Hello friends, Holla Forumsack turned centrist here. Just finished part one of this book which an user here recommended me. Part one of this book is a history of political anti-semitism. To my surprise, it's actually extremely revealing. It starts out with Ardent (a Jew herself) examining the problem with the scapegoat theory of anti-semitism, and how it implies Jews are some kind of eternal victims without will themselves which is the complete opposite of the truth.
She traces the history of the Jewish banking class (special emphasis on the Rothschilds) and thier intertwining with the bourgeoisie from the very beginning, and thier pre-capitalist origins. Them being the sole source for loans for imperialist endeavours for a time. The class tensions within Jewry itself, between the lower and higher class Jews. The pre-ww2 political scandals Jews were involved in like the dryphus affair. The intertwined history of socialism and anti-semitism, socialists being the first ones to believe individual Jews separate from Jewry. Even the origins of the Jewish intelligentsia and arts and and why they are so pervasive. And a lot of other things
Now, I knew of some of these things but never have a seen it from a leftist which Ardent. And guess what? I'm not an anti Semite anymore because I understand all this.
Now, why hide this information? Why pretend Jewry doesn't have an impact on the world economy and politics? Instead, explain why, explain all these material reasons. Because as of now, the taboo against even insinuating something that could be perceived as anti Jew has left a HUGE intellectual hole that can be easily filled with Holla Forums retards trying to push Jewish world order that wants to eat white babies or whatever.
Same goes for Holla Forums's other go-to redpills like black crime statistics and shit related to incels. Because of how taboo these topics are, Holla Forums's infographs can actually influence people, because this is the only time they can see it discussed freely.
Fam, why do you think we're "hiding the truth" about this stuff? We talk about the influence of Jews on the rise of capitalism among ourselves a fair bit. On the whole, its really just not that interesting except for people with either a scholarly or pathological obsession with Jews–it doesn't change really change our politics much.
I think you need to lurk and not assume this is some kinda Zionist-Labor board or something.
Kevin Wood
Because it doesn't matter. There are jewish bourgeoisie and non jew ones. We are against the whole system, not specific ethnic traits of certain people within the system.
Dylan Long
...
Evan Lewis
people just don't want racism in their day to day lives. that's just how it is in America. also Amerilards have an unnatural tendency to praise the wealthy and condemn the porn so Jews basically get a free pass. Because it doesn't really conflict with our world view. Plenty of Communists, including Marx himself, discussed the tendency of jews to gain power under Capitalism. But our philosophy revolves around hating the game, not the player. Even
Ethan Anderson
fuck, I had a few aneurysms while typing this post. too lazy to correct it, though.
Parker Reed
Wow, Marx himself huh. And a quick Google search tells me that he wrote a book on the Jewish question. Is it worth reading?
Fair enough. But you can't deny that you can't really talk about these things in leftist circles irl
John Ward
you're right about antisemitism. but leftist circles are probably the most likely to let you be anti-zionist as fuck more than any other group. they just oppose racism in general because it divides the working class. and moderate liberals oppose racism because they love making money off immigrants.
I haven't read the JQ, but if it helps you understand it from a Marxist perspective then I don't see why not.
Cooper Robinson
Not only did he write the book but he also coined the term. Why would people in leftists circles talk about that. Leftists are against capitalism. Pointing out the ethnic makeup of certain capitalists isn't doing much to take down the system now is it?
You can talk about jews in leftist circles, though you'll usually get suspicion because it's a common question for anti-semites and nazis and other "woke" people to use for concern trolling.
However the fact that jews are hugely overrepresented at the top really is a good indicator of just how much capitalism allows for family dynasties of power to continue under capitalism just as they had under older socioeconomic systems. It's just taking feudalism and plopping a game of monopoly on it.
Jayden Smith
Arendt was a liberal, not a leftist.
Grayson Taylor
You mean she was a leftist, not a communist.
Jaxson Lee
No thanks, I think you're looking for reddit
Hunter Powell
To the contrary, the far left is the only part of the political spectrum that gets consistently and regularly labelled anti-Semitic. Look at BDS, Corbyn and Melanchon speaking ill of Israel, every anti-zionist leftist jew like Finkelstein. Those are the people who get called out by the ADL as "anti-semitic" every time while the so called anti-jewish far right ends up chock full with Richard Spencer and Steve Bannon types who would defend Israel to their last breath.
Kevin Murphy
How so?
Easton Gomez
By the traditional and original definition of what the useless term 'leftist' means, liberals have always been considered to be leftists. It's better to abandon this stupid game about guessing who is part of this or that side when it is totally inconsequential and we're better off being communists.
Brandon Wilson
Let's change the board name to /compol/ then.
Jace Kelly
Nah, the left/right dichotomy is ingrained in the public conscious not just in the west but by in every country directly influenced by western politics. When more "hard left" factions are surging is exactly the wrong time to abandon that distinction
Leo Reed
On The Jewish Question is absolutely worth reading, it's pretty short, takes like 10 to 15 minutes.
Xavier Mitchell
You can't talk about SJW idpol here either. We're against idpol, period.
Anthony Cook
I've read two theories on the nature of Jews and banking. Obv there problem with antisemetic theories is that they misdirect the focus away from the question of economics and structures of power towards race which obfuscates the actual problem because now it is directed towards Jews as a group rather than the bourgeoisie and money capital which happens to involve some prominent Jewish families. There is a reason the saying was that antisemitism is the socialism of fools.
One is the matter of money trading and the handeling of money in general in Christian society. Jews were often the only one's to be allowed to handle money. This doesn't mean much in terms of power where the capitalist mode of production isn't dominant but get ofc more significant towards the rise of cities in feudal Europe and cities. Many of the Jewish banker families were so-called court Jews, which were money traders in service of the European royal houses. For example the Rothschilds were originally the court Jews of the Hapsburg dynasty in the HRE. Often court Jews were killed during shifts in power and the like, the only way for these families to survive for a longer time was to start their own banking company. The Rotschilds were one of these people. Hence they still exist to this day although they are hardly as powerful as the conspiracy theories like to present them as.
The other theory I have read, rather than focusing on the position of Jews and being the only ones allowed to handle money is that because Rabbinical Judaism doesn't have a central temple there is a huge emphasis on literacy and studying among the European Jewry so they can read books of the Tanakh (such as Tora and Talmud). While literacy and studying doesn't go hand in hand with being a farmer, which is according to this theory one of the major reasons a lot of Jewish peasants ended up converting to Christianity and later Islam in the middle-east for example. Literate and educated people are really useful for administrative functions. Hence where Jewish communities lasted it often coincided with them performing such functions for local governments and empires, where they functioned as government bureaucrats or bankers.
Now all this still a generalization and a lot of Jews were poor workers or craftsmen more often than wealthy functionaries. In all cases of antisemitic oppression and violence, whether pogroms, genocides and the like, the primary victims were often the poorer Jews. Rich people almost universally are to useful and important for any government and they can often easily secure their own survival or move to safer regions. Whether working class Jews have a harder time. Even more so, destruction of Jewish communities and the confiscation of their property/lands were also often particular forms of primitive acumulating and the like for powers. The Spanish Empire took wealth from the Sephardi communities during the Inquisition. The Germans planned to take the Jewish lands for Lebensraum just as much as they planned the same for the Slavic peoples in Europe.
Jonathan Anderson
Anti-semitism is older than most political theory.
It dates back to ancient egyptians.
Romans were also notorious anti-semites who actually genocided jews (unlike Hitler).
Brody Thomas
Outside of the bible there isn't really all that much consensus about jews in ancient egypt though. I hate that everyone even outside the abrahamic tradition basically takes their texts as historic fact now, it's part of the reason the situation with Israel is so fucked is that their fairy tales are taken seriously as historic record.
Angel Foster
The exodus might be jewish fairy tale, but it shows the jews have used their victim complex that far back in history.
Jordan Sullivan
No, at most it shows that from the first recorded telling of the exodus myth which came much, much later.
Evan Reed
Marx absolutely unloads on the Jews and calls their god Mammon and explicitly states that Jews will only be emancipated when they stop their usury and join the proletariat. He also rejects Zionism. There is really no way to link Marx with the zionist-jew agenda after that book.
Nicholas Sullivan
The Romans were neither religiously nor racially anti-semitic, but the Jews with their constant revolts became a Roman enemy in the first century. The Jews also killed other Roman and Greek civilians indiscriminately, the Romans as a reaction dealt with them as they have dealt with any other enemy by killing them or enslaving them. After the 1st century ad, things calmed down and Jews stopped believing in a military style messiah, in fact Romans used Jews in administrative positions and some emperors even had them as advisors. Things got bad for the Jews in western europe due to how medieval society was structured that was non-cosmopolitan and primarily centered on agriculture/crafts and not on a stable monetary and fiscal policy. A western euro in middle-ages had every motive to start a pogrom against the Jews when he and his fellow countrymen had accrued big debts to a group of Jews, so that's what happened (as in the Rhineland massacres). Of course the various kings had no problem with this and even confiscated Jewish property when it suited them like Philip II Augustus did (he pulled the same trick with the Templars). So anti-semitism really has its roots in the medieval/modern period
Hudson Torres
yes there were a lot of jews involved with the rise of capitalism. there were also a lot of eunuchs controlling the chinese empire
requesting those collages of the Hybernian Conspiracy
Nathan Edwards
Not communist = not leftist
Noah Miller
No he didn't?
Ian Robinson
Wrong.
Isaac Sullivan
They were both religiously and racially anti-semitic.
They fear the jews both as a race and religion, and had exiled the jews themselves and their religion out of Roman core cities by the threat of order.
In comparison, even the barbaric Gallic and germanics did not get this amount of hatred.
Alexander Hernandez
...
Colton Martinez
Most socialist thought isn't centered around ethnicity but around our working conditions. There's borgie Jews, Anglos, blacks, Arabs ect ect ect. The socialist doesn't identify with an ethnic group but rather their class. Jamal and Ricky bobby are in the same class but different ethnic groups same with Tom Hanks and Jay-Z The borgie are able to leverage their power over the masses because they act in their classes interest rather than their I guess racial interest? Though the idea of people having racial interest is stupid. Were all the same species and able to reproduce with each other and genetic diversity is much more preferable. Anyways, the make-up of the capitalist class doesn't really matter because the capitalism has no problem fucking over those of their own race for their class interest. That's why you got alt-righters like milo crowing on about an ethno-state while talking about sucking black cock. He'll say anything to protect his class interest or what he thinks is his class interest.
Michael Flores
...
Isaac Williams
What's wrong with her? The book makes sense and is well researched
Genuine anti-Jewism (see: Jews aren't the only semites) has its roots in medieval Europe. When the church declared that usury was a sin and Christians were not allowed to be money lenders this was a role that Jews occupied.
Jason Cruz
So what you're saying is that the concept of money is super fucked up.
Nathan Perez
This book talks all about it. Give it a read, I would recommend it.
