World Politics

[python]

I'd rather blutto didn't post such racist material and that the mods would take action against it.

why is it racist ? blutto made it clear it was a satire he re-printed...i certainly did not read it as mocking of ALL jews.

 

[rhubroma]

Lets replace Jewish in Blutto's racist filth with Black man or Arab and change the famous Jewish people with black people or Arabs who have committed sexual offenses and see how it reads

It seems that as in europe of old antisemitism is the acceptable face of racism around here, i am sorry that you are unable to understand that.

You are confusing justifiable satire directed toward a certain group, with racism and it doesn't fly.

If I refer to so-and-so black parliamentary as reminscent of an "orangatang," as one Italian Northern League politician did, then I'm being racist. If, on the other hand, I represent the assassins of Boko Haram as a bunch of savages then I am not.

It seems that in Europe any criticism of Israel gets branded as the anti-semitic boogeyman to gain a few votes. Unfortunately this gets confused with real anti-semitism among the neofascists that currently has reared its ugly head, which the EU, in its problematical current state, has only fomented. But this is an entirely different matter and a problem the right needs to face among its own nationalist faction.

 

[del1962]

You are confusing justifiable satire directed toward a certain group, with racism and it doesn't fly.

If I refer to so-and-so black parliamentary as reminscent of an "orangatang," as one Italian Northern League politician did, then I'm being racist. If, on the other hand, I represent the assassins of Boko Haram as a bunch of savages then I am not.

It seems that in Europe any criticism of Israel gets branded as the anti-semitic boogeyman to gain a few votes. Unfortunately this gets confused with real anti-semitism among the neofascists that currently has reared its ugly head, which the EU, in its problematical current state, has only fomented. But this is an entirely different matter and a problem the right needs to face among its own nationalist faction.

Lets try to divorce Israel from this (which should be subject to criticism like any other state), because piece was about Jewish ethnicity and I suspect the mention of Israel in it was purely to give it a veneer of respectability.

 

[rhubroma]

Lets try to divorce Israel from this (which should be subject to criticism like any other state), because piece was about Jewish ethnicity and I suspect the mention of Israel in it was purely to give it a veneer of respectability.

Personally, I do. The point, to the contrary, is that the Jewish religious fanatics and their political supporters don't. They make an instrument of Israel to further their zealous religious (religious before political in the case of the former) cause.

The other problem, of course, and it is not insignificant, is that Israel is no ordinary state (in the modern lay sense). Its founding justification was the Hebraic religion, according to the tenants of its religious book, and the right and privilege of a particular religious ethnicity. Indeed this has been recently confirmed by the Netanyahu government wanting to rebaptise Israel as the "Jewish State," despite a part of its citizens being Arabic and Muslim and others Jews, but atheists.

And the piece wasn't about Jewish ethnicty tout court, but a zealous religious faction within it that certainly needs to be satirized and is a case of the ones getting "pi$$ed-off" being lost.

 

[hrotha]

I imagine Blutto thought it was or could be interpreted as racist, otherwise there'd be little point to posting it. And yes, it has absolutely nothing to do with Israel.

That said, the author, Gilad Atzmon, is Jewish himself. But he's a controversial figure. An exploration of the question: Can a Jew be anti-Semitic?

 

[Christian]

Of course her fanaticism, the same type of religious fascism expressed in Blutto's satirical post, is the thorny issue, not Judaism or the Jews per say. And this is the type of Judaism and Jew that was among the just targets of Charlie Hebdo, a satire that in our society is necessary, because cathartic (there is no better therapy than to laugh at the absurd and terrifying), apart from being within one's civic rights: all the more so because another target has recently come with a horrific death sentence.

Je suis Charlie[/I].

Very nicely put

 

[Amsterhammer]

I'd rather blutto didn't post such racist material and that the mods would take action against it.

Il Professore has already replied substantively better than I could, so I will only add that as a (lapsed) Jew, I found nothing personally or generally offensive about the piece of satire posted by blutto. We really must not become over-sensitive when evaluating our own reactions to satire, sarcasm, or lampooning.

 

[del1962]

I imagine Blutto thought it was or could be interpreted as racist, otherwise there'd be little point to posting it. And yes, it has absolutely nothing to do with Israel.

That said, the author, Gilad Atzmon, is Jewish himself. But he's a controversial figure. An exploration of the question: Can a Jew be anti-Semitic?

Here is some info from Hope not Hate a strongly anti-racist website in the UK on the author

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/nick/gilad-atzmon-supporting-holocaust-deniers-and-spreading-hatred-of-jews-1493

 

[rhubroma]

Here is some info from Hope not Hate a strongly anti-racist website in the UK on the author

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/nick/gilad-atzmon-supporting-holocaust-deniers-and-spreading-hatred-of-jews-1493

It's fairly clear as a Jew that he isn't talking about the human being that hapens to be a Jew, but satirizes the "Jewishness," so-called, that distinguishes the Jew from the rest of humanity in the "elect" sense.

I realize this is a borderline nuance, however, such is the nature of satire. Consequently the site has totally missed the point.

 

[del1962]

It's fairly clear as a Jew that he isn't talking about the human being that hapens to be a Jew, but satirizes the "Jewishness," so-called, that distinguishes the Jew from the rest of humanity in the "elect" sense.

I realize this is a borderline nuance, however, such is the nature of satire. Consequently the site has totally missed the point.

Sorry if that is you conclusion of him from reading about him

there really is no point in continuing this conversation, if you can't put 2 and 2 together

 

[rhubroma]

Sorry if that is you conclusion of him from reading about him

there really is no point in continuing this conversation, if you can't put 2 and 2 together

Very well then, though I realized it was simply beyond you.

Let's see if this will help. I live in Italy and in Italy the southerners are often the objective of racial slurs from the rightist ideologues of the north, because Mafiosi, because terroni. This is always to be condemned.

By contrast there are certain intelligent Italians, among whom those from the south, who satire the "southernness" of the southerners (like the "Jewishness" of the Jews that was brought up), or at least that part of the southern mentality and character (like that part of the Jewish mentality and character), which undeniably exists (in both cases), that has lead to the mafia phenomenon, while acknowledging that all southerners (indeed the vast majority) are not Mafiosi. This is not done to do harm to the southerners of course, nor is it racist like the other campaign, but to unhypocritically call attention to a certain reality that has generated, or rather de-generated, into the Mafia, of which the whole country ultimately a victim, so that it can be openly confronted and addressed in the spirit of a catharsis: first and foremost by the southerners themselves. This is what any true satire is predicated upon.

Naturally some southerners take offense, while others recognize it as a "bruttal" call to deal with a problem in their region (that is by no means limited to it).

 

[The Hitch]

there really is no point in continuing this conversation, if you can't put 2 and 2 together

lol.

Whatever the context or discussion, you are the last person in the world who should be lecturing people about putting 2 and 2 together.

 

[rhubroma]

What to me is so important about Charlie Hebdo, despite the fact that I recognize many hate much of what it does, is that we are able to have such a subversive magazine. Yes, subversive, because liberty is (has always been!) a scandal.

Freedom upsets, provokes disturbs and, yes, at times offends. It unsettles the conformists, raises the ire of the dogmatists and stirs the repressed. It's "limits" are constantly a clash with the sensibilities and ways of others. For this reason I have never agreed with, nor really understood, those who say that freedom of expression "has no limits," which seems to me a reductive way of conceptualizing freedom. My freedom of expression has a limit, however, that limit is established by the modern legal structure, which in a healthy and mature society does not include subversiveness.

At any rate even if I'm atheist and thus don't have a tabernacle to defend, I'm often offended by, for example, the arrogance of the bigots who judge my way of life to be strange, immoral and rambling; as if theirs weren't weird in venerating this or that book or that plaster cast of Saint So-and-so. But I consider the offense, in a manner of speaking, as part of the job of living and above all living in society. It is, therefore, a manageable shock, at times even useful in coming to terms with the "other" in a process of reciprocal acknowledgement. The vile execution of defenseless victims by now practiced on a vast scale by the jihadists (witness Nigeria and Somalia), is the negation of this.

The real scandal consequently isn't that the Muslim fanatics were offended, as every community has the sacrosanct right to be offended. The scandal, of such vast proportions as to configure itself "technically" as an act of war, is the total incapacity of the these offended to accept their offense as an integral, inevitable and vital part of the cultural confrontation and juridical mediation. Of course the West should give up its ideological wars in the Muslim world (on this there is much to condemn), but the execution in Paris the other day finds no justification in the supposed Clash taking place, or in one's religion being offended.

 

[Echoes]

I'm glad that Gilad Atzmon has been referred to here. I've been listening to conferences of his for several years now.

I especially like how he trashes the Left who "betrayed" the labouring classes and are strictly concerned with communitarian issues (gay issue, feminism, drug legalisation, etc.) that nobody cares about (the likes of Soros, you see). Actually, I think that if he digs it a little bit further he would realise that that is the traditional/philosophical Left. The Left has never cared for the labouring classes. The Right once did.

Atzmon has never referred to Jewish people as a whole. He only refers to Jewish "ideology" (so not a race, a set of values), which indeed is like some sort of a reversed Nazism. He does not even refer to the Judaist religion because most of the Jews who bore us with Israel (+ the Femen and all the sh*t) are atheists.

By the way, let's have a look at how he reacted to the recent events.

http://www.deliberation.info/gilad-atzmon-charlie-hebdo-massacre/

The massacre in France was a devastating crime against freedom and the right to laugh.

But was it really executed by a bunch of lunatic irrational Muslims who to decided to kill mercilessly because their prophet was mocked?

French people should be asking what led members of their society to commit such cold blood murders against their fellow citizens.

France should ask itself why it has been dropping bombs on Muslims. Who enthusiastically advocated these ‘interventionist’ wars? What was the role of Bernard-Henri Lévy, the prime advocate of the war against Libya for instance?

What was all this French fuss about the burka? Who led this war on Muslims at the heart of Europe? Was it really in the name of tolerance?

Freedom and laughter are precious indeed, but isn’t it the French ‘socialist’ government that has been harassing and banning the best and most successful comedian in France, Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, because he satirized the Holocaust religion? Who pushed the French government to take such harsh actions against an artist; wasn’t it the Jewish lobby group CRIF?

If Europe wants to live in peace, it might consider letting other nations live in peace. By following the whims of The Lobby we have destined Paris to the fate of Aleppo, God forbidden.

But there is an alternative narrative that turns our perception of this disastrous Paris massacre on its head.

This morning 18-year-old Hamyd Mourad, suspected to be one of the three terrorists involved in yesterday’s attack, handed himself in to the police in Charleville-Mezieres. He reportedly surrendered peacefully after hearing his name on the news. And he claims that he had nothing to do with yesterday’s event. Bizarre isn’t it? Not really.

While every anti terror expert has agreed that the attack on Charlie Hebdo yesterday was a professional job, it seems pretty amateurish for a ‘highly trained terrorist’ to leave his ID behind. And since when does a terrorist take his ID on an operation? One possible explanation is that the so-called terrorists needed a few extra hours to leave France or disappear. They had to fool the French police and intelligence into searching the wrong places and the wrong people. Is it possible that they simply planted a stolen or forged ID card in the car they left behind?

If this was the scenario, it is possible that the attack yesterday had nothing to do with ‘Jihadi terrorism.’ It is quite probable that this was another false flag operation. Who could be behind it? Use your imagination…

-----


The case of Mourad Hamid is very telling. The guy was at school all day and then found out he was involved in the attack. Just imagine he didn't have that rock solid alibi, he might have been done with. He's gonna be a very conscientious pupil, now.

-----

On his website, Gilad report this comment by Diana Johnstone which is perfectly true: http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2015/1/9/charlie-hebdo-not-exactly-a-model-of-freedom-of-speech

Charlie Hebdo was not in reality a model of freedom of speech. It has ended up, like so much of the “human rights left”, defending U.S.-led wars against “dictators”.

In 2002, Philippe Val, who was editor in chief at the time, denounced Noam Chomsky for anti-Americanism and excessive criticism of Israel and of mainstream media. In 2008, another of Charlie Hebdo’s famous cartoonists, Siné, wrote a short note citing a news item that President Sarkozy’s son Jean was going to convert to Judaism to marry the heiress of a prosperous appliance chain. Siné added the comment, “He’ll go far, this lad.” For that, Siné was fired by Philippe Val on grounds of “anti-Semitism”. Siné promptly founded a rival paper which stole a number of Charlie Hebdo readers, revolted by CH’s double standards.

In short, Charlie Hebdo was an extreme example of what is wrong with the “politically correct” line of the current French left. The irony is that the murderous attack by the apparently Islamist killers has suddenly sanctified this fading expression of extended adolescent revolt, which was losing its popular appeal, into the eternal banner of a Free Press and Liberty of Expression. Whatever the murderers intended, this is what they have achieved. Along with taking innocent lives, they have surely deepened the sense of brutal chaos in this world, aggravated distrust between ethnic groups in France and in Europe, and no doubt accomplished other evil results as well. In this age of suspicion, conspiracy theories are certain to proliferate.



I did remember that event with Siné. Really laughable. "Freedom of speech for those who agree with me."

And about Dieudonné, they were the first willing to cancel all his shows. A show in Nantes January 9 2014 was cancelled. Ironic, almost one year before the event. Poor hypocrites!

 

[blutto]

...so sorry to be late to the party....but it was the wknd and all...

..would like to say that I do not "own" the piece being discussed, as in, I don't endorse nor believe in the positions put forth in the article ( and btw I don't think Mr Atzmon does either, though he does have a long history of writing about Zionism, Jewishness and Israel, and I may add very very critically...I believe he once said in a quip dripping in irony that he was proud to be considered to be in the running for Self-Hating Jew of the Year... )...

....just to confirm, the article was meant by the author ( and myself ) to foster a discussion, which it most certainly did here in this thread....and by and large, with a blip or two, the discussion was quite civil and "productive"....so thank you to all who joined in and showed that even in very dire times and playing with a hot button issue we can be reasonably reasonable and civil....

...as opposed to this "discussion".. http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/1767-shlomo-sand-banned-from-speaking ....which was to held in an institution that is part of a centuries long tradition and is designed, theoretically at least, to be an ideal forum for discussion....

...and now back to our regularly scheduled programming...

Cheers

 

[RetroActive]

What to me is so important about Charlie Hebdo, despite the fact that I recognize many hate much of what it does, is that we are able to have such a subversive magazine. Yes, subversive, because liberty is (has always been!) a scandal.

Freedom upsets, provokes disturbs and, yes, at times offends. It unsettles the conformists, raises the ire of the dogmatists and stirs the repressed. It's "limits" are constantly a clash with the sensibilities and ways of others. For this reason I have never agreed with, nor really understood, those who say that freedom of expression "has no limits," which seems to me a reductive way of conceptualizing freedom. My freedom of expression has a limit, however, that limit is established by the modern legal structure, which in a healthy and mature society does not include subversiveness.

At any rate even if I'm atheist and thus don't have a tabernacle to defend, I'm often offended by, for example, the arrogance of the bigots who judge my way of life to be strange, immoral and rambling; as if theirs weren't weird in venerating this or that book or that plaster cast of Saint So-and-so. But I consider the offense, in a manner of speaking, as part of the job of living and above all living in society. It is, therefore, a manageable shock, at times even useful in coming to terms with the "other" in a process of reciprocal acknowledgement. The vile execution of defenseless victims by now practiced on a vast scale by the jihadists (witness Nigeria and Somalia), is the negation of this.

The real scandal consequently isn't that the Muslim fanatics were offended, as every community has the sacrosanct right to be offended. The scandal, of such vast proportions as to configure itself "technically" as an act of war, is the total incapacity of the these offended to accept their offense as an integral, inevitable and vital part of the cultural confrontation and juridical mediation. Of course the West should give up its ideological wars in the Muslim world (on this there is much to condemn), but the execution in Paris the other day finds no justification in the supposed Clash taking place, or in one's religion being offended.

I agree with what you're saying although I'm having trouble ring fencing this particular circumstance from the larger context. What's troubling is that there's an undertone of sanctified (largely via media) intolerance against muslims that only perpetuates the ideologies of conquest and reactionaries on the other side.

Then I read stuff like this:
Blowback in the Heart of Europe
Killing Charlie: Cui Bono?
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/09/killing-charlie-cui-bono/

or this:
The West is Manufacturing Muslim Monsters
Who Should be Blamed for Muslim Terrorism?
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/09/who-should-be-blamed-for-muslim-terrorism/

I don't know. What is clear is so long as Palestine remains an example of just how far this dehumanization can go I have a hard time being amused by the subject of satirizing Muslims in the west. I'm all for satirizing everything and everyone, we're funny beings but I find it troubling, how it plays into larger contexts.

 

[Echoes]

I'm glad that Gilad Atzmon has been referred to here. I've been listening to conferences of his for several years now.

I especially like how he trashes the Left who "betrayed" the labouring classes and are strictly concerned with communitarian issues (gay issue, feminism, drug legalisation, etc.) that nobody cares about (the likes of Soros, you see). Actually, I think that if he digs it a little bit further he would realise that that is the traditional/philosophical Left. The Left has never cared for the labouring classes. The Right once did.

Atzmon has never referred to Jewish people as a whole. He only refers to Jewish "ideology" (so not a race, a set of values), which indeed is like some sort of a reversed Nazism. He does not even refer to the Judaist religion because most of the Jews who bore us with Israel (+ the Femen and all the sh*t) are atheists.

By the way, let's have a look at how he reacted to the recent events.

http://www.deliberation.info/gilad-atzmon-charlie-hebdo-massacre/

The massacre in France was a devastating crime against freedom and the right to laugh.

But was it really executed by a bunch of lunatic irrational Muslims who to decided to kill mercilessly because their prophet was mocked?

French people should be asking what led members of their society to commit such cold blood murders against their fellow citizens.

France should ask itself why it has been dropping bombs on Muslims. Who enthusiastically advocated these ‘interventionist’ wars? What was the role of Bernard-Henri Lévy, the prime advocate of the war against Libya for instance?

What was all this French fuss about the burka? Who led this war on Muslims at the heart of Europe? Was it really in the name of tolerance?

Freedom and laughter are precious indeed, but isn’t it the French ‘socialist’ government that has been harassing and banning the best and most successful comedian in France, Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, because he satirized the Holocaust religion? Who pushed the French government to take such harsh actions against an artist; wasn’t it the Jewish lobby group CRIF?

If Europe wants to live in peace, it might consider letting other nations live in peace. By following the whims of The Lobby we have destined Paris to the fate of Aleppo, God forbidden.

But there is an alternative narrative that turns our perception of this disastrous Paris massacre on its head.

This morning 18-year-old Hamyd Mourad, suspected to be one of the three terrorists involved in yesterday’s attack, handed himself in to the police in Charleville-Mezieres. He reportedly surrendered peacefully after hearing his name on the news. And he claims that he had nothing to do with yesterday’s event. Bizarre isn’t it? Not really.

While every anti terror expert has agreed that the attack on Charlie Hebdo yesterday was a professional job, it seems pretty amateurish for a ‘highly trained terrorist’ to leave his ID behind. And since when does a terrorist take his ID on an operation? One possible explanation is that the so-called terrorists needed a few extra hours to leave France or disappear. They had to fool the French police and intelligence into searching the wrong places and the wrong people. Is it possible that they simply planted a stolen or forged ID card in the car they left behind?

If this was the scenario, it is possible that the attack yesterday had nothing to do with ‘Jihadi terrorism.’ It is quite probable that this was another false flag operation. Who could be behind it? Use your imagination…

-----


The case of Mourad Hamid is very telling. The guy was at school all day and then found out he was involved in the attack. Just imagine he didn't have that rock solid alibi, he might have been done with. He's gonna be a very conscientious pupil, now.

-----

On his website, Gilad report this comment by Diana Johnstone which is perfectly true: http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2015/1/9/charlie-hebdo-not-exactly-a-model-of-freedom-of-speech

Charlie Hebdo was not in reality a model of freedom of speech. It has ended up, like so much of the “human rights left”, defending U.S.-led wars against “dictators”.

In 2002, Philippe Val, who was editor in chief at the time, denounced Noam Chomsky for anti-Americanism and excessive criticism of Israel and of mainstream media. In 2008, another of Charlie Hebdo’s famous cartoonists, Siné, wrote a short note citing a news item that President Sarkozy’s son Jean was going to convert to Judaism to marry the heiress of a prosperous appliance chain. Siné added the comment, “He’ll go far, this lad.” For that, Siné was fired by Philippe Val on grounds of “anti-Semitism”. Siné promptly founded a rival paper which stole a number of Charlie Hebdo readers, revolted by CH’s double standards.

In short, Charlie Hebdo was an extreme example of what is wrong with the “politically correct” line of the current French left. The irony is that the murderous attack by the apparently Islamist killers has suddenly sanctified this fading expression of extended adolescent revolt, which was losing its popular appeal, into the eternal banner of a Free Press and Liberty of Expression. Whatever the murderers intended, this is what they have achieved. Along with taking innocent lives, they have surely deepened the sense of brutal chaos in this world, aggravated distrust between ethnic groups in France and in Europe, and no doubt accomplished other evil results as well. In this age of suspicion, conspiracy theories are certain to proliferate.



I did remember that event with Siné. Really laughable. "Freedom of speech for those who agree with me."

And about Dieudonné, they were the first willing to cancel all his shows. A show in Nantes January 9 2014 was cancelled. Ironic, almost one year before the event. Poor hypocrites!

And now, a former minister under Sarkozy wants a "French" Patriot Act. Predictable.

(I hate it when my post is last on the page )

 

[blutto]

"Legendary Cartoonist Robert Crumb on the Massacre in Paris

http://observer.com/2015/01/legendary-cartoonist-robert-crumb-on-the-massacre-in-paris/

Cheers

 

[RetroActive]

Mehdi Hasan - Islam Is A Peaceful Religion Debate In Oxford University
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjRI2AsF3h0

 

[rhubroma]

I agree with what you're saying although I'm having trouble ring fencing this particular circumstance from the larger context. What's troubling is that there's an undertone of sanctified (largely via media) intolerance against muslims that only perpetuates the ideologies of conquest and reactionaries on the other side.

Then I read stuff like this:
Blowback in the Heart of Europe
Killing Charlie: Cui Bono?
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/09/killing-charlie-cui-bono/

or this:
The West is Manufacturing Muslim Monsters
Who Should be Blamed for Muslim Terrorism?
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/09/who-should-be-blamed-for-muslim-terrorism/

I don't know. What is clear is so long as Palestine remains an example of just how far this dehumanization can go I have a hard time being amused by the subject of satirizing Muslims in the west. I'm all for satirizing everything and everyone, we're funny beings but I find it troubling, how it plays into larger contexts.

I think you should place that broader context within an even broader historical one, of which the Palestinian tragedy is but the recrudescence of a type of intolerance and repression that isn't merely being asymmetrically faught by one state against another, but is also religiously carried-out.

Its the religious fanaticism that Charlie Hebdo was lampooning, which in France, despite what the country did in its Muslim colonies, has a certain validity. Unfortunately in the past within the Muslim, Jewish and Christian spheres every type of atrocity had been conducted in the name of religion. The problem has not entirely disappeared.

 

[sniper]

I don't know. What is clear is so long as Palestine remains an example of just how far this dehumanization can go I have a hard time being amused by the subject of satirizing Muslims in the west. I'm all for satirizing everything and everyone, we're funny beings but I find it troubling, how it plays into larger contexts.

Well said..

 

[blutto]

....and several views from other prominent sources...

Kareem Abdul Jabbar....interesting and thoughtful...

http://time.com/3662152/kareem-abdu...bdo-terrorist-attacks-are-not-about-religion/

Rupert Murdoch...typical neocon blather...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...sponsible-for-france-terror-attacks?CMP=fb_gu

And a word from the US Catholic League President spokesman....well, you really have to read this one, its real special, really does a "service" to the Catholic Church if you get my drift...

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/01/08/3609637/donohue-charlie-hebdo/

Cheers

 

[RetroActive]

I think you should place that broader context within an even broader historical one, of which the Palestinian tragedy is but the recrudesence of a type of intolerance and repression that isn't merely being asymetrically faught by one state against another, but is also religiously carried-out.

Its the religious fanaticism that Charlie Hebdo was lampooning, which in France, despite what the country did in its Muslim colonies, has a certain validity. Unfortunately in the past within the Muslim, Jewish and Christian spheres every type of atrocity had been conducted in the name of religion. The problem has not entirely disappeared.

Religion or no religion humans find a way to form groupthink to justify us dominating them. The real irony and tragedy is how far the messages that believers profess to follow can be twisted in their minds into contradictory actions and yet they seem to be unfazed by this hypocrisy.

 

[RetroActive]

Here's a really interesting interview with Norman Finkelstein:

Is Israel Unfairly Held to a Higher Standard? Norman Finkelstein on Reality Asserts Itself (1/4)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_l1qp6O13aA

He talks about his own folly, the human capacity for self deception and ideology. Personal, vulnerable.

The Making of Norman Finkelstein - Reality Asserts Itself (2/4)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJz2r_vmRAc

 

[rhubroma]

Religion or no religion humans find a way to form groupthink to justify us dominating them. The real irony and tragedy is how far the messages that believers profess to follow can be twisted in their minds into contradictory actions and yet they seem to be unfazed by this hypocrisy.

I see no conflict in this with what you brought up about what I said.