Don’t call Burt Prelutsky a bigot – he’s just telling it like it is!
On Feministe, the comment thread related to this article is certainly an eye-opener; you see, once upon a Golden Age, black people in this country had the freedom to do whatever they wanted – go to any college they liked, hold down whatever job they desired, even become President! And then them evil liburals had to go and ruin everything for black America, because, get this, we have raised a generation of “black kids whose lives have been destroyed by decades of patronizing, pandering, liberal thinking.”
There can be a lot of things wrong with mainstream liberal thinking – liberal thinking doesn’t get a free pass from me just because it’s, well, liberal, but to suggest that black people in America had it great before Al Sharpton, or whoever, came around is a bit like blaming 9/11 on them evil gayz.
Back to the actual article, however – it’s pretty interesting, considering that the author uses big words like “socialist,” but never seems to make the link between effed up communities and poverty. How about blaming rap (am not a fan of most rap – aside from Andre Nikatina, Wyclef Jean, etc. – but it seems obvious to me that disturbing rap lyrics are largely symptomatic of disturbing conditions… Not that I approve) instead?! Or just, you know, the whole aspect of black culture, or, for that matter n——- culture (because it’s not black people he hates, you see, it’s just those gosh-darn n——–). Yeah! Should we sit around and wait for that essay that links listening to country music to brawlin’ at the trailer park? Probably not. Burt would probably never generalize about white folks like this – even though he claims not to be racist.
I could go on, but nobody does it better than Heraclitus.
Natalia A. 
This is going to be a great discussion. I don’t have time this minute to expound, but I am amused to see you suddenly gain an appetite for searching out racism. I guess the big YAWN is now Eyes Wide Open.
Natasha,
Can you elaborate why is Brelutsky a bigot; rather than “telling it like it is”? I read his column (all of it); I also started to read Heraclitus comments. I got through the first three paragraphs – mostly adolescent ad-hominem rudeness and random cursing. When you call your opponent fart and syphilitic – it means that you ran out of intellectual arguments. “Что может хромой сказать о творчестве фон Карояна – если ему сразу же заявить, что он хромой?”
Anyway, I didn’t see anything that says about Golden Age before Sharpton. I see a complaint that Sharpton is milking black victimhood status for his own benefits. And trying to perpetuate said benefits at the expense of those blacks by preventing them to reach mainstream America.
And you know what? I agree with this sentiment. I also equate this Sharpton’s propaganda with that of Sharikov and Shvonder (proletariat is the victim of exploitation – so atone, Professor, and do what *I* tell you)!
A Dog’s Heart is, at its core, very disturbing (and hilarious). I’m not sure if it’s at all applicable in the case of someone like Prelutsky – who sorely lack’s Bulgakov’s brains and compassion.
The idea that there is something terribly wrong with a nebulous “black culture” – as opposed to American culture, is extremely bigoted, IMHO. Ludacris is just one symbol of how sick we’ve gotten.
I know it is hopeless to try to a get a “liberal” to discuss racism honestly. (You ain’t a real liberal, Natalia, believe me. I grew up with and continue to believe in liberalism, but you and today’s liberal Democrats are as racist and dishonest as their Southern Democratic roots ever were.
But I’ll point out for a laugh this little beauty: ” a nebulous “black culture”.
So “nebulous” that students and university fraternities have been banned and suspended for holding “gangsta” themed parties off campus. So “nebulous” that mocking criminals is grounds for a charge of racism. Who is the racist?
I can see why you refrain from self examination, Natalia.
> Prelutsky … lacks Bulgakov’s brains and compassion.
That is, of course, in the eyes of the beholder. I hope, it’s indisputable that the intellectual difference between Bulgakov and Prelutsky is much smaller than the difference between Prelutsky and “Heraclitus”.
> The idea that there is something terribly wrong with a nebulous “black culture” – as opposed to American culture, is extremely bigoted, IMHO.
So, let’s make a little substitution…
The idea that there is something terribly wrong with a “proletrasky” culture aka Socialist Realism (as exemplified by Demyan Bedny, Sholohov), is extremely bigoted, IMHO.
In other words, quoting my favorite Shvonder, “Профессор, вы не любите пролетариат”.
And you, Natasha, are trying to assign judgmental labels, instead of explaining what’s wrong (intellectually, on the merits) with Prelutsky’s arguments! At least your are not stooping to “Heraclitus” level – ‘mindless twaddle’, ‘mind-numbing stupidity’, etc.
Socialist Realism is not a race.
… And are we reading the same Bulgakov? I mean, I’m going to have to invoke my credentials here, mwa ha ha…
I’m not really interested in the intellectual merits of Prelutsky’s arguments – I just don’t think that they’re intellectual to begin with. I think he’s right to say that Bill Crosby should not be beaten to death with the “Uncle Tom” label – because he’s coming from his own perspective on these issues – but in general Prelutsky’s just talking down to a race of people, assuming they’re all a bunch of idiots because, apparently, they ALL happen to listen to rap music, which is also ALL idiotic. WTF.
I’m going to spend the day visualizing Bill Cosby beaten to death with a huge label that says ‘Uncle Tom’. Thanks for that image 🙂
PS Nothing to do with his politics. He’s just so fucking unfunny.
PPS Come on Felix/Mike, tell me which of Stalin’s guys beat people to death with a label. I’m sure everyone cares.
Oh and Mike, you’re right – I used to classify myself as a liberal, but I’ve realized that I’m more of a… Natalia.
I do agree with a lot of what the left says – just not necessarily how it goes about doing things, particularly in the realm of economic theory.
I’ve pretty much given up on the right.
Liberals are idiots.
I ain’t no fuckin’ liberal.
“I’m going to spend the day visualizing Bill Cosby beaten to death with a huge label that says ‘Uncle Tom’. Thanks for that image
PS Nothing to do with his politics.”
Sure, Rann, “Uncle Tom” has nothing to do with his politics.
And don’t despair, Rann. Just call Condi Rice a “house nigger” and “Aunt Jemima” and you’ll be an honorary liberal.
Natalia says, ” I’ve pretty much given up on the right.”
Can’t blame ya, Natalia. After all, it was the right that took my country to war with itself to end slavery. It was the Liberal (Democrat) Party that stood in the school doorway to defend Jim Crow, a policy they implemented after the right ended slavery. It was the Liberals who almost provided enough votes to nix the Civil Rights Act.
I’ve noticed that Natalia’s academic colleagues have recently started referring to the Jim Crow as a Republican
creation. Soon campus speech codes, introduced at thousands of campuses by liberals, will be a conservative sin. Soon Abraham Lincoln will be a famous Democrat. Being on the Left means never having to be honest with yourselves or others.
I know, Natalia. “Yawn” about that slavery and Jim Crow stuff, right?
Of course, the worst “sin” of the right, so much that teachers in California are required to believe that it is racism in itself, is the belief in individual rights versus group rights. No surprise to see the left against individual rights, is it?
You have to remember that the “right” = Democrats at one point in time. The South used to vote Democrat for a variety of reasons. And Democrats weren’t liberal then – at least not in terms of social liberalism.
Unless I’m remembering wrong – this is what I believe to be the case.
And the individual rights vs. group rights stuff is very tricky, because at this point in time, you have both right & left dipping into these issues from different sides.
Yeah, to say that the Republicans of the Civil War period hold the same tenets as the Republicans of today is not only a long shot, it’s historically inaccurate.
The makeup of the parties has changed over time.
You’ll notice, for example, that Strom Thurmond started his political career as a Democrat, but sometime around 1964, he switched over to the Republicans.
Gah, my head hurts from all this thinking.
Btw, Mike, have a sense of humor. Even Rann can take a spanking (verbal or otherwise)….wait, not that I would know. Man, now I have a mental image. Help!
Modern liberalism is a term that dates from the late 19th Century. Anything ‘liberal’ prior to that is something completely different, vague and without constant meaning.
And Anna: spanking is not usually my thing, but from you, anytime 😉
And by the way, any good rightist would maintain that Thurmond was not racist. I mean, he did love fucking his slaves….
I’m in a slogan mood, so:
“Treason to Whiteness is loyalty to humanity” – Noel Ignatiev
I see how it is – Anna gets to spank Rann, but our jolly Thursday orgies… er, potlucks, are abandoned by the wayside. Well FINE then, FINE.
“You have to remember that the “right” = Democrats at one point in time.”
Sure, Natalia. And the Republicans who fought against slavery and Jim Crow were the left.
Decades from now, there will be Natalias teaching that the Margaret Sanger/Planned Parenthood racial eugenics dream was a product of the right, that group rights over individual rights was a conservative ideal, that the idea that people should be judged according to their racial classification and not “the content of their character” was a rightist continuation of Republican slavery and Jim Crow.
Fear not, Natalia. With your “critical thinking skills” and ability to forget the past, you’ll always feel on the correct side of history, even if your not.
Anna,
Yeah, Strom Thurmond has said some pretty dumb things. I don’t consider it a credit that the Republicans didn’t disown him immediately.
But he pales in comparison to the sight of lifelong Democrat and powerhouse Senior Senator, Robert Byrd, who was an actual “nigger” (he still uses the word) lynching, Kleagle (state leader) of the KKK and still enjoys the full support of the Democratic liberal establishment.
Strom Thurmond looks like an angel compared to this obscenity to decency, yet he is beloved among liberals who year after year accord him powerful chairmanships and unbending praise.
(There’s another future “Republican” for ‘ya, Professor Natalia.)
Does anyone know what’s going on in my comments section anymore? I mean, first Anna starts posting about something other than boobies, then we have an American arguing history with a pseudo-American (using the shrill tone that normally us feminists get accused of using – what’s up with the role reversal, yo?)… I mean, are you saying that Reagan’s Republicans = Lincoln? Or, for that matter, that Reagan’s Republicans = Barry Goldwater?
Because if that’s what you’re saying – I’m going to have to start selling you swampland in Poltava. This is mind-boggling!
I think mikey boy’s just got his little panties in a twist and needs some help sorting them out.
Now ain’t that right cutie-pie?
PS As a friend pointed out, Condi grew up in Alabama in the 60’s and said she didn’t experience any racism. My conclusion is that she must be white. Anyone care to comment?
Shrill? More shrill than complaining about white male priviledge and embedded patriarchy at a campus where white males barely escape a legal lynching (if they do) that even someone like you acknowledges is unjust? More shrill than casually rewriting history to place your political ideology at the forefront of fighting slavery and Jim Crow when even a grade school student should know otherwise.
You avoid reality, Natalia. You are lacking principles and turn your face from unpleasant facts with barely an effort, yawning when you are confronted with obvious racism, presenting a laughable “this is what I believe to be the case” rationale for a total revision of American history in race matters. It’s just breathtaking how receptive you are to anything that will allow you to claim to care while ignoring injustice.
This will be water off your back, I’m guessing, but I’ll give you a chance. What would you think of a film with an approving portrayal of a twenty-some man feeding booze to a thirteen year old girl and having sex with her? What would you think of a rights movement that then gave wild support for such a film? Be careful now, I’m sure you know where this is treading. Better to just toss your personal history and pain in the basket and defend the film and it’s supporters.
“I think mikey boy’s just got his little panties in a twist and needs some help sorting them out.
Now ain’t that right cutie-pie?”
This is a good example of what initially attracts people to the left. Being on the left means never having to hide your hate. Rann uses homophobic language to attack me, but you can bet he sees the hate in anyone on the right who would stoop so low.
homophobic? go on, justify that bit of name-calling then. I’d be delighted to hear an ‘explanation’.
Mike, if you want to rant, as opposed to dialogue, please go elsewhere.
If you want to slug personal insults, or whatever, I’m not your woman.
I asked you two very simple questions:
Do Reagan’s Republicans = Barry Goldwater? Do they also = Lincoln?
My reading of history tells me that this is not the case, but if you believe that I’m wrong, you can tell me why you think that. Without freaking out. Thanks.
Natalia, I’ve asked you many, many questions that you have not answered. I’ve spent a bit of effort to outline situations and the questions they raise, only to have you either ignore them completely or utter something short and dismissive.
” Do Reagan’s Republicans = Barry Goldwater? Do they also = Lincoln?”
No. Not in every respect. But they have a common theme. For instance, they have never advocated slavery, unlike your political party. They have never advocated Jim Crow, unlike your political party. Membership in them has never been a requirement to join the KKK, unlike your party. Get the picture?
“My reading of history tells me that this is not the case, but if you believe that I’m wrong, you can tell me why you think that. Without freaking out. Thanks.”
How am I freaking out? By pointing out the absurdity of your remarks? What you state is so utterly revisionist and a reversal of fact, that I am at a loss. Democrats only changed their publicly racist policies, and gained a conscience, in the 60’s, mostly from being shamed by the rest of America. Republicans had been anti-slavery and anti-Jim Crow for hundreds of years. Your “interpretation” reverses this. The Republicans have been and continue to be a party based on individual rights. Democrats have been and continue to be a party based on group rights. Democrats will now throw money at black Americans, to get votes, but they still tell blacks that they cannot compete with others. They tell blacks that the rules of non-racist discourse do not apply to them. They tell blacks that America hates them and they should hate back. Democrats elevate racist Jew haters like Sharpton, Jackson and Farrakhan to “civil rights leaders” as an example of what real blackness is, they call Condi Rice a “house nigger”, thereby marking an intelligent achieving black woman as someone they should not emulate. Democrats have continued to treat black Americans as an inferior race. (See a common thread here?)
Republicans believe in treating blacks the same as others, as individuals. They treat blacks with dignity, as equals, and not with the nauseatingly condescending “dumb down”, lower standards, racial quotas etc., that Democrats have used to convince black Americans that their only way to success is not by their own achievement, but by discriminating against others. It’s a nice circle for Democrats, isn’t it? From discriminators and Jim Crowers of blacks, they convince blacks that they must do the same, being too inferior to achieve on their own.
“Mike, if you want to rant, as opposed to dialogue, please go elsewhere.
If you want to slug personal insults, or whatever, I’m not your woman.”
If you honestly want a dialogue, Natalia, then respond. Stop with the *yawn* responses to serious, important observations of racism just because it is easier than responding. If you want to know why the tone of my comments have become more strident, it is precisely because you just wave me off in that manner rather than at least offering a serious response in return. Therefore my attempt at dialogue becomes a monologue (or rant) by default.
And I have not slugged you with personal insults. Rann has done so however. And you’re not warning him to behave, are you?
Are you going to answer my “Is feminist rape a good rape” question? At least before you ban me?
There’s a pretty fascinating (part) history of pro-slavery Republicanism in Stephanie McCurry’s article “The two faces of Republicanism: Gender and Proslavery politics in Antebellum South Carolina” at http://www.jstor.org/view/00218723/di975299/97p0362l/0
Mike, why would I ban you?
And what is this talk about “my” party? – I’m not registered with any party.
And what is this continued debate surronding Southern Democrats? – They are not modern Democrats (not that the modern Democrats are such upstanding citizens either).
No one has advocated slavery for a good number of years now – aside from people from the crazy fringes – but if we want to talk history, we have to start making distinctions about who is who (my mother’s favourite phrase).
You obviously want to prove some sort of point, but I’m not sure what it is, hence the yawning.
Isn’t it fascinating the work that Rann will do to find an author who practices the same revisionist history that hundreds of post-modern academics engage in daily? All the while ignoring hundreds of years of contemporary and historical accounts?
And Rann, since you are clearly too dense and self-comfortable to see it for yourself, I’ll help you with your previous question. (“Homophobic, who me?”) See, when you mock someone as a homosexual, that is considered homophobic, even if your target is on the right. Sorry, but even the most stringent leftists recognize that for what it is.
(Like if I were to mock a supporter of skin color preferences as a chicken and watermelon eater. That would be racist, get it?)
Natalia,
” You obviously want to prove some sort of point, but I’m not sure what it is, hence the yawning.”
Lazy or obtuse? I certainly have made my point, quite clearly. If you didn’t understand it, you would not have made the effort to recall your “history as I understand it”, would you have?
And are you seriously saying that historical wrongs have nothing to teach us today? Does the KKK get a blank slate if they run a political candidate? You’re not serious, you’re just waving off hundreds of years of oppression by the party that you support today. And by the way, Natalia, you are “distancing yourself ” from so many identities (“I’m just Natalia”… cute, but you can’t write a check, or march, or protest under that banner, can you?) that pretty soon you will run out.
So, a big yawn on the “feminist rape is good rape” question, huh? Gee, you seemed to be so passionate about rape earlier. (You seriously had me depressed as you described that girl’s experience.)
Now, not so much?
Took about 2 minutes of work, actually. Nice work from your side on the name-calling, by the way.
If you read the article, you’ll find it’s based on primary and secondary contemporary sources as well as modern scholarship. But you’ll just dismiss the author (who I’m sure you know a lot about) as one more post-modern academic, not fitting your desired reasoning and hence wrong.
Just out of curiosity, how do you know I’m not gay, loverboy?
Ok, if you want to call me lazy, or obtuse, or whatever, that’s fine. I mean, it makes you look silly, but I don’t care. I don’t normally think of myself as obtuse, but I AM lazy, especially when it comes to engaging people who aren’t particularly interested in engaging me (unless they convert me to their cause, of course).
Once again, I do not lend unequivocal support to any one party, I think historical wrongs have PLENTY to teach us today (hence my continued reliance on the example of the Founding Fathers), I recognize the changes that took place between (if you put it simplistically enough) North/South Republican/Democrat, and I do not believe that KKK and Planned Parenthood are organizations whose roots have borne similar fruit – just like I don’t dismiss the New Testament on account of the Old Testament (Ok, very bad analogy, but I’m hungry and tired right now – though how about Hitler and Volkswagen then? Or Martin Luther and the Reformation… I mean, if you agree with the notion that Martin was a bit of twat when it came to certain issues).
Once again, I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove – (Aside from Republican = good, Democrat = bad, maybe?) but it’s starting to look as if you’re here simply to push your politics using whatever means necessary – something that I rarely tolerate even from good friends (I pretty tune out Rann like this too, right Rann?).
I have not personally insulted you, and I will not ban you, but if you can’t appreciate my desire to talk to people as opposed to agendas, please don’t bother.
Mike,
no one can properly respond to your questions because
1) they’re phrased badly
2) they’re historically inaccurate
3) you’ve clearly not delved into the responses we give you.
For the last time, the modern Democrats and Republicans are NOT the same parties they were during the Civil War, nor even the same party that existed in the early to mid 20th century.
So will you please quit equating the current Republican party with Lincoln. Either that or show me someone, preferably with some credentials, who will back up your claim.
If you were, for example, to claim that the American left was responsible for supporting Stalin and his brand of “communism” and “cleansing”, we could find mutual footing. I would like to think that most people who comment on this blog tend to take both sides of any argument into consideration, and I can assure that I do.
You call the history I’ve learned revisionist? Prove me otherwise. There’s nothing to yawn about there.
Oh, and once again, have a frickin sense of humor and stop throwing the PC “homophobic” comments about. You can’t pull it off 🙂
Martin Luther threw his own shit at Satan ….so let’s dismiss Protestants as un-hygienic acid-trippers.
Hee hee.
***If you were, for example, to claim that the American left was responsible for supporting Stalin and his brand of “communism” and “cleansing”, we could find mutual footing.***
That’s also something that I’ve thought about for a long time – this precise argument. Felix actually brought it up in a different thread…
Parts of the American left did support Stalin, just as huge parts of the American right supported Hitler (start with Henry Ford, who supplied weapons to the Third Reich, and go from there).
However, none of the American anarchist movements supported Stalin, nor did the mainstream of the Communist Party, whereas pre-Pearl Harbor the possibility of the US joining the war on Germany’s side was very seriously discussed at the party level. Henry Ford and his supporters continued to hold huge power, whereas Stalinists found their appeal rapidly diminishing by the late 50’s, even within the RCP. Today, the only faction that is in any way Stalinist are the Sparticists, who are completely batshit crazy and are smaller than the American Nazi Party. Most of the rest of the Communist left are Troskyites of some flavor or other.
Correction: the mainstream of the CP were anti-Stalin once the extent of his atrocities had become clear.
I couldn’t imagine an anarchist supporting Grandfather Stalin. Communists – sure, because the USSR was nominally “communist.”
if you’re happy and you know it clap your hands….if you’re happy and you know it clap your hands!
I love niggers
I love sand niggers.
i love republicans.
I love democrats.
My name is Jesus. And no matter how evil, rotten, and terrible you are or how much your mother hates you, please know that I do and that there is a place for you in my kingdom.
I think Mike M is related to La Russophobe. They both act like rabid badgers.
It took an awful long time for the atrocities to become clear…and Stalin died in 54 so to say it died down in the 50s is rather obvious. I’m not saying it’s a current movement whatsoever (thank god), but if you were to fault the American left in the 30s and 40s, you could easily argue they turned a blind eye to what was happening in the USSR.
It’s a reason that many Russian expats I know vote Republican.
Anna,
While left’s support for Stalin (and, more recently, Brezhnev) is certainly one of the reasons for *this* “Russian” expat to vote Republican – it’s not the only one, and not even the main one. Even this reason should be turned into a positive one (from “left supported Stalin, hence I am voting *against* them” to “Reagan and Thatcher accelerated the decay of Soviet Empire, hence I am voting *for* them”.
But what is the main reason, you ask? It is because liberals define the person by what group (s)he belongs to: Black, gay, White lacrosse player, evangelical Christian, etc. Conservatives, on the other hand, judge people not by the color but by the content of their character: Ward Churchill, Mike Nifong and Mark Foley are equal opportunity scumbags; whereas Jane Kirkpatrick, Ward Connelly, and Michelle Malkin are equal opportunity heroes. (I don’t expect you to agree with my assessments; just to note that race or gender have nothing to do with them).
Natasha,
I do believe that Reagan’s Republicans = Barry Goldwater; however I am not a historian – so I am sure there may be arguments both ways. And I agree that Lincoln was so far in the past that comparisons between him and today’s Republicans are dubious (although flattering). And the labels are only important to make sure that people are talking about the same concepts. I don’t think that 19th century liberalism has anything in common with Ted Kennedy or John Edwards; just like 19th century definition of the word “gay” has anything to do with homosexuality.
wordpress doesn’t have “preview” button; so I missed a few typos.
It’s Jeane Kirkpatrick; and it’s “by the color of their skin”, of course… and for complete mea culpa – I forgot to close the parenthesis 🙂
Henry Ford was a Democrat, Rann. Not merely a registered Democrat voter either. He ran for the US Senate, again, as a Democrat. But thanks for offering your revision for display.
” ***If you were, for example, to claim that the American left was responsible for supporting Stalin and his brand of “communism” and “cleansing”, we could find mutual footing.***
That’s also something that I’ve thought about for a long time – this precise argument.”
Is this what passes for curiosity on the left? Are you ladies going to actually consider this “question”? Bravo, brave warriors. I am humbled by your desire to search for the truth, no matter where it leads.
And Anna:
“Mike,
no one can properly respond to your questions because
1) they’re phrased badly
2) they’re historically inaccurate
3) you’ve clearly not delved into the responses we give you.
This is too cute for words. My points are clear. I may not have academic-speak down pat, but I know what is being done when someone turns history on its head to satisfy some current political posturing. You can’t bring yourselves to admit that your side was utterly in the wrong for hundreds of years on questions of race, or that said history has any bearing on judging what they say versus what they do today. Instead, those who at least admit to historical realities claim a stunning reversal in political ideology between the Democratic and Republican parties, all this silliness so that they never have to apologize and to assign their own behavior to their political opponents.
I can tell you, while I came here because I was intrigued by a feminist who stood up for the Duke Three (if not men in general), I have been dissappointed since. Dismissivness, hypocrisy, outright hate (as in Rann, not you, Natalia).
Even now , I can’t get anyone to say that child molestation is wrong, the reason apparantly because they don’t want to criticize their feminist colleagues. That’s just sad and pathetic.
But keep up the search for leftist support of Stalin in America. I’m on the edge of my seat.
ALERT: For immediate absorption.
Senator Joe Biden has been and will continue to be a REPUBLICAN. That is all. Thank you for not thinking.
***Is this what passes for curiosity on the left? Are you ladies going to actually consider this “question”? Bravo, brave warriors. I am humbled by your desire to search for the truth, no matter where it leads.***
Uh, Mike – we talked about this in class for about four years. Anna and I were both double-majors, and our second major was Russian. So you can stop having a fit, or whatever it is you’re doing now. 🙂
Ford was a fascist, whether democrat or not. I don’t give a shit about parties, unlike the rest of the crowd here. I support neither and never will.
However, the only historically faithful way to trace American politics is by the left-right divide, which is clearer in the US than almost anywhere else in the world. Democrats today are centrist to center-right (with some exceptions), whereas Republicans are right to far-right (ditto). This has not been constant throughout history.
Felix, don’t make me laugh. You have headlines from LGF on your website. Don’t tell me you don’t see categorize people into Muslim (bad) and most other people (good). Or Jewish=good, Palestinian=bad. The idiotic claim of ‘we don’t categorize’ is entirely hypocritical coming from conservatives who cannot see beyond ‘those evil bearded people’.
By the way, I agree with you that liberals over-categorize everything, but at least they see more than two categories in each field, as opposed to the conservative us vs. them mentality on every issue.
Felix,
Of course it’s more complicated than what I let on in a comment on a blog, but yeah, your reasoning regarding Reagan etc., is familiar to my ears.
Mike,
Do you want a f***ing essay from me here? I’m still waiting for YOUR evidence to disprove our “political posturing.” Ha ha, I almost feel like asking you to “take it outside”. Bah.
Rann, you just like hairy things.
“Mike,
Do you want a f***ing essay from me here? I’m still waiting for YOUR evidence to disprove our “political posturing.” Ha ha, I almost feel like asking you to “take it outside”. Bah.”
You’ll wait forever, Anna. I’m not going to bother to “prove” to you that Lincoln was a Republican, or that Democrats were the party of slavery and Jim Crow anymore than I’ll demand you prove that the US dropped an A-bomb on Hiroshima. I don’t have to attempt revisionist history. I can accept the truth without making ridiculous demands for proof from you, even if it puts my views in a bad light. That’s called integrity, something lacking from the left.
> Felix, don’t make me laugh.
I don’t make you anything. In fact, if you didn’t notice – I am completely ignoring you. Judaism teaches me that it’s not good to engage in a conversation where the only purpose is to mock your opponent. And your rants certainly don’t deserve anything but mocking. Famous Soviet writers described that in one sentence long time ago: ” ‘Бога нет!’ – кричал Остап Бендер, вызывая ксендзов на диспут” (Natasha can translate that for you, but you may never understand the subtlety). And my grandmother describes your rants in just one word – “meshugene” (hopefully, you don’t need translation for that, and you may even understand the attitude).
However, you addressed me directly, so I’ll make this single exception to ignoring insane. And thank you for visiting my site. I hope you enjoyed it.
> You have headlines from LGF on your website.
You outed me, man. After what I said here – to find LGF headlines on my site is a disgrace. You can now live happily ever after. Reagan is dead, Gaza residents enjoy Hamas government, and you found LGF on my website.
> Don’t tell me you don’t see categorize people into Muslim (bad) and most other people (good). Or Jewish=good, Palestinian=bad.
Hopefully, LGF headlines didn’t blind you – but it’s difficult to find other explanation why you missed a link to Pakistan Today website (http://www.paktoday.com/). I categorize people into “civilized” and “mob”. Stalin’s government was “mob” – the fact that Kaganovich and Yagoda that were part of that government, were Jews doesn’t make any difference to me. Bridgitte Gabriel and Jordanian King Hussein are part of civilization – the fact that they are Muslims is not relevant.
People that chant “Death to… (whatever)” are mob – plain and simple. People that are stand up to the mob (Saharov, Aung San Suu Kyi, Vaclav Havel) are heroes. Most people in the world are somewhere between. Bot once you take the “Castrate” sign – you join the mob. And there is nothing I can discuss with the mob.
In a more nuanced categorization – I am sure, Ghaleb Majadle (Arab minister in Israeli Cabinet) is a decent man. And I think that Jewish minister in Arab government (what’s his name… it escapes me at the moment) is a despicable human being!
> The idiotic claim of …
That’s exactly why I ignore you. No additional justification necessary!
As I said, black and white, ‘civilized’ and ‘uncivilized’, ‘decent’ and ‘not decent’. You accuse the left of categorization, but at least theirs is nuanced.
Do you actually know anything about Majadle or are you just assuming that since he was appointed by Jews, he’s a good Arab? I’m sure you think Efi Eitam and Avigdor Lieberman are nice civilized men too, never mind that their policies are not particularly distinct from Hitler’s.
I noticed the link to PT. LGF headlines just throw a huge veil over everything else. Ultra-nationalist racism like that is hard to overlook.
YOU ALL NEED TO BUY SOME PORN. Jesus.
Copying and pasting stuff you’ve copied and pasted elsewhere isn’t welcome on this site. This isn’t a place you can hijack to turn into your platform.
– Natalia.