Manufacturing Consent: Anti-Zionism NOT= Anti-Semitism

Rarely have I seen such a blatantly artificial storm in a teacup and I am stunned by how pathetically the Labour party and leadership has caved in and run away from the controversy. What a bunch of spineless cowards. This faux furore is (one of many) clearly designed to equate Anti-Zionism with Anti-Semitism. Hence the appropriate reference to “Manufacturing Consent” in the title.

Let’s get some relevant credentials on the table here. I’m genetically Jewish, and my family lost some 46 members in the holocaust. So even though I’m atheist, I’m not remotely inclined to sympathise with anti-Semitism. But I’ve looked long and hard at what evidence is still in the public domain and I have failed to find any plausible trace of anti-Semitism in what Naz Shah posted on her Facebook page. Unfortunately, we can’t be absolutely certain about that because the coordinated bleating of the sheeple has intimidated her into removing the post.

So all we have to go on is the tory activist Guido Fawkes “exclusive” from which I gathered this image:

So check it out for yourself. Yes, it’s obviously an attack on Israel and its right to exist where it currently does. That makes it anti-Zionist. So what? Millions of us are, including me.

I don’t believe the proposal is rational or practical and, if it involved coercion, I’d be as opposed to it as I am to all other examples of political or social coercion. But there is nothing in it that, as a Jew, I or any other Jew could justify being “offended” by, however much we might disagree with the policy.

But the way in which Fawkes has managed to twist this not just in his own mind, but somehow in the public perceptions of the UK political classes is by emphasising the use of completely appropriate words (in the context of the policy) as though they are deliberately designed to invoke a recommendation to repeat the holocaust. Take a look at the comment beneath the image on his website:

The post argued the “solution” to the Israel-Palestine conflict is to “relocate Israel into the United States”, claiming the “transportation costs” of deporting Israelis would be “less than 3 years of defense spending”. Shah agreed, arguing it would “save them some pocket money“. You don’t have to be a history expert to see how incendiary these comments are…

So, presumably, “solution” can no longer apparently be used as a term in any discussion of the plethora of problems caused by Zionism, in case it implies “final solution”, while  “transportation” can’t be used in case it reminds us of the Cattle trucks.

What a pile of pusillanimous bollocks. Even Fawkes displays the ACTUAL usage within his own argument!

“solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict”

just google that phrase on its own. I just did and got a little under 80,000 results. Are you going after that lot as well Fawkes?

And I guarantee – though I can’t be arsed to prove it – that if you refine that search to add in the names of arbitrary British politicians, you’ll find – at least – dozens. So that phrase is clearly uncontroversial, among grown-ups at least.

What about “the transportation cost will less than 3 years of defence spending”?

It is not completely clear as to which countries defence spending they’re talking about. There are, presumably 3 options, UK, Israel and USA. The smallest of those budgets is Israel’s, with a modest $18.5 billion. 3 years worth of which gives us $54.5 billion. Which works out at a little over $9k per person to get each of the 6 million Jews in Israel over to the USA. So even the budget option certainly ain’t talking about Cattle Trucks! And, of course, if the defence budget in question was the USA’s ($597 billion) then each Israeli could be ferried across in their own private jet. The worst case scenario (which, after my bit of fun, is probably what they really meant) is that they’re referring to 3 years worth of annual US subsidy of Israel which does knock it down to a mere $9 billion, and thus only $1500 each, which, given bulk purchasing power, should at least get ’em all Business class one way tickets…

In any case, are we supposed to imagine for a single microsecond, that words like “solution” and “transportation” are not routinely used in Israel itself? Of course they are.

So how has anyone with an IQ in excess of their shoe size allowed themselves to be bullied into submission by the spurious accusation that this post was somehow anti-semitic? This really is “political correctness gone mad”












Graham Hancock would be spinning in his grave…

Fortunately, however, he’s not dead.

I hope he spots this little confirmation of his hypothesis from Supernatural (2005)

Religion As Child Abuse

For some years I’ve been making the case that indoctrinating kids with Religious belief constitutes one of the more serious forms of child abuse.But frankly I can’t see any obvious way to prevent it without totalitarian coercion by the State (as practised, for example, during the 20th century in both China and Russia) against all those religious parents who think they’re actually benefitting their child by passing on the indoctrination they received themselves at the same age.

The one area where the State can legitimately intervene is in the publicly funded education system where they could prohibit all religious indoctrination (such as the compulsory “act of worship” required in UK schools) and restrict them to religious education, where students could be taught about the full spectrum of religious inquiry; the history of religion, its psychology, its attempt at answering the principal philosophical questions, its successes and failures at answering those questions and its overall benefits and costs. If done properly this could only offend fanatics and would greatly reduce the negative effects of home indoctrination. Over time, it should begin to reduce recruitment.

In contrast this case shows how stupidly the authoritarian State can handle such delicate issues.

What it amounts to is an assertion, by the State, that because a 7 year old boy rejects the fairy story the school is trying to inculcate (the Christian story) and prefers the fairy story taught by his Jehova’s Witness mother, the child has been emotionally damaged and should, therefore, be taken from his mother and placed in care. That is an obscene overreach by the State.

Now we can’t reach any firm conclusions about the individual story because we certainly can’t trust the source (Daily Mail). So it’s entirely possible that the Judge is responding to a wealth of plausible evidence regarding emotional damage which may or may not be entirely focussed on the religious issue and which the Daily Mail simply isn’t bothering to report. So we’ll take it with a pinch of salt and treat it only as an example of the potential dangers of allowing the State to use its coercive powers to intervene.

But the real point is simple. Why does the mother’s indoctrination constitute abuse while the school’s indocrination doesn’t?

Christianity – Genetic Blowback?

Just a thought.

Just watched the excellent “Sex and the Church

Learned a lot. Highly recommended.

But although it explained – very well – what we know about the history of the Christian church’s embarrassing obsession with sex, it didn’t explain how or why the ideas which formed the core of the meme managed to survive past the “raised eyebrow” stage. And they are so psychotic that an explanation is required.

Clearly by the time Augustine had “clarified” the doctrine of sexual sin, the only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that a truly sinless human race – which is, ostensibly, what the Christian church would have liked to achieve – would, by virtue of complete sexual abstinence, have made themselves extinct within about a century.

Is it conceivable that no one understood that at the time? Not for me it ain’t. For me, it’s bleedin obvious that it would have been bleedin’ obvious to any sentient human hearing that proposal at any time. So how did it get past the snorts of ridicule? What on earth made so many meekly accept – at least in public – such a message as meaningful ethical guidance?

Not, of course, that they paid anything but lip service to the resultant edicts; or else there wouldn’t be so many of the buggers around today. So the first tactical error (in this context) made by the authoritarian church had the effect of making private disobedience an essential tool of survival. That’s not a good trait to encourage in a “subject.”

More significantly, if the tendencies to either disobedience or submission (to the demand for sexual abstinence) had any basis in genetic predisposition, their strategy also ensured the evolution of increasingly sceptical and disobedient Christians, whom – inevitably – learned to value autonomy over authority and, eventually, to reject authority altogether. Delicious irony?

I know. It’s a fairy story. Nice one though.

Dawkins on good form at Al Jazeera

Can’t embed the video but that link will take you there. Mehdi Hasan puts up a good fight trying to expose weakness or prejudice in Dawkins argument. He fails of course, because what weakness exists in Dawkins argument is not one a religious believer is inclined to perceive or accept.

Hasan’s arguments, by contrast, were excellent illustrations of the weakness of religious argument, though far more coherently delivered than is usual. For instance, he challenges Dawkins objection to teaching children that their recently deceased friends, being of the wrong religion, will inevitably go to hell, where they will suffer in agony for the rest of time – a terrifying image which Dawkins argues is a serious form of Child abuse; arguably more serious even than ad hoc priestly sexual molestation.

Hasan’s attempt to undermine this “radical” position is to ask: “To teach children that there is one god, or that god created the world in 6 days That IS Child Abuse?”

If you want to understand the religious mindset, you need to understand why even intelligent believers – like Hasan obviously is – do not understand why his question is so badly off target.

But Dawkins, perhaps being uncharacteristically restrained, didn’t take the opportunity to expose the stupidity of the question. So let me try.

Dawkins actual argument is based on the anecdotal evidence of a 40+year-old woman who was both sexually and religiously abused as a 7-year-old, probably by the same catholic priest. He sexually molested her and, on learning that her 7-year-old (protestant) friend had died, he told her that the friend was condemned, by her protestant status, to roast in hell for the rest of time. She obviously didn’t consent to or enjoy the sexual attack but she got over it fairly soon after the event. But it took years for her to recover from the psychological damage caused by nightmarish visions of her friend burning in hell, planted in her vulnerable psyche by an evil priest.

Hasan’s first challenge to that tale was on the basis that, as an empiricist, Dawkins shouldn’t be relying on one-off anecdotes; which suggests that Hasan believes that the example IS a one-off, which would itself be an extraordinary belief. But then Hasan does profess a literal belief in the story that Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse and challenged Dawkins to prove that it didn’t happen, so his grasp of empiricism isn’t quite complete.

In any case Dawkins’ real objection, shared, I would hope, by ANY humane human, religious or not, is that putting nightmarish images into the minds of children who are not able to defend themselves against such literal psychological Terrorism, is a clear, unambiguous grossly indefensible attack and abuse of a young child. In contrast, telling them that Father Christmas is going to leave presents for them under the Christmas tree, though it might be as equally factually implausible as the visions of eternal hellfire and damnation, doesn’t do any HARM.

It could, of course. If the Santa Claus doctrine was applied with the same fanatical rigour as the hellfire and damnation meme, and, for example, children were made to learn the names of the reindeer by rote, punished for getting them wrong, and warned that anything less than total compliance with parental or religious instructions would result in Santa not just leaving them out of the annual distribution jamboree but possibly even sending nasty goblins in the night to take away some of their existing toys, then the Santa Claus fairy story could start to become as damaging as some of the classic religious fables.

Dawkins is making the charitable assumption that Hasan’s teaching of stories from the Quran is closer in spirit and effect to the Father Christmas end of the meme market than to the eternal hellfire end. I’m not sure I’d have been that charitable but it was an entertaining debate. I was particularly encouraged by the audience reaction. Two thirds agreed that just being taught catholic doctrine, as a child, was as bad or worse than being sexually abused by a priest. That’s a step in the right direction…

How Authority Works

Truly excellent. I’m not surprised to learn that this gem has been around for some time, but it’s still the first time I’ve come across it. More importantily, it explains, as well as I ever seen, the principle mechanism by which authoritarianism maintains its grip on society

The cartoon itself illustrates the importance of presentational skills. I guarantee it presents the message far more clearly and accessibly than the original academic study reference on which it is based; the snappily entitled “Stephenson, G. R. (1967). Cultural acquisition of a specific learned response among rhesus monkeys. In: Starek, D., Schneider, R., and Kuhn, H. J. (eds.), Progress in Primatology, Stuttgart: Fischer, pp. 279-288.” See, you’re already asleep…

Atheist parents inconsistent principles re “Brownies” Oath

intriguing that these atheist parents are prepared to draw a line in the sand about forcing their daughter to promise love to a superfairy but they’re apparently quite happy to tolerate the swearing of subservience to a medieval monarchy.

I sense they may not have fully thought things through…