Judaism is a fascist ideology [Archive]

hatzel

5th November 2010, 11:53

Okay, so I was a little upset that my attempts to even up the thread about Islam didn't work, so I'm going to repost here. Why? Well...because it's possible that all the seeming Islamophobes aren't Islamophobes, and just didn't notice the new claims that Judaism was a fascist ideology, so didn't divert any attention to that claim. So it's good to bring it to their attention, and this way we can see if people are consistent. I will be playing the roll of Balaclava and Poppy, that is to say, I will argue that Judaism is a fascist ideology. The same reasons given on the other thread will be posted here:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Jews have existed as a distinct nation for thousands of years, flatly refusing to assimilate and take on the religion, culture and identity of the surrounding populations. Jews from France to India all seem to think they have something in common, and identify as one nation.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Judaism bans people from exercising their legitimate human right to bake bread on a Saturday.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
Lots of Jews talk about making sure the Holocaust never happens again, because they think it was bad. Hatred of Nazis therefore unites Jews.

4. Supremacy of the Military
In the book of Judges, the ad hoc rulers of Israel, such as Samson, were largely just military commanders.

5. Rampant Sexism
There's a bit in the Talmud where a rabbi claims that Jewish women don't have pubic hair so that they can't use it to entangle and subsequently mutilate their lover's genitals.

6. Controlled Mass Media
Jews have controlled every single media outlet for the past 3 millennia. In fact, they probably invented media control.

7. Obsession with National Security
Lots of Israelis are scared of missile strikes, suicide attacks and other acts of hostility against the state, and are constantly talking about reducing this existential risk.

8. Religion and Government are intertwined
The Sanhedrin of Biblical times seemed to rule on both religious and secular matters

9. Corporate Power is Protected –
All Jews are merchants or bankers, callously charging usury to good and honest Christians, refusing to allow anybody else to participate in such activities, even today.

10. Labour Power is suppressed
A hard-working farmer with one donkey and one ox isn't even allowed to use them both together to pull his plough - he may only use one, making his job infinitely more difficult, and weakening him as an individual.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
Jews wear boring black clothes, because they don't care for the art that is fashion design.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
The Torah barely stops talking about crimes! It meticulously lists 613 crimes, and for many of these suitable punishments, such as sacrificing a goat or aubergine, are even given.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Jews never stop lying. Just look at that traitor, Alfred Dreyfus. Proof enough!

14. Fraudulent Elections –
Nobody fairly elected the wartime Judenräte.

C'mon, doubters, try to deny these solid facts! I know you won't be able to...

RGacky3

5th November 2010, 12:02

Common poopynogood, where you at?

hatzel

5th November 2010, 12:10

And in case anybody's worried about posting up anything to agree with me, I myself, speaking on behalf of world Jewry (because apparently the thoughts and actions of select individuals are representative of their wider community / religion / nation), give you official permission to join in with us without being accused of anti-Semitism!

ComradeMan

5th November 2010, 12:49

hatzel

5th November 2010, 12:54

ComradeMan

5th November 2010, 12:55

Oh, that's a good point! And anti-male sexism, I should have added that one! Genital mutilation of boys is a strict commandment. Genital mutilation of girls, though, is strictly forbidden. Mindfuck, eh?! I think we can call Judaism a feminazi movement...endless sexism...:rolleyes:

Oh I forgot cruelty to animals- yes, bleeding them slowly to death in order for them to be kosher meat. In fact this goes beyond Hitler- Hitler was an animal lover and I believe he founded the German animal protection society or something like that.

hatzel

5th November 2010, 13:00

I should also point out that there is huge racism in Judaism. I mean...think about it! Jews are banned from eating bacon, for instance, whilst the goyim can eat all the bacon they want. As bacon is famously tasty, this can only be seen as an anti-Semitic measure intended to remove pleasure from a Jew's life, depriving him of all luxuries. These kinds of suggestions would probably go down pretty well on Stormfront...

And let's not forget that Israel's definition of who is a Jew, for use in the right of return law, is surprisingly close to that definition used in Nazi Germany. This just adds even more weight to the claims of cooperation between Nazis and Jews, and the formative state of Israel, during WWII, to add to all the other evidence.

But actually sometimes tells me that there are some subtly serious comments in all this we're saying, so if anybody feels like pulling them out and addressing them...?

hatzel

5th November 2010, 13:02

Oh, and of course only Nazis don't like the good American cheeseburger...

ComradeMan

5th November 2010, 13:20

Oh, and of course only Nazis don't like the good American cheeseburger...

Shit--- I must be a fascist then.... !

http://www.chew.hu/entry_images/sunnyburger.jpg

=

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/Liberty-statue-from-front2.jpg/800px-Liberty-statue-from-front2.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Liberty-statue-from-front2.jpg)

But....

http://factory.mamajennies.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/healthy-italian-food.jpg

=

http://momovedim.ilcannocchiale.it/mediamanager/sys.user/129438/mussolini-image004.jpg

.... not!:lol:

balaclava

5th November 2010, 13:44

I should wait a week before posting here but ah, what the hell, I’ll predict the outcome.

The interesting question raised by this thread is why are so few are arguing against the statement (like I say I am sticking my neck out and predicting that).

From what I have experienced here I predict that you’ll get few arguments from members here that Judaism is a fascist ideology because they like the idea and want to believe it. It’s about taking sides with those whom you believe share your values and beliefs to opposing those don’t. Because Jews are commonly held to be capitalist in nature they are the enemy and what do we like to call the enemy – fascist. Islam on the other hand is, to most is an unknown other than they know that they are fighting Jews (the capitalists) most of them have no capital so they must be the proletariat and the fact that many of them are not white they are the oppressed proletariat and what do we like to call them, they are the workers (the fact that most of them don’t work and live off my taxes doesn’t preclude them from fitting in with RevLeft definition of the working class).

hatzel

5th November 2010, 13:53

http://theshiksa.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/israeli-salad.jpg

+

http://wideopenspaces.squarespace.com/storage/530188447_e798e976f7.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSIO N=1274287878084

+

http://mideastfood.about.com/b/a/falafel.jpg

=

http://www.wholetruthcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/fascism.jpg

In fact, the Jews' endless appropriation of other groups' traditional food, be it gefilte fish or falafel, displays a fascist tendency to create an artificial culture to strengthen the nation. Not unlike Mussolini's attempts at recreating Roman culture, and Hitler's theft of the entirely non-Germanic salute. In fact, Hitler and Mussolini were probably both Jews anyway...they've sure got Jewey faces...

ComradeMan

5th November 2010, 13:57

@balaclava

I should wait a week before posting here but ah, what the hell, I’ll predict the outcome.

:crying:

The interesting question raised by this thread is why are so few are arguing against the statement (like I say I am sticking my neck out and predicting that).

-Rabbi Krimskrams:D was, in my opinion, pointing out that all ideologies and -isms- if cherrypicked and random sampled can be deemed fascistic but fundamentally it's all nonsense. Shakespeare in the Merchant of Venice, Act 1, Scene 3 and an appropriate work for this argument gives us one of his gems...

Antonio:

Mark you this, Bassanio,
The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart:
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!

From what I have experienced here I predict that you’ll get few arguments from members here that Judaism is a fascist ideology because they like the idea and want to believe it. It’s about taking sides with those whom you believe share your values and beliefs to opposing those don’t. Because Jews are commonly held to be capitalist in nature

- by anti-semites.... continue..

they are the enemy and what do we like to call the enemy – fascist.

- not really... but go on...

Islam on the other hand is, to most is an unknown other than they know that they are fighting Jews (the capitalists)

- oh dear. That is a massive assumption to make here on an international forum. This says to me that Islam to you is unknown, albeit an assumption I admit, which then leads me to posit- why do you declare Islam fascist if it is unknown (to you)?

most of them have no capital so they must be the

-some Islamic nations are the richest on earth- very capitalistic as well.

proletariat and the fact that many of them are not white they are the oppressed proletariat

-since when has colour to do with being the proletariat?

and what do we like to call them, they are the workers (the fact that most of them don’t work and live off my taxes

-ouch- here you reveal bigotry I am afraid. "most of them don't work and live off my taxes"- who? Who exactly? Stats and facts Cap'n Logic!!!

doesn’t preclude them from fitting in with RevLeft definition of the working class).

- I wasn't aware that there was a RevLeft definition- but what is your definition of working class? Just so we can set the record straight- please, no wiki pastes here.

Comrade Gwydion

5th November 2010, 14:01

hatzel

5th November 2010, 14:03

To be honest, I think that Islamophobia's a bit more 'fashionable' than anti-Semitism nowadays. That is to say, people are more willing to go around bad-mouthing Islam, but they won't badmouth Judaism, because they don't want to be brandished an anti-Semite. So really this thread is almost intended to prove that. Maybe things will change, but at the moment, as has been noticed, nobody's going around quoting the Torah and telling us how evil Judaism is, as they have been on the Islam thread. And that alone should show us something about the supposedly more accepted nature of anti-Islam sentiment than anti-Judaism...or anti-Jewdeism...I think if we were to make a 'Christianity is a fascist ideology' thread, people would be happily coming out with all the citations and quotes about how terrible Christianity is, as there's no fear of them then being accused of being racist, just atheist, but dissing Judaism's off limits...no, comrades, DO IT!!! :thumbup1:

ComradeMan

5th November 2010, 14:05

No- let's not ban him- let's see if we can educate him. I don't think he is a bad person, I don't think anyone is- just misguided. ;)

hatzel

5th November 2010, 14:07

(Anyway, the argument against this is obviously exactly the same as the argument against Islamophobia, which is exactly what you wanted to demonstrate if I catch your drift.)

Yes yes, that's the plan here, yeah. C'mon, I'm even trying to get the anti-Islam types to come and apply the same ideas, the same arguments, and of course, if they don't, then that just shows that it's Islamophobia and nothing else...double standards and all that...of course I don't want to go out and start seeing "[Anything at all] is a fascist ideology" threads, but if we're applying the logic of the Islam thread, I think we could make an equally convincing (or otherwise) argument that everything is a fascist ideology...

I mean, I know it's a strange technique to say "hey, come here, let me prove that I'm (according to your logic) a fascist!", but I'm willing to take that bold step in the name of fighting Islamophobia. Oh, does that almost make me a martyr? Wasn't that one of the things that made Muslims fascists? More proof, more proof...

Queercommie Girl

5th November 2010, 14:14

Obviously I don't think Judaïsm is fascism. I honestly have difficulty seeing any intrinsic difference between the Abrahamistic religions. However, I'd like to note that if you equate Judaïsm with Israel (just like our resident Islamophobes equate Islam with Iran and Saudi Arabia) you could make your argument a little bit stronger. You know, just to get them worked up some more.

Actually Judaism is different because it is not an evangelical faith like Christianity and Islam. Jews do not try to "spread their religion" either by word or by the sword to non-Jews.

Jewish theology is more virtue-centric and less faith-centric, and there is a greater emphasis on scholarship, rather than blind faith. Of all of the Abrahamic faiths, Judaism is the closest to Chinese Confucianism.

The difference between virtue-centric theology and faith-centric theology is this:

In faith-centric religions like Christianity, one is "saved" not primarily due to his/her good works, but due to his/her faith in Christ. An evil Christian is better than a good pagan in the eyes of Christian fundamentalists.

In virtue-centric religions like Confucianism, God is nothing more than the Platonic personification of Goodness and Justice itself - God is absolutely identical to Justice. Therefore it doesn't really matter what you believe, as long as you are a "good person" (what this actually means can differ greatly, depending on whether you are a feudal Confucian, a capitalist Confucian or a socialist Confucian), you are by definition Godly.

Virtue-centrism is more progressive and advanced than faith-centrism. Historically during the era of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, progressive Western thinkers like Voltaire had a good opinion of Confucianism and preferred Confucian virtue-centrism over Catholic faith-centrism.

Comrade Gwydion

5th November 2010, 14:16

No- let's not ban him- let's see if we can educate him. I don't think he is a bad person, I don't think anyone is- just misguided. ;)

As said, I for removing the 'No Fash & Racists in OI' rule, but if we're keeping that rule, this guy is out.

ComradeMan

5th November 2010, 14:33

@Iseul

Actually Judaism is different because it is not an evangelical faith like Christianity and Islam. Jews do not try to "spread their religion" either by word or by the sword to non-Jews.

The Maccabees? Wasn't there an incident when Israel/Judah forcefully converted a tribe? But generally so I suppose.

Jewish theology is more virtue-centric and less faith-centric, and there is a greater emphasis on scholarship, rather than blind faith. Of all of the Abrahamic faiths, Judaism is the closest to Chinese Confucianism.

Not really- by your definition all religion is superstition and blind faith anyway. Jews could no more prove God exists than any other religion- without faith that is. Many Jewish people don't understand Hebrew and a lot of kids I knew hated going to Hebrew school...

The difference between virtue-centric theology and faith-centric theology is this:

In faith-centric religions like Christianity, one is "saved" not primarily due to his/her good works, but due to his/her faith in Christ. An evil Christian is better than a good pagan in the eyes of Christian fundamentalists.

Will you stop equating Christianity with the rantings of Christian fundamentalists? Mamma mia! Here we have someone bashing Islam because of fundamentalists and nutcases and yet you base your diatribes against Christianity on nutcase snakehandling bible thumpers in some god forsaken swamp!!!! Christianity is both virtue centred and faith centred. If a Christian accepts Christ as the way and the light it means he also lives by those rules or tries to "The Imitation of Christ"- Thomas a Kempis- Christianity teaches forgiveness however. Just by believing in Christ you don't go to Heaven automatically, in fact, it's worse for those who have known the word but turned their face than for those who never knew it in the first place. That's more like Christian belief...

In virtue-centric religions like Confucianism, God is nothing more than the Platonic personification of Goodness and Justice itself - God is absolutely identical to Justice. Therefore it doesn't really matter what you believe, as long as you are a "good person" (what this actually means can differ greatly, depending on whether you are a feudal Confucian, a capitalist Confucian or a socialist Confucian), you are by definition Godly.

In Judaism you cannot define God, nor can you attribute human values to God- so your comparison is invalid as far as Judaism is concerned. Secondly if you do not believe in God- then you can't really call yourself a religious Jew, can you?

Virtue-centrism is more progressive and advanced than faith-centrism. Historically during the era of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, progressive Western thinkers like Voltaire had a good opinion of Confucianism and preferred Confucian virtue-centrism over Catholic faith-centrism.

Voltaire was attacking the rampant and corrupt clericalism of 18th century France. Voltaire was also a Freemason- so to be a Freemason he would have had to believe in a monotheistic concept of God.

Queercommie Girl

5th November 2010, 14:51

Actually Judaism is different because it is not an evangelical faith like Christianity and Islam. Jews do not try to "spread their religion" either by word or by the sword to non-Jews.

The Maccabees? Wasn't there an incident when Israel/Judah forcefully converted a tribe? But generally so I suppose.

That was a single instance 3000 years ago. Judaism has not been an evangelical religion for the last 2000 years at least.

There were cases of Chinese Confucians forcing the native Yue peoples of southern China to follow Confucian customs and rituals during the Han dynasty 2000 years ago. Does that mean Confucianism is an evangelical religion? No.

Jewish theology is more virtue-centric and less faith-centric, and there is a greater emphasis on scholarship, rather than blind faith. Of all of the Abrahamic faiths, Judaism is the closest to Chinese Confucianism.

Not really- by your definition all religion is superstition and blind faith anyway. Jews could no more prove God exists than any other religion- without faith that is. Many Jewish people don't understand Hebrew and a lot of kids I knew hated going to Hebrew school...
Yes, I am a firm materialist and I don't believe in the existence of God, nor do I believe in the existence of "goodness and justice" as an absolute ideal as Confucians do.

However, you are mistaken if you think this means I consider all religions as "equally reactionary". Some religions are still more progressive relatively speaking than others. Even within Christianity, some variants are much more progressive than others: e.g. Liberation Theology is superior to bible-thumping televangelist fundamentalism funded by Big Business.

The difference between virtue-centric theology and faith-centric theology is this:

In faith-centric religions like Christianity, one is "saved" not primarily due to his/her good works, but due to his/her faith in Christ. An evil Christian is better than a good pagan in the eyes of Christian fundamentalists.

Will you stop equating Christianity with the rantings of Christian fundamentalists? Mamma mia! Here we have someone bashing Islam because of fundamentalists and nutcases and yet you base your diatribes against Christianity on nutcase snakehandling bible thumpers in some god forsaken swamp!!!! Christianity is both virtue centred and faith centred. If a Christian accepts Christ as the way and the light it means he also lives by those rules or tries to "The Imitation of Christ"- Thomas a Kempis- Christianity teaches forgiveness however. Just by believing in Christ you don't go to Heaven automatically,
Christian fundamentalism certainly takes faith-centric theology to its most extreme extent, true, but most forms of mainstream Christianity still consider faith to be more central and primary than virtue. The only exceptions are probably non-mainstream versions of Christianity like Liberation Theology.

In fact, faith-centrism is the fundamental principle of Protestant theology, as first laid down by Martin Luther during the Reformation.

in fact, it's worse for those who have known the word but turned their face than for those who never knew it in the first place. That's more like Christian belief...
You mean people like me who have "heard and understood the gospel" but consciously rejected the evangelism of preachers?

In virtue-centric religions like Confucianism, God is nothing more than the Platonic personification of Goodness and Justice itself - God is absolutely identical to Justice. Therefore it doesn't really matter what you believe, as long as you are a "good person" (what this actually means can differ greatly, depending on whether you are a feudal Confucian, a capitalist Confucian or a socialist Confucian), you are by definition Godly.

In Judaism you cannot define God, nor can you attribute human values to God- so your comparison is invalid as far as Judaism is concerned. Secondly if you do not believe in God- then you can't really call yourself a religious Jew, can you?
I was talking about Confucianism, not Judaism. Judaism is relatively speaking more virtue-centric than Christianity and Islam, but still not as much so as Confucianism.

In Confucianism, virtue is all that matters, there is no conclusive dogmatic "definition of God". In fact, some Confucians are atheists while others are theists. It simply doesn't matter. As long as one is a good person one is by definition godly. No-one cares what you actually believe. Confucianism could still be reactionary because the definition of "goodness" could still be a feudal or capitalist one, and not a socialist one. But Confucianism is not reactionary in the same way as monotheistic religions are, because although Confucianism is not atheism, it's not theism either, it can be made compatible with both.

Virtue-centrism is more progressive and advanced than faith-centrism. Historically during the era of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, progressive Western thinkers like Voltaire had a good opinion of Confucianism and preferred Confucian virtue-centrism over Catholic faith-centrism.

Voltaire was attacking the rampant and corrupt clericalism of 18th century France. Voltaire was also a Freemason- so to be a Freemason he would have had to believe in a monotheistic concept of God.
Voltaire was relatively progressive in that he attacked the reactionary religious ideologies of the Catholic Church in his day. And he also praised the relatively progressive features in Confucianism.

I didn't say Voltaire didn't believe in God, but to believe in God does not mean one has to be faith-centric. Some Confucians also believe in God, but they are virtue-centric, for them it is doing good that is important, not belief in God, and even though they believe in God, they never try to convince others to do the same, they only convince others to do good.

I am a materialist who believes neither in God like Christians do nor idealistic ethics like Confucians do. However, the point I'm raising here is that virtue-centrism is more progressive relatively speaking than faith-centrism, not that atheism is more progressive than theism. Of course, I think atheism is objectively speaking certainly more progressive than theism, but that's not what I'm talking about right now.

ComradeMan

5th November 2010, 15:11

I didn't say Voltaire didn't believe in God, but to believe in God does not mean one has to be faith-centric..

:laugh:

Well what would you call belief in God if it were not faith?

BTW- using the word religion to define Confucianism is a bit dodgy too, because it's more of a philosophical and ethical system. As for being progressive, well not everyone has seen it that way either.

The ideals of Confucianism also maintains a negative view of women in saying that women have no dignity and less human rights than men and are supposed to be at home, fulfilling the stereotypical roles of wife and mother.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism#Criticism

balaclava

5th November 2010, 15:21

@baclava
Oh, what? You're saying most Muslims around the world aren't working? That they're living of 'your' taxes?

Seriously, I'm against the banning of fascists and racists, but if RevLeft wants to be consistent in their banning policy, you really should kick this guy out.

See stats here.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=979

On what basis do you call me a fascist and a racist? And, in future spell my name right! And, it's not of my it's off my taxes!

RGacky3

5th November 2010, 15:27

From what I have experienced here I predict that you’ll get few arguments from members here that Judaism is a fascist ideology because they like the idea and want to believe it. It’s about taking sides with those whom you believe share your values and beliefs to opposing those don’t. Because Jews are commonly held to be capitalist in nature they are the enemy and what do we like to call the enemy – fascist. Islam on the other hand is, to most is an unknown other than they know that they are fighting Jews (the capitalists) most of them have no capital so they must be the proletariat and the fact that many of them are not white they are the oppressed proletariat and what do we like to call them, they are the workers (the fact that most of them don’t work and live off my taxes doesn’t preclude them from fitting in with RevLeft definition of the working class).

You don't have any idea about what this thread is about do you ...

I wanna hear poopynogood's thoughts on it, chances are he has none, because he's too busy hating muslims.

Queercommie Girl

5th November 2010, 15:28

:laugh:

Well what would you call belief in God if it were not faith?

To have faith in something doesn't mean one is faith-centric.

Everyone has faith in certain things, it just means they believe in them. But it doesn't mean they consider them to be central to their world-view.

Some Confucians are theists, but they do not consider their belief in God to be central to their ideological paradigm. This seems to be something a faith-centrist like you cannot grasp.

Your idea is that if God exists, then it necessarily implies He/She/It must want humans to worship Him/Her/It. This is not a logical necessity. Confucian theists say that although God exists, God doesn't care whether or not humans worship Him/Her/It, God is not so egoistical, the only thing God cares about is for humans to do good.

BTW- using the word religion to define Confucianism is a bit dodgy too, because it's more of a philosophical and ethical system.
In traditional China, Confucianism was indeed a religion. In fact, the Chinese term for "religion", zongjiao, originates from Confucianism. (Therefore from a Chinese linguistic perspective Confucianism is more of a "religion" than Christianity is) Objectively Confucianism certainly fulfilled the same kind of conservative institutional roles in traditional Chinese society as Islam does in traditional Islamic societies.

You are being Eurocentric if you think only those religions that fit in with your Abrahamic definition of "religion" are real religions. Western philosophy does not monopolise the definition of religion.

As for being progressive, well not everyone has seen it that way either.
No I do not believe that Confucianism is progressive as a whole. In fact, nothing can be progressive as a whole, that's an example of cultural essentialism which Marxism rejects. Certain variants of Confucianism are actually very reactionary.

But in a few concrete instances, such as during the time of Voltaire, certain Confucian ideas were certainly relatively speaking more progressive than the "divine rights of kings" doctrines of feudal Catholicism.

The ideals of Confucianism also maintains a negative view of women in saying that women have no dignity and less human rights than men and are supposed to be at home, fulfilling the stereotypical roles of wife and mother.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism#Criticism
I'm not a Confucian and I'm not an apologist for Confucianism.

However, to say that Confucianism is intrinsically sexist is a mistake, just like it is a mistake to say that Christianity and Islam are intrinsically sexist. Many variants of Christianity and Islam are indeed sexist, but some are not, like Liberation Theology. The same applies to Confucianism. In China there are Confucian socialists who are not sexist at all.

The universal feature of all Christian variants is the belief in God and Christ, not certain doctrines which are sexist or even racist. The universal feature of all Confucian variants is the belief in idealistic ethics, not certain reactionary sexist doctrines related to foot-binding etc.

You are applying a double standard if you think that Christianity is not intrinsically sexist but Confucianism is.

hatzel

5th November 2010, 15:28

EDIT: @ Balaclava's statistics

...oh no, that's just killed my anti-Jew argument! Look at them all...so employed...grr!

Unless...

The Jews have implemented some form of fascist strategy to get them all in work, usually employed in the family business, supporting the Jewish nation and buying kosher food to support Israel. It's all one big Jewish love-in! The Muslims, on the other hand...clearly a less efficient employment drive going on in the Muslim community, as they don't have a totalitarian fascist leadership ensuring they all do their bit to support the war machine...

Dimentio

5th November 2010, 15:31

Revolution starts with U

5th November 2010, 15:36

Is it any surprise the hater (Bala) cannot see the joke behind the thread?

Dimentio

5th November 2010, 15:47

Is it any surprise the hater (Bala) cannot see the joke behind the thread?

He probably could, but Islamophobes always choose to deliberately interpret everything literally. That is why you always have to write to them as if you are writing to children.

Le Corsaire Rouge

5th November 2010, 16:00

I know you're taking the piss, but I actually kind of agree with the statement. I tend to describe Judaism - the religious ideology rather than the race, hence I need no "permission" to critique it! - as proto-fascistic. The racism / nationalism, militarism, sexism, traditionalism, are undeniable hallmarks of a fascist ideology. In a point that is usually glossed over, Hitler's anti-Semitism was based not on a belief in Jewish inferiority, which is how he felt about the Slavs, but on his observation that the Jewish ideology proudly espoused the racism and conservatism that Weimar Germany did not. But unlike true fascist societies, Judaism has, since the destruction of the Temple, lacked an authoritative leadership class, and as such cannot be described as truly fascistic.

But then I think that most religions contain proto-fascistic elements. Fascism, as befits the characteristic ideology of the pious petty bourgeois, values religion highly, and even more highly values religious form and rite. Indeed, if you combine the worst aspects of the four major branches of Abrahamic religion - the racism of Judaism, the power-fixation of Islam, the oppressive hierarchy of Catholic Christianity, and the spartan conservatism of Protestant Christianity - then you have a "perfect" fascist regime.

All religions are at least proto- or quasi-fascistic. That doesn't mean that all religious people are fascists, and it doesn't mean that we should attack or abhor people on the basis of their religion. But let's not allow liberal nerves to get in the way of clear-headed analysis of the religious question.

Dimentio

5th November 2010, 16:11

Le Corsaire Rouge

5th November 2010, 17:04

Then the Old Testament was written in an entirely different context. It is largely a document which arose during the transition between the Bronze and Iron ages.

Mein Kampf was written in 1924-1925, which is more inexcusable.
Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. Historical Judaic religion, as codified in the Old Testament, is a product not just of Bronze Age morality but of the peculiarly troubled history of the tribe associated with that religion. The other primitive religions of the day were no better. The key differences were the Judaic shift from henotheism to monotheism, and the constant enforced diasporas (Egyptian, Babylonian, Roman...) which united Jewish society and calcified Judaic ideological norms.

Many modern Zionists and certain factions within the modern Israeli state are certainly out and out fascists in the modern sense. But it is equally certain that though all religious Judaism contains the proto-fascistic tendencies described before, the average adherent of the Judaic religion is not instinctively a fascist any more than is the average Christian or the average Muslim. But the adherence of all of these religious people to their para-fascistic religious structures can make them more vulnerable to subversion and co-option by real fascists.

#FF0000

5th November 2010, 17:07

From what I have experienced here I predict that you’ll get few arguments from members here that Judaism is a fascist ideology because they like the idea and want to believe it. It’s about taking sides with those whom you believe share your values and beliefs to opposing those don’t. Because Jews are commonly held to be capitalist in nature they are the enemy and what do we like to call the enemy – fascist. Islam on the other hand is, to most is an unknown other than they know that they are fighting Jews (the capitalists) most of them have no capital so they must be the proletariat and the fact that many of them are not white they are the oppressed proletariat and what do we like to call them, they are the workers (the fact that most of them don’t work and live off my taxes doesn’t preclude them from fitting in with RevLeft definition of the working class).

Except there are tons and tons and tons and tons and tons of Jewish leftists on here and around the world.

I mean you're completely off for a million other reasons too but.

hatzel

5th November 2010, 17:08

I know you're taking the piss.

I'm actually only half taking the piss. Thank you for being the first one to actually address the question! Maybe that will encourage the Islamophobic types from the other thread to start thinking about Judaism, too...but then they might just be Islamophobic anti-Semites or something, if they don't realise that they're then supposed to either expand their critique to absolutely everything, or bring it down to pretty much nothing...

In truth, though, some of my 'Judaism is fascism' points weren't really any different (when it comes to being convincing or not) than the arguments on the Islam thread. I mean, I'm taking a few lies (like the Islamophobes), but the rest is just misinterpretting the truth, bending things to fit the requirements. I mean, that bit in the first post about the pubic hair...that's not a lie...that is in there. And if I then want to say that it's sexist, and one element of Judaic fascism, then why not? Sounds like the same technique they're using over there *points at the Islam thread*

I'm all up for turning this into a serious discussion of the fascist and non-fascist elements / interpretations of Judaism, though. Always good to be self-critical, otherwise you're just falling into the trap that all people of religion are supposedly blind and uncritical followers of...well, whatever you want to call it. So let's break free from that fallacy, and start being critical! Somebody, give me a topic :thumbup:

hatzel

5th November 2010, 17:12

Except there are tons and tons and tons and tons and tons of Jewish leftists on here and around the world.

This would be the bit when I start talking about all those orthodox Jews who believe their religion teaches them to adopt quasi-communist and quasi-anarchist ideas, but as I'm supposed to be arguing that Judaism preaches fascism, I think mentioning those interpretations could severely weaken my argument...

Queercommie Girl

5th November 2010, 17:18

Politically Marxists can certainly ally with genuinely progressive religious people.

But I am a very strict Marxist in the philosophical sense. Historical Materialism in the strict sense is my "religion". Never mind the belief in God, even the belief in objective idealist ethics by Confucianism is something which I think is fundamentally philosophically incompatible with Marxism and Historical Materialism, which is based on the ethical principle that all morality are ultimately nothing more than socio-economic constructions within human society.

Le Corsaire Rouge

5th November 2010, 17:20

I'm actually only half taking the piss. Thank you for being the first one to actually address the question!
Not a problem, comrade. I find proto-fascistic precursors fascinating and am happy to contribute to a discussion of them. I think that a closer analysis of where these precursors overlap with and differ from conventional modern fascism could provide great insights into the nature of fascism and how to combat it.

I'm all up for turning this into a serious discussion of the fascist and non-fascist elements / interpretations of Judaism, though. Always good to be self-critical, otherwise you're just falling into the trap that all people of religion are supposedly blind and uncritical followers of...well, whatever you want to call it. So let's break free from that fallacy, and start being critical! Somebody, give me a topic :thumbup:
Here's a controversial bone for you. What do you think about Hitler's belief that Judaism does what he wanted to do, but does it better?

Dimentio

5th November 2010, 17:48

Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. Historical Judaic religion, as codified in the Old Testament, is a product not just of Bronze Age morality but of the peculiarly troubled history of the tribe associated with that religion. The other primitive religions of the day were no better. The key differences were the Judaic shift from henotheism to monotheism, and the constant enforced diasporas (Egyptian, Babylonian, Roman...) which united Jewish society and calcified Judaic ideological norms.

Many modern Zionists and certain factions within the modern Israeli state are certainly out and out fascists in the modern sense. But it is equally certain that though all religious Judaism contains the proto-fascistic tendencies described before, the average adherent of the Judaic religion is not instinctively a fascist any more than is the average Christian or the average Muslim. But the adherence of all of these religious people to their para-fascistic religious structures can make them more vulnerable to subversion and co-option by real fascists.

I wouldn't think the Israelites were particularly "bad" in terms of their history, which most likely is about as truthful as the Athenian or Roman foundational myths. Moreover, not all Israelites were followers of JHVH, just like all Greeks weren't Athenians.

The Assyrians were way worse, especially as their genocides actually happened in the real world (though they themselves exaggerated them, claiming themselves to for example have skinned half a million prisoners alive instead of five hundred) and weren't just sado-masochistic fantasies from a few goat herders in a remote part of the Levant.

Attacks on the Jews for the Old Testament are completely idiotic. It would be like attacking Scandinavians for the viking raids - and it is also related to proto-antisemitism.

hatzel

5th November 2010, 17:53

Here's a controversial bone for you. What do you think about Hitler's belief that Judaism does what he wanted to do, but does it better?

Well, whatever it was Hitler wanted to achieve, sometimes tells me it wouldn't be particularly difficult to do it better. But really, then, it comes down to asking what exactly it would be that Hitler was trying to achieve. I mean, if it comes down to just smashing up Jewish shops and houses and killing their occupants, then of course Judaism isn't particularly good at this, specifically :rolleyes:

Many of the issues, though, I think come more from a limited understanding of Judaism, and its nature, on Hitler's part. For instance, if just take the racial element into consideration, one might say that the Nazi idea of Aryan superiority, as a master race, might be compared to a Jewish superiority, with non-Jews inferior. To be honest, though, this understanding and reading owes more to anti-Semitic literature, and some kind of "oh, look at them, thinking they're better than us" idea than it does to Judaism itself. In fact, I'd say that Judaism might work in the other direction. Whilst Nazism naturally assumes that the Aryan race, the Germans specifically, are naturally superior, and subsequently attempted to merely allow this superiority to be realised fully, Judaism works in a different direction. I mean, traditional Judaism is very clear about the fact that the Jews were bestowed with the Torah because they were so weak and pathetic as a nation, had no power. The idea being, then, that if the Jewish people ever achieved anything of any worth, it would be a sign of G-d's ability to...ah...let's just say polish a turd :laugh: So, just as one example, this would be an area where one might consider there to be a superficial parallel between fascism and Judaism, in the idea of some inherently superior race, though in fact there are pretty big differences between the two logic systems.

Of course I could address political or economic ideas, whatever, but...I'm not exactly sure which of the Nazi policies are supposed to be attempts at achieving something that Judaism achieves. If somebody could tell me, maybe I'll be able to think about it...

The Assyrians were way worse, especially as their genocides actually happened in the real world (though they themselves exaggerated them, claiming themselves to for example have skinned half a million prisoners alive instead of five hundred) and weren't just sado-masochistic fantasies from a few goat herders in a remote part of the Levant.

I think it's interesting that the other peoples 'glorify' their massacres, whilst the Jews are usually considered, right back to Bar Kochba and before, to have exaggerated their own numbers who were massacred...seems there's a different outlook here...

Dimentio

5th November 2010, 18:04

I think it's interesting that the other peoples 'glorify' their massacres, whilst the Jews are usually considered, right back to Bar Kochba and before, to have exaggerated their own numbers who were massacred...seems there's a different outlook here...

The Jews/Israelites exaggerated their own (non-existent) genocides as well.

The Amalekites were totally annihilated not one, not two but three times. And in a battle between Israel and Judah, over 500 000 Israelite soldiers perished. Another Judean King should have slaughtered an Ethiopian army of 1 million soldiers.

During the Roman rebellion, one popular urban myth in Jerusalem was that the zealots had dropped a stone from the wall which had killed 5000 Roman soldiers.

Le Corsaire Rouge

5th November 2010, 18:05

I wouldn't think the Israelites were particularly "bad" in terms of their history, which most likely is about as truthful as the Athenian or Roman foundational myths. Moreover, not all Israelites were followers of JHVH, just like all Greeks weren't Athenians.

The Assyrians were way worse, especially as their genocides actually happened in the real world (though they themselves exaggerated them, claiming themselves to for example have skinned half a million prisoners alive instead of five hundred) and weren't just sado-masochistic fantasies from a few goat herders in a remote part of the Levant.

Attacks on the Jews for the Old Testament are completely idiotic. It would be like attacking Scandinavians for the viking raids - and it is also related to proto-antisemitism.
Attacks on modern Jews for the events of the Old Testament are indeed stupid, but then so are attacks on modern Jews for the actions of the Israeli state.

Analysis of the beliefs of contemporary historical Judaism and other related ideological phenomena such as Christianity and Islam, in order to understand better the ways in which fascistic tendencies develop, is quite sensible, though.

Dimentio

5th November 2010, 18:07

Attacks on modern Jews for the events of the Old Testament are indeed stupid, but then so are attacks on modern Jews for the actions of the Israeli state.

Analysis of the beliefs of contemporary historical Judaism and other related ideological phenomena such as Christianity and Islam, in order to understand better the ways in which fascistic tendencies develop, is quite sensible, though.

Possibly. But that depends on what you define as "fascistic" tendencies.

Queercommie Girl

5th November 2010, 18:09

Attacks on modern Jews for the events of the Old Testament are indeed stupid, but then so are attacks on modern Jews for the actions of the Israeli state.

Analysis of the beliefs of contemporary historical Judaism and other related ideological phenomena such as Christianity and Islam, in order to understand better the ways in which fascistic tendencies develop, is quite sensible, though.

Define "fascism". I don't think you are using the strict Marxist definition, but rather a liberal definition.

Basically, "a lot of people killed" = "fascism"...

ComradeMan

5th November 2010, 18:14

Define "fascism". I don't think you are using the strict Marxist definition, but rather a liberal definition.

Basically, "a lot of people killed" = "fascism"...

It was defined more or less earlier on in one of the posts.

hatzel

5th November 2010, 18:15

During the Roman rebellion, one popular urban myth in Jerusalem was that the zealots had dropped a stone from the wall which had killed 5000 Roman soldiers.

...well that's obviously true...don't see any reason to deny it...:rolleyes:

Sure, I'm not denying that, I was just...well, it seems to me that whilst a lot of modern patriotic movements, stemming from national romanticism, really attempt to bind the nation by how great it is, by it's great military victories, and it's powerful nature. This is what binds the people of the nation. But then the Jews are bound less by an sense of shared greatness (historical or contemporary), than they are bound by a sense of shared suffering. I mean, just look at the Bar Kochba rebellion...rather than glorifying this period, hailing the rebellion and the few years of Jewish rule, and taking this as something to replicate, the rabbis look more on this as a failure, and Bar Kochba as a bit of an idiot, a let-down, even a traitor, for giving rise to the situation whereby the Romans would then have a reason to go about killing everybody and so on. I don't know...maybe just a psychological difference, and something which might make a Jew more likely to feel sorry for other oppressed groups than some other groups might...hmm! Who knows?

Le Corsaire Rouge

5th November 2010, 18:17

Well, whatever it was Hitler wanted to achieve, sometimes tells me it wouldn't be particularly difficult to do it better. But really, then, it comes down to asking what exactly it would be that Hitler was trying to achieve. I mean, if it comes down to just smashing up Jewish shops and houses and killing their occupants, then of course Judaism isn't particularly good at this, specifically :rolleyes:

Many of the issues, though, I think come more from a limited understanding of Judaism, and its nature, on Hitler's part. For instance, if just take the racial element into consideration, one might say that the Nazi idea of Aryan superiority, as a master race, might be compared to a Jewish superiority, with non-Jews inferior. To be honest, though, this understanding and reading owes more to anti-Semitic literature, and some kind of "oh, look at them, thinking they're better than us" idea than it does to Judaism itself. In fact, I'd say that Judaism might work in the other direction. Whilst Nazism naturally assumes that the Aryan race, the Germans specifically, are naturally superior, and subsequently attempted to merely allow this superiority to be realised fully, Judaism works in a different direction. I mean, traditional Judaism is very clear about the fact that the Jews were bestowed with the Torah because they were so weak and pathetic as a nation, had no power. The idea being, then, that if the Jewish people ever achieved anything of any worth, it would be a sign of G-d's ability to...ah...let's just say polish a turd :laugh: So, just as one example, this would be an area where one might consider there to be a superficial parallel between fascism and Judaism, in the idea of some inherently superior race, though in fact there are pretty big differences between the two logic systems.

Of course I could address political or economic ideas, whatever, but...I'm not exactly sure which of the Nazi policies are supposed to be attempts at achieving something that Judaism achieves. If somebody could tell me, maybe I'll be able to think about it...
Hitler wanted to ensure that German "racial purity" persisted for thousands of years, like Jewish prohibitions on out-marriage had ensured. He also wanted to foster a sense of "German-ness" that inspired Germans beyond any claims to extra-national or extra-racial brotherhood.

You're right that many of the most powerful statements of the Hebrew prophets emphasised the power of their god by de-emphasising the power of the Jewish people. But I don't think that that's how the average adherent of Judaism thought of themselves. Even now, many of my secular Jewish friends are firm believers in the "Bell Curve" and their supposed place in its upper reaches.

Le Corsaire Rouge

5th November 2010, 18:22

Define "fascism". I don't think you are using the strict Marxist definition, but rather a liberal definition.

Basically, "a lot of people killed" = "fascism"...
You can be a fascist without killing anybody.

I define fascism by its emphasis on strict authoritarian hierarchy, its insistence upon the purity of (usually) the race, its glorification of power and by extension violence, its corporatist economic structures, and its spartan militarist aesthetics and ethics. As ComradeMan noted, I defined this pretty much the same way earlier on.

Le Corsaire Rouge

5th November 2010, 18:30

Americans love the Alamo and 9/11. Brits love the Charge of the Light Brigade, the Blitz and Dunkirk. Aussies and Kiwis adore Gallipolli, and the Canucks love Vimy Ridge. Greeks love Thermopylae. The French Foreign Legion practically masturbates over its first battle, in which all of the legionnaires died. The Irish national sport is weeping over its historical woes. And that's just a few examples.

All nationalists love sob stories.

Queercommie Girl

5th November 2010, 18:37

You can be a fascist without killing anybody.

I know, I was suggesting that the liberal definition of "fascism = many civilian deaths" is over-simplistic.

I define fascism by its emphasis on strict authoritarian hierarchy, its insistence upon the purity of (usually) the race, its glorification of power and by extension violence, its corporatist economic structures, and its spartan militarist aesthetics and ethics. As ComradeMan noted, I defined this pretty much the same way earlier on.

Strictly speaking fascism only exists during the capitalist era, and it isn't really correct to literally apply this term to pre-capitalist societies.

Le Corsaire Rouge

5th November 2010, 18:53

Strictly speaking fascism only exists during the capitalist era, and it isn't really correct to literally apply this term to pre-capitalist societies.
I agree. That's why I've generally been using the term "proto-fascistic" in this context.

hatzel

5th November 2010, 18:59

Hmm...could we maybe make a better list than my starting one? You know, something that says "fascism emphasises strict authoritarian hierarchy, Judaism [does whatever thing, give some evidence]" or something? Or, at least one comparison at a time that we can really look at...

Le Corsaire Rouge

5th November 2010, 19:17

I'll start you off on the authoritarian hierarchy.

Judaism /used to/ have this, but doesn't any more - in reality. Let me explain.

The Kings of Israel / Judah - David, and the rest - were supposedly appointed by god, and dependent upon him for their continuation in that role. No surprise there for a Bronze Age society. After the Babylonian Exile, the priesthood formed a state-within-a-state based upon literal hierarchy.

A fascinating thing happened in Jewish society following the destruction of the Temple. Although it retained some formal hierarchy through both rabbinism and its mixture of patriarchy and matriarchy, it retained, psychologically and ideologically, a far more important and existential hierarchy: between their all-encompassing god and the subservient people, and between that people and the mythological messiah. The Judaic fuhrer principle is thus caught in a fascinating hold. Firstly, the god-fuhrer is felt as existent, infinitely powerful, and utterly inaccessible: very much a "Big Brother" figure. Secondly, the messiah-fuhrer, the harbinger of Jewish palingenesis, will be not only powerful but personally accessible - but he is still awaited, and is thus equally inaccessible. So while other religions have the divine or divinely rightful emperors and kings, Judaism has a fuhrer principle with no fuhrer.

Queercommie Girl

5th November 2010, 19:31

A fascinating thing happened in Jewish society following the destruction of the Temple. Although it retained some formal hierarchy through both rabbinism and its mixture of patriarchy and matriarchy, it retained, psychologically and ideologically, a far more important and existential hierarchy: between their all-encompassing god and the subservient people, and between that people and the mythological messiah. The Judaic fuhrer principle is thus caught in a fascinating hold. Firstly, the god-fuhrer is felt as existent, infinitely powerful, and utterly inaccessible: very much a "Big Brother" figure. Secondly, the messiah-fuhrer, the harbinger of Jewish palingenesis, will be not only powerful but personally accessible - but he is still awaited, and is thus equally inaccessible. So while other religions have the divine or divinely rightful emperors and kings, Judaism has a fuhrer principle with no fuhrer.

Yes, that's due to the historical fact that the Jews are the only nation in human history that managed to actually survive for so long without their own political state. Most nations would simply get absorbed completely by their conquerors after some time of not having their own state.

Bud Struggle

5th November 2010, 19:37

Yes, that's due to the historical fact that the Jews are the only nation in human history that managed to actually survive for so long without their own political state. Most nations would simply get absorbed completely by their conquerors after some time of not having their own state.

They had a particular God that rathered they didn't get absorbed.

RGacky3

5th November 2010, 19:46

The Islamophobe is'nt gonna say anything it seams.

hatzel

5th November 2010, 20:02

Hmm...I don't know if it's fair to call G-d 'inaccessible', from a Jewish perspective. I mean, we might argue He's very much accessible, because otherwise prayer would be futile, but I guess we mean a different thing with inaccessible. And I don't know if there would be a universal agreement about any hierarchy involving the future Messiah. That is to say...well, we could take Gandhi or Marx, the Messiah could easily be much like either of these individuals. This has been a pretty common theme in Judaism for...well, centuries, at least...so it's the question of what his power, exactly, will be. Will it be physical, brute-force power? Well, the rabbis don't seem to think so, as being physically powerful during an era of peace would be pretty pointless. So sure, intellectually powerful, maybe...but is this hierarchy? Is a Marxist subservient to Marx, for instance, just for following his teachings? Maybe, one might argue...or maybe not...so in that sense, it's pretty difficult to figure out the 'real-life' nature of any supposed hierarchy...

But then I think it might be best to avoid getting esoteric and talking about any hierarchy involving G-d...it's a deep topic, I'm not sure if I could really do that one justice...which means, I don't know if I could make it interesting :rolleyes:

Le Corsaire Rouge

5th November 2010, 20:48

Iseul, I agree. If you read my earlier posts you'll see that I explicitly mentioned that the history of the Jewish people has been "peculiarly troubled", as I put it. The tenor of Judaic religion has been attuned by those years of exile. (Though I would suggest that the Roma have similarly survived in the absence of a homeland, and that their prevailing cultural ideology has much in common with the Judaic.)

Krimkrams, obviously you'll be taking a pleasant, liberal socialist view of the messiah; and it's unsurprising for the rabbinical class, which depends for its power on respect for intelligence and knowledge, to ascribe exactly those traits to a cultural hero. But there have always been a lot of followers of Judaism who take the tales of his power rather more literally. And who is to say that the messiah would come during an age of peace?

As for the accessibility of your god, that was my point. You think he's existent, so you "talk to him" ... but there's a get-out clause that he's immaterial and doesn't talk back directly, so that effectively he's inaccessible. This is balanced out by the physical messiah ... who's in the future, so you can't access him either. A similar thing happens in Christianity (because it's Judaism Part Deux), except the physical messiah is in the past.

Comrade Marxist Bro

5th November 2010, 20:53

Oh, wow. Brilliant. If only America were easily described as an "ideology."

Alright. Here it is. 21st-century America is an embodiment of fascist ideology by the same criteria:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism

Americans, citizens of a bloody capitalist empire always pretending to be a benevolent constitutional republic, buy imperial propaganda 24/7 and constantly assert themselves to be a special nation, immune from the general laws of history and exempt from ethics, by grace of God.

This obnoxious belief is best known as the manipulative doctrine of "American exceptionalism."

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights

America's human rights are condemned by the UN, other countries, and other organizations. (http://www.aclu.org/human-rights/us-human-rights-record-strongly-condemned-leading-international-body)

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause

Muslims, Arabs, and immigrants are scapegoated as terrorists who, in the words of George W. Bush, "hate our freedoms." Dissidents are commonly regarded as traitors.

Right-wing nutjobs like Jonah Goldberg of the National Review call for the assassination of Julian Assange in mainstream press publications like the Chicago Tribune. (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-10-29/news/ct-oped-1029-goldberg-20101029_1_julian-assange-wikileaks-wrong-question)

4. Supremacy of the Military

The military is authorized to disregard domestic and international law.

5. Rampant Sexism

Ah, rampant sexism. Yeah, we respect women. Even MTV and the sex industry. No sexism in America.

6. Controlled Mass Media

The corporate media's subservience to the corporate state is obvious to anyone with four live brain cells. Even right-wingers exploit the popular sense of this by blaming media bias and elitism on the supposedly "traitorous liberal agenda" of the news executives.

7. Obsession with National Security

Ditto. You're more likely to die in a car crash than a Muslim terrorist attack by several orders of magnitude, and yet...

$100 billion to install unnecessary and revealing body-scanning "full-body scanners" (with backscatter x-ray radiation) as "primary screening" technology at all of our airports during the recession by the end of 2011, despite safety concerns from some scientists, anyone?

Our airports will now give you the choice of either the radiation treatment or a full-body pat-down. You'll have to say "I opt out" to get the pat-down, because nobody will prompt you.

Don't worry, though -- the health risk from exposure to backscatter x-ray airport radiation is rather "low." (http://www.healthnews.com/medical-updates/fda-determines-full-body-x-rays-pose-low-risk-4548.html)

8. Religion and Government are intertwined

People from the "Religious Right" are influential 'cause...?

9. Corporate Power is Protected

Duh.

10. Labour Power is suppressed

Labour power isn't the kind of power that runs this country.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts

Duh.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment

Right-wing support for the death penalty for "dangerous criminals" in multiple states. Bigger prison population than China's, in absolute numbers and per capita. Republicans running on "law and order issues" since Spiro Agnew's elevation to the vice presidency in the 1970s. White majority's obsession with poor minorities in run-down ghetto "inner cities" and Latin-American immigrants trying to get a break as a horrendous source of crime. TV shows like Cops, Judge Judy, Law & Order.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption

John Adams, John Quincy Adams; William Henry Harrison, Benjamin Harrison; Alphonso Taft, William Howard Taft, Robert "Bob" Taft I, Robert "Bob" Taft II; Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Eleanor Roosevelt; Joseph Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Ted Kennedy; Prescott Bush, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, Jeb Bush; Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton; Ron Paul, Rand Paul; Mario Cumo, Andrew Cuomo.

American politicians remain in power because of support from corporate power. Many are also members of political dynasties.

14. Fraudulent Elections

Third-party candidates have been successfully kept from winning anything since the 19th century. Elections are a sham when leaders and the media jointly deceive the people. Nobody voted for the war with Iraq.

And there we go. If any of my arguments have been successful, perhaps 21s-century America is more fascist than Islam.

hatzel

5th November 2010, 21:22

Krimkrams, obviously you'll be taking a pleasant, liberal socialist view of the messiah; and it's unsurprising for the rabbinical class, which depends for its power on respect for intelligence and knowledge, to ascribe exactly those traits to a cultural hero. But there have always been a lot of followers of Judaism who take the tales of his power rather more literally. And who is to say that the messiah would come during an age of peace?

Well...of course it's one of the traits of the Messianic era that there will be world peace. So sure, he might not emerge during an age of peace (or, of course he won't), but if he were then to reign, literally, it would be in an age of peace. This is one of the few things about the Messiah that's universally accepted, so I'll guess that we can take that as a given :)

Beyond that, of course...sure, there are many who consider he will be an actual, real-life, as per the dictionary king. Me...well, I could argue until I'm blue in the face about how this makes no sense, is contrary to the essence of Judaism. I'm not here to preach, because that would be boring, but let's take, for example, Sefer Shmuel (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt08a08.htm). I actually really like this chapter...and one read of it totally throws out any idea of the Messiah being a king, as it seems so abhorrent to G-d. In fact, I tell you, this idea of 'we want a king, like all the other nations' comes up a few times in the Bible. Considering Judaism is constantly asserting being distinct from the other nations, not imitating them, even that alone should be enough to suggest that kings are a bit goyish :thumbup: Add to that the rest of the chapter, and it becomes pretty clear to me that the Messiah as an actual king is well against the Jewish faith, if having a king is turning our backs on G-d.

Really, though, I consider it a great strength of Judaism, this variation of thought, this somewhat autonomous interpretation of the texts, of Halacha and everything. The whole range of possible truths...and how all the conflicting truths are equally true. It's like an essay in an English literature class, rather than science or maths. I like that! And I think it's a terrible weakness when those of different interpretations of something claim some kind of 'monopoly' on truth. Personally I consider this more typical of Christianity than Judaism, which has far too much history of debate and discussion, dating back to the Talmud, and continuing in today's yeshiva classes, for people to take stuff lying down, and just say "yeah, that's right, that's the only way"...but maybe I'm just being a bit too self-important :laugh:

ComradeMan

6th November 2010, 14:09

Well...of course it's one of the traits of the Messianic era that there will be world peace. So sure, he might not emerge during an age of peace (or, of course he won't), but if he were then to reign, literally, it would be in an age of peace. This is one of the few things about the Messiah that's universally accepted, so I'll guess that we can take that as a given :)

Beyond that, of course...sure, there are many who consider he will be an actual, real-life, as per the dictionary king. Me...well, I could argue until I'm blue in the face about how this makes no sense, is contrary to the essence of Judaism. I'm not here to preach, because that would be boring, but let's take, for example, Sefer Shmuel (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt08a08.htm). I actually really like this chapter...and one read of it totally throws out any idea of the Messiah being a king, as it seems so abhorrent to G-d. In fact, I tell you, this idea of 'we want a king, like all the other nations' comes up a few times in the Bible. Considering Judaism is constantly asserting being distinct from the other nations, not imitating them, even that alone should be enough to suggest that kings are a bit goyish :thumbup: Add to that the rest of the chapter, and it becomes pretty clear to me that the Messiah as an actual king is well against the Jewish faith, if having a king is turning our backs on G-d.

Really, though, I consider it a great strength of Judaism, this variation of thought, this somewhat autonomous interpretation of the texts, of Halacha and everything. The whole range of possible truths...and how all the conflicting truths are equally true. It's like an essay in an English literature class, rather than science or maths. I like that! And I think it's a terrible weakness when those of different interpretations of something claim some kind of 'monopoly' on truth. Personally I consider this more typical of Christianity than Judaism, which has far too much history of debate and discussion, dating back to the Talmud, and continuing in today's yeshiva classes, for people to take stuff lying down, and just say "yeah, that's right, that's the only way"...but maybe I'm just being a bit too self-important :laugh:

I agree with you. One of the Popes, I cannot remember who or when, said that "freedom of thought is the end of Catholic civilisation".

I think perhaps this is a difference between a religion like Judaism that for 2000 years has not really had a state or "power" in a temporal sense and a religion like Roman Christianity that had an "empire" ready and waiting. The former requires study and interpretation whereas the second requires obediance and discipline. More Christians should actually read and study the Bible carefully perhaps... but many do not.

balaclava

7th November 2010, 13:05

I'm actually only half taking the piss. :thumbup:

There you go - my response was to the other half :)

Cham_Empire

8th November 2010, 02:29

Revolution starts with U

8th November 2010, 03:13

The OP was a joke in response to other prejudice bigot's troll posts.

#FF0000

8th November 2010, 03:49

This entire thread is racist and anyone who agrees with the OP's notion is a racist fascist thought-lackey who glaringly reveals his true colors, and might as well be barking shrill cries at the moon.

It's a joke thread based on the "ISLAM IS A FASCIST IDEOLOGY" thread. The OP is actually Jewish himself and the point of the thread is to point out the absurdity of the whole religion=fascism thing.

ddof5

29th November 2010, 06:26

Oh I forgot cruelty to animals- yes, bleeding them slowly to death in order for them to be kosher meat. In fact this goes beyond Hitler- Hitler was an animal lover and I believe he founded the German animal protection society or something like that.

in order for meat to be kosher an animal must not know it is being killed and it must be killed as quickly as possible, so that the animal does not release adrenalin and make the meat tough. so no, it is the oppoisite of killing slowly.

ComradeMan

29th November 2010, 12:20

in order for meat to be kosher an animal must not know it is being killed and it must be killed as quickly as possible, so that the animal does not release adrenalin and make the meat tough. so no, it is the oppoisite of killing slowly.

The Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), which advises the government on how to avoid cruelty to livestock, says the way Kosher and Halal meat is produced causes severe suffering to animals.

From here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2977086.stm)

and

Here (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/end-cruel-religious-slaughter-say-scientists-1712241.html)

and is banned in New Zealand.

and also here is an article (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3880776,00.html) in Jewish World magazine.

hatzel

29th November 2010, 13:16

It's banned in Sweden, too...and Norway...

Luckily halal slaughter is perfectly okay (or should I say 'kosher'? :tt2:), because nobody wants to piss off the 160.000 Norwegian Muslims or the 300.000 Swedish Muslims, when you can just piss off the 1.500 Norwegian Jews or the 20.000 Swedish Jews. C'mon, people, numbers, numbers! No need to commit political suicide by isolating vast swathes of the electorate by failing to point out that the Muslims cut necks in a far more humane manner than the Jews cut necks...yeah...

The point being, Judaism is fascism, and Islam isn't...

Anyway, if you do either right, the animal doesn't actually feel it. It's only when you do it wrong that the bad shizzle happens. Doesn't matter, though! Still fascism!

(How did this thread come up again, by the way? It just seems totally out of place with the corresponding 'Islam is a fascist ideology' thread...)

29th November 2010, 14:13

Yes, that's due to the historical fact that the Jews are the only nation in human history that managed to actually survive for so long without their own political state.

You're conflating the religious mythology about 'the Jewish nation' with the actual history of the adherents of Judaism; they're two totally different things, though.

In reality, Jews are not a nation at all, let alone some sort of unbroken line from the biblical patriarchs.
Also, there actually was a Jewish state, during the Middle Ages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazaria), in Eastern Europe and part of Western Asia.

4 Leaf Clover

29th November 2010, 14:49

judaism is ideology ? how come

Bud Struggle

30th November 2010, 01:13

but wasnt the religion created in middle east?

Monotheism came from the Middle East--it was "invented" by the Jews, so so it seems.

On the other hand "religion" springs up rather naturally in different places at different times by different people around the world.

freepalestine

30th November 2010, 01:25

Monotheism came from the Middle East--it was "invented" by the Jews, so so it seems.

On the other hand "religion" springs up rather naturally in different places at different times by different people around the world.ok
.
article on scientific book on palestine /monotheism
http://www.revleft.com/vb/palestinian-roots-western-t140367/index.html?p=1836457

30th November 2010, 01:49

but wasnt the religion created in middle east?
yes, of course. I wasn't trying to imply that it wasn't.

Pravda Soyuz

17th December 2010, 15:46

I am a jew and a socialist. Judaism is a religion, and therefor open to interpretation. Sexism/racism/oppression only occurs in ultra-orthodox communities, which many jews don't support. Also, Israel has good reason to be security-minded (cough cough Hamas cough cough)!:sneaky:

hatzel

17th December 2010, 16:07

People, please, I beg of you...stop bringing this one back from the dead! The whole point of it makes no sense without the 'Islam is a fascist ideology' thread, and instead just looks like a massive anti-Semitic love-in. Can I request that some admin come and close this thread, to stop it being periodically resurrected by people who are unaware of the original context?

:rolleyes:

Amphictyonis

17th December 2010, 16:22

Judaism is silly just like Christianity or Islam. I'm an equal non supporter of religious dogma. Scientology? Fuck cults.

All I know for sure is that Jesus guy was a communist.

freepalestine

17th December 2010, 18:22

Sexism/racism/oppression only occurs in ultra-orthodox communities, ...in isreal it's not that black and white
Also, Israel has good reason to be security-minded (cough cough Hamas cough cough)!:sneaky:yeh bombing the hell outta gaza is being '"security minded",...and the last 60years etc.get real-

Angry Young Man

18th December 2010, 05:31

I will be playing the roll of Balaclava and Poppy, that is to say, I will argue that Judaism is a fascist ideology. The same reasons given on the other thread will be posted here:
Oh, I can't wait to hear this

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Jews have existed as a distinct nation for thousands of years, flatly refusing to assimilate and take on the religion, culture and identity of the surrounding populations. Jews from France to India all seem to think they have something in common, and identify as one nation.
So refusal to assimilate is a... bad thing?

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Judaism bans people from exercising their legitimate human right to bake bread on a Saturday.
It's more of a bonkers religious rule than a muscled assault on the dignity of man. If this is a law in Israel, then fairy enough, but I think there are more important things to criticise Israel over

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
Lots of Jews talk about making sure the Holocaust never happens again, because they think it was bad. Hatred of Nazis therefore unites Jews.
I'm not sure if I'm just mainstreaming here, but the Holocaust was bad. This isn't just me being unable to think critically, it was objectively fucking bad. And hatred of Nazis unites everyone. I hate Nazis, and I dare say so does Michael Howard, but I still think he's an arse hole

4. Supremacy of the Military
In the book of Judges, the ad hoc rulers of Israel, such as Samson, were largely just military commanders.
Ok, I have nothing on this one

5. Rampant Sexism
There's a bit in the Talmud where a rabbi claims that Jewish women don't have pubic hair so that they can't use it to entangle and subsequently mutilate their lover's genitals.
So you were looking into misogyny in Jewish morality and that was the best you could come up with?

6. Controlled Mass Media
Jews have controlled every single media outlet for the past 3 millennia. In fact, they probably invented media control.
I call anti-Semitism. If you don't want to be called a fuckwit, don't make cretinous statements like that

7. Obsession with National Security
Lots of Israelis are scared of missile strikes, suicide attacks and other acts of hostility against the state, and are constantly talking about reducing this existential risk.
They fear attacks because they happen. Ok, so the politics of Israel cause this and many Israelis don't understand this, but it's the case

8. Religion and Government are intertwined
The Sanhedrin of Biblical times seemed to rule on both religious and secular matters
Nothing to say here

9. Corporate Power is Protected –
All Jews are merchants or bankers, callously charging usury to good and honest Christians, refusing to allow anybody else to participate in such activities, even today.
If you'll excuse the pun, Jesus F. Christ are you having a fucking bubble?

10. Labour Power is suppressed
A hard-working farmer with one donkey and one ox isn't even allowed to use them both together to pull his plough - he may only use one, making his job infinitely more difficult, and weakening him as an individual.
What does the Torah have to say about combine harvesters?

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
Jews wear boring black clothes, because they don't care for the art that is fashion design.
A. I think that get-up looks rather dapper
B. So the scholarship typically required to become a rabbi counts for nothing, then?
C. Religious wear doesn't equate a disdain of fashion
D. Fashion isn't really much of an art, now, is it.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
The Torah barely stops talking about crimes! It meticulously lists 613 crimes, and for many of these suitable punishments, such as sacrificing a goat or aubergine, are even given.
So how much does this translate into modern society?

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Jews never stop lying. Just look at that traitor, Alfred Dreyfus. Proof enough!
What, like ever? I was in London once, bumped into Alexei Sayle. After posing for a photo, I ask him if he has the time, he said it was just gone 2. A short while after, I walked past Big Ben, and By Jove, he was right!

14. Fraudulent Elections –
Nobody fairly elected the wartime Judenräte.
I call evidence

C'mon, doubters, try to deny these solid facts! I know you won't be able to...

I think I just have. In conclusion, cool story bro.