Left Business Observer
list posts
Don't hold me accountable for the attributions (via colour allocations), I may have screwed up here and there, besides I tend to switch 'm even on purpuse for one person if they last a while anyway (but wait lemme me (piet) try something): Hakki, Chuck Grimes, Doug, Kelley, chucko, joanna, chris comm, Thomas, chip berlet, CharlieBrown, Gordon, Miles, Ravi ---

-There is a file full of Kelley Walker posts at the LBO list (91K mostly on philosophy)  and yet more by her in prfr format <136K> gender issues).

to joanne (whom I sent some of went to list podner Kelley also (see last issue): sent this to Kelley but she is no fun when she works too hard (what is she saving up
   for?) -------------Some dickumountation from http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talkMark Twain wrote an essay in which he theorized that men had a sexual capacity about 1/4 that of women, on the average (or I think it was 1/4; I read it a long time ago), so that a man with four wives would be wasting 15/16ths of their sexual capacity. However, I think the problem is cultural rather than physical. After all, you can mess around sexually all you want, as long as you want to, in some way or other, whatever sex you may be. Men still think they have to _produce_ and/or _conquer_, however, and that takes 30 minutes (I guess). Blame it on capitalism. After the revolution we'll all be polymorphously perverse and have lots of time, too. -- Gordon -------------- Are you glad you escaped that continent 'headed' by a person as daft as the next section (sort of intruding on the thread about sex unless you want to contrast al queda heavenly fantasies with a quote from Mark Twain coming up) illustrates alive or not: -------------- Subject: "War on Terrorism" Extended to Amish From: Thomas Seay (entheogens@yahoo.com) Date: Thu Feb 07 2002 - 14:44:32 EST  Dayton, Ohio (Reuters) In an unprecedented move today, the President, while visiting an elementary school in Troy, Ohio, explained to reporters that the "War on Terrorism" would include domestic terrorist groups. When asked for specifics, he responded that the CIA has been closely monitoring groups such as the Aryan Nation, the Revolutionary AntiPatriarchal League(RAL),and the Amish Seperatist Army(ASA).  When asked if any actions were planned, he said,  When asked why the ASA was being singled out, the Commander-In-Chief stated,  On an unrelated note, White House spokesman, Ari Fleisher confirmed that Vice-President Dick Cheney was safe in a a bunker in some unspecified location. Fleisher said,"Yes, he will remain there until those jokes about there being a 'Bush' and a 'Dick' in the White House quiet down". ===== "The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living" -Karl Marx NO? think again. Back to the thread Yes, MT was certainly an unusual fellow for his times -- e.g., from his Letters From the Earth: "... the human being, like the immortals, naturally places sexual intercourse far and away above all other joys -- yet he has left it out of his heaven! The very thought of it excites him; opportunity sets him wild; in this state he will risk life, reputation, everything -- even his queer heaven itself -- to make good that opportunity and ride it to the overwhelming climax. From youth to middle age all men and all women prize copulation above all other pleasures combined, yet it is actually as I have said: it is not in their heaven; prayer takes its place." Carl --------------Joanne wrote: ".. ..What men truly don't get about women is that women don't like to fuck assholes." I dont know about that. I once had a girlfriend who had this fantasy about it and she would........ -------------- > the same thing as not having a sex drive. When men > grow beyond the > itch/scratch level of sex, they might discover that > women have a sex drive. Thank you for Not Generalizing....NOT! Thomas-------------- > I think, if you re-read the JB's post, you will see > she was referring > to the sensibility of the partner, not the target of > his desire. > > Chuck Grimes -------No shit, Sherlock?! Thanks for pointing out the obvious. Did you really think that I didn't understand that, or are you in full-blast PC mode today? Did you really think that I didn't understand that, or are you in full-blast PC mode today? -Thomas --------------Sorry, I am confused. So, your girlfriend had a fantasy of being fucked by a real asshole, instead of somebody like you who was just pretending. Is that it? Chuck Grimes -------------- You shouldn't get them so excited, Joanna :-) But seriously, it's obvious women can fuck men to death and polyandry is the only way to go. So what's with harems? Well once you've taken away womens' inheritance rights, the next step is to merchandise them. If you're poor, you buy yourself one woman - you just stick to buggering boys if you're really really poor - if you're rich, you're allowed up to four. It's about ownership of land, the exploitation of women as sexual, reproductive, and menial slaves, and the harem as a symbol of power much like a garage filled with flash cars. -------------- || || I'd venture to guess that polygamy is not about sex but about || power. -------------- You'd be right. Ottoman sultans had vast harems but they saw servicing them as a chore. They preferred boys. Love has no place in Sunni Islam (Sufism, Shia, etc are different), so there's no hype about it. Everything boils down to business and sex. The commerce of women that passes for the institution of marriage is strictly regimented with heavy penalties for infringement (stoning, beheading, etc.), but no such restrictions apply to boys. There's no stigma attached to fucking boys, they're tighter, and unable to resist. I suspect if this subject wasn't so loaded a little digging would reveal a major source of the rot in Islamic societies. Hakki -------------- Although I actively encourage a homosexual couple I know to go and get as married as they can do in the States (they have a baby) and I certainly cannot accept discrimintation against homosexuals, I remain unsure, as a political matter, about homosexual marriage. I struggled for a long while to explain my misgivings but I finally hit on a formulation. All I need to feel completely comfortable about homosexual marriage in an American context is a coherent argument that makes the case: homosexual marriage - yes, polygamous marriage - no. I cannot, for my own part, find a way to express why a homosexual marriage between consenting adults is right but a polygamous marriage among consenting adults is wrong. -

Post about patriotism: Not sure how many of you watched the NBA All Star game tonight, but a remarkable thing happened. R&B singers Alicia Keyes and Angie Stone were slated to sing "America the Beautiful" before the game. They started into the song, but after about 6 bars, immediately shifted to singing "Lift Every Voice and Sing," otherwise known as the Black National Anthem, written by poet and civil rights leader James Weldon Johnson. After finishing that, they did go back to "American The Beautiful," but changed the final chorus to: "America/And EVERYONE/God shed his grace on thee." The crowd went wild. Chris Kromm Keep your eyes on the prize. ----------- In an approving way, I hope. Which was it? Doug -------------- there was no challenge to the underlying dynamic that creates patriotism, in any event. it's just patriotism reborn in a way people on the left will find palatable. kelley -------------- EVERYONE? How's that patriotic by any normal definition? Doug --------------------key phrase: underlying dynamic. -------------I'd thought the underlying dynamic of patriotism is that one's fellow citizens take priority - and, usually, that We are better than Them. If it involves nationalism, it means excluding the Others from the Great Circle of Us. So doesn't EVERYONE kind of undermine that? Doug ------------ I'm listening to the game and heard the opening ceremonies. It's almost like the organizers of big sporting events can't understand that less is more. I fucking detest the national anthem, but Patti Labelle was a great choice to sing it tonight. They then totally screwed up. Instead of going from her lovely voice to the lineups, they had to have something from Elton John. Elton John? Wasn't that song popular 25 years ago? Overkill. I was wondering what was the deal with that other song. The NBA All Star game is the best of all the sports. But the current ones aren't as good as the ones back in the 80s. Wish I had a TV right now. << Chuck0 >> ------------- Subject: US going around the bend From: Hakki Alacakaptan (nucleus@superonline.com) Date: Mon Feb 11 2002 - 04:14:41 EST sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] Next message: Chris Brooke: "RE: Robeson & the USSR" Previous message: Kevin Robert Dean: "How White Supremists fall in Love"Ariel Sharon is reported to have told Shimon Peres, "don't worry about America, we control America". If any confirmation were needed, Defence Minister Ben-Eliezer (Labor) supplied it with the amazing statement to the press that Cheney told him in private "You can hang Arafat as far as I'm concerned". He was aiming to embarass Bush, who refused Sharon's demand that the US admin cut off ties with Arafat. Unsurprisingly, this scandal went largely unreported in the US media and the US admin carefully downplayed it. A former Israeli ambassador to the US remarked on how far Israel had come since Ben Gurion, when a similar gaffe resulted in the entire cabinet being fired. Not only is Ben-Eliezer still holding his job, he hasn't even been mildly reprimanded. While being careful to oblige Israel, the US admin is riding roughshod over the EU with its "axis of evil" sabre-rattling, said axis containing 2 countries, Iran and Iraq, which Israel sees as a threat and the EU as a business opportunity (and US big oil as unwanted competition, needless to say). The CIA says none of those countries is involved in terrorism, while several countries (SA, Pakistan, and Syria) which manifestly are involved remain the US's allies. Th EU is crying blue murder and is scrambling to patch together an independent ME policy with the hope of preventing a new Arab-Israeli war. While distracting the world with its atrocities against the Palestinians, Israel is busy provoking Hezbollah, which is massing arms on the Lebanese border. In disregarding US national interests, the US admin seems to be mimicking Ariel Sharon, and the US public appears to be as bent on suicide as the Israeli public. A times-CBS poll last month revealed a 7% decerase in the number of people who thought Bush favored the rich, an increase in the number who thought he "cares about the needs and problems of people like you", a 12% increase in the repug's favorable rating, a 16% gain for Bush as to "who is more likely to balance the budget" - this as he was merrily throws away $4 trillion of the $5.6 trillion surplus he inherited. With that kind of popular support and the corporate interests - from which it is indistinguishable - hungry for pork and plunder, the US admin looks hell-bent on destroying the global consensus on which its power relies, and which it imagines can be replaced with coercion. The US is clearly going around the bend. The question now is: How bad is it going to be on the other side? Hakki ---- for more on the Middle East see a section in Indymediasamples.htm

A kinder, Gentler Militia" © 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 Beaver County Militia "E PLURIBUS CASTOR UNUM" The "Beaver County Militia" is a militia for those that are "non violent", but are militant about being "non violent". And will fight to the death to stay "non violent."We are secretly located in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. And, for a non-satirical paper, see Jim Kalb here http://counterrevolution.net/kalb_texts/nwo_amish.html , who has a huge webpg. on traditionalist conservatism. http://counterrevolution.net/trad.html found thanks to: http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/current/0467.html  -----More satire: http://members.tripod.com/~sonoguy/recon.html ------- "War on Terrorism" Extended to Amish From: Thomas Seay (entheogens@yahoo.com) Date: Thu Feb 07 2002 - 14:44:32  In an unprecedented move today, the President, while visiting an elementary school in Troy, Ohio, explained to reporters that the "War on Terrorism" would include domestic terrorist groups. When asked for specifics, he responded that the CIA has been closely monitoring groups such as the Aryan Nation, the Revolutionary AntiPatriarchal League(RAL),and the Amish Seperatist Army(ASA). <<These groups need to get their houses in order.  They do not reflect the values of America and should be considered as much part of the axis of evil  as N. Korea, Iran and Iraq.>>     When asked if any actions were planned, he said, <<We're putting groups like the ASA on call. I have asked the National Guard to send 3000 troops to Lancaster County Pennsylvania where they will patrol the area and smoke out any cells the ASA may have operative in that region. We may not get them today or tomorrow. But believe me, we will get them.>>  When asked why the ASA was being singled out, the Commander-In-Chief stated, <<Look at them  [the Amish]. You know that they have ties with the Al-Qaeda network...I mean look at the beards on those guys and the dresses their women wear.>> On an unrelated note, White House spokesman, Ari Fleisher confirmed that Vice-President Dick Cheney was safe in a a bunker in some unspecified location. Fleisher said,"Yes, he will remain there until those jokes about there being a 'Bush' and a 'Dick' in the White House quiet down". ===== "The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living" -Karl Marx ---------- Due to the games Utah gets attention and polygamy.org is a 'tapestry against the araboid excesses of it; luckily this thread goes into polygyny a little too; I sent the humanevolution.com and neoteny.org postulates to Joanne and Kelley and might find out soon if it inspired them (haven't read the following yet; I need to go work on my bike desperately, sprocket is worn, chain creaks, etc). ----- Back to this file over a week later and sure enough hormones are mentioned (but very marginally, by Hakki mostly) -----------  Subject: RE: polygamy From: Hakki Alacakaptan (nucleus@superonline.com) Date: Fri Feb 08 2002 - 06:09:33 EST || -----Original Message----- || From: joanna bujes || Jeez, where to begin? Men have a stronger sex drive than women? I guess || that's why when I have sex with men, it's all over in, oh, 30 minutes; You shouldn't get them so excited, Joanna :-) But seriously, it's obvious women can fuck men to death and polyandry is the only way to go. So what's with harems? Well once you've taken away womens' inheritance rights, the next step is to merchandise them. If you're poor, you buy yourself one woman - you just stick to buggering boys if you're really really poor - if you're rich, you're allowed up to four. It's about ownership of land, the exploitation of women as sexual, reproductive, and menial slaves, and the harem as a symbol of power much like a garage filled with flash cars. || || I'd venture to guess that polygamy is not about sex but about || power. You'd be right. Ottoman sultans had vast harems but they saw servicing them as a chore. They preferred boys. Love has no place in Sunni Islam (Sufism, Shia, etc are different), so there's no hype about it. Everything boils down to business and sex. The commerce of women that passes for the institution of marriage is strictly regimented with heavy penalties for infringement (stoning, beheading, etc.), but no such restrictions apply to boys. There's no stigma attached to fucking boys, they're tighter, and unable to resist. I suspect if this subject wasn't so loaded a little digging would reveal a major source of the rot in Islamic societies. Hakki ------------ ( You know...the old "pleasure shared is pleasure || doubled (and || doubled again :) )..." Don't men enjoy that? || || Joanna B. -------------- I do and I imagine others do as well. Trouble is, on top endocrine disruptor industrial pollutants, the competitivity and calculation of our working lives increasingly intrudes on and pollutes everything else. Lovemaking then so easily becomes a transaction, where trust and abandon is impossible. Males are as usual more easily affected by this, due to their physical and psychological frailty. Males aren't designed to last, just to produce new genetic code and upload it to females while it's still uncorrupted. ----------- Piet: I personally like the (JHNoyes) theory of succesful old men having purified and cleaned up their batch and therefor deserve to woo the young ones as much as the next in Hakki's sense fresher guy --------------- They're designed to die early as the code gets corrupted by constant copying, whereas female genetic code is limited edition and therefore more error-free. They're bit players in the evolution game, to which they're relative latecomers, and their frailty has to do with the fact that they're basically modified females, a kludge IOW. Don't think the revo'll fix that so I still say we need a technical fix: Tantra yoga, genetic engineering, safe drugs - something. Hakki -------------- the problem is, you went into a rant about american men, sexuality, and >>objectification, in an attempt to do what i'm not certain. > >Well, I was trying to suggest how, in an "advanced" culture like ours, the >objectification of women continues....only in other guises. I mean, it's >fairly easy to see how women are abused under Islam; harder to see, when >looking at our own situation. > >Judging from a lot of the links, including yours, I didn't do a very good job. > >Joanna ------------------- i just didn't see a connection between men's supposed inability to see that luminescent glow and how women are oppressed in our culture. and, given that lesbians and bis see the luminescent glow and still objectify women during sex and at other times, i really don't see the connection. i also don't see how men don't have it, this glow. i also don't know any men that don't enjoy gourmet lovemaking all night long. they're the exception to the rule, IME. most men i know feel a tremendous amount of pressure to be allnight long studs. in fact, i think a lot of men feel they have to make you have an orgasm or they're a failure. and not only that, it has to be that holy same time! and, i have to say that, although i understand what you're talking about re the larger objectification issue, i do think men very much enjoy the things you're talking about wrt sex. i've never met one that hasn't in my personal experience, or just talking with them as friends. and, aside from that, don't you ever objectify someone. i was talking about this with a friend the other night. but then i think of the times when i do the same. TMI file! what gets men, i think, is that they want to individualize it and they don't like looking at this in terms of something larger than themselves. they would also, as leftists, like to be patted on the back for some progress---which is annoying as all get out sometimes---but there it is: they want to be recognized for having made some progress, for being better than dad and gramps. i mean, jeez joanna, when i was a little kid, i remember reading it was, on average, 15 minutes. consider the progress we've made in two decades! :))))) men think women withhold sex, as WDK apparently does. but they don't want to ask why we might, in spite of our own desires. Well! how about good old fashioned experience: like being told point blank by male friends and co workers that, if you sleep with him, you're a slut; if you give him your number, you're a bitch. well, damned if you don't; damned if you do. which is what marilyn frye calls oppression. i suppose its the same thing as i was on about a while ago. if i'm a privileged white woman, then i have to listen with an open heart and mind to the crits of how i participate in racism. i shouldn't expect anyone to pat me on the back for being a good leftist anti racist and kick and scream because they didn't stroke me first before saying, "but...." i don't think men should be any different. it's their job to listen with open hearts and minds. that doesn't mean sucking my or your ass, just arguing with us rationally. i'm just astounded that this isn't the first time i've heard this nonsense here. you were talking about how men objectify and then someone comes along and does it, puts the pressure on other men to put notches on their belt in order to prove they're real men. kelley ------------------------- Yes, MT was certainly an unusual fellow for his times -- e.g., from his Letters From the Earth: "... the human being, like the immortals, naturally places sexual intercourse far and away above all other joys -- yet he has left it out of his heaven! The very thought of it excites him; opportunity sets him wild; in this state he will risk life, reputation, everything -- even his queer heaven itself -- to make good that opportunity and ride it to the overwhelming climax. From youth to middle age all men and all women prize copulation above all other pleasures combined, yet it is actually as I have said: it is not in their heaven; prayer takes its place." Carl -------------------------- Thomas, Since you were the only one that was offended by my post, I'll address this to you (and also to those that were silently offended.) Key point: I was responding to a post justifying polygamy in terms of the complete objectification of women. So the real issue here is how various cultures prevent women from seeing themselves/ from being seen as sexual subjects rather than sexual objects. Now, with Islam, as the post specified and as Hakki attested, woman as sexual subject simply does not compute. She is not, in fact, any kind of subject. The situation is more complicated in the US. In the US she can vote, own property, get custody of her children, work, etc. The problem in the US is that the culture as a whole does not recognize the possiblity of the Other. In the US, one is either American, or one wants to be an American, or one is on the way of becoming American. And American means white male. Now for a man to be able to make love to a woman, he has to be able to conceive of the possiblity of the Other. He has to conceive and to experience the Other and to accept the paradox that a meeting between self and other is possible without one being turned into the other. There is absolutely nothing in a culture based on commodity exchange that can support such an experience. So a woman's experience with American men is that of being some kind of prize, some kind of counter in a larger game that is played by men with men: a notch on the bed post, a race that is won, a status symbol that can be publicly displayed. Compare this with the experience of being enjoyed and explored as woman --- compare this with sex as a necessarily reciprocal definition. (Please hold the flames; none of this should be interpreted as a condemnation of homosexuality. I focus on Americans because this is where I live and also because the illusion of freedom is strongest here.) It is not a question of evil men and victimized women. My experience making love to women was shocking and overwhelming. When a woman is in the throes of lovemaking she becomes ---oh...so beautiful, she is translucent, and the effect on the lover is something nearing madness (or as Propertius put it "why is mortal woman so inhumanly beautiful?). So I am siezed by this intoxication, feeling like I could literally lose my sanity, and I ask myself (hours later) how could it be? How could it be that making love to a woman can have this effect (when I am not even hard-wired for it) and how could men experience this ....and continue to treat women the way they do? How could a man experience this and still continue to think and act like a boy? How could a man prefer the experience of woman as passive object to this? How could power make up for this? It is a poisonous culture that prevents this possiblity and defers it to some future paradise. That's all I meant to say. (Thank you Hakki and Chuck G. for the support.) Joanna B. ---------------- I was not offended at all by it. I thought you were generalizing, Joanna, but that does not offend me. My response was done jokingly. I was amazed that that wasn't apparent. -Thomas ---------------- Thanks for bringing this up. The answer to your questions lies in the false assumption that men and women are "hard wired" for mutual sexual bliss. The only hard wiring is for procreation. The pleasure part is just the honey-trap and it's only as good as it needs to be to achieve the desired end. Let me generalize a bit: It's a fact that womens' sexual pleasure is far more intense, total, and enduring than mens' is. This huge rush makes a woman much more energetic and active in lovemaking than a far more fit and athletic man. Women have to restrain themselves in order not to scare their partners into flaccidity. Men, OTOH, rarely enjoy a lasting pleasure and tension that would make protracted lovemaking worthwhile. Their pleasure is brief, so they have a tendency to go for it instead of waiting for their partner. So heterosexual lovemaking is really a compromise at best. Stuff I've read about Inuits, Bantus, and Trobianders suggests this ain't necesarily so for pre-industrial cultures, but the difference isn't purely cultural and has to with environmental factors such as endocrine disruptors as well (sperm counts falling and all that). Also, widespread use of viagra and similar drugs may change the picture. Anyway, the pleasure imbalance is something men and women should recognize and deal with, instead of calling each other names. Hakki -------------------- The pleasure part is just the > honey-trap and it's only as good as it needs to be to achieve the desired > end. -------- This ain't necessarily so. Obviously, sexual relationships and behavior have more effects on human beings than to get some of them pregnant. So they can affect the well-being, survival and growth of their communities. For instance, sexual behavior could enhance affection between members of a community. Given the rather aggressive character of humans, this might be useful to prevent them from killing off one another to the point where communal survival was threatened. ------------- Anyway, the pleasure imbalance is something men and women should recognize > and deal with, instead of calling each other names. ---------- You're assuming here that only one-on-one sexual encounters occur. However, I've read of isolated peoples who practice (or practiced) various forms of sex in groups, which would obviate some of these problems. (_Keep_The_River_On_Your_Right_, for example.) While this sort of thing is probably too radically different from what we are accustomed to not to elicit a inhibiting plethora of negative anecdotes, it's also possible for individuals to modify their responses considerably through a certain amount of practice and training. But the contemporary social world, with its emphasis on conquest and acquisition, militates the other way. -- Gordon ------------- . So heterosexual lovemaking is really a compromise at best. ----------- yeah, but if you've learned how to have multiple orgasms, as a man (since for women, this isn't too difficult), it's precisely about prolonging the initial pleasure, by repeatedly nearing climax and then holding back. then you have to learn how to experience orgasm without ejaculation--too many men equate the two. in any event, even if you don't have multiple orgasms, the practice of repeatedly nearly climax makes for the kind of prolonged, intense pleasure that you're speaking of. that said, quickies are fun, too. :) kelley --------------- .how could men experience this ....and continue to treat women > the way they do? -------- About one man in ten thousand, here in the dismal real world, actually gets more sex/love from women than he has a use for. That's not any theoretical capacity for sexual gratification, just what actually takes place. About one man in a hundred gets as much as he'd ideally like, and is happy. The other ninety nine percent of us exist in various states ranging from chronic malnutrition through ceaselessly gnawing distraction all the way down to the fifth, or tenth, or thirtieth year of absolute famine. As all enjoy the God-given-to-all opportunity to experience the subtle ramified sensual pleasures enjoyed by the sophisticated gourmet, not to mention the satisfaction which derives from publicly demonstrating mastery of refined table-manners, dear me, how and why do these noxious slobbering people (pointing) eat so greedily, so noisily and repulsively, with both their filthy hands, on those infrequent occasions we toss loaves off the back of the famine relief aid truck? Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net --------------- call me a dim bulb, but ya wanna translate? i mean, maybe i just hang around the wrong crowd but honestly this just seems wrong. frankly, most of joanna's comments about relations between the sexes, i disagree with, but, when some men here get it, bill, maybe there's a reason why you ought to try a little harder to at least read what she wrote. kelley --------------- Carrol complains about Kiernan's incomprehensibility ---- --------------- i think he's saying that all this talk about sex and men is all fine and good except that the majority of men get laid so rarely (since women do not have sex with "nice guys") that it is meaningless. no, i am kidding... i dont understand most of what is posted out here! i am still here only to prove i am one of those men who can stay past the 30 minutes! ;-) --ravi --------------- It seems to me, going from superficial observation, that most people don't like sex all that much, except in a kind of abstract, pornographic way. Power, wealth, social status and the work ethic, dominant in the contemporary societes I know about, all militate strongly against it; the physical drive seems to be conceded to because of its power, but not _liked_, much less enjoyed or gloried in. Instead, sex is used as a tool to take or preserve advantages. Those who love sex for iteslf (or art or drugs or the gods or whatever) to the point of preferring it to power and its friends must lie pretty low to just to survive, and thus they will be hard to find -- like any other treasure. -- Gordon --------------- As regards this thread, I have not seen this much castration since I quit my job as a part-time stable boy in High School...the only difference in that case the horses were forcibly neutered. Here people seem self-motivated to do this to themselves. I have not seen so much kowtowing since I was last in Tibet...and I am seriously starting to doubt if some of you have gotten laid in the past 5 years. Is this the type of groveling one has to do to be a PC SNAG? I am speaking to the men, not Joanna or Kelley BTW. Thomas --------------- yes, if you live in berkeley area, you need to publicly state that you would castrate yourself in order to be considered a real man. or, so i'm told. i don't know what kowtowing you're referring to, btw. could you point out who did. what hakki said was by way of telling joanna not to personalize it. i'd note, of course, that hakki's use of the material is fine, but it might be wise to take a serious look at any material that naturalizes sexual desire, especially in way so as to excuse all manner of behavior that just might not be excusable. e.g., my current beau seems to think that, since he read some "helpful" info once about how men like to do things in order to demonstrate love then this is prima facie a reason why i should accept the fact that he'd prefer to "solve" the problem, rather than just letting me bitch about work or something. kelley --------------- Biology can certainly become an excuse but what is it that makes excuses and recriminations necessary? Do you think it's possible to have soul-sharing sex like Joanna describes under the ego-bruising stare of a judgemental, exacting partner? If you're into S/M, maybe. Otherwise, if things have gotten to the point where demands are made of and excuses contrived for sexual behavior, fughedaboudit, just move on. Hakki --------------- Kelley: well, i wouldn't sleep with the asshole. :) might fuck 'im though. Ha! butt, seriously, i was physically and emotionally battered by a woman lover (when i was a kid), and i've seen plenty of the same sort of violence among lesbians, etc since then. abusive relationships are fairly common among lesbians, because it's about power relations between two people. the notion that women wouldn't engage in abusive or hurtful behavior because of some mysteriously naturalized sexuality is a real problem, if you ask me. i'm not buying whatever joanna was on about. --------------- >If you're into S/M, maybe. Otherwise, if things have >gotten to the point where demands are made of and excuses contrived for >sexual behavior, fughedaboudit, just move on. > >Hakki --------------- i'm talking about discourses that naturalize sexuality, discourses in medicine, etc., that we already know have tended to legitimate and reproduce patriarchal relations. e.g, the moron sociobiologists who claimed that rape is natural. the whole Mars/Venus blahfuckedtyblah that has infiltrated popular culture.. these based on naturalized claims about gender. e.g., men like to do things to prove they're a man because it stems from the daze back when our knuckles dragged nearer the ground. so, when you or anyone else trots this material out, maybe we should be suspicious of the research. i agree with what you were saying, the end result of it. i just don't think it's a good idea to attribute these differences to nature, without a serious look at the research. feh. btw, just to keep on a roll, since we have no sense of humor, maybe you ought to consider how such comments "work". men, you only suck after women because you want to get laid. would you tell a white person who agrees with art after he's had a stomp on the list that it's just because whitey wants to be black, is mau mauing, or some similar insult? i realize that you cracked a joke about women fucking assholes, and it was pretty funny, given my own proclivities. you probably didn't deserve to get pounced on. but honestly, as much as i think everyone ought to get laid as much as they desire, insulting men by attributing their motivations to not getting laid just fucking reproduces gender oppression. --------------- Ah yes, the ever popular "pussywhipped" rhetoric. --"My wife and I have equal say in how the money is spent in our family". "Are you whipped, boy?" --"I can't stay and have another drink; I told my wife I'd be home to watch the kids." "Are you whipped, boy?" This has to be one of the most insidious forms of sexism: when a man supports or even tolerates the idea of gender equality and the validity of women's experience, other men call his "manliness" into question. Two consequences: male gender roles of control and autonomy are reinforced, and the social subjugation of women is perpetuated. --And of course, Thomas can disregard this rant because I'm just trolling for dates from the "hip chicks" on the list. Please. Miles ----------- hey! i'm creamin' in my jeans on the other side of the continent! :)))))) kelley --------------- My problem is with the gross generalization on the one hand. If Joanna or whoever has been with men that dont satisfy them in bed, then they can either deal with it somehow or dump the guy. However, I find it rather silly to project their experiences out on to all men. As for the men who seem to be sucking up to this, I can only equate it with some progressive (and not so progressive) whites who, finding themselves in the company of people of color, immediately start patronizing them. That is not a dialogue or a rapport based on equality...it's just a form of condescencion, or in any case, it's fake. The same goes for this instance. If the some of the guys touting this stuff are really having sex that sucks this bad, perhaps you should get out and do a little vigorous exercise, see a sex counselor, read a DH Lawrence novel, drink deer antler tea or something to improve your sex life. In any case, I find it equally silly that you project your experiences out onto all men. -Thomas ------------- who the fuck said they were having bad sex? hakki point blank told joanna that it might not be such a good idea to point fingers. miles, otoh, is pointing out how you're engaging in some pretty tawdry sexism where you can't be bothered to have an argument about the ratioanlity of what men have said, rather, you'd rather dismiss them as men who haven't gotten laid as much as you have. gimme a fucking break. kelley --------------- My problem is with the gross generalization on the one hand. If Joanna or whoever has been with men that dont satisfy them in bed, then they can either deal with it somehow or dump the guy. However, I find it rather silly to project their experiences out on to all men. As for the men who seem to be sucking up to this, I can only equate it with some progressive (and not so progressive) whites who, finding themselves in the company of people of color, immediately start patronizing them. That is not a dialogue or a rapport based on equality...it's just a form of condescencion, or in any case, it's fake. The same goes for this instance. If the some of the guys touting this stuff are really having sex that sucks this bad, perhaps you should get out and do a little vigorous exercise, see a sex counselor, read a DH Lawrence novel, drink deer antler tea or something to improve your sex life. In any case, I find it equally silly that you project your experiences out onto all men. -Thomas ------------------- osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html Yoshie's Columbus crew ----------------- CharlieBrown: The greater danger is in your position. It is that in trying not exaggerate, you overlook a truly new level of tyrannical threat or just a repetition of the level of threat that Nazism was. The Bush KKKism is more like Nazism than Italian Fascism in that Bush is beginning to openly project military conquest of the entire globe with such things as his "axis of evil" concept. Mussolini didn't really project conquering the whole world, but Nazism saw the Third Reich as a military world system. I believe. Also, Bush is a demogogue of a type similar to Hitler. Or at least there is an extraordinary demogogic effect at work in, as I say, the "good German" response of the American masses to his extraordinarily bellicose and dangerous prenouncements. Bush's mindless "good and evil" talk is being responded to by people as if they were zombies or cult members. That's a lot of it. The American masses are really responding as if they are in a mass cult, waving flags, having football game gala celebrations of America. What kinda shit is that ? The religious aspect of American nationalism ( I don't mean the Christianity, though Bush did name it correctly a "Crusade" but the religious like nature of the rituals of patriotism) is to the fore. Or rather the fervor of the patriotism is reaching religious levels in terms of rituals, mindless obedience to authority, blind faith. I'm talking these people look like they just flipped back to the 1950's with the red , white and blue, and didn't ! miss a beat. True back to the future stuff. Anyway, Bush is a demogogue, and personality type keyed to the American national culture the way Hitler was a successful demogogue based on his mastery of a certain personality type that was appealing to the German national culture. On the other hand, Bush's grandfather continued to do business with German companies during WWII with the Nazis in full bloom. And actualy Nazis were part of the Republican Party when his father headed it ( Russ Bellant's book). So, Bush has some direct background connections that are comfortable with Nazism. You are quite mistaken that I use terms such as "fascist" or "Nazism" in an overbroad and not defined and specific way, as if I were a freshman in one of your classes. In fact, I use a more rigorous and specific definition than most others. I follow Dimitrov. Do you use that specific of a defintion ? I doubt it. I'm usually more rigorous than the student or her liberal arts professor in examining fascism. -------------------- Chip Berlet: Charles, you can cling to the Dimitrov definition, but then your arrogant and snide derision about freshmen and liberal arts is way out of line, because it is you who are ignoring what contemporary liberal arts students are being taught. Try reading the Oxford Readers on Fascism or Nazism, as someone else has suggested. The Dimitrov analysis was wrong when formulated, and it is pathetic now in light of the last 50 years of better research into fascism and nazism. There are many forms of authoritarian repression other than fascism. It is important not to lump them all together because the proper response depends on the proper analysis. This is especially important right now because there is a wing of fascism--as a social movement--that wants to join forces with the left against corporate globalization and government repression. This is happening around the world. Your analysis feeds leftists into an alliance with actual fascists against common corporate and government enemies. But the left needs to walk a different course that repudiates corporate globalization AND government repression AND nationalistic fascist social movements. I suppose in the 30's you would have been urging an alliance with the Strasser faction against corporate greed and government repression. Smash the corrupt authoritarian regime and the plutocrats, right Charles? Worked so well as a strategy last time around. And as the person who wrote the introduction to the Bellant book "Old Nazis, the New Right, and the Republican Party" and was one of two copy editors, I can assure you that as the original publisher, nobody at Political Research Associates ever thought that the book would be construed to claim that the Bush administration was fascist. Our view was that the book showed that the Republican Party was willing to work with former Nazi collaborators and current fascists in their political campaign network because of a shared anti-communism. Your characterization of the book is just plain wrong. -Chip Berlet Senior Analyst Political Research Associates ---------< skipping about 8 posts >------------ Okay (ignoring a great deal of insulting tripe). My argument goes like this. The Nazis put into place legislative police state powers first, and then proceeded to carry out their program as the rule of law and governance. I maintain it is the establishment of broad police powers of governmental institutions and their sweeping legal authority itself that puts the US at the threshold of Germany in the 1930s. There is no legal means to stop the US government from rounding up any, some, or all non-citizens and putting them in indefinite detention and or processing them through secret kangaroo courts then executing them. Nothing, get it? Citizens are subject to unlimited surveillance, investigation, arrest, held incommunicado in detention, and tried in secret, if they are identified (by pronouncement, without evidence) as supporting or involved in some overly broad category of unspecified crimes, termed terrorist activities. These powers are granted under the patriot act, to the US Attorney General, officials of the Justice Department and federal law enforcement agencies to use at their discretion. Many of these powers have been placed beyond judicial oversight or review. Even if an effective, well constructed series of court cases are generated, these would mostly likely end up before a Supreme Court that has already discredited itself. The court would mostly likely rule to support the very executive, the court itself installed by default. This isn't a question of being alarmist, engaging in loose rhetoric, making fallacious arguments, doing poorly researched sociology or ignoring the oppressions of an unbridled capitalism. These are laws and formal political realities. I am not claiming we live in a police state. I am saying absolutely we live in a police state, period. It's already accomplished fact. Now, the argument against this view of affairs is to say, well yes, technically, since the 2001 patriot act, we live a police state, but nobody in government is going to carry that out to extremes. But what does this argument really amount to? We do not live in a police state because those in power lack the will to use the police state powers they have given themselves? Or more broadly, that various sociological conditions have not been met, even if many of the objective legal structures are in place? Regardless of what it is called there are some theoretical or academic issues that it seems to me need examination. In particular there is an implicit division between the formal social, political, and economic institutions that create the objective framework of society, and the more loosely defined or narrative characterizations that compose their study as sociology. This division is what I think is the basis of this disagreement. You want to keep the categories of fascism and nazism restricted to their narrative sociological and cultural features, and yet you have not taken into account the more formal or legal features that are their necessary concomitants as expression of state. In a sense this situation is similar to the division between de facto segregation and legally enforced segregation. The concrete results might be appear similar, but there is, despite appearance, a fundamental difference. It is as if we had legally enforceable segregation with a segregationist government in power, but for the moment everybody on the street was just ignoring it---so there is no segregation on the ground. In this imaginary example, since the concrete social conditions of segregation are absent, in terms of a social narrative it could not be characterized as a segregationist society. And yet, viewed as the structure of law, such a society should be termed segregationist. So in parallel, I think we now have the formal apparatus of a police state, that is for the moment behaving as a de facto republic. Chuck Grimes -------------here is a post orgaspasm by Kelly over the hot gunnyshoe: let's see, the only man i've ever dated who actually read things I wrote, including boring old academic papers i wrote, who not only read them but wanted to engage me in a discussion about what i'd written, he'd probably carry around two guns when the mood struck him. he'd especially like to provoke liberal fuckwits like Eric just to see them twirl outta control. this not SNAG and not bad boy also calls when he says he going to call. oh, he has his moments. and so do i. no one's perfect. and that's one of the best parts: we're old enough, i guess, not to expect perfection. he discusses things with me, rationally and honestly, though the sparks fly over politics at times. i can actually know more than he does about some things and he respects that. that's pretty amazing because most of the academic and professional type guys i know have a real problem dealing with the fact that i have a mind of my own. but, no, turns this guy on. i'm told by guy friends that this turns men on--kinda like mae west. but i've yet to meet one that can sustain that passion for two years. this gun slinging nave has read tons over the past two years in order to understand my passions. When he found out I was a Marxist, he started reading Marx in order to understand what it was about and get over his biases. oh, he struggles mightily to understand, but he tries sincerely. we argue a lot. but it's respectful, most of the time. if anyone's a little prone to getting frustrated and crosses the line, it's me. He's ordered and read countless books, everything from Doug Henwood to Luce Irigaray to Frank Hearn, a former beloved prof of mine. Tomorrow, he's getting a copy of the OED on CD, something we can share and delight over, because he'd love the OED just as much as he'd love getting a power tool to work on his '81 Corvette with the 427 he built himself and i'll never hear the fucking end of.. Oh, and for Christmas i got him themed gifts to encourage his interest in cooking. boy, some o' you buoyz sure stroke them chef's knives and sharpeners with an odd fascination. We read erotica to one another AND whatever "intellectual" that strikes our fancy: We finished _The Worldly Philosophers_ this fall and are now on _The People's History_. guy's got a high school degree, but it doesn't embarrass him to be with someone with far more education. doesn't challenge some fragile ego, you see. oh, as the programmer told me the other day: kell, it's always about getting laid. so shut up. well, mabye so. I'm afraid this guy might think of himself as the nice, shy, retiring type, but you'd characterize him as a bad boy. he happens to "like" guns. get over it. really, i'd rather hear about your french girlfriend who had a thang for assholes. kelley -------- http://www.amiannoyingornot.com/quiz.asp have fun. yeah yeah yeah, someday i'll do the LOB poltical scatterplot, really. kelley -------------------------

ARTICLES Big Bubbles Spell Trouble Boris Kagarlitsky - TNI Fellow The Moscow Times, 20 November 2001 It seems to be a pretty good rule of thumb: If the international business press and leading financiers start referring to a country as a success story, then that country should only expect problems in the future. Not long ago the papers were full of stories about the Argentine economic miracle. Today, Argentina is on the verge of bankruptcy, unemployment is running high and the public has lost all trust in politicians. Following the collapse of the Nasdaq, the United States went from being one of the key motors of global economic development to being a source of problems for the rest of the world. Russia's recent history confirms this rule. The August 1998 financial meltdown was preceded by enthusiastic reports from Western analysts predicting the onset of an unparalleled economic boom. After 1998, the same experts wrote Russia off as a complete basket-case, a place where reforms are not properly implemented and corruption and inefficiency prevail. Of course, the Russian economy started to grow immediately after this. However, it took Western analysts about two years to notice. Finally, in the third year of stable growth, Western business leaders recognized that Russia was a land of opportunity and once again declared that reforms were on track after all. No sooner had Russia started receiving high marks from the world business community than oil prices started to fall and a new economic crisis became a real prospect. The problem with the majority of economic analysts is that, generally, they don't analyze anything. If things are going well, then there is no sense in studying the specific reasons for success; everything can be explained by the consistent implementation of neo-liberal reforms. If problems arise, then either the reforms have not been carried out consistently or they have not been sufficiently radical. Moreover, it doesn't seem to embarass anyone that the same countries -- whether the Czech Republic, Argentina or Russia -- are cited in turn as examples of where liberal reforms have been implemented successfully and then as paragons of inefficient bureaucratism. Between 1991 and 2001, Russia underwent no radical structural economic reforms. All that happened was that the price of the ruble to the dollar fell and soon after the price of oil went up. The moment that the flow of petrodollars dries up, structural problems in the economy will immediately come to the fore once again. Worse than that is the discovery that the standard set of liberal prescriptions at the government's disposal can do little to cure the various maladies. Once again, the imbalance is exposed between the natural resource sectors that provide real revenues for the budget and the poor processing industries that provide a livelihood for the majority of the population. The economic growth of the last few years was made possible only because natural resource monopolies found they had surplus funds, which have been distributed among other sectors of the economy in a somewhat random fashion. Now that these surpluses are no more, the rest of the economy is returning to its original moribund state. The political monopoly of the Kremlin has been maintained on the back of high oil revenues and is likely to disappear along with them. The bubble will burst and the resulting market correction will unavoidably spill over into a political crisis. In fact, Russia's bubble has been more political than economic. It variously goes under the name of "strong presidential power," "strengthening of the state," or "increased manageability of the country." Strong support for opposition candidates in major regional elections was seen even before the first symptoms of economic slowdown appeared. With the onset of winter, all the usual social problems will again come to the fore, and hopes that they can be resolved will vanish along with the flow of petrodollars. In the Kremlin, they instinctively understand the problem and are getting nervous, but they can do nothing. No one can say exactly how the crisis will develop and what forms it will take. The only thing that is clear is that when the political bubble bursts, the noise will be much louder than when the stock markets crash. -- source: tni.org (Doug Henwood is here in Amsterdam for a todo now) -------------------- ian posts a nyt article (I bear an undying grudge against that forest devouring paper and if you want any better reasons go see which ones I borrow from israelshamir.net): [the econ. references are hilarious...] [NYTimes] February 19, 2002 Hijacking the Brain Circuits With a Nickel Slot Machine By SANDRA BLAKESLEE Compulsive gambling, attendance at sporting events, vulnerability to telephone scams and exuberant investing in the stock market may not seem to have much in common. But neuroscientists have uncovered a common thread. Such behaviors, they say, rely on brain circuits that evolved to help animals assess rewards important to their survival, like food and sex. Researchers have found that those same circuits are used by the human brain to assess social rewards as diverse as investment income and surprise home runs at the bottom of the ninth. And, in a finding that astonishes many people, they found that the brain systems that detect and evaluate such rewards generally operate outside of conscious awareness. In navigating the world and deciding what is rewarding, humans are closer to zombies than sentient beings much of the time. The findings, which are gaining wide adherence among neuroscientists, challenge the notion that people always make conscious choices about what they want and how to obtain it. In fact, the neuroscientists say, much of what happens in the brain goes on outside of conscious awareness. The idea has been around since Freud, said Dr. Gregory Berns, a psychiatrist at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta. Psychologists have studied unconscious processing of information in terms of subliminal effects, memory and learning, he said, and they have started to map out what parts of the brain are involved in such processing. But only now are they learning how these different circuits interact, he said. "My hunch is that most decisions are made subconsciously with many gradations of awareness," Dr. Berns said. "For example, I'm vaguely aware of how I got to work this morning. But consciousness seems reserved for more important things." Dr. P. Read Montague, a neuroscientist at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, says the idea that people can get themselves to work on automatic pilot raises two questions: how does the brain know what it must pay conscious attention to? And how did evolution create a brain that could make such distinctions? The answer emerging from experiments on animals and people is that the brain has evolved to shape itself, starting in infancy, according to what it encounters in the external world. As Dr. Montague explained it, much of the world is predictable: buildings usually stay in one place, gravity makes objects fall, light falling at an oblique angle makes long shadows and so forth. As children grow, their brains build internal models of everything they encounter, gradually learning to identify objects and to predict how they move through space and time. As new information flows into it from the outside world, the brain automatically compares it to what it already knows. If things match up - as when people drive to work every day along the same route - events, objects and the passage of time may not reach conscious awareness. But if there is a surprise - a car suddenly runs a red light - the mismatch between what is expected and what is happening instantly shifts the brain into a new state. A brain circuit involved in decision making is activated, again out of conscious awareness. Drawing on past experience held in memory banks, a decision is made: hit the brake, swerve the wheel or keep going. Only a second or so later, after hands and feet have initiated the chosen action, does the sense of having made a conscious decision arise. Dr. Montague estimates that 90 percent of what people do every day is carried out by this kind of automatic, unconscious system that evolved to help creatures survive. Animals use these circuits to know what to attend to, what to ignore and what is worth learning about. People use them for the same purposes which, as a result of their bigger brains and culture, include listening to music, eating chocolate, assessing beauty, gambling, investing in stocks and experimenting with drugs - all topics that have been studied this past year with brain imaging machines that directly measure the activity of human brain circuits. The two circuits that have been studied most extensively involve how animals and people assess rewards. Both involve a chemical called dopamine. The first circuit, which is in a middle region of the brain, helps animals and people instantly assess rewards or lack of rewards. The circuit was described in greater detail several years ago by Dr. Wolfram Schultz, a neuroscientist at Cambridge University in England, who tracked dopamine production in a monkey's midbrain and experimented with various types of rewards, usually squirts of apple juice that the animal liked. Dr. Schultz found that when the monkey got more juice than it expected, dopamine neurons fired vigorously. When the monkey got an amount of juice that it expected to get, based on previous squirts, dopamine neurons did nothing. And when the monkey expected to get juice but got none, the dopamine neurons decreased their firing rate, as if to signal a lack of reward. Scientists believe that this midbrain dopamine system is constantly making predictions about what to expect in terms of rewards. Learning takes place only when something unexpected happens and dopamine firing rates increase or decrease. When nothing unexpected happens, as when the same amount of delicious apple juice keeps coming, the dopamine system is quiet. In animals, Dr. Montague said, these midbrain dopamine signals are sent directly to brain areas that initiate movements and behavior. These brain areas figure out how to get more apple juice or sit back and do nothing. In humans, though, the dopamine signal is also sent to a higher brain region called the frontal cortex for more elaborate processing. Dr. Jonathan Cohen, a neuroscientist at Princeton, studies a part of the frontal cortex called the anterior cingulate, located in back of the forehead. This part of the brain has several functions, Dr. Cohen said, including the task of detecting errors and conflict in the flow of information being processed automatically. Brain imaging experiments are beginning to show that when a person gets an unexpected reward - the equivalent of a huge shot of delicious apple juice - more dopamine reaches the anterior cingulate. When a person expects a reward and does not get it, less dopamine reaches the region. And when a person expects a reward and gets it, the anterior cingulate is silent. When people expect a reward and do not receive it, their brains need a way to register the fact that something is amiss so it can recalibrate expectations for future events, Dr. Cohen said. As in monkeys, human dopamine neurons project to areas that plan and control movements, he said. Fluctuating levels of dopamine make people get up and do things, outside their conscious awareness. The number of things people do to increase their dopamine firing rates is unlimited, neuroscientists are discovering. Several studies were published last year looking at monetary rewards and dopamine. Money is abstract but to the brain it looks like cocaine, food, sex or anything a person expects is rewarding, said Dr. Hans Breiter, a neuroscientist at Harvard. People crave it. Some people seem to be born with vulnerable dopamine systems that get hijacked by social rewards. The same neural circuitry involved in the highs and lows of abusing drugs is activated by winning or losing money, anticipating a good meal or seeking beautiful faces to look at, Dr. Breiter said. For example, dopamine circuits are activated by cocaine; people become addicted when their reward circuits have been hijacked by the drug, Dr. Montague said. Winning in gambling can also hijack the dopamine system, Dr. Berns said. Many people visit a casino, lose money and are not tempted to go back. But compulsive gamblers seem to have vulnerable dopamine systems, he said. The first time they win, they get a huge dopamine rush that gets embedded in their memory. They keep gambling and the occasional dopamine rush of winning overrides their conscious knowledge that they will lose in the long run. Other experiments show that reward circuits are activated when young men look at photos of beautiful women and that these circuits are defective in women with eating disorders like bulimia. Bulimics say they are addicted to vomiting because it gives them a warm, positive feeling. Music activates neural systems of reward and emotion. Older people with age-related impairments to the frontal cortex do poorly on gambling tasks and, experiments show, are prone to believe misleading advertising. Neuroscientists say that part of the appeal of live sporting events is their inherent unpredictability. When a baseball player with two outs at the bottom of the ninth inning hits a home run to win the game, thousands of spectators simultaneously experience a huge surge of dopamine. People keep coming back, as if addicted to the euphoria of experiencing unexpected rewards. One of the most promising areas for looking at unconscious reward circuits in human behavior concerns the stock market, Dr. Montague said. Economists do not study people, they study collective neural systems in people who form mass expectations. For example, when the Federal Reserve unexpectedly lowered interest rates twice last year, the market went up, he said. When it lowered interest rates on other occasions and investors knew the move was coming, markets did not respond. Economists and neuroscientists use the same mathematical equations for modeling market behavior and dopamine behavior, Dr. Montague said. Neuroscience may provide an entirely new set of constructs for understanding economic decision making. ---------------------
http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/current/1965.html various flavours of Semites There are many types of prejudice against Jews: religious, ethnic, racist. Jews are not a single "race" whatever race means anyway, since it is a social constuct. But bigots are constantly asserting that Jews are a race. The historical roots are in the Anti-Semitic Party of Germany in the 1800s. But in an effort to retain the historical continuity of the concept and term, many people now use the term "antisemitism" instead of Judeophobia. No dash, no capital letter, to signify an awareness of the problematic nature of the original term. Now, Charles, groups get to claim the name of their oppression. You cannot assert the term is no longer appropriate, just like you cannot assert the term "Black" is not appropriate because it does not accurately describe a range of skin colors in an ethnic group labelled as a race. You don't get a vote. Antisemitism is a reality. The type of argument you make is frequently used by bigots to sweep the reality of antisemitism under the rug. I realize that was not your intent, but once in a while it would be nice if you were current on a topic before posting your opinions as if they were up to date. The result here is that you display an alarming insensitivity to an issue that is complicated. None of this deprecates the harsh reality of Arabophobia and Islamophobia, not just among Jews in Israel, but also widespread among many different ethnic groups in the U.S. These terms are also the ones used by the targeted groups, and I cannot change them simply because I might argue that "fear of -- phobia" does not encompass all the aspects of bigotry against Arabs and Muslims. No does it dismiss alarming antisemitism current in some Arab and Muslim circles. The issue in the Middle East is more usefully addressed by discerning in which countries does which form of bigoted ideology have the power to assert dominance and create oppression. In Israel, Palestinians are oppressed. In Yemen, Jews are oppressed. -Chip Berlet --------------- Contra to Charles' implied criticism I here side very much with Chip. Anti-semitism (Judophobia) does exist and has a distinct history. Having head some Isreali settlers (with strong American accents) hold forth there is a clear case of this ideology having been transferred to Arabs, but this in itself compicates matters but does not dissolve the origins of anti-semitism. There is perhaps many comparisons and direct links that can be drawn between Judophobia and Arabphobia especially in Isreal-Palestine, however, none will dissappear by pointing out the many contradictions involved as rationality has never been a strong point in anti-semitism as it developed in Europe at any stage. The big contradiction is of course that European Jewry did not have a middle eastern origin in the first place, nor was the semetic language used for anything much more than religious puroposes. Sandwiched between Christians and Musilms during the 9th century (if memory serves) a tribal confederation wisely chose to be come Jewsih and invited teachers to come and convert them, for the very good reason that as Jews both Islam and Christianity recognisied them but they did not appear to be more favourable to one side then the other. So there right at the basis of anti-semitism is a fairly major flaw which has been know from historical sources for ages but never seems to effect the basis of belief - the Jews at whom this was directed were racially no different to many of their niegbours, they spoke varieties of indo-european languages which produced the wonderful amulgum which was Yiddish, their religious observances soon varied to a major degree to that of practicing Jews of the Middle east and elsewhere, the only semetic contact was with rabbic Hebrew, which itself soon varied from the relgious Hebrew spoken elsewhere (nevertheless supplanting in Isreal these perhaps "purer" linguistic forms). The foods, clothing, customs of what 19th century Europe saw as foriegn semeticism, was in fact completely home grown, a decision of real-politic trnaformed into religious and social practices. Like it or lump it anti-semiticism has these contradictions at its very foundations. Heavens knows the so-called racial traits the Nazis used to identify "jews", I suspect that there were no end of people in Europe who exhibited traits originally drawn from the European steppes who ancestrally never had any "Jewish" connection. The much vaunted racial identification employed by the Nazis has this other dimension, it was completely arbitrary (an odd accusation really, but does say something about the human ability to see what it is looking for whether it is there or not). Aside from out and out racism, there is the tendency whenever there are communal antagonisms and conflicts to inflict the "otherside" with traits and characteristics which make the struggle against them all the more righteous (hear Serbs speak of Albanians, or Balinese about Javanese and echoes of the same thing can be found whether or not there is any "racial" or linguistic differences). Charles has a point, but in this context I think Chip has a better one. On top of it all, irrational communal hatreds and adhoc racism (that is racism which does not require or even suggest the need for an elborate "scientific" expression), is quite happy to adopt anything at hand to dehumanise what is seens as foes, so I think the obvious point that Arab peoples are in fact semites makes a fairly minimal impact (while it may be satisfying to point out to some of the right-wing settlers that they are in fact not descended from a semetic people while those they hate are, I fear it will caut little ice). ----------------- The Israelis are asserting this too in a way. After all, Israeli citizenship is granted on the basis NOT of religion but of blood ties. (There is some truth I think to that old saying that Israel was Hitler's last wish.) AND the Israeli state is the result not of some covenant between God and the Hebrews thousands of years ago, but rather the result of support for this neo-colony from 1) the British Empire 2) the U.S. empire. When (political) Zionism was defining itself there was huge opposition from Jews -- who felt that political zionism was actually a betrayal of their spiritual growth and who also felt that it would endanger jews world-wide. All this has come to pass and worse, much worse. To speak of "anti-semitism" today without speaking about Israel and its policies in the Middle East and in the world is a complete waste of time. To speak about Israel without speaking about the U.S. is another waste of time. Joanna Bujes---------------- So it's natural to kill Daniel Pearl because of Israeli policies toward the occupied territories, just as (in Robert Fisk's opinion at least) it's natural to try to kill Robert Fisk because of U.S. policies toward Afghanistan? Brad DeLong -------------- Yes, Fisk said as much after he was beaten. He also told Amy Goodman about being threatened in Lebanon after meeting with a US intelligence agent. ------------- And I suppose it was natural for the 20,000 relatives of the WTC victims to have fanned out across New York City the night of September 11, finding any vaguely Middle-Eastern people they found and beating and killing them? Clearly we Americans have a lot to re-learn from the British left and the Pakistani right about how to conduct a pogrom... Brad DeLong ---------------------- Brad I think there is a rather bizzare misunderstanding about the word "natural" here - try substituting it with "expected" or even "not unexpected" if you prefer double negatives - the sense will be preserved but there is no hint of justification (something can be expected without implying that it should happen which seems to be what you are reading into the plain English word "natural"). By the way S11 did lead to a not unexpected assualt on stray people who looked middle eastern right across America and I knopw of several cases in Australia. I don't think any of the 20,000 famliy members of the victims were involved but I woundn't be a bit surprised if a few were. It was a pity that political leaders while making so much hay out of S11 did not do more to prevent such an expected out burst of mis-directed anger (in Australia the PM specifically protected US and jewish property and remained silent on musilm property which would "naturally" also be under threat - no US or jewish property was touched but a Mosque was burned down and several others predicatably attacked). Brad you misreading is rather forced and I wish you would leave it alone. --- ------------- This is pretty silly. To attempt to understand the motives and causes of the murders of September 11, that of Daniel Pearl, or even the attack on Robert Fisk is hardly to justify them (which seems to be the burden of "finding natural"). --CGE ---------------
central index