The Press on UN Racism Conference

April 23rd, 2009 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

The Press editorial:

The hijacking by the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, of a United Nations conference supposedly assembled to discuss racism should surprise no-one.

That something of the kind would occur was perfectly predictable beforehand. The last -sponsored conference on this subject was a fiasco, being used primarily as a platform for grandstanders to rant against the West in general and Israel in particular. All the preliminary talk that had gone on before the present one was fair warning that it would be a similar kind of occasion. As events have shown, New Zealand was wise to stay away from it. If it had not, it would certainly have had to join the more than 30 other nations attending that walked out when Ahmadinejad uttered his inflammatory remarks.

Indeed. But continues to demand that we should have attended. Grant Robertson has done a third release complaining NZ did not attend.

Labour and the Greens have accused the Government of pulling out of the conference in order to appease its allies. This is stale and feeble nonsense.

Yep.

The fact is that, like the other governments that chose not to attend, New Zealand made its own judgment, accurate as it turned out, that no good would come of the event. The New Zealand chief human rights commissioner, Ros Noonan, claims not to be able to find anything anti-semitic in the conference. If that is the case, she must have a severely blinkered view of the matter. Intense negotiations by the US, for instance, before the conference started, focused heavily on concerns about anti-semitism.

I just don’t understand why Labour are so keen for NZ to be forced to attend a conference where you have the Chief Holocaust Denier promate hatred and racism.

Tags: , ,

77 Responses to “The Press on UN Racism Conference”

  1. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Where was Miss Klark? Anyone know if she attended?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. davidp (3,319 comments) says:

    Race Relations Conciliator Joris de Bres went to the conference. The Government needs to show that this is not acceptable by sacking him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. TimG_Oz (883 comments) says:

    Good editorial from the Press.

    Strange then that they still employ John Minto who I’m sure would have been ecstatic with applause for Ahmadinejad..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. adamsmith1922 (879 comments) says:

    I noted yesterday the hypocrisy of many attendees

    http://adamsmith.wordpress.com/2009/04/22/hypocritical-talkfest/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. John Ansell (861 comments) says:

    “I just don’t understand why Labour are so keen for NZ to be forced to attend a conference where you have the Chief Holocaust Denier promate hatred and racism.”

    It’s because Labour never miss an opportunity to waste our money, David.

    If our Race Relations Conciliator went to the conference without the government’s permission, then yes, he should be sacked. But is that the case?

    As for the ‘blinkered’ Ros Noonan, at least she was honourable enough to oppose the Electoral Finance Act.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. BlairM (2,265 comments) says:

    Can Labour make Grant Robertson the Leader? He seems to have no grasp of the concept that what an opposition spokesman says is supposed to gain votes for his party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. He-Man (270 comments) says:

    It’s not like Ahmadinejad was lying. All he did was point out the racism inflicted by the Zionists onto the Palestinians. Such as stealing land, murdering children etc…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. He-Man (270 comments) says:

    They should have brung up the Eskimo lolly episode at that conference too!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. NeilM (370 comments) says:

    “appease its allies”?

    is that supposed to mean “agree with Obama on human rights issues”?

    maybe Labour would have prefered us to appease our enemies ie Ahmadinejad

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. He-Man (270 comments) says:

    Of course NZ must not attend because our government approves of the stealing of Palestinian land and the murder of hundreds of children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Brian Smaller (3,915 comments) says:

    What is strange is the Labour are the same guys who wouldn’t let that David Irving guy here to talk. The only difference between him and Ahmamadjihadi is that one will have nuclear bombs soon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Murray (8,835 comments) says:

    Clark of course poured troops into Iraq and Afghanistan so by labours standards this would be apeasing America and make her an American lapdog right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Komata (963 comments) says:

    At Last – a memberr of the MSM who isn’t afraid to actually state the truth!!! (Long may it continue!)

    Re De Bres and (now) Noonan:

    It (still) seems to me that their OIC should be having a little talk to them and remind them that Dear Leader is no longer their boss, with perhaps a not very-subtle suggestion that if they don’t like it, they should ship out.

    I especially find Noonan’s comment claims about ‘not to be able to find anything anti-semitic in the conference’ offensive, and have to wonder if this observation was a not-so-very veiled ‘dig’ at John key and his ancestry – and this from a woman who supposedly, (by way of her appointment) is a ‘race relations ‘expert’(whatever THAT may mean) – Or does that ‘expertise’ only relate to those with sun tans?

    If it was a dig (and from a known Labour supporter who by ideaollogy loaths ‘the Right’), then IMHO the ‘lady’ needs to leave., and take her South African activist lackey (who obviously shares similar views), with her.

    A question: When the Race Relations Commisioner makes racist comments (either overtly or covertly) who deals with them? (aka, who watches the watchers?)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Clark of course poured troops into Iraq and Afghanistan so by labours standards this would be apeasing America and make her an American lapdog right?

    Certainly is by my standards.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Agree with Komata, can someone please tell these socialist two bobs that there is a new boss in town, sack the money wasters. Fuck why do we have to put up with these PC dribbling parasites. I see Joris wasn’t there to take in Ahmadinejad’s hate filled rantings, didn’t think it was appropriate. He shouldn’t be there, full stop. Who does he think he is representing, it’s certainly not the people of NZ. And how does he get into a conference when the country of his employment does not wish to be represented. I bet any old shit kicker can not walk off the street to attend, one would have to have credentials, so I take he used his NZ credentials to get in.

    The same goes for that other air headed socialist parasite, Chadwick. Who the fuck pays these clowns to go and talk shit and please don’t say the Liarbore party because I know the poor taxpayer has to stump up for these idiots. This shit has to stop. Is it any wonder this country is up shit creek we employ the unemployable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. sally (26 comments) says:

    If the President of Iran had given a speech at Durban One ranting against Gays, wimmin, Muslims and Blacks, you can bet your bottom dollar there is no way Labour, the Greens, and their cohorts De Bres and Noonan, would have ever stood for NZ heading off to Durban Two. No doubt they would have endorsed NZs non-attendance as’progressive’, ‘compassionate’, ‘human rights champions’, ‘a vote for freedomand tolerance’ etc.

    I notice that De Bres has very little to say about despotic Zimbabwe, Sudan, Somalia or human rights abusers China, Pakistan, nearly all the Middle East or the long-term race civil war in Sri Lanka….ooops…my bad…silly me…I forgot the mantra of the radical Left, that the US and Israel is responsible for ALL the problems of the world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Inventory2 (9,787 comments) says:

    Sally – de Bres has very little to say about anything – anything of value that is. I daresay however that he will be getting a “please explain” from McCully upon his return to New Zealand, and rightly so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. radvad (620 comments) says:

    Robertson, de Bres etc claim NZ should have been there “so our voice could be heard”.
    Maybe someone should ask them just what it is they would have said.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Paulus (2,291 comments) says:

    I look forward to learning very soon that the roles of De Bres and Noonan have been disestablished, and their two roles amalgamated elsewhere which would follow the Government’s direction.

    Stupid persons – not very intelligent – perhaps they are deliberately looking for redundancy payments really?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. tvb (3,937 comments) says:

    But the Labour Party did attend the conference through a couple of blatantly partisan appointments grandstanding their attendance. At least the Labour Party recognises that those people notionally holding Government posts do not represent the Government

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. PhilBest (5,112 comments) says:

    The “Australian” says of the Rudd government’s decision:

    “Boycott is a Triumph of Principle”

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25371892-7583,00.html

    “……probably the finest moment in foreign policy for the Rudd Government so far. It represents a template for how Rudd foreign policy should operate and vindicates faith in the soundness and decency of the judgments of Rudd and Smith. It demonstrates a desire to be deeply involved in multilateral processes, but to make an independent decision at the end of those processes.

    Why is it so important?

    The first conference was held in Durban nearly eight years ago. It degenerated into a vile and hateful anti-Semtitic jamboree. The original idea of the conference was to set down some basic markers against racism that the entire civilised world could endorse, not a bad idea at all. But a number of Arab and African dictatorships, and their non-governmental organisation supporters in the West, hijacked the conference and devoted it to denouncing Israel. No other nation was singled out for criticism…….”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. PhilBest (5,112 comments) says:

    “The Australian” editorial also said:

    “……The new Government in Wellington deserves special congratulations for taking the action it did, because it was opposed domestically by Labour and the Greens…….”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Mal (29 comments) says:

    Let’s be honest here. Labour do not have policy any longer, their only stance is to oppose. Ethics and moral standards of decency do not even come into the equation. This is their total failure to recognise that we the voter knew this flaw last year and nothing has changed or will. Thank goodness they are doomed to oblivian until such time as they show some true humanity towards the citizenry of this country. We owe them bothing but they owe us respect.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. James (1,338 comments) says:

    Whos suprised? Historically socialism and anti-semitism go hand in hand.The Jew is seen as the embodyment of Capitalism…..a greedy grasper who works away aquiring wealth that must have come from the deserving poor.

    The shared hatered of Jews between the Islamists and the Left is what has the left falling over themselves to snuggle up to scum like Ahmadinejad…..my enemys enemy is my friend and all that…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Like National, Labour doesn’t really need much (detailed) policy until election time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Whos suprised? Historically socialism and anti-semitism go hand in hand.The Jew is seen as the embodyment of Capitalism…..a greedy grasper who works away aquiring wealth that must have come from the deserving poor.

    The shared hatered of Jews between the Islamists and the Left is what has the left falling over themselves to snuggle up to scum like Ahmadinejad…..my enemys enemy is my friend and all that…

    Yes, I can’t think of a single Jewish person who’d call themselves a socialist.

    Except, you know, Karl Marx, Albert Einstein, Noam Chomsky, Murray Bookchin, Howard Zinn, Naomi Klein…

    But, you know, they’re unimportant blips.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. James (1,338 comments) says:

    “Yes, I can’t think of a single Jewish person who’d call themselves a socialist.

    Except, you know, Karl Marx, Albert Einstein, Noam Chomsky, Murray Bookchin, Howard Zinn, Naomi Klein…

    But, you know, they’re unimportant blips.”

    Yes they are. There are Jews who are socialists….and who hate other Jews too.Marx for example was a rabid anti semite….and his ideas helped begat Hitler.But socialism has a great historical record of anti semitism…look it up Ryan.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. TimG_Oz (883 comments) says:

    James – Some of those that Ryan named were actually proud to be Jewish, at least by culture.

    Also, historically the left were very much the friends of Jews and Israel. The Soviet Union voted for Israel to be created under the partition plan. In Australia, the Labor party were and still are very pro-Israel.

    It is only a recent phenomenon were the left have gone PC crazy anti-Israel, and even attempted to re-write history to suit themselves (John Minto is a good example).. i.e. saying they were either mislead or never pro-Israel in the first place.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Marx for example was a rabid anti semite….and his ideas helped begat Hitler.

    Citation needed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Jack5 (4,211 comments) says:

    It’s taking a sidetrack to link anti-Semitism with one political philosophy.

    On the left, among others you had Jews like Trotsky, Zinoviev, and Kaganovich as well as Marx. On the right, apart from Hitler’s maniacs, there were the appalling fascists of Hungary and the fascist fellow travellers of the Baltic countries and the Ukraine who joined in and some times did all the murderous work of the Nazis against the Jews.

    As I see it, current anti-Semitism of the Far Left stems more from a hatred of the West as a whole. It seems to me that Western civilisation is built on the intellectual rock of ancient Greece and the spiritual rock of Judaism and it’s offshoot, Christianity. The relics of the failed philosophy of socialism hate both Western science and intellectual freedom and its religious roots, which go back to Israel. However, there is still an extremist Far Right that has a dormant or disguised hatred of Judaism, too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    As I see it, current anti-Semitism of the Far Left stems more from a hatred of the West as a whole. It seems to me that Western civilisation is built on the intellectual rock of ancient Greece and the spiritual rock of Judaism and it’s offshoot, Christianity. The relics of the failed philosophy of socialism hate both Western science and intellectual freedom and its religious roots, which go back to Israel.

    That explanation does not apply with any of the leftists I know.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. unaha-closp (1,033 comments) says:

    UN Watch attended the conference abd provided a platform for a victim of Libyan torture chambers to address the conference, the Libyan chairperson was somewhat dismissive.

    http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.5109305/k.891C/Confrontation_at_Durban_II.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. James (1,338 comments) says:

    Ok Ryan….from the many listings you can go here…

    http://www.liberalvalues.org.nz/index.php?action=view_article&article_id=265

    And here…. http://www.nikutai-to-kageboushi.com/discourse/antismtm.html

    and here ….http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=1591

    From nikutai-to-kageboushi.com…

    Quote: In 1844 Karl Marx published “On the Jewish Question” 1, otherwise known as “A World Without Jews.” Some excerpts:

    “Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew — not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time…. We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development — to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed — has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry 1
    The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange. 1
    The Jew is perpetually created by civil society from its own entrails. 1
    The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of of the merchant, of the man of money in general. 1
    Contempt for theory, art, history, and for man as an end in himself, which is contained in an abstract form in the Jewish religion 1
    Judaism could not develop further as a religion, could not develop further theoretically, because the world outlook of practical need is essentially limited and is completed in a few strokes. 1
    Jewish Jesuitism, the same practical Jesuitism which Bauer discovers in the Talmud, is the relation of the world of self-interest to the laws governing that world, the chief art of which consists in the cunning circumvention of these laws. 1
    We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time, an element which through historical development — to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed 1
    In its perfected practice, Christian egoism of heavenly bliss is necessarily transformed into the corporal egoism of the Jew, heavenly need is turned into world need, subjectivism into self-interest 1
    Christianity had only in semblance overcome real Judaism. It was too noble-minded, too spiritualistic to eliminate the crudity of practical need in any other way than by elevation to the skies. 1
    it is only in the Christian world that civil society attains perfection 1
    Indeed, in North America, the practical domination of Judaism over the Christian world has achieved as its unambiguous and normal expression that the preaching of the Gospel itself and the Christian ministry have become articles of trade, and the bankrupt trader deals in the Gospel just as the Gospel preacher who has become rich goes in for business deals. 1
    Only then could Judaism achieve universal dominance and make alienated man and alienated nature into alienable, vendible objects subjected to the slavery of egoistic need and to trading. 1
    The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism. 1
    Once society has succeeded in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism — huckstering and its preconditions — the Jew will have become impossible 1″

    This essay was only the tip of the iceburg, and it is clear that Marx held a racial component…

    From Marx’s Legacy of Hatred

    “It seemed like a plausible thesis: the value of a product is determined by the amount of labour needed to produce it. Yet the idea may well have contributed to the appeal of Nazism and lead directly to the Holocaust.

    Marx was the best known of the proponents of the labour theory of value. In fact much of his economic system is built on this premise. But Marx didn’t originate the idea. Before him David Ricardo proposed it and before Ricardo there was Adam Smith. And if Prof. Murray Rothbard is right then Smith probably adopted the idea from the teachings of John Calvin.

    But Marx and his followers certainly were the main propagandists for the idea that labour produce value. And until the rise of the Austrian school of economics this was the dominant theory of value in Europe.

    To follow this idea to it’s culmination in the Nazi campaign against the Jews we must go back to Marx and his ideas. One hundred years before the Nationalist Socialist regime of Adolph Hitler Marx was writing on what was called the “Jewish Question.” Marx’s anti-Semitism, now well documented, was derived from his economic theories. And his anti Jewish tract makes the connection quite clear.

    For Marx the Jews were not so much a religion, or a race, but a cultural phenomenon. What created Judaism, said Marx, was a desire to seek monetary profits. His polemic stated:

    “Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew.”

    “What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest.”

    “What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.”

    For Marx profit seeking was Judaism and the Jew was the personification of capitalism. They personified evil because they tended to work in finance, retail merchandising, or as entrepreneurs. And in the Marxist theory these professions did not produce value but stole it from the source of real wealth: the manual labourers. The Jewish financier produced nothing in Marx’s view and thus only lived off the exploitation of others. Moreover this, in Marx’s view, was the essence of capitalism. “Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man—and turns them into commodities. Money is the universal self established value of all things. It has, therefore robbed the whole world—both the world of men and nature—of its specific value. … The god of the Jews has become secularised and has become the god of the world.”

    Need anymore Ryan…?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Hahaha, Jesus! Nope, don’t need any more. I am convinced of Marx’s anti-Semitism.

    And you reckon Hitler got some of his own anti-Semitism from Marx’s writings? Hitler did have a tendency to lock up and kill socialists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. James (1,338 comments) says:

    This piece is very good on this topic..

    The Socialist Roots of Modern Anti-Semitism
    January 1, 1997
    Tyler Cowen

    Auschwitz meant that six million Jews were killed, and thrown on the waste-heap of Europe, for what they were considered: money-Jews. Finance capital and the banks, the hard core of the system of imperialism and capitalism, had turned the hatred of men against money and exploitation, and against the Jews. . . . Antisemitism is really a hatred of capitalism.
    —Ulrike Meinhof, left-wing German terrorist of the 1970s1

    Capitalism and the market economy encourage racial, ethnic, and religious tolerance, while supporting a plurality of diverse lifestyles and customs. Heavily regulated or socialist economies, in contrast, tend to breed intolerance and ethnic persecution. Socialism leads to low rates of economic growth, disputes over resource use, and concentrated political power-all conditions which encourage conflict rather than cooperation. Ethnic and religious minorities usually do poorly when political coercion is prevalent. Economic collapses—usually associated with interventionism—worsen the problem by unleashing the destructive psychological forces of envy and resentment, which feed prejudice and persecution.

    While discrimination is present in societies of all kinds, discriminators must pay pecuniary costs for indulging their prejudices in a market setting. Even the prejudiced usually will trade with minorities; bigots attempt to oppress minorities by socializing the costs through government action, but bigots usually are less willing to bear these costs themselves. Repeated commercial interactions also increase the social familiarity of customs or lifestyles that otherwise might be found unusual or alien. Sustained economic growth alleviates political and social tensions by creating more for everybody.

    The history of the Jewish people illustrates the relatively favorable position of minorities in a market setting. Hostility toward trade and commerce has often fueled hostility toward Jews, and vice versa. The societies most congenial to commercial life for their time-Renaissance Italy, the growing capitalist economies of England and the Netherlands in the seventeenth century, and the United States-typically have shown the most toleration for Jews. Ellis Rivkin, in his neglected masterpiece, The Shaping of Jewish History: A Radical New Interpretation, wrote:

    Since World War II Jews and Judaism have been liberated in every country and territory where capitalism has been restored to vigorous growth-and this includes Germany. By contrast, wherever anticapitalism or precapitalism has prevailed the status of Jews and Judaism has either undergone deterioration or is highly precarious. Thus at this very moment the country where developing global capitalism is most advanced, the United States, accords Jews and Judaism a freedom that is known nowhere else in the world and that was never known in the past. It is a freedom that is not matched even in Israel. . . . By contrast, in the Soviet Union, the citadel of anticapitalism, the Jews are cowed by anti-Semitism, threatened by extinction, and barred from access to their God.2

    The socialist origins of modern anti-Semitism illustrate the link between statism and the persecution of minorities. Anti-Semitism as a formal, intellectual movement arose in the middle of the nineteenth century, when Jewish conspiracy theories grew in popularity. German writers picked up on earlier anti-Enlightenment theories of a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy to rule the world. During the French Revolution, the Jews, along with the Masons, were identified as forces for liberalism, secularism, and capitalism. German writers quickly found the Jews to be a more popular target than the Masons, perhaps because they were more visible or more different. The originally Judeo-Masonic theories eventually discarded the other conspirators, such as the Templars and the Illuminati, and focused on the Jews.

    Anti-Semitism in Nineteenth-Century Germany and Austria

    The anti-Jewish creed was formalized by Wilhelm Marr, the German writer who coined the term anti-Semitic. In 1879 Marr published his book The Victory of Judaism over Germandom, which went through twelve editions in six years. He also founded the Antisemitic Journal, and started an Antisemitic League. Marr idolized Tsarist Russia, and earlier in his career he had been a radical socialist. The new anti-Semites who followed Marr expanded the medieval attacks on Jewish traders and usurers and developed them into a full-scale economic critique. The Jews who provoked the most anger were those who embraced cosmopolitan, Enlightenment values, and who achieved economic success.

    In the second half of the nineteenth century, Germany became the first country to develop systematic anti-Semitic political and intellectual movements. In Germany, Adolf Stocker’s Christian Social Party (1878-1885) combined anti-Semitism with left-wing, reformist legislation. The party attacked laissez-faire economics and the Jews as part of the same liberal plague. Stocker’s movement synthesized medieval anti-Semitism, based in religion, and modern anti-Semitism, based in racism and socialist economics. He once wrote: I see in unrestrained capitalism the evil of our epoch and am naturally also an opponent of modern Judaism on account of my socio-political views. Stocker had revered the Prussian aristocracy since his youth.

    Georg Ritter von Schonerer led the left-wing, anti-Semitic movement in Austria. Schonerer’s German Liberal Party, developed a lower-middle-class, anti-Semitic, anti-capitalistic platform in the 1880s. Schonerer directed his anti-Semitism at the economic activity of the Rothschilds; he advocated nationalization of their railroad assets. Later, he broadened his charges to attack Jewish merchants more generally. Hitler was an avid admirer of Schonerer, and as a young man even hung Schonerer’s slogans over his bed.

    The growing nineteenth-century socialist movements did little to stem the anti-Semitic tide and often explicitly promoted anti-Semitism. The initial link between socialism and anti-Semitism arose through intellectual affinity. Throughout the nineteenth century, the socialist critique of capitalism and the anti-Semitic critique used the same arguments. Many socialists considered anti-Semitism to be a way station on the path toward a more consistent socialist viewpoint. The very first systematic socialist philosophers, the French Utopians of the early nineteenth century, had implicated the Jews in their critique of capitalism. French Jewry was highly commercial, financial, and capitalistic. Proudhon and Fourier, who stressed the abolition of usury, saved their most vitriolic anti-Semitic tirades for Jewish moneylenders.

    Karl Marx continued the anti-Jewish polemics of the socialists. The historical association between Jews, private property, and commerce led to his well-known anti-Semitic diatribes. Marx, who sought to reconstruct society according to his master plan, detested the particularistic nature of Jewish religion and custom. Some of Marx’s followers, such as Duhring and Lassalle, used anti-Semitism as a means of introducing anti-capitalist doctrine. They believed that if the public could be convinced to hate Jewish capitalists, the public would eventually come to hate non-Jewish capitalists as well.

    A widely circulated nineteenth-century witticism described anti-Semitism as the socialism of fools [der Sozialismus des bloden Mannes]. It was widely recognized that the anti-Semites shared the same gripes as the socialists; the anti-Semites simply chose too narrow a target. The socialists happily accepted the spirit of anti-Semitism, provided the target was widened to the entire capitalist class. More recently, the historian Paul Johnson has noted with irony that socialism has served as the anti-Semitism of the intellectuals.3

    Even when socialists opposed anti-Semitism, as later came to pass for tactical reasons, European socialist parties failed to provide effective opposition to anti-Semitic trends. Most socialists, with their dislike of capitalism, were unwilling to defend the economic activities of Jews. Socialism pretended to be a revolutionary, liberal movement but in fact embraced the conservative doctrine of concentrated state power. Most socialists supported World War I, which provided a tremendous boost to anti-Semitism, without hesitation. Later, the Nazi party, the most dedicated enemy of the Jews, was a national socialist party from the beginning.4

    Soviet Anti-Semitism

    The actual practice of socialism has not been kind to its religious and ethnic minorities, including Jews. The Soviet government adopted consistently anti-Semitic policies. Lenin was strongly opposed to anti-Semitism, but Soviet policy reversed shortly after his death. Totalitarian states, with their inevitable economic failures, eventually need scapegoats. Economic performance rarely matches the official promises, and the subsequent privations feed social resentment; one person gains only at the expense of another. The necessities of totalitarian government, in time, override whatever nonracist feelings might be held by the leaders, and create strong pressures for political support of racism. Control over the press and rights of speech makes racist feeling relatively easy to whip up.

    Soviet anti-Semitism flourished after the Second World War, as the Communist leaders were unable to resist the target that had proven so successful for Hitler. In 1953 Stalin alleged the existence of a Doctors’ Plot, masterminded by Jews, to poison the top Soviet leadership. Stalin died before a trial was called, but he had been planning to forcibly deport two million Jews to Siberia. The economic crimes executions of the early 1960s were directed largely against Jews.

    Textbooks were rewritten either to remove the Jewish role in history, or to provide negative stereotypes of Jews. Government texts dealing with Germany and World War II mentioned neither the Jews nor the Holocaust. The Russian pogroms were reinterpreted as justified retribution for the capitalistic excesses of the Jews. The Soviet government attacked all forms of religion, but Judaism most of all.

    Eastern Germany continued the earlier Nazi polemics against Jews, substituting the words Zionist or Israel for Jew, and referring to the salutary effects of progressive socialist forces, a scant difference from the earlier Nazi terminology of national socialism. Many former Nazi journalists were hired to write these anti-Zionist polemics. Similar trends came to pass throughout eastern Europe. In the early 1950s, thirteen leaders in the Czech Communist party (ten were Jewish), were accused of being Zionists, and were hanged. In 1968 the Polish media spent months debating the unmasking of Zionists in Poland, although Jews comprised less than one-fifteenth of one percent of the population. The anti-Zionist campaign was accompanied by demonstrations, arrests, surveillance, police persecution, and other typical methods of totalitarian oppression.

    The contrast with the more capitalistic United States is striking. The United States started off with few Jews but attracted many Jewish immigrants with its relatively free economy and atmosphere of relative tolerance. By the 1920s, three of the four cities with the most Jews were located in the United States. New York had the largest number of Jews, and Chicago and Philadelphia were third and fourth (Budapest was second). Today Jews account for only two percent of the American population, but they account for half of the billionaires. The history of the Jews provides a stark illustration of the differences between capitalism and socialism.

    Apoligies for lenght

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    I’ll stick with the others in my list, though. I’ve never read anything remotely like that in Bookchin, Einstein, Chomsky or Klein.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. James (1,338 comments) says:

    And you reckon Hitler got some of his own anti-Semitism from Marx’s writings? Hitler did have a tendency to lock up and kill socialists.”

    Yes….but only competing ones…..the ones who weren’t National Socialists…like him.Infighting amoungst the Left and like minded others was not something rare….it was gang wafare for turf.Is it suprising that people who seek power and control will fight others seeking the same things to ensure they come out on top?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Jack5 (4,211 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull wrote at 3.52 That explanation does not apply with any of the leftists I know.”

    Ryan I shouldn’t have suggested all current socialists are anti-Semites. They are not. However, I believe most current socialists who hate Jews or Israel do so as part of an over-all prejudice against the West.

    Israel has a Labour Party and I think a strong Social Democrat tradition (socialism Lite, like our Labour). Even on the Right there have been people like Schindler and the Nazi diplomat who saved many Chinese during the Japanese atrocities in Nanking.

    It’s understandable that Jews were initially attracted to the Bolshevik Revolution. This followed decades of brutal pogroms and hatred, exemplified by the infamous Protocols of Zion, in vogue among anti-Semites to this very day. The pre-communist Czarist police forged this nasty document.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Yes….but only competing ones…..the ones who weren’t National Socialists…like him.Infighting amoungst the Left and like minded others was not something rare….it was gang wafare for turf.Is it suprising that people who seek power and control will fight others seeking the same things to ensure they come out on top?

    Calling it infighting sort of assumes that they’re peas in a pod. To me, and to most socialists I know, socialism is international or it is no socialism at all.

    Anyway, I concede the point regarding Marx – he clearly had some racism going on. But otherwise, my point remains – socialism has had many great Jewish contributors, both in terms of state socialism and (more commonly) libertarian socialism (anarchism). I certainly don’t see anything like anti-Semitism in any of the leftists I know, and I remain unconvinced that criticism of Israel’s treatment of its native population is uniformly – or even for the most part – inspired by senseless racism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. James (1,338 comments) says:

    For info on Chomskys anti semitism see here…there are plenty of links.I read a few and its damming.

    http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=Chomsky+hatred+anti+semitism+jew&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Ryan I shouldn’t have suggested all current socialists are anti-Semites. They are not. However, I believe most current socialists who hate Jews or Israel do so as part of an over-all prejudice against the West.

    They do tend to have a habitual suspicion of the UK and the US (and Israel, seen as a kind of 51st state), though it’s hardly unfounded. But those countries hardly have a monopoly on “the West” or liberal democracy. If anything, many socialist-lites see the UK, the US and Israel as kind of tangents away from what liberal democracy is supposed to be (a social democracy).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Jack5 (4,211 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull at 4.21: ” remain unconvinced that criticism of Israel’s treatment of its native population is uniformly – or even for the most part – inspired by senseless racism.”

    What if most of Israel’s Jews and it and Palestine Arabs are genetically the same? Maybe they are as close as Belfast Catholics and Protestants?

    If Israeli Jews and Palestine Arabs are the same race can you realistically talk of racism?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    For info on Chomskys anti semitism see here…there are plenty of links.I read a few and its damming.

    Yes, quotes supporting the idea that Chomsky is anti-Semitic tend to be quotes of people other than Chomsky. I can’t find any quotes by him in that Google search that suggests anti-Semitism, just plenty of anti-Zionism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. James (1,338 comments) says:

    “Calling it infighting sort of assumes that they’re peas in a pod. To me, and to most socialists I know, socialism is international or it is no socialism at all.”

    Ok well then the Nazis and me will agree to differ with you.

    “Anyway, I concede the point regarding Marx – he clearly had some racism going on. But otherwise, my point remains – socialism has had many great Jewish contributors, both in terms of state socialism and (more commonly) libertarian socialism (anarchism). I certainly don’t see anything like anti-Semitism in any of the leftists I know, and I remain unconvinced that criticism of Israel’s treatment of its native population is uniformly – or even for the most part – inspired by senseless racism.”

    But there are certainly anti semitics out there on the Left….and more than a few are Jews themselves…

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90617

    Leftist Jews who worship at altar of anti-Semitism

    By Jamie Glazov
    © 2009

    A particularly interesting and telling debate has broken out over New York Times columnist Roger Cohen’s recent opinion piece about how well (allegedly) Iran’s Jew-hating regime treats its remaining Jews.

    Cohen trying to explain the humanity showed to Jews by a regime bent on another Jewish Holocaust is yet another disturbing reminder of the liberal-Left’s traditional romance with tyranny and terror. It is a subject tackled by my new book, “United in Hate,” which gives a historical background to, and analysis of, the Left’s dalliance with the greatest monsters of our time.

    Get Jamie Glazov’s “United in Hate: “The Left’s Romance With Tyranny and Terror,” signed by the author from the people who published it – WND and WND Books.

    The controversy sparked by Cohen’s column provides a fitting occasion to highlight a continuing and most-troubling phenomenon: Why so many left-leaning Jews in the West make excuses for – and even support – regimes and ideologies that seek to annihilate Jews.

    We just witnessed how the Left rushed to the defense of Hamas in Gaza while Israel took action so that Palestinian rocket fire would stop terrorizing and killing Israeli civilians. This leftist behavior was, of course, a continuation of events in the summer of 2006, when the Left rushed to the defense of Hamas and Hezbollah after Israel went into Gaza and Lebanon to try to counter terrorism. During that time, American academia spearheaded the anti-Israel movement. One thousand leftist professors signed a petition that denounced Israel for its “brutal bombing and invasion of Gaza” and its “acts of Israeli state terrorism” in Lebanon. There was, typically, no denunciation of Hamas or Hezbollah in that petition, only a call for the immediate release of jailed terrorists (whom the petition described as “Palestinian and Lebanese political prisoners”) and a condemnation of “Israel’s destructive and expansionist policies,” which the petition said were “primarily to blame for the seemingly perpetual ‘Middle East crisis.’”

    Three of the most prominent signatories of this Jew-hating petition were themselves of Jewish ancestry: leftist guru Noam Chomsky, Holocaust denier Norman Finkelstein, and terror-apologist Joel Beinin.

    Why would certain Jews engage in behavior that strengthened the forces that seek to annihilate them?

    The answer is what “United in Hate” explains: These leftist Jews perfectly represent the self-hate and instinct for death in which the Left’s overall solidarity with totalitarianism is rooted.

    Chomsky, for instance, has dedicated much of his life to siding with those who perpetrate genocide against Jews. In Chomsky’s view, Israel has committed the crimes of failing to pursue socialism, being allied to the United States, and of being the cause of the entire conflict in the Middle East. Thus, Chomsky has never cast any real blame on Palestinian terror. He has habitually argued that Palestinian terror leaders have been far more sincere and forthcoming than either Israel or the United States in trying to reach a peace agreement, and he has argued that Israel and Nazi Germany share things in common.

    As is characteristic of leftists, Chomsky’s support for the Palestinians has always increased when their program of genocide against Israelis escalates. For example, when Arafat punished Israel for offering the peace agreement at Camp David by unleashing the Second Intifada in 2000, Chomsky ecstatically took Arafat’s side. Indeed, it was exactly at the height of the suicide bombings that Chomsky signed a petition demanding that universities withdraw their investments from Israel.

    Chomsky’s romance with Islamic terror also involves a flirtation with Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis. By denying the Holocaust, Jew haters attempt to erase historical memory and to increase the chances of another Holocaust taking place. And so Chomsky has dedicated himself to defending the freedom of speech of neo-Nazis. He has been a particularly passionate defender of the leaders of Holocaust “revisionism” in France.

    Academic Norman Finkelstein is another example of a leftist Jew venerating those who seek to extinguish him. A Hamas and Hezbollah apologist, Finkelstein has made a career out of minimizing the magnitude of the Holocaust and of denouncing what he calls the Holocaust “industry,” which he believes is a group of fraudulent Jews who fabricate their past to collect compensation. In Finkelstein’s sick world, a global Zionist conspiracy exploits and exaggerates the Holocaust to extract reparations, gain a mantle of victimhood and to legitimize the Israeli “oppression” of the Palestinians. It is the Jews, according to Finkelstein, who are to be blamed for anti-Semitism. It is no great surprise that Finkelstein counts neo-Nazis among his staunchest defenders.

    Finkelstein has taken his Jew-hating show on the road. He regularly visits college campuses across the U.S., usually at the invitation of the Muslim Students Association, where he indulges in his favorite themes and embraces homicidal Palestinians. One of his most passionate themes is praising Hezbollah. He honors the terror group for its “heroic resistance” and its “historic contributions.”

    In January 2008, Finkelstein embarked on his own political pilgrimage, traveling to Lebanon to embrace Hezbollah in person. During this role of fellow traveler, he met with a senior Hezbollah official, Nabil Kaouk, in south Lebanon, in his office in the coastal city of Tyre and told reporters that “Hezbollah represents hope.” He also went on Lebanese television, expressing his “solidarity” with Hezbollah and calling Israel an “invader.”

    Finkelstein’s Hezbollah sojourn serves as a haunting mirror image of Chomsky’s Hezbollah voyage in May 2006. Here, we see two leftist Jews embracing Jew-hating terrorist entities that seek to exterminate Jews – an eerie symbol of the continuation of the Left’s dark tradition of political pilgrimages.

    Chomsky and Finkelstein’s love affairs with those who perpetrate genocide against Jews serve as a powerful reflection of the overall disposition of leftist Jews. This phenomenon is part of the same psychological virus that motivates leftist intellectuals to venerate adversarial tyrannies that exterminate intellectuals and that inspires leftist feminists to support totalisms that persecute women. Leftist Jews supporting Jew hatred is just another extension of the main death-wish impulse of the radical Left.”

    Again sorry for lenght.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    What if most of Israel’s Jews and it and Palestine Arabs are genetically the same? Maybe they are as close as Belfast Catholics and Protestants?

    If Israeli Jews and Palestine Arabs are the same race can you realistically talk of racism?

    No, but I wasn’t the one who made the accusation of racism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Ok well then the Nazis and me will agree to differ with you.

    I prefer my company to yours, in that regard.

    “Anyway, I concede the point regarding Marx – he clearly had some racism going on. But otherwise, my point remains – socialism has had many great Jewish contributors, both in terms of state socialism and (more commonly) libertarian socialism (anarchism). I certainly don’t see anything like anti-Semitism in any of the leftists I know, and I remain unconvinced that criticism of Israel’s treatment of its native population is uniformly – or even for the most part – inspired by senseless racism.”

    But there are certainly anti semitics out there on the Left….and more than a few are Jews themselves…

    Well, there are certainly racists of all varieties in almost any recognisable group of people. That says something about the uniform stupidity of mankind, rather than about any one specific group. I never said that there are no leftist anti-Semites, only that left-wing politics don’t causally lend themselves to anti-Semitism, or vice versa.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,664 comments) says:

    James, do you work for Colliers?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. PhilBest (5,112 comments) says:

    Ryan, James is onto it.

    What I was saying to you the other day, is that there are things today that are politically correct gospel, and to go against them will get you ostracised by the Left, especially if you were “one of them”. Being biased against Israel is one such article of faith on the Left today.

    David Horowitz has written some interesting stuff on the psychology of Jews who are anti Israel. Melanie Phillips, too. Deep down there is probably some desire to repudiate one’s Jewishness in the hope of being passed over by ugly outbreaks of anti-Semitism “next time”. Jamie Glazov’s analysis, quoted at length by James above, is good too. Probably if Israel had always been a Commie dystopia like Cuba, it would have been supported by the Left today.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Banana Llama (1,105 comments) says:

    Self hate is racism?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    What I was saying to you the other day, is that there are things today that are politically correct gospel, and to go against them will get you ostracised by the Left, especially if you were “one of them”. Being biased against Israel is one such article of faith on the Left today.

    Yes, but my response remains the same: this does not describe the leftists I know. It could be that I’m just very lucky and haven’t met the bad ones, but that requires me to believe that you know more about the psychology of leftists than I do – and I assume you don’t habitually hang out with people who consider themselves left-wing, let along left-wing activists, etc., but rather receive information about the psychology of leftist by less direct means.

    I can’t answer for every leftist in the world, and I appreciate that you’ve said I don’t have to, and that there are exceptions, and therefore that what you say about “the Left” is not necessarily directed at me. We have to expand that to be “not necessarily directed at Ryan or any of his leftist friends”, which becomes a larger group of apparently anomalous leftists who don’t follow the pattern you mention.

    David Horowitz has written some interesting stuff on the psychology of Jews who are anti Israel. Melanie Phillips, too. Deep down there is probably some desire to repudiate one’s Jewishness in the hope of being passed over by ugly outbreaks of anti-Semitism “next time”. Jamie Glazov’s analysis, quoted at length by James above, is good too. Probably if Israel had always been a Commie dystopia like Cuba, it would have been supported by the Left today.

    I find that it’s an awful lot easier to play the ball and not the man with this stuff. When someone says something with which I disagree, I look for their argument, rather than try to guess at the psychological oddities and illnesses that would lead someone to do something as clearly insane as disagree with me.

    EDIT: Got Horowitz mixed up with Dershowitz – Dershowitz plays the ball, not the man, in his book The Case for Israel.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. coolas (105 comments) says:

    Thanks James for the posts esp Marx & Jews. Wow!
    So Hitler’s ‘final solution’ was destruction of capitalism by annihilating the Jews, but firstly extracting their labour in the camps before rendering their bodies into soap (homosexuals, gypsies and other undesirables for other reasons I assume). Interesting!
    I thought Hitler was continuing the tradition of persecution of Jews from the days of Herod. In Eurapean history the Jews have been continually persecuted as scapegoats for public angst. They’re a minority, visable & prosperous. Lets kill the Jews! Anti-semitism reveals the worst in collective human madness. It’s utterly irrational! That’s the nature of envy!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    No one else is allowed to use exclamation marks for the rest of the month. Coolas has used up everyone’s credits.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. James (1,338 comments) says:

    “I can’t answer for every leftist in the world, and I appreciate that you’ve said I don’t have to, and that there are exceptions, and therefore that what you say about “the Left” is not necessarily directed at me. We have to expand that to be “not necessarily directed at Ryan or any of his leftist friends”, which becomes a larger group of apparently anomalous leftists who don’t follow the pattern you mention.”

    Fair enough Ryan…..(pat pat) And for the record Im certainly willing to admit there are evil arseholes in business giving Capitalism a bad name…but the market if left free outs these pricks and delivers justice. ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Fair enough Ryan…..(pat pat) And for the record Im certainly willing to admit there are evil arseholes in business giving Capitalism a bad name…but the market if left free outs these pricks and delivers justice.

    I can understand that. Again, personally, the hardcore right-wingers I know and have talked to are not arseholes. I’m sure some are, of course, but in general they are not.

    Fundamental to my personal view is seeing corporate decision-making entities as amoral agents whose behaviour can be described and predicted in certain ways. It is one of the reasons I am not a liberal social democrat and is also one of the reasons I am not a minarchist capitalist. Both states and corporations (and large non-profits, while we’re at it) become agents unto themselves, and they are inhuman, selfish, powerful, and I do not trust them. And finally, they consist of moral, often friendly, human people – whose morality, friendliness and humanity does not translate into the decisions of the greater corporation any more than my individual brain cells’ desires factor into which brand of beer I drink.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. TimG_Oz (883 comments) says:

    Israel was founded with a huge Socialist movement – just think of the Kibbutz movement. They were the darlings of the left. But no more…

    There are lots of Socialist and Left wing Jews that are not self haters. Israel has a Green Party!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Israel was founded with a huge Socialist movement – just think of the Kibbutz movement. They were the darlings of the left. But no more…

    There are lots of Socialist and Left wing Jews that are not self haters. Israel has a Green Party!

    And, for that matter, more condemnation of the treatment within Israel of the Palestinians than condemnation in the States.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. James (1,338 comments) says:

    “Fundamental to my personal view is seeing corporate decision-making entities as amoral agents whose behaviour can be described and predicted in certain ways.”

    If they follow reason and objective reality in their decision making then yes.If their goal is to make a profit and endure then their are certain laws and facts they must respect and adere to…the customer is God,good service leads to further business etc etc…

    “It is one of the reasons I am not a liberal social democrat and is also one of the reasons I am not a minarchist capitalist. Both states and corporations (and large non-profits, while we’re at it) become agents unto themselves, and they are inhuman, selfish, powerful, and I do not trust them.”

    But business in a free-ish market can’t act like that or they end up going under.They are not divorced from the market and the will of their customers….otherwise they die.The State however is not bound by having to satisfy free customers who can choose not to deal with it….it can use force to get its way….companys in a free market cannot…big difference.

    ” And finally, they consist of moral, often friendly, human people – whose morality, friendliness and humanity does not translate into the decisions of the greater corporation any more than my individual brain cells’ desires factor into which brand of beer I drink.”

    A business’s purpose is to make a profit for its owners and shareholders…period,Forget all the handwringing social responsibility crap you may have heard….if a business doesn’t focus on the bottom line it deserves to go under.

    Now to make a profit in a free market a business THEN has to consider many factors like popularity,image,enviroment,workers condictions etc…but those are just means to the end….profit….and thats good and proper.Profit is mans reward for applying his mind to reality and creating new wealth for others for which his fellow man rewards him. If the business man is respecting the other mans individual rights then his fellow man has no right to expect anything else from him….the product or service that has been created for him is enough.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. SBY (120 comments) says:

    I am late to this thread, but the suggestions that socialism is at the root of anti-semitism is not sustainable.

    No doubt some socialists are or were anti-semites. But antisemitism has been rife in Europe for centuries. It is not a creation of Marxism. Extremists on both ends of the political spectrum have used antisemitism as a tool to achieve their political ends.

    I don’t excuse for a moment the ghastly things the Iranian president has said, and he deserves to be condemned for the vile lies he has spouted about Judaism. But the racism conference was never just about the Iranian president. And I don’t understand why people think the Race Relations Conciliator shouldn’t have gone to the racism conference. Isn’t that like… um.. his job?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Now to make a profit in a free market a business THEN has to consider many factors like popularity,image,enviroment,workers condictions etc…but those are just means to the end….profit….and thats good and proper.

    That’s where I disagree. I think there is a point at which more profit does not increase the value of the world. In this respect, more than any other, I am religious rather than materialist. The value of a thing cannot be measured purely by its market value, and the lack of some things are incomparable to their respective market values.

    To turn a profit, the business does not have to increase what I would call the value of the world. To turn a profit, the business must produce a product or service that people with money will pay more for than what it cost to produce it.

    In what I would consider a truly free market – one with no capital ownership, where labour and negotiation is the measure of all dessert – this wouldn’t be a problem. Clean drinking water or anti-retroviral HIV drugs would be worth more than Women’s Day or the next American Idol, because more working people in the world would be demanding it.

    Again, I recognise that my position is inherently religious – I do not look to the market for the value of clean drinking water to someone watching their children die of dysentery. But if I did, I would hope to look to a market that assigns that clean drinking water a fuck of a lot of value.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. John Ansell (861 comments) says:

    Maybe one of you socialists/anti-Semites could enlighten me on the Middle East question. I’m no expert, but as I understand it…

    The United Nations set up Israel for the Jews.

    The Jews moved in. (Note: moved in, as opposed to invaded.)

    The Palestinians, who lived there, were (understandably) upset. So upset they hijacked airliners and killed Israelis at the Olympics.

    Decades later, the Palestinian people, now allowed by Israel to occupy Gaza, voted themselves a government.

    This government’s stated goal, which a majority of Palestinians voted for, was to wipe out Israel.

    They were given arms to achieve this by Iran. Iran’s goal was also to wipe out Israel.

    The Palestinians sent suicide bombers into Israel to blow up as many Israelis as they could.

    The Israelis built a wall to keep them in.

    Then the Palestinians started lobbing rockets over the wall.

    The Israelis were patient for a while. Then they went into Gaza to wipe out the terrorists/freedom fighters who were trying to wipe them out.

    The Palestinian terrorist/freedom fighters hid among ordinary neighbourhoods and in school buses. This was so they could tell the world that Israeli soldiers were intent on killing Palestinian women and children.

    (Which the Israelis did, but by accident.)

    Now I’ve left out a fair bit of the history (wars, invasions of Lebanon, and so on). And I don’t defend any action by Israel that may have deliberately set out to hurt innocent people other than in self-defence.

    I acknowledge the genuine anger felt by the Palestinians at the occupation of their land.

    BUT…

    … shouldn’t their beef be with the United Nations, for setting up the Israeli state, not Israel, for accepting the invitation?

    In other words, shouldn’t the socialists closer to home for responsibility for this problem?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. James (1,338 comments) says:

    Ryan……we,all of us on this planet are the market….and its we who value….using the market to attain these values.And it depends on your situation….here in NZ clean drinking water is nice but we have plenty of it so its not “valued” as highly as it would be in say India…where theres way less of it.

    The market is just people interacting….and free people, will make choices and value things that you don’t agree with…..sorry but thats tough.

    Unless you want to use force to change things and thats a no no…

    Yes your position is bordering on religious…and therefore its fantasy.How about dealing with what is here in reality and making the best of it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Banana Llama (1,105 comments) says:

    So how dose copyright and intellectual property fit into this free market of yours James? would people be free to manufacture and market a product that spawned from an idea? or are we going to see more of this monopoly on items and ideas.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. SBY (120 comments) says:

    John Ansell, the conflict in Israel is complex, with wrongdoing on both sides.

    It’s a bit silly to suggest the Palestinians should blame the UN and not the Israelis, when it is the Israelis who occupied their land and who are the ones fighting them. Should we blame the UN when Israel is in defiance of several UN resolutions?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. ophiuchus (127 comments) says:

    Just let the Middle East destroy themselves, If we have jerks like Imadinnerjug blaming Israel/Jews for the world’s problems and countries that attack innocent civilians (Israel included), then they can blow each other up. I know it’s harsh by why does the world have to stop just because a Jew and a Muslim won’t share.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Jack5 (4,211 comments) says:

    SBY at 8.23 posted: ” I don’t understand why people think the Race Relations Conciliator shouldn’t have gone to the racism conference. Isn’t that like… um.. his job?”

    No, international racism isn’t “Boris” de Bres’ job. His position was set up by the leftists to look into complaints of racism within New Zealand.

    That’s a big enough impost on NZ taxpayers without Boris deciding to become an international representative at a conference our Government is in effect boycotting. Who the hell does Boris think he is? Who is paying for his air fares and costs? NZ is nearly broke and we have this leftist busybody flitting about the world strengthening ties with his internationalist mates.

    Sack him please, Mr Key.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. tvb (3,937 comments) says:

    De Bres who along with the Human Rights Commissioner are longtime political activists for the Labour Party. De Bres went to this conference basically to represent the views of the Labour Party. It seems that both should now resign, (they will not) but if one is going to make blatantly political appointments to these sorts of jobs and they behave politically then the Government has a problem. I am assuming both will be asked to resign, and failing that they will be fired somehow. Responsible Ministers will find a way to make this happen I am sure about that but it will take some subtlety to achieve it. The Benson Pope debacle will be uppermost in their minds. I feel review/legislation coming on. One option is to simply ignore these bodies and starve them of funds so they basically die. But more likely is to refer them to the Law Commission and see whether they are of any value.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. SBY (120 comments) says:

    Jack5: you said “No, international racism isn’t “Boris” de Bres’ job. His position was set up by the leftists to look into complaints of racism within New Zealand”

    Actually, no. The role of Race Relations Conciliator was first established under legislation passed in 1971 – under a National government.

    While we’re at it, the role of Human Rights Commissioner was first established under legislation passed in 1977 – under a National government.

    Both roles were redefined under legislation passed in 1993 – under (you guessed it) a National government.

    So I’m curious – are Holyoake, Muldoon and Bolger the leftists you refer to?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Ryan……we,all of us on this planet are the market….and its we who value….using the market to attain these values.And it depends on your situation….here in NZ clean drinking water is nice but we have plenty of it so its not “valued” as highly as it would be in say India…where theres way less of it.

    There seems to be something warped about the market as it stands today while there is such demand globally for clean drinking water, and such an basic and urgent need, and yet there is more “demand” in terms of profitable ventures to create something like clothes for pets or gossip magazines.

    The market is just people interacting….and free people, will make choices and value things that you don’t agree with…..sorry but thats tough.

    To believe this, you have to believe that the human race values gossip magazines over clean drinking water for starving children at this point.

    Unless you want to use force to change things and thats a no no…

    Markets force people too, you know. But I would like to know what could be done to alter the market system so that it reflects the actual demand for clean drinking water.

    Yes your position is bordering on religious…and therefore its fantasy.How about dealing with what is here in reality and making the best of it?

    My position borders on the religious because it appeals to some fairly unchanging values, rather than “whatever people want at the moment is good”. Though, considering I’m referring to the actual demand of dying people, it may be more accurate to say that I’m criticising the market as it stands today for being a flawed reflection of demand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Jack5 (4,211 comments) says:

    SBY posted at 8.30am: “…are Holyoake, Muldoon and Bolger the leftists you refer to?”

    Actually Muldoon, with his Think Big state projects and especially price controls was a noted leftist, and so is Bolger, with his role in Kiwibank. They were unashamed practitioners of dirigisme.

    Holyoake was a centrist, in my view, but was not involved in the legislation.

    However, none of these appointed “Boris’ de Bres. He’s a leftist appointed by Leftists. He’s now an embarrassment. Trying to expand his role to an international one is surely a delusion of grandeur.

    Please Bro’ Key, fire de Bres.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. SBY (120 comments) says:

    Jack5, I’m surprised to learn Bolger is a leftist. I always thought he’d led a government that continued, if not accelerated, the free market reforms begun by Roger Douglas in the 1980s.

    And Muldoon obviously hid his leftist tendencies well. He got into power through anti-communist scare-mongering, after all.

    Imagine how surprised the Nats will be when they find out two of their former leaders were raving commies.

    Anyway, Key’s more of a moderate than Bolger or Muldoon ever were, so the chances of him firing de Bres over this = NIL

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Jack5 (4,211 comments) says:

    SBY’s 12.22 post “… Imagine how surprised the Nats will be when they find out two of their former leaders were raving commies.”

    C’mon SBY, you are just extending my argument then attacking your own extension. Not all leftists are “raving commies” in my view, though they maybe in yours.

    However, Muldoon was very socialist in his economics with subsidies, price controls, and ploughing state money into big (for NZ) industrial investments like methanol and petrol from gas. Bolger, as Muldoon’s protege, also favoured a dirigist line. Look at his enthusiasm and alliance with Jim Anderton in Kiwibank as an example.

    As for Bro Key being “more of a moderate”, I would have to agree if we are talking about his economics approach, and with moderate meaning less biased to the left.

    If you have National inside information that Key would never fire “Boris” de Bres, let’s hear more.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. James (1,338 comments) says:

    Ryan:

    “There seems to be something warped about the market as it stands today while there is such demand globally for clean drinking water, and such an basic and urgent need, and yet there is more “demand” in terms of profitable ventures to create something like clothes for pets or gossip magazines.”

    Theres no “demand” globally for clean drinking water…only in areas which don’t have it now.And when they do get it it will eventually slip down the list of demands as all things do when they become availible in abundance.It is the wealth creating power of Capitalism that allows people to spend their spare time and money on things like clothes for pets and gossip magazines because it has liberated them from having to worry constantly about things like access to clean water,food,housing,healthcare etc etc…As the economist Paul Zane Pilzer says…”Once people have satisfied their quanity needs they then move to satisfy their quality needs”….and so they should,…its their right to pursue happiness after all.

    “To believe this, you have to believe that the human race values gossip magazines over clean drinking water for starving children at this point.”

    Some of the human race do….and thats their right.Thats not to say they don’t want to see everyone have access to clean drinking water…go take a random sample on a street corner on that issue….I bet you wouldn’t find one person who said he was opposed to anyone else being able to have clean drinking water. But we can’t all be wringing our hands over whats happening to someone else someplace else all the time.Life is for living and not to be spent in altruist slavery to the needs of others just because they are “others” and not yourself,rational selfishness is a virtue.To put the values of others above your own and sacrifice them to satisfy the anti life ethic of self sacrifice is evil.

    “Markets force people too, you know. But I would like to know what could be done to alter the market system so that it reflects the actual demand for clean drinking water.”

    Free markets are opposed to initiated force….its the only thing thats banned and restricted by law.A lack of choices in the market is not force.Real force is initiated violence against ones person and property….the violation of individual rights….The lack of clean water is not an initition of force…its a fact of nature….its default setting for areas of the planet where men have choosen to live.Its mans creative action (Capitalism) that brings water to those who need it.

    “My position borders on the religious because it appeals to some fairly unchanging values, rather than “whatever people want at the moment is good”. Though, considering I’m referring to the actual demand of dying people, it may be more accurate to say that I’m criticising the market as it stands today for being a flawed reflection of demand.”

    Dying people can “demand” all they like…but that by itself wont bring them drinking water…or anything else.It will require human effort and capital to provide water and you won’t get that by offering slavery and guilt as payment.The creators…men of unbowed heads and unborrowed vision will not contemplate a life of slavery and slow death on the alter of altruism to satisfy the alleged need of another man claiming his “right” to do so.Access to drinking water is not a right…its a service.

    I also belive in absolutes and an Objective reality…..and man is man and Capitalism and the free market are the only moral and practicle means to mans surviving as man.As to water is a fact that where the market is allowed to operate free from State dictate there is water in abundance…or its being made availible ….where there is a demand…and drinking water is a most basic one….it will be provided, and it is.Where the market is absent is where you will also find water lacking and the provision of it hindered by state interference.You are damming the free market for things that are occuring in its absense….much like the current recession.

    Capitalism solved the water provision problem in every country that practises to a decent degree….therefore freeing people to pursue other intrests with their time and money,including having time and wealth to help bring drinking water to those places where Capitalism is absent….this vindictes the free market yet again and damms its competitors.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    James,

    I’m not making myself clear. I am saying that the system is flawed because it does not provide industry with incentive to provide something that is urgently needed by some people, while providing industry with incentive to provide something that is merely desired by others.

    I’m not talking about altruism. I’m talking about criteria for an effective system. Capitalism fails to meet the standard because it directs capital and industry towards creating useless things rather than urgently needed things.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. James (1,338 comments) says:

    I’m not talking about altruism. I’m talking about criteria for an effective system. Capitalism fails to meet the standard because it directs capital and industry towards creating useless things rather than urgently needed things.”

    Needed by who? At whos order or demand.All the market does is create and sell what people want to acquire….it needs do nothing else nor should it….thats its purpose.If water is in great demand the market will move to provide it….as it always has.If there is a demand but no supply then look elsewhere for the real culprit….it ain’t the free market.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Needed by who? At whos order or demand.All the market does is create and sell what people want to acquire….it needs do nothing else nor should it….thats its purpose.If water is in great demand the market will move to provide it….as it always has.If there is a demand but no supply then look elsewhere for the real culprit….it ain’t the free market.

    Water is in great demand. The market is not moving to provide it. So what’s gone wrong?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. SBY (120 comments) says:

    Jack5: in your last post you said “If you have National inside information that Key would never fire “Boris” de Bres, let’s hear more.”

    I didn’t say they would “never” fire de Bres – I just said they wouldn’t fire him over this matter. And I don’t have any inside information about what the Nats are planning. I just can’t see them firing him over something so trivial.

    You also say “Not all leftists are “raving commies” in my view, though they maybe in yours.”

    You continue to call Mr de Bres “Boris” in your posts. To many people that might suggest you actually mean “communist” when you say “leftist”. Is that not a reasonable conclusion for readers of your post to reach?

    And since you’re interested in my views on leftists, I don’t even particularly like the term “leftist”. It is a label, like “marxist” and “socialist” that some people like to use when they don’t like someone’s point of view. After a while the term becomes meaningless, other than as a term of abuse.

    As for our respective assessments of Muldoon and Bolger, I don’t see any point in trying to argue further with you. I’m still too stunned you think Bolger is a leftist. Let’s just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Dazzaman (1,114 comments) says:

    The shared hatered of Jews between the Islamists and the Left is what has the left falling over themselves to snuggle up to scum like Ahmadinejad…..

    Never was a truer word spoken James. The hatred is at all costs too. Aside from abortion there is nothing the leftists have nailed their banner to then the destruction of Israel.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.