Minor swing

I've been meaning for ages to add alernativeSE4 to the blogroll, highly recommended to my local readers.

Over at Bob's Beats, the first and last EP I bought, and my obituary for Doc Watson.

To add to the "the things 'they' say about me" category: "Bob’s a strange kind of animal. I find him quite creepy." - Gert

Stuff I've read on-line recently: An open letter to Stop the War about Syria; on Britain's last anti-Jewish riots; Ben White v Howard Jacobson; on the tea party, redistribution and populism; what Hitchens left behind; Boris Johnson's ex-wife and her engagement of Muslims; Jenny Tonge's rhetoric and its reporting; +972 on the South Tel Aviv anti-migrant pogroms and their aftermath; Scottish "Socialists" and the seven quid pint and the perversion of science and the chavification of Scotland's alcohol laws; Tony Blair's moral decline; the Idelsohn Society and the problem of cultural reclamation; and academics duelling about Jews, the left and Zionism.


Gert said…
Sheesh. You could have provided a direct link to moi! ;-)

Allow this to stand, just to annoy Modders? Please?

No, I don't really think you're 'creepy'. See: open recantation! Critic of Zionism admits to a little silly indulgence. There was no need for it.

Take care.
How nice. Gert now has it both ways. He fulminates about how creepy you are and then he sort of apologizes (in a creepy sort of way, by scolding you for taking him seriously!) and says it was only to annoy a third party that he said what he said. Wink wink nudge nudge.

but then, what else would you expect from a "Critic of Zionism"? (Note the capital "C" in Critic.)
Gert said…

I'll let Bob be the judge of my retraction.

Capital C because it was the first word after a full stop. Otherwise 'A critic [...]'. Or otherwise 'A critic [...]'. With a capital C in the right place. Not hard, really.

Fulminate, moi? Not in that instance, CC.

modernity's ghost said…

Any idea about this ?


Another Freudian slip from Gert, the poor schmuck. He can't help it. It's been nailed into his mind and the nail sticks out.

modernity ghost said…

Do you truly worry what those deranged "anti-Zionists" think of you?

You're on a hiding to nothing, they're basically authoritarians, unless you adopt their beliefs they will criticise you until the end of time, for perceived slights, minor errors or something you didn't say (as with Elf), etc etc - all nonsense.

As for Gert, hard to take him serious when he's plastered a racist poster on his blog (yes, it is the "I'm Israel's bitch" one).

Presumably Gert got it from ugly truth? Or some other far right site?
Gert said…
Concentric Circles:

‘Freudian slip’? Huh? Explain? No, don’t both. Fitting wheels to tomato and all that…


‘Authoritarians?’ Have you lost your conkers again? Let me remind you it is you who goes around certain blogs demanding certain bloggers be banned. W/o much success, I note with relief.
modernity ghost said…

Maybe you could post on why Gert uses racist material on his blog?
Gert said…
You're right, Bob. There's no Zionist lobby. Come to think of it, there's no Tobacco lobby either. Or a Big Oil lobby. All mirages in my imagination...

Still, Modders: do your worst!
Not surprised that Gert does not get it. He also doesn't get that there is no way you can call someone "creepy" and then shrug it away as though it was all meant as a big joke, expecting to be forgiven. Nothing funny about "creepy". It says something about what kind of creepy-crawlies swarm about in the furniture that inhabit the sick mind that makes such accusations.

My advice to Bob is to test the sincerity of Gert's apology by subjecting him to a Jewish standard: Wait for him to ask for forgiveness three times and explain adequately that he understands the injury that his words caused. It is more than just a personal matter between Bob and Gert. As Gert himself admitted freely, he was casting a wider net with his insult.

Gert is a proper schmuck and a proto-fascist.
Gert said…
My words caused 'injury'???

It wasn't meant as a joke. Just a throwaway remark. I ditched it. Turn it into a mountain, Mod.

'[...] casting a wider net with this insult.' Huh?

I think Modders is just trying provoke me now. He's the one that seems to be digging a hole here.
It wasn't meant as a joke. Just a throwaway remark. I ditched it."

I'm glad you agree with my interpretation, Gert. As I said, you called Bob "creepy" to insult him, and then you came here and tried to tell him that it was really just a joke and that it was meant to bait Modernity. Wink wink nudge nudge know what I mean?

What do you mean, you "ditched" it? Did you or did you not write that Bob is creepy? You can't ditch what you had written. You can express genuine regret and you will be believed ONLY when you show that you sincerely regret having insulted Bob in this manner. A sincere regret would entail a demonstration of proper understanding that this WAS an insult, totally uncalled for, accompanied by an open admission that you are a moron and a lesser human being for having used it against someone you know for a fact is one of the most decent bloggers around.

So far you have failed on all counts, Schmuckers.

Oh, and btw, the previous comment was posted by me not Modernity's ghost.
Gert said…

If the injury was a broken nail or worse, I'll definitely try to atone for my sin. ;-)

I'll check back in when there's something to reply to here.


There's a man for you, a notable coward, who called a decent and honorable blogger a creepy animal and then, when challenged on it, tried to excuse it as a non-issue, a mere joke, not really meant for the named addressee but at someone else.

Both the insult and its dismissal as no big deal are not accidental errors but rather the trade of the pseudo-humanitarian, a coward, who fancies he is in any moral position
whatsoever to be a "Critic of Zionism".

At this point silence is your best recourse, schmuckers. What can you say that could possibly cleanse your sheretzy self?
SnoopyTheGoon said…
Must be a slow day on the island of Albion. Arguing with Gert? Posting about a comments fight with Gert?

What next?
BTW, Bob. more to the point:

Concerning "Academics Duel Over Complex Truths of Zionism", I posted a response on my blog. The lower half deals with Peled's linguistic dishonesty:

Bob said…
I'm out of the country at the moment, and am a bit flummoxed by this - should've realised I was launching a bombshell and leaving the room.

Mod, I have no idea what that is about - I'm intrigued.

CC, will read your post on my reply.
Not a bombshell at all, Bob. Just a bit of a stink wafting in from some noxious source, easily dispersed, as you can see.

TNC added a solid comment to my post, btw.
modernity's ghost said…

It is simple, Gert has racist material on his blog and he's unashamed of it.

It is the same stuff you find at the awful, Ugly Truth site, etc

After all Gert's an "anti-Zionist" why wouldn't he see Ugly Truth stuff as acceptable?

I doubt he batted an eyelid.
Gert said…

Explain why it's a racist banner. I don't know 'Ugly Truth'. It's irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned.
bob said…
I did a google search to see what sort of sites have the "I'm Israel's bitch" banner, and it's pretty unsavoury company: desertpeace, citizenfitz, undeleted evidence, blondesense (where the caption is "Uncle Schlemiel Wants You!"), What Really Happened, Voice of Reason - truther sites, conspiracy sites, Holocaust denial sites, far right wingnut sites... Not a nice crowd to identify oneself with.
It's an extremely ugly animalistic image based on a neo-Nazi male way of speaking about a woman one has sex with. comparing Obama to a bitch and Israel to a sexual predator How is it possible not to consider this as vile and racist in the extreme? I presume for Gert this constitutes a legitimate form of criticism. Well, I am sure Der Sturmer would have agreed with his ethical perspicuity.
Gert said…

A weak case of guilt by association, is that all you’ve got?

I don’t know a single one of these sites you mention (never even heard of a single one of them) and didn’t get the banner from any of them either. I don't 'identify myself' with any of those sites, in any way, shape or form.

The banner lampoons the ‘tail wags dog’ analogy with regards to the US/Israel relationship and the power of the pro-Zionist lobby and all those who sail in it.

Characteristically I see Modders refusing to address the point. That happened too when he came over to my blog some years ago and accused me of antisemitism After having been asked repeatedly by three bloggers (myself included) why he believed I was antisemitic, all he could come up with was his standard trope: “in ‘anti-Zionism’, ‘Zionism is code for ‘Jews’”.

If you believe that, then clearly providing even the slightest shred of evidence of antisemitism is no longer required. And any banner or any manifestation that’s critical of Zionism or Israel is automatically suspect. Such is the hermetic ‘reasoning’ of your friend. Personally I believe Modders is a Philosemite.
Gert said…
But then you, Modders, Joseph W etc are very competent smear merchants. By deep searching you'd manage to link Obama to Goebbels if somehow it suited you...
Ah Gert, ever the vigilant and attentive reader ... Just as I said, Gert believes saying things like that constitutes legitimate criticism of Israel. That's the second time on this thread that he confirms an assessment I made about him.

I repeat my advice to Bob about applying a Jewish standard for forgiveness in this case. No mitigating circumstances for Gert's "creepy" comment. It was sheer and gratuitous malevolence and bile.2
Gert said…

Engaging with you would be like engaging with Sharon Klaff at Richard Millett's.

No thanks!
It is a staple of Gert's hermetic world that he mentions names I am totally unfamiliar with. However I can say with as much certainty as day and night that for an Israeli to engage with Gert would be about as fruitful as a Jew engaging with Julius Streicher's mailroom clerk.

Remember Gert's Naziesque "NEXT" and his embrace of a racist banner lifted directly from neo- Nazi lexicon.

Gert actually believes he capable of "engaging" with other minds. mind-boggling delusion.

Shmuckaroo par excellence.
Gert said…
How the word NEXT! acquires a 'Naziesque' meaning is truly beyond me. You're stark raving bonkers.
modernity's ghost said…

I appreciate you like open debate with critics, but and this is not a small but, but do you have any evidence to suggest that even one of your many arguments sinks in, with Gert & Co?

You are flogging a dead horse/parrot, etc

NOTHING you could say will work, nothing you could argue would change these cranks' minds.

They didn't reason themselves into those positions and can't be reasoned out of them...

It is a waste of time discussing complex issues with such thickos, which is why I won't engage with them, directly...

It is a waste of effort...
Gert said…
”I appreciate you like open debate with critics, but and this is not a small but, but do you have any evidence to suggest that even one of your many arguments sinks in, with Gert & Co?”

Erm… how many arguments has he made here, Modders? An attempt a linkage, that’s it. Nothing more.
bob said…
I don't believe in "engaging" or arguing with folks like Gert - or like Sharon Klaff for that matter. I'm not interested in repentance or otherwise re the "creepy" comment - I was half amused, half creeped out.

I was curious about the banner Mod was referring to, so went and had a look. I think it's ugly and vile and offensive.

And it perpetuates a completely false idea, in that it claims that the "tail" is the poor little USA and the "dog" is huge mighty Israel, which, as even Chomsky can tell us, is complete nonsense.

I'm not sure whether it's "racist" as such, but it's certainly sexist.

I also don't care much about diagnosing antisemitism in individuals (as in "the slightest shred of evidence of antisemitism"). I care about how ugly, vile, offensive discourses and images circulate. I think context matters.

I was therefore curious where Gert might have found it so idly google imaged around. The first few hits were the sites I mentioned, but I didn't do any kind of research to establish a chain of association. I just thought it was interesting that this is where this stuff floats around. The Israel's bitch phrase also comes from a lot of far right wingnut sites who specifically identify Obama as the bitch, often using grotesquely racist caricatures of him. I won't provide links, but you can find it easily if you're interested.

(Btw, I was probably wrong to put desertpeace quite in the same camp as the other sites, but it does continue to link to Atzmon, and is close to people like Latuff and Khalid Amayreh, who frequently spout racism.)

So, I wasn't making any "argument" about this, just presenting an observation.

As for an argument from "association", well, the anti-Zionists who seek to discredit BIC and Millett and Hoffman and co seem to think that establishing basically similar associations between them and the EDL is enough. The association or otherwise is not what's important - if you look for association, everyone's only a few clicks away from everyone else.

What's important is the politics and the discourse, the imagery and the memes. The Israel's bitch meme is a horrible one.
Here is an illustration of Gert's level of "engagement".



The Israel's bitch meme is racist, bob. There is no question about it. It employs both sexual and bestial images to describe the Jewish state's relationship to Obama, who is himself a black man for whom these kind of images resonate with the same kind of vulgarity and loathing they are intended to express. It is the kind of language you hear from skinheads and other scary creatures. What does criticism of Zionism have to do with this type of verbal flatulence whose pedigree goes back to the KKK and other Nazi fulminations??
Gert said…
” I care about how ugly, vile, offensive discourses and images circulate. I think context matters.”

And if you think this banner is “ugly and vile” you’re simply an over-sensitive extra-delicate touch-me-not flower. You must lead a very sad life, in a world where real offence is given all the time, that you feel the need to spend so much time analysing something so innocuous, inconsequential and insignificant…

It comes as no surprise that someone here takes even greater (and more faked) offense at the banner also manages to see the expression ‘NEXT!’ as ‘Naziesque’.
I hadn’t expected that my passport here would be valid for more than a few comments, so I’ll keep whatever time I’ve got left for an occasion when perhaps something substantive is on the table.

So long.
bob said…
Interesting Gert came here expecting to be banned or kicked out. Says something, but not sure what. Anyway, back to more pleasant, interesting and important stuff, hopefully.
Gert said…
”Says something, but not sure what.”

Here, let me help you out:

Modernity has form getting people banned from other people’s blogs. I have it on very good authority he’s managed to do it here too (you may not be creepy but Modders is definitely a fully fledged creep). Hence my low expectations re. my longevity here. And it’s early days…
"(you may not be creepy but Modders is definitely a fully fledged creep)."

That's the best apology you can expect from Gert, Bob. Moved by imaginary persecutors he blunders on and on, vulgarity and vituperation all included, and has the nerve to complain about being sidelined and marginalized. Talka bout creeps and such.

You know my position, Bob. These posters's presence and their fantastic sense of grievance are priceless if you want a readily available illustration of the kind of human material that makes up the Stuphascist Left. Banning him? Gert is a gift that gives on giving. Why would anyone want to get rid of such a goose?

Sidebar: It seems to me that Gert wants to get back into your good graces, Bob. Just a hunch. He is however incapable of self-introspection and therefore unable to offer a real apology. Jewish standard, Bob. Please don't give him any discount just because you feel sorry for his wretched schmucky ass
bob said…
Still here Gert?

Modernity has form getting people banned from other people’s blogs. I have it on very good authority he’s managed to do it here too

Well, that's simply not tree at all, trust me. I could document that fact, but I don't see why I should. This is my house. If you want to call people creepy, do it in your house. My default is not to ban, but sometimes to delete. I don't base this on hard and fast rules, but on when the mood is becoming un-conducive to the type of discussion I want people to be having in my house. Clearly, that moment came some time ago on this thread and I should have deleted a lot of the above comments. I didn't, because I felt it was my own fault for posting as I did. But I'll probably start deleting stuff now.

It seems to me vitally important, at least if you care about the things I care about, to discuss things like Zionist/EDL associations or anti-Zionist/wingnut associations, to have them out in the open. It is worth debating an "Israel's bitch" banner or the vice-president of a Zionist organisation standing next to someone who uses the word "Paki". I think sometimes "engaging" with people I wouldn't want to be associated with can help that happen. However, trollery, personal invective and flame wars are not conducive to those sorts of discussions, and they scare away people who want to have a meaningful conversation.
bob said…
not tree at all?

er, I mean not true at all...
bob said…
Oh, one other thing I wanted to get off my chest, and then I'll draw a line. The phrase "this particular
Jew cried wolf" in the JsF thread I link to above has been niggling me too. That's all.
modernity's ghost said…

Just to be clear about my views, as I don't like them being misrepresented by the likes of Gert, etc

I personally don't favour banning anyone from discussions.

However, experience and history has shown that allowing racists, their apologists or those purblind to racism to disrupt otherwise intelligent discussions is detrimental to the free exchange of information.

It's a bit like inviting someone into your living room having them vomit on your carpet and then say a week later "why can't I came back and puke up again on your furniture?" "by not allowing me to vomit in your living room you are restricting my freedoms" etc etc

Which is all nonsense on the Internet, such people are free to create their own blogs or find like-minded blogs and expel their filth/idiocies elsewhere, but can't compel others to suffer it.

It is noticeable that such racists,apologists and cranks can't and won't enter any meaningful discussion for any length of time, rather their modus operandi is to make a few pithy comments, bring up irrelevances and ignore the train of conversation.

In such circumstances their purpose is *not* to enhance or encourage discussion rather to disrupt it.

I don't believe they should be encouraged as it limits wider discussion and frightens people off.

Having said that, each blog, forum or web site has to decide their own policy on comments, obviously I have my own opinions, but that's all they are opinions.

Bob has shown he is perfectly capable of ignoring my sage advice, and that's his right :)
Gert said…
”Jew cried wolf" in the JsF thread I link to above has been niggling me too. That's all.”

Well, damned if you do, damned if you don’t, eh? Had I used the term ‘American Zionist’, the likes of your bessy mate Modders would have claimed I was speaking in tongues. Since I didn’t know for sure the person in question was indeed a Zionist, the term ‘Jew’ seemed entirely appropriate. I hope that puts your niggles to rest. I also hope it doesn’t come to a point where the word ‘Jew’ becomes suspect, unless it is used by another Jew (ooopsie!) or a fellow admirer of Israel.

”However, experience and history has shown that allowing racists, their apologists or those purblind to racism to disrupt otherwise intelligent discussions is detrimental to the free exchange of information.”

Except of course that I am or do none of these things and that people like Skidmarx (you called for his banning over at Engage) don’t do it either.

You really are quite a piece of work, Modders. Don’t you know that ‘history has [also] shown’ that suppressing dissent, deviant opinion and other alternative voices by means of bans, censorship and much worse besides that are tactics of totalitarians (a term you risibly levelled at me and Mark Elf, higher up)?

The claim ‘[they] disrupt otherwise intelligent discussions’ is a HP tactic. There ‘Alan A.’ (or is it ‘Alec’, they all sound the same to me), drill sergeant of HP’s Zionists, routinely berates (and threatens) dissenters about ‘going off topic’, as if there really exists a single human conversation that doesn’t meander. All meandering by the party-faithful is, needless to add, fully approved.

Finally, if I’m such a racist, how come I have no problem commenting over at Zionist sites like Alex Stein’s FalseDichotomies, Millett’s blog or Emmanuel’s? In the past also at extremist sites like Mad Zionist and satellites?
Gert's dissent (from what?)is being suppressed, poor dear. A commenter on a blog where Gert freely posts his vile opinions suggested he be banned by the blogger and that puts brave not-to-be-silenced Gert on par with famous dissenters in totalitarian regimes, what do you know. With typical cognitive dissonance, in the very next para he itemizes all the blogs where his opinions are considered emphatically unwelcome which do allow his comments to stand, undisturbed. What to make of such a wounded self-righteous personality, always whining and complaining about his imaginary "rights" to be heard wherever he wants? Not much.

In case this is not obvious, Gert begs you to ban him. I say, Bob, be a sadist and refuse to ban him no matter how vile and racists his comments are. Let his comments bear witness against him, revealing to all what a hypocrite he is.
Gert said…
You should learn to read, CC. No, really.

You toss around a la mode terms like 'cognitive dissonance' without much comprehension of them.

If anyone is coming close to trolling it's you right now.
Another sign of Gert's cognitive dissonance: He cannot acknowledge his own incompetence. After defending the use of such pearly phrases like "Israel is Obama's bitch" (lifted directly from skinheads' favourite lingo) and "Jew cries wolf", after leaving a soiled comment on my own blog on a post which had nothing to do with politics, he has the temerity to define for us what trolling means. He is incapable of expressing even one thoughtful idea yet he knows what trolling is. Anyone reminded of the fox and the sour grapes? This person, or whatever he is, is totally unteachable.
Gert said…
"Israel is Obama's bitch"

Where does it say that, dearest?

A "soiled comment"?

Keep reading tea leaves. Personally I feel you're starting to be an embarrassment to your friends...
modernity's ghost said…
One of my comments seems to have gone missing, but no matter.

Again, NO one is saying Gert and other cranks shouldn't have a chance to puke out their nonsense and purblindness to racism, it is just *where*.

I find the smell of their vomit a bit much for my taste.

And that's the issue.

Should the rantings of racists, bigots or cranks like Gert be given pride of place whilst others go elsewhere for informed debate?

Because that's what happens, you only need to look around the web for such evidence, intelligent, thoughtful people go elsewhere rather than suffer the whiff of that spew.
Gert said…
”Again, NO one is saying Gert and other cranks shouldn't have a chance to puke out their nonsense and purblindness to racism, it is just *where*.”

You’re LYING. The people that you want banned aren’t ‘purblind’ [sic, next he be writing in The Bard’s English!] to racism AT ALL and they certainly aren’t blind to Israel’s racism which is deeply embedded, and practically systemic.

If you’re such a champion of anti-racism how come you linked to Millett’s blog, where racists like Roberta Moore are welcome, unblurbed? How come you once contributed to CiFWatch, which stunk to high heaven of Islamophobia? Were once quite a devoted habitué at HP, whose racism I exposed on my own blog (quite a turkey shoot that was!)? How come I’ve seen you nod approvingly in the direction of ‘Fabian from Argentina’, who espouses views on ‘Arabs’ that should make any anti-racist cringe?

Your indignation is highly selective. Philosemitic, very clearly. At least you're slightly more intelligent than Jewlie Burchill and her foetal companion, Oy Va Goy...
"Jewlie Burchill " joins the "Obama is Israel's bitch" and a "Jew cries wolf". Is there any doubt that Gert is an antisemite?

This person is a moral illiterate. He actually thinks calling someone a philosemite (liking Jews and having an appreciation for their culture and wisdom) is an insult.

And his comments are nothing less than simple, garden-variety, time-honoured Jews baiting.

Like I said earlier, Gert is a gift that keeps on giving. His comments should be highlighted. Nothing better than the antisemite bearing witness against himself.
Gert said…
The term ‘Jewlie’ Burchill was cioined by Mel Poluck, a Jewish Zionist.

Philosemitism is the reverse side of antisemitism: the beliefs that ‘Jews are good’ or ‘Jews are bad’ mirror each other in stupidity. Jews are Jews are people.

And what have we here: the indefatigable ‘anti-racist’ Modders commenting on Mike Melchett’s rag. And here’s that same racist with a piece on the… French! (read it, it’s vile).

Mike has no problem 'admitting' that (his words) ‘[he] hates the French’. For Modders however the fact that Vile Mike is Jewish is obviously good enough. The usual suspects Daniel Marks and Richard Millett, needless to say, comment there frequently. When it got so bad that Vile Mike promised to come and see me in Bridlington for (I quote) “Ice-cream and iron bars”, Millett actually stepped in and contacted Vile Mike to try and defuse things a little. Mike is also not keen on homosexuals, describing their sexual practices as only a Sun reading gay basher would do.
Well done, Modders!
"The term ‘Jewlie’ Burchill was cioined by Mel Poluck, a Jewish Zionist."

And that of course cleanses the sheretz.

Please note how Gert's excuse for using this hateful turn of a name is immediately refuted by his sanctimonious explanation as to why philosemitism is as reprehensible as antisemitism. Justifies the use of antisemitic mocking by pointing that its origin comes from a Jew so therefore it must be moral to use it. Doesn't it make Gert a philosemite, in terms of his own definition of what philosemitism is?

Furthermore, if philosemite is as reprehensible as antisemite, wouldn't anti-racist be as reprehensible as racist?

I'm sure this will be too much to digest for the moral illiterate ignoramus.
Gert said…
”Furthermore, if philosemite is as reprehensible as antisemite, wouldn't anti-racist be as reprehensible as racist?”

Nope. An antiracist would oppose philosemitism as much as he would antisemitism.

There is 100 % nothing wrong with showing appreciation for another culture, but Jewlie and Chas go much further, as Poluck easily grasped in Burchill’s case.
Please note how Gert is incapable of providing any rational and well-grounded explanation as to why calling Julie Burchill "Jewlie" is ethically correct except by citing that so and so, a Jew himself, said so and that particular so and so really knows what's what.

It's the kind of feeble mind that doesn't get how a neo-Nazi phrase like "Obama is Israel's bitch" is actually antisemitic and racist.

Gert wants us to believe him when he says he is anti racist and not antisemitic at the same time as he drools with visible relish over these Jew-baiting phrases.
Gert said…
[…] "Obama is Israel's bitch" is actually antisemitic and racist.”

Repeating fallacies doesn’t bestow veracity on them, no matter how often you repeat themt. ‘Uncle Sam’ is not Obama, ‘Uncle Sam’ stand for a lot of things. Unconditional US support for Israel is one thing for instance. The mendacious stance that the US is an ‘honest broker’ in the conflict another.
There is an unbridgeable gap between complaining that the US favours Israel and formulating this complaint in ugly-sexual-neo Nazi language. The fact that Gert is incontinent in his need for scatological, sexual and bestial innuendos proves that he is nothing but a petty antisemite. Even his insults are derivative cliches. He should have his mouth scrubbed with some carbolic soap.
Gert said…
”[…] this complaint in ugly-sexual-neo Nazi language.”

Why didn’t you throw in some paedophilia too, eh? Just for good measure. Anyone who sees something sexual into this image has a very dirty mind, if you ask me.
bob said…
Have been off-line for 48 hours or so, so not very pleasant to return to this.

I am mostly inclined to agree with CC. We gave Gert enough rope, and he has sure hung himself, with his string of increasingly bizarre and increasingly line-crossingly racist stuff. For example, while the Uncle Sam as Israel's bitch image might not be racist in the way that the widely circulating Obama as Israel's bitch image is, someone who can't recognise the phrase "Israel's bitch" as deeply sexist and offensive (actually, if you said Greece is Germany's bitch, for example, this would be equally bad)
is completely beyond understanding racism, prejudice, etc, and therefore not qualified in the least to comment on Israel's racism. Someone who thinks the term "Jewlie Burchill" is acceptable, simply because some Jew used it is no better than someone who uses the phrase "Paki lover" or "nigger lover". Someone who can't see why "this Jew cried wolf" is an affront to any anti-racist and to Jews in general is as bad as the BNP member who goes on about "blacks crying racist". I am not qualified to say if this is an intellectual failing on Gert's part, or wilful racism. Who cares.

My overwhelming instinct is to delete that sort of shit. As Mod says, he is perfectly free to throw up in his house, or in Levi's, but I'm not going to let back in my house if he keeps throwing up on my guests.

However, his evident desire to get attention, like a toddler's, and his portrayal of himself as some kind of "critic" or dissenting voice suggest he would love nothing more than to notch another banning up to his bedpost. So, doing so would give him a satisfaction I'm reluctant to grant, and seeing his comments here are good evidence of the moral debasement of him and his ilk.


The inability to tell the difference between totalitarian "bans, censorship and much worse besides", on the one hand, and people maintaining certain standards of speech in their own spaces, on the other (as if my personal blog is the BBC or something, or as if me pressing delete is equivalent to the state getting out its blue pencil*), is quite a widespread phenomenon, quite common on the libertarian right and among juvenile anarchists, for example, but is often a feature of those with offensive views.


Btw, I don't see "philosemite" as either a compliment or an insult. I think there is a strong argument that philosemitism is a subtle form of racism, but it is clearly at worst a relatively benign one, especially in comparison to, well, most examples of antisemitism you can draw from Jewish history, so someone who thinks it is as bad is clearly utterly lacking any moral compass or understanding of racism whatsoever. I also think (for the record as they say) it is completely clear that Mod is an utterly consistent anti-racist, who has attacked anti-Muslim racism, for example, very consistently.

See http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/feb/16/antisemitism-philosemitism and andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/06/distrust-for-the-christianists.html , as well as academic work of Bryan Cheyette and Michael Ragussis for interesting discussions of philosemitism, for those who actually care about these issues rather than see this an excuse for personal insults)


One more thing, I don't like the schmuck stuff much either. And why is it people always put a C between the S and H in schmuck? Is it a German word rather than a Yiddish one?


*Do I mean blue pencil? Am I mixing my metaphors?
bob said…
Oh, rescued one comment from the auto-spam folder. Can't see where it went. There was only one though.
Gert said…
Have it your way, Bob.

Someone warned me against you and they were entirely right.

I won’t be commenting on this blog again. Smear merchant quasi-intellectuals like you generally bore me stiff.

modernity's ghost said…

I think it's best to leave Gert's incoherent ramblings up, as a reference.

Sadly, (or maybe thankfully) I didn't read that Jsf with any care and missed Gert's offensive remark about "But this particular
Jew cried wolf and Bob fell for it…"

What can I say?

Gert's behaviour and arguments are what you would expect from such "anti-Zionists", juvenile, narcissistic and mostly repugnant.
Sarah AB said…
This was a curious comment - the final statement in particular - by Gert from the thread (on TG's blog) I quoted from a while back in relation to the Lieberman visit.

"This is the leitmotif of all ‘liberal’ Zionism of course, from Harry’s Place to Engage: that in name they oppose the Occupation but in reality rant and rail against anyone who campaigns against… the Occupation! And have they potty trained their non-Jewish supporters well:"
"One more thing, I don't like the schmuck stuff much either."

What's wrong with "schmuck" or "shmuck"? It is a perfectly good word by which to describe someone like Gert.

According to wiki: "Schmuck or shmuck in American English is a pejorative meaning an obnoxious, contemptible or detestable person, or one who is stupid or foolish."

modernity's ghost said…

I think the one problem with such "anti-Zionists" is not their bitterness and scatty comments rather their focus.

They are, for the most part, concerned with personalities.

They rarely examine arguments with any competence and mostly have a profound detachment from logic.

So discussions with them normally end up being shouting matches "you..." "oh you..." or discussing comments policies, where the political issues are relegated.

I doubt that there is their intention, they are not so insightful, but that's what tends to happen when you examine such discussions they demonstrate incredibly petty personality issues (which would make even the Daily Mail weep), the personalisation of their own misery and an inability to cogently address the arguments.

Their politics, such as it is, represents a venting of the spleen.
"I think the one problem with such "anti-Zionists" is not their bitterness and scatty comments rather their focus."

In this case you can't tell the dancer from the dance. Their anti-Zionist position hail from irrationally deep contempt and loathing which cannot be expressed except through contempt and scatological formulations. The vulgarity of the position and the coarseness of its expression are cut from the same cloth.
modernity's ghost said…
Very good point, CC

Expressed with greater finesse than I could muster, no disagreement from me.

When I have tried, patiently to understand or engage with modern "anti-Zionists" all I have found in them is a deep irrationality, an inability to argue coherently, a preachy mentality and authoritarianism.

I sometimes think it would be easier to make Norman Tebbit (an arch Thatcherrite) embrace trade unionism (or Karl Rove espouse socialism) before you could talk any sense into (or from) one of these "anti-Zionists".

That's how bad they are.