HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » beam me up scottie » Journal
Page: 1

beam me up scottie

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: The Green Mountain State
Current location: Red state in the bible belt
Member since: Sun Oct 10, 2004, 07:05 PM
Number of posts: 57,349

About Me

Journal Archives

Dog Whistles- an Anti-Semitism Primer (a timely repost)

Dog Whistles- an Anti-Semitism Primer (a timely repost)

There are really four classic anti-Semitic themes that have been for centuries to justify mass murder, mass expulsion, or both. They are that Jews have control the world's media, that Jews have an international conspiracy to control the world's money, that Jews join national governments and undermine them from within for their own purposes, and the "blood libel," a claim that Jews use the blood of Gentiles, usually children, to bake their Passover matzoh. Below I will try to define each of them, discuss their history, and explain why they remain important to this very day.


Let me start with the last, the "blood libel." There are a couple of different forms of the blood libel. One is that Jews drink Christian or Muslim blood outright, and the other is that Jews use Christian or Muslim blood in matzoh. This is a slander with a long and inglorious history. The first iteration was the the story of William of Norwich, recorded in the Peterborough Chronicle. This story from 1144 alleged that a boy, William of Norwich, was kidnapped by Jews, tied to a cross, stabbed in the head to stimulate Jesus' crown of thorns, and killed. His blood was drunk and used in matzoh. This story was a rumor and the Jews were vindicated by five different Popes, but the legend lived on. But it was more than a legend. It was an excuse for slaughter and mayhem.


Jewish Disloyalty

The most famous example of this theme is the German post-WWI theme of the "stab in the back."

The Stab in the Back myth claimed that the German Army was victorious along the battle lines, but suffered a "stab in the back" from disloyal Jews. I hope I need not go into any detail as to where this led.

At the same time Hitler was exercising his Final Solution, Jews were being sent to Siberia by the Soviets. Jewish disloyalty has been a common theme throughout Russian history, and led to the pogroms of the late 19th century.


Jewish Bankers

This one flows from history, and can be seen throughout history. The "Jewish money-lender" is the central figure in The Merchant of Venice, and actually has some historic validity. You see, usury was considered unChristian (remember Jesus and the money-lenders) and was therefore illegal for Christians. That put people trying to pay for wars or put in new crops (which would not generate cash until the harvest was in) in a difficult position, as nobody was willing to lend money without interest. From this came a fairly common theme- Kings and nobles borrowed money from Jews, paid the interest as long as they thought they needed access to more money, then took all the Jews' property, prosecuted them for usery, or expelled them from the country. Another variation was simply declaring the Jews themselves property of the State.


Jew control the media

This one seems to come directly from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It was enhanced and reprinted by Ford in "The International Jew." Father Charles Coughlin used his enormous radio following to perpetrate these lies.

Claims that Jews run the media are common today. That alone might be a generalization based upon ownership and participation at a rate higher than the percentage of Jewish population. But "Jews control the media" is only the first half of the claim. The other half is "... and they use that control for their own evil ends."


eta: relevant to current discussion of the Diane Rehm NPR interview with Bernie Sanders: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bernie-sanders-diane-rehm-israel

Posted by beam me up scottie | Thu Jun 11, 2015, 05:36 AM (22 replies)

What I'm seeing is a lot of whining about not being able to use slurs with impunity.

I hear the same arguments from racists who are enraged because they can't use the n-word at work:

But they use it all the time on each other

But they call us ________

But I have a friend who doesn't think it's offensive

But you're being oversensitive, it's just a word

But freedom of speech, this is Amurka!!1!

It's not that difficult folks.

If you know a certain word is used as a slur and is extremely offensive to many of your fellow liberals, why use it?

If you don't use it or want to use it, why complain when someone else does and gets censored?

Posted by beam me up scottie | Sun Jun 7, 2015, 06:19 PM (1 replies)
Go to Page: 1