<< TWO YEARS OF METAPHORICAL PURPOSE ~ MAIN ~ MYSTERIOUS CULTURE EXPLAINED >>
CONTEXT DILUTED
Damian Lataan reports some curious editing over at Margoland:
For some reason the editors at Webdiary have become frightened of using the word ‘Jewish’ and, where I have used the word ‘Jewish’, the editors have replaced that word with ‘Zionist’ which has the effect of diluting the context of the original post.
Webdiary has a history of problems with these terms.
Generally speaking, “carers” feel rather than think, don’t they?
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2005 11 30 at 06:53 PM • permalinkWell, look, they make the distinction because they want to make sure that we know they’re not anti-Semitic. They’re not anti-Jewish, they’re anti-Zionist. They have nothing against Jews like Antony Lowenstein, for instance. You know, Jews who know their place and are suitably passive so that we will be able someday to look sad and grave at future New Holocaust memorials. It’s the Zionists - Jews who fight back - that they have a problem with.
See, an anti-Semite believes the only good Jew is a dead Jew. Whereas an anti-Zionist believes the only good Jew is a dead Jew.
The thing is, in the apparently original version of his post, Lataan uses “Jewish” only twice, and both times in the construction “Jewish-American”, referring to Jews living in America. (I.e. it’s not a construction akin to “Anglo-American alliance” that describes the combination of distinct entities.)
Did they seriously change that to “Zionist-American”? That doesn’t even make sense. Too bad Lataan didn’t include a link to his comment as posted on Webdreary, because as much as I disagree with Lataan on basically everything, the stupidity that could lead to such an edit just needs to be seen to be believed.
‘Telling the History of the Twenty-First Century as it Really Is’? All five years of it? Sounds a bit grandiose to me.
At least he doesn’t—- as Webdiary does—- hide behind the strawman term “Zionist”. He thinks he, and all his kind, should come right out and be honest about his belief that the world is menaced by Jooos. An honest anti-Semite, who’da thunk?
As for “regime change” in Syria and Iran? Bring it on.
Does that mean I now am a Lutheran-American? My mom would be pleased.
Posted by Pat Patterson on 2005 11 30 at 08:27 PM • permalinkSo does that mean Flavius Antonius is really a Zionist?
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 11 30 at 08:42 PM • permalinkShoot, I’m a Zionist-American and I’m Roman Catholic…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 11 30 at 09:45 PM • permalinkI went over to Lataan’s blog. He had a post up about Mad Mark Latham (remember him?) but the first four or five replies were practically identical, flogging debt consolidation. Gee, Damian really is a carer. He won’t even hurt a spammer’s feelings.
Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2005 11 30 at 10:13 PM • permalinkRichard-God punishes those who make obscure references to ancient historians. Does that mean you helped assassinate Julius Caesar, are a blonde or going to be killed by a male prostitute? Or did you mean Flavius Antoninus?
Posted by Pat Patterson on 2005 11 30 at 10:22 PM • permalinkMmmm, when people don’t want to say they are anti-Semitic they often say they are anti-Zionist.
What they really mean is that they hate Jews, but would prefer to stand behind the safety of Zionism because it is more controversial than Judiasm.
Posted by Major Anya on 2005 11 30 at 10:23 PM • permalinkPat Paterson — The original Flavius Josephus was no historian but a propagandist. The current Flavius Antonius Loewenstein is not even entertaining enough (on purpose) to be a propagandist…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 11 30 at 11:50 PM • permalinkOK, I think I get the reference now. Then again maybe not.
Posted by Pat Patterson on 2005 12 01 at 12:03 AM • permalinkStrewth! Even Lataam’s comment spam is incomprehensible!
Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2005 12 01 at 01:02 AM • permalinkPaco — Yes, but he was infantry, so how learned can he be?
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 12 01 at 02:06 AM • permalinkSo the one anti-Semitic ratbag is calling the other anti-Semitic ratbag a ratbag becase the latter ratbag edited the former ratbag’s post to make it more anti-Semitic but in the former ratbag’s opinion the latter ratbag’s editing made the post less anti-Semitic?
Strewth. If they keep this up we’ll need a scorecard.
#1 Is a ‘rootless cosmopolitan’ a celibate from Noo Yawk?
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2005 12 01 at 03:36 AM • permalinkPixy, ‘rootless cosmopolitan’ might be a code phrase for Maureen Dowd…..
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 12 01 at 03:53 AM • permalinkwhere I have used the word ‘Jewish’, the editors have replaced that word with ‘Zionist’
Tim, next time you’re in NY I can reccommend a good zionist deli.
yum-yum, hot pastrami on zionist rye!
Posted by Mr. Bingley on 2005 12 01 at 09:07 AM • permalink“Rootless cosmopolitan” was an anti-semitic expression used in the stalinist era. I suppose it also may be applied in the context you mentioned, Debra. Arbed! I meant to say Arbed! Crap, I haven’t just outted you as one of Rove’s agents, have I? Fitzgerald’s a wuss, but incurring the ire of Rove . . . the mind reels [hurriedly gathers up passport, picture of wife and kids, puts on accurate-but-fake mustache, grabs fedora, vanishes into the teeming multitude of bureaucrats on Vermont Avenue].
From Lataan’s Blog (Oct 13 2005) under the heading ‘More on the Right-Wing’s Paranoid Fear of Conspiracy Theories’.
Part of the paranoia that is associated with so-called ‘conspiracy theories’ is the refusal to believe that any government, particularly a supposedly ‘democratic’ one, could actually do the things that are claimed. To even contemplate it means taking a step outside of their safety zone. They feel, as Jay White said, uncomfortable. The mind of most people can only be opened up just so much but beyond that it shuts down with a refusal to see any thing that might disturb their image of perceived reality.
An example. The idea that the US government could have had anything to do with 9/11 is absolutely mind boggling for most people. If it were found to be true a lot of people’s entire concepts about the very nature of man’s existence would be thrown into disarray. The whole structure upon which entire government systems are founded would be called into question. Can you imagine how the American people or, indeed, the entire world, would react if it were found that 9/11 was planned and carried out by elements of the government? Just close your eyes and imagine.
Lataaney Tunes.
“And these right-wing sheep look up at the blue sky, and in lock-step unison they agree the sky is blue. Brooking no dissent in their closed ranks, they keep repeating and embellishing the blueness of the blue sky. Freethinkers like me they are not, who can look at a blue sky, and fearlessly speak truth to power to say, ‘That sky is fuscia with plaid streaks.’”
Where is this quote from? I copied it down and I think it was posted here, but I forgot by whom.
Posted by Tatterdemalian on 2005 12 01 at 11:48 AM • permalinkAh, thank you, Paco.
Luckily for you, I’m only an aspiring agent. I currently consider myself the number one cardholder for the Rove Klub. I have my altar set up, with
iconspictures of the Dark Lord, and I do email him a bit too often for his liking, but I’m still here, as you can see.I can only dream of becoming higher in his esteem like Richard, RebeccaH and Wron.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2005 12 01 at 06:20 PM • permalink#35- We disbelieve consipacy theories in general not because we blindly follow the party line, we usually have had involvement with government at various levels, and realise the degree of competence and secrecy involved is far beyong anything as useless, leaky and cumbersome as government. Seeing as they can’t produce a budget without most major details being in the press before the treasurer’s even typed them, the ability to carry out large-scale covert operations is highly dubious.
#18: Please excuse him; he’s South Australian.
#29: Yeah, one over-the-cliff leftie slights another over-the-cliff leftie by editing comments, diluting the former’s anti-semitism.
#40: Such huge confidence in the cleverness of government machinery (while still allowing themselves to see the titular leaders as stupid) that they have no trouble believing such massive subterfuge could be pulled off. Like small kids seeing their parents as scary and at the same time omnipotent.
Anyway, there’s obviously a conspiracy to surpress legitimate conspiracy theories. We should bear this in mind.
Lataan’s “unthinkable” moment could be put into various garbs. For instance, would the left be so mad as to arrange for a false “kidnapping” of several members of a Christian anti-war group going so far as to invent an Islamist terrorist outfit, you know, one no one has ever heard of before, and have these guys hold the Christians hostage so as they could, at a certain time, either let them go (showing how the “insurgents” were in favor of Western peace people and respect them and their views and actions and really only want the U.S. out of Iraq, and, well, the Jews out of Palestine, too, while we’re at it), or, even harder to imagine (just close your eyes and try) that they might be willing to risk death to show how much they were against the war? No, too insane. Not possible. After all, these are peace people, people…and when all is said and done, they’d rather be Saint Sheehan than Rachel Corrie.
#40, 41, I’ve worked in government for a long time now and the idea that government could successfully organise a piss-up in a brewery let alone a massive conspiracy such as 9-11 is ludicrous.
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2005 12 02 at 01:01 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
I suppose it won’t be too long before Webdiary starts using “rootless cosmopolitan” as the description of choice.