Anti-Imperialism & Anti-Humanist Rhetoric of Gilad Atzmon

[Searcher08]

I mean, could there POSSIBLY be anyone on the board who is unaware that Alice makes and enforces the rules according to which it's acceptable to talk about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict around here? Or that she's ceaselessly, boundlessly punitive to those who don't follow them to the minutest letter or the law?
I'd like to hear from them, if so. I'm not complaining, mind you. I'm actually sympathetic to Alice, overall. But I really, really object to this pretense that there's a pro-Israel gang of bullies roaming these threads. It's not true. And it's also not fair that AD, in particular, has to be subjected to both vicious bullying and accusations that he's a bully.
So if it's not necessary, it would really be nice to see a little less of it.

On the other hand... there is the mirror image of what you wrote.
I mean, could there POSSIBLY be anyone on the board who is unaware that AD makes and enforces the rules according to which it's acceptable to talk about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict around here? Or that he's ceaselessly, boundlessly punitive to those who don't follow them to the minutest letter or the law?
I'd like to hear from them, if so.

Yes. I am such a person. And, lest we forget, it's not like I'm a person who's never had any heated disagreements with AD over the justice with which he was characterizing my views, myself. Further, I wouldn't dispute that he often responds to dissent by copping what I'd describe as a morally judgmental -- and therefore softly censorious -- more-politically-correct-than-thou attitude. He can also be tenacious to a fault. (As can I.)

I think that is a 'reverse damning with faint praise'. Because when you yourself were driven to the point of verballing abusing him (IIRC you told him to fuck off in all caps) because he was CopyPastaing.

But he doesn't use intimidation tactics, or lay down the law from on-high, or otherwise seek to impose on the freedom with which others express themselves in any way that amounts to either abuse (in itself) or an abuse of power. That I've ever seen.

That you have ever noticed. Which is different.

He occasionally uses the start-your-own-thread gambit, when it's his OP. But a lot of posters do that, on their own threads. In fact, most, I'd say.

I agree

I've never seen boundlessly punitive behavior from AD.

I have been at the receiving end of it. If you want the gory details, see most exchanges between him and me regarding David Icke.

Basically. Ceaselessly disputatious behavior, sure. Absolutely.
But that does take two.

It doesn't take two to have a primarily single source CopyPasta avalanche - and for you to equate someone who is (perhaps insanely naively) trying to have a fruitful exploration with someone doing that, I would tend to say your argument is baloney.

And genuine disputes about legitimately contested issues on legitimate grounds do frequently occur here. After all.

I dont see much 'legitimate contestation' going on in this thread from him.

And wrt this thread, specifically, I'm not aware of one single aspect of the subject that AD has put off-limits for discussion,

Even when I responded to a bunch of his CopyPasta, my response/ MORE Same source Greenstein CopyPasta!!!
Questions unanswered and ignored are control mechanisms and thwarters of transparency.

or unilaterally targeted anyone else for a campaign of personal shaming and hostile reprisals in connection with.
Whereas, conversely, you (for example) have repeatedly and explicitly accused AD of being a booster for Israel

Untrue.
I really don't think you can step in my shoes or have empathy for how really awful I have found AD, Cuda and your behaving in this thread. For you to manipulate it this way is very poor. I find it fascinating how you go about reframing the victim into being the aggressor. So you remember an imaginary episode of me accusing AD of support for Israel, but dont remember me being called a nazi, twice, just a couple of days ago? Riiiiiight. I'll come back to that

-- thus, essentially, calling him a liar, since he's never said one pro-Israeli word that I've ever noticed -- because he objects to antisemitism.

As AD achnowledged just a few pages back, and I agreed with him, this thread has not even come up with an agreed working defininition of what that is. And I know that what I call it seems to be sure as hell different from what AD thinks
MAybe you can answer my question, as I have asked it several times. When someone posts sources of obviously well researched critiques of every spiritual process on planet Earth but leaves out one, how come?

And, I mean, you're free to argue that Atzmon's words are not antisemitic, if you think they aren't. Of course. But I don't think you can really argue that the only thing that anyone who objected to them on those grounds could conceivably be responding to was what he said about Israel. Because very, very little of what he says is (in fact) about Israel. It's mostly about Jews.

Please re-read the above paragraph, because for someone who loves words, having my discourse bounded by "your free to argue about X" but "you are not free to argue about Y" is a mode of expression that I would like you to keep in mind. Because when you use it, it lands with me as much much more an attempt at circumscribing than speaking metaphorically. Which I dont think is your intention. However, it is what it means to me.
As I have said repeatedly and consistently from the beginning of this thread, I am a lot more interested in the response to Atzmon and Finklestein. I am also very averse to bullying and intimidation and 'blaming the victim' is just naff.

Also conversely:
It's been crystal clear from the very start of this thread -- and, actually, before it -- that all mention of the Holocaust as a causative or influential factor in Israel. or among zionists/Jews amounted to a statement of support for the Likud.

Crystal clear to whom? Certainly not to me. The Holocaust in the Jewish case or The famine in the Irish case or The Holomodor in Ukraine, I would put as having VERY influential factors in their respective cultures, whether through what was happened, what was buried or what was forgotten.

And it's also been crystal-clear for most of it that all mention of antisemitism -- not excluding use of the word or acknowledgment of the phenomenon -- was irrational (at best) and suspect (at worst).

Given that upstream there is no agreed definition, how is this surprising?
Example: When Foxman was showing the 'Defamation' filmmaker examples of the above, I was expecting people hospitalised, being beaten up, hate mail campaigns - all sorts of crap like that. Instead it seemed like an exercise in shoegazing. "Well, a nurse had a problem getting off work"

And, sorry, kids.

I already have a Mommy, but thanks for offering and I'm sure you are very nice!

But that does really, really skew the terms of the discussion. Away from reality. Israel is wrong. And since wrong is wrong, nothing changes that. But it's insane and self-defeating to re-write history in order to make the forces you oppose for doing something really wrong into more emotionally satisfying and conveniently all-purpose villains.

Away from reality as experienced and lived by WHOM? And who is re-writing history?
Personally, I really dont think it is useful to frame Israel as being wrong. I think people can be wrong. Also you are talking about 'wrong' as if it is universally agreed. It isnt.See any Python film for examples. I think it is more useful to have a systems definition.
As Stafford Beer says: The purpose of a system IS WHAT IT DOES.
So among the functions of Israel is that it is a urban clearence and accomodation re-distribution system and live weapons testing system.

As I've said repeatedly, my primary problem with the History of Zionism According to Alice (as well as the discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict according to the conventions of this board) actually isn't that it's antisemitic. It's that it's based on false premises that are (effectively) mandatory, due to the inadmissibility of any and all elements that might attest to the reality of antisemitism. That's really not a minor fucking handicap to comprehension, when you're talking about people the vast majority of whom it would be more accurate to describe as "refugees" than as "zionists." Which is what you're talking about when you're talking about Jews in Palestine/Israel between (roughly)1920 and 1970.
I don't say that for any reason other than that it's true.
I'm afraid you're going to have to show me the countervailing repressive tendencies, if there are any. Because I don't see them.

I am not schooled in, nor TBH hugely interested in the history of Zionism - this seems to be a line that only you and Alice can explore, because you both seem to know a great deal about it.

I'm not complaining, mind you. I'm actually sympathetic to AD, overall. But I really, really object to this pretense that there's a anti-Semite gang of bullies roaming these threads. It's not true.
And it's also not fair that Alice, in particular, has to be subjected to both vicious bullying and accusations that she's a bully.
So if it's not necessary, it would really be nice to see a little less of it.

You can't really say that credibly, because you've never staunchly defended and/or praised AD.

Do you know the Engligh phrase "What Absolute Utter Pants!!!!"??
My praise and admiration has been expressed many times. IIRC I have also staunchly defended him against, of all people - YOU! Ironically because he was CopyPastaing, although from multiple sources, but you went ballistic.
I have been lavish with my praise for AD, particularly regarding the TIDS thread, which is one of the most valuable threads IMHO R.I. has had, in terms of humour, and exposing vast numbers of stones that were worth turning over. It isnt really a discussion thread, it's more like an exhibition. Sometimes I have contributed complementary artwork in it.
OTOH, what you say is the reverse of accurate. There is NO goodwill, praise, support, engagement from him. Period.

I've had very serious problems with Alice's behavior on this thread. But historically, while I've often bickered with Alice, I've equally often agreed with her, and regularly made it clear that I respected and admired her. Which I do.

I have had with Cuda's - and the rest of your paragraph above applies with him.

It's also not a true analogy, in that Alice is very, very rarely seriously challenged by any poster other than AD about anything.

What is your evidence base for a statement like that? It seems to have just materialised out of thin air. I'm laughing (with not at) as I write this as it sounds like some sort of King(Queen?!) Of The Castle. I have memories of slugging it out with her for pages, on multiple occasions. What is your point? You and her are evenly matched.

And when she is challenged by him (or, on occasion by traditionally non-dirty fighters such as barracuda, or JackRiddler, or I-hope-me) popular board opinion is largely -- if not exclusively -- on her side. AD, on the other hand, has dedicated, hostile persecutors.

First, when you basically react to a particular AD behaviour in the same way as several people on this thread, it is 'robust disagrement' but when anyone else does it is hopstile persecution? Hmmmmmm.
Is this the same AD that IIRC you screaming an all caps F*** Y**!! and being warned by Cuda? Because he was copy-pastaing - and it drove you nuts? And WHERE did you get this category of 'traditionally non-dirty fighters'? Is there some sort of super-secret Fight Club
fight rating scheme going on no one told me about??? Who are the 'dirty' fighters?
AD has people who he often drives nuts, You, c2w, have been one of them.
As for 'Dedicated hostile persecutors'? Alice had him on ignore; slim? cos I've never seen AD engage with him except through cartoons; myself cos I dont think it's cool to ignore questions like why do you never ever ever post anything critical of organisations like the ADL, JINSDA and AIPAC when you do about everyone else.My issue is that the person behind the copypasta is much more insightful than the Greenstein garbage he posts or anti_Icke cartoon watercannon.

I think I need to say something about that - called a racist and anti-semite and a nazi because I object to endless Greenstein copypasta and then being called a vicious bully because I object to

Who called you any of those things?

[/quote]

Please refer to posts from a couple of days ago.
Peace.

[Simulist]

"In the devastating reality created by the Jewish state, anti-semitism has been replaced by political reaction. I am not suggesting that Jewish interests are not being mutilated and vandalised. I am not saying that synagogues aren't being attacked, that Jewish graves are not brutally smashed up. I am saying that these acts, that are in no way legitimate, should be seen as political responses rather than racially motivated acts or "irrational" hate crimes." Link

What Atzmon says is true, in the same way that Israelis' desecration of mosques and churches is not an 'irrational act', any more than the home demolitions and the bulldozing of Palestinian homes to make way for Jewish-only colonies are 'irrational'. They are political acts, and the people who commit them should not be regarded as mentally ill, but as perpetrators of politically-motivated criminal acts (regardless of whether these political purposes are morally and legally defensible).

Okay. Once again, your assertion that it's true doesn't make it true.

For example, in 1999. the white supremacist Williams brothers (who also murdered a gay couple and bombed some abortion clinics during the same crime spree), burned three synagogues in California. That was not in protest of Israel.

Just last January, a 19-year-old white supremacist/anarchist with no known feelings about Israel fire-bombed a couple of synagogues in Bergen County. I'm not sure if there were more than two, but you can read about one of them here, in the not-very-politically-titled "Temple Attack continued after alleged firebomber heard screams"

And....I also thought I recalled reading something about some apparently antisemitic arson that turned out to be an insurance scam by Jews in this neck of the woods, not too long ago. I can't find it now, sadly. But in the event that it happened, it still wouldn't be political. Is my point.

_____________

Also: "Israelis' desecration of mosques and churches" is NOT a political act in the same way that "the home demolitions and the bulldozing of Palestinian homes to make way for Jewish-only colonies" are. It's very misleading and highly inflammatory to lump them together, therefore.
_______________

Plus, if you ask me, they're all irrational.

All of these acts are irrational. Quite so.

[Searcher08]

Sim, what do you see happening when one person sees what they are doing as a rational act and another person doesn't?

[American Dream]

I mean, could there POSSIBLY be anyone on the board who is unaware that AD makes and enforces the rules according to which it's acceptable to talk about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict around here? Or that he's ceaselessly, boundlessly punitive to those who don't follow them to the minutest letter or the law?

What bullshit.

Anyone who cares to can look over the many pages of this thread and see for themselves how true this might be, and then contrast and compare to the endless ad hominem and bullying against me- as well as much other bad behavior- by Searcher's crew.

[Searcher08]

Okay. But you remarked that Finkelstein and Atzmon are being treated differently, and that's true.
And I'm responding that Atzmon has said some really, really dumb things. Hateful things, too.
That was just one example. There are numerous examples throughout this very long thread.

Not sure if that was for me^^ - if it was, I meant to be clear that outside this thread Atzmon and Finkelstein ARE being treated with entirely similar accusations and behaviours and processes.
I found the film was really moving BTW. I was left thinking who is speaking up for HIM?

Understood, Searcher. Yes, outside this thread Finkelstein and Atzmon do appear to generate similar responses.
Which seems to me to be nuts, frankly.

And that is it, Simulist
THAT response is what I'm talking about.
To use a biological metaphor, I'm interested in this 'cultural immune system response' which seems to want to mediate discourse as a means of avoiding facing certain parts of itself.

That assumes that there is one. And for that assumption to be justified, you would, of course, have to demonstrate that it was the culture's reflexive, universal and unique way of remaining in denial about the same "certain parts" of itself.

No it wouldnt. It exists because it exists in my mind as a mental model, which I am conceptually playing with and No I don't have to assume it is reflexive universal or unique. None of those three things are part of modelling. Although it seems you are are asserting they are.

IOW, in order for that hypothesis to work, you'd:

What hypothesis is that??

(a) have to grossly distort Simulist's point
(that it was nuts to respond to such different things the same way) in order to repurpose it as what you were talking about (one culture's unvarying evasive response to facing "certain parts of itself.");

No offense, but please excuse me while I just remove the words you are stuffing in my mouth. Thanks.

and
(b) find some way of accommodating the contradictory evidence represented by the numerous members of that very culture who condemned Israel -- such as repurposing them into anti-zionist-zionists for objecting to antisemitism

Please stop ascribing to me things I did not say.
I am actually just as curious about whether this can map across across cultures.
This thread is not always about Jewish culture (as pages of Irish culture show) , though on a subjective basis you seem to veer in that direction.

Also, and strictly btw,honey:

You might want to bear it in mind that unde most general conversational circumstances,
it's probably a good idea to come up with a non-biological metaphorical framework in which to consider the uniquely problematic cultural traits of Jews,
if you can. Because there's kind of a little potential for misunderstanding there.

[/quote][/quote]
I didnt realise there was a list of approved systemic methodolgies that I had to subscribe to, nor that you were in a position to let me know that. Apart from it being neuro-cybernetic, which I should point out.
I was actually speculating that a systemic thinking model such as Stafford Beer's VSM (Viable Systems Model) could be really useful at mapping out what is going on with cultures and identity. As I have said to the point of death by repetition.
As it has been used to model everything from a beehive to Canada. Systems have a built in response to stimuli and a viable system, such as a culture, show things like homeostasis - it will seek to establish a balance between input and system. So the response to Finkelstein and Atzmon is a means of a notional system regaining it's equilibrium.
I appreciate that might be offensive to any passing reductionists on the thread, but that is a price I'm willing to pay, after all if it worked for Salvador Allende...
Either way, dear heart, it is likewise worth remembering when talking with a libertarian type, that telling them how they should conduct their thinking, well, you know, can create occasions for the misunderstanding too.
And as I mentioned in my previous post, attempting to circumscribe discourse comes in much more subtle forms than people saying "You cant talk about that!", such as your remarks above. Because you did ask to have it pointed out if you did it, and politely I hope, I am.

[Simulist]

Sim, what do you see happening when one person sees what they are doing as a rational act and another person doesn't?

I see a disagreement happening, given the broad parameters of your question. Sometimes there are varying levels of disagreement.

But when violence starts getting introduced as a factor, first as passive violence then as active violence, people should be asking themselves if they're still at the level of "disagreement" or if some outright delusions are operative in their thinking. And when we go to the level of random active violence to organized acts of violence, we should be asking ourselves if we're in the grip of some mass delusions.

I think we are, clearly, and this is partly why discussing these things can be such a tangled mess.

[Searcher08]

I mean, could there POSSIBLY be anyone on the board who is unaware that AD makes and enforces the rules according to which it's acceptable to talk about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict around here? Or that he's ceaselessly, boundlessly punitive to those who don't follow them to the minutest letter or the law?

What bullshit.

Anyone who cares to can look over the many pages of this thread and see for themselves how true this might be, and then contrast and compare to the endless ad hominem and bullying against me- as well as much other bad behavior- by Searcher's crew.

I invite people to do just that, I really really do.

Because the above post must be one of the longest you have posted in the last 1000 posts.

Sorry, AD, for you to describe yourself as a victim when you are having people point out what you are doing - creating the Greenstein CopyPasta tornado and then ignoring the responses to it as if they do not exist,
and your attempting to reframe my asking questions about your problem with anything aganst the ADL, AIPAC, JINSA et al is worth the wading through. It is a very relevent question in the context of discussion of this thread.
To me, you certainly appears to think it is one law for you and one law for others.
Your attempt to characterise me as having a 'crew' like in a drug gang is also transparent nonsense. I act and think for myself, not have Tony Greenstein do it for me.

Your protestations of bullying ring hollow when Alice was called a bitch and I was twice called a nazi, which anyone who search this thread can find from a few days ago. I don't recall you rushing to complain.

[Searcher08]

Sim, what do you see happening when one person sees what they are doing as a rational act and another person doesn't?

I see a disagreement happening, given the broad parameters of your question. Sometimes there are varying levels of disagreement.

But when violence starts getting introduced as a factor, first as passive violence then as active violence, people should be asking themselves if they're still at the level of "disagreement" or if some outright delusions are operative in their thinking. And when we go to the level of random active violence to organized acts of violence, we should be asking ourselves if we're in the grip of some mass delusions.

I think we are, clearly, and this is partly why discussing these things can be such a tangled mess.

Thank you.

You had me wondering if that may be when the old limbic system kicks in and all clear thinking is replaced or injected with much more primal patterns. But then you can have what seem to be very clear thinking during battle, eg the very rapid real time coordinated responses of Mongol cavalry.

Tangled indeed - as one friend said "thinking about this is like having my head filled with multi-color sphaggeti"

[barracuda]

So you remember an imaginary episode of me accusing AD of support for Israel, but dont remember me being called a nazi, twice, just a couple of days ago? Riiiiiight. I'll come back to that

Citations, please. I did not call you a Nahhh-zhi, not even once. Regroup.

But in that vein, you might bear in mind that the entire contention of this thread starting with the OP is that Atzmon has said demonstrably wrong and anti-semitic statements, over and over again. There are several honest, hardworking posters on the thread who staunchly insist that this is the case. So if you want to spend seventy-plus pages defending this man, a friend and supporter of Paul Eisen and Israel Shamir, and a distributor of broadsides extolling the virtues of Ernst Zundel, then you might expect that some part of the accusations against him might begin to rub off on you. You should wear that little stain as a badge of honor rather than continue to whine about it. Surely it is simply a sign that the Zionists are after you.

[Simulist]

You had me wondering if that may be when the old limbic system kicks in and all clear thinking is replaced or injected with much more primal patterns. But then you can have what seem to be very clear thinking during battle, eg the very rapid real time coordinated responses of Mongol cavalry.

That's an interesting point about "the very clear thinking during battle," and it got me thinking.

My educational background is in Christian theology; talk about a tangled mess of delusional thinking — and I was in the grip of it! Now even within (what I later came to see as) that delusional framework, there was some very impressive "very clear thinking" that seemed to go on, both on my part and on the part of my colleagues and friends. Only when I stepped outside that framework was I capable of recognizing just how delusional I had become.

And as I was typing that, the song from the movie, Exodus, was playing in my head — and the lyrics to that song might be a clue about some of the first delusions operative in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

"This land is mine. God gave this land to me."

Nope. Sorry. Didn't happen.

[barracuda]

Here are my exact words:

"In the devastating reality created by the Jewish state, anti-semitism has been replaced by political reaction. I am not suggesting that Jewish interests are not being mutilated and vandalised. I am not saying that synagogues aren't being attacked, that Jewish graves are not brutally smashed up. I am saying that these acts, that are in no way legitimate, should be seen as political responses rather than racially motivated acts or "irrational" hate crimes." Link

What Atzmon says is true, in the same way that Israelis' desecration of mosques and churches is not an 'irrational act', any more than the home demolitions and the bulldozing of Palestinian homes to make way for Jewish-only colonies are 'irrational'. They are political acts, and the people who commit them should not be regarded as mentally ill, but as perpetrators of politically-motivated criminal acts (regardless of whether these political purposes are morally and legally defensible).

I guess you might say that virtually every act that isn't purely a reflex is a political act in one interpretation or another, and some more than others. I assume, though, that Atzmon's statement is entirely inclusive of actions like the Neo-Nazi desecration in Westlawn cemetery in Illinois:



And certainly the Neo-Nazi desecration in Strasbourg:



Or in Lithuania:



And &c. In fact, this particular political act is so common as to be somewhat cliché, really. The question remains as to exactly what the political bent is that causes such political acts to occur in the absence of the state of Israel as an obvious motivator? Clearly, the motivation is purely Jew-hate, and your power-disparity principle is in effect, in that the dead are powerless against the desecrators.

[Searcher08]

You had me wondering if that may be when the old limbic system kicks in and all clear thinking is replaced or injected with much more primal patterns. But then you can have what seem to be very clear thinking during battle, eg the very rapid real time coordinated responses of Mongol cavalry.

That's an interesting point about "the very clear thinking during battle," and it got me thinking.

My educational background is in Christian theology; talk about a tangled mess of delusional thinking — and I was in the grip of it! Now even within (what I later came to see as) that delusional framework, there was some very impressive "very clear thinking" that seemed to go on, both on my part and on the part of my colleagues and friends. Only when I stepped outside that framework was I capable of recognizing just how delusional I had become.

And as I was typing that, the song from the movie, Exodus, was playing in my head — and the lyrics to that song might be a clue about some of the first delusions operative in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

"This land is mine. God gave this land to me."

Nope. Sorry. Didn't happen.

A friend of mine has a phrase
"Perspective is the most valuable commodity thing on the planet"

I think you have hit something really important with the distinction between framework and thinking. This needs much pondering.

[compared2what?]

I mean, could there POSSIBLY be anyone on the board who is unaware that Alice makes and enforces the rules according to which it's acceptable to talk about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict around here? Or that she's ceaselessly, boundlessly punitive to those who don't follow them to the minutest letter or the law?
I'd like to hear from them, if so. I'm not complaining, mind you. I'm actually sympathetic to Alice, overall. But I really, really object to this pretense that there's a pro-Israel gang of bullies roaming these threads. It's not true. And it's also not fair that AD, in particular, has to be subjected to both vicious bullying and accusations that he's a bully.
So if it's not necessary, it would really be nice to see a little less of it.

On the other hand... there is the mirror image of what you wrote.
I mean, could there POSSIBLY be anyone on the board who is unaware that AD makes and enforces the rules according to which it's acceptable to talk about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict around here? Or that he's ceaselessly, boundlessly punitive to those who don't follow them to the minutest letter or the law?
I'd like to hear from them, if so.

Fine. We have a difference of opinion on this point that's not capable of obective resolution. So let's agree to disagree, in the interests of not derailing the thread. I'll withdraw my remarks, if you can't live with them.

In fact, I'll just withdraw them. Because they really are debatable, in every sense. I was just having a bad day.

[Searcher08]

I was thinking of Carl Sagan and the Pale Blue Dot photograph. Need a walk. <hug>

[compared2what?]

That assumes that there is one. And for that assumption to be justified, you would, of course, have to demonstrate that it was the culture's reflexive, universal and unique way of remaining in denial about the same "certain parts" of itself.

No it wouldnt. It exists because it exists in my mind as a mental model, which I am conceptually playing with and No I don't have to assume it is reflexive universal or unique. None of those three things are part of modelling. Although it seems you are are asserting they are.

You were modeling a reality, to which you referred -- the response of a culture to facing certain parts of itself, as evidenced by its reaction to Finkelstein and Atzmon. Remember?

Simulist's point was that it was nuts to respond the same way to two such different stimuli. You retooled that to mean: YES! Therefore the whole culture is (metaphorically, congenitally) nuts!

Those aren't assumptions. That's what happened.

IOW, in order for that hypothesis to work, you'd:

What hypothesis is that??

Please don't be disingenuous.

(a) have to grossly distort Simulist's point
(that it was nuts to respond to such different things the same way) in order to repurpose it as what you were talking about (one culture's unvarying evasive response to facing "certain parts of itself.");

No offense, but please excuse me while I just remove the words you are stuffing in my mouth. Thanks.

I'm not. I'm pointing out the plain meaning of what you said.

and
(b) find some way of accommodating the contradictory evidence represented by the numerous members of that very culture who condemned Israel -- such as repurposing them into anti-zionist-zionists for objecting to antisemitism

Please stop ascribing to me things I did not say.

Searcher -- No offense intended. But your response to Simulist characterized objections by Jews to Finkelstein and Atzmon as "cultural immune system response' which seems to want to mediate discourse as a means of avoiding facing certain parts of itself."

So. You might not have intended to suggest that it was a cultural and quasi-congenital trait of Jews to respond to all criticism -- whether well-merited or not -- by rejecting it. But that is what your words say. Therefore -- especially since Atzmon has been repeatedly quoted saying very much the same thing on this thread -- it was not an outlandish surmise on my part to understand those words as meaning what they said.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. But it wasn't via any kind of wilfull distortion on my part, if I did. So. If you mean something else, just tell me what it was.

I am actually just as curious about whether this can map across across cultures.

Oh!

Thank you for your prompt response. I apologize for not seeing that possibility. But you're right. It's there.

I still have the same problems with the example you did model, though.

This thread is not always about Jewish culture (as pages of Irish culture show) , though on a subjective basis you seem to veer in that direction.

If what you mean by "on a subjective basis" is "when that's the subject," I agree. If, on the other hand, what you mean is that I insist on everybody talking about Jews all the time because I only care about Jews, that's an unjustified insinuation.

Also, and strictly btw,honey:

You might want to bear it in mind that unde most general conversational circumstances,
it's probably a good idea to come up with a non-biological metaphorical framework in which to consider the uniquely problematic cultural traits of Jews,
if you can. Because there's kind of a little potential for misunderstanding there.

I didnt realise there was a list of approved systemic methodolgies that I had to subscribe to, nor that you were in a position to let me know that. Apart from it being neuro-cybernetic, which I should point out.
I was actually speculating that a systemic thinking model such as Stafford Beer's VSM (Viable Systems Model) could be really useful at mapping out what is going on with cultures and identity. As I have said to the point of death by repetition.
As it has been used to model everything from a beehive to Canada. Systems have a built in response to stimuli and a viable system, such as a culture, show things like homeostasis - it will seek to establish a balance between input and system. So the response to Finkelstein and Atzmon is a means of a notional system regaining it's equilibrium.
I appreciate that might be offensive to any passing reductionists on the thread, but that is a price I'm willing to pay, after all if it worked for Salvador Allende...
Either way, dear heart, it is likewise worth remembering when talking with a libertarian type, that telling them how they should conduct their thinking, well, you know, can create occasions for the misunderstanding too.
And as I mentioned in my previous post, attempting to circumscribe discourse comes in much more subtle forms than people saying "You cant talk about that!", such as your remarks above. Because you did ask to have it pointed out if you did it, and politely I hope, I am.

Oh dear. I wasn't serious at all. It was just a non-serious reference to the language of racial antisemitism, not a real attempt to curb the terms of discourse. But you're right. That was in-jew-dicious of me. And I apologize for it.