The Jews.

Goodfielder writes

Quote:

Lash - thank you for the Wiki reference, it was an interesting read. As an aside it's strange how things sometimes coincide. I never realised Seymour Martin Lipsett was a Trot when he was younger. I am just about to finish "Political Man" (1959) and the fascinating thing about that book is looking at the changes in US and international politics since it was first published.

Foxfyre - agreed. Here in Australia our Jewish population is quite small but in politics many individuals and groups have been inclined to support the social democratic party here (Australian Labor Party) for many years. That some individuals and organisations in recent years have also expressed support for our ruling conservative party (Liberals - take no notice of the name, it has been hijacked by the right) just indicates the stupidity of pigeonholing.

I had to laugh when I read the highlighted line. Nimh once outlined the various political groups complete with titles that are predominent in the Netherlands and it made my head spin. Conservative and liberal have very different meanings here than they do in Europe and apparently also in Australia. But then the American 'Conservatives' of today seem to much more fit the classical definition of 'liberals' of a century ago, and the American 'liberals' have become part classical conservatives and part new phenomenon for which I'm not sure there is even a label yet.

Labels are useful only in the broadest, generalized way I think.

0 Replies

Agreed Foxfyre. But here's me trying to get to grips with the parties (all those Whigs and Federalists and what have you) of early (early in the sense of independence) America. Samuel Eliot Morison is helping me and what a scholar he was.

0 Replies

Amen to that. He was once required reading for history majors and minors, at least in my part of the world. I hope he still is.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But then the American 'Conservatives' of today seem to much more fit the classical definition of 'liberals' of a century ago, and the American 'liberals' have become part classical conservatives and part new phenomenon for which I'm not sure there is even a label yet.

Well, I suppose, that's more a kind of wishful thinking.

There's surely a merging of the classical liberal and conservative positions in most western conservative movements, especially re Free Market.

However, you American conservatives don't follow the traditional liberal anti-clericalism or e.g. the handling of social problems, health insurance etc isn't thought to be solved by governments ... as it was a prime aim of 19th century liberalism.

I haven't seen one single theme with the US Democrats which mades them close to (19th or any other time) European conservatives than the Republicans are.
I agree, however, that they are similar to European conservatives whil the Republicans would be here on the far right - nowadays, like some of the extremer right-wing European liberal parties.

0 Replies

There are blurred lines for sure. But when I say 'conservative' in the classical sense, I mean maintaining the status quo, resisting change, objection to proposals to do things differently.

When I say classical liberal, I use the classical definition accepted by most scholars:

--an ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society,

--the support of the right of property carried to its economic conclusion, a free-market system,

--the desire for a limited constitutional government to protect individuals' rights from others and from its own expansion, and

--the universal (global and ahistorical) applicability of these above convictions.

It is further noted that the classical liberal was not interesting in fixing what wasn't broken--they didn't push for change for the sake of change. They did push for change against the wishes of those who did not hold the liberal ideals they held.

What the government should and should not provide for the citizenry came later. The classical liberal wanted government to be restricted solely to that which only government can do and nothing more.

0 Replies

When I say "conservative in the classical" sense,
When I say "conservative in the classical" sense, and when I say 'liberal in the classical sense' -
... I'm referring here to yours statement from above:

Foxfyre wrote:

But then the American 'Conservatives' of today seem to much more fit the classical definition of 'liberals' of a century ago, and the American 'liberals' have become part classical conservatives and part new phenomenon for which I'm not sure there is even a label yet.

0 Replies

Nobody in this country was providing much in the way of government social services to anybody a century ago. It just wasn't seen as a function of government. So the classical liberal and conservative definitions had not yet been significantly altered.

0 Replies

Sorry, I didn't notice that you just were referring to the US classical definitions of those terms.

0 Replies

I agree with Fox that there is no 'definitive' description of a neoconservative, just as there isn't one for liberals or any other group-- as has been said plenty here, though I guess not enough. However, my description and Wiki's are quite close. It also provides a good history of the origin--which I hope many will read, as they think the world and politics began and ends with the Iraq War. It was morphing much earlier and may continue to do so.

I think the reason Blatham and ehBeth don't like Wiki is because the neocons didn't have horns drawn on their heads. It's reasonably unbiased. I think they may be too accustomed to press material massaging the liberal line.

"Neoconservative" is not only not a bad word--it has rich and thoughtful origins, a dynamic set of goals and fire in it's heart.

(Maybe I can get a job at Wiki!)

Smile

0 Replies

Oh yeah. I'm not Jewish. My husband thinks there is some hushed strain of Jewish heritage somewhere in his family tree, but not mine.

Fox is right about Christians' relationship with Jews being one reason I am interested in what happens with them--but truthfully, as a child I was introduced to images of human beings that no longer looked like human beings. I read Anne Frank and fell in love with the people. I guess when such incredibly strong impressions are made on us as strong-willed children, they stay with us.

I would be proud to be of Jewish heritage, but I'm not.

I hope you can understand a kinship or caring of Jews--or some other group--that isn't owing to inclusion in it.

0 Replies

I don't know more about blatham's and ebeth's reasons than they have posted (and that was quite different from what Lash says above).

Out of the numerous quotes from academics about wiki (not to mention the guidebooks re writing academic papers) I just post the first I found (Southend.Wayne.edu)

Quote:

Professor Mary Wischusen, who teaches music history to undergraduate and graduate students, says of Wikipedia, "For an undergraduate class it's just fine," but "For my graduate class I don't expect them to use it."

0 Replies

Shall we count professors who use Wiki, and those who don't?

I just don't buy the import of that info.

But, you may, with all grace.

Smile

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

I think the reason Blatham and ehBeth don't like Wiki

Lash doesn't need to think or even guess about the reason I don't trust Wikipedia anymore. My opinion about what can be found at Wikipedia is based in something quite simple ..

ehBeth wrote:

Ever since I witnessed McG's edit of a piece at Wikipedia, I've stayed well away from the site.

I went to Wiki, which I'd had some level of trust in, found a definition, and posted/linked it in a thread.

McG didn't care for the definition -

McGentrix wrote:

Really? Is that what wikipedia says? Hmmmm...maybe we should change that.

I followed him back there - discovered what had happened, reported it, and apologized to one of the moderators. They turned back the edit,

ehBeth wrote:

Quote:
Revision as of 22 June 2005 23:08
Joy Stovall (Talk | contribs)
rmv vandalism
← Older edit Current revision
69.201.41.143 (Talk | contribs)
Deleted unneccessary verbiage.
Line 1: Line 1:
In [[politics]], the term ''liberal'' refers to: In [[politics]], the term ''liberal'' refers to:
- * an adherent of the ideology of ''[[liberalism]]'' —an ideology espousing [[liberty]]. The inverse of liberty is [[tyranny]]. + * an adherent of the ideology of ''[[liberalism]]'' —an ideology espousing [[liberty]].

and I've stopped relying on Wiki for anything. It's simply to easy to tamper with - and can vary from minute to minute.

While I was looking for the moderator responsible for the page McG had mucked about

McGentrix wrote:

Excuse me? You both can pucker up.

If you want to use Wikipedia as a reference, you'd better understand what it is.

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written collaboratively by many of its readers. Lots of people are constantly improving Wikipedia, making thousands of changes an hour, all of which are recorded on the page history and the Recent Changes page."

I discovered that people were going in and changing the contents of referenced quotes etc.

If you're using Wikipedia as a reference (particularly for anything academic), I'd recommend you back your findings up with at least two other sources.

McG was right about what it is, and I do appreciate him really opening my eyes up to it.

0 Replies

In a rousing defense of me, I must say we very frequently think and even guess about why people say what they say.

In this case, you had a plausible reason, and mine was a guess.

It happens.

0 Replies

Lash, I'd already posted my reason - you didn't need to guess.

0 Replies

I forgive you.

;>

0 Replies

jespah wrote:

I was looking up hobitbob's question (and having no luck and running out of patience) but I did find this interesting graph on changing place names in the Russian Pale:
http://www.jewishgen.org/InfoFiles/ru-pale.txt

I was looking back on jes' link. I know nothing about the Russian Pale.
I'm going to read a bit, but I thought if anyone had knowledge of this area--who 'decreed' that Jews had to live there?--or any insights to this piece of Jewish history--feel free to unload here.

Smile

0 Replies

Good Grief. Beyond the Pale.

Some references and history at this site are well-known. Much of it is basic, but for those who haven't read much on thie subject, it's a good primer, I think.

I never get used to it.

0 Replies

Re: The Jews.
I think anyone that can't see the control that jews have over the US is either blind or completly ignorant. Behind every major bank, insurance company, television, newspaper there is a jewish person pulling the strings. There's nothing wrong with that per say, but if one minority controls most of the high powered companies and with that most of the economy, don't you think they also can have an impact on the government? Who runs CNN? I'll bet you he's either a Goldberg, or Steinberg or some other jewish name, look at the credits in any major film production, most directors are jews.. Steven Spielberg is a jew. Ohh wait there's a really good one.. Greenspan .. you know the guy that can raise or lower interest rates.. yupp he's a jew. These are just a few .. . Why is it that other religions / nationalities / races can be ridiculed without any major press outrage, but god forbid you say anything negative about the jews and it becomes a media frenzy! You are automatically an anti-semite, jew hater ... please .. people open your eyes!!! I don't want to put all the jews in the same box, I think a lot of them are just normal people living everyday lives ... it's the ones that are rich and in high power positions that are the root of all evil. Did you ever hear of Holocaust Inc. ? I'll bet most of you didn't, they've made sure it's been buried deep, even trying to find it on the internet is difficult.. but search for it.. read it.. German gov. paid out over 40Billion dollars in compensation to the holocaust survivors ... too bad most of that money never got to them, it got devoured by the jewish layers and who knows who else .. it's pretty sad when you rip off your own people...

0 Replies

jihad

I'm not sure where you live or what your ethnicity/religious affiliations might be. In any case, you've bought into a line of old anti-Jewish bullshit which is not merely offensive but deeply stupid and uneducated. My request is that no one here bothers to even address your remarks further.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know