We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day – Progressing back to the Middle Ages I was baffled by my first exposure to antisemitism in Eastern Europe in 1992. I explained my confusion by saying it was ancient history in Britain. Our last pogrom was in the Middle Ages.
Since returning to England in 2011, I’ve had a nagging fear that this was not likely to remain true. The growth of Islam, antisemitic by its very nature, has been supported politically by the British Left. Socialists and Muslims have together revived an ancient evil.
Perhaps the Yom Kippur attack in Manchester is not a pogrom as it’s just one killer and not a mob? Either way, it’s a fall from grace. I am ashamed for my nation and furious that our “leaders” are still wittering on about “Islamophobia.” A phobia is an irrational fear. There is nothing more rational than fearing Islam — a religion conceived as if to justify the sins of its founder – one of the worst men who ever lived.
– Tom Paine
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Doesn’t seem to be well remembered and I haven’t seen it mentioned in any news or articles since the current Gaza war started, but there was large anti-Jewish riots in Britain in 1947. After the terrorist Irgun group lynched two British sergeants in Mandatory Palestine (‘Sergeants Affair‘, the British press published photographs of the lynched corpses and there was anti-Jewish riots in several British cities in response.
I studied the immediate postwar era of Britain at A-level and university, as well as doing the founding of Israel as part of my history degree, as well as done plenty of other private reading but only became aware of these riots after getting more interested in the specific topic about the British Mandate in Palestine when we found some photos of my Grandad after he died that were from when he was stationed in the dying days of British Palestine after WW2. We knew he’d served in the Middle East back then but he never spoke much of it and other relatives said he didn’t talk about it as he’d seen some very ugly stuff with comrades killed in guerrilla ambushes etc. Finding the photos sparked me to look into the conflict in Mandatory Palestine and what people in Britain thought about it more.
Antisemitism is not confined to Islam – for example I was shocked by the sudden turning on Jews, blaming Jews for just about everything, of both Candice Owens and Tucker Carlson (two people that, some years ago, I thought of as fellow conservatives and well meaning people) – although with Mr Carlson the antisemitism may well be cynical opportunism, and with Candice Owens it may be part of a mental illness (perhaps caused by the strain of years of attacks upon her) – for example the lady now also says the Moon Landings did-not-happen.
However, Islam does indeed have a problem in relation to Jews – Christians have killed Jews, but Jesus never killed any Jews, and he was Jewish himself (although the German National Socialists denied that) – as was his mother (the Virgin Mary) and all 12 of his disciples and the other early Christians – and the Jewish scriptures make up the Old Testament.
Islam is rather different – the Koran (first verbal presentations by Mohammed, who it-is-said could not write, and then written down after his death) presents a false view of the Jewish scriptures, it misquotes them (and so on) – and when Jews pointed out that Mohammed was getting the Jewish scriptures wrong, he became angry.
Mohammed led surprise attacks on Jews in Arabia (who had lived there for centuries) killing the men and taking the women as slaves – and by the end of his life (and it is claimed that his final years were wracked by ill health caused by a Jewish women poisoning him in revenge for him killing her family) there were no free Jews left in Arabia – it was ethnic cleansing – and Mohammed made it clear, as did his successors, that the power of Allah (their God) and his followers was not confined to Arabia – that they, supposedly, must spread this authority over the whole world.
So followers of Islam face a choice – was Mohammed morally right or morally wrong in his actions?
If they decide that Mohammed was morally wrong they are no longer followers of Islam, they are no longer Muslims – for, please remember, Mohammed is considered a perfect model of conduct – and to have been acting under the direct orders of God Himself – so if Mohammed is morally wrong, then Allah is morally wrong – because Mohammed was, supposedly, acting under the orders of Allah.
But if followers of Islam decide that what Mohammed did and taught was morally right – then they must carry on doing it, as Mohammed made clear that someone who claimed to be a Muslim must carry on his work – the spreading of the authority of Islam by all means necessary, including (if need be) force, so that non Muslims paid the infidel tax and did so in humiliation – so that they felt themselves subdued. If a Muslim, or rather someone claiming to be a Muslim, did not do this – they they were, according to Mohammed, a “hypocrite” and it was correct, according to him, to execute such “hypocrites”.
So when, for example, Islamic members of the British Parliament call upon Jews to be humiliated in such-and-such a way, say forbidden to go and see Association Football matches in areas (such as Birmingham) that the followers of Islam now claim, they are acting as Mohammed would have wished – it is NOT a matter of personal sadism, it is a matter of religious duty.
Finally – remember the old saying “first they came for the Saturday people – but then they came for the Sunday people”.
The Byzantines (the East Romans) did not like Jews – but that did not save the Byzantines from the wrath of Islam – for Islam claimed the world for the authority of Allah, as He, supposedly, created the world.
No Christian nation, in 14 centuries, has been saved from the wrath of Islam by saying “but we also do not like Jews” – and neither will Tucker Carlson or Candace Owens.
And yet you call them “the terrorist Irgun group”?
We learned a very different emphasis in the US.
I would call the perpetrators of this and this terrorists, yes.
Martin – and this shows that the propaganda line that Israel was created by Britain and America is FALSE.
Neither Roosevelt or the Truman Administrations really wanted modern Israel restored – indeed, in private, they did not like Jews (especially Franklin Roosevelt – who was incredibly two faced, being polite to any Jew who could be of use to him, and then showing contempt as soon as their back was turned – see Paul Johnson “A History of the Jews” which also shows Franklin Roosevelt had, in reality, no real concern about the Holocaust – and even quoted, as truth, FAKE National Socialist statistics about Jewish domination of the professions in Germany).
As for Britain – in the 1920s and 1930s “the British”, or rather a FACTION of “the British” – there were always pro and anti Jewish factions in the British government, tried to, by force, keep Jews out of the Holy Land – whilst doing nothing to prevent a Islamic immigration from Egypt and other lands (a totally one sided immigration policy).
Even when it was known that the National Socialist government in Germany, and supporters elsewhere, intended to wipe out the Jews – British policy, at least of the anti Jewish faction (again we are talking about factions – there was NOT a united British view), did-not-change, one sided immigration controls remained – Muslims allowed to freely go to the land, Jews restricted.
When the forces of Islam, under the command of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (friend and ally of Mr Hitler and Mr Himmler) tried to wipe out Jews in the 1920s and 1930s – Jews found they had to organize their own defense.
And the British authorities even killed Jews – and YES British soldiers were also killed – sometime by Jews who had served in the British army themselves. Perhaps the worst incident that a Jewish group was responsible for was the bombing of the King David hotel in Jerusalem – where people of all religions, including (ironically enough) Jews, were killed. “The Stern Gang” were not nice people (to put the matter mildly) – they were filled with anger and bitterness, perhaps understandably so, but the anger and bitterness ate away at them, leading them to do terrible things. They should have resisted that anger and bitterness – but they did not, thinking that embracing it would give them the strength they needed to save their people from their enemies – who they came to see as basically everyone (that is a dark path to take).
Although it should be pointed out that Jewish groups also sometimes killed each other – such as the infamous incident when the Labour Party militia sank a ship containing “right wing” Jews and opened fire on the survivors in the water – the British army never did this.
The British Labour government of 1948 was not pro Jewish – if anything it was anti Jewish, it did not create Israel – it did not really want Israel to exist.
But the myth continues – “the Jews came from the West” – most Jews in modern Israel are descended from Jews expelled from Islamic countries, “Britain and America created Israel”, FALSE (see above), but there we go.
It seems that both Martin and myself thought of the King David Hotel bombing independently – and our comments crossed. But this is natural enough – it is the logical example to go to. A relative of my mother (I was told – I am not sure) was killed in that bombing.
Like the killing of two British soldiers after the killing of two Jews – the killing of the two British soldiers was condemned by most Jewish groups. I do not think it would have happened before World War II – the war, and the holocaust, had increased the level of anger and bitterness, in some people, almost to the point of madness.
There was even a plan, by some Jews, to poison German civilians via the water supply – this would have made the lies of the Middle Ages “the Jews are poisoning the wells” truth – action had to be taken (by other Jews) against the Jews who, in anger and a desire for revenge, came up with this plan.
Yes, I am especially puzzled by the ‘Britain created Israel’ line, especially given the anti-British terrorism in Mandatory Palestine, and the fact that British-Israeli relations were never especially close up until at least the 1990s (even during Suez confict the French had better ties to Israel than Britain did). Margaret Thatcher had warm ties with British Jews but had poor relations with Israel while in office as she was incensed by Israeli activity in Lebanon and Israeli arms sales to Argentina during the Falklands War.
Truman was indeed privately anti-semitic. It is ironic that the United States and USSR were the first states to recognise Israel yet had anti-semitic leaders at the time (my understanding was Stalin at the time saw Israel as useful in undermining the British position in the Middle East at the time, but then became hostile as it became clear Israeli and Soviet interests diverged and as he became increasingly paranoid against Soviet Jews towards the end of his life).
Martin – you’ve got a degree from a British university? A STEM degree, I could accept without comment, but your grammar and language skills leave me hoping that degree mill has long since been defunded.
The Stern Gang – Lehi – were even worse than Irgun, which they’d broken off from. Lehi had entertained supporting the Axis in WW2 before then becoming pro-Soviet, and attacked British targets while WW2 was being waged(see the assassination of Baron Moyne in Cairo in 1944). Like with Irgun, I am comfortable saying Lehi were terrorists as well.
Gnome – I’m typing from my phone, so whatever. Either engage with my points or piss off
Differing education systems, I guess.
What I learned was that the British people running the mandate – military and political people – with a combination of antisemitism and a lack of belief that the Jews had any chance of surviving the handover whatsoever – consistently sought out and confiscated all arms from Jews while encouraging the Arabs to arm up, shared intelligence with the Arabs as to the easiest means for annihilating the Jews, blocked entry to additional Jews while encouraging Arab presence, imprisoned Jewish military, and just generally worked hard to ensure that the Arabs were able to wipe out the Jews on handover.
And, at that point, if you can call Irgun “terrorist”, it has to be of the “freedom fighter” variety if anything.
But I can see a different history being taught in British schools.
Whatever the failings of my education in Britain, I wasn’t taught to give terrorists a pass. If you were taught Irgun were mere ‘freedom fighters’ than your teachers were morally sick.
Bet y’all hated the Boston Tea Party! Damned vandals!
@gnome
Martin – you’ve got a degree from a British university? A STEM degree, I could accept without comment, but your grammar and language skills leave me hoping that degree mill has long since been defunded.
How very rude. I find that people who criticize one’s grammar do so since they are unable to engage with the actual substance of the argument. I’d love to engage in your argument, but since you haven’t made one, I’m not sure how I can. On the other hand it seems to me that Martin has a lot of insight on this and a lot of depth of knowledge. However, I should be careful posting this lest I, misplace a comma or am careless enough to sloppily split an infinitive.
Fraser Orr – agreed, and not just because I myself am dyslexic (one of my many health problems – but there we go).
There is nothing wrong with splitting an infinitive in English – which is NOT Latin. For example, to say “to boldly go” is not “wrong” – it (contrary to the executives in charge of Star Trek) does not have to be changed to “to go boldly”.
Martin – yes the American government did not really want Israel to be restored, Harry Truman was a deeply dishonest man – nice to Jews in public, very different in private (although not as bad as Franklin Roosevelt – who was terrible).
Tom Dewey, Governor of New York State and Republican candidate for President in 1944 and 1948, really was pro Israel – but most American Jews voted AGAINST him, they did not understand who their true friends were-and-are (many of them still do not).
Jewish anger continues to this day – over large and small things.
For example, two Israeli soldiers were killed a day or so ago – but the international media did not say that, they said “Israel claims Hamas has violated the cease fire” – no mention of the two dead men, and no photographs (unlike the photograph of the two dead British soldiers from the 1940s). To the international media dead-Jews-do-not-matter.
As for internal British matters – a little thing came to my attention on Saturday. An ex North Northants Conservative Councillor casually mentioned that he had been approached by the Reform Party to join them before the last council election (he turned them down – unlike some other Conservatives who accepted the offer, and thus saved their seats) – and then another person who was present said “I was approached as well” other people spoke and it turned out that it was a general thing.
But I was NOT approached. So I said this – “I was not approached – no one asked me to go over”.
There was a silence and then a person I have known for many years said (in that slightly embarrassed way that people have) “well you know why”.
No I did NOT know – how was I supposed to know that people of Red Sea Pedestrian ancestry were not welcome?
I do not have Extra Sensory Perception – unless I am told, I do not know these things.
So it is not just Zia Yusuf – it is a general thing, I did NOT know this. I had no idea till Saturday – only a couple of days ago.
Martin, unlike you I do not have expert or background knowledge of Israel after the war. I did, however have an uncle who stayed on in the British military and involved with the resettlement. It was a tough job by all accounts. They were spat on by pregnant Jewish women arriving at the port and he also unearthed that ambulances were taking detours to distribute arms. Needless to say he did not have a very favourable impression of the settlers. I wish I had quizzed him more before he died.
Likewise I wish I’d spoken more to my grandfather about it. He never seemed the shellshocked stereotype vet and was very happy go lucky, he just didn’t openly talk a lot about his days in the military, and certainly not about Palestine.
My maternal grandfather was in the navy towards the end of WW2 and had fond memories, especially as it involved a visit to New York during that time. My paternal grandfather got his national service deferred during WW2 as he worked on the docks in Hull (deemed vital war occupation), so served afterwards, hence why he ended up in the Middle East when he did.
Tom Paine is right to note what a fraud in many ways Yasser Arafat was.
I know numerous Jews who are in Reform, so not convinced that means much in reality.
After WWII, the British Government found itself between a rock and a hard place in Palestine.
The Arabs did not want more Jews settling there. The Jews were determined to quit forever the continent that had just attempted to comprehensively annihilate them; they were bloody-minded, determined and they had nothing to lose – and so they were no longer prepared to have the British or anyone else stand in their way.
JP,
Arafat was, amonhst other things, a total shyster. He loved wheeling and dealing because it meant he could strut the Global stage asmuch more than the leader of a bunch of raggy-arsed renegades.
Martin,
There is much hate against smartphones (especially for kids). It’s all about “screentime”. What gets missed is that touch screens are dreadful to type on. It’s not that they’re having roo much screentime but not enough at a keyboard. Kids nowadays are actually in many ways less able to use a “real” computer than I am. Kids born in the 70s/80s are much more tech savvy.
@Johnathan Pearce
Tom Paine is right to note what a fraud in many ways Yasser Arafat was.
That can’t be right. The guy won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1994. So obviously he must be an honest dealing man of peace. 😉
FWIW, I think this years’ laureate María Corina Machado is very smart in how she has handled the big brouhaha with Trump, by praising him and, I believe, inviting him to her ceremony. She needs the good will of the American President, especially this remarkable American President, to achieve her goal far more than a shiny bauble and a million dollars. Especially so given the MASSIVE pressure Trump is putting on Maduro.
I’m not saying that she is disingenuous, I have no idea what her true feelings are, but regardless of her motives she has handled a difficult situation very well indeed.
Arafat was also an Egyptian intelligence officer trained by former Nazi’s to stir up trouble on behalf of the pan-Arabists. Everything about him was constructed from whole cloth.
Perry – good to hear, so perhaps it is just a North Northants thing, not a national thing.
This can be a rather odd part of the country – for example all but two of the town council of Kettering (the largest town in North Northants) are members of the Green Party – of the two who are not, one was elected as a Green but broke with them, and one was elected as a Conservative but then left – most of his friends are Greens.
As for Chairman Arafat – an Egyptian (born and raised in Egypt) who was an Islamic fighter in 1948, later reinvented as the leader of “Palestinian Nationalism” by the KGB (yes Moscow), in 1964 – three years BEFORE either the “West Bank” or the Gaza salient went from the occupation by the Kingdom of Jordan and Egypt to Israel.
It is often forgotten that there was no peace between 1948 and 1967 – there was shelling and terrorist attacks, so the idea that giving up the “West Bank” or the Gaza salient would produce peace is delusional.
This war has never been about creating a Palestinian State – and would not be stopped by creating one, after all Gaza was a self governing Palestinian area (with no Jews at all) from 2005 to 2023.
Islam makes a logical claim – if Allah did indeed create the world and lay down that His followers must have authority over it, then everything they do makes sense.
It is a matter of whether or not one accepts the premise.
Certainly the claim to, say, Tel Aviv is not really different to the claim to Birmingham or London.
It should be pointed out (so I will do so) that if Tom Paine’s article is not already illegal in the United Kingdom, it soon will be.
Changing the wording of the new law from “Islamophobia” to “anti Muslim hate” changes nothing in practice – it is a distinction without a difference.
People such as the late Prime Minister Gladstone and Winston Churchill would still be put in prison, under the new law, for what they wrote – and so would “Tom Paine” and myself, and others here.
It is the principle of such statutes that is wrong (indeed evil).
As for the alliance between the “Critical Theory” Marxists and Islam – well it is mad, but it is very real.
I know more about Arab nationalists like Nasser in Egypt and Saddam Hussein in Iraq than Arafat. But from what I know about them, even if one admits that Western and Soviet foreign policies in the Middle East were often very misguided, it seems these ‘secular’ Arab nationalist leaders largely discredited themselves and their ideology, and in doing so helped make Islamic extremism seem more attractive in comparison to their corruption and failed policies.
When reading about Nasser I was curious to read that some American media in the 1960s referred to Vietnam as America’s Yemen as a reference to the Nasser’s bloody war in Yemen that left 26,000 Egyptian dead (on per capita basis more costly for Egypt than Vietnam was for America).
“Anti-Semitism is the Socialism of fools”, as Nietzsche said.
(These days, unlike in 1870 or so, the foolishness of Socialism-per-se is more obvious, of course, but non-fools even today can be some sort of socialist.
But anti-Semites are always fools.)
Sigivald, I think it was Lenin who said that, but regardless, it is an astute observation.
I believe that it has also been said:
Socialism is the Anti-Semitism of the intellectuals.
Martin – Nasser and other “secular reformers” were addicted to socialism, and socialism is irrational and leads to disaster.
So, yes, people turn to Islam – as the socialist “alternative” fails so horribly. The British left (and leftists in other countries) think they can “use” the Muslims to bring themselves to power – but Islamic activists have seen such secular socialists before and know that secular socialism always fails, always collapses – so they quietly smile.
It is not the socialists who are using them – they are using the socialists, and not just in Britain – but, rather, in many Western nations.
Sigvalid, Johnathan Pearce, and Snorri Godhi.
You all make good points – and I can think of nothing to add.
Not sure if you would specifically call his policies ‘socialist – although there was certainly nationalisations, land reform and some central planning involved – but the Shah of Iran’s ‘White Revolution’ alienated the traditional merchant class (the bazaari) and they sided with the clerics in 1979.
So much of this ‘secular’, mostly top-down ‘modernisation’ in the Middle East and other places backfired badly
For anyone who may be as obsessed as I am with sources of famous quotations:
Martin – Nasser was very much a socialist (although of a weird sort), for example, his “land reform” splint the land up into tiny penny packets – totally dependent on the state, with the wholesale trade state controlled. Egypt is now dependent on imported food – although that is partly due to the explosive growth of its population.
The Shah was horribly advised by Western (mainly American) “experts” – as Chang in China was before him (the hyperinflation in China was due to Westerners, mainly Americans, saying that China should not use silver as money any more), and Boris Yeltsin was horribly advised by Westerns as well – they did more harm, with their crazy advise on money and banking, than his alcoholism did.
Alisa – thank you for tracking down the source of that quote.
I hope all is well with you – and with your family.
I’ve never really understood the roots of anti-Semitism, why have the Jews been picked on so much throughout history, and why do Muslims in particular have particular animus (and to be fair, Christians until fairly recently had deep seated anti Semitism baked in.) The best I can figure it is that Jews seem to place a high emphasis on hard work and learning which has made them very successful. And so it is always a convenient way to explain your own failures on someone else’s success. And this is especially so when that group is different, has practices and traditions you don’t understand, and is very small and relatively powerless. Though it just seems odd that it seems to ALWAYS be the Jews.
I think this is compounded by the fact that the Jews are often very useful, and so they keep getting sucked into environments that are very risky for them.
As an example, due the Christian usury laws credit was not possible in England for a long time, and so Edward I invited Jews in to England specifically to be bankers. In fact the law was such that they were ONLY allowed to be bankers. And then, when the King ran up a big debt, he blamed it on those damned bankers and threw all the Jews out of the country. Which does seem to me to illustrate the problem for the Jews (of course, as history goes, those Jews had it easy, at least they got away with their lives.) Perhaps it would have been better if they had been banished to some wasteland, which, given the Jewish hard work and learning, would soon have been a paradise.
Oh, wait that’s exactly what happened after the Second World War.
Is funny you mention China as I have been reading a lot about the WW2/civil war era of the country recently. While there were a lot of American well-wishers (pro-KMT or pro-CCP) for China at the time, I don’t think many actually understood China that well at all, and therefore little shock they provided poor advice to Chiang.
I don’t disagree regarding Yeltsin. The Western advice was almost uniformly awful and divorced from reality.
Fraser Orr – Aristotle claimed that money lending was morally wrong, but it is not morally wrong.
What is wrong is not a matter of lending out Real Savings (the actual sacrifice of consumption) for interest – but, rather, pretending to lend out money that does NOT really exist.
Roman Law would have considered that fraud – and it is fraud. Sadly this fraud has been legalized and is the basis for the international financial system – which is a vast Credit Bubble.
Martin – many of the “Old China Hands”, Americans who were interested in China over a long period of time, were Communists or “Fellow Travelers” (people who were favorable to the Marxists).
As is made clear in “Blacklisted by History” by the late M. Stanton Evans.
In short – the much attacked Senator Joseph McCarthy was telling-the-truth.
It is very dangerous to tell the truth – truth tellers are often punished.
I suspect that a lot of the bad “advice” (really commands) given to Chang by American “advisers” was deliberately bad advice – designed to bring the Marxists to power.
Which they would have loved to do in the United States as well.