Gyroscopic Investing

stone wrote: AdOrientum

In Nazi Germany Ghandi would have simply disappeared the minute he opened his mouth in opposition to the regime. There would have been no press reports or international outrage. Most likely the number of people who even knew of his disappearance could be counted on the fingers of both hands. And if they didn't want to disappear too they would have kept their mouths shut.

Terror is a very effective means of maintaining order and power.

I understand your point about word not spreading because they would have been whisked away before anyone heard but I think you are wrong about Nazis having no chink of humanity.

I don't believe that ordinary people in the UK at the time of Ghandi were any better or worse as individual people than were ordinary people in Germany in the Nazi period. I'm sure I read of a holocaust survivors testimony that most Nazis seemed to be careerists with no belief in what they were doing. Ordinary Germans were able to turn a blind eye. Non-violent spectacular protests of the type Ghandi advocated would have rubbed the noses of ordinary Germans in what they were allowing to happen.

I'm not even sure that a handful of such protests wouldn't have led to a word of mouth spreading of the information such that everyone would know regardless of the censors.

Nowadays with the internet I do agree we are in a stronger position in that regard and that makes warfare all the more inappropriate now.

Stone
I think you misunderstand the nature of totalitarian states. In Nazi Germany all means of mass communication were controlled by the state. Censorship was everywhere. Propaganda was so ubiquitous that it amounted to brainwashing. Children were taught in school that it was their duty to the Führer to report their parents or other family members for subversion. But most Germans strongly supported Hitler by the mid 30's. He had delivered on what they wanted, like economic security and an end to the depression along with a return of German pride after the humiliation of the Treaty of Versailles. And yes, the enforcement arms of the Nazi regime (i.e. the SA, SS and the Gestapo) were pitiless brutes and sadists.

Where was this revolt of decency when Jews were beaten in public streets, their businesses and homes vandalized or destroyed, their synagogues burned down? Shortly after the war Herman Goering was being interrogated and was asked if there weren't any ordinary Germans who were opposed to the Nazi regime and Goering replied that of course there were. He was then asked where were they? And Goering replied "6 feet underground."

You should read a good history of Nazi Germany and maybe some of Stalinist Russia. Passive civil disobedience doesn't work with governments that are willing to fill mass graves.

stone wrote: If "Ghandi" would not have been able to muster non-violent protest in Nazi Germany due to censorship, how would his violent equivalent have been supposed to organize an army?

I think you're presupposing that there's always a happy answer. The world didn't need Ghandi in World War II; it needed Churchill.

Native American tribes didn't start out resisting white settlement- not all of them. I could be wrong, but something tells me that they could not have avoided the land grab nor the butchering with nonviolent resistance.

I think it really depends on the intentions of your oppressor and the support they enjoy.

If their intent is to exterminate you, and they have terrorized their population into going along with it, then nonviolent resistance just makes their job easier.

But if they simply think of themselves as defending against your violence or are in any way frightened of you, and their support comes from citizens who democratically elect politicians, that's a very different kettle of fish.

It's worth noting that the most successful nonviolent protest movements--Gandhi's and Martin Luther King Jr.'s--both took place within countries that fit my second example better. As others have indicated, I doubt if Adolf Hitler or Genghis Khan would have been so kind.

stone wrote: Murphy, do you think ancestry is relevant as to whether it is wise for US Jews (or "Jews" or whatever) to  lobby for US military support for Israel? I'm not sure that it matters either way. 

I think the ancestry and loyalty need to be examined closely in light of the reasons I've already outlined. I think the question of ethnic loyalty has demonstrated itself to be very relevant, as a US citizen, considering that there appears to be a fifth column within the US using the US treasury & military assets for the exclusive benefit of their own "tribe"...regardless of the harm done to the US, financial or otherwise. For example, at least one very prominent US politician, who grew up in the US, is a veteran of the Israeli military, not the US forces. If this person were a loyal American, why did he serve the military of a foreign nation? In future, will this person put the interests of Israel above those of the US?

Whether it is wise for US "Jews" to put the interests of the state of Israel ahead of the country they live in...it might be unwise if enough loyal Americans became educated to how their government is manipulated for the benefit of foreign powers.

stone wrote: We are all African if you trace our ancestries back far enough.

Is the implication that many people do not have a stronger loyalty/affinity to those of their own ethnic group...because we're all really of the same origins anyhow? I don't know where you live, but that's never been my experience. I suspect those that share this view are in the distinct minority.

murphy_p_t wrote:

stone wrote: Murphy, do you think ancestry is relevant as to whether it is wise for US Jews (or "Jews" or whatever) to  lobby for US military support for Israel? I'm not sure that it matters either way. 

I think the ancestry and loyalty need to be examined closely in light of the reasons I've already outlined. I think the question of ethnic loyalty has demonstrated itself to be very relevant, as a US citizen, considering that there appears to be a fifth column within the US using the US treasury & military assets for the exclusive benefit of their own "tribe"...regardless of the harm done to the US, financial or otherwise. For example, at least one very prominent US politician, who grew up in the US, is a veteran of the Israeli military, not the US forces. If this person were a loyal American, why did he serve the military of a foreign nation? In future, will this person put the interests of Israel above those of the US?

Whether it is wise for US "Jews" to put the interests of the state of Israel ahead of the country they live in...it might be unwise if enough loyal Americans became educated to how their government is manipulated for the benefit of foreign powers.

stone wrote: We are all African if you trace our ancestries back far enough.

Is the implication that many people do not have a stronger loyalty/affinity to those of their own ethnic group...because we're all really of the same origins anyhow? I don't know where you live, but that's never been my experience. I suspect those that share this view are in the distinct minority.

I know it is unpleasant to ponder the argument I've presented, but does anyone doubt that many Jews in the US would put the interests of Israel over the interests of the US? If so, please explain.

murphy_p_t wrote:

murphy_p_t wrote:

stone wrote: Murphy, do you think ancestry is relevant as to whether it is wise for US Jews (or "Jews" or whatever) to  lobby for US military support for Israel? I'm not sure that it matters either way.  

I think the ancestry and loyalty need to be examined closely in light of the reasons I've already outlined. I think the question of ethnic loyalty has demonstrated itself to be very relevant, as a US citizen, considering that there appears to be a fifth column within the US using the US treasury & military assets for the exclusive benefit of their own "tribe"...regardless of the harm done to the US, financial or otherwise. For example, at least one very prominent US politician, who grew up in the US, is a veteran of the Israeli military, not the US forces. If this person were a loyal American, why did he serve the military of a foreign nation? In future, will this person put the interests of Israel above those of the US?

Whether it is wise for US "Jews" to put the interests of the state of Israel ahead of the country they live in...it might be unwise if enough loyal Americans became educated to how their government is manipulated for the benefit of foreign powers.

stone wrote: We are all African if you trace our ancestries back far enough.

Is the implication that many people do not have a stronger loyalty/affinity to those of their own ethnic group...because we're all really of the same origins anyhow? I don't know where you live, but that's never been my experience. I suspect those that share this view are in the distinct minority.

I know it is unpleasant to ponder the argument I've presented, but does anyone doubt that many Jews in the US would put the interests of Israel over the interests of the US? If so, please explain.

I'm married to a Filipina (now an American citizen). I have no doubt that she would take the side of the Philippines in any attack against her country. If you want to state it in terms of "interest" it probably gets a little more complicated, but not much.

This is where we are in the 21st Century. Deal with it because that's America - very similar to what we found when our ancestors arrived - a land with boundless opportunity - but maybe not. There is the feeling that we will give it a try according to all we have heard about the land of freedom and opportunity but if push comes to shove maybe we can get in the boat and sail back home.

To be honest, murphy, you are making me feel a little uncomfortable, and I would not be surprised if other Jewish members of this forum felt similarly. You should have no doubt that we are patriotic, loyal citizens. When you say things like "does anyone doubt that many Jews in the US would put the interests of Israel over the interests of the US", and "I think the ancestry and loyalty need to be examined closely in light of the reasons I've already outlined", that comes off as very bigoted and not a little bit paranoid. I grew up around dozens if not hundreds of other American Jews and not one of them placed the interests of Israel before those of the United states. In fact, many of them were and are severely critical of Israel, and for that reason, many Israelis dismiss American Jews as soft-hearted turncoats.

Most of the Jews who might fit your description have already immigrated to Israel. God knows Israel actively courts them.

Pointedstick wrote: To be honest, murphy, you are making me feel a little uncomfortable, and I would not be surprised if other Jewish members of this forum felt similarly. You should have no doubt that we are patriotic, loyal citizens. When you say things like "does anyone doubt that many Jews in the US would put the interests of Israel over the interests of the US"...

I was trying to give Mr Murphy the benefit of the doubt with the ashkenazi/sephardi thing, but even there the Khazar story looks like a group of people masquerading as "Jews" have some cabal in the United States and have lied about our origins. We're just normal people, Murph.

The thing about American Jews being more loyal to Israel is an old canard.
A staggering amount of Jews died in 9/11 and on that day I vividly remember that message boards lit up with -- "Oh well, at least it was in Jew York City." It didn't take long before this got flipped around, though. Jews caused 9/11. It was the Mossad. They warned their fellow Jews to leave the Towers in advance, but didn't warn non-Jews. I guess people believe what they want to.

Meanwhile, Timothy McVeigh murdered a ton of people, but perhaps the same people who don't trust those shadowy Jews think he was a patriot, a modern Thomas Jefferson. Either way, there won't be people raising their eyebrows at last names that start with Mc or Mac (or Murphy). The Irish and the Scottish and the English are real white people, therefore they are loyal.

What did loyal Jewish Germans get for fighting in World War I? They got the stab in the back legend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth

The only reason I don't feel uncomfortable about Murphy's comments is because I expect them, right along with 9/11 truthers and subterranean alien reptile races. There are extremist Muslims (and McVeighs) who make threats and blow things up, but Jews tend to do other things in broad daylight like studying medicine or inventing Google. Therefore, we have to imagine what they're doing in the dark until we have evidence. They're too cowardly to stab us in the back with real knives, so they use influence. And so on, and so on, and so on.

I am extremely reluctant to toss around accusations of anti-Semitism and bigotry but I agree. Some of the commentary on here has been pushing boundaries that raise questions about motives behind the comments. And I say that as someone who has been a frequent critic of US foreign policy vis a vis Israel. It's one thing to question the propriety of powerful lobbies for foreign governments supported by US citizens. It's another matter to focus exclusively on one group using terms like race and ancestry.

I share pointedstick's discomfort and think it is time for me to bow out of this discussion.

Ad Orientem wrote: I share pointedstick's discomfort and think it is time for me to bow out of this discussion.

Hmm, could be the beginning of the end for this thread. I just hope that if it does get locked, I first get to find out what should be done with all these disloyal Jews who may drag the U.S. into a real war with Iran for their own purposes. Specifically, should I wear a stab vest or a flak vest when I venture outside?

I have avoided participating in this thread, which seemed to go downhill when one group of people had to have their name surrounded by quotes.

And, now for a really great message from my Jewish friend, Sarah Silverman!  (I love her...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypRW5qor ... ture=share

Storm wrote: And, now for a really great message from my Jewish friend, Sarah Silverman!  (I love her...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypRW5qor ... ture=share

Yellow Discharge. Classic and gross. hah.

Pointedstick wrote: To be honest, murphy, you are making me feel a little uncomfortable, and I would not be surprised if other Jewish members of this forum felt similarly.

Agree. But why is religious bigotry raised here only when it related to antisemitism? There could be some Muslims on this forum, and no one is consistently commenting on the anti-Islamic slurs. So perhaps we should all view our comments with a high degree of suspicion for narrow view and unhealthy bias?

Ad Orientem wrote: I am extremely reluctant to toss around accusations of anti-Semitism and bigotry but I agree. Some of the commentary on here has been pushing boundaries that raise questions about motives behind the comments. And I say that as someone who has been a frequent critic of US foreign policy vis a vis Israel. It's one thing to question the propriety of powerful lobbies for foreign governments supported by US citizens. It's another matter to focus exclusively on one group using terms like race and ancestry.

Ad Orientem...if not race/ancestry...what might you attribute the motivation of AIPAC supporters to?

btw...there has been zero discussion of the 4th point I raised: "The protestant followers of pre- & post- millenarianism who think the state of Israel can do no wrong." I think this deserves much discussion as these folks are much more numerous in terms of number of voters. This point deals almost exclusively with gentile Christians who support the state of Israel.

BearBones wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: To be honest, murphy, you are making me feel a little uncomfortable, and I would not be surprised if other Jewish members of this forum felt similarly.

Agree. But why is religious bigotry raised here only when it related to antisemitism? There could be some Muslims on this forum, and no one is consistently commenting on the anti-Islamic slurs. So perhaps we should all view our comments with a high degree of suspicion for narrow view and unhealthy bias?

Are you referring to "Let them fight it out?" (in the Middle East). Or the brief discussions about killing in the name of Jesus? (against his teachings). Those don't seem like slurs.
Most of the slurs seem racial and not religious as far as I can tell. I could be mistaken, but I don't think there has been talk of not trusting Arab-Americans (or Muslim Americans).
--------
On a lighter note, that video is hilarious.

dualstow wrote:

BearBones wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: To be honest, murphy, you are making me feel a little uncomfortable, and I would not be surprised if other Jewish members of this forum felt similarly.

Agree. But why is religious bigotry raised here only when it related to antisemitism? There could be some Muslims on this forum, and no one is consistently commenting on the anti-Islamic slurs. So perhaps we should all view our comments with a high degree of suspicion for narrow view and unhealthy bias?

Are you referring to "Let them fight it out?" (in the Middle East). Or the brief discussions about killing in the name of Jesus? (against his teachings). Those don't seem like slurs.
Most of the slurs seem racial and not religious as far as I can tell. I could be mistaken, but I don't think there has been talk of not trusting Arab-Americans (or Muslim Americans).

Doesn't matter, in my mind. Race, people, country, religion. Still hatred. Here's one of many quotes that I find particularly insensitive.

Pointedstick wrote: I tend to think that protesters of any type are generally pretty stupid and misinformed by by virtue of their belief that protesting has any kind of positive effect on anything. Add a little rioting, arson, and murder into the mix, and you're looking at some truly brainless morons.

I say let them burn their country to the ground if they want. Maybe they'll grow up eventually, like some teenagers need to crash their parents' car and get knocked up before they really gain any maturity.

Heh, mea cupa. Definitely not among of the things I'm proud to have written about other people.

Pointedstick wrote: Heh, mea cupa. Definitely not among of the things I'm proud to have written about other people.

No worries. Whenever I feel bad or guilty about something, I end up giving to charities. Probably not the best reasoning for giving but it works for me (plus giving when you're feeling happy too is a plus as well)

Ad Orientem wrote: Some of the commentary on here has been pushing boundaries that raise questions about motives behind the comments.

I accept that some of my questions are provocative, especially regards ancestry. I have no interest in making others feel uncomfortable. I appreciate some of the insights I have gained, esp the one about the views of Israeli Jews towards those living in the US.

However, I'd really like to know why the US continues to give huge sums to the state of Israel in military aid ( $3 Billion / year ? ), especially considering the current state of finances here at home.

murphy_p_t wrote: ...
However, I'd really like to know why the US continues to give huge sums to the state of Israel in military aid ( $3 Billion / year ? ), especially considering the current state of finances here at home.

There's a wiki page on it. Probably a good place to start.

Pointedstick wrote: Heh, mea cupa. Definitely not among of the things I'm proud to have written about other people.

Easy to do. On the news tonight, I saw videos of the rioting in Pakistan. My first reaction was to think, those f-----g idiots! But who am I to judge, really? If I had, by chance, been born to a poor family in Pakistan, instead of in a stable family and community in the US, I too would probably hate the US. If I were born among refugees in Gaza, I too might hate Israel.

[Mod hat on]

Guys, we have been down this road before.

When Israel/antisemitism/etc. comes up it just seems to get out of hand.  Can we leave that topic alone?

Let's get back to Iran and when it will be attacked.

Thank you.

Reub wrote: I saw that Iran is now sending their Qods force into Syria along with weapons... They now have their tentacles in Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank, Gaza, Egypt, Afghanistan, and S. America, Africa along with sleeper cells here in this country...

Tell me it isn't so! Shame on them for meddling in the affairs of other sovereign nations!

BearBones wrote:

Reub wrote: I saw that Iran is now sending their Qods force into Syria along with weapons... They now have their tentacles in Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank, Gaza, Egypt, Afghanistan, and S. America, Africa along with sleeper cells here in this country...

Tell me it isn't so! Shame on them for meddling in the affairs of other sovereign nations!

If I was an average Iranian citizen I would be pissed.  I would want to know why my government was engaged in all of this foreign intrigue rather than trying to improve the quality of life in Iran for people like me.