Music Composers Unite!
This phrase has always hit me as somewhat foreign. It makes more sense to me when applied to an instrumentalist… But for a composer, this idea sounds somewhat constricting. What if one arrives 'at this voice'. Does one then just hang onto it? A lot of artist and composers seem to. To make a niche that is all their own, is the goal it would seem… Some composers/artists have found great variety within their 'voice' ..and it seems to have not limited them at all…
Yet this idea seems to have also limited some composers'/ artists' expressive scope..
Today we can fill ourselves with the vast historical record of what has been done, like no other time before… Pour all these musical shapes and attendant responses deep into the psyche for a few decades… Who can say how the unconscious mixes it all up, and how it expresses it's fullness in our compositional creativity...
To me, each piece has a voice that wants to be released - if we are lucky -….. The parameters ('style') in which that happens - to me is quite fluid… and can shift radically from piece to piece.. And even within one piece one can imply many styles - that are going thru and around…
Funny, it seems that Bowie - if he would've hung on to Ziggy Stardust -As his voice, we never would have gotten his great funk album "Young Americans', with the 'thin white duke' … Or his progressive side with "Station to Station"… to his breakdown album 'Aladdin Sane" - 'Breaking Glass'…to his minimalist heroic "Heroes" with Fripp and eno's colorful light display… to 'Scary Monsters' and 'Fashion' as social commentary thru acerbic wit and grit..
I guess Bowie comes to mind, in order to address this idea of 'identity' (voice) - and question if 'finding one's voice' is a good idea at all?
When Bernstein went Broadway, Koussevitzky - and many others thought ill of his decision.
Miles always wanted to do a rock album,,, but didn't...
Mozart's mass in C minor ( a Later work) sounds a lot like Bach.
Perhaps this is just semantics, and some identities have just greater scopes than others, and that is neither a good or a bad thing in and of itself. (?)
For me, (mostly) composition wasn't something about finding my voice - 'not sounding like another'… but more that each piece Is its own voice… (if it works) … and it may indeed sound like many others, however much derivative (pejoratively or not) - is in the ear of the beholder...
Some random thoughts at the end of the day…
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Hello Peter. You said, "Sadly, I understand how Socialism can be looked at as a 'losers dream' in a 'connected' or elitist, entitlement oriented, Capitalist society."
You may understand it. But you don't explain. How does that further the discussion? You then go on, Peter, to describe my effort to ask legitimate questions as "crunching down." You imply that what I said "can only be an excuse for ridicule."
That is incorrect. It can be something else. It could be an attempt to ask someone (who has avoided this issue persistently) to justify his position, using more logic, statistics or evidence. In fact, that's precisely what it is. I wonder why you don't present any evidence or reasons to sustain your viewpoint, in light of the information that has been provided. Where are your facts? If, as you say, we are talking about the situation "in a 'connected' or elitist, entitlement oriented, Capitalist society," then how does this apply to the argument?
One does well to compare actual, extant, living societies in order to draw conclusions. You don't even mention a single country. Roger doesn't seem to want to talk about any empirical evidence from other nations or regions of the world. He doesn't seem to be interested in other nations, or their historical trajectories and present social indicators. He has talked about "boats," and missing "boats." But that hasn't really advanced the discussion.
You wrongly accuse me (again) of engaging in "a personal attack." If I present evidence—saying for instance, that Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland, are statistically significant examples, indicating higher levels of life expectancy, lower infant mortality, lower levels of income inequality, wealth inequality and lower poverty level—that is in no way a "personal attack." If I ask Roger to explain why he feels Democratic Socialism is not a good model compared to the current US model, especially in light of his own complaints about the inordinate power of the financial elite, that is not a personal attack. If I ask him to state what model he favors over "Democracy" itself (which he has now stated he does not favor), that is not a personal attack either.
"The purpose is intended to disorient and suggest contempt and intellectual superiority over his opponent."
People who complain about the use of "the intellect" often do so for unknown reasons. They may not have acquired the information they need to clarify the discussion. So they might accuse others of trying to assert "intellectual superiority." This is another diversion. It's quite common, especially in the United States, to belittle the intellect, deep thinking, or philosophizing. In fact, "anti-intellectualism" is a very well known and much analyzed feature of the cultural landscape, which is imbibed consciously or unconsciously through the media and educational systems.
From my point of view, so-called "intellectual superiority" or "inferiority" is never an issue. Each post, message and exchange, in any conversation, offers the participants an opportunity to state something new and clarify a specific point. Any person can do research, find facts, evidence and comprehensive data to sustain a point of view. No judgment about so-called "superiority" or "inferiority" is necessary or even relevant. Only the arguments, the positions, premises and conclusions are being evaluated and discussed—and the conversations are ongoing.
Your attempts to attribute motive are not based on facts or a thorough understanding of any particular individual's psychology. "The purpose is to throw up a smoke screen," you say. "It's a very tiring form of antagonism, used as a defense," you say, "...'smoke screen' for personal inadequacies," you add. [If you find yourself tired, or something "tiring," that is a statement about your feelings and state of mind, not about someone else's positions or viewpoints]. These observations about "motivations" are all speculative statements, made without a degree in psychology (I think), with little or no experience as a therapist, or without sufficient personal contact with your subject (patient, or client, assuming you were a psychologist). They are diversionary, and THEY are ad hominem, since they are directed at a specific person, and not related to the content of the discussion. You don't have adequate knowledge of any forum member's "purpose," or their motives, to suggest you can accurately judge whether someone is in some sort of Freudian "defense" mode, or whatever you mean by "defense." People in forums do commonly "defend" their positions, using logic and evidence, but that hardly constitutes "defensiveness," or a "defense mechanism," as you seem to imply. Much less can you make off-the-cuff diagnoses, which constitute useful information that will shed light on the conversation topic. You have no evidence about a "cracked egg" (as you can see, the egg image is smooth and without any defect), and if there is a Humpty Dumpty here, it's certainly not me.
So let's try to stay on topic, Peter. If you agree with Roger, then please say why. Currently, my main question is, if you don't think democracy itself is a good system, what system to do you think is better? (I don't believe Roger has ever stated before that he did not favor democracy as a system of government, over non-Democratic systems; though it is something Eustace Mullins believes—he thought Mussolini's fascism and Hitler's Nazism were admirable political philosophies).
My secondary question is: In light the complaints about the inordinate power of the financial elite, why is Democratic Socialism not one of the better ways to address the situation? I ask this in light of data: given the way it which it has been proven to ameliorate specific problems, i.e. the unequal distribution of wealth and income, poor health care outcomes, and other problems mentioned above.
In any case, Peter, I thought you supported Bernie Sanders, who makes the case for Democratic Socialism quite well. Are you taking a different position now?
One other point, for the sake clarification.
I did not make the statement attributed to me below. Roger made that statement.
"I found it very interesting that the Corbett video never once mentioned the Rothschild's. Is it possible that they don't have anything to do with the banking industry after all? Maybe they are only interested in making good wine. lol "
I wonder why you just quote it, Peter, and sort of joke about, without seeing the larger pattern of comments it fits into.
Roger said that, not me. I think the statement is reasonably interpreted as another anti-Semitic barb, in light of the source material frequently promoted and relied upon by the speaker. I say this in light of the frequent castigation of a Jewish banker and Jews in general, by Roger personally, and in his sources, like Mullins. The recent decision to champion James Corbett as a "researcher" only has compounded this problem, since he has very, very high praise from overt and unapologetic anti-Semites. This is made worse by Roger's refusal to answer my question, "Why does it seem so difficult for you to find and promote sources of information which are not anti-Semitic, or so closely tied to the online communities which make a point of excoriating Jews, and blaming them for all the world's woes?"
We have no answer to that, other than, "I don't care about race," then almost immediately following such protestations, we see another jibe at the Rothschilds (but nothing against bankers of other races, ethnicities or religions-- as if there were no Anglo-Saxon or Icelandic bankers meriting castigation).
Peter Brown said:
"I found it very interesting that the Corbett video never once mentioned the Rothschild's. Is it possible that they don't have anything to do with the banking industry after all? Maybe they are only interested in making good wine. lol "
Ever smoked a good Hoyo De Monterrey Rothschild cigar?
Ondib, O-man, DODO, you have pushed me beyond the limit of temperence.
Take this as ad homenim or whatever... you are a self-blinding, pig-headed
game-playing troll. You are the racist. How about reviewing the facts?
I have offer other sources, and can offer many more, that come to the same
conclusions about history and those that have secretly manipulated history.
I would guess that you would call it, 'anti-spade' to call a spade a spade.
I am not interested in being at odds with anyone here.
Believe it or not... there really is an 'awakening' happening.
Take a moment and sit back in your favorite chair,and ask yourself,
If Roger is not avocating racism, what else could he be alluding to?
I know you are smart enough to figure this out, but for some reason
you choose not to.
There is a recent dialog/interveiw between Stefan Molyneau and G. Edward Griffin
on you Tube, where, in the last 7 mins. of the discussion, they talk about 'Collectivism
vs. Individualism. This, if you understand what they are saying, is a key to understanding
why those who would choose any form of socialism are doomed to failure and thus, losers. RS
Peter, True capitalism and a free market styled society has unfortunately 'morphed'
into something other than being 'the best it can/could be'. That is why I have said that it
has to be 'married to' let's say for the sake of the argument, some form of morality.
I mean, individual morality ,i.e.- a personal conscience. I don't mean some ritualistic
practice that happens on Sunday,and not the rest of the week, if you know what I mean.
You and I are individuals. Anything else is an illusion. In a sense, we are each unique
universes, fractal points of veiw/consciuosness , interpreting 'reality' and co-existing
by means of a myriad of 'conventions'. On a higher plane, this is where we get in to
gods and false gods... but that is another discussion.
Apparently Ondib seems to think that if we vote in a 74 yr. old Democratic Socialist
the problems of the world will go away and be remedied., because it seems to be working
for the Swiss. Personally, I think the Amish are faring better, but can't say that I understand their politics.
Do they even bother to vote?
But, again and again, politics is a lower level aspect of all this, You and I seem to realize this.
I think we both know that there are other elements. higher up the 'pyramid', that have a much
greater influence on what is shaping our daily existence, than voting.
It is subtle, it is secretive, and few realize the truth and implications of it. But, according to some,
it is racist. Sorry, but I am not falling for that smoke screen. RS
Peter Brown said:
Sadly, I understand how Socialism can be looked at as a 'losers dream' in a 'connected' or elitist, entitlement oriented, Capitalist society. Crunching down on someone who expresses such concepts can only be an excuse to ridicule and otherwise belittle the context of the views or points that person has made. It's a personal attack. It's myopic. The purpose is intended to disorient and suggest contempt and intellectual superiority over his opponent. It's a very tiring form of antagonism, used as a defense. Or, 'smoke screen' for personal inadequacies. The egg may well be cracked..
Well lookie here,it's Fred. I've missed ya. You are always witty and ... er - Fred lol
Everyone has something to say... so are they just shy and cowardly.. or umm... being discrete.
If you are silent, you might as well be dead.
Fred, it is all part of a growth process. All good (well maybe not 'all")
Do you think that if a person, any person, was to break free of the sociall constraints
of 'voicing' themselves, that this wouldn't affect the music they wrote?
Personally, I do. It is an attitude and I have nothing more to say about it. RS
man, you got that right! what the F.... is wrong with him?
If he had a legitimate beef, I would try to address it.
If his questions had any relevance to the real issue, I would address them.
37,000 words , and still in the same rut. Amazing. RS
Peter Brown said:
"Me thinks, thou dost protest too much."
Remarks for Peter and Roger below:
I somewhat surprised to read your statement regarding Eustace Mullins:
"Eustace Mullins had no reason to hate Jews. His was to expose their criminality. Can't be an anti-semite for exposing a Daffodil to the sunlight."
Eustace Mullins was an anti-Semite, and a virulent one at that. Whether he "had a reason to hate Jews" or not, his writings express a deep animosity, amounting to race hatred. Do you doubt this obvious fact? Your attitude seems unclear to me. Perhaps you are joking. You speak of "their criminality?" Whose? The criminality of a few Jews, a large number of Jews or all of them? Please explain. Was Mullins "exposing" anything to the sunlight, or was he simply following Hitler's and his mentor's line of blaming the Jewish race for virtually all of the world's problems. I am keen to really understand the origin of your interest in, and understanding of, Eustace Mullins. I will cite three brief passages. Have you read his "New History of the Jews," which has been here mentioned before? In case you missed it, the work opens:
(1) "Throughout the history of civilization, one particular problem of mankind has remained constant. In all of the vast records of peace and wars and rumors of wars, one great empire after another has had to come to grips with the same dilemma . . . the Jews."
Do you agree with Mullins that the one "particular problem" facing mankind, above all else, the one dilemma facing mankind is "the Jews?" Consider this statement made by Mullins early on in the book,
(2) "The Jew represents all of the temptations of animal existence which it is intended that we shall transcend during our stay on earth. Because of the Jew , salvation becomes a conscious choice, instead of an involuntary or accidental decision. Without the Jew and the evils which he embodies, man might not have the choice placed before him in black and white. He would have the excuse that he did not understand the choice he was asked to make. With the presence of the Jew, no such excuse can be made. "
Do you think that is what "the Jew" represents: all the temptations of animal existence? One more quote from Mullins. He wrote,
(3) "A majority of those who command wealth and power in the civilized world of today are those who have accepted Satan's offer, who have renounced the possibility of the salvation of their souls through Jesus Christ. These men are working for the Jew."
Do you agree with that interpretation of history, wealth and power; and his assessment of that balance in the World Today. (He was writing this in 1967-68).
Either you are being very wry, or you seem to be echoing a very racist and anti-Semitic position. There are many possibilities, of course. Please clarify your position.
This is simply a reply to what you said about four hours ago. I appreciate your willingness to respond to my last post. But I would gently admonish you, and ask you to stick to the arguments. Perhaps at some point, we need to simply put an outline of the major points here. But that can come later.
Roger, you said,
(1) " ... you have pushed me beyond the limit of temperance."
I don't think that I can do that. You are in charge of yourself. You are a sovereign individual (as you yourself said), and in control of your own reactions to other people's remarks. If you do not believe you are, if you believe that others can push you this way or that (emotionally, ideologically or in terms of sympathy and attitudes) a problem arises.
I have asked you whether it is even remotely possible that the neo-Nazi and fascist authors have manipulated you; whether the numerous authors of anti-Semitic and racist videos you have promoted have "pushed" you in a certain way unbeknownst to yourself. You have not even responded to that query. I think Eustace Mullins might have influenced you, or pushed you into a certain way of thinking. You DO acknowledge that you put a great deal of stock in him.
The problem that might be arising is that you say, quite straightforwardly, you have been pushed beyond a certain "limit." This has nothing to do with me. I have merely presented a series of propositions, queries and conclusions, based on evidence, data, and inferences, that can reasonably made based on empirical facts. My questions and conclusions cannot disturb you, by themselves, unless you choose to allow them to bother you. Why not just respond to my points about Democratic Socialism, and the results in nations like Denmark, Sweden and Norway? Wouldn't that be preferable to resorting to ad hominem attacks? You say,
(2) "Take this as ad hominem or whatever..."
I don't really take it at all. I ignore it, which is to say, I give it no credence as part of an intelligent conversation. The statements are ad hominem, and are therefore not worthy of consideration. I dismiss them. You might do better to reflect a bit before making such attacks, which say nothing about me, but which do suggest that the cultivation of temperance can have benefits.
Of course, your claim that anyone here is racist has no substance or basis. If it did, you would (perhaps) have included some evidence to sustain that. I make no general statement to indicate that you are a racist. I won't even speculate about whether you are a person who has "racist" moments, or who thinks in a "racist" way from time to time, and then repents, or thinks better of having fallen into that kind of thinking. How can I know? I cannot. And you cannot accurately judge or draw conclusions about the tincture of anyone else's mind. What I can say (and it's not a statement about you) is that certain posts have appeared on this site. Some of these contained remarks which can reasonably interpreted as racist and anti-Semitic, and links containing material which is anti-Semitic and/or racist. That cannot be used as evidence to "prove" that you are racist. It would be wrong for anyone to conclude that you are racist, based on those posts, just as it would be wrong for you to conclude that anyone else on this forum is racist, based on NO evidence. If anyone says you are a racist, I would say to them, you do not have evidence to prove that, and that is an ad hominem attack (An attack on the person, in lieu of a logical analysis of a particular set of propositions, an ideology, or system of thought).
You asked, the very pertinent question, "How about reviewing the facts?"
That's one of my primary concerns. Will you consider reviewing the facts about Democratic Socialism, about Sweden, Finland, Norway and Denmark? Will you consider examining the statistics?
(3) "I have offer other sources, and can offer many more, that come to the same conclusions about history and those that have secretly manipulated history."
The "same conclusions?" What conclusions? The conclusion that Jews are primarily responsible for all the ills of humanity, as Eustace Mullins has so emphatically stated in so many of his works? I don't think your willingness to "offer many more" sources like that will help your position. The "researcher" James Corbett falls flat under scrutiny, because of his close association with a plethora of avowed anti-Semites, swarming his site. Many praise him for being able to put forward the anti-Jewish propaganda as he does, in a way which is subtler than other approaches. I won't dignify James Corbett by giving any urls. People who want to discover that for themselves, can do so, if they think it's worth their while. For you, my question still stands. You didn't answer it. Why does it appear difficult for you to find "sources" which are not tainted by anti-Semitism, racism, or close associations with anti-Semitic, fascist, or neo-Nazi sites? It's a simple question, based on the number of posts and links you have given us which have had such materials.
(4) "I would guess that you would call it, 'anti-spade' to call a spade a spade."
I wouldn't call it anything like that, or use such terms. Since 1928, dictionaries have clearly defined "spade" and the use of the phrase "calling a spade a spade," as racist. If you have a dictionary written before 1928, I would suggest you get a newer one, or use an online dictionary. "Spade" is a racist term for "a black person," and it doesn't do any real good to pretend otherwise. You may as well defend the use of the N-word. Any post which contains the phrase, could easily be interpreted as being racist, or at the very least "racially insensitive."
(5) "I am not interested in being at odds with anyone here."
I don't know if anyone is interested in whether or not you are interested in "being at odds with anyone here." I am not. I am interested in careful attention to the issues under discussion. Using racist terms, or posting links to material connected with racist ideologies, does not seem to further discussion of the more important issues. Of course, there is nothing wrong with "being at odds" with people, if by that you mean simply disagreeing with someone in a civil and polite fashion. [A dictionary defines "at odds" as "at variance;" or "in disagreement"]. Nothing terrible or wrong in that.
You said, Roger,
(6) "Believe it or not... there really is an 'awakening' happening."
Let's be specific, please. What is the "awakening" about in your opinion? Is it an awakening to the fact that gays should not be denied services based on their sexual orientation? I am sure there are lots of "awakenings" taking place. Is there an awakening on the part of the public that businesses should not be paying their workers slave wages, or wages which do not give people a decent living? I think there is an awakening to that fact; hence the raise in the minimum wages in the California and New York State. Is there an awakening to the fact that the US does not have (and that it should have) guaranteed health care as a basic right, as do virtually all other economically developed nations in the world? I think there is an awakening to this fact.
But what do you mean by "an awakening?" I hope you don't mean, "there is an awakening to the supposed 'fact' that 'evil Jews' control the entire banking system of the world, and are conspiring to enslave the whole of humanity." Some of your sources say that; and periodically, when you refer to "the Rothschild family," (something which has a mythical and unproven status in your contemporary cosmology) and to certain "conspiracies," you appear to affirm such a belief.
You say, Roger, "Take a moment and sit back in your favorite chair, and ask yourself, If Roger is not advocating racism, what else could he be alluding to?"
I am a bit hesitant to address people when they refer to themselves in the third person. But be that as it may.
In theory, Roger, you could be "alluding" to anything at all. You could be alluding to the fact that Klingons and Romulans have come back in time, along with Reptilian Xindi, and that they are plotting to upset the current timeline, and prevent the formation of the United Federation of Planets. Or you could be "alluding to" something else. But why allude when you can just state straight out what you think is the case, without alluding, insinuating, or hinting at what some view that you don't want to advocate outright?
Of course, the theory --that ancient Zoroastrians and Hittite iron welders from the sixth century B.C. are now in direct control of systems of all plumbing world wide-- is probably the truth.
(7) "I know you are smart enough to figure this out, but for some reason
you choose not to."
Please spill the beans and tell people yourself. Why we should we try to "figure out" the reasons beneath your reasons for saying what you, as if this is some guessing game. Anyone can speculate and be right or wrong.
(8) "There is a recent dialog/interveiw between Stefan Molyneau and G. Edward Griffin on you Tube, where, in the last 7 mins. of the discussion, they talk about 'Collectivism vs. Individualism."
You appear to have trouble following an argument. I answered that. I stated clearly the difference between "Collectivism" (a practice in Stalinist Soviet Russia) and Democratic Socialism. You ignored the point. Your apparent failure to distinguish between faux Stalinist Socialism and a Democratic Socialism means you are either ignoring the issue entirely, or perhaps not understanding it. Furthermore, I mentioned the fact that capitalism itself collectivizes workers, separating them from the fruits of the productive process and turning them into wage slaves, with no democratic control of either the means of production or the distribution of the goods the produce. You had no reply of any kind to these points.
(9) "This, if you understand what they are saying, is a key to understanding
why those who would choose any form of socialism are doomed to failure and thus, losers."
Of course, I am explaining why the argument you made is invalid and unsound. You have no reply, other than to refer people to the same video, which does not apply to Democratic Socialism, as practiced in Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and Finland.
If you have any evidence to indicate that such Social Democracies are in any way "more collectivist," and less individualist (in any meaningful sense) than the savage capitalist manner of social organization extant in the US, please present it. In terms of all social and economic indicators, these societies surpass the US; and it's also the case in terms of personal freedoms as well. This includes freedom of assembly, freedom of the press and freedom of speech, as well as freedom from the fear of violent crimes, homicides and other social ills, such as disease, premature death, the death of one's children, and in many more areas.
If you want to affirm a position, I think it's up to you to defend it; not to ignore the questions, and fob off your intellectual responsibility onto some third rate video.
You said, Peter,
"This word, 'anti Semite' describes those who hate Jews and their global itinerary."
Peter, you are presenting yourself as a person who does not seem to understand the definition of the word anti-Semite. Can you justify the definition that you have provided? We can reasonably assert—and I have a hard time believing that you don't know this—that people of the same race, ethnicity and religion do not all have the same identical "global itinerary" or agenda.
Anti-Semitism is a generalized prejudice against Jews as a people, and the statement you have made is an anti-Semitic one.
[DEFINITION. Anti-semitism is prejudice against, hatred of, or discrimination against Jews as an ethnic, religious, or racial group. A person who holds such positions is called an anti-semite.]
In other words, your definition is an anti-Jewish statement made against all people who consider themselves Jews. I am not saying that YOU are an anti-Semite. I think you are just being provocative. It doesn't appear obvious to you that Jews are a large group of people, with many different religious views (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Hassidic, etc.). It doesn't seem to be obvious to you that Jews have wide and varied political perspectives, ranging far across the spectrum from far right to far left. You don't seem to understand that Jews are human beings, with varying social views on abortion, religious separation, gun control, drug legalization, and welfare for the poor, ranging from authoritarian to extremely liberal. You lump all Jews together. You speak of a Jew-hater (an anti-Semite) as a person who "hates Jews and their global itinerary."
Certainly, "Jews" do not have single "global itinerary" or agenda. I think you know this. It's a rather ludicrous and almost humorous idea, and again—I am reasonably well disposed to think you are joking and trying to be provocative. In terms of the history of the Jewish people (and a little incident known as the Holocaust, as well as the mass expulsions of Jews periodically throughout history) many people might not think it is so funny. So as a joke, it falls a bit flat, I believe.
So anti-Semitism is a prejudice, like sexism, homophobia, racism (against blacks, Native Americans, and Mexicans), and Islamophobia.
It's a dodge to suggest anti-Semitism has any "legitimacy," since it is based on bigoted feelings, false generalizations, stereotypes, and NOT on reason.
"Plain and simple. All your findings about EM here, ONLY have the intentions of provoking argument. (which are mostly invalid on their face) I'm not taking the bait."
You talk about validity, or invalidity (on its face), but you don't say what statements or conclusions are invalid, nor do you say why. So from the point of view of simple logic, do you think such a statement can stand? What does it even refer to? [Does EM signify Electron Microscopy, Elevated Moisture, or Environmental Management? I really don't know what you mean by the term].
There is no "bait" here. There is a discussion about issues, using logic, evidence and reasoning, which can be deductive, inductive or dialectical (in a Socratic, Hegelian or Marxian sense, or as you prefer). Saying I won't take the bait seems to me to indicate that you have nothing relevant or meaningful to say about the topic at hand, that you cannot sustain your viewpoint, or that you simply don't know what you are talking about. There are many other possibilities, and you can tell us, if you like, what they might be. Speaking about "bait" certainly does not constitute a logical response to any points made.
As for accusing me of "provoking an argument," you might consider that there is a difference in "provoking an argument" and engaging in a discussion, as Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Berkeley, Hume, and any civilized thinker or conversationalist might do in a "forum," either in public or online. The Roman Forum was the model for discussion venues for hundreds of years. Have you read about what was discussed there? Mostly social, political, economic, national, and religious questions, such as we are discussing here. If you think people should not come anywhere near to engaging in "an argument" (or the presentation of a series of propositions to make a point), then I wonder what you think should be discussed on a forum? I wonder what you think the method of communication should be? It's not just chat. Don't you agree?
"Also, there seems to be a gap in your 'unbiased' description and knowledge base of the subtitles of this 'race' or 'faith'."
Perhaps. I am sure there are gaps. We could discuss that. I never said my approach was "unbiased," total or complete, in any qualified or absolute sense. If you think you can add to the understanding of the issue, you can say what you think needs to be understood that is being omitted from the conversation. It is certainly a fact that that in many cases, the categories of "faith," "race," (ethnicity), and "caste," can overlap in numerous ways that make precise definition difficult. This is true not only in the case of Judaism, but also with Shinto in Japan, and with numerous religious belief systems in both Northern and Southern India (which come under the names of Shaivism and Vishnaivism). This is also true of indigenous beliefs and imported Buddhist beliefs on the island nation of Sri Lanka. It is precisely an apparent unwillingness to note the complexity and overlapping of religious, ethnic and national cultures that allows a person to make broad and unsustainable statements about "the Jews," or about almost any social grouping.
"Your understanding is blindsided by your fear of being labeled 'politically incorrect' "
You are attributing "motive" rather than attending to the content of my statements. There is no fear, and even if there were, there is no way you can discern "fear," or any other emotion, in an internet communication such as this. A person may (as I do here) point out the anti-Semitic nature of a statement without being motivated by "fear." As a pure matter of fact, it is you who use the term "politically incorrect" to divert the conversation away from a proper attention to the definition of terms. (I don't know your motive, and it doesn't really matter). You seem to believe that one can deflect the analysis of a statement simply by saying "politically incorrect." This doesn't work in reasoned discourse. If someone says, "Mexican immigrants are rapists," and another person denounces the statement as biased, ethnocentric, or racially biased, you cannot simply say the following: "Your objection is based on your fear of being labeled 'politically correct.'" This is a fallacious dodge. It avoids the actual fact that such a generalization about Mexican immigrants is false. The same is true of the generalization about Jews that you seem to want to propose.
You speak Peter, about a "refusal to make conclusions based upon the very facts you're trying to debunk here."
I don't think I am trying to "debunk facts." I am involved in the analysis and discussion of various propositions. For instance, I am suggesting that Bernie Sanders' brand of Socialist Democracy is arguably a much better approach than the Fascist approach to politics, than Eustace Mullins' approach, which is essentially to blame everything on one race of people. I am surprised you don't support me on this particular point, Peter, since I thought you supported Bernie Sanders. Is it the case that you do not now?
"Nice try. But it appears you're defining yourself as the site antagonist. The truth is, you've never read EM, watched his videos and only derived your opinions about him through the lens of 'political correctness' and those Semites who are crying foul."
Oh, by EM you mean Eustace Mullins! (I just read this part of your post). I see. Frankly, unlike the term "Electro-magnetism," I don't think his name is of sufficient fame or significance to merit his being referred to with his initials. Few people have that much fame (like FDR and JFK), though perhaps some composers like JSB (J.S. Bach) and WM (Wolfgang Mozart) do.
Your assertion that I have not read Mullins is untrue. I have quoted him for you already, and not out of context. In addition, I am thoroughly familiar with his ideology and the work of his favorite Mentor, Ezra Pound, whom he tried to get out of the asylum (where Pound was sentenced to reside after narrowly escaping execution for treason, because of his long time support and active work on behalf of Mussolini before and during World War II, especially his broadcasts for Radio Rome, speaking to promote Italian fascism for English speaking audiences). In fact, I have published articles on the subject in more than one literary journal. For you to mistakenly assume I have not read Mullins is a bit odd. I repeat, and I noted before, I have not only read Mullins, but have read many volumes about his entire intellectual and cultural milieu, and about the individuals who were most important to him in the formation of his ideology.
So please, rather than telling me what you think I have read or have not read, why not just ask me?
"No big deal. You're a nice guy anyway! :-) XXX OOO! Let's go grab a beer! (you might want to get a Shirley Temple instead tho"
Well, that's very nice of you and a kind gesture. I accept your kind offer (and you know I truly have no objection to the consumption of alcohol, in moderation, on principle or on moral grounds.) I will take the Shirley Temple, or the Virgin Piña Colada, in any case. Thanks.
"Olm, I only have one question for you if you don't mind."
I don't mind.
"Question; Why haven't Jews assimilated with other cultures and countries the way all other religions and nationalities have?"
It's not an entirely unreasonable question, and of course Eustace Mullins says what you have said, in his "New History of the Jews." The truth, I believe, is that the premise is false, in two ways. First, huge numbers of Jews have assimilated into the national cultures in which they have existed for generations. It's true also, that some have not. Second, many "other nationalities and religions" have NOT assimilated into their "national cultures." Having lived in Colombia, Turkey, Sri Lanka, and China, for extended periods, I could give you many examples. Consider the ways in which Native American peoples (not just in the US, but throughout the Americas) have not thoroughly assimilated into the national culture. The Pueblo Indians are very resistant to assimilation, and so are many more Native American tribes. The Kurds in Turkey (in Iraq, Syria and Iran) are another noteworthy example.
A full history of the Jews is beyond the scope of an internet forum post. However, it suffices to say that the reasons for the Jewish diaspora, and related phenomena, are complex, and even if one could list and describe them all accurately, many different conclusions could be drawn from the data. The most egregious conclusions would resemble those drawn by Eustace Mullins, which are basically broad, hateful, and stereotypical remarks about Jews and Judaism, made by following the footsteps of the "analysis" provided in Hitler's Mein Kampf. I hope you don't give that much credence.
Cheers, and bottoms up (glug, glug, glug .... ah!)
Ondib, you certainly seem to have a lot of nerve... at least in the context of the
unreal internet. I wonder how things would go in a 'face to face' discussion.
Do you really believe that your initial response to the first 'generalized' video I
showed was 'reasonible' and not what Peter alluded to as being a typical
reactionary liberal ploy, known as crying 'foul'? Is that how Plato or Socrates would
have responded ? I seriously doubt it.
With a discussion of ANYTHING there are pro's and con's.
Do you really think that anything 'con'trary to your beliefs has to be based on
hatred? You are the one that is blindly assuming, and attempting to censor an
open and HONEST discussion.
I for one , (since and only since, YOU wish to make a major issue of it)
would like to know, and put this anti-semitism notion to rest.
What is the reason, from your well studied perspective, that the Jews have been
so maligned throughout history?
Do you think you could narrow this idea down, and state a constructive answer in 2 or less
paragraphs? Why is there any hatred towards the Jews at all, and what , if anything is it based on?
I have black friends, and I have Jewish friends. I have agnostic friends and I have Pentacostal
friends. Those few that I meet and talk to, that I have differences with, are still not my enemies,
and I do not hate them for our/their differences. These confrontations should be viewed as learning
experiences. Can you grasp the 'spirit' of such a notion without it being clinically defined? RS
ps- the idea of any form of socialism is to create a fiction.... it is not a real entity and never will be.
you are, and I am- real .... all governments are 'ficticious entities' and false authorities, and only
the Individual is Sovreign. Who and what are you answering to?
Roger, i would be interested to hear what your response is to the question you asked:
"Why is there any hatred towards the Jews at all, and what , if anything is it based on?"
Hey there G-man, I was wondering what happened to you, I thought maybe you
had lost your voice.... ba dah bing lol
Indeed it is a curious and interesting question. I honestly don't know. I have not,
and have never really had any good reason to pursue and study the issue.
I find it more practical to 'live and let live'.
Certainly, every race has it's detractors and there are always those 'stereotypical'
slurs and colloquial jabs at peoples that float around. I don't believe that they are
necessarily based on hatred. At what point does an observation become hatred?
You are a fool if you see everything thru 'rose-colored' glasses.
Some of the stereotyping, I think is based on a consensus of observation, but
certainly would not automatically apply to everyone in that race.
The idea that someone has an observation about someone or something
does not mean that it is based on hatred or that they are even anti(against) that.
History is full of examples of different ethinic groups fighting against each other.
It is going on right now. 'My truth is better than your truth' seems to be the underlying manta.
I think monetary enslavement is a , no, THE key issue. i.e. Usury. This is where I think the main problem lies.
Rather than go on, please get back to me on what I have stated so far. I would like to know what you think.
No doubt, we will have interuptions, but I think we can stay focused and shed some light on this. Peace RS
Thank you for entertaining the question , Roger.
I guess, for me, the idea of hating a person Because they are part of a ethnic/religious/non religious etc, group, is pre-judging them w/o knowing them as a individual. So it translates to me as a kind of blind hatred… As far as 'why' this may happen, is probably a very complex question, but i would think that fear would play a part in there...
Personally, i can't think of anyone i know, that i hate… and i am thankful for that. It must be most difficult for those who have this emotion as part of their emotional make-up...