Mon, Nov. 26th, 2007, 03:17 pm
откровенно, как это свойственно "The New York Sun":
As horrified Spanish, French, German, Japanese, and Soviets looked on, since 1688 the British have been on the winning side in every great power conflict in which they have fought... - Jews and Wasps
а также словесная эквилибристика Кристофера Хитченса в "Guardian": 'Martin Amis is no racist'
Mon, Nov. 26th, 2007 09:56 pm (UTC)
Hitchens neglects a crucial distinction between warlike Muslims and Jews rooted in their pariah religiosity
Tue, Nov. 27th, 2007 01:19 am (UTC)
amazing article, i'd say.
For Sombart, American capitalism was instead the product of heavy initial settlement by Jews and crypto-Jews (by which he meant Marranos, Huguenots, Puritans ...). "America in all its borders is a land of Jews." "[T] he United States (perhaps more than any other land) are filled to the brim with the Jewish Spirit." "In the face of this fact, is there not some justification for the opinion that the United States owe their very existence to the Jews? ... For what we call Americanism is nothing else, if we may say so, than the Jewish spirit distilled" (30, 38, 44).
i'm still reading - thank you
Tue, Nov. 27th, 2007 01:38 am (UTC)
Sombart is an ambivalent character. Here
is a piece that links him with Amis. This racialist matter is ripe for deconstruction by Ali G
Tue, Nov. 27th, 2007 01:52 am (UTC)
is an old translation of The Jews and Modern Capitalism
, by Mortimer Epstein.
Tue, Nov. 27th, 2007 02:21 am (UTC)
well Sombart's ambivalence can be easily deduced from the fact that English translation of The Jews & Modern Capitalism came 40 years after the first print in German :)
Sun, Dec. 2nd, 2007 04:58 pm (UTC)
спасибо, прочел бы с интересом. а почему вы так легко с ней расстаетесь?
я забыл, вы где территориально?
Tue, Nov. 27th, 2007 02:15 am (UTC)
yes, this article by Nirenberg is very good, i'd have to print it and read with a highlighter.
Even "...Hegelian synthesis of seeming opposites" sounds rather courageous nowadays. It's also very interesting where he gets into Paul's dualism and condemnation of flesh (carnal flesh etc) and Marcion's dualist position. "...they will not become Christian, but will make us Jews" - sounds very relevant :)
Hitchens is nowhere near Nirenberg
obviously. He's full of lies, frankly. Look: "...the harshness Amis was canvassing was not in the least a recommendation, but rather an experiment in the limits of permissible thought." - this is such a whitewash. I don't think he should be taken seriously.
Or look at this: "One would have to have a capacity for fantasy of something like that order to believe in the Ronan Bennett universe of modern persecution where "those who point to the illegality of Israeli occupation are anti-semites. Those who protest against the war in Iraq are al-Qaida sympathisers and moral relativists." In which known world is that happening?" He must be blind and deaf to ask questions like this.
And thanks very much for the other links you gave below.
Tue, Nov. 27th, 2007 02:58 am (UTC)
is no slouch, either. My point was to stress the notional antiquity of Jewish symbiosis in the Anglosphere. Recall also the opportunistic British archeologist Dr. Gordon Lestrade in Robert Stone’s Damascus Gate
objecting to this energetic collaboration, perceived as hostile on a fundamental level to a broad spectrum of the human race who do not have the enlightened privilege of being American or Jewish: “So a little healthy resistance to the American philo-Semitic juggernaut doesn’t make one a Nazi. Nor a practitioner of genocide. Nor a so-called anti-American. The self-pity of the mighty — it’s so pathetic.”
In the same fictional context, Hitchens falls short of his agnostic journalistic namesake Christopher Lucas, likewise belatedly and tremulously reconnecting with his rudimentary Yiddishkeit. I shall have a word or two to expand on the comments I addressed in his regard
to our mutual friend.
Tue, Nov. 27th, 2007 03:11 am (UTC)
> notional antiquity of
> Jewish symbiosis in the Anglosphere
see - i was correct to combine links to both articles in one post :)
> The self-pity of the mighty —
> it’s so pathetic.”
it is indeed :)))
и - да, ваша переформулировка рассуждения Ника Бострома мне, несомненно, очень близка. Это несмотря на то, что с самим рассуждением я не знаком. Придется ознакомиться - спасибо за ссылку.
да-да, "Кристофер Хитченс — это не голова". хуже того, как я недавно сказал в другом месте, глупость атеиста особенно раздражает, поскольку до некоторой степени себя с ним идентифицируешь.
это относится и к тому, что пишет Пинкер о сознании. раздражает.
Tue, Nov. 27th, 2007 04:40 am (UTC)
vsopvs: Re: il forniquait et lisait des journaux
"outspoken" here says it all. good atheist is a silent one, almost like a dead communist as they used to say (i don't know if this still holds true :))
Camus is good either way i guess. про "читателей газет"
Цветаева писала даже немножко раньше :)
Tue, Nov. 27th, 2007 07:17 am (UTC)
larvatus: Re: il forniquait et lisait des journaux
Резонанс в первую очередь от прелюбодеяния. Большинство читателей газет намного болыше читают, чем совокупляются.
Wed, Nov. 28th, 2007 08:32 pm (UTC)
in fact, this article is even more relevant to the issues in "The New York Sun" piece than to Hitchens' babble.
i wonder if you agree with "unconvincingly" in the following statement:
Some have stressed (to my mind unconvincingly) the importance of anti-Judaism in pre-Christian societies.
it's from this "pariah" article.
Wed, Nov. 28th, 2007 09:49 pm (UTC)
refers herein to historiographic mainstream. Note that Nirenberg cites Gager and Schäfer pro et contra
his want of conviction in the importance of anti-Judaism in pre-Christian societies. Whereas Gager locates the ideological wellspring of anti-Judaism in the New Testament, Schäfer follows the trend set by Mommsen by arguing that it is coeval with the Diaspora itself. The adverb that concerns you strikes me as a place holder for legerdemain that I learned from Carlo Ginzburg, supporting contrarian positions with stacked references consigned to footnotes.
Wed, Nov. 28th, 2007 11:33 pm (UTC)
your explanation of Nirenberg's position might be correct, but I wanted to know your own position on this :)
Thu, Nov. 29th, 2007 12:27 am (UTC)
My own position is that every nation hates its barbarians as every man hates his neighbors, but there is no enmity more intense than that engendered by sibling rivalry.
Thu, Nov. 29th, 2007 01:37 am (UTC)
separation and its discontent...
separation did not start with the advent of Christianity.
this other essay you mentioned is also very interesting, Sibling incest, madness, and the "Jews"