Culture Anti-Semitism and Collective vs. Individual Guilt

[Cherico]

You ever heard of Jews for Jesus?

Not every person born to a Jewish mother remains a part of the Jewish religion, nor do all Jews dismiss the Christian theology as a 'false prophet' situation.

Nah, the shit on reservations is way, way more complicated than that, and they don't get a lot of 'handouts' due to the way Federal vs State vs Tribal jurisdiction/authority extends.

Also, the Fed gov involuntarily sterilized a lot of native women back in the day, and usually reservations are on the crappiest or just least useful (at the time) piece of land the Feds were willing to give up.

Add in some old tribal grudges and bad blood from before any of them even saw a white person, and some things are issues the white man did not start; seriously, look up how the Apache and Comanche were viewed by their neighbors, or the pueblo vs mesa cultural divides.

Then there is the issue of the Bureau of Indian Affairs possibly being the most useless and corrupt agency in the entire Federal government, and things just keep getting worse for most reservations.

once you convert to another religon thats your religion.

 

[King Arts]

Whether you or I or the bus driver believes that Jews are a "race", the Nazis certainly did. Their extermination plan against Juden was 100% about bloodline, as you call it, and nothing to do with any individual's beliefs.

I recall reading about a Jewess who had converted to Roman Catholicism, and not only that, she had become a closeted nun - spending all her time secluded in a church building praying. List all the stereotypes of bad things Jews do - she was innocent of all of it. Think the Nazis cared?
No, they jackbooted right in, kicked down the door, and dragged her off to a concentration camp - where she later died.
Unfortunately I don't remember her name.

I think you mean cloistered not closeted. One means secluded from society the other implies she is a secret lesbian.

 

[Husky_Khan]

I think you mean cloistered not closeted. One means secluded from society the other implies she is a secret lesbian.

I was going to say something lewd and snarky and obvious, but then I remembered the Nazis apparently dragged the poor nun off to a death camp for being born and murdered her as surely as they murdered my sense of humor in this brief moment.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

The problem with Libertarianism.

Stonetoss titled this "you and what army?"

the problem with this comic is that it's missing one key factor, these guys ended up surrendering willingly because the more organized empires offered better deals. The Aztecs (Or rather the ruling class) were betrayed by their own because they were tired of getting enslaved and sacrificed the Vikings surrendered to the Catholic church because they were starving. The empires were at thier prime, the tribes were in decline. Right now we are dealing with a wannabee empire in decline

 

[Scottty]

the problem with this comic is that it's missing one key factor, these guys ended up surrendering willingly because the more organized empires offered better deals. The Aztecs (Or rather the ruling class) were betrayed by their own because they were tired of getting enslaved and sacrificed the Vikings surrendered to the Catholic church because they were starving. The empires were at thier prime, the tribes were in decline. Right now we are dealing with a wannabee empire in decline

First time I've ever seen the Vikings or the Aztecs described as peaceful people who just wanted to be left alone...
There were lots of other New World tribes who got conquered by the Spanish, you do realize that?

The real point is that if you want to be left alone, you need to have a plan to deal with the people who don't want to leave you alone. And an ideology based on extreme individualism that rejects any sort of large-scale cooperation as "collectivist" is going to have a problem stopping an actually collectivist enemy from just picking you off one by one.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

The real point is that if you want to be left alone, you need to have a plan to deal with the people who don't want to leave you alone.

Plan in this context of course meaning extreme-gatekeeping (actual self defense murder).

 

[Scottty]

Plan in this context of course meaning extreme-gatekeeping (actual self defense murder).

Killing in self-defense isn't murder. But I think your plan needs to be thought out more steps ahead than that.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

First time I've ever seen the Vikings or the Aztecs described as peaceful people who just wanted to be left alone...
There were lots of other New World tribes who got conquered by the Spanish, you do realize that?

The real point is that if you want to be left alone, you need to have a plan to deal with the people who don't want to leave you alone. And an ideology based on extreme individualism that rejects any sort of large-scale cooperation as "collectivist" is going to have a problem stopping an actually collectivist enemy from just picking you off one by one.

The thing is I know VERY view libertarians who are that extreme. They aren't anti-community or anti-tribe, they are anti-empire and all the things that come with empires, Globalism, bloated bureaucracy, and forever wars, ect. Unless there are some sort of new libertarian group I don't know about this seems very much like a strawman

 

[Scottty]

The thing is I know VERY view libertarians who are that extreme. They aren't anti-community or anti-tribe, they are anti-empire and all the things that come with empires, Globalism, bloated bureaucracy, and forever wars, ect. Unless there are some sort of new libertarian group I don't know about this seems very much like a strawman

There's nothing specially Libertarian about being opposed to those things. Someone could be a full-on socialist nanny-state advocate, for example, and regard the USA's current policy of endless wars to be lunacy.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

There's nothing specially Libertarian about being opposed to those things. Someone could be a full-on socialist nanny-state advocate, for example, and regard the USA's current policy of endless wars to be lunacy.

Not really. Socialist nations have to constantly expand to feed the machine. They just tend to get angry when it's thier enimies do it. It's totally ok when they do it. See the democrats or Russia

 

[Scottty]

Not really. Socialist nations have to constantly expand to feed the machine. They just tend to get angry when it's thier enimies do it. It's totally ok when they do it. See the democrats or Russia

Dude, find someone who's a full-on endless-gibs-from-govt advocate and ask him or her "but how is the govt going to get the funds for this?".
The answer is not going to be "Easy! They will just conquer other countries and loot them!"
No, it will much more likely be "Defund the Military-Industrial Complex and spend the money on social programs instead!"

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Dude, find someone who's a full-on endless-gibs-from-govt advocate and ask him or her "but how is the govt going to get the funds for this?".
The answer is not going to be "Easy! They will just conquer other countries and loot them!"
No, it will much more likely be "Defund the Military-Industrial Complex and spend the money on social programs instead!"

They can say whatever they want. We've seen in history what they do. As for the libertarian problem, again I don't know that first libertarian that goes "no organizing what so ever.' they are Anti-empire not anti-organization

 

[Simonbob]

They can say whatever they want. We've seen in history what they do. As for the libertarian problem, again I don't know that first libertarian that goes "no organizing what so ever.' they are Anti-empire not anti-organization

In my experience?

Libertarian's aren't capable of larger organisations. They can't run those groups. They often can't influence said groups.


I agree with much that Libertarian's say, but their very mindset means they can't organise in a lot of ways.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

In my experience?

Libertarian's aren't capable of larger organisations. They can't run those groups. They often can't influence said groups.


I agree with much that Libertarian's say, but their very mindset means they can't organise in a lot of ways.

I don't know what else to tell you buddy.

 

[ATP]

once you convert to another religon thats your religion.

True,but orthodox jews do not think that way.For example - in Warsaw they tracked all jews who lived there ,including catholics,and when they made deal with germans in 1939 to live in getto over which they have power,they gave germans lists of all thos jews.About 105.000 jews who considered themselves as poles was taken to getto as result,and catholics were treated like underhumans by rest of jews there.

And send to death camps first.

The same happened in Hungary after germans take over in 1944 - but zionists made deal with germans there.And,unlike warsaw elites which died in death camps,those zionists were send to Switzerland by germans.Izrael never punished them,when they come there.

 

[Marduk]

There's nothing specially Libertarian about being opposed to those things. Someone could be a full-on socialist nanny-state advocate, for example, and regard the USA's current policy of endless wars to be lunacy.

Absolutely. You could tie it to so called "anti-war movement" rather than libertarians, as that's where the characteristic talking points about forever wars and MIC fit most directly. Sure, there's some overlap between the two, but there's even more overlap between it and leftism, creating some weird alliances, and even some people who fit all of the above - left-libertarians.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Absolutely. You could tie it to so called "anti-war movement" rather than libertarians, as that's where the characteristic talking points about forever wars and MIC fit most directly. Sure, there's some overlap between the two, but there's even more overlap between it and leftism, creating some weird alliances, and even some people who fit all of the above - left-libertarians.

I want to talk about this, but it's off topic

 

[LordDemiurge]

. They can't run those groups. They often can't influence said groups.

The problem with libertarianism is that their ethics work in a low trust society where every man can be his own island. But don't translate as well if you want a developed nation.

Like it or not a lot of things functional societies enjoy tend to be resources that are part of a shared commons. Such things don't get managed with an ideology that has a 'no one owes anyone thing' ethos.

 

[Skallagrim]

The problem with libertarianism is that their ethics work in a low trust society where every man can be his own island. But don't translate as well if you want a developed nation.

Like it or not a lot of things functional societies enjoy tend to be resources that are part of a shared commons. Such things don't get managed with an ideology that has a 'no one owes anyone thing' ethos.

Counter-point: libertarianism only works in a high-trust society. Because that's where you can rely on the fellow members of the community to be "men of their word", without the constant application of force to get people to do what they promised to do. It is precisely in low-trust societies that men can't rely on each other, so they seek an instrument of force to compel others to "behave". That instrument is ultimately state power. (This can be a "formal" government or a warlord of any kind: the basic role is the same. An organised, armed entity that can compel people to obey.)

That's why the "look at Somalia!" canard is so dumb. Somalia is exactly where libertarianism cannot work. A Western country is precisely where it could work. (And we may argue, since Western governments used to be quite small during the entire period where the West took over and basically ruled the world, that in its minarchist iteration, libertarianism very much did work.)

The big "problem" is that such high-trust societies are successful because of their nature, and become victims of their own success. It creates excess wealth. And governments always grow as large as they possibly can. More wealth prompts more taxation, leading to a growth in government. So the exact countries that could actually work very well as libertarian countries almost never do, because the same thing that would allow this also makes them so wealthy that it "encourages" a large government. (In this light, you might view a big government as a "luxury problem". Only successful countries can prop up those things!)

Conversely, low-trust societies can't sustain big governments, for the exact same reason they can't function in a libertarian way. (They get relatively small governments... that are almost 100% dedicated to oppression.)

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Counter-point: libertarianism only works in a high-trust society. Because that's where you can rely on the fellow members of the community to be "men of their word", without the constant application of force to get people to do what they promised to do. It is precisely in low-trust societies that men can't rely on each other, so they seek an instrument of force to compel others to "behave". That instrument is ultimately state power. (This can be a "formal" government or a warlord of any kind: the basic role is the same. An organised, armed entity that can compel people to obey.)

That's why the "look at Somalia!" canard is so dumb. Somalia is exactly where libertarianism cannot work. A Western country is precisely where it could work. (And we may argue, since Western governments used to be quite small during the entire period where the West took over and basically ruled the world, that in its minarchist iteration, libertarianism very much did work.)

The big "problem" is that such high-trust societies are successful because of their nature, and become victims of their own success. It creates excess wealth. And governments always grow as large as they possibly can. More wealth prompts more taxation, leading to a growth in government. So the exact countries that could actually work very well as libertarian countries almost never do, because the same thing that would allow this also makes them so wealthy that it "encourages" a large government. (In this light, you might view a big government as a "luxury problem". Only successful countries can prop up those things!)

Conversely, low-trust societies can't sustain big governments, for the exact same reason they can't function in a libertarian way. (They get relatively small governments... that are almost 100% dedicated to oppression.)

to be frank government systems in general sound like a paradox to a lesser extent. "the system only works if things were a certain way....but if things were that way the system would not be necessary in the first place."