedly a lot depends on the tone but yes, I'd tend to think anyone who used "our (insert demographic of choice) brethren" was possibly a bit suspect.


Our urbanite brethren have spoken. 


SpineyNorman said:


> hsiweJ


----------



## barney_pig (Nov 19, 2012)

Sistren?


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 19, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> to remind you: i said i would not be surprised if it transpired you were an anti-semite, given the amount of time you've devoted to attacking usury. this is not to say that all jews are usurers, or that all usurers are jews. but usury has been used for centuries as a slur against jews. you seem to be basing your claim to be an anti-capitalist on your opposition to usury. however, usury is by no means a novel phenomenon, and was being used as a tool by anti-semites to whip up anti-jewish sentiment hundreds of years ago, well before capitalism emerged. you're no anti-capitalist. and it may be you're no anti-semite: but i wouldn't be surprised if it turned out you were.


Why the obsession with labels for a person, and not the content of their message? What kind of person has that?


----------



## co-op (Nov 19, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> you're like ayatollah only without the wit, intelligence, bonhomie and charm.


 
Or the trotskyism.


----------



## co-op (Nov 19, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> So by that logic, anyone who uses a phrase such as "our Arab brethren" or "our Ugrik brethren" hates Muslims or Lapplanders.


 
You can do better than this. You want to de-contextualise language in a racism debate? Words objectively "mean" this or that? Come on, anyone who's older than about 15 has been through this one a dozen times. We've already done 'boy' on this thread.


----------



## co-op (Nov 19, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> you read it wrong then.


 
Thank God we just cleared it all up! Mods close thread etc.


----------



## co-op (Nov 19, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> Too long spent working alongside BNP types who were wont to refer to Pakistani blokes as "Asian gentlemen" - Nothing offensive about the phrase in itself, it's all about the way it's being said. And who it is saying it.


 
"Our ethnic friends". They're all so _touchy_ about this stuff aren't they?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 19, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> hsiweJ


 

say it out loud 'his wedge'


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> Why the obsession with labels for a person, and not the content of their message? What kind of person has that?


i think almost everyone here has one label for you: conspiraloon.


----------



## co-op (Nov 19, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i think almost everyone here has one label for you: conspiraloon.


 
Unwitting anti-semite too, some would say.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2012)

co-op said:


> You can do better than this. You want to de-contextualise language in a racism debate? Words objectively "mean" this or that? Come on, anyone who's older than about 15 has been through this one a dozen times. We've already done 'boy' on this thread.


My point,  for anyone arsed to read it was that someone else was implying an objective meaning, and I was attempting to find out whether they meant to.
Try harder, you're not in primary school anymore.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 19, 2012)

id say most jewish people do have circumision done, my mum said had i been a boy i'd have been done (around the time i was born tho, reckon they both feel differently now )

my dad is jewish (but doesnt practice at all) my mumsnot

i wouldnt have it done myself personally, but its only the liberal movement iirc that has started giving people the option not to do that (if they're religious) and while i agree with their stance on many issues if i was to practice again im not too keen on their services lol


----------



## Garek (Nov 19, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> this whole threadis just bullshit tbh
> 
> or shouldthat be Bullshit


 
Something about this thread gives me the Hebe Jewbies* 


*this is not offensive as I used the appropriate capitals.


----------



## co-op (Nov 19, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> My point, for anyone arsed to read it was that someone else was implying an objective meaning, and I was attempting to find out whether they meant to.
> Try harder, you're not in primary school anymore.


 
OK I get you now. As you might have noticed on the internet, it's possible to misunderstand a post without being an idiot - or do you think that's the only way you can deal with my substantive point? 

I can't see anywhere that you've bothered trying to deal with the substantive point except by dismissing it on the grounds that _you_ don't think it stands and because you're jewish your opinion must be right. Which ignores the fact that at least one other jewish poster disagrees with you and you don't know how jewish I am because I'm not going to tell you.

I've got nothing against standing up for mates but I think PM can probably handle honesty, even if he shouts and swears very crossly indeed.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 19, 2012)

co-op said:


> you don't know how jewish I am because I'm not going to tell you.


 
Ask Panda how Jewish _he _is.


----------



## purenarcotic (Nov 19, 2012)

Not all Jews agree with each other shocker.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 19, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> to remind you: i said i would not be surprised if it transpired you were an anti-semite, given the amount of time you've devoted to attacking usury. this is not to say that all jews are usurers, or that all usurers are jews. but usury has been used for centuries as a slur against jews. you seem to be basing your claim to be an anti-capitalist on your opposition to usury. however, usury is by no means a novel phenomenon, and was being used as a tool by anti-semites to whip up anti-jewish sentiment hundreds of years ago, well before capitalism emerged. you're no anti-capitalist. and it may be you're no anti-semite: but i wouldn't be surprised if it turned out you were.


 
Sorry Pickman's, but I simply can't understand what you're trying to say here.

The problem arose when you saw fit to make this comment:



Pickman's model said:


> Although given your well-known dislike of usury I wouldn' be surprised, phil, if you were antipathetick to our hebrew brethren


 
Although I defended you from the charges of anti-semitism that others brought against you, I can certainly see why their suspicions were aroused. It's not so much your public school golf club styling "our hebrew brethren," which is merely snobbish and tasteless. It's your automatic, unthinking assumption that anti-capitalists must necessarily be anti-semites. Can't you see how foolish that assumption is?

On the other hand, you do provide the perfect illustration of this thread's importance at the current time.


----------



## co-op (Nov 19, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Not all Jews agree with each other shocker.


 
I know it's almost like our hebrew brethren are the same as normal people. How weird is that?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 19, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Really? Most of them, all of them or just some of them?
> The answer is, of course, "just some of them", for reasons of tradition, a minority.


 
More bullshit. The vast majority of secular Jews have their sons circumcised. You are proving amazingly ignorant on this and several other related topics.


----------



## cesare (Nov 19, 2012)

Phil, he didn't say that anti-capitalists were anti-Semitic. It's the form of anti-capitalism that's worth discussing.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 19, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> He's conflating the practice of a tenet of Judaism with Jewish identity _per se _. It's only some among the religious who insist trimming boys.


 
Bullshit.  Obvious bullshit.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 19, 2012)

the vast majority of jewish people, secular or not, do have it done

that's not to say that disliking it or not wanting it done is anti-semitic tho, i am sort of semi practicing and wouldnt have it done


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 19, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You've probably not been amid a large gathering of English Jews, then, cos that's OUR way (the polite one, anyway! ) of referring to our Israeli cousins. We're Yids, they're Hebes.


 
Such transparent bullshit as to reveal a veritably virginal innocence of the matters about which he squeaks.



ViolentPanda said:


> You've probably not been amid a large gathering of English Jews


 
Nor have you.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 19, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's built around the less than fraternal relations between the two, although to hear our Establishment talk, we're BFFs.


 
Bullshit strongly redolent of Wikipedia.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Sorry Pickman's, but I simply can't understand what you're trying to say here.
> 
> The problem arose when you saw fit to make this comment:
> 
> ...


I thought i'd said earlier in the thread that there is no general connection between anti-capitalism and anti-semitism, although no doubt there are some people who are anti-semitick who would describe themselves as anti-capitalist. 

As for what you apologise for not understanding, it's very simple: I would not be surprised if it turned out you are an anti-semite. This does not mean I know you to be an anti-semite, or even that I believe you to be an anti-semite, merely that if it emerges you were an anti-semite I should not be surprised. But you're supposed to be an academick, so I suppose you understood that already.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 19, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> I would not be surprised if it turned out you are an anti-semite.


 
But the point is: _why _wouldn't you be surprised?

Because I oppose usury and _for no other reason._

And thus we see that you do indeed equate anti-capitalism with anti-semitism.

Fool.


----------



## cesare (Nov 19, 2012)

Usury existed before Capitalism. Opposing usury doesn't necessarily equate to opposing Capitalism.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> But the point is: _why _wouldn't you be surprised?
> 
> Because I oppose usury and _for no other reason._
> 
> ...


i don't believe you are an anti-capitalist. but I wouldn't be surprised if you were an anti-semite.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 19, 2012)

cesare said:


> Usury existed before Capitalism.


 
True.



cesare said:


> Opposing usury doesn't necessarily equate to opposing Capitalism.


 
Not true.  Usury is a _sine qua non _of capitalism.


----------



## cesare (Nov 19, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Not true.  Usury is a _sine qua non _of capitalism.


You can live without usury in a capitalist society. You can oppose usury without opposing capitalism. You can make profit without charging interest.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 19, 2012)

cesare said:


> You can live without usury in a capitalist society.


 
With difficulty, yes.



cesare said:


> You can make profit without charging interest.


 
With great difficulty, maybe.



cesare said:


> You can oppose usury without opposing capitalism.


 
No.  Usury is a _sine qua non _of capitalism.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2012)

Many muslims manage to be capitalists without usury


----------



## 8ball (Nov 19, 2012)

cesare said:


> You can live without usury in a capitalist society.


 
You are correct that usury can exist _without_ capitalism, just as oxygen can exist without human beings, but the one-way dependent relationship holds; no usury, no capitalism.

As for your statement that I've quoted above, I'm not sure how you could do that without almost totally isolating yourself from mainstream society.


----------



## cesare (Nov 19, 2012)

I don't see why Capitalism is reliant on lending money at excessive interest.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 19, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Many muslims manage to be capitalists without usury


 
Do you have any examples which don't involve fudges based on word games?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 19, 2012)

cesare said:


> I don't see why Capitalism is reliant on lending money at excessive interest.


 
But "usury" means lending at interest period.  Full stop.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 19, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Many muslims manage to be capitalists without usury


 
Fool.


----------



## cesare (Nov 19, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Many muslims manage to be capitalists without usury


And the most immediately obvious example (to me) are oil sheikhs.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 19, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> But "usury" means lending at interest period. Full stop.


 
Hmmm.  Cesare has a point in that there is a more modern usage of the term that's kind of analogous to the more modern usage of the term 'exploitation'.  I'm using the term in the traditional sense but we need to agree on a definition for the sake of this discussion at least or things will get hopelessly tangled...


----------



## cesare (Nov 19, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> But "usury" means lending at interest period.  Full stop.


That's not the definition according to various sources.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 19, 2012)

cesare said:


> And the most immediately obvious example (to me) are oil sheikhs.


 
I don't think they keep all the money in a mattress.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 19, 2012)

cesare said:


> That's not the definition according to various sources.


 
It's not how the term is used today, true. In fact the term has almost lost its meaning today, as practices that would have been unambiguously labelled "usury" even 30 or 40 years ago are now routine.

It is the traditional definition though, and also the definition I was using for the purposes of this discussion.


----------



## cesare (Nov 19, 2012)

8ball said:


> I don't think they keep all the money in a mattress.


They keep it all in the fucking ground. 

If you're going to be bloody sarky, I've got no interest in this. It's painful enough to bloody type as it is.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 19, 2012)

cesare said:


> They keep it all in the fucking ground.
> 
> If you're going to be bloody sarky, I've got no interest in this. It's painful enough to bloody type as it is.


 
I wasn't being sarky, the surrounding economics of the system they're taking part in is relevant to whether they are taking part in 'capitalism without usury'.

In terms of the Islamic argument, it's not really relevant unless what they are doing is different in principle to an oil magnate in the USA.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2012)

8ball said:


> Do you have any examples which don't involve fudges based on word games?


Examples of what?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2012)

No defence, I note, of dwyer's a-c credentials


----------



## cesare (Nov 19, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> It's not how the term is used today, true. In fact the term has almost lost its meaning today, as practices that would have been unambiguously labelled "usury" even 30 or 40 years ago are now routine.
> 
> It is the traditional definition though, and also the definition I was using for the purposes of this discussion.


How far back are you going for your definition? Pre Henry VIII?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 19, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Examples of what?


 
With the best will in the world, Pickman's, it seems to me that you're really not fully following our discussion at the moment. You're clearly disoriented and confused, and the result is that you risk confusing the rest of us too.

Maybe it would be best to sit a few rounds out? Recover your strength, regain your composure, and sally forth afresh, speaking a language that others can actually understand?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2012)

cesare said:


> How far back are you going for your definition? Pre Henry VIII?


He's getting medieval on your ass


----------



## 8ball (Nov 19, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Examples of what?


 
Examples of Islamic instances of capitalism where usury is eliminated rather than disguised by calling it something else.  Such as saying there is no 'interest' on a loan but there is a 'minimum charge levied in proportion with the capital lent', for example.  There are various models of Islamic banking and finance and different Islamic scholars vary in their opinions of which ones constitute 'usury'. 
From my limited reading it seems to be an unholy mixture of theology and economics and like a lot of both disciplines seems prone to disguising the less pleasant elements of its practices with word games.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 19, 2012)

cesare said:


> How far back are you going for your definition? Pre Henry VIII?


 
Aristotle and Deuteronomy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> With the best will in the world, Pickman's, it seems to me that you're really not fully following our discussion at the moment.
> 
> Maybe it would be best to sit a few rounds out?  Recover your strength, regain your composure, and sally forth afresh, speaking a language that others canactually understand.


do you want it in yiddish?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 19, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> do you want it in yiddish?


 
Don't you start, it would be hopeless.  I cannot imagine anyone less Jewish than yourself.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 19, 2012)

8ball said:
			
		

> You are correct that usury can exist without capitalism, just as oxygen can exist without human beings, but the one-way dependent relationship holds; no usury, no capitalism.



What is capitalism?


----------



## purenarcotic (Nov 19, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Don't you start, it would be hopeless. I cannot imagine anyone less Jewish than yourself.


 
How are Jewish people supposed to behave then?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What is capitalism?


 
We're still working on a 'usury' definition!


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 19, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> How are Jewish people supposed to behave then?


 
Basically the opposite of Pickman's.  He is the Anti-Jew.


----------



## purenarcotic (Nov 19, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Basically the opposite of Pickman's. He is the Anti-Jew.


 
I see.  

Don't you find it a little patronising and ironic that you are bandying about phrases like 'I cannot imagine anyone less Jewish than yourself', which sort of suggests you hold in your mind an idea of how Jewish people behave, as if we're all one homogenous group who think and feel the same way. 

Because I find it immensely patronising myself.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 19, 2012)

This thread is going almost exactly as its starter intended I expect!


----------



## purenarcotic (Nov 19, 2012)

William of Walworth said:


> This thread is going almost exactly as its starter intended I expect!


 
I don't even know why I'm commenting, as far as phil is no doubt concerned the fact I am against the practise of circumcision at 8 days old due to issues surrounding consent no doubt makes me an anti-Semite.  Which no doubt my family will find most strange at our next Seder night.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 19, 2012)

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/151424/synagogue-of-anti-semites


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 19, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Don't you find it a little patronising and ironic that you are bandying about phrases like 'I cannot imagine anyone less Jewish than yourself', which sort of suggests you hold in your mind an idea of how Jewish people behave, as if we're all one homogenous group who think and feel the same way.


 
I take your point, and I see what you mean. Of course it is in general silly, and almost always impossible, to generalize about Jewish or any other culture.

Having said that, however, there remain certain irreducible things that no Jew would ever do under any circumstances_. _One of them is to refer to other Jews as "our hebrew brethren." And what do we find on the very first page of this thread?



Pickman's model said:


> our hebrew brethren


 
And so here we see Pickman's doing that which Jews do not do. Do we not?  As I said, no-one could be less Jewish than him.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Don't you start, it would be hopeless.  I cannot imagine anyone less Jewish than yourself.


Come on, you're only 6' down, keep digging


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> I take your point, and I see what you mean. Of course it is in general silly, and almost always impossible, to generalize about Jewish or any other culture.
> 
> Having said that, however, there remain certain irreducible things that no Jew would ever do under any circumstances_. _One of them is to refer to other Jews as "our hebrew brethren." And what do we find on the very first page of this thread?
> 
> ...


so, i'm jewish enough i'd have gone up the chimney 70 years ago, but as far as you're concerned nary a drop of jewish blood flows through my veins. What a disappointment it must be your fantasies have no basis in reality


----------



## purenarcotic (Nov 19, 2012)

How the fuck do you know no Jew would ever say 'hebrew brethren' - have you interviewed all however many million of us or something (evidently the questionnaire didn't reach my house)?  

What a fucking bizarre statement.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> How the fuck do you know no Jew would ever say 'hebrew brethren' - have you interviewed all however many million of us or something (evidently the questionnaire didn't reach my house)?
> 
> What a fucking bizarre statement.


He's vying with ayatollah for the daftest post of 2012


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2012)

co-op said:


> OK I get you now. As you might have noticed on the internet, it's possible to misunderstand a post without being an idiot - or do you think that's the only way you can deal with my substantive point?


 
I think that if someone patronises me, I patronise them back, regardless of their substantive point.



> I can't see anywhere that you've bothered trying to deal with the substantive point except by dismissing it on the grounds that _you_ don't think it stands and because you're jewish your opinion must be right.


 
Care to show me where I've said "I'm Jewish, so my opinion must be right", or implied same?
Of course, you can't because I haven't. You've merely got a cob on and decided to *interpret* what I said as meaning what you want it to.



> Which ignores the fact that at least one other jewish poster disagrees with you and you don't know how jewish I am because I'm not going to tell you.


 
I don't give a fuck whether you're a direct descendant of King David or a Levite priest, I'd still challenge your assertions.



> I've got nothing against standing up for mates but I think PM can probably handle honesty, even if he shouts and swears very crossly indeed.


 
He's not a mate. I have defended and will defend anyone I think is being traduced, even posters I don't like.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 19, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> How are Jewish people supposed to behave then?


 
rubbing their hands and grinning with piles of coins on the table


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Ask Panda how Jewish _he _is.


 
My mum is Jewish, my dad is..well, he was never baptised as C of E.
Poor phil, you made your ignorant assumption a couple of weeks back that I was Jewish on my dad's side, and now you're doing your normal thing of throwing up a barrage of shite to mask what a twat you are.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Not all Jews agree with each other shocker.


 
Terrible, isn't it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Such transparent bullshit as to reveal a veritably virginal innocence of the matters about which he squeaks.
> 
> Nor have you.


 
No phil, of course I haven't, phil. You are, after all, omniscient.


----------



## purenarcotic (Nov 19, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> rubbing their hands and grinning with piles of coins on the table


 
Where are my coins.  I have no coins. </wrists>


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Bullshit strongly redolent of Wikipedia.


 
You know all about using wikipedia as a source. You're the bloke who googled all his "knowledge" of Freemasonry from a conspiracy theory website and wikipedia. 

You're a joke, phil. Like your fellow countryman ern, you're a shadow of your former self. No-one laughs with you anymore, they laugh *at* you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Where are my coins. I have no coins. </wrists>


 
I'll lend you some.

300% interest seem fair to you?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 19, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> How the fuck do you know no Jew would ever say 'hebrew brethren'


 
It's obvious.  Refute it as you can.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> More bullshit. The vast majority of secular Jews have their sons circumcised. You are proving amazingly ignorant on this and several other related topics.


 
Prove this "vast majority", if you can.
I won't hold my breath.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2012)

8ball said:


> Hmmm. Cesare has a point in that there is a more modern usage of the term that's kind of analogous to the more modern usage of the term 'exploitation'. I'm using the term in the traditional sense but we need to agree on a definition for the sake of this discussion at least or things will get hopelessly tangled...


 
Phil only cares about whatever usage allows him to "prove" his point. Words mean what *he* says they mean, damn it!


----------



## purenarcotic (Nov 19, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'll lend you some.
> 
> 300% interest seem fair to you?


 
Excellent.  Do I forfeit a pound of flesh if I can't afford to repay?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 19, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> so, i'm jewish enough i'd have gone up the chimney 70 years ago, but as far as you're concerned nary a drop of jewish blood flows through my veins. What a disappointment it must be your fantasies have no basis in reality


 
So that makes at least two gentiles pretending to be Jews, and at least one Jew pretending to be a gentile, on this thread so far.

Shall we go for the record?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> It's obvious. Refute it as you can.


i thought academics were supposed to support their argument with evidence rather than bluster.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> So that makes at least two gentiles pretending to be Jews, and at least one Jew pretending to be a gentile, on this thread so far.
> 
> Shall we go for the record?


and you can prove these people are pretending to be jews or gentiles (as the case may be) how?


----------



## purenarcotic (Nov 19, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> It's obvious. Refute it as you can.


 
I'm not the one making bizarre statements, you are.  You seem supremely confident so you must have some evidence to back it up with.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> No defence, I note, of dwyer's a-c credentials


 
It's rather difficult to defend anti-capitalist credentials when you're as integrated into the capitalist system as the professor is.


----------



## elbows (Nov 19, 2012)

I may as well throw this waffle about Murdoch's 'Jewish-owned press' tweet into the mix:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/19/rupert-murdoch-jews-twitter


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 19, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> I'm not the one making bizarre statements, you are. You seem supremely confident so you must have some evidence to back it up with.


 
No.  I'm saying that no Jew would ever use the phrase "our hebrew brethren" to refer to other Jews.

So to refute me, you'd have to provide an example of a Jew saying that.  Which you can't--well, evidently Pickman's has now decided that he's Jewish, but we'll treat that claim with the contempt it deserves.  So apart from him you can't.


----------



## cesare (Nov 19, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Excellent. Do I forfeit a pound of flesh if I can't afford to repay?


See, that's an excellent example of excessive interest back in Shakespearean times. But not one drop of blood etc. And arguably pre-dating capitalism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> How are Jewish people supposed to behave then?


 
Again, I'm reminded of his fellow-countryman, ern, who also had some odd ideas about how Jews are supposed to behave. Apparently Jews don't join the armed forces of their home country, only of Israel.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 19, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Again, I'm reminded of his fellow-countryman, ern, who also had some odd ideas about how Jews are supposed to behave. Apparently Jews don't join the armed forces of their home country, only of Israel.


 
Liar.  Ernesto never said that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> No. I'm saying that no Jew would ever use the phrase "our hebrew brethren" to refer to other Jews.
> 
> So to refute me, you'd have to provide an example of a Jew saying that. Which you can't--well, evidently Pickman's has now decided that he's Jewish, but we'll treat that claim with the contempt it deserves. So apart from him you can't.


can you substantiate your claim that i'm not jewish with some evidence please?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2012)

8ball said:


> Examples of Islamic instances of capitalism where usury is eliminated rather than disguised by calling it something else. Such as saying there is no 'interest' on a loan but there is a 'minimum charge levied in proportion with the capital lent', for example. There are various models of Islamic banking and finance and different Islamic scholars vary in their opinions of which ones constitute 'usury'.
> From my limited reading it seems to be an unholy mixture of theology and economics and like a lot of both disciplines seems prone to disguising the less pleasant elements of its practices with word games.


kebab shops, corner shops, curry houses, etc etc ad nauseam.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 19, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> can you substantiate your claim that i'm not jewish with some evidence please?


 
Sure:



Pickman's model said:


> our hebrew brethren


 
QED.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Liar. Ernesto never said that.


so everyone's a liar apart from you it seems.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> How the fuck do you know no Jew would ever say 'hebrew brethren' - have you interviewed all however many million of us or something (evidently the questionnaire didn't reach my house)?
> 
> What a fucking bizarre statement.


 
He doesn't "know" anything, he's doing his usual bollocks of making it up as he goes along, and holding points of view that he can rigourously assert.
It's called "being a troll-cunt".


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Sure:
> 
> 
> 
> QED.


that doesn't prove your point.


----------



## purenarcotic (Nov 19, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Again, I'm reminded of his fellow-countryman, ern, who also had some odd ideas about how Jews are supposed to behave. Apparently Jews don't join the armed forces of their home country, only of Israel.


 
I don't even know where to begin...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> rubbing their hands and grinning with piles of coins on the table


 
Keeps your fingers warm, and your coins polished.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Where are my coins. I have no coins. </wrists>


make a pile of bank notes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Excellent. Do I forfeit a pound of flesh if I can't afford to repay?


 
Nah, I only demand that from the _Goyim_.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i thought academics were supposed to support their argument with evidence rather than bluster.


 
Have you read any of the professor's work? You can pick up most of his books on Abe for 1p plus a couple of quid postage.


----------



## co-op (Nov 19, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Care to show me where I've said "I'm Jewish, so my opinion must be right", or implied same?
> Of course, you can't because I haven't. You've merely got a cob on and decided to *interpret* what I said as meaning what you want it to.


 
OK I inferred it (take a point if you like) - but you've completely failed to address the main point and dismissed it without explanation. You don't think your confidence that this will be accepted on this forum is unconnected with the fact that you advertise the fact you are jewish?



ViolentPanda said:


> He's not a mate. I have defended and will defend anyone I think is being traduced, even posters I don't like.


 
Fine. He's not a mate if you like. But who's traduced him? I've even explicitly posted on this thread I don't think he's an anti-semite. I didn't like his language; I thought (and still think) it's the kind of sneery and patronising expression typically used by an anti-semite. In the context of multiple threads flying around where some very oblique stuff is being cited (mostly correctly imo) as anti-semitic I thought it odd that he used the term and odder that no one pulled him on it. And it's clear that this isn't just some personal weirdness from other messages posted - there have been other good coherent posts making it clear they agree with what I said and why.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Have you read any of the professor's work? You can pick up most of his books on Abe for 1p plus a couple of quid postage.


i can understand the value i'd get from the postage, but isn't charging £0.01 for one of his books pricing them out of the market?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Liar. Ernesto never said that.


 
Like you, he had strange ideas about Jews, and like you he was a twat. He said it.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 19, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Like you, he had strange ideas about Jews, and like you he was a twat. He said it.


 
Liar.  Quote him saying it then.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 19, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Where are my coins. I have no coins. </wrists>


 
hiding in plain sight


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 19, 2012)

Im quite interested who phil thinks is the jew pretending to be a gentile though


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Liar. Quote him saying it then.


strange you set other people to a higher standard of proof than you're willing to meet.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 19, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> kebab shops, corner shops, curry houses, etc etc ad nauseam.


 
Hmmm.  I think we're going to have to sort out that 'capitalism' definition after all.

Once we're done with 'usury', obv.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2012)

co-op said:


> OK I inferred it (take a point if you like) - but you've completely failed to address the main point and dismissed it without explanation. You don't think your confidence that this will be accepted on this forum is unconnected with the fact that you advertise the fact you are jewish?


 
"Advertise"?  I'm a reasonably honest person. If someone asks me "why do you hold that view" I tell them why. I "advertise" my disabilities far more often than my culture.



> Fine. He's not a mate if you like. But who's traduced him?


 
Who do you think?



> I've even explicitly posted on this thread I don't think he's an anti-semite. I didn't like his language; I thought (and still think) it's the kind of sneery and patronising expression typically used by an anti-semite.


 
And I still believe it depends entirely on the wider context of what's being said. It isn't a formulation that has a single objective meaning. It's one that has many subjective meanings.



> In the context of multiple threads flying around where some very oblique stuff is being cited (mostly correctly imo) as anti-semitic I thought it odd that he used the term and odder that no one pulled him on it.


 
Because people didn't find it offensive?



> And it's clear that this isn't just some personal weirdness from other messages posted - there have been other good coherent posts making it clear they agree with what I said and why.


 
By "oblique" I presume you mean the CT stuff.

And yes, there have been coherent posts which agree with you, that doesn't mean you're right, it merely means that people agree with you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> strange you set other people to a higher standard of proof than you're willing to meet.


 
Unsurprising, though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Unsurprising, though.


true


----------



## co-op (Nov 19, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Advertise"? I'm a reasonably honest person. If someone asks me "why do you hold that view" I tell them why. I "advertise" my disabilities far more often than my culture.


 
My whole point is you* haven't* told me "why" - you just said it isn't what I said it is. That's it, I'm wrong.



ViolentPanda said:


> Because people didn't find it offensive?


 
Like you said it all depends on context. Out of the mouth of someone who enjoys being offensive in general it sails pretty near the I'll-see-what-I-can-get-away-with school of racism. In _that_ context it's sneery and patronising and therefore racist. And he need not even know - like I said, much racism I've met isn't from people who give even half a shit about race, they just need a fuck load of attention.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 19, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Im quite interested who phil thinks is the jew pretending to be a gentile though


 
I'm not sure yet.  There is one though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2012)

co-op said:


> My whole point is you* haven't* told me "why" - you just said it isn't what I said it is. That's it, I'm wrong.


 
Of course you're wrong, you're a liberal!

BTW,. I said I didn't agree with you, not "you're wrong".
The reason I didn't agree with you is that your claim didn't reflect my experience.
Actually, that's wrong, it *does* reflect my experience of identity politics back in the '80s, when you couldn't say much at all without someone finding offence. However, it doesn't reflect my experience of anti-semitism.



> Like you said it all depends on context. Out of the mouth of someone who enjoys being offensive in general it sails pretty near the I'll-see-what-I-can-get-away-with school of racism. In _that_ context it's sneery and patronising and therefore racist.


 
So it depends on context *and* specifically on being issued from "...the mouth of someone who enjoys being offensive in general..."



> And he need not even know - like I said, much racism I've met isn't from people who give even half a shit about race, they just need a fuck load of attention.


 
...and get it by enjoying being offensive, obviously!

Has it occurred to you that, just maybe, P's M is one of those people who "doesn't suffer fools gladly", so when someone says something that seems wrong to him, he speaks his mind? I'm not claiming that's what he does, but it might explain why some people take offence.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 19, 2012)

i've had a bit of anti semetism in my life and frankly pickmans being his usual high handed self ispretty low down on thelist of anti semitic incidents to get upset about


----------



## co-op (Nov 19, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Of course you're wrong, you're a liberal!


 
I'm not a liberal really, in fact ayatollah is pretty certain I'm a stalinist. I may have said I was a liberal but only really to hide the miserable truth that I'm probably still really a bennite at heart but since there's only one other person on these boards who's admitted as much (that I've noticed) and since history has delivered a bit of a kicking to the ideology, I tend to keep it quietish. I spent far too long supporting the Labour party years after I should have ditched it, it still annoys me.



ViolentPanda said:


> However, it doesn't reflect my experience of anti-semitism.


 
Fair enough, it does mine, most of the racism I've met in England has been pretty sideways, always couched in plausible deniability and little radar-twitching codewords.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 19, 2012)

TBF Ayahtollah has called stalinist on two people now,both times way off the mark


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> TBF Ayahtollah has called stalinist on two people now,both times way off the mark


and he's a bit of a punctuation fascist


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2012)

co-op said:


> I'm not a liberal really, in fact ayatollah is pretty certain I'm a stalinist.


 
Your username is co-op. How he arrived at the conclusion that you're a Stalinist is beyond me.



> I may have said I was a liberal but only really to hide the miserable truth that I'm probably still really a bennite at heart but since there's only one other person on these boards who's admitted as much (that I've noticed) and since history has delivered a bit of a kicking to the ideology, I tend to keep it quietish. I spent far too long supporting the Labour party years after I should have ditched it, it still annoys me.


 
Nothing wrong with being a Bennite if you were a Labourite. As far as Labour Party politics went, after Kinnock expelled Militant, Benn was as far left as most mainstream Labourites could go without dropping out of the party.




> Fair enough, it does mine, most of the racism I've met in England has been pretty sideways, always couched in plausible deniability and little radar-twitching codewords.


 
Heh, most of what I've experienced (directly and incidentally) has been full-on nastiness.
Except for (and here my own prejudices show) when dealing with the middle-classes, who seem to be steeped in snidery and adept at pretending to be one thing while actually being another.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> TBF Ayahtollah has called stalinist on two people now,both times way off the mark


 
Probably just his favourite label for "people who don't agree with Ayatollah".


----------



## Santino (Nov 19, 2012)

trampie has a thing about Jews too. Perhaps there's something in the genes of our Celtic comrades.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2012)

Santino said:


> trampie has a thing about Jews too. Perhaps there's something in the genes of our Celtic comrades.


do you mean cymrick?


----------



## Santino (Nov 19, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> do you mean cymrick?


I know what I mean.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 19, 2012)

Santino said:


> trampie has a thing about Jews too. Perhaps there's something in the genes of our Celtic comrades.


 
Our Celtic brethren surely?


----------



## Santino (Nov 19, 2012)

two sheds said:


> Our Celtic brethren surely?


And soestren.


----------



## JimW (Nov 19, 2012)

Our Celtic soul brothers, shurely.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 19, 2012)

Our chums of the pallid hue.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2012)

Santino said:


> trampie has a thing about Jews too. Perhaps there's something in the genes of our Celtic comrades.


 
I wonder, is "comrades" less or more racist than "brethren"?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2012)

JimW said:


> Our Celtic soul brothers, shurely.


 
Do redheaded Celts have souls? I'm sure I remember some Scottish mouth-foamer denouncing them as demons!


----------



## JimW (Nov 19, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Do redheaded Celts have souls? I'm sure I remember some Scottish mouth-foamer denouncing them as demons!


If St Kevin Rowlands says they do, who am I to disagree?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Our chums of the pallid hue.


 
The Pallid Hugh


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 19, 2012)

I never knew he was one of them. Funny how they get all the cookery programmes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2012)

JimW said:


> If St Kevin Rowlands says they do, who am I to disagree?


 
A fair point, Jim.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 20, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> this whole threadis just bullshit tbh
> 
> or shouldthat be Bullshit


 
Try batshit mostly.


----------



## co-op (Nov 20, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> TBF Ayahtollah has called stalinist on two people now,both times way off the mark


 
TBF at the time I was defending a stalinist* greek poster (he made some good criticisms of the problems of 'street-anarchist' politics) so I was bang to rights on that one.

But he went a bit mental and started accusing me of _being_ another Greek poster in some kind of sock puppet scenario.


* I don't know if he actually was a stalinist but he was from the KKE.


----------



## co-op (Nov 20, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Heh, most of what I've experienced (directly and incidentally) has been full-on nastiness.
> Except for (and here my own prejudices show) when dealing with the middle-classes, who seem to be steeped in snidery and adept at pretending to be one thing while actually being another.


 
I've found full-on ranting "I hate the fucking jews/pakis/blacks" stuff quite rare (at least in the last 20 years or so). So it's the sideways stuff I get more. I think the sideways is maybe meant to be the gateway to the hardcore stuff, it's a checking out process, like are you one of us? but I give it pretty short shrift these days so maybe I never get to the full-on version.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 20, 2012)

co-op said:


> I've found full-on ranting "I hate the fucking jews/pakis/blacks" stuff quite rare (at least in the last 20 years or so). So it's the sideways stuff I get more. I think the sideways is maybe meant to be the gateway to the hardcore stuff, it's a checking out process, like are you one of us? but I give it pretty short shrift these days so maybe I never get to the full-on version.


 
It's certainly gotten "better" in terms of blatant racism, but a lot of it is re-directed. I was in south-east Kent at the weekend for a family gathering (first time I've seen all my siblings in the same room for about 10 years), and the amount of anti-Pole and anti-Slovak (the two largest central/eastern European communities down there at the mo) abuse I heard was a pungent reminder of the '70s and '80s. Every trope that was used then, is used now - they smell of weird food; they're dirty; they assault our women; they're pimps and whores; they sell drugs; they steal our jobs - fucking ridiculous.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 21, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's certainly gotten "better" in terms of blatant racism, but a lot of it is re-directed. I was in south-east Kent at the weekend for a family gathering (first time I've seen all my siblings in the same room for about 10 years), and the amount of anti-Pole and anti-Slovak (the two largest central/eastern European communities down there at the mo) abuse I heard was a pungent reminder of the '70s and '80s. Every trope that was used then, is used now - they smell of weird food; they're dirty; they assault our women; they're pimps and whores; they sell drugs; they steal our jobs - fucking ridiculous.


They drink their beer


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 22, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's certainly gotten "better" in terms of blatant racism, but a lot of it is re-directed. I was in south-east Kent at the weekend for a family gathering (first time I've seen all my siblings in the same room for about 10 years), and the amount of anti-Pole and anti-Slovak (the two largest central/eastern European communities down there at the mo) abuse I heard was a pungent reminder of the '70s and '80s. Every trope that was used then, is used now - they smell of weird food; they're dirty; they assault our women; they're pimps and whores; they sell drugs; they steal our jobs - fucking ridiculous.


 
This would be the gentile branch of _la famille Panda _I presume?


----------



## Greebo (Nov 22, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> This would be the gentile branch of _la famille Panda _I presume?


What difference would it make?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 22, 2012)

I wish I was a Jew - Jewish insults are way better than the standard English ones - they actually sound like what they mean if you know what I mean. Is there any way of becoming a Jew without having to get to grips with inconvenient stuff like religious observance (and circumcision  )?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 22, 2012)

Greebo said:


> What difference would it make?


 
English Jews would be unlikely to hold the prejudiced views that Panda attributes to them, or to express themselves in the crudely bigoted fashion that he recounts.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 22, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> English Jews would be unlikely to hold the prejudiced views that Panda attributes to them, or to express themselves in the crudely bigoted fashion that he recounts.


You weren't there, mon cher.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 22, 2012)

Greebo said:


> You weren't there, mon cher.


 
Nor was he.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 22, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Nor was he.


He was there.  I should know, I was there with him.  The only reason that VP had access to urban this weekend (while I didn't) was his smartphone.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 22, 2012)

Greebo said:


> He was there. I should know, I was there with him.


 
And I was right, was I not?


----------



## Greebo (Nov 22, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> And I was right, was I not?


No


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 22, 2012)

Greebo said:


> No


 
English Jews ranting against Polish immigrants for stealing their women?   Really?

I´ll take your word for it if you say so, but that´s a damnably unusual scenario if you ask me.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> This would be the gentile branch of _la famille Panda _I presume?


Presume what you like. It's not as if you won't invent something to suit you imaginings anyway, is it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> English Jews would be unlikely to hold the prejudiced views that Panda attributes to them, or to express themselves in the crudely bigoted fashion that he recounts.


More blah blah unsubstantiated opinion from Urban's expert on everything, ever! Don't you ever feel even mild embarrassment for the shite you come out with? Jews can be as great bigots as anyone else.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> English Jews ranting against Polish immigrants for stealing their women?   Really?
> 
> I´ll take your word for it if you say so, but that´s a damnably unusual scenario if you ask me.


No-one did. Why would they?


----------



## Greebo (Nov 23, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Presume what you like. It's not as if you won't invent something to suit you imaginings anyway, is it?


One of these days I'm going to bang your heads together (at least virtually) in the vain hope of letting in some sense, so help me Eris!


----------



## framed (Nov 23, 2012)

Santino said:


> trampie has a thing about Jews too. Perhaps there's something in the genes of our Celtic comrades.


 
How dare you...


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Jews can be as great bigots as anyone else.


 
That´s simply not true in my experience (which I suspect is greater than yours).

But in any case, it´s the specifics of your anecdote that has raised suspicions.  English Jews complaining about Polish immigrants _stealing their women...._ something tells me that you´re ¨embellishing¨ the truth again...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> That´s simply not true in my experience (which I suspect is greater than yours).
> 
> But in any case, it´s the specifics of your anecdote that has raised suspicions. English Jews complaining about Polish immigrants _stealing their women...._ something tells me that you´re ¨embellishing¨ the truth again...


 
In my experience, which is far greater than yours and definitely much better, it probably is true because ignorance is well into all that equal opportunities stuff and spreads itself pretty evenly across people of all creeds.

Seems like a really odd thing to make up to me. Almost like it wasn't made up.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Seems like a really odd thing to make up to me.


 
Innit.

¨They smell of weird food¨ indeed.  What does he take us for?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Innit.
> 
> ¨They smell of weird food¨ indeed. What does he take us for?


 
That wasn't really my point  I've edited to clarify and add some more words and that.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> In my experience, which is far greater than yours and definitely much better, it probably is true because ignorance is well into all that equal opportunities stuff and spreads itself pretty evenly across people of all creeds.


 
Got to disagree with you there.

My experience has been that ethnic groups who have most often been on the receiving end of racism tend, by and large, to be extremely anti racist. I´ve found this particularly true of Jewish and black people.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Got to disagree with you there.
> 
> My experience has been that ethnic groups who have most often been on the receiving end of racism tend, by and large, to be extremely anti racist. I´ve found this particularly true of Jewish and black people.


 
As I said, my experience is far superior to yours. And there is plenty of evidence of racist Jews on the Gaza thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> As I said, my experience is far superior to yours. And there is plenty of evidence of racist Jews on the Gaza thread.


And plenty of evidence of dwyer's ignorance and stupidity on every thread he posts on. Did we ever reach a point on the proof of god thread where god was in fact proved?


----------



## Greebo (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> <snip>But in any case, it´s the specifics of your anecdote that has raised suspicions. English Jews complaining about Polish immigrants _stealing their women...._ something tells me that you´re ¨embellishing¨ the truth again...


Go back and reread what VP said. FWIW most of the comments I heard while there were anti-Romanian (as fed by the Daily Mail) or anti-Slovak. Mind you, that was after I'd mentioned that my brother's fiancee is Polish. Tbf there is a conspicuous amount of East Europeans in and around Folkestone.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Got to disagree with you there.
> 
> My experience has been that ethnic groups who have most often been on the receiving end of racism tend, by and large, to be extremely anti racist. I´ve found this particularly true of Jewish and black people.


Out of curiosity, has this anti-racism been displayed in response to something you've said?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I think taffboy and jazzz are so deep in anti-semitism they can't even see it.


 
Evidence please. Oh no, you don't do that. You can just make shit up about people being racist and expect that to do. Regardless of other qualities, that one is repulsive and full of shit. 

How many times have I asked, offered access to far more wibble than appears here for you to do an inquisitional trawl to back up your show trial mentality?

Bollocks from start to finish. That's your stupid claim, that is. So deep in your own arrogant bullshit that you can't see it perhaps.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> That´s simply not true in my experience (which I suspect is greater than yours).
> 
> But in any case, it´s the specifics of your anecdote that has raised suspicions. English Jews complaining about Polish immigrants _stealing their women...._ something tells me that you´re ¨embellishing¨ the truth again...


 
Sounds to me like you're so busy attempting to essentialise English Jewry, and have been away ffrom the UK so long, that you're clueless.

On yet another subject!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Got to disagree with you there.
> 
> My experience has been that ethnic groups who have most often been on the receiving end of racism tend, by and large, to be extremely anti racist. I´ve found this particularly true of Jewish and black people.


 
In the US, maybe, and even then, that's probably dependent on who you mix with. Your friend Rachamim, for example, is a prime example of a bigot. A man who declared that he'd kill his own offspring if they "married out" or even voted in a way he didn't like.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Out of curiosity, has this anti-racism been displayed in response to something you've said?


 
You mean one of his comments about the _sais_, for example?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Taking the liberty of moving this from the other thread...
> 
> Well I for one believe that finance capitalism is a conspiracy involving under a thousand individuals world-wide. So that makes me a conspiracy theorist. But I'd be rather upset if anyone called me an anti-semite.
> 
> I imagine there are millions of people in my position.


 
But they will. It doesn't have to be actually racist or evidenced. Why bother with that kind of thing? It's a "trope" and "structrual". It's "code". You probably hate Jewish people. "probably" is enough. Your're offensive - the real deal. Guilty. The enemy. No need for questions. No need for you to say anything remotely connected to the issue. You are as bad as Klein and Chomsky. Take him down.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 23, 2012)

Separately, I aint read this in a long time. How valuable is it to any case given the period of its writing?

Was Orwell an anti semite? I know the accusation is there, but what substantiates it? If so, was it at a greater or lesser level than that was sadly typical at the time? 

http://www.george-orwell.org/AntiSemitism_In_Britian/0.html


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Separately, I aint read this in a long time. How valuable is it to any case given the period of its writing?
> 
> Was Orwell an anti semite? I know the accusation is there, but what substantiates it? If so, was it at a greater or lesser level than that was sadly typical at the time?
> 
> http://www.george-orwell.org/AntiSemitism_In_Britian/0.html


Stop trying to deflect attention from your own behaviour


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 23, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Separately, I aint read this in a long time. How valuable is it to any case given the period of its writing?
> 
> Was Orwell an anti semite? I know the accusation is there, but what substantiates it? If so, was it at a greater or lesser level than that was sadly typical at the time?
> 
> http://www.george-orwell.org/AntiSemitism_In_Britian/0.html


 

he was a grass and an eton boy but I'd never heard the anti semetism accusation


Huxely now, there was a bona fides full blown omniracist


----------



## Santino (Nov 23, 2012)

Orwell said:
			
		

> What is bad about Jews is that they are not only conspicuous, but go out of their way to make themselves so... What I do feel is that any Jew, i.e. European Jews, would prefer Hitler’s kind of social system to ours, if it were not that he happens to persecute them.


 
http://www.bookforum.com/inprint/019_03/10013


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 23, 2012)




----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> he was a grass and an eton boy but I'd never heard the anti semetism accusation
> 
> 
> Huxely now, there was a bona fides full blown omniracist


 
As a lowly epsilon minus you would say that!


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 23, 2012)

one of the horrifying things about reading Huxelys essays is that you realise he wasn't implicitly critising eugenisist ideas in brave new world. It was just how he saw things going and though his savage was the critic it was on piss weak morality grounds not disgust at genetic breeding games.


So orwell. Grass, eton boy, drank tea from a samovar like a massive twat and now also an anti semite. Well well well.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

Also a bit of a homophobe - in down and out there's plenty of reference to homless shelters being 'rife' with homosexuality. Can't remember who it was but someone, think it might have been one of the biographers, had a theory that Orwell himself was gay and that this was just him making up for it - didn't present anything approaching real evidence though and I'm far from convinced.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Nov 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Also a bit of a homophobe - in down and out there's plenty of reference to homless shelters being 'rife' with homosexuality. Can't remember who it was but someone, think it might have been one of the biographers, had a theory that Orwell himself was gay and that this was just him making up for it - didn't present anything approaching real evidence though and I'm far from convinced.


 
I'm not sure about that, mate. Orwell was a twat and a bit of a dillitante and when he wrote Wigan pier, he accepted the hospitality of Wiganites who couldn't afford the presence of a bumbling inkstained incubus wanking over an aspidistra without offering them a penny in renumeration, but I'm not sure that your accusation of homophobia stands - In down & out, he's lamenting the fact that the only sexual avenue open to the tramps was homosexuality  - The way I read it was that he's arguing against the fact that the tramps lives were so circumscribed that they didn't have the opportunity to socialise with women in any way, so homosexuality was their only recourse.

The main reason that posterity should place Orwell in the file marked "Wanker" is that bit in down & out where he's in Paris boiling some milk on the stove (and what kind of man consumes warm milk, in or on anything?)  and a bug drops in it so he launches it. You'd just remove the insect and carry on with the milk, it's being boiled so there's not going to be any germs in it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> I'm not sure about that, mate. Orwell was a twat and a bit of a dillitante and when he wrote Wigan pier, he accepted the hospitality of Wiganites who couldn't afford the presence of a bumbling inkstained incubus wanking over an aspidistra without offering them a penny in renumeration, but I'm not sure that your accusation of homophobia stands - In down & out, he's lamenting the fact that the only sexual avenue open to the tramps was homosexuality - The way I read it was that he's arguing against the fact that the tramps lives were so circumscribed that they didn't have the opportunity to socialise with women in any way, so homosexuality was their only recourse.
> 
> The main reason that posterity should place Orwell in the file marked "Wanker" is that bit in down & out where he's in Paris boiling some milk on the stove (and what kind of man consumes warm milk, in or on anything?) and a bug drops in it so he launches it. You'd just remove the insect and carry on with the milk, it's being boiled so there's not going to be any germs in it.


i've always thought boiling milk wrong because i've never liked the skin on it. but then i haven't drunk milk for more than 30 years so it's not something that keeps me awake at nights


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 23, 2012)

according to alexi sayles Bio he was known for ripping the piss out of CP members. Who he later went on to grass on obvs


----------



## two sheds (Nov 23, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> The main reason that posterity should place Orwell in the file marked "Wanker" is that bit in down & out where he's in Paris boiling some milk on the stove (and what kind of man consumes warm milk, in or on anything?) and a bug drops in it so he launches it. You'd just remove the insect and carry on with the milk, it's being boiled so there's not going to be any germs in it.


 
Perhaps the bug gave him a life changing realisation of what kind of man consumes warm milk?

Or perhaps he wasn't intending to boil it because that ruins the flavour (what kind of man consumes boiled milk, in or on anything?)  in which case just warming it up would have given fertile ground for any lethal diseases the bug carried.

Or something.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 23, 2012)

given that his general living conditions made gentlegreen look like a paragon of cleanliness I don't think it would be considerations of disease. Rather just a visceral reaction of disgust


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 23, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Stop trying to deflect attention from your own behaviour



What the fuck are you on about?

It's other people who have not sufficiently addressed my behaviour by not subsantiating their disgusting and groundless allegations. 

I have done everything I can to offer make myself accountable, more fully than just with reference what I type on here.

Now we're into every other issue being raised as being "a deflection". No need to look into it, ask me if I am deflecting or any other kind of reason. Just make the assumption.

British society, which doubtless you critique, has a tradition of innocent till proven guilty.

You are more reactionary and authoritarian than our judicial system. That's a behaviour demonstrated in 1 sentence of yours. Laughable. 2 faced. Full of shit. That's you Pickmans, in this instance at least.

Obviously, if you find an anti semitic quote from me there will be something to discuss.  You can't though, can you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Separately, I aint read this in a long time. How valuable is it to any case given the period of its writing?
> 
> Was Orwell an anti semite? I know the accusation is there, but what substantiates it? If so, was it at a greater or lesser level than that was sadly typical at the time?
> 
> http://www.george-orwell.org/AntiSemitism_In_Britian/0.html


Orwell should be read accounting for the time and context in which he wrote. If one does so, your question becomes irrelevant.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 23, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Separately, I aint read this in a long time. How valuable is it to any case given the period of its writing?
> 
> Was Orwell an anti semite? I know the accusation is there, but what substantiates it? If so, was it at a greater or lesser level than that was sadly typical at the time?
> 
> http://www.george-orwell.org/AntiSemitism_In_Britian/0.html


 
It's 1984 all over again. And that quote about truth being self evident.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> he was a grass and an eton boy but I'd never heard the anti semetism accusation


 
It's made by people who mistake the anti-Semitism Orwell *reported* for anti-Semitism Orwell *uttered*.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 23, 2012)

so the dead author is blameless of that slur? hmmm. Still a nob though. brilliant prose mind. But not a figure I like much for his person. In bios he does not look good.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> so the dead author is blameless of that slur? hmmm. Still a nob though. brilliant prose mind. But not a figure I like much for his person. In bios he does not look good.


 
No, he's not blameless - he evinced the opinions of the time, so he held some ideas that we'd laugh at now, but we're very much normative to the "creative" middle-classes of the time. Read his stuff in that context, and he wasn't an anti-Semite, he was just an ordinarily-prejudiced dick in the way someone of his _milieu_ would be 10-15 years later making assumptions about "west Indians".


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> What the fuck are you on about?
> 
> It's other people who have not sufficiently addressed my behaviour by not subsantiating their disgusting and groundless allegations.
> 
> ...


 
Quit whining. Nobody has accused you of being antisemitic - you're being as dishonest as you always are. It's just like the EDL thread, where you claimed others didn't like you taking the piss out of illiterate fash because it might upset them. You do it all the time. I can think of only two explanations - either you're terminally fucking stupid and can't comprehend simple arguments and basic concepts or you follow the Alan Dershorwitz school of dishonest debate. I suspect it's the latter but if it's the former please do let me know and I'll try and go easy on you in future.

You've been accused, rightly, of ignoring antisemitism in the sources you cite. You've been accused, rightly, of ignoring antisemitism in others. You've been accused, rightly, of uncritically accepting arguments put forward by antisemites to support their world view. Then you claim it's because you criticise finance capital, which is utter bollocks - it's the specific form those criticisms take that's important. And yours follow precisely the same (simplistic) logic as those put forward by antisemites. Chomsky's don't. Harvey's don't. Lapavitsas's don't. Doug Henwood's don't. That's why you're viewed with suspicion and theirs aren't. And because you've managed to convince yourself that there's nothing to it - you're just being persecuted - you seem to think that the people whose arguments you parrot (I suspect verbatim, you use precisely the same hyperbolic language as they do) are being persecuted too. That's why you refused to admit that your co-loon on the other thread was antisemitic, despite the fact that he endorsed the protocols and thought that Jews brought Hitler to power so that the holocaust could be used to justify the zionist project. When in reality anyone with half a brain could see it. You're not an antisemite - you're just dangerously and naively uncritical when it comes to sources. And just because you're not subjectively antisemitic that doesn't mean your repeating of simplistic arguments that form part of the intellectual armoury of antisemitism doesn't objectively aid the antisemitic cause.

How's about a little self-reflection? Don't you think there might be a _reason _why you get a hard time over this? Or do you have such a deep persecution complex that you think it's personal.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> What the fuck are you on about?
> 
> It's other people who have not sufficiently addressed my behaviour by not subsantiating their disgusting and groundless allegations.
> 
> ...


you'd have been better advised to keep quiet than to post this load of auld shite. it is interesting you conflate the judiciary with british society. there is a proud tradition outside (and indeed inside) the british judiciary of forgetting all about the innocent until proven guilty bit: and as vp points out you're hardly averse to knowingly using anti-semitick sources.

as for my finding an anti-semitick quote from you, i am sure there'll be one along shortly.

i don't think you two-faced. the one you've got is bad enough.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 23, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> ....................
> 
> as for my finding an anti-semitick quote from you, i am sure there'll be one along shortly.
> 
> ..................


 
The quality of argument is extremely strained.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> The quality of argument is extremely strained.


how would you know? you don't even know how tro construct an argument.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 23, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> how would you know? you don't even know how tro construct an argument.


 
Against you that's not nessessary.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Against you that's not nessessary.


no, you don't know how to construct an argument, not 'why don't you construct an argument against me'. you cannot construct an argument, there is no thread on this site where you have constructed an argument.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Go back and reread what VP said. FWIW most of the comments I heard while there were anti-Romanian (as fed by the Daily Mail) or anti-Slovak. Mind you, that was after I'd mentioned that my brother's fiancee is Polish. Tbf there is a conspicuous amount of East Europeans in and around Folkestone.


 
Well that makes a lot more sense than the rubbish Panda was peddling.

To me it shows just how parochial and ignorant he is, that he assumes we would believe that racism is always the same in every context.  English Jews complaining about Poles who ¨smell of weird food¨ indeed--utterly implausible to anyone with any relevant experience.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> In the US, maybe, and even then, that's probably dependent on who you mix with. Your friend Rachamim, for example, is a prime example of a bigot. A man who declared that he'd kill his own offspring if they "married out" or even voted in a way he didn't like.


 
More lies.

Rachamim was an eccentric in many ways, and I´m not about to justify all his opinions. He was also an admirable fellow in many ways, though perhaps not any that you could appreciate, and he was indisputably a man of wide and varied experience. One thing he was not, though, was a racist. In fact he always stressed that Arabs were his ¨brothers¨(whatever he meant by that).


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You mean one of his comments about the _sais_, for example?


 
Nobody likes the _sais _except themselves.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> But they will. It doesn't have to be actually racist or evidenced. Why bother with that kind of thing? It's a "trope" and "structrual". It's "code". You probably hate Jewish people. "probably" is enough. Your're offensive - the real deal. Guilty. The enemy. No need for questions. No need for you to say anything remotely connected to the issue. You are as bad as Klein and Chomsky. Take him down.


 
That´s certainly the attitude that many here display.

Jazzz made an excellent point when he noted that all Pickman´s is concerned with is what peope ¨are.¨ As in ¨is he an anti--semite or a racist, even though he denies it... aha doesn´t this post prove that he is a racist etc.¨

Thus ignoring the content of what has been said in favor of the putative identity of the sayer. As well as being deeply stupid, as Jazzz rightly noted, that is the kind of argument pursued by racists thenselves.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> More lies.
> 
> Rachamim was an eccentric in many ways, and I´m not about to justify all his opinions. He was also an admirable fellow in many ways, though perhaps not any that you could apprciate, and he was indisputably a man of wide and varied experience. One thing he was not, though, was a racist. In fact he always stressed that Arabs were his ¨brothers¨(whatever he meant by that).


 
I didn't call him a racist, I called him what he is: A bigot. Do at least have the self-respect to get it right.



phildwyer said:


> Nobody likes the _sais _except themselves.


 
Said the bigot.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> I'm not sure that your accusation of homophobia stands


 
It does. I can´t be bothered to look up the references, but in the early novels there are plenty of anti--gay references... going on about ¨gingers¨ and mocking effeminacy. Just shows he was a man of his time, nothing more.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i've always thought boiling milk wrong because i've never liked the skin on it.


 
Idiot.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Well that makes a lot more sense than the rubbish Panda was peddling.
> 
> To me it shows just how parochial and ignorant he is, that he assumes we would believe that racism is always the same in every context. English Jews complaining about Poles who ¨smell of weird food¨ indeed--utterly implausible to anyone with any relevant experience.


You're somewhat misquoting VP, and then willfully misunderstanding (I refuse to believe that you'd do it unintentionally) your interpretation of his summary of what was said. You can do better than this.  I hope.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> so the dead author is blameless of that slur? hmmm. Still a nob though. brilliant prose mind. But not a figure I like much for his person. In bios he does not look good.


 
No offence, but I always laugh when people pick holes in the biographies of dead authors like this.  You have to see them in the round, and the most important thing about them is their work, which goes a long way towards redeeming their character.

You try doing what Orwell did.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Idiot.


You forget that not everyone realises milk had to be boiled (aka scalded) because milk often wasn't pasteurised at the time.  Try not to conflate ignorance with stupidity.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Quit whining. Nobody has accused you of being antisemitic


 
Very very very far from the truth indeed.



butchersapron said:


> I think taffboy and jazzz are so deep in anti-semitism they can't even see it.


----------



## elbows (Nov 23, 2012)

If it is possible to have a sensible discussion about whether some Jewish people are inclined to be bigots or racists, I would not start by using either of those terms. Instead I would start by exploring potentially related phenomenon such as how much importance people place upon a specific identity. Some have accused Jewish people of, to use a more modern term, being a bit 'cliquey'. 

I have my doubt as to whether it is really possible to discuss this sensibly, especially since any generalisations when discussing such issues very quickly leads to stuff that is condemnatory in tone, and is only ever a few words away from anti-semitism etc.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> as for my finding an anti-semitick quote from you, i am sure there'll be one along shortly.


 
In the meantime, we´ll have to put up with this.



Pickman's model said:


> our hebrew brethren


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Very very very far from the truth indeed.


 
The post you just quoted is perfectly in line with what I've argued - you can be deep in antisemitism without being an antisemite. And those two are wading knee deep at the very least.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

Greebo said:


> You're somewhat misquoting VP, and then willfully misunderstanding (I refuse to believe that you'd do it unintentionally) your interpretation of his summary of what was said. You can do better than this. I hope.


 
These are Panda´s claims:



ViolentPanda said:


> I was in south-east Kent at the weekend for a family gathering (first time I've seen all my siblings in the same room for about 10 years), and the amount of anti-Pole and anti-Slovak (the two largest central/eastern European communities down there at the mo) abuse I heard was a pungent reminder of the '70s and '80s. Every trope that was used then, is used now - they smell of weird food; they're dirty; they assault our women; they're pimps and whores; they sell drugs; they steal our jobs - fucking ridiculous.


 
Now I´m sorry, but that´s just completely implausible.  That´s not the language that English Jews use to express their prejudices (and they are not free of prejudice).  He may not be outright lying, but he´s certainly embroidering the truth.

As he often does in fact.  Ask him if he´s read _Capital._


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> These are Panda´s claims:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Well the judging by the thread in theory where love detective handed your arse to you on a plate you certainly haven't.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> you can be deep in antisemitism without being an antisemite.


 
Can you? Really? Like a sort of paddling--pool, armband-style anti-semitism?

Don´t be silly.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> These are Panda´s claims:
> 
> 
> 
> Now I´m sorry, but that´s just completely implausible. That´s not the language that English Jews use to express their prejudices (and they are not free of prejudice). He may not be outright lying, but he´s certainly embroidering the truth.


 
Because obviously you know *all about* the language that English Jews use, in fact no doubt you know most English Jews!



> As he often does in fact. Ask him if he´s read _Capital._


 
Oh dear, digging up the one that everyone except you laughed at, phil? You're getting desperate.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2012)

Greebo said:


> You're somewhat misquoting VP, and then willfully misunderstanding (I refuse to believe that you'd do it unintentionally) your interpretation of his summary of what was said. You can do better than this. I hope.


 
So, he's doing the usual, then, like where he says "racist" where I said "bigot"? How very unsurprising.
Still, if it keeps him out of the cantinas, and his hands off the barmaids...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Well the judging by the thread in theory where love detective handed your arse to you on a plate you certainly haven't.


 
Which one? There's at least two, I believe.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> These are Panda´s claims:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How many English Jews do you know IRL?  You weren't in the room, I was.  VP's memory for words is also more faulty than mine (which is at least one of the reasons I was there in the first place).

I'm not your dogsbody or P.A., I've had a long week, and cba to ask VP about anything when you could ask him yourself.  In any case, I seem to remember you getting found out as not having read _Capital_.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> No offence, but I always laugh when people pick holes in the biographies of dead authors like this. You have to see them in the round, and the most important thing about them is their work, which goes a long way towards redeeming their character.
> 
> You try doing what Orwell did.


 

I do. I'm not good at it though.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

Greebo said:


> How many English Jews do you know IRL?


 
More than Panda, that´s for sure.



Greebo said:


> VP's memory for words is also more faulty than mine (which is at least one of the reasons I was there in the first place).


 
Fair enough.

As I´ve said, I can certainly believe English Jews expressing prejudice etc. What I can´t believe is that they would do so in the terms that Panda reports. I don´t believe that they attacked Poles for ¨smelling of weird food¨ and all that nonsense.


----------



## elbows (Nov 23, 2012)

Anti-Dwyeritism is on the rise, though nobody innocent shoud be harmed as a result of such trends. 

Anyone fancy forging together 'The protocols of Dwyer"? Whats this about barmaids?


----------



## Greebo (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> <snip>As I´ve said, I can certainly believe English Jews expressing prejudice etc. What I can´t believe is that they would do so in the terms that Panda reports. I don´t believe that they attacked Poles for ¨smelling of weird food¨ and all that nonsense.


Believe what you want, it doesn't change what was said there.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

elbows said:


> Anyone fancy forging together 'The protocols of Dwyer"? Whats this about barmaids?


 
I must admit that, despite myself, I was quite impressed at the depths of Panda´s obsession in this matter.

Many years ago, in the infamous ¨Gun Control¨thread, I recounted my experience of dating a barmaid who carried a ¨Saturday Night Special.¨ Obviously Panda has been treasuring the memory all this time.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 23, 2012)

elbows said:


> Anti-Dwyeritism is on the rise, though nobody innocent shoud be harmed as a result of such trends.
> <snip>
> Whats this about barmaids?


The barmaids thing stemmed from one of the threads which Dwyer started (after a conspicuously high failure rate when on the pull in bars), possibly the one asking if dating (and getting as far as "the ride") was a numbers game.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

Greebo said:


> The barmaids thing stemmed from one of the threads which Dwyer started (after a conspicuously high failure rate when on the pull in bars), possibly the one asking if dating (and getting as far as "the ride") was a numbers game.


 
No it wasn´t, it was the Gun thread.  I told the story of how she chased off a mugger.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> No offence, but I always laugh when people pick holes in the biographies of dead authors like this. You have to see them in the round, and the most important thing about them *is their work, which goes a long way towards redeeming their character.*
> 
> You try doing what Orwell did.


 

I recall hearing about this idea in lit theory (which was a real headache of a lesson in the main). Maybe we should take the corpus as the main thing. But I've read two orwell bios, all of his essays (I think) and all of his books excepting the one about him tramping it for fun. Oh and somehow I missed homage. must rectify that




I don't like him. He's a crafter of brilliant prose and nails some points with breathtaking clarity. But. He wsn't a nice person, he was a narcissist and a poor little rich boy (not quite rich enough woe is me)

I'll still recomend him to people and still read his output that I have missed so far. Still a nob.



anyway I note that you've failed to expose the vile Nabokov recently so your grasp of the undisovered peeds in our midst is slipping


----------



## elbows (Nov 23, 2012)

Greebo said:


> The barmaids thing stemmed from one of the threads which Dwyer started (after a conspicuously high failure rate when on the pull in bars), possibly the one asking if dating (and getting as far as "the ride") was a numbers game.


Ta for the info.

I am tempted to replace the cry for reason and decency 'fuck off Dwyer' with 'drive the Dwyonists into the sea'.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> No it wasn´t, it was the Gun thread. I told the story of how she chased off a mugger.


That story was somewhat eclipsed by your other anecdotes. Including the one about shagging a drug dealer's girlfriend on a plane.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> I recall hearing about this idea in lit theory (which was a real headache of a lesson in the main). Maybe we should take the corpus as the main thing. But I've read two orwell bios, all of his essays (I think) and all of his books excepting the one about him tramping it for fun. Oh and somehow I missed homage. must rectify that
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Basically, all famous writers were complete and utter disfunctional pricks in their private life.

If you believe the biographies that is.  Or it might just be that anyone´s life would look pretty bad if subjected to that kind of intense scrutiny.  But the only C20th author who sounds like a decent bloke is James Joyce, and that´s only if you didn´t have sex with him.

Interesting that you mention Nabokov.  Can you imagine the reception that _Lolita _would get if it were published today?  We truly have regressed in so many ways.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

Greebo said:


> That story was somewhat eclipsed by your other anecdotes. Including the one about shagging a drug dealer's girlfriend on a plane.


 
Not a drug dealer, a professional assassin.  Not shagged, received a handjob therefrom.  Every word true.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Not a drug dealer, a professional assassin. Not shagged, received a handjob therefrom. Every word true.


So, er, what did you do in return for the handjob?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 23, 2012)

Beckett was a lovely man by all accounts.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

Greebo said:


> So, er, what did you do in return for the handjob?


 
Nothing, there wasn´t room. We were in a 3-seat row, and covered only with a thin airplane blanket. The poor guy in the window seat was pretending to be asleep. It would have seemed a bit odd if I´d thrown her over the back of the seat and rogered her in full view of everyone wouldn´t it?

BTW one interesting thing is that she told me that her boyfriend (the assassin) was employed by British Petroleum in Algeria.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Nothing, there wasn´t room.  <snip>It would have seemed a bit odd if I´d thrown her over the back of the seat and rogered her in full view of everyone wouldn´t it?


There's a lot between nothing and throwing her over the back of the seat and rogering her which you could have done.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

Greebo said:


> There's a lot between nothing and throwing her over the back of the seat and rogering her which you could have done.


 
What would you have done?


----------



## Greebo (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> What would you have done?


If you really can't think of anything at all between those two extremes, I pity you.  Apart from anything else, you've got hands, haven't you?


----------



## spawnofsatan (Nov 23, 2012)

Greebo said:


> If you really can't think of anything at all between those two extremes, I pity you. Apart from anything else, you've got hands, haven't you?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

Greebo said:


> If you really can't think of anything at all between those two extremes, I pity you. Apart from anything else, you've got hands, haven't you?


 
They were busy.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> They were busy.


Is the most pathetic excuse ever.


----------



## JimW (Nov 23, 2012)

Those little bags of peanuts are a fucker to open, it's true.


----------



## spawnofsatan (Nov 23, 2012)

You missed out on a chance for the mile high club Phil, for shame.


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 23, 2012)

Was the professional assassin a Mossad agent? Strong links with BP etc


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Is the most pathetic excuse ever.


 
Excuse for what?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 23, 2012)

its like a crap chapter in a fredrick forsyth novel


----------



## Greebo (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Excuse for what?


For not returning the favour.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

Buckaroo said:


> Was the professional assassin a Mossad agent? Strong links with BP etc


 
It´s a funny thing, but most people to whom I´ve told this anecdote find the bit about the assassin hard to believe.  And I don´t know if it was true myself.  But I see nothing implausible in the idea that BP would employ professional assassins in Algeria.  Why wouldn´t they?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Idiot.


it's good to see academick debate alive and well on urban.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 23, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> its like a crap chapter in a fredrick forsyth novel


It makes the saga of the rich older woman and Stanley Edwards look well told, and it certainly wasn't.


----------



## spawnofsatan (Nov 23, 2012)

I sort of did a Phil once on a long haul, ripped its head off in the toilet so I class myself as being in the half mile high club.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 23, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> it's good to see academick debate alive and well on urban.


"(unappealing thing of choice) that's you, that is"  ad nauseum


----------



## spawnofsatan (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> It´s a funny thing, but most people to whom I´ve told this anecdote find the bit about the assassin hard to believe. And I don´t know if it was true myself. But I see nothing implausible in the idea that BP would employ professional assassins in Algeria. Why wouldn´t they?


 

Because hitmen tend to keep quiet about what they do, sort of comes with the territory.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 23, 2012)

spawnofsatan said:


> I sort of did a Phil once on a long haul, ripped its head off in the toilet so I class myself as being in the half mile high club.


 

having a tommy tank at altitude doesn't count does it?


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> It´s a funny thing, but most people to whom I´ve told this anecdote find the bit about the assassin hard to believe. And I don´t know if it was true myself. But I see nothing implausible in the idea that BP would employ professional assassins in Algeria. Why wouldn´t they?


 
That's not really the implausible bit and if you didn't know it was true etc


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

spawnofsatan said:


> I sort of did a Phil once on a long haul, ripped its head off in the toilet so I class myself as being in the half mile high club.


 
I´ve occasionally entertained the idea of propositioning a stewardess. After all it worked for Ralph Fiennes. But by the time I´ve managed to get drunk enough to actually do it, I always feel too ill.

I wonder how many other Urbanites have had unexpected sexual encounters at 3,000 feet?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

Buckaroo said:


> That's not really the implausible bit


 
What is?



Buckaroo said:


> and if you didn't know it was true etc


 
No idea what you´re getting at here.  I don´t know if her story was true, because I only had her word for it.  But I´ve no reason to disbelieve her.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> I´ve occasionally entertained the idea of propositioning a stewardess. After all it worked for Ralph Fiennes. But by the time I´ve manged to get drunk enough to actually do it, I always feel too ill.
> 
> I wonder how many other Urbanites have had unexpected sexual encounters at 3,000 feet?


is that the altitude at which you met ralph fiennes?


----------



## spawnofsatan (Nov 23, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> having a tommy tank at altitude doesn't count does it?


 
Counts for me


----------



## spawnofsatan (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> I´ve occasionally entertained the idea of propositioning a stewardess. After all it worked for Ralph Fiennes. But by the time I´ve managed to get drunk enough to actually do it, I always feel too ill.
> 
> I wonder how many other Urbanites have had unexpected sexual encounters at 3,000 feet?


 

You have to be in first class mate.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 23, 2012)

no sex encounter, just encounters with them. You know them. They fly regularly. they have views that would warrant a chinning were I not sick from the unfamiliar altitude change. They have airmiles and frequent flyer rewards. I hate them


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Can you? Really? Like a sort of paddling--pool, armband-style anti-semitism?
> 
> Don´t be silly.


 
Yes you can. It's possible to move in the same circles as antisemites - as both those posters do with much of the conspiracy theory they adhere to, especially that relating to their bizarre, reality free critique of finance capital - whilst not being antisemitic. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. Just as there are plenty of islamophobes who aren't neofascists but who swim in a sea of neofascism.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yes you can. It's possible to move in the same circles as antisemites - as both those posters do


 
This is ridiculous.  How could Jazzz mix with anti-semites ffs?  They wouldn´t have him.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> is that the altitude at which you met ralph fiennes?


 
As a matter of fact, I _have _met Ralph Fiennes.  Before he was famous.  Really, really nice guy but quite unfeasibly posh.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> This is ridiculous. How could Jazzz mix with anti-semites ffs? They wouldn´t have him.


in that they're the same as most people.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yes you can. It's possible to move in the same circles as antisemites - as both those posters do with much of the conspiracy theory they adhere to, especially that relating to their bizarre, reality free critique of finance capital - whilst not being antisemitic. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. Just as there are plenty of islamophobes who aren't neofascists but who swim in a sea of neofascism.


Have a go at jazzz for his coloidal silver and vaccine idiocy by all means, and particularly his Obama birther nonsense. But I don't think it's fair to judge him for his views on finance. They are sincerely held, I think, without malice.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

spawnofsatan said:


> Because hitmen tend to keep quiet about what they do, sort of comes with the territory.


 
But they´d tell their girlfriend though wouldn´t they?

And if their girlfriend got really pissed and wanted to impress a strange bloke, she might well pass it on.  Mightn´t she?

I don´t see what´s implausible at all.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> This is ridiculous. How could Jazzz mix with anti-semites ffs? They wouldn´t have him.


 

EDL have/had a jewish division. I think the last confused member of that wing did one though.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> This is ridiculous. How could Jazzz mix with anti-semites ffs? They wouldn´t have him.


 
Bollocks. Having a useful idiot like him around makes it easier for them to deny they own antisemitism.

Oh, I nearly forgot - fuck off dwyer.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 23, 2012)

elbows said:


> If it is possible to have a sensible discussion about whether some Jewish people are inclined to be bigots or racists, I would not start by using either of those terms. Instead I would start by exploring potentially related phenomenon such as how much importance people place upon a specific identity. Some have accused Jewish people of, to use a more modern term, being a bit 'cliquey'.
> 
> I have my doubt as to whether it is really possible to discuss this sensibly, especially since any generalisations when discussing such issues very quickly leads to stuff that is condemnatory in tone, and is only ever a few words away from anti-semitism etc.


 
of course jewish people can be racist, there are quite a lot in the israeli government doing just that  as for cliquey, some are, but that's hardly a uniquely jewish trait!


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> But they´d tell their girlfriend though wouldn´t they?
> 
> And if their girlfriend got really pissed and wanted to impress a strange bloke, she might well pass it on. Mightn´t she?
> 
> I don´t see what´s implausible at all.


it sounds like you've been the victim of this sort of thing before. how many strange men have your paramours sought to impress?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Have a go at jazzz for his coloidal silver and vaccine idiocy by all means, and particularly his Obama birther nonsense. But I don't think it's fair to judge him for his views on finance. They are sincerely held, I think, without malice.


 
That's precisely my point - always best to read the whole post I find. The bit where I said _whilst not being antisemitic _in particular.


----------



## spawnofsatan (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> But they´d tell their girlfriend though wouldn´t they?
> 
> And if their girlfriend got really pissed and wanted to impress a strange bloke, she might well pass it on. Mightn´t she?
> 
> I don´t see what´s implausible at all.


 
Err no, 'just popping out love, have to double tap someone in Algeria', Not realistic.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Bollocks. Having a useful idiot like him around makes it easier for them to deny they own antisemitism.


 
Since when did anti-semites deny their anti-semitism?

You´re actually a bit thick aren´t you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Since when did anti-semites deny their anti-semitism?
> 
> You´re actually a bit thick aren´t you?


you're in a bit of a bind now i think you'll find.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> EDL have/had a jewish division. I think the last confused member of that wing did one though.


 
They also have a single lonely useful idiot Muslim called Ahmed. The twat.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Since when did anti-semites deny their anti-semitism?
> 
> You´re actually a bit thick aren´t you?


 
almost always post WWII.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Since when did anti-semites deny their anti-semitism?
> 
> You´re actually a bit thick aren´t you?


 
Fuck's sake. They _always _deny their antisemitism these days. Even holocaust deniers. AJPalm from the other thread is a prime example.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

spawnofsatan said:


> Err no, 'just popping out love, have to double tap someone in Algeria', Not realistic.


 
Right, I want to get to the bottom of this.

I don´t see which part you don´t believe.

Do you not believe that there are professional assassins?  Do you not believe they have girlfriends?  Do you not believe that BP employs them?  Or what?

I´m not having a go, I´m genuinely intrigued.  What´s so hard to believe?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> What´s so hard to believe?


 
The sincerity of pretty much everything you type.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> They also have a single lonely useful idiot Muslim called Ahmed. The twat.


 

Oh I thought the solitary person of dusky hue was a sikh motivated by hindu nationalist anti islam thinking

Must update my files


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> That's precisely my point - always best to read the whole post I find. The bit where I said _whilst not being antisemitic _in particular.


I didn't think you were calling him antisemitic. I did think you were having a little pop at him for hanging around with antisemites due to his views on finance, though. I don't think that's entirely fair, and he gets jumped on for it without cause quite a bit.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Have a go at jazzz for his coloidal silver and vaccine idiocy by all means, and particularly his Obama birther nonsense. But I don't think it's fair to judge him for his views on finance. They are sincerely held, I think, without malice.


 
And they are perfectly reasonable too.  And anyone who thinks they are anti-semitic is either ignorant or malicious.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Oh I thought the solitary person of dusky hue was a sikh motivated by hindu nationalist anti islam thinking
> 
> Must update my files


 
That's Mr Singh (can't remember his first name off the top of my head) - Ahmed is from Glasgow and a sectarian anti-catholic rangers fan on top of everything else. A very confused and stupid man.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I didn't think you were calling him antisemitic. I did think you were having a little pop at him for hanging around with antisemites due to his views on finance, though. I don't think that's entirely fair, and he gets jumped on for it without cause quite a bit.


 
Yep.  And Spiney Norman looks like an ingratiating, sycophantic tosspot for his pathetic, popularity-seeking attempts to scramble aboard the anti-Jazzz bandwaggon.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I didn't think you were calling him antisemitic. I did think you were having a little pop at him for hanging around with antisemites due to his views on finance, though. I don't think that's entirely fair, and he gets jumped on for it without cause quite a bit.


 
Why isn't it fair? When the sources he uses are often websites that contain holocaust denial material I think it's perfectly fair. And I'm not sure how your claim (which I agree with) that he holds the views without malice has any bearing on the question.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> The sincerity of pretty much everything you type.


 
I sincerely think you´re a twat though.

Is that hard to believe too?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> It does. I can´t be bothered to look up the references, but in the early novels there are plenty of anti--gay references... going on about ¨gingers¨ and mocking effeminacy. Just shows he was a man of his time, nothing more.


 
Fair enough - I have to admit to a bit of anti Orwellian prejudice coz of my dad who absolutely _hated_ him (without having read any of his books) - That was one of the things I rather admired about the old goat.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Why isn't it fair? When the sources he uses are often websites that contain holocaust denial material I think it's perfectly fair.


 
Bullshit. 

You don´t think it´s fair.  You know it´s not fair.  You join in because you´re trying to curry favor.

To call someone an anti semite on such flimsy grounds is to rob the term of all significance.  And that´s a very dangerous thing to do.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Yep. And Spiney Norman looks like an ingratiating, sycophantic tosspot for his pathetic, popularity-seeking attempts to scramble aboard the anti-Jazzz bandwaggon.


 
I just want to be loved 

You're the one who brought Jazzz into it by the way, I'm not really interested in him because he's gone so far down the loon route that I don't think there's any coming back. I was just talking about and to taffboy until then because I have a faint hope, naive as it might be, that he might eventually listen to reason.


----------



## spawnofsatan (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Right, I want to get to the bottom of this.
> 
> I don´t see which part you don´t believe.
> 
> ...


 

That professional assassins would tell their girlfriends.

That BP would employ them ( it would be through a front company or similar, no way would a company as big as that have a direct link)

Of course they exist, i've met quite a few men that would commit extreme violence even murder for cash, but they don't advertise the fact.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Bullshit.
> 
> You don´t think it´s fair. You know it´s not fair. You join in because you´re trying to curry favor.
> 
> To call someone an anti semite on such flimsy grounds is to rob the term of all significance. And that´s a very dangerous thing to do.


 
I haven't called anyone an antisemite, as you well know. In fact I've gone out of my way to point out that I _don't _think either of them are.

You're a really shit troll phil, utterly transparent.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> I sincerely think you´re a twat though.
> 
> Is that hard to believe too?


 
Nope, almost impossible to care about though.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I just want to be loved
> 
> You're the one who brought Jazzz into it by the way, I'm not really interested in him because he's gone so far down the loon route that I don't think there's any coming back. I was just talking about and to taffboy until then because I have a faint hope, naive as it might be, that he might eventually listen to reason.


 
Jazzz has some eccentric beliefs, true.

But to call him an anti-semite is just pathetic.  Quite apart from the fact that he vehemently denies it, and has never ever even once actually *said *anything anti semitic, the bloke is a JEW ffs.

Bandwaggon jumper that you are.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I haven't called anyone an antisemite, as you well know. In fact I've gone out of my way to point out that I _don't _think either of them are.


 
Oh that´s right, you just said they were ¨knee deep in anti semitism.¨ That´s much better isn´t it?

Why try to wriggle out of it?  You were having so much fun on the moral high ground.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2012)

elbows said:


> Anti-Dwyeritism is on the rise, though nobody innocent shoud be harmed as a result of such trends.
> 
> Anyone fancy forging together 'The protocols of Dwyer"? Whats this about barmaids?


 
Not just barmaids, females in general, as long as they're still breathing, and it's not so much his dating habits, as his fondness for tactile behaviour.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Jazzz has some eccentric beliefs, true.
> 
> But to call him an anti-semite is just pathetic. Quite apart from the fact that he vehemently denies it, and has never ever even once actually *said *anything anti semitic, the bloke is a JEW ffs.
> 
> Bandwaggon jumper that you are.


 
You've got a reputation for being good at this trolling business but I have no idea where it comes from. You're all over the shop, losing your rag and throwing insults around. Very disappointing.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Oh that´s right, you just said they were ¨knee deep in anti semitism.¨ That´s much better isn´t it?
> 
> Why try to wriggle out of it? You were having so much fun on the moral high ground.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Quite apart from the fact that he vehemently denies it,


that being the case it makes a mockery of all your attempts to paint me as an anti-semite.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Right, I want to get to the bottom of this.<snip>I´m not having a go, I´m genuinely intrigued. What´s so hard to believe?


Personally, the existence of hit men and the possibility of them having girlfriends (or boyfriends) goes without saying. BP or other multi-national corprations directly employing them? Less plausible, if they had any sense they'd hire a hit man at more than one remove to make the deed difficult to trace back. One of the aforesaid girlfriends deciding to give you as close to a revenge fuck as she could get? That could just about happen.


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> What is?
> 
> 
> 
> No idea what you´re getting at here. I don´t know if her story was true, because I only had her word for it. But I´ve no reason to disbelieve her.


 

What I'm getting at is that maybe she was the assassin. You know when people say 'I have a friend etc' and they're really talking about themselves. Just a thought. And maybe she was a he in disguise, did you check? Not that women can't be assassins of course.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

spawnofsatan said:


> That professional assassins would tell their girlfriends.


 
So what do they tell their families they do then? 



spawnofsatan said:


> That BP would employ them ( it would be through a front company or similar, no way would a company as big as that have a direct link)


 
Of course it would be through a front of some kind.  But the employee would have to be aware of who was behind it.



spawnofsatan said:


> Of course they exist, i've met quite a few men that would commit extreme violence even murder for cash, but they don't advertise the fact.


 
Well this guy didn´t advertize the fact either.  He told the woman he lived with.  Seems entirely plausible to me.

Now, if I were hearing this story for the first time, the bit I´d find implausible is the girlfriend telling a complete stranger.  But if you´d met the lady in question this would not surprise you in the slightest.


----------



## elbows (Nov 23, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> of course jewish people can be racist, there are quite a lot in the israeli government doing just that  as for cliquey, some are, but that's hardly a uniquely jewish trait!


 
Yeah Im not trying to suggest these things or any other phenomenon are unique to Jews or anybody else, I was just hoping to explore it a little as its one of the excuses I've seen people use in the past for thinking that its fair game to single Jewish people out and attack them, especially in the UK. I dont know enough about it myself to comment further, but I imagine a more recent version of the same phenomenon might have been people moaning about the non-integration aspects of some more recent immigrants to the UK.

There is an anecdote from my childhood that might be relevant, but I was too young at the time to remember the details so I'll probably have to ask my mum about it to know if I'm barking up the wrong tree or not.

One thing that does fascinate me after being exposed to many US cultural products & people online in the last decade or so, is how much better represented certain aspects of Jewish culture, family life etc seem to be over there. It may just be a bag of crude & cheesy cliches, but it does offer me a little more chance to glimpse fascinating details in a manner I've not seen in the UK. I'm not suggesting this has much to do with racism etc, at least not directly, but it does leave me somewhat ignorant and confused.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

Buckaroo said:


> And maybe she was a he in disguise, did you check?


 
Yes.


----------



## spawnofsatan (Nov 23, 2012)

Phil got a hand shandy off Woody Harrelsons dads lass


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Personally, the existence of hit men and the possibility of them having girlfriends (or boyfriends) goes without saying. BP or other multi-national corprations directly employing them? Less plausible, if they had any sense thye's hire a hit man at more than one remove to make the deed difficult to trace back. One of the aforesaid girlfriends deciding to give you as close to a revenge fuck as she could get? That could just about happen.


 
At last the voice of reason.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Well that makes a lot more sense than the rubbish Panda was peddling.
> 
> To me it shows just how parochial and ignorant he is, that he assumes we would believe that racism is always the same in every context. English Jews complaining about Poles who ¨smell of weird food¨ indeed--utterly implausible to anyone with any relevant experience.


 
You've really got no idea, have you? Anti-Semitism is still common public discourse in Poland.
This might all be an exercise in amusement to you - "I know, I'll condescend to people and wind them up because I'm bored!" - but it merely marks you as a twat.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You've really got no idea, have you? Anti-Semitism is still common public discourse in Poland.


 
Yes I know.  But that´s not what you said.

You said that English Jews attacked Polish immigrants for ¨smelling of weird food.¨ That didn´t actually happen did it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Yes I know. But that´s not what you said.
> 
> You said that English Jews attacked Polish immigrants for ¨smelling of weird food.¨ That didn´t actually happen did it?


You don't live here any more. When Poles started coming in large numbers around a decade ago, they were subject to a fair bit of hostility.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2012)

Greebo said:


> If you really can't think of anything at all between those two extremes, I pity you. Apart from anything else, you've got hands, haven't you?


 
Only him you pity? Shouldn't it be her for getting no return on her efforts?


----------



## spawnofsatan (Nov 23, 2012)

_Strangers in the night, exchanging glances, strangers on the plane, exchanging wankses..._


----------



## Greebo (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> At last the voice of reason.


Did I say that the girlfriend would know about the hitman's source of income?  No.  Because in all probability she'd be safer not knowing.  And even if she knew, she'd be pretty stupid to tell some random bloke about it.  

Oh wait, she gave you an unreciprocated handjob.  She'd fall into the pretty stupid category then.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Yes I know. But that´s not what you said.
> 
> You said that English Jews attacked Polish immigrants for ¨smelling of weird food.¨ That didn´t actually happen did it?


 
I said that my siblings said some anti-Pole and anti-Slovak shit, *one* of those things being "smelling of weird food". I made no statement about English Jews in general, although you've happily "run with" that theme because you're an arse. 

Do at least *try* to get things right, eh?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You don't live here any more. When Poles started coming in large numbers around a decade ago, they were subject to a fair bit of hostility.


 
But not on account of their aromatic kielbasas.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Did I say that the girlfriend would know about the hitman's source of income? No. Because in all probability she'd be safer not knowing. And even if she knew, she'd be pretty stupid to tell some random bloke about it.
> 
> Oh wait, she gave you an unreciprocated handjob. She'd fall into the pretty stupid category then.


 
You might say that, I´m too much of a gentleman.

As I say, if you´d met her you wouldn´t be surprised at her loquacity.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 23, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You don't live here any more. When Poles started coming in large numbers around a decade ago, they were subject to a fair bit of hostility.


Tell me about it.  My brother's Polish girlfriend got so fed up with comments about being a porn star etc (she's a natural blonde and works over here in the public health sector at quite a skilled level) that she dyed her hair mid brown.


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Yes.


 
So you used your hands then?


----------



## spawnofsatan (Nov 23, 2012)

Phil, what was the the lead up to the ham shank, you both pissed or what?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> it's good to see academick debate alive and well on urban.


 
phil's an academick? 5 letters too many!


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

Buckaroo said:


> So you used your hands then?


 
Have I ever denied it?


----------



## Greebo (Nov 23, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Only him you pity? Shouldn't it be her for getting no return on her efforts?


I pity her that Dwyer was the best she could find by way of a revenge fuck.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2012)

Greebo said:


> It makes the saga of the rich older woman and Stanley Edwards look well told, and it certainly wasn't.


 
And the saga of Stanley Edwards and the two central European glamour models with the red rag-top sportscar!


----------



## Greebo (Nov 23, 2012)

Buckaroo said:


> So you used your hands then?


Not, apparently, enough to bring her off. 

In spite of it being a 9 hour flight.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> is that the altitude at which you met ralph fiennes?


 
So he had a sexual encounter with Ralph Fiennes at 3000ft, eh?


----------



## spawnofsatan (Nov 23, 2012)

Good job she wasn't an anti-semenist...

Gets coat


----------



## Greebo (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> You might say that, I´m too much of a gentleman.<snip>


And yet also too little of one.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

spawnofsatan said:


> Phil, what was the the lead up to the ham shank, you both pissed or what?


 
Oh aye.  She´d just had a furious argument with the assassin in the departure lounge.  Started telling me all about it, asked the stewardess to bring us unlimited wine, and within an hour of take off she had her tongue down my throat.  It was a nine hour flight too.

From the reaction of the stewardesses I got the impression that this sort of thing happens quite often.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> its like a crap chapter in a fredrick forsyth novel


 
"A crap chapter"?
Are there any non-crap chapters in Freddie's output?


----------



## spawnofsatan (Nov 23, 2012)

So she was steaming and you believed the assassin story?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2012)

spawnofsatan said:


> Because hitmen tend to keep quiet about what they do, sort of comes with the territory.


 
You've got it all wrong. They tell their girlfriends, who tell blokes they wank off on planes. It's perfectly straightforward planewank etiquette!


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Have I ever denied it?


 
Well you said you did nothing in return for the hand job so what were you doing with your hands? Frisking her for guns no doubt, can't be too careful.


----------



## spawnofsatan (Nov 23, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You've got it all wrong. They tell their girlfriends, who tell blokes they wank off on planes. It's perfectly straightforward planewank etiquette!


 
Got it!  Michela Strachan gave the five finger shuffle and Pete waterman was the boyfriend, Hitman and her innit


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

spawnofsatan said:


> So she was steaming and you believed the assassin story?


 
I see what you mean, but I´m pretty good at listening.  She was too pissed to make up a consistent story.  It was definitely true. 

She was gorgeous too, the spitting image of Chris Evert.  I saw her a couple of times afterwards, but then the assassin came over to live with her, and I felt it wise to discontinue our liaison.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 23, 2012)

Note to self:  Should I ever be inclined to have revenge sex of any kind, make sure whoever I'm with comes second.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> This is ridiculous. How could Jazzz mix with anti-semites ffs? They wouldn´t have him.


He's friends with Nick Kollerstrom. Nick Kollerstrom is an anti-Semite of the "Auschwitz wasn't as bad as people make out" historical revisionism school. Ask Jazzz, and he'll happily admit being Kollerstrom's friend.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Note to self: Should I ever be inclined to have revenge sex of any kind, make sure whoever I'm with comes second.


 
Have I told you lately how proud I am of you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> I see what you mean, but I´m pretty good at listening. She was too pissed to make up a consistent story. It was definitely true.
> 
> She was gorgeous too, the spitting image of Chris Evert. I saw her a couple of times afterwards, but then the assassin came over to live with her, and I felt it wise to discontinue our liaison.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 23, 2012)

auschwitz swimming pools and that .

to be fair jazzz did cut him off iirc - dunno tho


----------



## spawnofsatan (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> I see what you mean, but I´m pretty good at listening. She was too pissed to make up a consistent story. It was definitely true.
> 
> She was gorgeous too, the spitting image of Chris Evert. I saw her a couple of times afterwards, but then the assassin came over to live with her, and I felt it wise to discontinue our liaison.


 
Eh, so now you had a relationship with her? Come on Phil I may have attended the Dayncourt academy of Mining and other fine arts but even i'm not buying that.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

I'm sorry, what does the aerowank have to do with antisemitism? It's derailing the thread and stopping phil from giving me more attention, I'm hoping to redeem myself in his eyes


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> to be fair jazzz did cut him off iirc - dunno tho


 
He did.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 23, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Have I told you lately how proud I am of you?


You have, and how you hope you'll never annoy me enough to give me ideas.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Since when did anti-semites deny their anti-semitism?
> 
> You´re actually a bit thick aren´t you?


 
You must be, if you believe that all anti-Semites are happy to admit to their vice in public.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 23, 2012)

spawnofsatan said:


> Eh, so now you had a relationship with her? Come on Phil I may have attended the Dayncourt academy of Mining and other fine arts but even i'm not buying that.


This _*is*_ phildwyer - probably capable of confecting *ahem* liasons out of anything.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Oh I thought the solitary person of dusky hue was a sikh motivated by hindu nationalist anti islam thinking
> 
> Must update my files


 
He was in the NF, and then the BNP, was Mr. Sikh nationalist.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

spawnofsatan said:


> Eh, so now you had a relationship with her? Come on Phil I may have attended the Dayncourt academy of Mining and other fine arts but even i'm not buying that.


 
Not a relationship exactly, let´s just say that I returned the favor a couple of times.

And once again, I really don´t see what´s so implausible.  Is it more likely that I´d never have seen her again?  Do I look stupid?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Do I look stupid?


does the pope shit in the vatican?


----------



## Greebo (Nov 23, 2012)

spawnofsatan said:


> Eh, so now you had a relationship with her? Come on Phil I may have attended the Dayncourt academy of Mining and other fine arts but even i'm not buying that.


This _*is*_ phildwyer - probably capable of confecting *ahem* liaisons out of anything.


----------



## spawnofsatan (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Not a relationship exactly, let´s just say that I returned the favor a couple of times.
> 
> And once again, I really don´t see what´s so implausible. Is it more likely that I´d never have seen her again? Do I look stupid?


 
Dunno, never seen a pic of you, you are entertaining though and I don't mean that in a bad way.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm sorry, what does the aerowank have to do with antisemitism?


 
If you truly can´t see the connection you are beyond my help.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> <snip>I really don´t see what´s so implausible. Is it more likely that I´d never have seen her again? Do I look stupid?


You sound it.  Are you this amazed when nonurbanites don't entirely believe you?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

spawnofsatan said:


> you are entertaining though


 
I should get paid for this.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> I should get paid for this.


you're not that entertaining


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> If you truly can´t see the connection you are beyond my help.


someone who's grazed their knee would be beyond your help.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> auschwitz swimming pools and that .
> 
> to be fair jazzz did cut him off iirc - dunno tho


 
And how much convincing did it take *before* Jazz cut him off - was it as soon as Kollerstrom posted up his revisionism? Nah, in fact Jazzz C & P'ed an excerpt from one of Kollerstrom's articles into a thread! It was only after people (including yourself) exhaustively went through Kollerstrom's sources and pointed out who they were in the "holocaust denial" _milieu_ that he cut Kollerstrom off, and even then, he still kept up with Kollerstrom's 7/7 stuff, despite what Kollerstrom and his pals were doing to the likes of Badger Kitten and her fellow survivors.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm sorry, what does the aerowank have to do with antisemitism? It's derailing the thread and stopping phil from giving me more attention, I'm hoping to redeem myself in his eyes


 
He had a wank on an Aero?

Vile cunt!


----------



## spawnofsatan (Nov 23, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> He had a wank on an Aero?
> 
> Vile cunt!


 
It was a Milky bar afterwards


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> If you truly can´t see the connection you are beyond my help.


 
Something to do with foreskin possibly?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> And how much convincing did it take *before* Jazz cut him off - was it as soon as Kollerstrom posted up his revisionism? Nah, in fact Jazzz C & P'ed an excerpt from one of Kollerstrom's articles into a thread! It was only after people (including yourself) exhaustively went through Kollerstrom's sources and pointed out who they were in the "holocaust denial" _milieu_ that he cut Kollerstrom off, and even then, he still kept up with Kollerstrom's 7/7 stuff, despite what Kollerstrom and his pals were doing to the likes of Badger Kitten and her fellow survivors.


 
Pathetic.  Guilt by association.  If you can find a single example of Jazzz actually saying anything anti semitic, then we´ll discuss it.  Until then, I´ll take his entirely consistent denials, the absence of any evidence to the contrary and above all the fact that he is ACTUALLY A JEW HIMSELF as satisfactory proof that he is no anti semite.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2012)

spawnofsatan said:


> It was a Milky bar afterwards


 
 *vom*


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Pathetic. Guilt by association. If you can find a single example of Jazzz actually saying anything anti semitic, then we´ll discuss it. Until then, I´ll take his entirely consistent denials, the absence of any evidence to the contrary and above all the fact that he is ACTUALLY A JEW HIMSELF as satisfactory proof that he is no anti semite.


 
I'm not claiming and haven't claimed that Jazzz is an anti-Semite or that he said anything anti-Semitic, phil.I said that he was friends with an anti-Semite after you claimed in post #484 that "This is ridiculous. How could Jazzz mix with anti-semites ffs? They wouldn´t have him", showing that he has indeed mixed with anti-Semites.

Do stop attempting to shift the goalposts in an attempt to appear like you've got something worthwhile to say, it makes you look even more of a cowardly twat than you did on the punch thread.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 23, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> you're not that entertaining


He is, some of the time.  And some of the time he's an irritant.  Not unlike every other prick.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2012)

spawnofsatan said:


> It was a Milky bar afterwards


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2012)

Greebo said:


> He is, some of the time.


enough to get paid?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 23, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> as for my finding an anti-semitick quote from you, i am sure there'll be one along shortly.


 
Off you go then. Where are they? Time to put up or ST Fuck Up.

One has not been along shortly in months.

As for quoting purportedly anti semitic sources, that's goal post shifting. It would tenuous to claim it added up to a row of beans, serving as an opportunity for you to distract from the fact that you can't stand up your prime claims.

Though we've had people denounce Marx as anti semitic. People quote him here all the time.

Yesterday I saw an interesting article on another thread. It was from the Daily Star, a hothouse of Islamaphobia. No one jumped all over that poster, because no one dripping with self appointed "I know better" arrogance can have been round at the time.

You accused me of distracting. I wasn't. Your point was shit.

I have been accused of racism and bigotry. There has been no evidence presented of racism or bigotry on my part. The accusation is shit.

Your "joke" about 1 face was pretty shit as well, FWIW.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 23, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> "A crap chapter"?
> Are there any non-crap chapters in Freddie's output?


 

I've still got a lot of time for Day of The Jackal. I know its deighton/ludlum/hailey era airport thriller stuff but I still like it


----------



## Greebo (Nov 23, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> enough to get paid?


For his writing?  Yes.  For posting here?  OU's more entertaining (as are fogbat and Corax at times), and if he doesn't get paid for it Dwyer's not worth paying either.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Off you go then. Or STFU.
> 
> One has not been along shortly in months.
> 
> ...


yes. we're all shit and you're right.



get to fuck with your miserable, self-serving wank


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman

"Nobody has accused you of being antisemitic"

Yes SN, they absolutely have.

Butchers and FW among them. Pickmans is sure a quote will be along. He's in the crowd. They could do with some self reflection regarding their desire to persecute.

They have made false accusations, they haven't stood them up and they haven't withdrawn. 

Coming back to that isn't "whining", it's a case of not letting bullies off the hook. 

Some of your post would stand up fine if all this wasn't the case. And I have/will reflect on how I treat some sources. Must say that I haven't learned a huge amount about all this "coding" that I didn't know already. The ratio of self-estimation of knowledge/insight  to actual knowledge/insight of some key posters is not always impressive.

As I said elsewhere, people who use such "tropes" as "code" usually give themselves away in other ways.

The EDL stuff was entirely different. The critique of me there was clearly a lot better founded, I had counter arguments and, aside from the typical ill temper of some people, so did my critics. Obviously astonishing arrogance and froth were features of me being denunciated. It's the internet after all.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> SpineyNorman
> 
> "Nobody has accused you of being antisemitic"
> 
> ...


pls point to a false accusation i've made about you.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> "Nobody has accused you of being antisemitic"
> 
> Yes SN, they absolutely have.


 
Indeed, as has Jazzz--regularly, loudly, and without any reason.  The current wriggling and backtracking by many of these accusers is quite sickening.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Indeed, as has Jazzz--regularly, loudly, and without any reason. The current wriggling and backtracking by many of these accusers is quite sickening.


like your continued posting, you mean


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> like your continued posting, you mean


 
And you are the worst culprit.

The only decent response to the sort of charges Jazzz has had to put up with here is to stand up and state, clearly and unequivocally, that he is no anti semite.  All the rest of this temporizing and equivocation is cowardly crap.  And those who jump onto this bandwaggon in the hope that it will win them popularity are the lowest of the low.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 23, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> like your continued posting, you mean


In an ever-changing world, it's reassuring that the love-in between you and Dwyer continues.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> And you are the worst culprit.
> 
> The only decent response to the sort of charges Jazzz has had to put up with here is to stand up and state, clearly and unequivocally, that he is no anti semite. All the rest of this temporizing and equivocation is cowardly crap. And those who jump onto this bandwaggon in the hope that it will win them popularity are the lowest of the low.


that's you, you mean. after all, i'm not here for popularity. you seem to be seeking jazzz's good opinion.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 23, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> that's you, you mean. after all, i'm not here for popularity. you seem to be seeking jazzz's good opinion.


Which is of course jazzz's to bestow, not Dwyer's to beg.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Which is of course jazzz's to bestow, not Dwyer's to beg.


yes


----------



## Greebo (Nov 23, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> yes


Well I don't know about you, but even from here with my nose still a bit blocked I can smell the desperation.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 23, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> yes. we're all shit and you're right.
> 
> 
> 
> get to fuck with your miserable, self-serving wank


 
Likewise.

Oh no, something is missing. Evidence of me being a racist. 

Which makes you look the bigger twat. 

I may be a miserable self serving wank. I am not a miserable self serving wank who makes accusations I can't stand up.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Well I don't know about you, but even from here with my nose still a bit blocked I can smell the desperation.


i'm agreeing with you, jazzz's good opinion is in his gift, which is why i said pd was seeking it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Likewise.
> 
> Oh no, something is missing. Evidence of me being a racist.
> 
> ...


i asked you to provide evidence of a false accusation, not to make something up.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> SpineyNorman
> 
> "Nobody has accused you of being antisemitic"
> 
> ...


 
Would you care to quote these accusations of antisemitism? I've certainly not seen them - although your refusal to agree that AJPalm was antisemitic did get peoples backs up - understandably so in my opinion. I suspect this was more about face saving than anything else though.

The code is relatively straightforward - reference to the financial crisis having been deliberately engineered by some nebulous financial elite, especially when, as in Icke, it's referred to as 'Rothschild Zionism'. Stuff about a new world order, etc. (as in the new world order as a conspiracy to enslave mankind rather than the new world order they spoke of after the cold war, which was just another term for US dominance). All this stuff stems directly from the protocols, even if they're not explicit about it - precisely the same arguments are used, the same mechanisms for bringing about world domination etc. I take it you do accept that the protocols were an antisemitic forgery, as has been established beyond all reasonable doubt. And most of the stuff about fractional reserve banking being a conspiracy to create money out of thin air comes from the far right - people like G. Edward Griffin. When these things are repeated by otherwise sensible people, even - in fact especially - when they're not being used to forward an antisemitic agenda, it serves to give them an air of legitimacy. And so when the actual antisemites use them as the building blocks from which they construct an antisemitic conspiracy theory they are more likely to be taken seriously.

None of this is to say that critiques of the modern financial sector as being another tool of surplus extraction are antisemitic - because they aren't. The thing is, Marx was probably a kind of soft antisemite, despite being a Jew, as were many people in his time. But the difference is that his antisemitism was not an integral part of his world view - it didn't enter into his social theory or analysis of capitalism at all. Whereas for those who concentrate on world finance as being a conspiracy rather than a group of people who, by pursuing their own personal yet shared interests, exert a huge amount of power over the economy it often is. The problem is people focusing on individuals and groups rather than systems - not only is it incorrect and misleading, it's a recipe for scapegoating.

I do appreciate the fact that you've said you'll be more careful with sources - respect for that.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 23, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm agreeing with you, jazzz's good opinion is in his gift, which is why i said pd was seeking it.


I know.  My further comment was about just how desperate Dwyer is for it.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Indeed, as has Jazzz--regularly, loudly, and without any reason. The current wriggling and backtracking by many of these accusers is quite sickening.


 
Go away you silly little man - I'm told you used to be a top notch windup merchant. Not any more - you're too obvious and not that entertaining.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2012)

Greebo said:


> I know. My further comment was about just how desperate Dwyer is for it.


he's never going to get it


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> for those who concentrate on world finance as being a conspiracy rather than a group of people who, by pursuing their own personal yet shared interests, exert a huge amount of power over the economy it often is. The problem is people focusing on individuals and groups rather than systems - not only is it incorrect and misleading, it's a recipe for scapegoating.


I completely agree with this. In this case, it's possible to address the issue directly, though, no? Ask a person to question themselves. Not really talking about jazzz any more - but someone else close to me - but sometimes good, kind people can end up believing strange, stupid, horrible shit, and it's hard, there's clearly a psychological need to believe it and it is impervious to rational argument. Even then, there's still no need to be nasty, though.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 23, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> he's never going to get it


But he might just find what he needs.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Go away you silly little man - I'm told you used to be a top notch windup merchant. Not any more - you're too obvious and not that entertaining.


 
Unlike the creator of the memorable "one face" gag.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 23, 2012)

Continuing to push agendas that have jew hatin' roots is not on though. I lost my temper with jazz with his refusal to see the 'white hut' slurs as racist. You can't be an uncritical mouthpiece for knowingly racist stuff without it sticking to you. And making you stink. Of shit.

I've never seen taff climb in bed with the ilk tbf but then I don't watch his output religiously. If he has pushed such agendas he will surely not endorse them and so on. We've al been caught out by dodgy sources before, theres no shame in realising that


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 23, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Continuing to push agendas that have jew hatin' roots is not on though. I lost my temper with jazz with his refusal to see the 'white hut' slurs as racist.


I got angry with him for that as well. He genuinely hadn't twigged and apologised when he realised.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 23, 2012)

Spiney Norman

"Would you care to quote these accusations of antisemitism?"


"I think taffboy and jazzz are so deep in anti-semitism they can't even see it." - post 3 of this thread. Butchers. 5 "likes". In a rush, that's just for starters.

FW's was repeated an on another thread. I aint seen all this thread. 

AJPalm is a name I wasn't familiar with till I read your post. You could be mixing me with someone else.

I Of course accept the protocols as forged. I disagree with various purports on the "NWO" - I think it inevitable there are competing elites and tend to see the anglo-american dominated post war one you cite as being the most pertinent problem in this regard, at least to us. It certainly isn't New, and the Order they seek is "out of chaos" (CONSPIRACY!1!) as cited via Klein in "shock doctrine". Which is to say that her analysis of "Disaster Capitalism" does chime with purported Masonic conspiracy (not to mention standard human nature). But Masons = influenced by Kabala. Kabal = Hebrew. Therefore Klein hates Jews. It's easy when you know the code.

One of their prime meeting groups was co-founded by a senior SS Officer. I was accused of being anti semitic for mentioning it. That's how "hall of mirrors" this stuff is.

I don't see fractional reserve banking as a conspiracy. I see it as a tool that is not even necessarily all that bad all the time. I do think there has been a de facto conspiracy to up the ratios to silly levels. that has nothing to do with faith or ethnicity. None of this does (apart from the faith of the cult of capital of course)

Some of the things said about the creation of the Federal Reserve 100 years back are true, and they don't need right wingers like Griffin to point them out. It was pushed through using fairly standard political chicanery, such as using a quiet Christmas period to do so. 

"when the actual antisemites use them as the building blocks from which they construct an antisemitic conspiracy theory they are more likely to be taken seriously."

This is a standard bullshitter/hater move though. I'm not sure we shouldn't construct arguments just because of how bullshit haters may use them. 

Bang would go standing up for decent housing - one of the BNP's favourite topic in local campaigning.
The best lies have quite a bit of truth to them, that's a topic that has come up again and again in this issue.

It's not a reason to not seek out truth.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> And most of the stuff about fractional reserve banking being a conspiracy to create money out of thin air comes from the far right - people like G. Edward Griffin.


 
Absolute ignorant rubbish.

The philosophical critique of fiat money is Marxist in origin.  A direct line can be traced from the first chapter of _Capital _through Lukacs and the Frankfurt School to Debord and Baudrillard.  The fact that some right wingers have endorsed it means nothing more than that it is true.

And so you now look foolish.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Unlike the creator of the memorable "one face" gag.


a response to your perverse decision to call me two-faced when i've never been anything of the sort to you


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Absolute ignorant rubbish.
> 
> The philosophical critique of fiat money is Marxist in origin. A direct line can be traced from the first chapter of _Capital _through Lukacs and the Frankfurt School to Debord and Baudrillard. The fact that some right wingers have endorsed it means nothing more than that it is true.
> 
> And so you now look foolish.


Um. One of the things that struck me about the first few chapters of Capital (it's in ch four irrc) was that Marx appeared to be rather naive in believing that money had a material value. He very much downplays the role of fiat money, and doesn't appear to recognise the symbolic nature of money. Perhaps he says something different later on.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> The thing is, Marx was probably a kind of soft antisemite, despite being a Jew, as were many people in his time. But the difference is that his antisemitism was not an integral part of his world view - it didn't enter into his social theory or analysis of capitalism at all.


 
Garbage and utter ignorant crap on at least two counts.

First, Marx was not an anti semite. Second, anti semitism _was _an integral part of his world view.

What Marx did was reveal anti semitism as a *metaphor *for anti capitalism.

If I can be bothered, I may return to explain this to you at greater length in due course. But I have to do something else first. And anyway, you will have to convince me that you are worthy of my attention and, quite frankly, you´ve got an uphill task ahead with regard to that one.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Um. One of the things that struck me about the first few chapters of Capital (it's in ch four irrc) was that Marx appeared to be rather naive in believing that money had a material value. He very much downplays the role of fiat money, and doesn't appear to recognise the symbolic nature of money. Perhaps he says something different later on.


 
Fiat money grows out of exchange value which, as Marx explains in chapter one, is nonmaterial.


----------



## mayotte (Nov 23, 2012)

I have been following this thread with some interest. However, you might want to go back and read the first posting. It's happened again.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 23, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> a response to your perverse decision to call me two-faced when i've never been anything of the sort to you


 
Thanks at least for the explanation. Found any proof of me being a racist yet? You said there'd be something along shortly. Where is it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Fiat money grows out of exchange value which, as Marx explains in chapter one, is nonmaterial.


Yes, but then in chapter 4, he goes into quite a bit of detail about the physical properties of gold, etc, and how its value inhered in that. Marx certainly doesn't mention fiat money in chapter one, and when he does first mention it, it is in an offhand manner, as a minor thing not to be given much attention.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 23, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Um. One of the things that struck me about the first few chapters of Capital (it's in ch four irrc) was that Marx appeared to be rather naive in believing that money had a material value. He very much downplays the role of fiat money, and doesn't appear to recognise the symbolic nature of money. Perhaps he says something different later on.


 
!!!!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 23, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> !!!!


I can get you the quote if you like. It stuck with me. He says a lot of very insightful things, but his take on the nature of money is naive.

Gold as the 'money commodity'. He's right, that is how gold was viewed in his time, but the way I read it (it was chapter 3), he doesn't quite recognise exactly what that means.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Thanks at least for the explanation. Found any proof of me being a racist yet? You said there'd be something along shortly. Where is it?


i'm waiting for you to post it


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 23, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I can get you the quote if you like. It stuck with me. He says a lot of very insightful things, but his take on the nature of money is naive.


 
Marx very much acknowledges the symbolic nature of money!   It's central to his argument.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I can get you the quote if you like. It stuck with me. He says a lot of very insightful things, but his take on the nature of money is naive.


rather than cherry-picking quotes, you might use your time more profitably to get to grips with what he actually says.


----------



## elbows (Nov 23, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> AJPalm is a name I wasn't familiar with till I read your post. You could be mixing me with someone else.


 
The mistake you made in this regard was not to have the inclination to spend the time reading the thread you started about unfounded accusations of anti-semitism. AJPalm not did hide his anti-semitism at all well, and posted numerous times in that thread before being banned. This provided an easy opportunity for people such as yourself to demonstrate clearly where you draw the line, but you missed it.

You dont have to read the entire thread, but a quick glance at pages such as 7-9 should be enough. http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/unfounded-accusations-of-anti-semitism.301516/page-7


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Absolute ignorant rubbish.
> 
> The philosophical critique of fiat money is Marxist in origin. A direct line can be traced from the first chapter of _Capital _through Lukacs and the Frankfurt School to Debord and Baudrillard. The fact that some right wingers have endorsed it means nothing more than that it is true.
> 
> And so you now look foolish.


 
Bollocks. I've it and there's nothing in there that even vaguely resembles the finance conspiracy theories. There's stuff about fictitious capital (not in that chapter mind) but it's all about its use as a mode of surplus extraction - it's absolutely nothing like the conspiracy theories.

Didn't you learn last time your ignorance on this topic was exposed?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Didn't you learn last time your ignorance on this topic was exposed?


clearly not


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 23, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> rather than cherry-picking quotes, you might use your time more profitably to get to grips with what he actually says.


I have a different take on Marx from you, probably. I'm rather critical of the categories he uses in his analysis. But this would be for another thread and I can't be arsed to debate Marx on here.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Garbage and utter ignorant crap on at least two counts.
> 
> First, Marx was not an anti semite. Second, anti semitism _was _an integral part of his world view.
> 
> ...


 
Wrong again. In fact I used to believe exactly what you've just posted. But the reality is different - half of _On The Jewish Question _is devoted to exactly what you describe. Unfortunately the other half, well, isn't.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Wrong again. In fact I used to believe exactly what you've just posted. But the reality is different - half of _On The Jewish Question _is devoted to exactly what you describe. Unfortunately the other half, well, isn't.


but it's fair enough for dwyer to say what he does, as it's clear he only understood one word out of every two when he read it.


----------



## stuff_it (Nov 23, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Keeps your fingers warm, and your coins polished.


Warning: do not try with chocolate coins.



Maurice Picarda said:


> Our chums of the pallid blue.


CFY



ViolentPanda said:


> I wonder, is "comrades" less or more racist than "brethren"?


Less sexist.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 23, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I have a different take on Marx from you, probably. I'm rather critical of the categories he uses in his analysis. But this would be for another thread and I can't be arsed to debate Marx on here.


 
You'd have to read and understand Marx first!  I can't claim to have read Capital beyond the first couple of chapters, but I do have a grasp on his basic argument.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 23, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> You'd have to read and understand Marx first! I can't claim to have read Capital beyond the first couple of chapters, but I do have a grasp on his basic argument.


And this is exactly why I'm not going to debate Marx on here. Present any kind of dissenting view and you're told you don't understand.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I can get you the quote if you like. It stuck with me. He says a lot of very insightful things, but his take on the nature of money is naive.
> 
> Gold as the 'money commodity'. He's right, that is how gold was viewed in his time, but the way I read it (it was chapter 3), he doesn't quite recognise exactly what that means.


 
He's describing the processes through which commodities took the money form. And with all due respect I don't think you've understood it at all. To attribute value/social power to money itself is essentially a commodity fetish - a bad abstraction if you like - but that doesn't make the social power any less real. And Marx certainly did not think fiat money had any value in and of itself.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And this is exactly why I'm not going to debate Marx on here. Present any kind of dissenting view and you're told you don't understand.


we can't tell you don't understand until you demonstrate you don't understand


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> And Marx certainly did not think fiat money had any value in and of itself.


I didn't say that he did.

But I'm really not going there.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 23, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And this is exactly why I'm not going to debate Marx on here. Present any kind of dissenting view and you're told you don't understand.


 
To present a dissenting view, you have to understand it first!  To state Marx "doesn't appear to recognise the symbolic nature of money" is to demonstrate you don't understand.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 23, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm waiting for you to post it



Oh. It's a pre-crime thing.

Can you find anything from the past in the meantime? I don't think you can, which is why you are distracting by talking about an uncertain future instead of your behaviour relating to the past. 

The failure of you and others to turn up the goods in many weeks backs me up.

If people withdraw the disgusting an unfounded allegations of me being racist then of course the matter can lie and I wouldn't crow, there'd be no need. But perhaps they are too proud, which matters more to some than fairness.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Oh. It's a pre-crime thing.
> 
> Can you find anything from the past in the meantime? I don't think you can, which is why you are distracting by talking about an uncertain future instead of your behaviour relating to the past.
> 
> ...


i haven't failed because i am confident you won't let me down.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 23, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> To present a dissenting view, you have to understand it first! To state Marx "doesn't appear to recognise the symbolic nature of money" is to demonstrate you don't understand.


 
He's talking about his times, and it's understandable, but when he says things like this:

only in so far as it is itself a product of labour, and, therefore, potentially variable in value, can gold serve as a measure of value

he is talking from inside the system that uses gold symbolically without showing any signs that he recognises what money really is, imo.

Like I say, it's understandable, and he doesn't pay much attention to fiat money at all but then fiat money wasn't particularly important at the time.

While we're here, I don't particularly like his categories of use value and exchange value. While he recognises the connections between the two, I think he overeggs their difference in the way he keeps the two very separate. I don't think value works like that.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 23, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He's talking about his times, and it's understandable, but when he says things like this:
> 
> only in so far as it is itself a product of labour, and, therefore, potentially variable in value, can gold serve as a measure of value
> 
> ...


 
He's on about how gold does not have "intrinsic value" there, that its value depends on labour, i.e. its symbolic. He's arguing the opposite of what you claim.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Spiney Norman
> 
> "Would you care to quote these accusations of antisemitism?"
> 
> ...


 
BA will have to answer for himself but I don't think he was calling you an antisemite. I think he was saying that some of the theories you two subscribe to come from antisemitic sources - hence your being 'deep in it'.



taffboy gwyrdd said:


> FW's was repeated an on another thread. I aint seen all this thread.


 
Any chance of a quote?



taffboy gwyrdd said:


> AJPalm is a name I wasn't familiar with till I read your post. You could be mixing me with someone else.


 
I'm not. He posted on your thread and you were asked on there whether you thought he was antisemitic - people even quoted your post when asking so that you'd get an alert. And you posted on the thread after the question was asked and didn't respond so it's hardly unreasonable to think you just ignored it because it was inconvenient.



taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I Of course accept the protocols as forged. I disagree with various purports on the "NWO" - I think it inevitable there are competing elites and tend to see the anglo-american dominated post war one you cite as being the most pertinent problem in this regard, at least to us. It certainly isn't New, and the Order they seek is "out of chaos" (CONSPIRACY!1!) as cited via Klein in "shock doctrine". Which is to say that her analysis of "Disaster Capitalism" does chime with purported Masonic conspiracy (not to mention standard human nature). But Masons = influenced by Kabala. Kabal = Hebrew. Therefore Klein hates Jews. It's easy when you know the code.


 
Klein isn't antisemitic. She doesn't talk of a big overarching conspiracy and she talks mainly about the mont-pelerin society, which isn't even very secretive and doesn't pretend to be anything other than what it is - a thinktank and lobby group for neoliberal ideas. You're just being silly now.



taffboy gwyrdd said:


> One of their prime meeting groups was co-founded by a senior SS Officer. I was accused of being anti semitic for mentioning it. That's how "hall of mirrors" this stuff is.


 
I don't even know what you're on about here.



taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I don't see fractional reserve banking as a conspiracy. I see it as a tool that is not even necessarily all that bad all the time. I do think there has been a de facto conspiracy to up the ratios to silly levels. that has nothing to do with faith or ethnicity. None of this does (apart from the faith of the cult of capital of course)


 
Why was it deregulated to allow for this though? Was it the result of a conspiracy by bankers to steal the world's money or was it an attempt to overcome a crisis brought about by the contradictions of the capitalist system itself?



taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Some of the things said about the creation of the Federal Reserve 100 years back are true, and they don't need right wingers like Griffin to point them out. It was pushed through using fairly standard political chicanery, such as using a quiet Christmas period to do so.


 
So what? Politicians do that kind of stuff all the time - it's nothing new and neither is it news to most people.

"when the actual antisemites use them as the building blocks from which they construct an antisemitic conspiracy theory they are more likely to be taken seriously."



taffboy gwyrdd said:


> This is a standard bullshitter/hater move though. I'm not sure we shouldn't construct arguments just because of how bullshit haters may use them.


 
Bullshitter/hater move? What does that even mean? When these tropes don't represent reality, or when essentially irrelevant facts are given causal value they simply don't merit - and when the ascription of this causal power, or their invention, comes from antisemites what then? Cos that's where the roots of this lay.



taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Bang would go standing up for decent housing - one of the BNP's favourite topic in local campaigning.
> The best lies have quite a bit of truth to them, that's a topic that has come up again and again in this issue.


 
First sentence - again, very silly and immature. Second sentence - so what? It's repitition of lies, and that includes the ascription of causal power to real facts when they don't merit it, that's the problem.



taffboy gwyrdd said:


> It's not a reason to not seek out truth.


 
That doesn't even mean anything though does it? Who here doesn't want to seek truth? It's the lies and misrepresentations I have a problem with.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He's talking about his times, and it's understandable, but when he says things like this:
> 
> only in so far as it is itself a product of labour, and, therefore, potentially variable in value, can gold serve as a measure of value
> 
> ...


 
He's explaining how gold _became _a measure of value. And even when it takes the money form and its 'price' is inflated it's still true to say that it can only serve as a measure of value in as far as it is a product of labour - all that happens is that the exchange value is exaggerated - if you give me the page number I'll read it in context and give a better explanation than this.

You'll have to explain the last paragraph - I don't really know what you mean there. Why don't you think value works in the way Marx describes it?

It's also worth noting that in volume I he's describing how capitalism works in theory - specifically how it works in bourgeois theory, then taking it to its logical conclusion. A lot of what he _appears _(a word he uses a lot) to be saying there is contradicted in the latter volumes. And nobody who has read them would think that he ascribes inherent value to fiat money.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 23, 2012)

> And nobody who has read them would think that he ascribes inherent value to fiat money.


 
I already said that I don't either.

I take your point that he isn't advocating any of this, but he is also missing some points about the nature of money imo. As I said, it is not surprising that he should do this, but I would argue that even before the triumph of fiat money that we have now, the gold was used for exchange precisely because it was useless. It was simply a confidence 'trick'. He doesn't really bring this aspect out because I don't think he fully recognises it.

As for my last paragraph, use value is a subjective category, while exchange value is an objective one (in that it requires two or more people to agree on it). Imo he sometimes treats the former as if it were objective too. I accept that he goes on to talk about the way that the gold symbolises purely the 'money value'. And the way he then uses this to distinguish C-M-C from M-C-M is very insightful. I don't hate Marx. I'm just not entirely convinced by his categories. From later in that chapter, he says:


> money functions as a means of circulation only because in it the values of commodities have independent reality.


I don't like this way of thinking about it. Again I accept that he isn't advocating it, but the fact that he's using gold as his means of exchange rather than fiat money is what allows him to say this, and he doesn't show signs of seeing how this matters. But money value certainly doesn't have independent reality.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 23, 2012)

Something only has an exchange value if it also has a use value.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I can get you the quote if you like. It stuck with me. He says a lot of very insightful things, but his take on the nature of money is naive.


 
It really isn´t.  Read it again.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Bollocks. I've it and there's nothing in there that even vaguely resembles the finance conspiracy theories. There's stuff about fictitious capital (not in that chapter mind) but it's all about its use as a mode of surplus extraction - it's absolutely nothing like the conspiracy theories.


 
Fool.  I didn´t say that Marx had a conspiracy theory of money.

Today however, after 150 years of the concentration of capital, a conspiracy theory is more appropriate.  I´ve estimated that the world economy is run by under a thousand individuals.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Continuing to push agendas that have jew hatin' roots is not on though.


 
My entire point on this thread is that ALL western anti capitalism has anti semitic roots.

That is no reason to eschew anti capitalism.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Wrong again. In fact I used to believe exactly what you've just posted. But the reality is different - half of _On The Jewish Question _is devoted to exactly what you describe. Unfortunately the other half, well, isn't.


 
Yes it is.  Throughout that text, Marx uses Judaism as a *metaphor* for capitalism.  If you think you can find a moment where he treats Judaism literally, post it.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 23, 2012)

Greebo said:


> You forget that not everyone realises milk had to be boiled (aka scalded) because milk often wasn't pasteurised at the time. Try not to conflate ignorance with stupidity.


 
I was brought up drinking milk straight from the cow (her name was Fleur, by the way) and often still warm from the udder,


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 23, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> it's good to see academick debate alive and well on urban.


 
It's hard not to laugh.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I already said that I don't either.
> 
> I take your point that he isn't advocating any of this, but he is also missing some points about the nature of money imo. As I said, it is not surprising that he should do this, but I would argue that even before the triumph of fiat money that we have now, the gold was used for exchange precisely because it was useless. It was simply a confidence 'trick'. He doesn't really bring this aspect out because I don't think he fully recognises it.


 
I know it's a big ask (seriously, not taking the piss) but you really should read all three volumes before claiming that he's missing anything - that's not to say he isn't, but I don't think he's missing what you're talking about. And the stuff about fictitious capital applies directly to fiat currency.



littlebabyjesus said:


> As for my last paragraph, use value is a subjective category, while exchange value is an objective one (in that it requires two or more people to agree on it). Imo he sometimes treats the former as if it were objective too.


 
Any chance of a quote or a page number? I'm absolutely sure he never does this. Not even once.



littlebabyjesus said:


> I accept that he goes on to talk about the way that the gold symbolises purely the 'money value'. And the way he then uses this to distinguish C-M-C from M-C-M is very insightful. I don't hate Marx. I'm just not entirely convinced by his categories. From later in that chapter, he says:


 
What do you think he's saying there? I'm convinced that he's saying that money symbolises the value of real, material commidities - ie. it's a measure of value and a symbol of value for use in exchange - that without material commodities to back it up money has no value.

[/quote]I don't like this way of thinking about it. Again I accept that he isn't advocating it, but the fact that he's using gold as his means of exchange rather than fiat money is what allows him to say this, and he doesn't show signs of seeing how this matters. But money value certainly doesn't have independent reality.[/quote]

But the stuff on fictitious capital applies directly to fiat money - the principles are precisely the same.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Something only has an exchange value if it also has a use value.


 
Of course.  Everything that exists has both, for the two are only different ways of looking at the same object--as quantity or as quality respectively.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Fool. I didn´t say that Marx had a conspiracy theory of money.
> 
> Today however, after 150 years of the concentration of capital, a conspiracy theory is more appropriate. I´ve estimated that the world economy is run by under a thousand individuals.


 
But to be fair you're a wind up merchant and a bit of a pillock so I'm not going to take you too seriously


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Yes it is. Throughout that text, Marx uses Judaism as a *metaphor* for capitalism. If you think you can find a moment where he treats Judaism literally, post it.


 
I'm at my mum's right now so I've not got access to my books but when I get home I will do. I had this conversation with butchersapron a few months back, when I took the same position as you. I went back and read it and I was wrong.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm convinced that he's saying that money symbolises the value of real, material commidities - ie. it's a measure of value and a symbol of value for use in exchange - that without material commodities to back it up money has no value.


 
No, you are wrong again.

What money (it might be more appropriate to speak of ¨value¨) symbolizes is labor-power.  Nothing to do with ¨material commodities.¨  I won´t even bother to point out that most commodities are not material.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm at my mum's right now so I've not got access to my books but when I get home I will do. I had this conversation with butchersapron a few months back, when I took the same position as you. I went back and read it and I was wrong.


 
There´s no need to wait.  The text is online, and it´s not very long.  Here...

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/

So tell us where Marx is speaking of literal Jews or Judaism here.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I haven't called anyone an antisemite............


 
You might not have, but you've backed up everyone who did say it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> You might not have, but you've backed up everyone who did say it.


Yes, spineynorman, you've been found guilty by association in the court of lock&light


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> No, you are wrong again.
> 
> What money (it might be more appropriate to speak of ¨value¨) symbolizes is labor-power. Nothing to do with ¨material commodities.¨ I won´t even bother to point out that most commodities are not material.


 


We're talking about money, not value - the two are not the same at all. You're showing your incredible ignorance yet again. And since commodities embody abstract labour (not labour power, that's something else entirely - what the capitalist purchases from the worker for a wage - labour power is potential value, not value), which is itself a real, material (material, not concrete) thing it makes sense to talk of them as being material objects. And pedantry aside you knew exactly what I was talking about - but like any ignorant, foolish pedant you made an even bigger mistake in "exposing my ignorance" (lol) than the one you thought you'd identified in my post.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> You might not have, but you've backed up everyone who did say it.


 
Fuck off you massive twat.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 23, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> you're not that entertaining


 
With that sort of logic you owe us money.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> We're talking about money, not value - the two are not the same at all.


 
No, you are wrong again.  We are speaking of value, not money.  It is value, not money, that represents labor-power.  Money is an expression of value.



SpineyNorman said:


> And since commodities embody abstract labour (not labour power, that's something else entirely - what the capitalist purchases from the worker for a wage - labour power is potential value, not value), which is itself a real, material (material, not concrete) thing it makes sense to talk of them as being material objects.


 
Now you refute yourself.

How can something be both  ¨abstract¨ and ¨material?¨  Obviously nothing can.  And so you are wrong again.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> There´s no need to wait. The text is online, and it´s not very long. Here...
> 
> http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/
> 
> So tell us where Marx is speaking of literal Jews or Judaism here.


 
Sorry, you're going to have to wait anyway. It's bed time and I'm too stoned to read Marx.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm too stoned to read Marx.


 
It shows.

ETA actually that was uncalled for.  I genuinely look forward to discussing Marx with you tomorrow.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 23, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> we can't tell you don't understand until you demonstrate you don't understand


 
That, at least, is something you know all about.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> No, you are wrong again. We are speaking of value, not money. It is value, not money, that represents labor-power. Money is an expression of value.


 
No, we're talking about money - sorry to disappoint you. I'm answering LBJ's post and he's asking about money and its _relationship _with value.





phildwyer said:


> Now you refute yourself.
> 
> How can something be both ¨abstract¨ and ¨material?¨ Obviously nothing can. And so you are wrong again.


 
I really can't be arsed with you now - I'll probably return to this one in the morning. I'll just point out that the specific commodities (ie. those represented by the money) embody concrete labour, which most definitely _is _a material thing.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> It shows.


 
Says the man who just claimed that value represents labour _power. _I'm stoned - what's your excuse?


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Fuck off you massive twat.


 
Um, no. I don't think I will.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Says the man who just claimed that value represents labour _power. _I'm stoned - what's your excuse?


 
See edit.

I´m prepared to defend the claim that value represents labor power.  But let´s do the Jews first.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Um, no. I don't think I will.


 
Now that's a surprise. Like the massive stinking log that just won't go down the u bend no matter how many times you flush.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> See edit.
> 
> I´m prepared to defend the claim that value represents labor power. But let´s do the Jews first.


 
OK, it really is going to have to be the morning though, my eyes are looking at the words but nothing is going in right now


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'll just point out that the specific commodities (ie. those represented by the money) embody concrete labour, which most definitely _is _a material thing.


 
Nope.  Labor is neither material nor a thing.  You have fallen into a pit of reification.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Now that's a surprise. Like the massive stinking log that just won't go down the u bend no matter how many times you flush.


 
It takes a cleaner flush than you to be effective.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> It takes a cleaner flush than you to be effective.


 
Anyone got any caustic soda?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 24, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Yes, spineynorman, you've been found guilty by association in the court of lock&light


 
The sort of practice that only takes place on one side of this issue *

* excludes instances of it happening from the other side.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 24, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i haven't failed because i am confident you won't let me down.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 24, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Fuck off you massive twat.


 
I had "The 2012 Compendium Of Effective Retorts" booked off Amazon for Christmas. You just did a massive spoiler.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 24, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i haven't failed because i am confident you won't let me down.


 
What is that confidence based on? 

Past racist statements can be the only sound basis.

Where are they?

In your drooling and fevered imagination, or in the dimensions most of us inhabit most of the time? 

Put up or shut up.

When I said you were two faced it was because you accuse of bigotry while being a foul and disgusting bigot yourself. Now you're fixated on pre-crime with no evidence. I lack the psychological background to analyse it very far.

Found anything yet, or are you going to carry on lying and making yourself look like a tit?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 24, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> let´s do the Jews first.


 

said hitler


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 24, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> auschwitz swimming pools and that .
> 
> to be fair jazzz did cut him off iirc - dunno tho


After defending him first and making the idiotic claim that being a holocaust denier didn't make him an anti-semite.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 24, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> No, you are wrong again.
> 
> What money (it might be more appropriate to speak of ¨value¨) symbolizes is labor-power.  Nothing to do with ¨material commodities.¨  I won´t even bother to point out that most commodities are not material.


Only in a system of wage labour and commodity exchange.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> The sort of practice that only takes place on one side of this issue *
> 
> * excludes instances of it happening from the other side.


The other side? the loony side?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> What is that confidence based on?
> 
> Past racist statements can be the only sound basis.
> 
> ...


I haven't looked for anything yet. I do not need to. You do protest too much imo for someone with a clean conscience. With that in mind I am happy to wait. I've asked you to show me a false accusation i've made: with no response but bluster about lying and bigotry. The ball's in your court. Are you going to continue to make paranoid accusations of there being some sort of cunts collective out to get you, or are you going to start trying to act like an adult? I expect the former.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2012)

phildwyer said:


>


no wonder all those girls you saw once or twice got pissed and went off with strange men. Once you get an idxea in your head, be it usury or hair, you go on and on and on about it beyond the point of ennui


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> That, at least, is something you know all about.


You don't have any sort of conjugal relations in your married life, do you?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 24, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I had "The 2012 Compendium Of Effective Retorts" booked off Amazon for Christmas. You just did a massive spoiler.


 
Crock of shite's posts don't really merit a comprehensive and considered reply though do they?


----------



## Greebo (Nov 24, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> You don't have any sort of conjugal relations in your married life, do you?


Careful or your nemesis will assume you said that to him instead of L&L.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 24, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> See edit.
> 
> I´m prepared to defend the claim that value represents labor power. But let´s do the Jews first.


 



			
				Marx said:
			
		

> Once society has succeeded in abolishing the _empirical_ essence of Judaism – huckstering and its preconditions – the Jew will have become _impossible_, because his consciousness no longer has an object, because the subjective basis of Judaism, practical need, has been humanized, and because the conflict between man’s individual-sensuous existence and his species-existence has been abolished.


 
Here you go. Now, while it's true that Marx is talking about capitalism, he is quite clearly attributing its worst characteristics to Jews. And while in the first section he's arguing against Bauer's serious and nasty antisemitism - and very effectively too - in the second the stereotypes are Marx's own. Hence my claim that he was a soft antisemite. But does his analysis of capitalism depend on antisemitism? Of course not, as anyone who has read and understood any of Capital, The Grundrisse, Wage Labour and Capital, etc would know.

Now tell us about how value is labour power please Phil...

Just realised that for once Phil's trolling has brought a thread _on _topic - incredible


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 24, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Just realised that for once Phil's trolling has brought a thread _on _topic - incredible


 
Even a broken clock................


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 24, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Here you go. Now, while it's true that Marx is talking about capitalism, he is quite clearly attributing its worst characteristics to Jews. And while in the first section he's arguing against Bauer's serious and nasty antisemitism - and very effectively too - in the second the stereotypes are Marx's own. Hence my claim that he was a soft antisemite.


 
In the passage you quote (it´s a bit different in other passages) Marx is using ¨the Jew¨and ¨Judaism¨ as *metaphors *for ¨the capitalist¨and ¨capitalism.¨ This is really quite obvious, unless you want to claim that Marx is advocating a Holocaust, which would be the only available interpretation if you take him literally.

Now it´s true that there is a historical and empirical basis for this metaphor, insofar as until very recently Jews had been the only people allowed to engage in what we call capitalism and they called ¨usury.¨  That´s how Marx´s initial audience would have understood his metaphor.  But to call him an anti semite is an anachronistic misunderstanding.



SpineyNorman said:


> But does his analysis of capitalism depend on antisemitism? Of course not


 
Actually it does.  The ideological consequence of capitalism, for Marx, is the objectification of the subject.  He inherits this idea from the Christian construction of Judaism as a ¨carnal¨ or ¨worldly¨ religion. 



SpineyNorman said:


> Now tell us about how value is labour power please Phil...


 
Jews first on this thread please.  Either Jews or Pickman´s hair problems.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> In the passage you quote (it´s a bit different in other passages) Marx is using ¨the Jew¨and ¨Judaism¨ as *metaphors *for ¨the capitalist¨and ¨capitalism.¨ This is really quite obvious, unless you want to claim that Marx is advocating a Holocaust, which would be the only available interpretation if you take him literally.
> 
> Now it´s true that there is a historical and empirical basis for this metaphor, insofar as until very recently Jews had been the only people allowed to engage in what we call capitalism and they called ¨usury.¨  That´s how Marx´s initial audience would have understood his metaphor.  But to call him an anti semite is an anachronistic misunderstanding.
> 
> ...


You don't know what capitalism is.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 24, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> You don't know what capitalism is.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2012)

phildwyer said:


>


Telly savalas could succinctly define capitalism. You can't because you don't know what it is. You're a failure.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 24, 2012)

> insofar as until very recently Jews had been the only people allowed to engage in what we call capitalism and they called ¨usury.¨


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 24, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> In the passage you quote (it´s a bit different in other passages) Marx is using ¨the Jew¨and ¨Judaism¨ as *metaphors *for ¨the capitalist¨and ¨capitalism.¨ This is really quite obvious, unless you want to claim that Marx is advocating a Holocaust, which would be the only available interpretation if you take him literally.


 
I'm not taking him literally - that's why I said his antisemitism was like a kind of soft racism. But he's still ascribing those characteristics to all Jews. He's still claiming that the secular nature of the Jew is huckstering etc. I'll quote the post BA did when we had this conversation cos I he put it better than I could:



butchersapron said:


> It'd be easier if that were the case, that he was simply echoing Bauer's lunacies to undermine them - but he wasn't. The first part of the article (actually a separate essay but they're always bundled together now) was where he was _attacking_ Bauer's arguments against jewish emancipation and the relationship between the state and religion (and he destroys him here). None of those anti-semitic tropes appear in this section. They all appear in the second section, the section where he's _agreeing_ with Bauer about the social nature of the jews - if they _are_ echoes of Bauer (and they're not in my opinion, they're just Marx getting carried away with the idea of placing jewish nature within history, specifically economic history, against the semi-idealist histories he was responding to - remember he was only in his mid-20s at this point) then they're echoes of agreement.


 


phildwyer said:


> Now it´s true that there is a historical and empirical basis for this metaphor, insofar as until very recently Jews had been the only people allowed to engage in what we call capitalism and they called ¨usury.¨ That´s how Marx´s initial audience would have understood his metaphor. But to call him an anti semite is an anachronistic misunderstanding.


 
No, they were the only ones allowed to engage in _usury_. No matter how many times you repeat it your claim that usury and capitalism are one and the same remain false. There was usury before capitalism and it is possible to conceive of a capitalism without usury - it wouldn't function all that well but it would still be capitalism.



phildwyer said:


> Actually it does. The ideological consequence of capitalism, for Marx, is the objectification of the subject. He inherits this idea from the Christian construction of Judaism as a ¨carnal¨ or ¨worldly¨ religion.


 
No it doesn't. And you'd know this if you'd read and understood Capital.




phildwyer said:


> Jews first on this thread please. Either Jews or Pickman´s hair problems.


 

You could always just admit that you were spewing ignorant bollocks, either that or try and defend your position - otherwise one could be forgiven suspecting intellectual cowardice - I guess it must be hard for an academic like yourself to admit you've been put right by someone like me.

I wish you were right - unlike you I am a Marxist and I take his work very seriously so I've got every incentive to claim Marx _wasn't _antisemitic. Unfortunately I don't think that's true - he wasn't an ideological antisemite and it's clear from the first part of that essay that he was against discriminating against Jews. But he did repeat the old stereotypes, apparently favourably. Not unusual for his time - in fact his views on Judaism were probably quite progressive in their historical context.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 24, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Telly savalas could succinctly define capitalism. You can't because you don't know what it is. You're a failure.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 24, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> You don't have any sort of conjugal relations in your married life, do you?


 
How's your married life, Picky?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 24, 2012)

Professor Dwyer


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 24, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> How's your married life, Picky?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 24, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Professor Dwyer


 
Nowhere near that much gravitas, more the gravitas of Peter Cook in his "dirty old man" cap and mac.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> How's your married life, Picky?


i'll take that as confirmation of my point


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2012)

...


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 24, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i'll take that as confirmation of my point


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2012)

phildwyer said:


>


charlton knew more about capitalism than you do


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2012)

phildwyer said:


>


Yul brynner would have been ashamed to be as ignorant as you are


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 24, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Yul brynner would have been ashamed to be as ignorant as you are


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 24, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i'll take that as confirmation of my point


 
Your point? You really think you made one?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 24, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> charlton knew more about capitalism than you do


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Your point? You really think you made one?


You are confirming you and your wife no longer enjoy congress


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2012)

phildwyer said:


>


Prince edward has a better understanding of marx than you do


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 24, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> You are confirming you and your wife no longer enjoy congress


 
Pickman´s, could you stop posting these silly, distracting messages please?  We´re trying to have a serious debate here, and you seem to be deliberately disrupting our conversation.  I´m sure there are many other threads where you could play the fool to your heart´s content.  Thank you in advance.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 24, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Pickman´s, could you stop posting these silly, distracting messages please? We´re trying to have a serious debate here, and you seem to be deliberately disrupting our conversation. I´m sure there are many other threads where you could play the fool to your heart´s content. Thank you in advance.


 


phildwyer said:


>





phildwyer said:


>





phildwyer said:


>





phildwyer said:


>


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 24, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


>


 
I suspect you also think you've made a point.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 24, 2012)

Well it seems a pity, but it appears that Pîckman´s is determined to destroy any hope of a rational discussion here. I´d love to continue, but I´m afraid that will only be possible if Pickers agrees to leave us in peace. And if Spiney agrees to address me as ¨Sir,¨ in a manner commensurate with my position and status.

Fair enough?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 24, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I suspect you also think you've made a point.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 24, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Pickman´s, could you stop posting these silly, distracting messages please? We´re trying to have a serious debate here, and you seem to be deliberately disrupting our conversation.<snip>


He might desist if you stopped reminding him that he's considerably balder than you.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 24, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Well it seems a pity, but it appears that Pîckman´s is determined to destroy any hope of a rational discussion here. I´d love to continue, but I´m afraid that will only be possible if Pickers agrees to leave us in peace. And if Spiney agrees to address me as ¨Sir,¨ in a manner commensurate with my position and status.
> 
> Fair enough?


 
Doffs cap.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 24, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nowhere near that much gravitas, more the gravitas of Peter Cook in his "dirty old man" cap and mac.


Nah - more a combination of these:


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 24, 2012)

Greebo said:


> He might desist if you stopped reminding him that he's considerably balder than you.


 
Notice, though, that we've never seen any pictures of the back of dwyer's head, only frontal views of him gurning.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 24, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Notice, though, that we've never seen any pictures of the back of dwyer's head, only frontal views of him gurning.


Notice though, that no clearly visible picture of your head, front or back, has been posted. Need I say more? Also, need I remind you that I know where my memory card is?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 24, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Notice, though, that we've never seen any pictures of the back of dwyer's head, only frontal views of him gurning.


 
What do you suspect we might find there? One of these?







Or something more like this?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 24, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Notice though, that no clearly visible picture of your head, front or back, has been posted. Need I say more? Also, need I remind you that I know where my memory card is?


 
 ouch!


----------



## Greebo (Nov 24, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> ouch!


Much as I may love VP and cut him a bit of slack because of the pain etc, there are limits.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 24, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Notice though, that no clearly visible picture of your head, front or back, has been posted. Need I say more? Also, need I remind you that I know where my memory card is?


 
Don't threaten me, missy!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 24, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Much as I may love VP and cut him a bit of slack because of the pain etc, there are limits.


 
Oh there are, are there?


----------



## Greebo (Nov 24, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Don't threaten me, missy!


Don't give me a reason to do so, sweetie.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 24, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> What do you suspect we might find there? One of these?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Neither, more like a normal crop of greying mousey hair.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 24, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Don't give me a reason to do so, sweetie.


 
Ooh, get her!


----------



## Greebo (Nov 24, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Ooh, get her!


Continue in this vein and I'm the one thing you won't get.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 24, 2012)

This is great, way better than Coronation Street


----------



## Greebo (Nov 24, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> This is great, way better than Coronation Street


3 2 1 and the thread is back on subject.  If capitalism can't exist without usury, what's the label for the macroeconomic model which seems to apply in countries where transactions fall under shariah law?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 24, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Doffs cap.


 
That´s a bit more like it.

I hate to stand on ceremony, but you´ll understand that a man in my position can hardly be expected to engage with the likes of you in the absence of a due and proper respect for my superior rank. In fact now that I think of it, you should probably address me as ¨Master¨ from this point on.

Agreed? Good. Now where were we...


----------



## shagnasty (Nov 24, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> What do you suspect we might find there? One of these?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My son orthodonist was a jew crafty buggar covered his bald patch with his skul cap.Did a good job on my sons teeth


----------



## Greebo (Nov 24, 2012)

*Ahem* If capitalism can't exist without usury, what's the label for the macroeconomic model which seems to apply in countries where transactions fall under shariah law?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 24, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> That´s a bit more like it.
> 
> I hate to stand on ceremony, but you´ll understand that a man in my position can hardly be expected to engage with the likes of you in the absence of a due and proper respect for my superior rank. In fact now that I think of it, you should probably address me as ¨Master¨ from this point on.
> 
> Agreed? Good. Now where were we...


 
I think you were about justify your claim that value and labour _power _are one and the same.

Master 

Edit: I'd like to hear an answer to Greebo's question too.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 24, 2012)

Greebo said:


> *Ahem* If capitalism can't exist without usury, what's the label for the macroeconomic model which seems to apply in countries where transactions fall under shariah law?


 
I don´t know.

But I do know that capital and usury are co-terminus.  Capital is money invested at interest.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 24, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I think you were about justify your claim that value and labour _power _are one and the same.
> 
> Master
> 
> Edit: I'd like to hear an answer to Greebo's question too.


 
I will get back to this but I really have to do some work first.  I know you´ll say I´m dodging the issue, that can´t be helped, I´ve got a deadline to meet.  You may have noticed that whenever I have a deadline to meet I tend to spend all day messing around on here.  Well not this time, do you hear me, _not this time, *not AGAIN...*_


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 24, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> I don´t know.
> 
> But I do know that capital and usury are co-terminus. Capital is money invested at interest.


 
No it isn't. It's money invested for profit but not specifically in the form of interest. It's a form of surplus extraction - the process of exploiting wage labour (and this is where the term labour power fits) to produce commodities for sale on the market at a profit.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 24, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> I will get back to this but I really have to do some work first. I know you´ll say I´m dodging the issue, that can´t be helped, I´ve got a deadline to meet. You may have noticed that whenever I have a deadline to meet I tend to spend all day messing around on here. Well not this time, do you hear me, _not this time, *not AGAIN...*_


Fair enough, _Magister._  Urban will still be here after you've met the deadline.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 24, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> I will get back to this but I really have to do some work first. I know you´ll say I´m dodging the issue, that can´t be helped, I´ve got a deadline to meet. You may have noticed that whenever I have a deadline to meet I tend to spend all day messing around on here. Well not this time, do you hear me, _not this time, *not AGAIN...*_


 
That's a coincidence - I've got a deadline too - a political economy essay as it happens. I'm surprised and slightly disturbed to find that our procrastination habits match so closely 

E2A: Master


----------



## Greebo (Nov 24, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> <snip>Master


Hel will be toasty warm before he hears me call him that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Hel will be toasty warm before he hears me call him that.


Isn't what posh kids are called, in this case master philip?


----------



## Greebo (Nov 24, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Isn't what posh kids are called, in this case master philip?


It used to be what was put on envelopes addressed to, and formal documents referring to, juvenile males. I distinctly remember post for my brother (before he reached his teens) addressing him as "Master .....". If Dwyer wishes to be called "master" with that connotation, I'll be only too happy to do so.  Or he could grow up.

Alternatively if he prefers not to grow up, he can bloody well show me some respect. In the USA those with my level of experience and abilities would insist on being addressed either as Magistra or Lady. Even in mundane life. And, rightly, be regarded as self-important twats.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Pickman´s, could you stop posting these silly, distracting messages please?  We´re trying to have a serious debate here, and you seem to be deliberately disrupting our conversation.  ...


you are incapable of having a serious debate. But if you want to pretend to have one, then you know what you need to do. I don't care whther you've more hair than I do or less. all you have to do is stop sharing your fear about your hair intruding onto urban. it's dull


----------



## stuff_it (Nov 24, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> charlton knew more about capitalism than you do


And more about combovers.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 25, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> E2A: Master


 
Actually I think you´re enjoying this a bit too much.  Say it to Pickman´s instead.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 25, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> I don't care whther you've more hair than I do or less.


 
You have less.  A lot less.  In fact I suspect that you have less hair than anyone in the world, including Telly Savalas and Yul Brynner put together.  You are the hairless wonder.  I honestly don´t know how you manage it, I mean where did it all _go?  _How can any man be quite so... well, *bald *is really the only way I can put it.  I´m sorry to be blunt but there it is.  You are bald.  Quite bald.  Bald as a coot.  Bald as an eagle.  I bet you were even born bald.  I bet the midwife held you up to your Mum and said ¨it´s a baldy.¨ I bet you were the baldest boy at Eton or Harrow or wherever it was.  Maybe you went to a special School for the Bald.  A bald academy.  A bald institution of learning.  And then when you graduated I bet you got a job as an advisor to bald folk.  A baldness counsellor.  A bald assistant.  A baldy baldy bald man is what you are.  Baldy.  Kojak.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> You have less.  A lot less.  In fact I suspect that you have less hair than anyone in the world, including Telly Savalas and Yul Brynner put together.  You are the hairless wonder.  I honestly don´t know how you manage it, I mean where did it all _go?  _How can any man be quite so... well, *bald *is really the only way I can put it.  I´m sorry to be blunt but there it is.  You are bald.  Quite bald.  Bald as a coot.  Bald as an eagle.  I bet you were even born bald.  I bet the midwife held you up to your Mum and said ¨it´s a baldy.¨ I bet you were the baldest boy at Eton or Harrow or wherever it was.  Maybe you went to a special School for the Bald.  A bald academy.  A bald institution of learning.  And then when you graduated I bet you got a job as an advisor to bald folk.  A baldness counsellor.  A bald assistant.  A baldy baldy bald man is what you are.  Baldy.  Kojak.


It sounds like you know quite a bit about baldness from personal experience


----------



## Greebo (Nov 25, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> It sounds like you know quite a bit about baldness from personal experience


One of these days I'm going to run my fingers through his hair, to check the strength of his toupee tape.  Or for the telltale mesh.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2012)

Greebo said:


> One of these days I'm going to run my fingers through his hair, to check the strength of his toupee tape.  Or for the telltale mesh.


Make sure you wash your hands after


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Nov 25, 2012)

I'm losing more of my hair these days.  Bald is cool.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2012)

Oi captain there seems to be an f missing from your tagline


----------



## Greebo (Nov 25, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Make sure you wash your hands after


Do you think that a full decontamination shower followed by the LBRP would suffice?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Nov 25, 2012)

It's for ayatollah.  I'm sure I'll pwn him again, at some point.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Do you think that a full decontamination shower followed by the LBRP would suffice?


If you think it necessary


----------



## Greebo (Nov 25, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> If you think it necessary


I'll take that as a yes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2012)

Greebo said:


> I'll take that as a yes.


I'd just wash my hands, but if you feel it's merited then the shower and lbrp necessary then go for it


----------



## Greebo (Nov 25, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> I'd just wash my hands, but if you feel it's merited then the shower and lbrp necessary then go for it


We'll see.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 25, 2012)

So, that's another potentially interesting thread thrashed. I expect some people are quite proud of themselves.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 25, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> So, that's another potentially interesting thread thrashed. I expect some people are quite proud of themselves.


 
And all despite your heroic efforts to keep it on track too 

If you hate this place as much as the vast majority of your posts imply why the fuck do you keep coming back?


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 25, 2012)

Well today I tried to find somewhere that would fix my broken mezuzah case which came apart when I left the last house i was living in in Hemel

i'm going to go to this weird little shop in my village where they said they have some plywood

plainly the snapping of the back of the mezuzah was a sign of God's judgement upon us all


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 25, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> .........
> If you hate this place as much as the vast majority of your posts imply why the fuck do you keep coming back?


 
Why on earth do you think that I hate this place? Nothing I have ever posted could possibly have given you that idea. I love this place despite the handful of idiots like you who try to spoil it.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 25, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Why on earth do you think that I hate this place? Nothing I have ever posted could possibly have given you that idea. I love this place despite the handful of idiots like you who try to spoil it.


 
Something to do with you never doing anything other than moaning, whining and sniping at other posters. I've quite literally never seen you post anything constructive.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> So, that's another potentially interesting thread thrashed. I expect some people are quite proud of themselves.


You seem quite smug...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2012)

...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> So, that's another potentially interesting thread thrashed. I expect some people are quite proud of themselves.


You're no stranger to trashing threads, are you?


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 25, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> You're no stranger to trashing threads, are you?


 
With the one exception of a drunken and foolish intervention on the "what are you reading" thread I have never thrashed a single thread that hadn't already been thrashed, often by you throwing out gratuitous insults.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 25, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Something to do with you never doing anything other than moaning, whining and sniping at other posters. I've quite literally never seen you post anything constructive.


 
You have always been very selective in your reading and even more so in your comments as you never complain about those who really do spend all their time sniping at other posters.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> With the one exception of a drunken and foolish intervention on the "what are you reading" thread I have never thrashed a single thread that hadn't already been thrashed, often by you throwing out gratuitous insults.


you fucking tosspot


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 25, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Now tell us about how value is labour power please Phil...


 
Very well. I promised I would do this, and I always keep my promises. You want to know how value is labor power, and I will tell you. It´s obviously a complex question, so it´ll take a few posts, but it is perfectly straightforward.

The only problem we´re likely to face is Pickman´s, who will undoubtedly try to disrupt our discussion with his customary cretinous barracking and heckling. I suggest that everyone ignore him and I´ll see him off with some baldy insults, he hates that.

Now, we need to begin by considering a definitively human action, an action that no other animal can perform. I refer to exchange. Human beings, and only human beings, have to ability to exchange qualitatively different things. We have the ability to make qualitatively different things conceptually equivalent.

With me so far? Good.

Now, let us consider a particular act of exchange in its most simple form. Let us imagine exchanging a pen for a watch. In order to do this, we must be able to perceive the _value _of the pen inherent in the physical body of the watch. We must be able to conceive of the watch as something is it not--as the value of the pen. We must impose an ulterior, ideal significance on the material watch.

Are we in agreement up to this point? I´ll pause here to see if you have any objections to make at this stage. If not, we will proceed to the second level.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 25, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> You have always been very selective in your reading and even more so in your comments as you never complain about those who really do spend all their time sniping at other posters.


 
And who might these people be then? I'm not averse to having a pop myself and I know I'm far from alone in that but most of us also at least engage in the debate. You just constantly whine - this thread is a great example.

Have you never wondered why others, whose opinions are much further from the general consensus on these boards, don't get the same stick you do?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 25, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Very well. I promised I would do this, and I always keep my promises. You want to know how value is labor power, and I will tell you. It´s obviously a complex question, so it´ll take a few posts, but it is perfectly straightforward.
> 
> The only problem we´re likely to face is Pickman´s, who will undoubtedly try to disrupt our discussion with his customary cretinous barracking and heckling. I suggest that everyone ignore him and I´ll see him off with some baldy insults, he hates that.
> 
> ...


 
I'd say (as would Marx) that the most important difference between us and the beasts is our relationship with nature - that we are capable of adapting nature to suits our needs and wants, and it is here that the essence of value is to be found.

And the commensurability between two qualitatively different use values stems not from ideal factors but material ones - namely that they are both products of human labour.

I do agree, however, that it is only through the social process of exchange that this commensurability emerges.

This might be my last post tonight though because a cold and a deadline have formed a conspiracy against me and are intent on disrupting this debate. Unfortunately they are unmoved by baldy insults so I don't think even a man of your standing can help


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 25, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> And the commensurability between two qualitatively different use values stems not from ideal factors but material ones - namely that they are both products of human labour.


 
Yes, that´s where I´m going.  Just thought I´d take it step-by-step, because there´s people here who aren´t familiar with Marx at all.

But OK, we´ll speed it up a bit.  Large-scale exchange, beyond the stage of simple barter, requires a common denominator.  That denominator, at its most basic level, is use-value.  The pen and the watch share in comon the quality of being useful to human beings.

Now, where does that use-value come from?  From labor, and this in two senses.  First, the labor that went into producing them.  And second, the labor that will go into using them.  So in order for large-scale exchange to be possible, we must conceive of labor in the abstract, as the source of all use-value.

So far so good?  I´ll pause again to see if you have any objections.




SpineyNorman said:


> This might be my last post tonight though because a cold and a deadline have formed a conspiracy against me and are intent on disrupting this debate.


 
No problem, let´s take our time.  I´m busy today too (missed yesterday´s deadline for some mysterious reason).  Let´s give Pickman´s the chance to do his little baldy dance for a bit.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 25, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> And who might these people be then? .........


 
Other than yourself, Picky springs to mind.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 25, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Yes, that´s where I´m going. Just thought I´d take it step-by-step, because there´s people here who aren´t familiar with Marx at all.
> 
> But OK, we´ll speed it up a bit. Large-scale exchange, beyond the stage of simple barter, requires a common denominator. That denominator, at its most basic level, is use-value. The pen and the watch share in comon the quality of being useful to human beings.
> 
> ...


 
I don't agree completely - all commodities must have a use value, yes. But this isn't the common denominator, which all commodities share in different amounts - the difference between use values is qualitative so it can't be. And a use value does not necessarily have to be the product of human labour. There are incredibly important use values that are not the product of human labour and have no exchange value. For example the oxygen we breathe has a definite and absolutely vital use value but it isn't the product of human labour. Same with rain water. Same with those big leaves we wipe our arses with when we have a shit in the woods.

And so human labour in the abstract is the source of _exchange _value but it is not the source of _use _value.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 25, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Other than yourself, Picky springs to mind.


 
Both me and pickmans do engage in debate though. I'm doing it right now with phil.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 25, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Both me and pickmans do engage in debate though. I'm doing it right now with phil.


 
This is not what I think of as engaging in debate:



SpineyNorman said:


> Fuck off you massive twat.


 
Or this:



Pickman's model said:


> you fucking tosspot


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 25, 2012)

I don't see what L&L could possibly be said to be contributing here, apart from disruption.

Again. After having been let back on after being perma banned for disruption.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 25, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I don't see what L&L could possibly be said to be contributing here, apart from disruption.


 
As much as Picky is or you, for that matter.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 25, 2012)

Anyway, I'm quite enjoying this exchange with phil so I'm going to ignore you for now. On this thread at least.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 25, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> As much as Picky is or you, for that matter.


There would be that long running ban on corruption of usernames, if we are going to be silly, which apparently we are. You are.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 25, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> There would be that long running ban on corruption of usernames, if we are going to be silly, which apparently we are. You are.


 
So you disapprove of "Fridgy"? Seems very draconian to me. And you have never stood up for me when I was continually being called "Cock and Shite" only ever telling people not to do it after coming down heavy on me for retaliating. I had hoped you'd grown to be less predjudiced, FridgeMagnet but I'm finding myself sadly disappointed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 25, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> So, that's another potentially interesting thread thrashed. I expect some people are quite proud of themselves.


 
Fuck off, you sententious judgemental shitsack.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 25, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Fuck off, you sententious judgemental shitsack.


 
How can you possibly disagree?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 25, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> So you disapprove of "Fridgy"? Seems very draconian to me. And you have never stood up for me when I was continually being called "Cock and Shite" only ever telling people not to do it after coming down heavy on me for retaliating. I had hoped you'd grown to be less predjudiced, FridgeMagnet but I'm finding myself sadly disappointed.


You contribute nothing to this board apart from trollery. Every single post you make is an attack on someone else on a personal basis with no content apart from internal social behaviour.

You literally say nothing of any worth - in all my years moderating this board I have never seen a poster as pointless as you. And you were let back on on the basis that this would stop but it hasn't.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 25, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> You contribute nothing to this board apart from trollery. Every single post you make is an attack on someone else on a personal basis with no content apart from internal social behaviour.
> 
> You literally say nothing of any worth - in all my years moderating this board I have never seen a poster as pointless as you. And you were let back on on the basis that this would stop but it hasn't.


 
Oh no, not more banning. Pickman´s is far more pointlessly negative and needlessly disruptive than L´n´L, but I wouldn´t want to see him banned either.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 25, 2012)

I don't care what you want.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 25, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I don't agree completely - all commodities must have a use value, yes. But this isn't the common denominator, which all commodities share in different amounts - the difference between use values is qualitative so it can't be. And a use value does not necessarily have to be the product of human labour. There are incredibly important use values that are not the product of human labour and have no exchange value. For example the oxygen we breathe has a definite and absolutely vital use value but it isn't the product of human labour. Same with rain water. Same with those big leaves we wipe our arses with when we have a shit in the woods.
> 
> And so human labour in the abstract is the source of _exchange _value but it is not the source of _use _value.


 
If it´s the source of exchange value it must also be the source of use value, because exchange value is a symbol of use value.  This is possible in two ways.

First, through the abstraction of labor.  By conceiving of labor in the abstract it is possible to use it as a common denominator for things that are not the product of labor, such as land, human beings etc.

Second, labor is involved in consumption as well as in production. Labor in Marx´s sense means human interaction with the objective world in general, not just what we think of as ¨work.¨


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 25, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I don't care what you want.


 
Thanks mate.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 25, 2012)

Any time.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 25, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> If it´s the source of exchange value it must also be the source of use value, because exchange value is a symbol of use value. This is possible in two ways.


 
Exchange value isn't a symbol of use value at all. It's a symbol of exchange value. That's it. It's production for, and the realization of, profit that drives the capitalist economy, not the maximization of use value.



phildwyer said:


> First, through the abstraction of labor. By conceiving of labor in the abstract it is possible to use it as a common denominator for things that are not the product of labor, such as land, human beings etc.


 
Human beings _are_ the product of labour in a strictly economic sense. The price of _labour power_ - which is what human beings are as factors of production - is determined by the cost of reproducing it, which in turn is determined by the amount of labour embodied in the commodities necessary for its reproduction. I agree that value is abstract labour though - that's what I've been trying to tell you. But labour _power is _what the wage labourer sells to the capitalist - it's potential value - once it has been employed in the production of commodities it represents exchange value, not labour _power_. And the difference between the cost of the labour power and the new value it creates is the surplus - which is the source of profit.

Which explains why capitalism and usury are not the same thing. Capitalism is _production _for a profit, usury is lending for interest.

Labour power and abstract labour are not interchangeable terms.



phildwyer said:


> Second, labor is involved in consumption as well as in production. Labor in Marx´s sense means human interaction with the objective world in general, not just what we think of as ¨work.¨


 
Labour that isn't employed for the production of commodities is irrelevant when you're discussing capitalism.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 25, 2012)

Much as it pains me to side with Phil on anything, doesn't something have to have a use value to someone to have an exchange value? Is this what he means by "exchange value is a symbol of use value"?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 25, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Much as it pains me to side with Phil on anything, doesn't something have to have a use value to someone to have an exchange value? Is this what he means by "exchange value is a symbol of use value"?


 
Something has to have a use value to have an exchange value but to say that exchange value is a symbol of use value is to say that use values can be measured by their exchange value - that commodities with higher exchange values have will have a greater use value, which is clearly far from always the case.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 25, 2012)

True.


----------



## N_igma (Nov 25, 2012)

Sooooo what everyone should do is read Das Kapital yeh?


----------



## Meltingpot (Nov 25, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Much as it pains me to side with Phil on anything, doesn't something have to have a use value to someone to have an exchange value? Is this what he means by "exchange value is a symbol of use value"?


 
I don't think so; there are valuable objects whose worth derives from the appreciation of their beauty, e.g. works of art, or their rarity and "celebrity" value, such as rare coins or stamps which may not even be legal tender but are still traded for large amounts of money.

You could call both of those indicators of value "use", but IMO it would seriously dilute the meaning of the term.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 25, 2012)

That is use value. Although those sorts of things aren't commodities in the Marxist sense.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 25, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Exchange value isn't a symbol of use value at all. It's a symbol of exchange value. That's it. It's production for, and the realization of, profit that drives the capitalist economy, not the maximization of use value.


 
The fact that commodities are produced in order to realize their exchange value rather than their use value does *not *mean that exchange value ceases to be a symbol of use value. It means that this symbol has become independent of its referent and operates as an autonomous power.

And this is where things really get interesting. For if we examine postmodern culture as a whole, we find this process working in every area of life. Signs attain autonomy from referents in linguistics (structuralism, deconstruction), philosophy (empiricism, pragmatism), politics (spin, focus on image not policy) and even everyday life (superficial concentration on externals).

The cumulative result is that postmodern society makes the stupidest mistake mankind has ever made. It mistakes the way things appear to be for the way things actually are. It mistakes the data available to the senses for truth. It mistakes sign for referent. It mistakes *appearance *for *reality.*

No other society has made this error in such a systematic way. Every other culture has distinguished between appearance and reality, being aware that the way things seem is NOT the way they actually are. We do not. And we can trace this fundamental error directly to advanced capitalism´s production for exchange rather than for use.


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 25, 2012)

So if exchange value is a symbol of use value and is the realisation of profit and a driver of capitalist economy and conceiving of labour in the abstract as a progenitor for things that are not the product of labour then can we say, given that something has to have a use value to have an excahange value and that the source of profit is the difference between the cost of the labour power and the new value it creates that to be perfectly frank, I haven't got a bastard clue what any of this is about. Interesting as it is and well done everyone but haven't read Marx and not gonna start now. How do I get banned? Blame it on the Jews/jews? I'll get my coat. Goodbye.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 25, 2012)

Buckaroo said:


> So if exchange value is a symbol of use value and is the realisation of profit and a driver of capitalist economy and conceiving of labour in the abstract as a progenitor for things that are not the product of labour then can we say, given that something has to have a use value to have an excahange value and that the source of profit is the difference between the cost of the labour power and the new value it creates that to be perfectly frank, I haven't got a bastard clue what any of this is about. Interesting as it is and well done everyone but haven't read Marx and not gonna start now. How do I get banned? Blame it on the Jews/jews? I'll get my coat. Goodbye.


 
At last the voice of reason.


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 26, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> At last the voice of reason.


 
Like the balance between conceptual and data driven processes in perception, top down, bottom up, appearence and reality, exchange and use. And what? We can trace the subsequent schizophrenia to advanced capitilism? Anarchophrenia?


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 26, 2012)

Advanced capitalism even.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 26, 2012)

Buckaroo said:


> Advanced capitalism even.


 
Please calm down.


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 26, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Please calm down.


 
Yes. Calm now. Thanks!


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 26, 2012)

Buckaroo said:


> Yes. Calm now. Thanks!


 
Don't you have deadlines to meet? You racist anti-semitic scumbag fascist bastard?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 26, 2012)

Buckaroo said:


> Don't you have deadlines to meet? You racist anti-semitic scumbag fascist bastard?


 
Deep breaths.  Relax.  You are on a paradisical tropical island, the warm sun caresses your body, feel the waves gently lapping at your feet, watch the dolphins gliding past, listen to Pickman´s Model softly weeping for the loss of his hair....

There.  That´s better isn´t it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2012)

It will only be better when lock&light is hanged with phildwyer's intestines


----------



## Greebo (Nov 26, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Deep breaths. Relax. You are on a paradisical tropical island, <snip>
> 
> There. That´s better isn´t it?


I prefer this one.  You're sitting on the banks of a lake.  The sun is shining, the south wind caresses you, your feet enjoy the deep cool water.  Your hands and feet are holding something under the surface, let it bob up to see what it is.

It's the head of the person (still attached to the body) who's been causing you so much stress.  Listen to the person gasp for air.  And push him/her down again...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 26, 2012)

Greebo said:


> I prefer this one. You're sitting on the banks of a lake. The sun is shining, the south wind caresses you, your feet enjoy the deep cool water. Your hands and feet are holding something under the surface, let it bob up to see what it is.
> 
> It's the head of the person (still attached to the body) who's been causing you so much stress. Listen to the person gasp for air. And push him/her down again...


----------



## Greebo (Nov 26, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


>


Why so shocked? Don't you remember seeing that one (or very similar) posted on a very fluffy support group mailing list which didn't even allow swearing?

Edited to add: Sorry about continuing yet another derail.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 26, 2012)

I think on this particular thread we should tolerate derails provided they're funny.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 26, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> And so human labour in the abstract is the source of _exchange _value but it is not the source of _use _value.


I've been enjoying your posts, SN. Very clear and well explained. Thanks.  

A question - for you or anyone else:

There are two winemakers, both trained in the same place for the same length of time. Both put as much effort, care and skill into their winemaking as the other. Winemaker A owns land on which it is best to grow the particular kind of grape that's used to make fizzy wine, given the soil, climate, terrain and relative competition in the market. So he makes the best fizzy wine he can. However, winemaker B owns land on which it is perfect to grow that same kind of grape, so his fizzy wine is better. When they sell their wine at the market, A sells for £10 per bottle, but B gets £20. Where did that extra £10 exchange value come from? 

In another scenario, farmer B invents a new manufacturing process, which doubles his profit. Is the 'labour' involved in that invention really the source of the new value? What if he just came up with it in the bath, while farmer A works long and hard on his processes with less success? What if he sells the idea?

My point being that it seems to me that there are many sources of exchange value and that human labour in the abstract is only one consideration among many. The actual quality of the product is another, as is its use in any particular situation - no use selling umbrellas in a drought. Simple brute supply and demand is another. 

Where can all these other considerations fit in with Marx's labour theory of value?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 26, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I've been enjoying your posts, SN. Very clear and well explained. Thanks.


 
Glad it makes sense 



littlebabyjesus said:


> A question - for you or anyone else:
> 
> There are two winemakers, both trained in the same place for the same length of time. Both put as much effort, care and skill into their winemaking as the other. Winemaker A owns land on which it is best to grow the particular kind of grape that's used to make fizzy wine, given the soil, climate, terrain and relative competition in the market. So he makes the best fizzy wine he can. However, winemaker B owns land on which it is perfect to grow that same kind of grape, so his fizzy wine is better. When they sell their wine at the market, A sells for £10 per bottle, but B gets £20. Where did that extra £10 exchange value come from?


 
Someone like love detective would probably be able to answer this better than me but I'd say the following is happening (and you'll have to bear with me as the argument needs to be developed):

In the capitalist economy the surplus actually produced in one industry does not necessarily go to that industry in the form of profit. Otherwise we'd expect very labour intensive production to be far more profitable than capital intensive industry. Instead the surplus is shared across all sectors to give roughly the same rate of profit everywhere. So to understand the origin of profit it is not sufficient to look at only one capital - you have to look at the system as a whole. While labour is the only thing that generates any new wealth or surplus it is not true that only enterprises that use labour make a profit, even though they produce no new value. This is rent seeking - and it is often tied into a natural monopoly like land - they're essentially leaching surplus from elsewhere in the economy. What I would say is happening here is that because wine maker B has a natural monopoly on the best land for growing grapes he is able to extract a rent from the rest of the economy.



littlebabyjesus said:


> In another scenario, farmer B invents a new manufacturing process, which doubles his profit. Is the 'labour' involved in that invention really the source of the new value? What if he just came up with it in the bath, while farmer A works long and hard on his processes with less success? What if he sells the idea?


 
Again, it does not make sense to look only at farmer B. It is not the labour time that goes into the commodities produced by the individual capital but rather the average socially necessary labour time that defines the value of the commodity. So if only one capitalist has the new tech he is producing at below the average socially necessary labour time and so he the difference between the cost of production and the value of the commodities, ie his profit, is higher. But this is balanced out across the industry as other capitalists are producing at slightly above the average socially necessary labour time - so essentially his competitors' losses are farmer B's gain. And if he sells the idea he is rent seeking (this is essentailly what the use of patents is - the monopolization of an idea and the use of that monopoly in rent seeking). What will actually happen then is that the coercive law of competition comes into play, as farmer B is able to undercut his competitors and they are forced to either go bust or adopt the new tech. And since this new tech replaces labour the organic composition of the capital changes so there is a greater proportion of constant capital (raw materials, wear on plant, etc) and a smaller proportion of variable capital (living labour) and since labour is the only thing that produces a surplus, which is the source of all profit, these innovations serve, over time, to actually _reduce _the rate of profit - but only once the new tech becomes the norm.



littlebabyjesus said:


> My point being that it seems to me that there are many sources of exchange value and that human labour in the abstract is only one consideration among many. The actual quality of the product is another, as is its use in any particular situation - no use selling umbrellas in a drought. Simple brute supply and demand is another.


 
Better quality commodities require greater labour time - we can knock out crap tables faster than good ones. And in a drought an umbrella has no use value so there will be no market for it. And of course new ideas are essentially mental labour - even if it didn't take him any time to come up with the idea, the labour that went into educating him is utilized in the 'production' of the idea.



littlebabyjesus said:


> Where can all these other considerations fit in with Marx's labour theory of value?


 
I think the most surprising thing about Marx's theories is how _well _all these things fit.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 26, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Again, it does not make sense to look only at farmer B. It is not the labour time that goes into the commodities produced by the individual capital but rather the average socially necessary labour time that defines the value of the commodity. So if only one capitalist has the new tech he is producing at below the average socially necessary labour time and so he the difference between the cost of production and the value of the commodities, ie his profit, is higher.


 
Ta. That is again very well explained. 

So it is the source of profit that necessarily has to come from labour? While actual wealth may in fact increase - someone making something good that feeds into the market is improving the quality of the actual things in that market. That improvement, whatever it is, may have raised the overall value of labour. Something external has raised the overall unit-value of labour. There is labour making tables, but there is also labour researching better ways of making tables. That second kind of labour is directed towards improving the unit-value of the first - either through improvements of quantity or quality - and so raising the overall value of labour. Labour needs to be defined as all human activity, potentially, then? Discoveries become labour. 

Some of the worst excesses of Stalin and Mao were to do with their classing of independent farmers as capitalists, although they may have employed nobody but themselves. Simply ownership of land was enough to make them capitalists extracting a rent from the rest of the economy. Just an observation, really, not related to anything in particular.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 26, 2012)

All _productive _(or economic) human activity is defined as labour, yes. It's worth noting that terms like value, wealth, etc have very specific meanings for Marx but I think what you're saying is that there can be a reduction in exchange value at the same time as an increase in use values - in which case I agree completely.

I'd also say that the definition of landed peasants as capitalists probably had more to do with pragmatic responses to specific historical conditions than theory - even if the theory was used to justify it. I don't know too much about China but I'd say Stalin's attitude and actions towards the Kulaks was motivated by a need for the appropriation of their grain in order to feed urban populations which they got in the way of.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2012)

Interesting posts, well put both


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 26, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> All _productive _(or economic) human activity is defined as labour, yes. .


Ok, so all human activity is potentially economic activity that can be added to the pool of 'labour' as defined in this analysis? But the way in which economics measures value (needs to measure value - if it can't be measured, it can't be included) means that it can only ultimately treat value as a quantitative thing. That it must _reduce_ value to a quantitative thing, and perhaps that it must actively find ways to measure the value in order to add it to its pile?

Going to think on this. It's brought me around to something I already thought, but from a different route, if that makes sense.


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 27, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Deep breaths. Relax. You are on a paradisical tropical island, the warm sun caresses your body, feel the waves gently lapping at your feet, watch the dolphins gliding past, listen to Pickman´s Model softly weeping for the loss of his hair....
> 
> There. That´s better isn´t it?


 

Thanks for the relaxation stuff, it worked a treat until a mouse took shelter from the cold in the gas burner and fried itself on the boards, bloody freezing now! And it's not 'Paradisical' but 'Paradisiacal' when referring to tropical islands and nice stuff, 'Paradiscal' maybe for my nightmare problems with back pain but anyway. Apologies for pedantry, now where were we? Oh yeah Jews/jews an' that.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 28, 2012)

Plainly my cat denver wants to be Jewish, got a yarmulke today which says "super jew" on it to replace the one i think i left at my nans a few weeks ago and she keeps playing with it


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 28, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Plainly my cat denver wants to be Jewish, got a yarmulke today which says "super *jew*" on it to replace the one i think i left at my nans a few weeks ago and she keeps playing with it


 
Antisemite! 

Proper antisemites call superman super Jew. Apparently he's supposed to be Jewish (and there's me thinking he was an alien too, holywood's well and truly scrubbed my brain clean  ) and the films are to brainwash us into thinking that our Jewish overlords will look after us.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 28, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Antisemite!
> 
> Proper antisemites call superman super Jew. Apparently he's supposed to be Jewish (and there's me thinking he was an alien too, holywood's well and truly scrubbed my brain clean  ) and the films are to brainwash us into thinking that our Jewish overlords will look after us.


 
He is actually meant to be Jewish iirc lol. But it's nothing to do with thinking Jews are gonna take over the world  I've been getting them to play with a dreidel as well and for some reason she keeps on trying to knock over a pot of coins in my room (the same one whose obsessed with the yarmulke)


----------



## Greebo (Nov 28, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> <snip>for some reason she keeps on trying to knock over a pot of coins in my room (the same one whose obsessed with the yarmulke)


Redistribution in action.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 28, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> He is actually meant to be Jewish iirc lol. But it's nothing to do with thinking Jews are gonna take over the world  I've been getting them to play with a dreidel as well and for some reason she keeps on trying to knock over a pot of coins in my room (the same one whose obsessed with the yarmulke)


 
Superman is not meant to be Jewish he was raised by Kansas farmers, but his creators were Jewish and did deliberately give him dark hair and glasses (in his secret identity) as an anti-'Aryan Ideal' thing.


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Redistribution in action.


 
Catipalism in action


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 28, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Redistribution in action.


 
yeah, cat mayhem is here to stay it seems, my sister's had them a few months. it was pretty entertaining to see her so obssed with jewish things though lol. I guess if there are Jewish cats this adds a bit of a new angle to the whole Protocols of the Elders of Zion thing. If even your cat might be a member of the international zionist conspiracy then where can you turn  Imagine finding out the truth about the world financial elite only to find that your cat is on the keyboard, looking to sabotage your efforts for its own nefarious zionist ends


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 28, 2012)

Apparently the writers were Jewish and kind of lefty liberal - according to wiki in the early episodes superman is a kind of super hero social activist.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 28, 2012)

based on the Golem apparently, or sort of.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 1, 2012)

the cats have stolen my dreidel, the last I knew of it they were playing with it around my bed, but it appears to have mysteriously vanished.

you know what this means don't you


----------



## Greebo (Dec 1, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> <snip>you know what this means don't you


They're Jewish *and* antisemitic?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 1, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> the cats have stolen my dreidel, the last I knew of it they were playing with it around my bed, but it appears to have mysteriously vanished.
> 
> you know what this means don't you


 
Yep.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 1, 2012)

Greebo said:


> They're Jewish *and* antisemitic?


 
yes  seriously.

one of them blatantly wants to be a jew judging by the way that she grabbed my "super jew" yarmulke and started playing with it endlessly

i bought a dreidel on wednesday combined with a load of other jewish stuff, for hanukkah, and also because I like having jewish stuff around in my room

unfortunately it seems that anti-semitism is alive and well in the cat world as well judging by the fact that my dreidel has vanished and i have no idea where it's got to. perhaps the cat is a self hating jew lol


----------



## Greebo (Dec 1, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> yes  seriously.
> 
> one of them blatantly wants to be a jew judging by the way that she grabbed my "super jew" yarmulke and started playing with it endlessly
> 
> i bought a dreidel on wednesday combined with a load of other jewish stuff, for hanukkah, and also because I like having jewish stuff around in my room<snip>


Or perhaps the cat thinks it's more in need of the dreidel than you are, and will let you have it back in a couple of days.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 2, 2012)

seriously the dreidel is probably under my bed now, i have no idea where it is


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 2, 2012)

to be fair i probably shouldn't have given to them in the first place


----------



## cesare (Dec 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> the cats have stolen my dreidel, the last I knew of it they were playing with it around my bed, but it appears to have mysteriously vanished.
> 
> you know what this means don't you


They're going to heil in a Hanukkah?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 2, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Historically then, many anti-capitalists have been anti-semites. The suggestion being made today, however, is that anti-capitalism is inherently anti-semitic..


 
Interesting concept - given the number of Jews involved with the Russian Revolution and the early years of the Soviet state.

I wonder how Mao felt about the Jews?

Salvador Allende was born a jew.

Bela Kun was a jew.

Lenin was a jew.

Trotsky was a jew.

Karl Radek was a jew.

Frihda Kahlo was a jew.

There's a long list of jewish anti capitalists. Seems a bit of a stretch to say that anti capitalism is inherently anti semitic, when so many jews are part of the foundation of anti capitalism.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 2, 2012)

of course it isn't inherently anti-semitic.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Dec 2, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Interesting concept - given the number of Jews involved with the Russian Revolution and the early years of the Soviet state.
> 
> I wonder how Mao felt about the Jews?
> 
> ...


 
Gotta agree with you there, JC. I've always thought there was a strong tradition of  intellectual Jewish anti capitalism. I will admit I don't know much about it though.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 2, 2012)

don't think lenin was a jew though.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Dec 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> seriously the dreidel is probably under my bed now, i have no idea where it is


 
What _is_ a dreidel? I always thought it was that curly bit of hair that hangs down under an orthadox Jewish guy's hat. But it isn't is it? Spose I could google it, but I'd rather ask.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 2, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> What _is_ a dreidel? I always thought it was that curly bit of hair that hangs down under an orthadox Jewish guy's hat. But it isn't is it? Spose I could google it, but I'd rather ask.


 
nah, a dreidel is like a spinning top thing, you use it to play a crap game with it, there is a hebrew letter on each side and it should stand for "a great miracle happened here"


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 2, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> Gotta agree with you there, JC. I've always thought there was a strong tradition of intellectual Jewish anti capitalism. I will admit I don't know much about it though.


 
Tbh, looking at that first post, it looked like phil was just stirring the pot, looking for an argument. And seeing how the thread is 840 posts long, it looks like he got one.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 2, 2012)

when i find it i'll post a picture


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 2, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Tbh, looking at that first post, it looked like phil was just stirring the pot, looking for an argument. And seeing how the thread is 840 posts long, it looks like he got one.


 
really!!


----------



## Frances Lengel (Dec 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> nah, a dreidel is like a spinning top thing, you use it to play a crap game with it, there is a hebrew letter on each side and it should stand for "a great miracle happened here"


 
Right, thanks - Is there a name for that curly bit of hair though? I should've asked Aub when I worked for him years ago, but he wasn't observant nevermind orthadox, he would've probably known though.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 2, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> Right, thanks - Is there a name for that curly bit of hair though? I should've asked Aub when I worked for him years ago, but he wasn't observant nevermind orthadox, he would've probably known though.


 
yeah, they're called peyot


----------



## Frances Lengel (Dec 2, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Tbh, looking at that first post, it looked like phil was just stirring the pot, looking for an argument. And seeing how the thread is 840 posts long, it looks like he got one.


 
Phil's cool though - Knows a lot about hip hop. Probably.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Dec 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> yeah, they're called peyot


 
Nice one. Me sister's fella's got that proper curly hair - He's not even Jewish though, he's part Jewish ancestry, part Arab but mostly  Mancunian white trash (for wont of a better expression), but  if he wore the hat he'd look proper orthadox. Except coz of his beard, he gets called Bin Laden. Good job he can scrap.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 2, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> Phil's cool though - Knows a lot about hip hop. Probably.


 
Don't get me wrong: I've got nothing against phil; and tbh, if it takes some shit-stirring to get an actual real discussion going about something interesting, then so be it.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Dec 2, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Don't get me wrong: I've got nothing against phil; and tbh, if it takes some shit-stirring to get an actual real discussion going about something interesting, then so be it.


 
Same as, mate - Phil's an arch pisstaker and there's nothing I like more.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> the cats have stolen my dreidel, the last I knew of it they were playing with it around my bed, but it appears to have mysteriously vanished.
> 
> you know what this means don't you


 
Your cats are obviously rabidly-secular Jews who don't have any truck with Jewish holidays.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> don't think lenin was a jew though.


 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/24/vladimir-lenin-jewish-roots-moscow-museum_n_866098.html


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 2, 2012)

doesn't mean he was a jew. Loads of russians and moldovans have jewish ancestry, doesn't mean they were actually brought up into the religion ...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 2, 2012)

You replied in less than one minute. Did you read the article?


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 2, 2012)

i did afterwards yes.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 2, 2012)

sorry, i'm always a bit uneasy about this sort of thing and the only people i've seen making these claims about lenin before i read that article are neo-nazis.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 12, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> its like a crap chapter in a fredrick forsyth novel



Or one of the better chapters in a Bruce Forsyth one.


----------

