So, I’m sure you eagle-eyed B-BBC readers will have spotted that the BBC has been caught out trying to downplay the impact of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s association with the Obama campaign, as picked up by Janet Daly in the Telegraph. The key line is the expression that the BBC correspondent uses when suggesting that the Reverend Jeremiah Wright is a man “whom the US media depicts” as a racially inflammatory figure. This rhetorical device rather implies that Wright is a cleric more sinned against than sinning and that is the bad US MSM which thinks Wright is a wrong-‘un, not the American people. Well, maybe not empty-headed BBC correspondents who probably get themselves excited about Wrights’ vehement anti-Semitic anti-Americanism, but I believe that millions of ordinary Americans have been shocked by this preacher’s poison So please BBC , STOP trying to shill for Obama at every opportunity and STOP trying to ameliorate his dodgy connections, stick to the facts and the primary fact in these primaries is that Rev Wright IS a race-hustling demagogue, and up until a few weeks ago he was Obama’s spiritual guru who he could no more deny than his (white) grandmother.
WRIGHT NOT WRONG?
Bookmark the permalink.
Of course what the media forget is that Wright recently stood up on TWO seperate occasionals and spouted his bile without prompt from the media (in fact he got standing ovations at both events)
No one blames Obama for Wright. What many Americans don’t understand is this.
1. Why didn’t he come out and denounce him earlier on?
2. He went to Obama’s church for 20 years, did he NEVER hear any of this crap from Wright then?
Finally the British media are ignoring the “weathermen” issue as well. This has had plenty of traction in the USA but not over here. Probably because the BBC in particular likes left wing terrorists.
I’m sure that if white preachers (like Billy Graham) said jews have a stranglehold on the media, or claimed 9/11 and AIDS were a judgement of god, then the BBC would be as generous.
For all Wrights racist nonsense the media in America has like the beeb wiht brownie stuck with obama as can be seen from yesterdays results…the left don’t like facts getting in the way of their desire for a new messiah leading them into a global disaster as Barry o adopts many of their bizarre theories about energy etc.
Wright presents the New-Testament as a race war.
“I sat in the pews for 20 years, but did not inhale”.
What anti-Semitic statements has he actually been credited with?
American Thinker
March 19, 2008
Reverend Wright: The Bible and No Jews
Peggy Shapiro
“I said that dirty word again, Israel.” This was one of the many disparaging remarks Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright made about Israel. According to Wright, Israel is occupying Arab land and has no right to its existence. He eliminates the legitimacy of the Jewish state of Israel in one speech; then he compounds the injury by usurping the Jewish historical ties to the land.
Oh — and he is a defender (and firnd apparently) of Louis Farakhan who rather famously described Judaism as a “gutter religion.”
And in his Church newsletter he allows Islamo-fascist supporters to make ludicrous claims against the Jews, even going so far at to claim Jesus was a “Palestinian” baby. Thus denying the Jews even that connection to Christianity.
So yeah, when you associate with known Jew haters, and you give them a platform, I’d say you share their views also.
Reverand Wright is a joke and a racist. Obama is going to get a kicking over this from the Republicans if he gets the nomination.
Remember what happened to the “war here” John kerry? Those speeches (from his anti Vietnam days) about American solders being baby killers? The Republicans tore him apart.
The BBC of course never reported on this, instead using wankstains like Greg Palast to make up stories about black people not being allowed to vote which explained why Bush won again. Utter rubbish of course.
“I said that dirty word again, Israel.”
As in “I said that dirty word again, Israel. Every time I say Israel Negroes get awfully quiet on you, because they scurred”? In what way is this anti-Semitism? He never claims Israel is dirty, just that discussion of it is or can be taboo. No different to B-Beeboids sarcastically referring to ‘terrorism’ as the “t-word”.
“According to Wright, Israel is occupying Arab land and has no right to its existence.”
Anti-Zionism or anti-Semitism? You might not draw the distinction but many do and the quote is framed entirely in “occupation of land” with no direct or indirect reference to Jewishness. I’m not saying there might not be anti-Semitism at the core of this statement, but that definitely requires further quotes to demonstrate it.
“He eliminates the legitimacy of the Jewish state of Israel in one speech; then he compounds the injury by usurping the Jewish historical ties to the land.”
Heavily cut and paraphrased quotes aren’t good enough I’m afraid.
“he is a defender (and firnd apparently) of Louis Farakhan who rather famously described Judaism as a “gutter religion.””
Politics makes strange bedfellows. Got anything Wright has said in agreement with Farakhan’s anti-Semitism or is it just guilt by association?
“And in his Church newsletter he allows Islamo-fascist supporters to make ludicrous claims against the Jews”
Such as…? And is this an anti-Semitism or a free speech issue? I’m sure plenty here supported Nick Griffin’s right to speak at the Oxford Union without subscribing to his ludicrous views on the “holohoax”.
“even going so far at to claim Jesus was a “Palestinian” baby.”
Seeing as Palestine is a region rather than a country, I don’t see what is a) factually incorrect or b) offensive about this, or what it really has to do with Jews.
Because a church newsletter and the Oxford Union are analogous.
In what way does the analogy not fit? If anything giving holocaust deniers the chance to address large student union is a bit more serious than giving a few crackpots the chance to address the parish in the corner of a page.
Because the Oxford Union here sees its role as providing a platform for controversial and topical figures and views that will stoke debate. Church newsletters by contrast simply tend to reflect the opinions of their pastors. They’re not political debating forums. I have never for instance seen one with the usual publishing disclaimer, ‘All views expressed in this publication are those of the contributors and are not necessarily the opinions of the publishers…”
“In what way is this anti-Semitism? He never claims Israel is dirty, just that discussion of it is or can be taboo”
Is this man a complete idiot, or just an antisemitic apologist? Wright said that Israel is a dirty word. You need to have a negative IQ to read into this what Alex is trying to read.
“No different to B-Beeboids sarcastically referring to ‘terrorism’ as the “t-word”.”
Drivel. We are being sarcastic about Al-Beeb’s REFUSAL to use ‘terrorist’, mocking its refusal. This is not even remotely analogous.
“Anti-Zionism or anti-Semitism? You might not draw the distinction but many do”
Quite. Antisemites do. Anti-Zionism, assuming that you know what Zionism means, is denying the Jews the right to their own homeland.
“and the quote is framed entirely in “occupation of land” with no direct or indirect reference to Jewishness”
Yes, Alex’s usual dumb ducking and diving. Israel is the country of the Jews, which Alex is implying he doesn’t know.
“I’m not saying there might not be anti-Semitism at the core of this statement, but that definitely requires further quotes to demonstrate it”.
LOL. Two short planks come to mind.
“Seeing as Palestine is a region rather than a country, I don’t see what is a) factually incorrect”
More drivel. Palestine was the name the Romans gave to the region 150 years later.
“or b) offensive about this, or what it really has to do with Jews”
If you are completely ignorant about the big lie of the ‘Palestinian nation’, you are a lot more ignorant than even I thought.
Alex | Homepage | 07.05.08 – 12:09 pm |
What anti-Semitic statements has he actually been credited with?
Is this close enough for you?
One cannot make a statement that Israel is somehow behind the attacks of 9/11 without it being a given that there is a Jewish Lobby influencing it all. I hope you also have good long think about what it means when Wright remarks on how “negroes get very quiet” when someone mentions Israel.
Since I assume you did not grow up around, or have ever been to or known any African Americans who are hardcore churchgoers and flock to people like Wright, then you can’t possibly understand that it is well known in the African American community that Jews are a real problem in this country. They are behind most of the ills of the black community (all slumlords are Jewish, Jewish bloodsuckers force neighborhood black-owned businesses into closing down, Jews control the media and help to promote the black-on-black violence and minstrel shows therein, etc.). When Wright speaks of Israel’s influence on anything, he speaks of Jews.
That’s why he honors Farrakhan as a great man, not because he got all the brothers to cut their hair and dress nice for a change. You can pretend now that Wright’s blanket anti-Israel statements are separate from anti-Jewish sentiment in the way that people like you separate your criticism of Israel from harboring anti-Jewish sentiment. Yes, there is a validity to criticizing Israeli policies and actions without it being automatically anti-Jew, but that’s not what Wright and his kind are on about.
Seeing as Palestine is a region rather than a country, I don’t see what is a) factually incorrect or b) offensive about this, or what it really has to do with Jews.
You are somehow missing the whole point of saying “Palestine”. Since Wright’s audience sees Jews as occupiers and oppressors, to separate Jesus from Israel separates him from being Jewish as well.
It is also important to remember that a very large contingent of African American Christians (from many denominations) believe that Jesus was actually a black man with African features. Not a Satanic Jew.
Anti semitism is a clever disease..it adopts new forms…anti zionism…pro palestinian…troothers…all just modern day blinds for age old anti semitism.If somebody says…”I’m not anti semitic but…” you can be sure they are.
Anonymous:
“Because the Oxford Union here sees its role as providing a platform for controversial and topical figures and views that will stoke debate. Church newsletters by contrast simply tend to reflect the opinions of their pastors. They’re not political debating forums.”
True, however what makes you think Wright’s intention was to publish letters he agreed with, rather than to avoid censoring ones he didn’t? Absence of a legal disclaimer is hardly enough.
Nearly Oxfordian:
“Wright said that Israel is a dirty word. You need to have a negative IQ to read into this what Alex is trying to read.”
If he didn’t mean a ‘controversial topic’ then what did he mean? Answers please.
“We are being sarcastic about Al-Beeb’s REFUSAL to use ‘terrorist’, mocking its refusal. This is not even remotely analogous.”
Maybe I didn’t make the analogy clear: “the f-word”, “the c-word”, “the n-word” are typical ways of hiding ‘dirty’ or taboo words. Biased BBC derisively uses the phrase “the t-word” to poke fun at the perceived taboo of using the word ‘terrorism’. Many people, not just Wright and even B-BBC, use the phrase ‘dirty word’ in a similar fashion to draw attention to the taboo nature of the topic at hand. Got it yet?
“Quite. Antisemites do.”
You know Zionism got a surprising amount of support from anti-Semites at the start. Even Herzl spotted this. Weird but sort of makes sense. And of course Adolf Eichmann travelled all the way to Palestine to look into the possibility of Zionism. Which means that even if all anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic not all anti-Semitism is anti-Zionist. So your idea that they are exactly the same thing is ludicrous
“Israel is the country of the Jews, which Alex is implying he doesn’t know.”
As I said, did Wright deny Jews the right to build their country on Arab land on the grounds that it was Arab land or on the grounds that they were Jews?
“ Anti-Zionism, assuming that you know what Zionism means, is denying the Jews the right to their own homeland.”
If it’s a very general anti-Zionism, yes. Denying Jews the right to their own homeland in a specific place and by specific means could quite possibly have more to do with the place and the means than with the Jews. It probably varies from anti-Zionist to anti-Zionist.
What would be useful is a few quotes on his attitude to Diaspora Jews, so we know it’s about Jews and not just regional politics.
But listen, if you want to hammer two distinct concepts together into one simplistic definition, that’s fine, you can come out and say “Wright is an anti-Zionist, which is just as bad as an anti-Semite anyway”.
“Palestine was the name the Romans gave to the region 150 years later.”
What country did Dante Aligheri live in? I’ll give you a clue: he lived a long time before Garibaldi.
“If you are completely ignorant about the big lie of the ‘Palestinian nation’, you are a lot more ignorant than even I thought.”
Did you read the bit about “Palestine is a region and not a country”? You replied to it and included the word ‘region’, so I’ll assume you are being obtuse and wilfully misrepresenting my words here.
David Preiser:
“Is this close enough for you?”
Not really as I can’t get the sound to work. I’ll get back to you.
“Since I assume you did not grow up around, or have ever been to or known any African Americans who are hardcore churchgoers and flock to people like Wright”
True – living in Europe it’s a bit of a commute to find them.
“it is well known in the African American community that Jews are a real problem in this country. They are behind most of the ills of the black community”
This may or may not be the case, however it has little direct bearing on Wright unless you can quote him saying something similar.
“When Wright speaks of Israel’s influence on anything, he speaks of Jews.”
Israeli Jews, Diaspora Jews or both and what makes you say so?
Boy you really are keen to defend an anti-Semite. Truly amazing.
Alex: “True, however what makes you think Wright’s intention was to publish letters he agreed with, rather than to avoid censoring ones he didn’t?”
Because it’s a church newsletter, not a current affairs magazine? Because that’s the presumption and the reason publishers started using that disclaimer I mentioned? Because it fits the broad pattern of his behaviour (support for Louis Farakhan and so on)? Because there is nothing to suggest otherwise? Because absolutely all the available evidence points that way, and none the other? What, apart from a desire to be contrary, make you think otherwise?
“Because it’s a church newsletter, not a current affairs magazine?”
Irrelevant. He could still have a policy of publishing letters he thought interesting or representative of his congregation even if he didn’t agree with them.
“Because that’s the presumption and the reason publishers started using that disclaimer I mentioned?”
Unless parish newsletters have generally adopted the practice, this is also no kind of evidence that he agrees with everything on the letters page.
“Boy you really are keen to defend an anti-Semite. Truly amazing.”
No, I’m defending a non-anti-Semite. See how this works? You lot really are keen to defend some unfounded and almost random accusations.
Well, he sure is a champion of free speech. Here’s an excerpt from that (open, 1,600 word) letter:
“In fact, South Africa allowed Israel to test its nuclear weapons in the ocean off South Africa. The Israelis were given a blank check: they could test whenever they desired and did not even have to ask permission. Both worked on an ethnic bomb that kills Blacks and Arabs….”
He must be the Larry Flint of black power preaching.
And what’s his excuse for Louis Farakhan’s anti-semitism? Well, apparently it all relates to comments he made 20 years ago. But, as you say, politics makes strange bedfellows. Only, he’s not a politician. And generally if you say you greatly admire a guy who’s renowned as an anti-semite people tend to assume you’re one too. I don’t think that’s so unfair myself.
Again, connections, connections but no actual word from the man himself. And yes politics does make strange bedfellows, as although he’s not exactly running for Congress, he is fairly politically active.
And “tend to assume” is not quite enough for things like “Wrights’ vehement anti-Semitic” as Vance puts it.
Alex | Homepage | 07.05.08 – 12:09 pm |
Alex | Homepage | 07.05.08 – 2:34 pm |
Alex | Homepage | 07.05.08 – 3:04 pm |
Alex | Homepage | 07.05.08 – 6:44 pm |
Alex | Homepage | 07.05.08 – 7:12 pm |
Alex | Homepage | 07.05.08 – 8:24 pm |
Yawn.
Another yawn
Alex,
It most certainly is the case that anti-Semitism is prevalent in the African American community.
Please refrain from commenting further until you hear the audio of the Wright clip. Without having done so, you can’t say nobody has given you the words from the man himself.
While you’re waiting for someone to show you how to get sound from YouTube, please educate yourself about the reality of anti-Semitism in the African-American community:
The number of African-Americans with strong anti-Semitic beliefs continued to remain high and stable since 1992. The 2005 survey found that 36% of African-Americans hold strong anti-Semitic beliefs, four times more than the 9% for whites. In 1992 it was 37%; 1998 • 34%; 2002- 35%.
“We continue to remain troubled and somewhat at a loss to understand why African-Americans consistently have such strong anti-Semitic propensities,” said Mr. Foxman.
The above came from this ADL Survey report:
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASUS_12/4680_12.htm
Here’s more about the rising anti-Jew sentiment amongst African American intellectuals:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-17924263.html
Israeli Jews, Diaspora Jews or both and what makes you say so?
Both, because Wright and his kind say so – constantly. Of course, you know this perfectly well. You also know perfectly well that Wright’s endorsement and public encomiums to Farrakhan indicate his sympathy and and agreement.
Lastly, surely you are aware of the big speech Obama gave last month that was supposed to bring us all past this divisiveness. You know the one – where Obama said he could no longer disown Wright for those statement than he could his own white, racist grandmother. You must have been at least aware of the discussion. Now, if Wright’s beliefs were not prevalent amongst blacks, why would Obama try to tell us that Wright’s remarks were a part and parcel of America, a part of who Obama is?
You can’t answer that either, because you don’t really know. You’ve just gone back to the automatic gainsaying of any statement people make. You are taking up a contradictory position for no other reason than to argue the point. You cannot honestly tell me you don’t know why I would make such an assumption about Wright. Why are you doing this?
“While you’re waiting for someone to show you how to get sound from YouTube, please educate yourself about the reality of anti-Semitism in the African-American community…Wright’s beliefs were not prevalent amongst blacks, why would Obama try to tell us that Wright’s remarks were a part and parcel of America, a part of who Obama is?”
Well done. You have demonstrated that many African-Americans share Wright’s beliefs and that many African-Americans are anti-Semitic. Unfortunately this isn’t the same as demonstrating that Wright is himself an anti-Semite.
“Both, because Wright and his kind say so – constantly.”
What were his exact words?
Actually what matters is that a lot of white people that Obama will need to vote for him in November DO think that he is linked to what Wright said. The Replublicans will work on that.
Obama has said himself that the Wright issue and his relationship with him is a legitimate issue (he said that on Fox News with Chris Wallace) so what counts is what people HEAR coming from the mouth of Wright. Most Americans are not going to sit down and micro analyse the deep meaning of what Wright says.
I also suspect there may be more of this taped stuff just waiting to come out.
Also, Wright isn’t going away. I’m sure Obama would be happy for Wright to end up at the bottom of a deep well for the next 6 months, but that isn’t going to happen. Wright is out to make a name for himself, shouting his mouth off will attact the press like flies round shit.
Obama’s other big problem is that Hillary looks like she might want to do a deal to be his running mate and therefoer vice president. Now I’m sure Obama might think well she’d help get the blue collar white voters onside, but does he really want her in the shadows?
She’d do it half hoping he might catch a bullet, giving her the Presidency and I’m sure Obama doesn’t want the Clintons hanging round the White House again.
But he might be forced to do a deal to end this ongoing battle. Hmm.
Alex | Homepage | 07.05.08 – 10:21 pm |
Well done. You have demonstrated that many African-Americans share Wright’s beliefs and that many African-Americans are anti-Semitic. Unfortunately this isn’t the same as demonstrating that Wright is himself an anti-Semite.
“Both, because Wright and his kind say so – constantly.”
What were his exact words?
Why are you commenting without looking at the video clip? Wright’s exact words are there for you to hear, if you dare. Pretending you can’t get the sound to work is no good. You have no right to continue to argue if you refuse to look at the evidence presented.
As for my claim that Wright and others say that he is representative of the Black Church, and that his beliefs are widespread, I offer you more pieces of evidence to ignore:
Go over to a friend’s place and look at all of Wright’s YouTube videos. He teaches that Jesus was black, not like Jews of today. This is the very foundation of all Black Israelite and Black Liberation-based Christianity. If you are interested at all, please spend some time on your own learning about the very high percentage of African Americans who believe that Jesus was black with negroid features. All anti-Semitic sentiment in these groups is justified by this religious tenet.
Wright allows guest sermons in his weekly “Pastor’s Pages”, which is given out to the flock in church. In these he promotes Hamas propaganda, as well as an open letter to Oprah from a Palestinian activist in which he accuses Israel of blood libel for colluding with the White Supremacists in South Africa for working “on an ethnic bomb that kills Blacks and Arabs.” (Pg. 10) Surely you won’t try to say that just because a reverend includes someone else’s letter in with his own preaching doesn’t mean he agrees with the content of that letter.
Click to access tuccbulletin_june10.pdf
Here’s proof that Wright thinks he is representative of the Black Church (it’s video, but if you can’t be bothered to work it there is text explaining all to you):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/28/AR2008042800446.html
Oh, and Wright apparently used to be a Black Muslim. Who have what kind of attitude towards Jews again?
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/04/10/jeremiah-wright-was-a-muslim-why-that-matters/
Alex: “And “tend to assume” is not quite enough for things like “Wrights’ vehement anti-Semitic” as Vance puts it.”
Actually, it probably is, since this is a blog and not a British libel trial. All that needs to be shown is that this is a far more likely explanation for his praise of a well-known anti-semite and publishing anti-semitic conspiracy theories than your alternative (politics makes strange bedfellows/he’s very keen on the first amendment). That’s not very hard to do.
Sound works now. It’s amazing how many I.T. problems really can be solved just by turning it off and on again:
For a start, even the Fox News commentator doesn’t say anything stronger than “seems to take a pop at”. If Fox News are going soft on Wright by comparison, you need to rethink your position.
But let’s look at the “anti-Semitic” bits. The dirty word we’ve covered. There’s:
“Racism which still supports both here and in Israel”
He claims there is racism in Israel. My God he’s worse than Hitler.
And there’s “You don’t see the connection between 9/11/01 and the Israeli-Palestinian, you wanna borrow my glasses?”
So the Israeli-Palestinian was behind 9/11? Does he mean “conflict” or is he blaming the Israeli Arab for the attacks? Most people would assume the former and that this means that the conflict is among the many reasons why Al-Qaeda aren’t particularly big fans of the USA. Your reading of “The Jews were behind 9/11” makes no sense whatsoever in conjunction with the “-Palestinian” bit, and I can see no alternative to you having deliberately misrepresented the quote.
Now your other claims:
“He teaches that Jesus was black, not like Jews of today…All anti-Semitic sentiment in these groups is justified by this religious tenet.”
False logic. The fact that some anti-Semitism is based on an idea does not prove that the idea itself is anti-Semitic, as well you should know. You might as well argue that “Jews eat Matzohs” is anti-Semitic because many anti-Semites add bits about Christian babies. Besides – Beta Israel?
“Surely you won’t try to say that just because a reverend includes someone else’s letter in with his own preaching doesn’t mean he agrees with the content of that letter.”
I would have thought that was exactly how a ‘guest sermon’ might work. But you see we can’t prove either way without some kind of direct commentary from the man himself.
“Here’s proof that Wright thinks he is representative of the Black Church”
He says the press’ attacks were less against his personal beliefs and more against the general beliefs of the black Church. Not so much proof as a vague implication, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. So I’ll assume he “thinks he is representative”. This means he thinks generally the Black Church holds his views. It is not the same as “agrees with the Black Church on every issue”.
“Oh, and Wright apparently used to be a Black Muslim. Who have what kind of attitude towards Jews again?”
Meaningless generalisation. Especially in the context of “used to be”.
Now your theory contains an awful lot of “Wright and his kind”, “Wright’s friends” and not a lot of “Wright”. In fact you don’t seem to have proven anything about him other than that he’s black and a Christian preacher.
Look at it this way: if it doesn’t look like a duck, it doesn’t walk like a duck, and it doesn’t quack like a duck, the chances are it’s not really a duck.
Alex: I would have thought that was exactly how a ‘guest sermon’ might work.
Er, have you ever been in a church? Church leaders are not, I’m afraid, in the habit of giving a platform to those whose views they find objectionable. Pastors don’t tend to see their churches or church newsletters as debating chambers.
To refresh: the evidence is that he praises well-known anti-semites and publishes anti-semitic conspiracy theories. The explanation is either he is, as appears, anti-semitic, or he’s a passionate first-amendment campaigner who has forged a political alliance with Farakhan for unidentified ends that force to overlook his racist tendancies. The first looks more likely. Looks, walks and sounds like a duck to me.
Can someone propose a theory about why exactly Abu Alex is trying to prove that nobody has ever been an antisemite?
David Preiser (USA) | 08.05.08 – 6:33 am |
Totally David.
And Obama has followed this man for 20 years.
The Obama who doesn’t genuinely believe in God seeing as though he attributes religious belief in mid-west red necks to false consciousness caused by economic deprivation.
You know what I think? I think Obama is a bono-fide race mystic and ethno-centrist. His touchstone reference in life is black people. Blackness is his sublime and life affirming mystery. Obama is a decadent charlatan.
Obama the muppet believes he has a genetically-based gift for racial healing. “That’s in my DNA, trying to promote mutual understanding to insist that we all share common hopes and common dreams as Americans and as human beings. That’s who I am.” (Barack Obama outlining his new racial imperialism, 4/29/08)
But it is unacceptable to say that good or bad genes can contribute to intelligence, especially to differences among racial or gender groups, where no group differences can be admitted to exist, even though the brain is part of the biological/chemical human machine and can presumably be hard-wired with a gift of racial healing, and even as group differences invariably show up on IQ tests and other measures of intelligence and performance.
The PC creeps, of course, have no problem with promulgating falsehood. Truth is the real danger.
“To refresh: the evidence is that he praises well-known anti-semites and publishes anti-semitic conspiracy theories…Looks, walks and sounds like a duck to me.”
Again, proof he knows and associates with anti-Semites plus conjecture, no proof that he is one. Geese, swans, coots and great crested grebes have all been known to associate with ducks.
“Can someone propose a theory about why exactly Abu Alex is trying to prove that nobody has ever been an antisemite?”
Occam’s razor. I’m not, and (again) nothing I have said implies that. What might be more useful is a theory as to why B-Beeboids feel they can throw the vile ‘anti-Semitism’ accusation at pretty much everyone they don’t like, from Wright to Bowen to Norman Finkelstein, and not have to provide any evidence.
Posting lies, smears and distortions may make you feel terribly self-righteous in your looking-glass world of antisemitic indignation, mate, but they don’t cut any mustard with sane people. Bio and Bryan and Martin and I have posted tons of evidence. It’s not our fault if your reading skills have been fried by your Jew-hating hysteria.
Bowen churns out anti-Israel lies every time his lips move. That makes him an antisemite. Likewise, Finkelstein and Wright are condemned as antisemites from their own mouths. You also.
“Bowen churns out anti-Israel lies every time his lips move.”
Quotes please.
“That makes him an antisemite.”
Whether criticism of Israeli policy amounts to criticism of the Jewish people as a whole depends heavily on the nature and grounding of the criticism. Quotes please.
“Likewise, Finkelstein”
Odd, considering Finkelstein is a Jew himself. It has been done before, but you really would have to tie yourself in knots to hate your own people. I’d like to see how he does this. Quotes please.
“and Wright are condemned as antisemites from their own mouths.”
We’ve just been over this. Nobody has found anything from Wright’s own mouth. But I’m sure you can. Quotes please.
“You also.”
As I have stated before, this is a particularly foul personal accusation and one that should not be made lightly. Quotes please.
I will comment on one of the above idiocies only:
You can be an antisemitic Jew. Being an antisemite is a function of what ideas you promote, not of your ethnicity. Basing the judgement on the ethnicity of the person promoting the ideas is called RACIST. Therefore, claiming that he cannot be an antisemite because he is Jewish is a RACIST statement.
“Therefore, claiming that he cannot be an antisemite because he is Jewish is a RACIST statement.”
I’m well aware of this. Which is why I referred to it as ‘odd’ rather than ‘impossible’ and very carefully pointed out that “it has been done before”. Did you actually read my post or just notice my name and hit Ctrl-V?
Maybe the clue is in this bit:
“I will comment on one of the above idiocies only”
But I guess that Alex is incapable of making logical deductions from a simple piece of English prose. Quelle surprise.
Which you clearly didn’t read in its entirety. I’d say you’ve commented on about a third of an idiocy if that.
I note you steadfastly refuse to defend your unfounded accusations of anti-Semitism against me.
Alex, you really are pathetic. I shredded your idiotic ‘argument’ that F’s ethnicity has ANYTHING to do with the judgement one can make on his antisemitism by referring to what he actually says (which you tried to deny by saying “Odd, considering Finkelstein is a Jew himself” – irrelevant and immaterial, like most of your attempts to construct an argument). You want to call it ‘a third of an idiocy if that’ and feel smug and terribly clever? Be my guest.
You are a waste of time, aka troll. You are incapable of engaging in rational argument. Trying to get a sensible response from you is worse than trying to nail jelly to a wall. I did try, but you simply don’t understand the concept of grown-up argument. I really have better things to do.
“you simply don’t understand the concept of grown-up argument.”
I don’t think you’re really in a position to complain about “grown-up arguments”, considering that most of your arguments are based heavily intentionally misreading my comments, making crude personal insults and thinking up amusing nick-names based on everyday Arabic words.
“Is this man a complete idiot, or just an antisemitic apologist? Wright said that Israel is a dirty word. You need to have a negative IQ to read into this what Alex is trying to read.”
“LOL. Two short planks come to mind.”
“Yes, Alex’s usual dumb ducking and diving. Israel is the country of the Jews, which Alex is implying he doesn’t know.”
“Can someone propose a theory about why exactly Abu Alex is trying to prove that nobody has ever been an antisemite?”
“It’s not our fault if your reading skills have been fried by your Jew-hating hysteria.”
“But I guess that Alex is incapable of making logical deductions from a simple piece of English prose.”
“I will comment on one of the above idiocies only:”
“You are a waste of time”
“Trying to get a sensible response from you is worse than trying to nail jelly to a wall.”
Now have you got any quotes or evidence to back up your claims that Wright is an anti-Semite “from his own mouth” or that I am an anti-Semite in any shape or form?
“I don’t think you’re really in a position to complain about “grown-up arguments”, considering that most of your arguments are based heavily intentionally misreading my comments”
From the pen of an asshole who ‘knows’ that I ‘intentionally’ misread his comments. And who has NO concept of what an argument consists of.
Alex | Homepage | 10.05.08 – 9:10 am |
If Fox News are going soft on Wright by comparison, you need to rethink your position.
Irrelevant. Why should I care what some Fox News talking head says or doesn’t say? Why on earth would you assume that Fox News is some ultimate source of talking points that I must follow?
But let’s look at the “anti-Semitic” bits. The dirty word we’ve covered. There’s:
“Racism which still supports both here and in Israel”
He claims there is racism in Israel. My God he’s worse than Hitler.
And there’s “You don’t see the connection between 9/11/01 and the Israeli-Palestinian, you wanna borrow my glasses?”
So the Israeli-Palestinian was behind 9/11? Does he mean “conflict” or is he blaming the Israeli Arab for the attacks? Most people would assume the former and that this means that the conflict is among the many reasons why Al-Qaeda aren’t particularly big fans of the USA. Your reading of “The Jews were behind 9/11” makes no sense whatsoever in conjunction with the “-Palestinian” bit, and I can see no alternative to you having deliberately misrepresented the quote.
Deliberately misrepresenting? You’re the one selectively picking words here. You’re also dancing around Wright’s words, pretending they don’t mean what they do. Most people would assume the same thing that you do: Israel and the Jews pull the strings of Bush and the US Gov’t. Plain and simple. I know you will deny that because he didn’t say those exact words here, but you would be lying only to yourself. The rest of us understand a thing called “context”. Why else would Wright wryly remark that black people suddenly get all quiet when he mentions Israel? Why is the US-Israel association so meaningful?
Aside from that, I suppose you are completely ignorant of the fact that the Palestinian situation had basically nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks – and that is according to Bin Laden himself. Do your homework. Al Qaeda’s support for the Palestinians started only after they started seeing that it was a popular cause amongst Western media types. Only anti-Semites believe that the Jews control the US Government to an extent that we have total control over US policy in the Middle East. That’s what’s going on here, if we’re honest.
Now your other claims:
“He teaches that Jesus was black, not like Jews of today…All anti-Semitic sentiment in these groups is justified by this religious tenet.”
False logic. The fact that some anti-Semitism is based on an idea does not prove that the idea itself is anti-Semitic, as well you should know. You might as well argue that “Jews eat Matzohs” is anti-Semitic because many anti-Semites add bits about Christian babies. Besides – Beta Israel?
False logic? You must be joking. The very essence of the idea that Jesus was a Black Man is that people who claim to be Jews today are not the true Jews. That’s the foundation of the entire theology. You really don’t understand what you’re saying, do you?
“Surely you won’t try to say that just because a reverend includes someone else’s letter in with his own preaching doesn’t mean he agrees with the content of that letter.”
I would have thought that was exactly how a ‘guest sermon’ might work. But you see we can’t prove either way without some kind of direct commentary from the man himself.
Now you’re just lying for the sake of argument, aren’t you? Or do you actually think what you’ve said here is at all logical? This isn’t an opposing view guest spot on some Radio 4 programme. This is a religious publication, given to the flock by their spiritual leader. All contents are assumed to be approved 100% by the religious leader. That’s what it’s for. I don’t know what planet you’re from, but here congregational leaders do not put things in their own newsletters if they don’t approve of them.
“Here’s proof that Wright thinks he is representative of the Black Church”
He says the press’ attacks were less against his personal beliefs and more against the general beliefs of the black Church. Not so much proof as a vague implication, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. So I’ll assume he “thinks he is representative”. This means he thinks generally the Black Church holds his views. It is not the same as “agrees with the Black Church on every issue”.
You are conveniently leaving out two things: Obama himself made Wright the face of the Black Church in America, and practically every single African American pundit – religious figure or not – has said as much. If you followed any news other than the BBC, you’d know that. Please do some research on the current state of affairs before you comment further.
“Oh, and Wright apparently used to be a Black Muslim. Who have what kind of attitude towards Jews again?”
Meaningless generalisation. Especially in the context of “used to be”.
Now your theory contains an awful lot of “Wright and his kind”, “Wright’s friends” and not a lot of “Wright”. In fact you don’t seem to have proven anything about him other than that he’s black and a Christian preacher.
Look at it this way: if it doesn’t look like a duck, it doesn’t walk like a duck, and it doesn’t quack like a duck, the chances are it’s not really a duck.
Um, yes, but you have to know what a duck looks like first. You obviously don’t, or are struggling very hard not to.
It’s time to leave this blog, Alex. You are accomplishing nothing here.
“Um, yes, but you have to know what a duck looks like first. You obviously don’t, or are struggling very hard not to”
Quite so, David. I said much the same thing when I pointed out that according to Alex, NOBODY is ever guilty of antisemitism.
“Most people would assume the same thing that you do: Israel and the Jews pull the strings of Bush and the US Gov’t. Plain and simple.”
So why did he say “The Israeli-Palestinian” and not “Israel”? It makes no sense. What actually is this connection he’s talking about? I didn’t get a go at his glasses, you see.
“The very essence of the idea that Jesus was a Black Man is that people who claim to be Jews today are not the true Jews.”
Or possibly that, due to some hefty racial intermingling in that area, many followers of the Jewish faith at that time could have been Black. Many are today. Or there could be a hefty amount of symbolism in there. Is this a literal Black Jesus or a symbolic one?
“This is a religious publication, given to the flock by their spiritual leader. All contents are assumed to be approved 100% by the religious leader.”
100%? Really? Not 98% or 99%? I would have thought the whole idea of a guest sermon would be a slightly different opinion to the Pastor’s. Something he generally agreed with and thought was quite interesting, but wouldn’t necessarily go along with every opinion. I would also think this is especially the case when the author refers to “our Islamic teachings”.
“Obama himself made Wright the face of the Black Church in America, and practically every single African American pundit – religious figure or not – has said as much.”
Again, not proof that ideas held in the Black Church are Wright’s. No Pope has ever claimed that unbaptised babies go to Hell, in fact many have said the opposite. Yet there are still a fair few Catholics who believe so. And the Pope is a far more official head of his Church than Wright is of his.
Alex, you are out to lunch. And now so am I.
“Or possibly that, due to some hefty racial intermingling in that area, many followers of the Jewish faith at that time could have been Black”
Could have been. They could have been all kinds of things. This kind of bizarre speculation is no substitute for rational argument. Are you claiming that he was making a statement about the DNA of Jews in the first century?
Out to lunch, indeed …
“Could have been. They could have been all kinds of things.”
My point exactly. There are lots of possibilities, and so it is very likely that someone living at that time could be both of the Jewish faith, related by blood to the Jews of today, and yet be of African descent.
“Are you claiming that he was making a statement about the DNA of Jews in the first century?”
No, I am claiming that because, as we agree, Jesus’ ethnicity and that of his Jewish contemporaries could have been so many things, even to believe that he was literally black is not necessarily to believe that “the people who claim to be Jews today are not the true Jews”, as David Preiser claims.
“This kind of bizarre speculation is no substitute for rational argument.”
I am not arguing over Jesus’ race, I am arguing whether belief in one particular race necessarily negates his Jewishness. Therefore speculation as to his possible race is essential to a rational argument as it shows the possible implications of the ‘Black Jesus’ theory. By demonstrating that Blackness and Jewishness are not mutually exclusive, I intend to show David Preiser’s logical leap from belief in a Black Jesus to shameless anti-Semitism to be false.
“My point exactly. There are lots of possibilities, and so it is very likely that someone living at that time could be both of the Jewish faith, related by blood to the Jews of today, and yet be of African descent”
Hardly ‘your point exactly’ – I was being ironical.
We have no way of establishing that Jesus WAS African, and it’s highly unlikely. Using that very remote possibility as an argument is clutching at straws, to say the least.