Would Polytheism Be Better For Us ?

[Florestan]

Finkelstein himself has been persecuted by powerful Jewish personalities like Alan Dershowitz to the point his career as a professor is essentially over. This despite the fact his distinction as an academician has been impeccable. Only Noam Chomsky and Raul Hilberg have been forthcoming to Finkelstein. Ironically, Chomsky has been attacked by Dershowitz too, and i'm sure Raul Hilberg himself would have as well, had he been alive today.

So much for the unconditional support and complicity among Jews. 

Everything about modernity reflects a Jewish point of view, and in so far as we are men of the modern world, we are all essentially Jewish.

It isn't very clear wether this is your point or a statement of somebody else's point. If the former case is true, could you please provide some reasons? It seems to me an exaggerated claim.

[Florestan]

I also don't expect to view this thread still open when I wake up tomorrow.

If it makes you that angry, why do you keep watching and posting?

Demands for stifling the expression of ideas and opinions contrary to your own is hardly the way to prove you are right. Rational refutation is a much better strategy.

[Gurn Blanston]

It's quite odd, really, and probably indicative of a sea change in world view; it seemed that every thread that got started here in The Diner turned into a religion thread, either for or against. Now, even religion threads seem to get turned into racism threads.

I am not going to lock this thread (at this point), but let me remind you all to maintain moderation in what you post. This thread could easily become un desaparacido. There are places on the Internet for this sort of discussion other than a classical music board. I welcome you to divide your time between one of those and us (if you actually want to talk about music, which in some cases I doubt).

Gurn Blanston

[Homo Aestheticus]

Why don't you change your place?

Because I've lived here for years, the taxes are relatively low (for Bergen County), and the apartment is snug, safe and quiet... 

Also, Manhattan is a short bus or ferry ride away.

[Brian]

If it makes you that angry, why do you keep watching and posting?

Demands for stifling the expression of ideas and opinions contrary to your own is hardly the way to prove you are right. Rational refutation is a much better strategy.

1. I do not really "keep watching and posting" - I have yet to read the first fourteen or so pages of this thread. And I don't plan to. But...

2. This is not "stifling free expression." Or about "rational refutation." I can't "rationally refute" racist pigs who think that minorities corrupt America, Jews are trying to subjugate the world, or the perils of mingling between races. What's more, I don't have to, because the issue at hand is enforcement of forum rules. Specifically, these forum rules:

GMG caters to all cultures and age groups. [posts] not acceptable for posting on the forum ... include ... hate-related posts, ... and links to sites with such content.

Gurn Blanston has, above, clarified his current policy toward this thread and especially with regard to what he calls:

...racism threads.

I am not going to lock this thread (at this point), but let me remind you all to maintain moderation ... There are places on the Internet for this sort of discussion other than a classical music board. I welcome you to divide your time between one of those and us (if you actually want to talk about music, which in some cases I doubt).

I will hold out hope (as a mere spectator) that the thread will police itself in a satisfactory way. If it does not, then perhaps the participants would like to follow one of Josquin's links to "free speech" (ie hate speech) websites to pursue the discussion with people more likely to find their views agreeable, or at least less deserving of being "stifled."

Forgive me for my presumption in diverting the current discussion solely for the satisfaction of my own capricious devotion to the rules. 

[Xenophanes]

The individual promoted by Spinoza is a cold, objective, never-weeping, never-laughing, always rational, passionless and lifeless robot.

My sympathy goes entirely with the full humanity of Dostoyevsky, whose heroes are the exact opposite of the Spinozian machines: they are hot, subjective, they weep, they cry, they are sometimes irrational, they are passionate, and life pulsates in their every thought and action.

I'd rather have dinner with Ivan Karamazov than with... wait, I can't think of any embodiment of the Spinozian ideal. So I guess I'll invite Myshkin as well.

It seems to me that you confuse the roles of philosophers and novelists. Do you have any basis for this criticism of Spinoza?  What do you know about him and his philosophy?

[Florestan]

It seems to me that you confuse the roles of philosophers and novelists.

IMO, both philosophers and novelists offer us a worldview and in this respect they are alike. Where they differ is in the method of expounding it: more or less direct and systematical in the former case, more or less indirect and unsystematical in the latter.

For me, the most interesting representatives of both worlds are those overlapping them, say Schopenhauer and Dostoyevsky, or Kierkegaard and Hermann Hesse.

Do you have any basis for this criticism of Spinoza?  What do you know about him and his philosophy?

My criticism is not directed at Spinoza, but at the human ideal he seemed to favour. If I am wrong in its assessment, please correct my errors.

[karlhenning]

Forgive me for my presumption in diverting the current discussion solely for the satisfaction of my own capricious devotion to the rules. 

For my part, no forgiveness needed, mon vieux.

[Florestan]

I can't "rationally refute"

That's only too obvious. I haven't seen any line of reasoning or evidence from you...

racist pigs

...unless, of course, you count ad hominem attacks as reason and evidence.

NB 1 I do not espouse or endorse all JdP's points, but I have always thought that a rational, educated and well-mannered person could discuss anything, including ideas and opinions that go contrary to one's own or to the orthodoxy of a place or time.

NB 2 It's a mystery to me why some people who claim to have rationality and science on their side never use them against their opponents. Rules and regulations are necessary, but they don't, of themselves, make an idea right or wrong.

[karlhenning]

...unless, of course, you count ad hominem attacks as reason and evidence.

Well, pigs was indeed a casual lapse into ad hominem; but:

The Jews will always be too powerful...

. . . is certainly gratuitously racist, and reflects very poorly on a neighbor whose reputation is none too high, to begin with.

[Florestan]

. . . is certainly gratuitously racist, and reflects very poorly on a neighbor whose reputation is none too high, to begin with.

I see it as an unwarranted generalization and a typical example of collectivist thinking, but I see no racism in it. First, is Judaity a race apart? Second, Eric didn't call for segregation from, or persecution of, Jews.

He's no racist at all, just, as Don aptly described him, muddled

[karlhenning]

He's no racist at all, just, as Don aptly described him, muddled

Oh, probably I agree;  but a muddled person may besmirch himself with expelling a racist remark.  Somewhere earliert in the thread he wants to dismiss the Jews collectively as stupid because of the tradition of circumcision. Of course this is the OP in FMM (Fully Muddled Mode), just airing one of his personal demons (and frightfully entertaining, too).

Can't take him anywhere, I expect.

Most people would take some time to practice holding their tongue, and thinking a bit (maybe indeed thinking a great deal) before remarking. Oh, but not Eric . . . .

[Josquin des Prez]

Hate speech is just an euphemism for censorship and thought control. Liberals are pretty good at silencing discussion of subjects they don't like by presenting what is essentially an ad hominem attack.

The issue of course is that facts cannot be hateful, they can only be correct or incorrect.

[karlhenning]

The issue of course is that facts cannot be hateful, they can only be correct or incorrect.

For you, an unusually factual and accurate remark.

[Florestan]

Somewhere earliert in the thread he wants to dismiss the Jews collectively as stupid because of the tradition of circumcision.

Ah, I forgot about that although I wanted to reply the moment I read it. The claim that the Jews are the only ones that practice infant circumcision, apart from a number of African tribes, is false. The Muslims practice it too, as well as the Coptic and Ethiopian Orthodox Christians.

[Josquin des Prez]

First, is Judaity a race apart?

I would argue that they are a nation. 

[Fëanor]

Well, there are many different levels of criticism hurled against organized Jewry. It all depends on whether you believe in race or not. I've researched this subject extensively, and there's two current opinions regarding Jewish power. The first is the left-leaning, universalist belief that there are several Jewish organizations who, independent of Judaism as a whole, are taking advantage of their power and influence (not to mention virtual moral immunity thanks to the memory of the Holocaust) to pursuit all sorts of dishonest activities. Zionism and Israel in particular are generally the primary target for this type of criticism, and, believe or not, it is Jews themselves who often bring it about. ...

The second point of view is the right-leaning, racialist belief that Jews are biologically different from gentiles...

Of course, criticism from the left is only directed at certain groups, not Judaism as a whole. ...

I would like to be on record, with respect to this controversy, as a "left-leaning universalist".  Whether Jews are a race depends on the definition of "race", and I consider this to be a specious issue in today's world.

I don't believe in any thing like a universal "World Jewish Conspiracy", the "Protocols of Zion", or for that matter, the "Illuminati".  However I do believe in the American Israeli lobby, which is a matter of fact, not speculation.  I do personally believe that this lobby is advocating an unconditional support by the U.S. for the state of Israel that is against the interests of the U.S. -- and for that matter, Israel itself.

[Bulldog]

On a minor point:

Do you know what I find so astonishing about Jewish culture ?  That in the year 2009 they still continue with the UTTERLY RETARDED practice of infant circumcision. They have this belief that by snipping off the foreskin of their baby boys on the eight day that somehow they become closer to God, that God demands it. No other culture performs circumcision today with the exception of some tribes in Africa and the United States.

How anyone could not see that such a practice on an infant is not a form of assault and morally wrong is beyond me.

Oh, stop being a whimp.  When are you getting your vasectomy?

[Florestan]

I would like to be on record, with respect to this controversy, as a "left-leaning universalist". 

I don't believe in any thing like a universal "World Jewish Conspiracy", the "Protocols of Zion", or for that matter, the "Illuminati".  However I do believe in the American Israeli lobby, which is a matter of fact, not speculation.  I do personally believe that this lobby is advocating an unconditional support by the U.S. for the state of Israel that is against the interests of the U.S. -- and for that matter, Israel itself.

I don't see what is "left-leaning" in that. 

[DavidRoss]

For you, an unusually factual and accurate remark.

Yes.  More usual is statement of opinions and falsehoods presented as if they were factual.

Ah, I forgot about that although I wanted to reply the moment I read it. The claim that the Jews are the only ones that practice infant circumcision, apart from a number of African tribes, is false. The Muslims practice it too, as well as the Coptic and Ethiopian Orthodox Christians.

Still today more than 50% of male infants are circumcised in the U.S. (see http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/).  There are roughly 5 million Jews in the U.S. (see http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/jewpop.html).  Since the birth rate among American Jews is below the average (see this LA Times story), and since Jews comprise less than 2% of the US population, it is not likely that more than 50% of male newborns in the US are all Jewish.