We are 2 and a half years into the Obama administration. Is it perhaps time to revisit the assumptions of the election?

http://blackagendareport.com/content/phony-anti-war-movement

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2008588,00.html

I erroneously gave to Wyclef Jean's charity, not knowing these facts:

"Haitian musician Wyclef Jean used his celebrity, and the earthquake, to raise millions for his own Haitian charity.
We make no judgment on the allegations that its bookkeeping may be irregular. But it's worth noting that Wyclef Jean has family ties to the group of gangsters and thugs that the Clinton-era CIA installed in office when it removed Haiti's elected president, Jean-Betrand Aristide from office in the 1990s. Wyclef Jean has repeated the contemptible lie all over black radio that Aristide skipped the country with $900 million stolen from Haitians. We understand where this comes from. Wyclef's uncle was the Washington DC representative of the short-lived 1990s un-elected gangster government of Haiti. He runs a right wing rag of a Haitian newspaper dedicated to spreading outrageous and self-serving falsehoods against Lavalas, the only Haitian party capable of winning free elections in that unhappy country.  If Wyclef will lie about that, we wonder what else he'd lie about, and why we should trust him with our money."

source: http://blackagendareport.com/?q=content/haiti-katrina-and-why-i-wont-give-haiti-through-red-cross

Now whether or not that makes Jean's organization "suspect" I don't know - but it is worth noting.

Also makes you wonder too why GW pardoned Fugees producer John Forte right before he exited the presidency:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1417325/fugees_producer_john_forte_pardoned.html

Let's see here. This thread started out with Rootsie saying that the onus is on the unique position of Europe geographically which was the impetus for it's eventual bloody imperialistic impulses. You said that it was the introduction of a "semitic" thread into Europe that was the cause. I said that the answer is in bringing both those things together along with considering the adaptation/evolution of both when applied to that particular context. The historical information I have brought to bear was to show the factors which eventually developed into "the big 3." I find it interesting that you continue to view my reasoning as trying to absolve of responsibility, when in fact I am trying to show how different factors contributed to what is.   You seem to have a mission to prove an absolutist correlation between "Semitism" in a vacuum as a be all, end all reason. You cannot seem to consider and integrate what is being posted and instead twist the reasoning from a sharing to an offense/defense - i.e. either you are with me or against my hypothesis. You are very polarizing and it is very hard to carry out a reasoning with you.

I can maybe see why Rootsie stopped engaging you. You can, of course, get your last word in here after I post this to "win the argument." And perhaps some will view my lack of response to you as your hypothesis' ultimate victory. But I'm sure others will see how you conduct yourself in a reasoning and see that perhaps the lack of engaging you is due mainly to your single-minded, and mind you, very male/left brained way of reasoning.

Good night - I hope you can go to bed now.

OK. I'm not trying to argue sides here. I am trying to reach for a more "nuanced" approach to history - and (at least trying to)bring many ideas to bear on the table. I think you both bring up important points and perhaps the truth is in bringing it all in.

It seems that Rootsie is saying that the European(ism) is "most to blame" and you are saying that it is the "Semitism" as you define it that is "most to blame"(in regards to European expansionism and imperialism).  I'm trying to integrate it all - I don't think it does any good to try to pinpoint one specific thing when all things interact(including things which I am not even considering) to give us the story.

I think it would also be good to do a comparative study of other imperial(isms) throughout the world - ones that may not necessarily have the influence of any of the players we are discussing here. What would we find then?

I think you may have missed the point of my posting. You said: "However, you will not find an assembly of texts that have been forced upon the masses from the Persians or Greeks or Mithrans or Romans. In other words, semitism is self-indicted by its own writs."

If you take all of the quotes I have assembled, instead of picking out ONE and talking about it, you may have a clearer picture of what I was trying to point out. Maybe I was wrong in assuming you would understand and need to give more explanation as to my thought process. So - here it goes:

A confluence of forces are what create what is. Karibkween was pointing out that the general ideology of what you are labelling "Semitism" in fact has a greater history that begins far before Judaism, Islam or Christianity came on the scene. My quote was meant to show the general thread of what was to become monotheism and how this impulse was one and the same of empire creation which united many people under the banner of one god(administration). If you read the source from which I picked my quote from, it makes the argument that Judaism is a forged religion, with much of its history written after the purported facts actually were said to occur. It is the creation of a history of a people in retrospect. It goes on to state that in fact - "Israel" may very well have been an outpost for Persian empire which already had the monotheistic/empire trajectory.

The Assyrian universal state that the Persians took over, with the brief interlude of Babylon, had a god called Ashur (Asshur, Assur) who was depicted as a man rising from a winged solar disc and shooting a bow or offering a ring, often thought to be a diadem or coronet but probably symbolising a bond (like a wedding ring) or covenant such as we find often in the Hebrew scriptures.

Brahma and Abraham - think of the Aryan invasions of India - think how there are a confluence of things coming together which are shaping cultures and ideologies.

"The general historical trend to the world state was not altered by the change of central power when the Persians became leaders after the Mesopotamians. The Persians had been students of the Assyrians in the several hundred years that they had taken to move into Iran, and they or their allies the Indo-European Scythians had been mercenaries of the Assyrians. The refined culture and science of the long established civilisations of Syria and Mesopotamia merged with the vigour and technical innovations of the warlike Aryan invaders from the north"

Judaism is but a small branch of these historical processes. The question is - how are Jews different from the historical processes and cultures involved which went into forming their ideology and identity? The monotheistic impulse did not start with them, the conversion of an empire through the usage of religion did not start with them. So where is "semitism" in all of this? How broad can we push that term, and, at what point, do we need to start using a different term that is more encompassing of these processes? Where does the "Semitic" differ from the "Aryan" - and how do we even seperate them when they both intertwined at some point to become a new culture?

 "The refined culture and science of the long established civilisations of Syria and Mesopotamia merged with the vigour and technical innovations of the warlike Aryan invaders from the north"

What about "Alexander the Great" - I would like to know how much he was influenced by the Aryan/Semitic impulse - what inspired him as an Empire builder?

Now remember - a large religion in the Roman Empire prior to the conversion to Christianity was Mithraism - a Persian import. Christianity seems to be a hybrid of Mithraism and Judaism - perhaps here we have another revision and synthesis of Aryan and Semitic ideology - and now (ah yes we need to take this into account) - in the Roman Empire context. It was the military in Rome that had the most adherents to Mithraism - Mithra was believed to have a sword in hand at birth.  Ah yes - "IN THIS SIGN YOU SHALL CONQUER!"

So - what happens now when all of this happens and COMBINES with what Rootsie observed?. . .

"To ask why the Europeans robbed and enslaved the globe, I think a map explains a lot, this tiny (paranoid) peninsula jutting out into the North Sea. . . " and "What I see is a map that shows this little northwest corner (Europe) of this enormous landmass hanging out there in the north Atlantic subject to wave on wave of disastrous invasions from the east, defining itself in opposition to a varying 'them'"

. . . you have the aspects of paranoia, chosenism, and militarism that are the combined effect of all these factors. To pick out ONE and say "a-ha this is it" - at least in the context of European expansionism would only serve to obfuscate the COMBINATION of factors that created European imperialism.

Gerald Massey:

"69.     The field of Babylonian Mythology is one vast battle-ground between the early Motherhood and the later Fatherhood—that is, the Mother in space, in the stellar and lunar characters opposed to the later and solar Fatherhood, which became more especially Semite; indeed, where the Akkadians wrote the "female and the male," the Semite translators prepensely reverse it, and render it by the "male and the female." This setting up of the supreme God as solely Male, to the exclusion of the female, has often been erroneously attributed to a supposed "Monotheistic Instinct" originating with the Semites! In Egypt the solar Fatherhood had been attained in the sovereignty of Atum-Ra, when the records begin; but this same battle went on all through her monumental history, more fiercely when the Heretics, the Motherites, the Blackheads, were now and again reinforced by allies from without."

source: http://gerald-massey.org.uk/Massey/dpr_05_hebrew_and_other.htm

He says that male monotheism came from Egypt originally. So would it be fair to also make an argument that Egypt is the source of the ideology that caused Europe's imperialism(this is if we are sticking to your premise that male monotheism was what was the most poignant factor).

Personally I would say no - because we are not taking into context all the factors that make situations unique. And I hope that we can acknowledge that this is always the case when dealing with history. I don't know if we can isolate so easily.

[The refined culture and science of the long established civilisations of Syria and Mesopotamia merged with the vigour and technical innovations of the warlike Aryan invaders from the north.]

There are a lot of important things being touched on in this reasoning. As Rootsie pointed out, European expansionism was a "perfect storm" - and there were many contributing factors. Here are some quotes from different reasonings that I have listed here that I think are important to keep in mind, in my opinion that is!

Rootsie:

"What I see is a map that shows this little northwest corner (Europe) of this enormous landmass hanging out there in the north Atlantic subject to wave on wave of disastrous invasions from the east, defining itself in opposition to a varying 'them',"

Discipleofmaat:

"semitic ideology amalgamated europe into a world order,"

Karibkween:

"Who said Semitism began in Canaan? What of Brahminism? Show me proof that Abraham came before Brahman
Who said Egypt was spared from semitism?"

http://www.askwhy.co.uk/judaism/0180PersiaJudaism.php:

"The general historical trend to the world state was not altered by the change of central power when the Persians became leaders after the Mesopotamians. The Persians had been students of the Assyrians in the several hundred years that they had taken to move into Iran, and they or their allies the Indo-European Scythians had been mercenaries of the Assyrians. The refined culture and science of the long established civilisations of Syria and Mesopotamia merged with the vigour and technical innovations of the warlike Aryan invaders from the north.note: sounds familiar to the European story - two cultures merging, remember 'in this sign you shall conquer" - me

Dix writes that Zoroastrianism, Mithraism and the solar monotheism of Akhenaten “appear” to have been born under Syriac influence. Perhaps they would “appear” thus to a Catholic monk, who believed the myths of Moses, but “appear” betrays nothing other than an opinion. When the myths of the Jewish scriptures are recognized as fiction then Judaism can no longer rival Zoroastrianism in antiquity and proper priorities can be established. A world state was the way of enforcing stability and was obviously welcomed by most people, but especially trading peoples and those making specialized products for trade. Besides the use of military and administrative means of control, such empires depended on the propagation of a universal religion. The Assyrian universal state that the Persians took over, with the brief interlude of Babylon, had a god called Ashur (Asshur, Assur) who was depicted as a man rising from a winged solar disc and shooting a bow or offering a ring, often thought to be a diadem or coronet but probably symbolising a bond (like a wedding ring) or covenant such as we find often in the Hebrew scriptures. The Persian god, Ahuramazda, was depicted in a similar way as a man rising head and shoulders above a solar disc also offering a ring, or sometimes apparently a blessing. . . . Richard Frye of Harvard (The Heritage of Persia) thought the Persian kings had a concept of “One World” and the “fusion of all people and cultures” in one “Oecumen” was their important legacy, inherited by Alexander, the Romans and the Arabs. In ancient times “culture” essentially was religion."

I am replying to this because of a statement I made on the other board and the need to respond to the original post rather than the resultant reasoning.

_______

I will grant that the European experience of "anti-semitism" is unique it it's application and it does have a part in creating "European" identity. But - I would not let that be used to let "Semites" off the hook . I would not submit to the idea that, for example, that Jews are simply the victims of European history. That ignores the history of Jews and it also does not take into account the roles that Semites or Jews have traditionally played in the historical geo-political landscape.

What about other people's interactions with "Semites?"

Think the slave trade and imperialism that was brought by Islam into Africa. The Jews mercantilism and proto-capitalism existed long before the European overtook the endeavour. The Jews have always been the middle men - and that is why some excelled in this role and were employed by the church/state of Europe. It wasn't JUST about them being pigeon holed into the role - although that did have a large part to play. Jews and Muslims were trading in slaves - both white and black before 1492. The injunction of Deutermonomy that a  Jew may not lend to his brother at interest but may lend to an outsider at interest is a direct religious justification for usury and fits well with the role Jews have played in history. 

All this is not to blame Jews or Semites - but it does bring to light the interactions that different cultures played with one another. It is avoiding generalizations and allows the different players to maintain some accountability for what becomes the sum of history. I would not place historical culpability on one group or ideology - that would be generalization - I would rather explore how different cultures interacted and amalgamated.

https://futurefinance.wsj.com/index.php


Yup - the minds that got us into this mess are saying we need something new - and btw - they are the change.

http://liberationecology.org/?page_id=10

“Agriculture’s been a horrible business for 30 years. For decades the money shufflers, the paper shufflers, have been the captains of the universe. That is now changing.

The people who produce real things [will be on top]. You’re going to see stockbrokers driving taxis.

The smart ones will learn to drive tractors, because they’ll be working for the farmers. It’s going to be the 29-year-old farmers who have the Lamborghinis. So you should find yourself a nice farmer and hook up with him or her, because that’s where the money’s going to be in the next couple of decades.”

~ Jim Rogers

James Beeland Rogers, Jr. (born October 19, 1942) is an American investor and financial commentator. He is co-founder, along with George Soros, of the Quantum Fund, and is a college professor, author, world traveler, economic commentator, and creator of the Rogers International Commodities Index (RICI).

We are starting to ask the right questions.

http://www.davidkorten.org/content/simple-test

i have been thinking about this.  i think that discipleofmaat's concerns are very pertinent. if we do not address issues of privilege and status then we could very well re-create what we don't like all over again, but in a new form. looking through the transitions site and the links some post(not all, but some) i think a lot of us are still caught up in an outgrowth of america's empire status - being this world community kind of mentality - global one-ness. i find that many are just waiting to burst into this global civilization thing without recognizing where exactly this stems from - how our very perceptions of the world - with us on top has led to this kind of conclusion. all of a sudden it is the whole WORLD that must change because we see that we need to change. it's like there is no stopping to recognize that WE need to re-evaluate ourselves and our perceptions - that the world has been under the grip of our illusions for so long - that maybe we should actually trying to lessen our impact on the world, away from empire and paternalism, no matter how well intended. nope - just one big jump! as if most people in the world are just dying to become part of this new global consciousness - we are projecting. i think a lot of people of the world just want to be left alone and have more self-determination without our meddling - they want to provide for their families and communities, etc. simple. not some global gaia experiment led by an intelligensia overwhelmingly white and socially mobile. privilege is not addressed here and it is just waiting to be co-opted. so not to shit on this - the question is, how can we get this well intended movement to engage these issues more?

now i am positive that as we start to re-evaluate our relative comfort in light of economic events - and we see that in many ways the globalized economic model - which depends deeply on exploitation of others to work - we can and are coming to some good realizations. i just wonder though - how deeply will we go? I mean there are nature-centric communities in Israel called kibutzes which deal with communal living and are within themselves, supposed to represent a different way of functioning. BUT - they function with the full protection of one of the most violent regimes in the world. i think for this reason, the obama phenomenon could be dangerous - while there is a co-option of this "coming together" through "service" - we are staying on the trajectory of empire with the corporations/military-industrial-complex/banking calling the shots. a federal government greatly enlarged over the past 8 years through reasons of the "War on terror" and centralized by empire and intertwined with the corporate state. this, by definition is fascism.

now - i am positive that as we in local communities dis-invest from these structures to maintain our savings/wealth and into more local endeavours which actually benefit us - we are reducing our investment in imperialism. i think there is positive movement in this regard - but just how far will we go?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/22/militias/index.html