Letters to the Editor
-
Wil - what do you not get?
It clearly is not something he identifies with in any way, and he seems quite intent on proving it has no involvement in his ideological or intellectual arguments.
This is the statement posters are referring to. You infer an awful lot from a non-action. What right do you have to ascribe this characterization?
His words, however, betray not only a damaging intellectual incuriousness to historical narrative, but distract from the real root causes of what led us to invade Iraq.
The notion that "Jewish money" was behind it farcical, paranoid and factually incorrect.
For the umpteenth time, where did Glenn argue this notion? Glenn responded to your post point by point. He and others expect an equal response. It's how an argument progresses linearly. I can understand that responding to several posters makes this difficult. But you still have not truly responded to Glenn's first response to you.
Every time they (you) claim that anti-Semitism is simply brought up to "stifle debate" or "distract" or as an ideological tool (as Glenn claims the ADL is using it).
By virtue of your criticism of the charge you're claiming the anti-Semitism itself doesn't exist. By definition of the false invocation of "playing the anti-Semitism" card.
Really? Everytime? Who arbiters when it's true or false? You?
You see how this works? You don't want to back down on any of your words?
-
Sure
Care to rephrase in the form of something I can actually respond to? -- WinSmith
Yes.
Ondelette Permalink Saturday, October 6, 2007 02:33 PM, p. 23, right above an equally noteworthy response from fortunato.
... the notion that the invasion of Iraq was a "Jewish War," done by secret Israeli control over American government, expressed by one or two posters, is pure, uncut 100% anti-Semitic bullshit. -- WinSmith
You're putting false words in peoples' mouths again, while proclaiming yourself the infringed upon one.
-
@WinSmith
What exactly are you inferring?
I think you mean, "What exactly are you implying." A small but not exactly trivial semantic point. Anyone who claims to have a Ph.D. should be able to do better.
Maybe you do have a Ph.D. Maybe you don't. But your repeated invocation of the Frankfurt folks is extremely interesting and extremely painful to any thinking person. As others have pointed out, Lacan had nothing to do with Frankfurt. Neither did the truly noble Bourdieu. The guy you really are relying on is the supreme idiot, Derrida.
It is possible to have a certain amount of "affective" sympathy for Benjamin--though very little for his German collaborators (and I use the term advisedly). Still, one has to admit that Benjamin's nastily elitist views on music (for example) were and are extremely unpleasant.
But let me come to the point(s), just in case anyone is still reading.
1) Having--or claiming to have--a Ph.D. is irrelevant. I spent all my adult life work around people with that degree, and I'm here to tell you they were, as a group, as dumb as a box of rocks. Your (claimed) degree cuts no ice here.
2) The Frankfurt introduction of "affect" into the "dialectic" was first, trivial, since it amounted only to the assertion that the way people FEEL about something has an effect on the way they THINK about it (or think they think about it); and, second, pernicious, because it encouraged the nasty and dangerous "deconstructionist" notion that we can't ever really know anything. In a different context, this was a notion already amply explored by the American pragmatists. But in their view, this was a difficulty to be confronted in practice. In the view of the inheritors of the Frankfurt School, it was not a difficulty at all, but something to be celebrated around academic tribal fires, as the defeat of reason. The net effect was to have intellectuals trying to tell hungry people that they were not hungry, but were only trapped in an inescapable epistemological maze.
3) Piss off.
-
OTOH, Win
May I call you Win?
Please come back, IF you can type less and read more.
What would be so wrong with that?
Why not bring some humility with you? You don't have to assume that everyone needs to be taught, reformed, or enlightened by you, certainly not in just one day! Start by asking, not telling. Then consider telling a little. A little. Let that sit, see how it plays. And decide just what it is you want to say... the One Thing you want to say today. Then, say it. And stick to that. You can always bring up another idea later, even later the same day.
These are only suggestions, of course.
Here ain't KOS. Nothing wrong with KOS, but this is decidedly different. Simply browse the archives and surely you will see how that is true.
Even in the egalitarian rough-and -tumble Internets, common sense and common courtesy are acceptable and appreciated. Do you want to be part of a community and do some good, or do you just want attention, any kind of attention you can get?
That is what separates engaged intelligent posters from trolls. I think.
-
Oh, No! We'll All Be Killed!
karrsic:
Glenn responded to your post point by point. He and others expect an equal response. It's how an argument progresses linearly.
Oh no! Now you've done it! If there's one thing that's even worse than binaries its linearity.
Derrida's ghost gonna getcha momma!
-
Dorita?
I miss Dorita.
-
mmmm
taco doritos
spicy
long gone but not forgot
-
karrsic
Well written and clear post, Karrsic. I'll do my best to respond in kind.
It clearly is not something he identifies with in any way, and he seems quite intent on proving it has no involvement in his ideological or intellectual arguments.
This is the statement posters are referring to. You infer an awful lot from a non-action. What right do you have to ascribe this characterization?
I'm not sure I need a "right" to infer that. Glenn never brings up his Jewishness. Ever. I own both his books and while I haven't finished both, I never noticed any references. Therefore my conclusion is that it's not something he identifies with nor something he feels informs his ideological or intellectual arguments. I can see your argument that I've made a conclusion, but it's a conclusion based on my being a big fan of Glenn's, buying both of his books, reading his blog every day, and never seeing him mention.
I don't think desiring to draw delineation between intellectual opinion and personal biography means a complete and utter non-referencing of biography. Glenn seems to go out of his way not to mention his personal biography. I made note of it as the fundamental reason the anonymous poster citing Glenn's Jewishness wasn't offering me something worth considering. Since Glenn clearly doesn't feel his personal religion is part of the debate, then neither should I.
I still don't know what your problem with what I wrote is.
His words, however, betray not only a damaging intellectual incuriousness to historical narrative, but distract from the real root causes of what led us to invade Iraq.
The notion that "Jewish money" was behind it farcical, paranoid and factually incorrect.
For the umpteenth time, where did Glenn argue this notion?
Glenn has mentioned this numerous times when claiming that "anti-Semitism" charges are used to shout down legitimate criticisms. He did so in this thread when he responded to me with the following:
The idea that that's all fine to talk about, but one must never speak about the influence of Jewish groups and Jewish money when it comes to Israel and Middle East policy is just offensive
So when I quoted "Jewish Money" was directly quoting Glenn. Clearly he believes "Jewish groups and Jewish money" influence America, presumably in pro-right-wing ways (excluding Soros, apparently).
Anyone can see "Jewish money" where they want to see "Jewish money." This is what I was responding to. Clear enough for you?
Glenn responded to your post point by point. He and others expect an equal response. It's how an argument progresses linearly. I can understand that responding to several posters makes this difficult. But you still have not truly responded to Glenn's first response to you.
Yes I did. Glenn's argument is that "facts are facts" and simply stating them does nothing more than simply state them. It's beyond disingenuous.
Facts are used to construct narratives which privilege meanings often along preexisting paths. The notion of "Jewish money" working to send countries into war or behind the scenes string pulling has a long and inglorious history that Glenn either feels is irrelevant or besides the point. It is neither.
Here is Henry Ford on Jewish financial influence, from 1921:
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/ij_ch8.htm
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/ij_ch14.htm
It is known that the first World War was postponed several times at the behest of international financiers. If it broke out too soon, it would not involve the states which the international financiers wished to involve. Therefore, the masters of gold, the international masters, were compelled several times to check the martial enthusiasm which their own propaganda had aroused. The Jewish Press alleges that there was discovered a Rothschild Letter dated 1911, and urging the Kaiser against war. The year 1911 was too early. There was no such insistence in 1914.
There is no question whatever of International Jewish Finance being deeply concerned in the matter of war and revolution - this is never denied as to the past; it is just as true of the present.
Etc. Etc.
Sure Henry Ford was an anti-Semite, but today it's actually true, AIPAC runs our government, AIPAC sent us into Iraq, AIPAC controls Bush/Cheney, etc. etc.
(WinSmith:)"By virtue of your criticism of the charge you're claiming the anti-Semitism itself doesn't exist. By definition of the false invocation of "playing the anti-Semitism" card."
Really? Everytime? Who arbiters when it's true or false? You?
You see how this works? You don't want to back down on any of your words?
Back down from what?
If you fail to see or acknowledge the historical precedents of this narrative here in America, in Russia, in Germany, or today on David Duke or jewwatch.com's rantings, then you're complicit.
Glenn argues that the invocation of "anti-Semitism" is simply a tool by the conservatives to protect their agenda. And while that is most certainly true in some cases, that doesn't change the fact that they're using the very real and very present legit anti-Semites to build their umbrella.
If we don't confront the fact that these paranoid conspiracies about "Jewish money" as Glenn calls it still exist, we allow frauds like Lieberman and Cohen to construct their false defenses.
In short, ranting about AIPAC without awareness of the historical anti-Semitic myths it evokes plays right into the wingnut's hand.