Pages

Jump to bottom

37 comments

1 BARACK THE VOTE  Wed, Feb 16, 2011 1:06:04pm

Recommended to all lizards. Jimmah and I watched it last night.

2 Kronocide  Wed, Feb 16, 2011 1:06:15pm

Wow, snatch!

3 Bob Levin  Wed, Feb 16, 2011 1:30:19pm

More of the Zionist conspiracy revealed. It's really the Jews that are behind this. But if you say it with a British accent, it sounds real. Amazing. This is astoundingly Antisemitic.

4 Bob Levin  Wed, Feb 16, 2011 1:32:08pm

Part IV, to be specific.

5 Ayeless in Ghazi  Wed, Feb 16, 2011 1:43:30pm

re: #3 Bob Levin

More of the Zionist conspiracy revealed. It's really the Jews that are behind this. But if you say it with a British accent, it sounds real. Amazing. This is astoundingly Antisemitic.

Sorry, but that old meme about all Israeli politicians being beyond reproach on pain of accusations of antisemitism, moonbattery etc won't wash anymore. Wingnuts are wingnuts, and I see no reason to make an exception for the minority of Israelis who are of that stripe.

6 Bob Levin  Wed, Feb 16, 2011 2:09:59pm

re: #5 Jimmah

I watched the video. It was clearly inferring that the Jews are behind Wilders. If you can't see it, then once again, Holocaust education has failed.

If they wanted to talk about specific Israelis, fine. But at 30 seconds, they show the Israeli flag, a generalization referring to all Israelis. The commentary is about half a million references to a connection between Wilders and Israel, not specific Israelis. Generalizations, not specifics.

They focus on that flag, doing a close up for 12 seconds, saying that Wilders visited the Israeli embassy on numerous occasions. That is not a specific reference to some Jews, it is a generalization to all of Israel. The visits are not friendly, but they are suspicious. Something secret is taking place in those meetings--again, using the Elders of Zion template.

Then Wilders is accused of being a spy. A spy? A spy for whom? Why, a spy for Israel since he asks questions about relations with Israel. Oh, this is very suspicious. And then, the unnamed source says very clearly that Wilders was being informed by the Israeli embassy, definitely a spy for Israel--not specific Jews, all of Israel. Shady music in the background. Ominous chords.

More damning proof, he likes Israel, more ominous music. (Leni Reifenstahl, anyone?) Aha! He has Jewish blood! He married a Jew! (Are you kind of wondering about the relevance of these facts?) Now this lasted for over a minute, and if you think that isn't much, then the entire advertising industry of the US would beg to differ. They can get their message across in only 30 seconds of air time.

What would this be like if they didn't set up this Antisemitic frame? If they cut out that minute or so. He would just be a guy with opinions with which you can disagree. But, they had to put him in the context of the mythical worldwide Jewish conspiracy. It ain't no meme, and it's not harmless.

7 Laughing Gas  Wed, Feb 16, 2011 3:11:33pm

There are people of Indian origin who are reasonable most of the time, but make excuses for their own Hindu extremists.

8 Bob Levin  Wed, Feb 16, 2011 3:19:43pm

re: #7 Juice

I might be missing your point. Please clarify. Are you saying that I'm making excuses for some Jews? I thought I was criticizing a filmmaker. I didn't even get to the parts where they interviewed Israelis. Although, if the question is about Wilder's funding, I'm kind of surprised that they had to go all the way to Israel and focus there, as if he wasn't getting money from old Dutch money, or old English money, or old German money. It was interesting how the filmmaker narrowed it down so quickly. It's all foreign Jewish money, all of it. Amazing research staff.

9 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Feb 16, 2011 4:05:13pm

re: #3 Bob Levin

More of the Zionist conspiracy revealed. It's really the Jews that are behind this. But if you say it with a British accent, it sounds real. Amazing. This is astoundingly Antisemitic.

It's the Beeb. It's a anti-Israel outlet.

10 researchok  Wed, Feb 16, 2011 5:33:02pm

OK, I just watched the whole hour.

Allow me to make no one happy.

Geert Wilders is a manipulative weasel. He is also a despicable human being. He has made a name for himself by using and manipulating the system to his political advantage. He decries racism while at the same subtly encouraging it.

How does he get away with that? Very simply stated, because there is a Muslim problem in Europe. Cameron, Azvanar, Merkel, Sarkozy, etc., aren't blind and neither are most Europeans. Of course that doesn't make Wilders any more acceptable. He just camouflages his self serving agenda by inserting himself into a discussion that needs to be had.

British Islamic leader Abu Mounisa recently said, “We need to behead Democracy from its roots”. Remember Omar Bakri Mohammed of 'We'll use your democracy to destroy you' fame? When police authorities across Europe concede Jewish institutions need protection (including nursery schools) the problem is bigger than a few maladjusted and bigoted kids. When Jews in France, Denmark, Sweden and Holland are advised by religious authorities to hide their religious affiliation as best they can (or as one politician said, 'Leave. We can't protect you), there is a problem that can be avoided for only so long.

Now, before Jimmah and Ice go off the deep end, let me agree with the sentiments they rightly share- the vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims in Europe want nothing to do with the dysfunctional morons in their community. Why should they? Like everyone else, they want to make a living, educate their kids, buy their wives and husbands birthday gifts and hope and pray their grandchildren give their parents every bit of grief they had to endure.

The problem is political. The issues in Europe are magnified because most Muslims institutions today are run by first generation less than savory characters. They have long since run out the older and more established moderate community leaders.

There is a another problem- technology. It used to be when you left the old country, you left the old country. Nowadays, email and online resources mean you don't have to really 'leave'. Immigrants who come to the west for a better life for themselves and their kids are fighting a losing battle. The radical Imam in Yemen is a youtube away, 24/7. Most Muslims are just as much a victim of the radical elements as anyone else. Do anyone really believe Muslim parents want their kids engaged in dysfunctional and criminal behavior?

No one wants to acknowledge the problem because if they do, they are acknowledging they have some hard choices to make and they have to act. And for now, no one has any easy answers

Is Geert Wilders the most dangerous man in Europe? No, he is just a manipulative SOB who has found a niche that will ensure a long political career- and that career. As for the Beeb, Wilders makes for good TV, in the same way an anti Israel/anti Jewish innuenedo makes for good ratings. Anyone who believes TV journalism nowadays reflects a clear moral endeavor is an idiot.

Most Muslims do not hate the west, Geert Wilders is not the devil and most Europeans are not antisemites or even anti Israel for that matter. That behavior is avoidance and that is the real problem.

And that real problem is a problem unto itself, because it has become political first and foremost. Ideology trumps the search for solutions.

Feel free to commence referring to me as Hitler.
/

11 Bob Levin  Wed, Feb 16, 2011 6:48:06pm

re: #10 researchok

re: #9 Dark_Falcon

It's the Beeb. Yes DF, it's the Beeb. That's what I'm talking about. I wish this was a productive film to make life easier for Europe's Muslims and Jews, but it's not. Those Beeb bastards fanned the flames of any antagonism Muslims and Jews might have.

I watch the Beebs documentaries about WWII, where the British forces had it all under control with just the tiniest help from the bumbling Americans. You know, it was Bletchley Park that broke the Enigma Code, that was it. It's all right there. They outsmarted everyone. Can't beat them Brits.

From a film making point of view, you can either A) try to alleviate European hostilities towards Muslims or B) make a documentary about Wilders. You can't do both. So lets say we want to make film A. Fine. You take that first encounter between the truck driver and the kids, and then explore that as completely as possible. That's all. Ask them difficult questions, talk to their families, end up having them talk to one and other. It's boring, but fighting racism is boring. You have to talk to people--quietly.

Let's say we make film B. Fine. Then follow him around with a tape recorder. Ask people how they feel after listening to him. Get some counter opinions. But you do not need the (fanfare) ****Insight**** that he's really an Israeli spy. C'mon. Harry Potter is more credible.

Well if you make film A and then film B, you're probably going to want to make film C, about the profound difficulties human beings have with introspection, taking responsibility for their lives. This is the Jewish concept of hell, where you have to take responsibility, you can't blame anyone, and you can't BS your way out of it. For me, this is what religion is about, how to be introspective. Introspection, not tolerance, introspection is the remedy for racism. Dali Lama, introspective. Pam Geller, not so much. You will find one common denominator among all religious nutters and political nutters--they can't be introspective. You think Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh can be introspective? Their respective lives have depended on them developing this skill, and they still can't do it, or won't do it.

I've never met Pam Geller, but...I'm willing to bet that the qualities she most dislikes about Muslims, or that she is warning us about (according to Pam)--she possesses those qualities herself. Check it out. You will see the mirror. But she doesn't see the mirror.

Do you remember why Rush got tossed off of ESPN? He criticized Donovan McNabb as an overrated Black quarterback. Dig. According to Rush: McNabb isn't as competent as others say he is. Doesn't have the skills he thinks he has, and doesn't deserve the respect that people give him. Ah. Hey Rush, does that sound like anyone else you can think of?

If you play find the mirror long enough, you will understand everything there is to know about racism and how to eliminate it.

This Beeb film is so far off the mark that it just makes matters worse. Look how well we're all getting along.

12 researchok  Wed, Feb 16, 2011 7:14:37pm

The beeb is in business to sell whatever they can to increase viewer numbers.

They've adopted a policy that sells, keeps them front and center and most importantly, precludes them from having to really deal in a real way with a problem that won't go away by itself.

If you acknowledge there is a problem, you have to deal with the problem.

To complicate matters, we are allowing agendistas (from Wilders to Salafists) to tell us what the problem. Reality remains a mirage.

13 Kronocide  Wed, Feb 16, 2011 7:25:10pm

re: #6 Bob Levin

I watched the video. It was clearly inferring that the Jews are behind Wilders. If you can't see it, then once again, Holocaust education has failed.

I watched the movie in it's entirety and didn't see that 'the Jews' were behind Wilders any more than 'the Americans' or 'the Germans' were. He has significant ties to Israel and those ties, specifically, were reviewed.

I didn't see the same movie you did.

14 researchok  Wed, Feb 16, 2011 7:47:59pm

re: #13 BigPapa

I watched the movie in it's entirety and didn't see that 'the Jews' were behind Wilders any more than 'the Americans' or 'the Germans' were. He has significant ties to Israel and those ties, specifically, were reviewed.

I didn't see the same movie you did.

I believe it was more a matter of innuendo than it is overtness.

What is suggested plays to the already popular (and patently false) meme that somehow if the Israel/Palestine issue were resolved, all would be well in the Muslim world.

See Martin Kramer's The Myth of Linkage. It is a terrific read.

15 Bob Levin  Wed, Feb 16, 2011 8:27:08pm

re: #13 BigPapa

1) Okay, what did you see? Take lots of room to write. I want to know.

2) I'm sorry you didn't see the things I pointed out--again, failure of Holocaust education. Don't fall into the trap of separating Israel from Jews. You'll end up somewhere you probably don't want be--with considerably less distance between you and Wilders. I'm sure you want to be in a place as far away as possible. Intellectually and emotionally speaking.

16 Bob Levin  Wed, Feb 16, 2011 8:28:58pm

re: #13 BigPapa

Won't that be weird if you bump into him at Walmart tomorrow. ;-)

17 Michael Orion Powell  Wed, Feb 16, 2011 11:08:51pm

re: #11 Bob Levin

In addition to what Bob has said about the Beeb, it's worth noting that they defended pretty gross anti-Mexican racist comments by on air staff.

18 Michael Orion Powell  Wed, Feb 16, 2011 11:20:02pm
There is a another problem- technology. It used to be when you left the old country, you left the old country. Nowadays, email and online resources mean you don't have to really 'leave'. Immigrants who come to the west for a better life for themselves and their kids are fighting a losing battle. The radical Imam in Yemen is a youtube away, 24/7. Most Muslims are just as much a victim of the radical elements as anyone else. Do anyone really believe Muslim parents want their kids engaged in dysfunctional and criminal behavior?

It's also very worth thinking about how fluid this situation really is, and the documentary doesn't really show that. It shows liberal and Muslim opposition on one side and Wilders and his nationalist supporters on another.

I have several Muslim friends and family and I can't tell you enough the sort of schisms within the community itself. There is a burgeoning rage among Muslim women, especially those exposed to the freedoms of the west, against friends and family who are keeping them caged. The subject of radicals is all the more controversial, and in the wake of the Egyptian revolution I actually watched as a Muslim friend of mine wrote on her Facebook that she hoped radicals didn't take power and then got beat down by friends who asked if she was in favor of Mubarak ruling another 20 years.

On the other hand, however, there is the natural defensiveness against attacks on Muslims as a whole, especially the gross and crude attacks of people like Geller or Wilders, who aren't really actually concerned about women in Islam or anything like that but are just freaked out by or taking advantage of fears of an outside culture taking root in the western world. When economies go south, this is always a really good cop-out and the formula seems to work to this day.

19 Kronocide  Thu, Feb 17, 2011 12:06:41am

re: #15 Bob Levin

I don't need to write a ton or explain myself how I did not see what you saw. The doc was clearly about Wilders and like minded individuals who support him outside his country. It was interesting to find out his ties in Israel.... but again, like other countries, he has sympathetic allies there bound by the unity of xenophobia against Islam. Wilders may have symps within the Israeli government, which was one avenue in the doc. Not that 'the Jews' are behind Wilders. I just didn't see that.

If I don't see the inference that this was a hit piece against Israel or 'the Jews,' then I am closer to Wilders than far from him? Perhaps. Or, like Wilders and Pamz seeing an Islamist behind every political action, you may see an anti-Israelor antisemitic inference from this doc. I sure didn't.

20 Bob Levin  Thu, Feb 17, 2011 1:22:55am

re: #19 BigPapa

No I just saw a really lousy film. To answer the Imam at the end, no we haven't learned anything from the Holocaust. I think it's important to learn a lot about media and the very subtle ways that messages move from mind to mind.

Let's skip over the part IV, one because we disagree and two, more important, it didn't tell me anything about Wilders. He spent time in a Kibbutz. He seemed nice when his hair was darker. The guy who used to work with him, his old partner, the bald guy, said that even working with him, he was closed off from others. So we know that Wilders is closed off and that he closes himself off. The film maker gets to the editing room, reads his outline--Wilders past, the real Wilders, and there is nothing, no information, no footage of meaning, which he managed to paste together into 15 minutes of shadows, innuendos, and that good old fashioned European racism.

What about the other three sections? Europe and America (America--the home of conspiracy theories? Really? The home?). In America he talks to some nuts, that is, people with some following, but no power. The power in America, as I've said other times, is the undecided voter. Anyway, he asks the nuts to give opinions of Wilder. They have opinions. We are close to having 30 minutes of nothing in this documentary.

But Europe, here's where it is interesting. Because 19% means something. And his support seems to come from the middle class. So I have questions that the film didn't answer, didn't even try. Is Europe a rigidly stratified society, with each country democratic, but socially, are there still remnants of royalty, the aristocrats, the guilds? In other words, Europe has always had trouble assimilating groups into the mainstream. In America, you just jump in and begin climbing. Is that the case in Europe? Does Europe have an unofficial caste system? Does the system of European entitlements, rules on hiring and firing, subsidies, pensions reinforce a rigid social order?

Was I seeing immigrants coming into Europe and finding themselves trapped in this caste system, essentially getting too crowded in the locked basement. If that's the case, Europe's historical response has been to look for someone else to blame. The ruling elite in Europe haven't had the best record of looking at themselves and making necessary changes--heaven forbid they should open their society like America. Consequently, the European societies divide, one caste against the one below it, and this is the kind of politics that you get in a socially closed democracy. Wilders is just the tip of this very deep and very old iceberg. And yes it's dangerous. The film maker didn't explore this. Would have been a pretty good film, yes? Too bad he was busy pasting together his own conspiracy theory.

And, by the way, I asked you what you did see. I didn't ask you how you didn't see what I saw.

21 BARACK THE VOTE  Thu, Feb 17, 2011 1:32:13am

re: #10 researchok


Is Geert Wilders the most dangerous man in Europe? No, he is just a manipulative SOB who has found a niche that will ensure a long political career- and that career. As for the Beeb, Wilders makes for good TV, in the same way an anti Israel/anti Jewish innuenedo makes for good ratings. Anyone who believes TV journalism nowadays reflects a clear moral endeavor is an idiot.

Most Muslims do not hate the west, Geert Wilders is not the devil and most Europeans are not antisemites or even anti Israel for that matter. That behavior is avoidance and that is the real problem.

And that real problem is a problem unto itself, because it has become political first and foremost. Ideology trumps the search for solutions.

Feel free to commence referring to me as Hitler.
/

Well, I agreed with you. Not sure which Nazi that makes me. /

22 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Feb 17, 2011 2:00:48am

re: #6 Bob Levin

I watched the video. It was clearly inferring that the Jews are behind Wilders. If you can't see it, then once again, Holocaust education has failed.

No, it wasn't. And yes, I know about the holocaust. That's one reason why Wilders gives me the creeps.

If they wanted to talk about specific Israelis, fine. But at 30 seconds, they show the Israeli flag, a generalization referring to all Israelis. The commentary is about half a million references to a connection between Wilders and Israel, not specific Israelis. Generalizations, not specifics.

I would have liked more detail on that too; I would have liked to have seen the relationship between Wilders and Israeli politicians and political parties discussed in more depth.

The narrator did stress, however, that Wilders views are not held by all Israelis, and that many of the politiians he has been courting in Israel are actually way to the left of him.

They focus on that flag, doing a close up for 12 seconds, saying that Wilders visited the Israeli embassy on numerous occasions. That is not a specific reference to some Jews, it is a generalization to all of Israel. The visits are not friendly, but they are suspicious. Something secret is taking place in those meetings--again, using the Elders of Zion template.

Then Wilders is accused of being a spy. A spy? A spy for whom? Why, a spy for Israel since he asks questions about relations with Israel. Oh, this is very suspicious. And then, the unnamed source says very clearly that Wilders was being informed by the Israeli embassy, definitely a spy for Israel--not specific Jews, all of Israel. Shady music in the background. Ominous chords.

More damning proof, he likes Israel, more ominous music. (Leni Reifenstahl, anyone?) Aha! He has Jewish blood! He married a Jew! (Are you kind of wondering about the relevance of these facts?) Now this lasted for over a minute, and if you think that isn't much, then the entire advertising industry of the US would beg to differ. They can get their message across in only 30 seconds of air time.

Ok, I really don't see any of that being in the service of some sort of "It's because he's a Jew! The Jews are Evil" argument.

The details you referenced were part of a larger description of Wilders past and sympathies, including his ties to the more extreme elements in Israel. It's hardly unknown for wingnuts with an interest in promoting the more extreme 'pro-Israel' (ie anti-muslim) views to play up and build upon some tenuous personal link to Israel in a bid to establish themselves as valid spokesmen for the Israelis.

And again, the programme stressed that he does not represent the thinking of most Israelis.

What would this be like if they didn't set up this Antisemitic frame? If they cut out that minute or so. He would just be a guy with opinions with which you can disagree. But, they had to put him in the context of the mythical worldwide Jewish conspiracy. It ain't no meme, and it's not harmless.

The film is not beyond criticism, but I don't see it as anti-semitic, and I didn't get any sense that it was promoting the myth of the "worldwide Jewish conspiracy". I do see an attempt to embarrass those on the Israeli political scene who are giving Wilders the time of day, and I don't think that is any bad thing. Wilders IS dangerous and needs to be shunned by all serious politicians.

23 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Feb 17, 2011 2:13:42am

re: #10 researchok

Is Geert Wilders the most dangerous man in Europe? No, he is just a manipulative SOB who has found a niche that will ensure a long political career- and that career. As for the Beeb, Wilders makes for good TV, in the same way an anti Israel/anti Jewish innuenedo makes for good ratings. Anyone who believes TV journalism nowadays reflects a clear moral endeavor is an idiot.

I think there IS a good case for him being the most dangerous man in Europe. As history relentlessly shows, manipulative SOBs with his sort of bigoted agenda who win popular support can be EXTREMELY dangerous.

As for TV journalism, like any journalism, it's not perfect, and this film was no exception, but I think overall this was still a very good documentary about Wilders and his bigoted supporters.

24 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Feb 17, 2011 2:24:17am

re: #20 Bob Levin

No I just saw a really lousy film. To answer the Imam at the end, no we haven't learned anything from the Holocaust. I think it's important to learn a lot about media and the very subtle ways that messages move from mind to mind.

Let's skip over the part IV, one because we disagree and two, more important, it didn't tell me anything about Wilders. He spent time in a Kibbutz. He seemed nice when his hair was darker. The guy who used to work with him, his old partner, the bald guy, said that even working with him, he was closed off from others. So we know that Wilders is closed off and that he closes himself off. The film maker gets to the editing room, reads his outline--Wilders past, the real Wilders, and there is nothing, no information, no footage of meaning, which he managed to paste together into 15 minutes of shadows, innuendos, and that good old fashioned European racism.

What about the other three sections? Europe and America (America--the home of conspiracy theories? Really? The home?). In America he talks to some nuts, that is, people with some following, but no power. The power in America, as I've said other times, is the undecided voter. Anyway, he asks the nuts to give opinions of Wilder. They have opinions. We are close to having 30 minutes of nothing in this documentary.

But Europe, here's where it is interesting. Because 19% means something. And his support seems to come from the middle class. So I have questions that the film didn't answer, didn't even try. Is Europe a rigidly stratified society, with each country democratic, but socially, are there still remnants of royalty, the aristocrats, the guilds? In other words, Europe has always had trouble assimilating groups into the mainstream. In America, you just jump in and begin climbing. Is that the case in Europe? Does Europe have an unofficial caste system? Does the system of European entitlements, rules on hiring and firing, subsidies, pensions reinforce a rigid social order?

Was I seeing immigrants coming into Europe and finding themselves trapped in this caste system, essentially getting too crowded in the locked basement. If that's the case, Europe's historical response has been to look for someone else to blame. The ruling elite in Europe haven't had the best record of looking at themselves and making necessary changes--heaven forbid they should open their society like America. Consequently, the European societies divide, one caste against the one below it, and this is the kind of politics that you get in a socially closed democracy. Wilders is just the tip of this very deep and very old iceberg. And yes it's dangerous. The film maker didn't explore this. Would have been a pretty good film, yes? Too bad he was busy pasting together his own conspiracy theory.

And, by the way, I asked you what you did see. I didn't ask you how you didn't see what I saw.

Damn these film makers for not making the film that you would have made! It should have been a film about the "European caste system"!

Yes, instead of exposing and ostracising odious creeps like Wilders, Europe should be rebuilding it's entire society along American conservative lines./

Nevermind that Wilders support in America comes from conservatives.

25 Bob Levin  Thu, Feb 17, 2011 3:52:26am

re: #24 Jimmah

We are having a very difficult time communicating.

I didn't say the film should be the one I want. I said it was a bad film, I explained why. It raised questions that I'd like answered. It raised questions for you too, but different questions.

You might know that the Holocaust happened, but you don't know why, or how public opinion was turned, or how, after Antisemitism was reduced to a weed in 1946, many world leaders are hopeful that a nuclear bomb lands on Israel--only 60 years later. How did that happen? You'd have to be watching it closely. But we, Jews, haven't done a good job of trying to understand it, how to prevent it from happening, what to do when it starts to grow. You'd have to know what it sounds like when it's growing. It's not overt, it grows with ease. It's almost invisible.

I understand that you didn't see it, I don't expect you to see it. You even think that the film stressed Wilders' views are not held by many Israelis. But you want to know more about Wilders' Israeli ties, don't you? Did you want to know about that before you saw the film?

Here's another thing about Holocaust education. Exposing and ostracizing doesn't work. Hitler was tried and thrown in jail. Can't get more exposed and ostracized than that. Didn't work.

I never said anything about American conservative lines. I was talking about the history of immigration in America, that the immigrants landed at east and west coast ports and began to climb the social ladder, landing at the finest US universities in as little as two generations. That's amazing.

Nor did I say anything about American conservatives. I couldn't even name one.

Also, the film didn't show any extreme elements in Israeli society. You'd have to know what Israeli society looks like to recognize that. What about the guy talking about moving the Palestinians to Jordan? Well, when the British Foreign Office was figuring out how to divide the Middle East, that was one idea. They also thought about calling Jordan 'Palestine'. The guy on the balcony was talking about getting water into a desert and turning it into good land. That's how Israel grew. Israel exports food. That's what he was talking about. He's aware no one talks about that old plan anymore, and he doesn't much care. He's just a guy getting interviewed on his balcony.

I said that Wilders is the tip of a very old and dangerous iceberg. One of the lessons of the Holocaust would be how to break that iceberg. We, Jews, haven't gotten that far yet. And that's why I say that Holocaust education hasn't been successful. We haven't asked the best questions, so we don't have very good answers.

26 Obdicut  Thu, Feb 17, 2011 4:36:17am

re: #25 Bob Levin

You might know that the Holocaust happened, but you don't know why, or how public opinion was turned, or how, after Antisemitism was reduced to a weed in 1946, many world leaders are hopeful that a nuclear bomb lands on Israel--only 60 years later.

Telling other people what they don't know is a pretty stupid way to attempt to communicate with them.


I said that Wilders is the tip of a very old and dangerous iceberg. One of the lessons of the Holocaust would be how to break that iceberg. We, Jews, haven't gotten that far yet. And that's why I say that Holocaust education hasn't been successful. We haven't asked the best questions, so we don't have very good answers.

So is your real claim that Jimmah (and I assume others) don't know how to best combat the iceberg, because nobody does? That's really not how it came across.

I do think for a lot of people, a lot of Europeans, the reference to Israel will be interpreted solely under the rubric of antisemitism. They will see the connections to Israel and say "I knew it!". These people will be on both the right and the left, since antisemitism floats everywhere.

I do not think that wanting to know more about Wilders connections in Israel is, by its nature, an invisible, subtle attempt to promote antisemitism. I think there is currently, sadly, a problem with politicians in Israel making nice with far-right lunatics in Europe, including those who are themselves antisemitic. This is a real thing, this is actually happening. Recognizing that it is happening is not antisemitism; I think the show could have put Wilders into a better context of the other right-wing associations that Israel has recently made, including the anti-semitic ones, but the basic point is true.

In America, you just jump in and begin climbing. Is that the case in Europe? Does Europe have an unofficial caste system? Does the system of European entitlements, rules on hiring and firing, subsidies, pensions reinforce a rigid social order?

You're rather mixing two things here.

Europe has, in general, citizenship granted by 'blood', with applications for citizenship available for those who are born on the soil but not of the 'blood'. This is a huge problem for Europe, and it's absolutely true that this creates a caste system.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the system of entitlements and rules on hiring and firing reinforcing a rigid social order. There is more social dynamism in Europe than here in America. It is easier to change classes in most countries in Europe than it is in the United States. It is not if you are not a citizen, but it's not that easy if you're not a citizen in the US. And I'd ask you to remember we have a caste system here, too-- we have millions of non-citizen workers who are in the lowest caste possible.

In addition, many groups in the US, like blacks, are still lower-caste in demonstrable ways related to hiring, firing, pay rate, etc. It is odd to me that you think otherwise, that the US has achieved some sort of actual parity on that ground.

27 researchok  Thu, Feb 17, 2011 5:02:45am

re: #23 Jimmah

I think there IS a good case for him being the most dangerous man in Europe. As history relentlessly shows, manipulative SOBs with his sort of bigoted agenda who win popular support can be EXTREMELY dangerous.

As for TV journalism, like any journalism, it's not perfect, and this film was no exception, but I think overall this was still a very good documentary about Wilders and his bigoted supporters.

Like I said, I believe the is more about innuendo and half truths than anything else.

One could also make an argument that reading Europe is a glass half full/half empty argument. Away from the urban centers is where Wilders makes his deepest inroads. Couple that with the EDL thugs and you've got a whole other set of problems.

THe reason I don't consider Wilders to be the most dangerous man in Europe meme is because he operated within the framework of the law. He may be an SOB but he's hardly calling for insurrection.

He's taken the message of some European leaders and made that message ugly, but in the end Europe will not follow him to the abyss.

28 Bob Levin  Thu, Feb 17, 2011 5:53:45am

re: #26 Obdicut

So is your real claim that Jimmah (and I assume others) don't know how to best combat the iceberg, because nobody does? That's really not how it came across.

Okay, my bad. I'm trying to say that we, Jews, haven't faced this issue squarely, and are at a loss for answers on how to deal with it. That's why it's grown back. If we don't have the answers, how can we expect others to have them?

I do not think that wanting to know more about Wilders connections in Israel is, by its nature, an invisible, subtle attempt to promote antisemitism. I think there is currently, sadly, a problem with politicians in Israel making nice with far-right lunatics in Europe, including those who are themselves antisemitic. This is a real thing, this is actually happening. Recognizing that it is happening is not antisemitism; I think the show could have put Wilders into a better context of the other right-wing associations that Israel has recently made, including the anti-semitic ones, but the basic point is true.

I think you raise two issues. One, how wise are Israeli politicians? I wouldn't know, but my hopes are not high. Two, is wanting to know more about Wilders' connection to Israel promoting/related to antisemitism? The curiosity is kind of like a dandelion seed, sort of floats to the ground. I wouldn't want those type of seeds taking root in my thoughts. The better question regarding Wilder would be, how do you stop this? Not, how is this guy connected to Israel? The show did a good job of raising the latter question.

I agree that the show could have done quite a few things better.

This is a huge problem for Europe, and it's absolutely true that this creates a caste system.

Okay, I have a question. A caste system means that there is no social mobility, but you followed up by saying there is more social mobility in Europe. Could you clarify that? It was looking like there is a caste conflict in Europe, with Wilder leading the caste right above the immigrants. I've never seen that level of animosity between groups in the US. That looked pretty dangerous, and in the past, it has been evil beyond words.

No I don't think that the US has achieved any kind of parity--but we all know of many instances where someone rises through barriers as if there are no barriers. It takes very hard work, but it's been done so many times. The immigrant experience made America into a great country. And you're saying that it's easier to do that in Europe? Again, a genuine question.

Thanks for your time, I've got to be away from the computer for some time. Sorry for any misunderstandings.

29 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Feb 17, 2011 6:23:07am

re: #25 Bob Levin

Sorry, I kinda tuned out after you tried to tell me what I do and do not know:


You might know that the Holocaust happened, but you don't know why, or how public opinion was turned, or how, after Antisemitism was reduced to a weed in 1946, many world leaders are hopeful that a nuclear bomb lands on Israel--only 60 years later.

However this did catch my attention:

Nor did I say anything about American conservatives. I couldn't even name one.

That's a pretty extraordinary claim to ignorance. You do realise this is a US politics site you are posting on, right?

30 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Feb 17, 2011 6:26:57am

re: #27 researchok

He's taken the message of some European leaders and made that message ugly, but in the end Europe will not follow him to the abyss.

I don't think Europe will follow him either, but I think that will be down to the efforts of those who recognise the seriousness of the threat he and others like him pose.

31 Ayeless in Ghazi  Thu, Feb 17, 2011 6:30:28am

re: #26 Obdicut

I do not think that wanting to know more about Wilders connections in Israel is, by its nature, an invisible, subtle attempt to promote antisemitism. I think there is currently, sadly, a problem with politicians in Israel making nice with far-right lunatics in Europe, including those who are themselves antisemitic. This is a real thing, this is actually happening. Recognizing that it is happening is not antisemitism; I think the show could have put Wilders into a better context of the other right-wing associations that Israel has recently made, including the anti-semitic ones, but the basic point is true.

Exactly.

32 Kronocide  Thu, Feb 17, 2011 8:41:25am

re: #20 Bob Levin

And, by the way, I asked you what you did see. I didn't ask you how you didn't see what I saw.

In addition to what I already stated, I saw a film about a man, his rise to viable political power, how he's a figurehead and representative of rising xenophobia against Islam, and how he's supported by symps outside his country (especially America and Israel).

In America, he's not just supported by 'some nutz.' They are nutty but should not be dismissed as some small minority.

The film makes a good case that he's receiving financial aid from outside his country.

His ties to Israel raise the question: is he merely sympathetic to the plight of Israel, or does he have an issue with Arabs/Islam founded some time ago, or both? The film did not answer that but it's worth considering.

I did not see any subtle inference that 'the Jews' were behind Wilders.

33 Kronocide  Thu, Feb 17, 2011 8:58:43am

re: #28 Bob Levin

I think you raise two issues. One, how wise are Israeli politicians? I wouldn't know, but my hopes are not high. Two, is wanting to know more about Wilders' connection to Israel promoting/related to antisemitism? The curiosity is kind of like a dandelion seed, sort of floats to the ground. I wouldn't want those type of seeds taking root in my thoughts. The better question regarding Wilder would be, how do you stop this? Not, how is this guy connected to Israel? The show did a good job of raising the latter question.

The film was primarily about Wilders, xenophobia in his country, in Europe, support for him from outside his country, his ties to Israel. Those Israeli ties were reviewed under the context of Wilders himself, not inferring that 'the Jews' were behind Wilders. Some Jews are behind him, not 'the Jews.'

I'd be just as interested if he spent his early 20's in the American south and had similar bonds as the ones in Israel. There are various US politicians that probably would provide support to Wilders (and maybe a few do), I'd be very interested to know about that. It does not make me (or any film investigating it) anti-American.

34 Bob Levin  Thu, Feb 17, 2011 12:53:16pm

re: #29 Jimmah

No problem. Hey, I'm in my fifties. So I get to have a longer memory. Today's politics doesn't even resemble the politics that I grew up with. The 'conservatives' that Charles talks about are closer to psych patients. Here's old school. Conservatives are people who do not belong to a union. They weren't particularly ideological, more practical. Congress could sit down together and work out deals and come up with ideas to solve problems. A litmus test was for science class.

There wasn't anyone on the radio like Rush Limbaugh. Have you ever heard of Nicholas Von Hoffman?

Today, I could name several John Birchers. Growing up, it was a ghostlike name. The organization existed, maybe. No one ever met one.

So, it's a good idea to ask me what I mean, because my definitions can be very different. I choose not to go along with the insanity.

By the way, today's liberals aren't that hot either. Talk about climate change.

35 Bob Levin  Thu, Feb 17, 2011 1:37:02pm

re: #32 BigPapa

In America, he's not just supported by 'some nutz.' They are nutty but should not be dismissed as some small minority.

That's why the economy concerns me. They are a minority, unless the economy goes bad.

His ties to Israel raise the question: is he merely sympathetic to the plight of Israel, or does he have an issue with Arabs/Islam founded some time ago, or both? The film did not answer that but it's worth considering.

Trust me on this. I know something about propaganda and how it relates to hatred. You can't see it coming unless you know what to look for, and it hits in a sudden way. In this case, it begins to affect you by adjusting your curiosity. If you want to fight racism, pay attention to the questions that people ask. It doesn't mean you're dealing with a racist, it just means that the neurolinguistic programming tools ( the link is to the nicey nice definition. It can help people. It has helped lots of people, but it can and has been used for evil. It still is used for evil. If therapists aren't using it, then it's all being used for evil. Goebbels figured it out, and used it. His playbook is still being applied.) used to create racism are at work. That's how normal people turned into Nazis and turned a blind eye to their culture. The stuff is really effective.

If you want we can talk about this another day. The lessons of the Holocaust were mentioned several times in the film. Mostly, people focus on Hitler. I don't. I focus on the next door neighbor who heard their friends being rounded up to go to a camp and let the kitchen knives sit in the drawer. Or the good friend who one day begins wearing a swastika lapel pin. They, all of them, Jews and non-Jews did not see it coming.

Regrding Israel, like the little Israeli woman said, being in Israel can effect people. But we also know that Wilders is a very closed person--so what goes on inside of Wilders stays inside of Wilders. When a person is that closed off, all you get is what they let out. There is no way to know where it came from, and it doesn't matter. People still spend hours trying to figure out how Hitler became Hitler. They'll never know, and it doesn't matter. He just showed up one day and you had to deal with it. There was no fixing Hitler, no understanding Hitler. There was only whether or not you were going to fight Hitler.

Yes, knowing which US politicians support him would be a good idea.

One interesting thing about the film, is when it was pointed out that there was a time when he was politically isolated. Then people began coming to him. Like I said above, focus on the normal people.

36 Bob Levin  Thu, Feb 17, 2011 1:42:38pm

re: #35 Bob Levin

Oops. ...Today's politics don't resemble...

37 Bob Levin  Thu, Feb 17, 2011 1:45:23pm

re: #34 Bob Levin

Again, tripping all over myself here.

Today's politics doesn't even resemble the politics that I grew up with.

Today's politics don't even resemble.....


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh