File spoon-archives/foucault.archive/foucault_2001/foucault.0109, message 45


Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 20:52:25 +0200
Subject: Re: history of palestine
From: Yves Winter <winter-AT-lsealumni.com>


Erik, 

Well, anybody who says that orthodox Jews are arrogant bastards may not be a
friend of Hitler, but disqualifies her/himself by making a stupid
generalization. And anybody who automatically links  orthodox Jewry with
Israeli politics should be locked up in a library to find out about the
different strands in orthodox Judaism which range from Zionist to
non-Zionist, anti-Zionist and post-Zionist.  So, please, instead of
preaching nuance, practice it!

Yves


On 07/09/01 17:52 Uhr, "Erik Hoogcarspel" wrote:

> Lionel, you would be paranoiaic if you would suggest that the Free
> constructionworkers were the only factor. This is not how I understand you.
> And
> there are other causes of cours.
> It's not only in creating the state of Israel, but also in supporting it in
> all
> activities of religious terrorism that western countries have contributed to
> the
> present situation. And that cannot only be blamed on the Free Masons. I think
> the orthodox Protestant movements are much stronger and all consider the Jews
> as
> the choosen people. In the U.S. many hospitals have taken over the practice of
> circumsizing babies, just because it's a jewish custom (any neutral medical
> expert will tell you that there's no medical or hygienic reason to do such a
> thing, in fact it's as intelligent as trying to keep your feet clean by
> throwing
> all you're shoes and socks away).
> Here in Holland I've met quite some people who will not hear any critic on the
> Israeli politics, because they've spent a year in a kibbuts or because they
> still feel guilty about the shoah and see the Jews as the innocent prosecuted
> underdog. And there's no room for nuance. Anyone who says that orthodox Jews
> are
> arrogant bastards, is supposed to be a friend of Hitler's.
> 
> erik
> 
> Lionel Boxer wrote:
> 
>> I don't think my comments are paranoiaic at all.  They do not worry me if
>> that is what you are referring to ... rather they explain why the English
>> created the State of Isreal.  They saw it as their duty to make it happen.
>> 
>> In an article about Gadamer, Outwaite (in Skinner (1985, p. 24)) explains:
>> 'This notion of projection tends to be misunderstood in the Anglo-Saxon
>> world as a mysterious kind of empathy, but what Dilthey (1958) and others
>> really had in mind was a much more cerebral process based on a common sphere
>> of experience.
>> 
>> This Masonry was indeed a common sphere of experience and the English did
>> not (and perhaps still do not) 'know what they do does', to quote another
>> idea of Foucault.  If a whole nation attend monthyly meetings that reinforce
>> the notion that Jews are meant to be in Isreal then they will gain
>> satisfaction in seeing that take place.
>> 
>> Just an idea.  Not paranoiaic.
>> 
>> After reading a bit of Foucualt, I get the feeling that the English race
>> does not understand alegory to the same degree that the French and Russians
>> do.
>> 
>> ---------------
>> guillame debord <guydeborder-AT-yahoo.ca>
>> Some of those things that you are saying are quite
>> parnoiaic. Very good and nice, I like that mad
>> critical nuts which reads things into those weird
>> movements de la passe!!
>> 
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> 


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005