Rep. Omar accused of anti-semitism, apologizes.

[Proletarian]

Socialism isn't a political platform to be implemented by a vote of 50.1% anyway. It's an emergent phenomenon within capitalism engendered by concrete sociohistoric conditions and not the vicissitudes of Party politics or the individual wills of ideologues. This basic conceit is what distinguishes Marxism from the utopias crafted by men like Pierre Joseph-Prodhoun or Saint Simon - Marxists categorically reject the view that there is or can ne a ready-made platform which can be implemented consciously as soon as a popular majority "becomes conscious" of it. (The Manifesto of 1848 is best understood as a contextual document exploring the limits of the possible for the nascent labor movement at the time and not as a step-by-step guide to achieving socialism.)

It also isn't a condition which can be eased into - a system of State subsidy or welfarism is not "socialistic"; the so-called 'mixed economy' is simply a variant of capitalism.

And, finally, there is no such thing as 'Marxian economics', and Marx was not an economist. Marxism is a critique of capitalist political economy, just as socialism can be defined simply as "the negation of capitalism" - the abolition of the value form via the elimination of commodity production for exchange.

[The Romulan Republic]

No, you're right I don't. Thankfully neither do dumbfuck liberals like you who've never read about socialism academically in your life and I can pull the actual definition out.

"Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management"

If they're not pushing those, they're not fucking Socialists. Socialism is "not when the government does things and the more things it does the Socialister it is."

I am just as capable as you of typing "socialism definition" into Google and copying the results, thank you.

Your's is not the only definition of socialism I have seen, but it is broadly accurate to the best of my knowledge. Simply, then, socialism can be defined as any system in which the people (whether directly or through their representatives, ie the duly elected government) exercise substantial control over the economy. The greater the extent of that control, the more socialist the system is.

And yes, I'm well aware that socialism is not defined by the level of government control alone. I'm not a Republican.

Bernie's not my guy, idiot, he's a liberal too. Perhaps, not as bad as the neoliberals, but he's still a fucking liberal.

I never said that Bernie was your guy (apparently you're one of those people who thinks Bernie sucks because he actually wanted to get shit done instead of burning the world), but you are making the same mistake that the Bernie or Busters did, and we see the price of their idiocy.

Oh, yes, you're so much better than the Fascists, you're only literally killing the planet

There are a range of views on environmental protection in the Democratic Party, but pretty much all of them are better than anything you will find in the GOP. Like, objectively, quantifiably better. But because they are not good enough, you will focus all your hate on the Democrats, implicitly propping up the Republicans.

It is fifth column third party lemmings like you who are "killing the planet", for the sake of your nihilistic vendetta. Because you would rather have utter destruction than imperfect progress, by your own admission.

It is one thing to have principles. That is necessary, if our struggles are to have any meaning. It is another to demand that you get everything you want on every issue or the world should burn. That is the thinking of a petulant child (or the sitting PotUS).

Yeah, "Blow the whole thing the fuck up."

So you admit that you are a nihilistic death cultist who just wants to see as much destruction as possible?

Here's a hint, dip shit: blowing shit up is easy. Building something functional on the rubble, that's hard. See Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and most revolutions in history.

No I'm sorry, I don't share in that blame. You're the one who supported a corporate suite who lacked any kind of relatable policy, you're the one who backs a party that defends the choice not to castigate a rape apologist like Manchin because he might leave the party, you're the one backing a party that thinks yelling at the monsters who inter children in concentration camps when they try to eat in public is "too extreme", you're the one who every day you're not calling for a general strike you are facilitating the normalization of a Fascist president. You are the one backing a capitalist system that in it's inherent search for maximized profits to commodify every aspect of our existence.

1. I have repeatedly argued that Manchin should be stripped of party support.

2. Again, "not having the policy you want" is not the same as "having no policy".

3. The Democratic Party is not a homogenous hive mind with a single view on any of these issues. This is objective, demonstrable fact.

4. When you knowingly trying to sabotage the best hope of stopping Neo-Fascism, then try to wash your hands of any responsibility for the consequences, that makes you a coward, as well as a fool.

Pictured, My Crowd:

Given the context and your own words, it is difficult to take that image as anything other than a deliberate celebration/incitement of political violence.

We don't think the Fascists have any value in a conversation, of course we save the vitriol for you pieces of shit, the Nazis don't even rate deserving being talked to.

Well isn't that convenient. You give the fascists the complicity of silence, and reserve your attacks purely for the opponents of fascism. And then you have the gall to frame this as giving you the moral high ground?

Also, mods: Please note when this discussion inevitably becomes actionable that while I certainly took an aggressive line of argument, it was Ritteren Sophia who first resorted to petty personal abuse and name calling. Any insults, flames, or personal abuse I throw is purely retaliatory.

[Ralin]

Given the context and your own words, it is difficult to take that image as anything other than a deliberate celebration/incitement of political violence.

Also, mods: Please note when this discussion inevitably becomes actionable that while I certainly took an aggressive line of argument, it was Ritteren Sophia who first resorted to petty personal abuse and name calling. Any insults, flames, or personal abuse I throw is purely retaliatory.

Rom, little advice? I actually agree with you here, but if you ever want to actually convince anyone of anything you really need to work on sounding less wordy, pedantic and...what's the word, prim I guess? There isn't a rhetorical bonus to metaphorically crossing all your Ts and dotting all your Is, and this is a good example of that in action.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I am just as capable as you of typing "socialism definition" into Google and copying the results, thank you.

Your's is not the only definition of socialism I have seen, but it is broadly accurate to the best of my knowledge. Simply, then, socialism can be defined as any system in which the people (whether directly or through their representatives, ie the duly elected government) exercise substantial control over the economy. The greater the extent of that control, the more socialist the system is.

And yes, I'm well aware that socialism is not defined by the level of government control alone. I'm not a Republican.

None of them are actually advocating for that either, so...

I never said that Bernie was your guy (apparently you're one of those people who thinks Bernie sucks because he actually wanted to get shit done instead of burning the world), but you are making the same mistake that the Bernie or Busters did, and we see the price of their idiocy.

Stop with this liberal revisionism, Bernie voters voted for Clinton in greater numbers than Clinton supports did Obama after the 2008 primary.

There are a range of views on environmental protection in the Democratic Party, but pretty much all of them are better than anything you will find in the GOP. Like, objectively, quantifiably better. But because they are not good enough, you will focus all your hate on the Democrats, implicitly propping up the Republicans.

It is fifth column third party lemmings like you who are "killing the planet", for the sake of your nihilistic vendetta. Because you would rather have utter destruction than imperfect progress, by your own admission.

It is one thing to have principles. That is necessary, if our struggles are to have any meaning. It is another to demand that you get everything you want on every issue or the world should burn. That is the thinking of a petulant child (or the sitting PotUS).

The views on environmental protection in the establishment Democratic Party are better than Republicans, sure, that doesn't make them good. Fuck off with that.

So you admit that you are a nihilistic death cultist who just wants to see as much destruction as possible?

Here's a hint, dip shit: blowing shit up is easy. Building something functional on the rubble, that's hard. See Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and most revolutions in history.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, were imperialist actions, actions you liberal warmongers are responsible for! So get this. I want to abolish the system we have now and make a new one, I'm not more a death cultist than the least of the revolutionaries you liberals created a cult around.

N1. I have repeatedly argued that Manchin should be stripped of party support.

2. Again, "not having the policy you want" is not the same as "having no policy".

3. The Democratic Party is not a homogenous hive mind with a single view on any of these issues. This is objective, demonstrable fact.

4. When you knowingly trying to sabotage the best hope of stopping Neo-Fascism, then try to wash your hands of any responsibility for the consequences, that makes you a coward, as well as a fool.

1. I don't care what you want, I care what the party you support wants.
2. Clinton had no real answer.
3. You don't have to be a hivemind to be limited by the Overton Window you find yourself confined by.
4. The best hope of ending Neo-Fascism is to purge them from our society.

Given the context and your own words, it is difficult to take that image as anything other than a deliberate celebration/incitement of political violence.

All politics is violence. It determines who is and is not an acceptable target of violence. I'm absolutely A-Okay with Fascists being punched, I think that's the minimum we should be doing, I'm okay with dead Fascists. Their entire ideology is based on inflicting violence on innocent political dissenters and minority groups; every Fascist is either advocating for that violence or organizing to make such advocacy more publicly acceptable.

Well isn't that convenient. You give the fascists the complicity of silence, and reserve your attacks purely for the opponents of fascism. And then you have the gall to frame this as giving you the moral high ground?

Since you're too fucking stupid to understand what I actually said, I was saying: "I do not debate the Fascists because I do not believe they have any legitimate place in our society. We don't want to debate them when we don't want them talking about their ideology at all and think they should be dead or too terrified to speak of their heinous ideology."

So I save debate for dumb libs like you where something of merit might be possible.

[Gandalf]

Politico just did a piece (including an interview) about Omar. It's way too long to post here, but here's the good bit.

As she saw it, the party ostensibly committed to progressive values had become complicit in perpetuating the status quo. Omar says the “hope and change” offered by Barack Obama was a mirage. Recalling the “caging of kids” at the U.S.-Mexico border and the “droning of countries around the world” on Obama’s watch, she argues that the Democratic president operated within the same fundamentally broken framework as his Republican successor.

“We can’t be only upset with Trump. … His policies are bad, but many of the people who came before him also had really bad policies. They just were more polished than he was,” Omar says. “And that’s not what we should be looking for anymore. We don’t want anybody to get away with murder because they are polished. We want to recognize the actual policies that are behind the pretty face and the smile.”

Damn. Here's hoping she sticks by this statement and the party machinery doesn't force an apology of some sort.

[Crazedwraith]

Pretty sure she already has backtracked.

[The Romulan Republic]

Not liking the "Both Sides" equating of Obama and Trump. I mean, sure, Obama had his faults, but its like comparing herpes with AIDS- they're both STDs, but one is a hell of a lot worse. And the last thing we need is elected Dems peddling "Both Sides" crap- that's how you get reduced turnout, increased third party votes, and a Trump second term. Which considering how much he's done to erode democracy already is probably tantamount to "President for Life Trump" at this point.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Which considering how much we've done to erode democracy over the last forty years is probably tantamount to "President for Life Trump" at this point.

That ship of fools has already sailed, Rom.

Trump and worse than Trump are here to stay, unless either we take direct action, or they instigate violence.

[Gandalf]

Not liking the "Both Sides" equating of Obama and Trump. I mean, sure, Obama had his faults, but its like comparing herpes with AIDS- they're both STDs, but one is a hell of a lot worse. And the last thing we need is elected Dems peddling "Both Sides" crap- that's how you get reduced turnout, increased third party votes, and a Trump second term. Which considering how much he's done to erode democracy already is probably tantamount to "President for Life Trump" at this point.

If Democrats don't like being likened to Republicans, they shouldn't do similar things.

In the world of secret drone strikes, Obama was pretty fucking monstrous. Do you disagree?

Which considering how much we've done to erode democracy over the last forty years is probably tantamount to "President for Life Trump" at this point.

That ship of fools has already sailed, Rom.

Trump and worse than Trump are here to stay, unless either we take direct action, or they instigate violence.

Why is forty years ago some sort of line?

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Over the last forty years is how long we've been tolerating this. Surely, even you can understand something so simple, Gandalf.

[Ritterin Sophia]

The issue is Democrats need to decide a future for the party and being the party of "compromise" with Fascists only gets us "Yay more female war criminals!"

[aerius]

Why is forty years ago some sort of line?

Because everything before Reagan was sunshine & rainbows.

[Gandalf]

Over the last forty years is how long we've been tolerating this. Surely, even you can understand something so simple, Gandalf.

Really? I ask for a clarification and I get that? Are you finding your claims hard to substantiate when someone calls on them?

Why is forty years ago some sort of line?

Because everything before Reagan was sunshine & rainbows.

Washington, Jefferson, and their merry band of slaveowners set up a system where only white males could vote, but Reagan was the straw that broke the camel's back apparently. I guess you can really tell who learned their history in educational settings versus the blogosphere.

[Dominus Atheos]

Ok so multiple thread hijacks aside and back on topic, apparently I need anti-semitism explained to me as it turns out I'm actually a huge anti-semite and didn't even realize it.

So criticizing pro-Israel money being moved around and influence being spread behind the scenes is bad because it evokes old stereotypes about jews and money and secretly running the world.

So how am I supposed to criticize pro-israel lobbying when lobbying is literally only those 2 things?

And the idea that some american jews feel a sense of loyalty and common cause with israel as the "only jewish state" is something... I'm not supposed to bring up? Or what?

Help me out here, because apparently I'm only about 2 steps away from aguing on message boards that "hitler did nothing wrong" and I would really like to stop myself before I get there.

Help deprogram me please.

[Eulogy]

So criticizing pro-Israel money being moved around and influence being spread behind the scenes is bad because it evokes old stereotypes about jews and money and secretly running the world.

So how am I supposed to criticize pro-israel lobbying when lobbying is literally only those 2 things?

You should realize that when these cunts accuse you of being anti-Semitic, they are actually trying to get you to shut up and not say bad things about Israel no matter how true those things may be. It's the international politics equivalent of a girl telling people what a shithead this guy is and said guy gets a bunch of his friends together to all her a lying slut, loudly, in public.

So don't stop your criticism. Calling out Israel is NOT anti-Semitic, and anyone who genuinely believes that was never going to be your ally anyway.

[mr friendly guy]

Even the people arguing antisemitism with criticism of Israel, will use the 3 D's criteria (which I think its a good rule for using when evaluating criticism against any country, not just Israel).

Demonisation - eg Jews run a global conspiracy, or Jews are blood thirsty.
Double standards - self explanatory
Deligitimisation - ie Israel shouldn't exist - > from the river to the sea, its Palestine (which on a map, just so happens to be all of Israel if you go from the river to the sea).

If you haven't tipped any of those D's, you're most probably not an anti semite.

[Ritterin Sophia]

There's a weird double standard going on with regards to criticism of Israel and how it's responded to. You can't oppose Israel or support for Israel or you're "anti-semitic" even though this interpretation requires that the person making the accusation believes that Israel represents all Jews as a monolithic bloc or believes the person being accused does.

[Proletarian]

We ought to oppose all nationalism. My hostility to Israel - and indeed I abjectly deny that Israel has any "right to exist", for I deny that any nation-state has such a right - does not make me intrinsically sympathetic to Palestinian nationalism.

[Darth Yan]

Ok so multiple thread hijacks aside and back on topic, apparently I need anti-semitism explained to me as it turns out I'm actually a huge anti-semite and didn't even realize it.

So criticizing pro-Israel money being moved around and influence being spread behind the scenes is bad because it evokes old stereotypes about jews and money and secretly running the world.

So how am I supposed to criticize pro-israel lobbying when lobbying is literally only those 2 things?

And the idea that some american jews feel a sense of loyalty and common cause with israel as the "only jewish state" is something... I'm not supposed to bring up? Or what?

Help me out here, because apparently I'm only about 2 steps away from aguing on message boards that "hitler did nothing wrong" and I would really like to stop myself before I get there.

Help deprogram me please.

I think it’s “implying that aipac is an all powerful octopus and that they are all out to destroy America” that’s anti Semitic. Some criticism has brushed that point.

[Darth Yan]

https://forward.com/news/national/41932 ... 02/14/2019

I understand that this whole thing is absurd but Omar has made blunders before regarding anti semitism.

Her only "blunder" was to take at face value (and in good faith) the bullshit claims of two incredibly dishonest scribblers who do their scribbling for two incredibly disreputable publications.

First was Bari Weiss of the New York Times, where throwing bogus charges on anti-Semitism is such common practice that you almost wonder if it's a job requirement to work there. Back when William Safire wrote for the Times' Op-Ed section, he was somewhat sparing in his use of this kind of smear, but Bari Weiss, Bret Stephens and others who write for the NYT nowadays toss charges of Jew-hatred around as casually as Rip Taylor throws confetti. Weiss is probably best known for falsely accusing professors at Columbia University of being anti-Semites and trying to get those professors fired even after an independent investigation cleared them. Glennzilla has the details:

NYT’s Bari Weiss Falsely Denies Her Years of Attacks on the Academic Freedom of Arab Scholars Who Criticize Israel

Ilhan Omar had only just been sworn in a couple of weeks, but then word got out that she was going to be on the House Foreign Relations Committee, which must have caused alarm among IDF camp followers in general and Bari Weiss in particular. So Weiss took to Twitter, dug up a post from 2012 and pretended that Omar was doing a Cliff's Notes version of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. How did she arrive at this conclusion? By using some of the most deranged "logic" since the witch trial in Monty Python And The Holy Grail:

1) Omar mentions hypnotism and Israel.
2) Weiss mentions that Jews were accused of using occult power to enact their evil schemes.
3) Therefore, Omar was accusing Jews of using occult power to enact their evil schemes.

If Bari Weiss were half as clever as she is dishonest, she might have made her game of Three-Card Monte more convincing. But Omar was clearly unfamiliar with Weiss and her record of bullshitting and made the mistake of taking this huckster at her word -and apologized when she would have been better off telling Weiss to go play in traffic.

If you want a good idea of just how scummy Weiss' hit-job was, take a look at the dates on the Twitter posts: first the one Bari Weiss posted a month ago, then look at the comments under the tweet by Ilhan Omar that Weiss linked to from 2012. Then look at the comments under Omar's post. Even for an open sewer like Twitter, the flagrant, crude racism and Islamophobia is shocking. Omar is not just treated to one bigoted insult after another, she's also accused of incest and fucking animals. None of these comments offended Bari Weiss because she was going to assassinate the character of Ilhan Omar herself. It's rather telling that after looking through Omar's Twitter history, the only evidence for Omar's "anti-Semitism" consists of a seven year-old Twitter post -and that had to be twisted like a pretzel to make the smear job work.

Loathsome as she is, Bari Weiss isn't the only miscreant at work here. The other charlatan is Batya Ungar-Sargon of The Forward, who joined the lynch mob with real glee -until other writers at The Forward caught the whiff of racism and tried to distance themselves from it. Another contributor quit the publication over this despicable smear job. Unfortunately for them, The Forward was caught trying to raise money by painting themselves as the victim of the ruckus.

If this whole song-and-dance number seems familiar, it should: Back in 2010, serial hucksters Andrew Breitbart and James O'Keefe successfully smeared Shirley Sherrod, a black woman in government office, by deliberately twisting her words to paint her as a bigot. This smear campaign was so grotesque that Ann Fucking Coulter denounced it, but like the spineless Democrats who just fed Ilhan Omar to the sharks, Obama and Tom Vilsack (Sherrod's boss at the Department of Agriculture) chose to join in the hatchet job with rusty axes of their own. Sherrod was fired, her reputation ruined and the racist assholes took a victory lap. Eventually, Shirley Sherrod got some satisfaction when she sued Breitbart and once the tape they used was shown to have been doctored, they had to write her a hefty check (oh, and Andrew Breitbart dropped dead .

The thing that makes my blood boil is that like the bullshit claims that Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-Semite, this smear works because the victim shows too much forbearance when dealing with liars who have no fucking shame.

Saying that lobbying groups influence politicians to get what they want ain’t the same as saying the j00s wanna take over the world

It is when people who know better play along with a slanderous hoax.

You were doing well up until the end. Yes a lot of people throw false accusations. Yes illhan Omar probably isn’t an anti Semite. But the last quote implies that your saying Jews wanna take over the world. Correct me if I’m wrong

[Ritterin Sophia]

You were doing well up until the end. Yes a lot of people throw false accusations. Yes illhan Omar probably isn’t an anti Semite. But the last quote implies that your saying Jews wanna take over the world. Correct me if I’m wrong

I have no idea how that's what you took from elfdart's post. The implication at the end is that people will accuse people of using an anti-semitic trope when it comes to Israel or AIPAC even when Israel's or AIPAC's actions are exactly what the trope is. It'd be as if hypothetically the IDF were literally pouring arsenic into wells and then accusing humanitarian groups of being anti-semitic because they drew attention to it.

[Darth Yan]

Fair enough. In that case I apologize to elfdart (though I do disagree with him attacking The NY Times. Some reporters (Nick Kristof) are consistently high quality (notably Kristof has cheerfully slammed Israel’s human rights abuses.) Also Tulsi Gabbard has defended the Assad regime’s crimes.)

Thing is it is tricky. Plenty of anti semites have used criticism of Israel to hide their hatred. Just like with anti semitism you can tell when someone isn’t really concerned about Palestinians

[K. A. Pital]

We ought to oppose all nationalism. My hostility to Israel - and indeed I abjectly deny that Israel has any "right to exist", for I deny that any nation-state has such a right - does not make me intrinsically sympathetic to Palestinian nationalism.

Well said. Just a small note. Equating the oppressed with the oppressor is likewise not proper internationalism.

We oppose all nationalism in principle, yet we always remain aware of the concrete historical circumstances.

[Proletarian]

We ought to oppose all nationalism. My hostility to Israel - and indeed I abjectly deny that Israel has any "right to exist", for I deny that any nation-state has such a right - does not make me intrinsically sympathetic to Palestinian nationalism.

Well said. Just a small note. Equating the oppressed with the oppressor is likewise not proper internationalism.

We oppose all nationalism in principle, yet we always remain aware of the concrete historical circumstances.

In practice the distinction between the two is far blurrier. Hamas is no less an exploiter of Palestinians than is Likud, and is typically far more direct in its exploitation of them. Both Hamas and Likud ought to be opposed unconditionally; "critical support" is both irrelevant, unless one is a head of State, and wrong.

[K. A. Pital]

If it had only been as simple. Ireland‘s separation from England was made a precondition to any liberation of the working classes of both nations by Marx after much consideration. While not only England failed to develop the means of production in Ireland, it has also decimated its population utterly.

I agree that opposition to both is practically necessary and should be the course, but situational cooperation is not to be excluded, depending on the conditions at the time. I disagree that it is a matter only for „heads of state“.

„...apart from ordinary international justice, it is a precondition for the emancipation of the English working class to transform the present forced union (that is, the enslavement of Ireland) into an equal and free confederation, if possible, or complete separation, if need be.“

I mean, „ordinary international justice“ has been mentioned even outside all other considerations. The same justice that one would want to deny the people of Palestine because they support Hamas? Flawed logic.

The exposure of the bourgeois elite of both nations (indeed, of many nations taken together!) working hand in hand to keep the workers down everywhere is the only way. But separations along the way are also inevitable. A hard divorce is better than a marriage of hypocrisy.