Israeli Law Jewifies Nazis, by Mike Gold – Brainiac On Banjo #258
January 16, 2012 Mike Gold 31 Comments
Ahh, the Lords and Ladies of Irony had to be working overtime on this one. You’d sit back in awe of its very perfection, if it weren’t so goddamned sick and evil.
The Israeli government has proposed a new law making it a crime to use the word “Nazi” or the swastika in any context, save those of scholarly pursuit. If you do so, you can be tossed in the hoosegow for up to six months and/or be fined $25,000.
Let’s forget that the swastika predated the Nazis by millennia and is a symbol still scared to a number of cultures. I’ll even forgo the impact this would have on Mel Brooks’ movies and Hogan’s Heroes reruns. That Hebrew-language reprint of Norman Spinrad’s The Iron Dream? G’bye. Raiders of the Lost Arc would raid no more.
That’s exactly how stupid this law is.
Among their many accomplishments, the Nazis were known for their direct assault on free speech. When we talk about book burning, we are more likely to think of Nazis than we are of fevered Christians pissed off at John Lennon. So, aside from the bitter irony of this ridiculously repressive act, we further limit history.
The typical liberal response to our cultural evils is to ban speech without regard to context. Everybody wants to be on the oppression bandwagon: bum, fairy, fat, handicapped, housewife, illegal alien, janitor, kike, midget, nigger, Oriental, retard, secretary, sex change, spic, ugly, white trash. Anybody can use a politically correct doppelganger for these terms in a negative context, and some are so good at it they can get their message across without revealing their underlying discrimination. As an ugly fat kike bum bordering on white trash, I prefer seeing the bigots coming. If I call you a Nazi for acting like a Nazi, that doesn’t mean I’m accusing you of all the evils committed by the Nazi Party: Dick Cheney is not anti-Jewish.
What all these people in their obnoxious show of contrived pain fail to acknowledge is that there are no evil words, just evil deeds. We use words to describe those deeds. Banning the use of those words does nothing to prevent those evil deeds, but it does limit our ability to discuss them freely. Burning Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and DVDs of Inglorious Basterds does nothing to diminish racism or fascism.
If I can’t call a person a Nazi because, in my opinion, that person acted like a Nazi, then I don’t have free speech. The Nazis transcended history and became a metaphor long ago, and we have the right to employ their name in such a manner.
Except in Israel. Where they’re acting like Nazis.
—
Free Speech Huckster Mike Gold performs the weekly two-hour Weird Sounds Inside The Gold Mind ass-kicking rock, blues and blather radio show on The Point, www.getthepointradio.com, every Sunday at 7:00 PM Eastern, replayed three times during the week (check the website above for times) and available On Demand at the same place.
Martha Thomases
January 16, 2012 - 6:52 am
“The typical liberal response to our cultural evils is to ban speech without regard to context. ” Ban? I may have an objection to one’s use of language, and it is my free-speech right to object, but this liberal has never called for a ban.
Don’t know that much about Israel’s constitution. Is there an equivalent to the First Amendment? Of course, there should be.
Mike Gold
January 16, 2012 - 8:20 am
Martha, people get fired all the time for using politically incorrect trims. They get sanctioned at school. Dropped from the public media. That’s a ban.
Martha Thomases
January 16, 2012 - 9:25 am
The fact that it happens doesn’t mean that liberals do it.
Mike Gold
January 16, 2012 - 10:17 am
Liberals do it. Liberals invented it. Liberals propagate it. Love me, I’m a liberal.
Martha Thomases
January 16, 2012 - 10:57 am
As part of a left-wing commune that published an anti-war magazine, I remember a lot of discussion about “political correctness.” We meant it as a joke. It’s not our fault some ninnies took it seriously.
David Oakes
January 16, 2012 - 11:20 am
Yes, Liberals are the only ones to use Political Correctness as a weapon. Because, by definition, if you use Political Correctness, you are not a Conservative. On the other hand, if you use Concentration Camps as a weapon, you are not a Liberal. So by your logic, “The typical conservative response to our cultural evils is to imprison, torture, and murder without regard to context. ” At the end of the day I would rather be Don Imus than Bradley Manning.
That being said, Israel is being freaking stupid. And I say that as a proud Kike myself.
George Haberberger
January 16, 2012 - 2:34 pm
Liberals do it. Liberals invented it. Liberals propagate it”
Thanks for being so self-aware Mike. I just posted my experience on Arthur Tebbels column, “The Father, The Son and the Holy QB” about AMC Theaters bulletin board from last summer when a lot of people wanted the Sarah Palin documentary banned. Threats of boycotts were common as well as “never going to an AMC theater again”.
I drove 29 miles to see Captain America at an AMC Theater when many other theaters were closer just because AMC screened the documentary. I posted that and was called a lot names.
Martha Thomses
January 16, 2012 - 4:14 pm
Oh no! You were called names! That has never happened to me. Those people who called me a dyke, or a baby killer, or too ugly to get a man, just because I professed to be a feminist, must have also been liberals. And it’s the liberals calling Obama a Nazi socialist Muslim.
Thanks for showing me the light.
Doug Abramson
January 16, 2012 - 4:51 pm
Martha,
Do I detect some sarcasm?
Martha Thomases
January 16, 2012 - 5:32 pm
Moi?
Rene
January 16, 2012 - 6:17 pm
Any kind of censorship is abhorrent to me, but the one based on political correctness isn’t only abhorrent, but stupid. More often than not it targets works that, in spirit, are very much liberal. Such as Mark Twain’s writings.
George Haberberger
January 16, 2012 - 9:29 pm
Actually I consider being flamed by a group of people who hate Sarah Palin enough that they don’t want anyone to see her movie, a badge of honor. It’s kind of why I posted what I did. I knew it would set them off.
I always post under my real name and quite a few of the liberal-minded boycotters did not. When I suggested that their credibility was nil because they were content to hide behind a veil of anonymity a poster calling himself Doublet Daddy said being anonymous on the internet was smart because there a lot of wackos out there. I guess to prove his point he said he looked me up, knew where I lived and had a satellite picture of my house. I told him to come on by and we could debate the issue face to face. I’m still waiting.
I’m sure the people who called you names are similarly gutless if not similarly liberal.
Martha Thomses
January 17, 2012 - 6:58 am
The right to free speech includes the right to stupid speech. It includes protection for those who oppose it. If the First Amendment only protected words that everyone agreed were acceptable, we wouldn’t need it.
Which is useful, because your admiration for Sarah Palin tells me a lot about the way think and how you evaluate issues. You betcha!
George Haberberger
January 17, 2012 - 8:46 am
Which is useful, because your admiration for Sarah Palin tells me a lot about the way think and how you evaluate issues. You betcha!
Fair enough, but I suspect you did not see the documentary. And your hatred of Tim Tebow tells me quite a bit about how you think. Or are you not the mother of Arthur Tebbel?
Rick Oliver
January 17, 2012 - 9:24 am
In the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”
Martha Thomases
January 17, 2012 - 9:30 am
As I said in Art’s comment section, I don’t really hate Tim Tebow, because of my ignorance of football. I do, however, loathe the way the media covers him.
Mike Gold
January 17, 2012 - 12:11 pm
Martha HATES Tim Tebow? Damn, I wish I knew that when I saw Martha and John yesterday. I don’t know if Martha actually haves Tim Tebow, but his god seems to have changed his mind about the guy.
George, I am not a sel-aware liberal, and I’ve never been a liberal. There are lots of reasons for this, my stand on political correctness being among the more recent. My fundamentalist belief in the First Amendment is another: I think freedom of speech allow corporations to advertise cigarettes on teevee, if they so desire. The days of Fred and Barney smoking Winstons out behind the cave — in black and white, no less — ain’t coming back and even if they were, you either HAVE free speech completely, or you don’t have it at all. Just as faith is above questioning: it’s called faith, and that word has a definition. So does freedom.
So… to answer your logic next question, I am an anarcho-skeptic.
And I’d like to dedicate that last line to Rick Oliver.
Mike Gold
January 17, 2012 - 12:21 pm
Martha, you said “Those people who called me a dyke, or a baby killer, or too ugly to get a man, just because I professed to be a feminist, must have also been liberals.”
I know liberals who are opposed to legal abortion, I know liberals who are homophobic; I know liberals who profess to be feminists who are anti-gay and/or anti-legal abortion; I certainly know a hell of a lot of liberals (at a percentage equal to that of any other politically-definable group) who, among friends and sometimes on Twitter, make sophomoric high-school-forever comments such as too ugly to get a man… and I’ll bet you do to.
Look, let’s be honest: Susan B. Anthony looked like a train wreck on a stick.
And Gloria Steinum — among many other feminist spokeswomen — said “if you are for equal pay for equal work, you are a feminist.” Ergo, you could be a conservative, anti-abortion, anti-lesbian feminist if you believe in equal pay for equal work.
Martha Thomses
January 17, 2012 - 12:28 pm
Gloria Steinem (whom I admire greatly) is not the sole arbiter of what defines a feminist. I personally am fond of this definition (which may also be hers): Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.
Mike Gold
January 17, 2012 - 12:44 pm
Didn’t say she was. I said she was a spokeswomen. Of course, there isn’t a Grand Council of Feminists who appoint their spokespeople, which is exactly my point. “Feminism” is an umbrella concept, a big tent. The baseline is that you are for equal pay and equal opportunity. Those are pretty broad (stop sniggling, guys), but I’m not aware of any other concept that embraces all who anoint themselves as feminists, including me. There are others who are conservative, anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-religion, pro-monotheistic religion, atheist, PeTA members and meat eaters.
But no Irish.
George Haberberger
January 17, 2012 - 1:21 pm
Martha HATES Tim Tebow? Damn, I wish I knew that when I saw Martha and John yesterday. I don’t know if Martha actually hates Tim Tebow, but his god seems to have changed his mind about the guy.
Well I only know what I read in Arthur Tebbel’s column.
And as far as his god changing his mind about him: it was never about winning. At least not for Tebow. I went on at some length about this in “The Father, The Son and the Holy QB”, (which was held up for a while for some reason), but I think the reference to the slave that Caesar had to remind him that all glory is temporary, fits the situation best.
Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.
Even Sarah Palin?
Rick Oliver
January 17, 2012 - 8:42 pm
Just out of curiosity since it keeps coming up, does Tebow kneel and pray every time he crosses the street without being hit? Or every time his car starts? I would politely suggest that he’s being a tad selective in his outward demonstrations of pious gratitude. That is, of course, his right. And since I’m free to ignore it, I’m perfectly cool with it — but at what point does the “excessive celebration” penalty rule kick in? Because I find a lot of the ones that do get penalized a lot more entertaining. Just my humble opinion as a football fan.
BTW: I live in a fairly conservative town and ride the train with a bunch of even more conservative professional folks. The other day a young man was kneeling on the platform, fervently praying and counting his rosary beads. I have to admit I found it a bit disturbing. Some of my fellow commuters found it so disturbing they called the police. And the police seemed to think it was disturbing enough to dispatch a squad car. I think they fined him for excessive celebration.
George Haberberger
January 19, 2012 - 6:25 am
Just out of curiosity since it keeps coming up, does Tebow kneel and pray every time he crosses the street without being hit? Or every time his car starts? I would politely suggest that he’s being a tad selective in his outward demonstrations of pious gratitude.
No I suppose he doesn’t pray every time he crosses the street. But I am sure he prays privately. Just because he is demonstrative on the football field is not “selective”. Caesar wouldn’t need to be reminded of his fleeting glory when he was just engaged in everyday activities and thousands of people weren’t cheering him.
And as Reg posted on “The Father, the Son and the Holy QB”…
so why so much hype on this one? I have my suspicions, but suffice to say I think it has a lot to do with my opinion that this nation is nowhere near as ‘Christian’ as many secularists, atheists, and others seem to think that she is.
I agree, The negative reaction to Tebow’s taking a knee is revealing.
Rick Oliver
January 19, 2012 - 8:56 am
George: I said “outward” demonstrations. Others have already noted what Jesus had to say about public prayer; so one could easily argue that many of a very Christian leaning are offended by his highly public approach to what they consider a much more private affair. And as I indicated previously, I don’t really care if he chooses to have himself crucified upside down after each touchdown. But I remain curious as to the line between “excessive celebration” and what Tebow does. And I’ll bet it’s still a Christian enough nation that the NFL will never deem any amount of prayer as qualifying as excessive celebration.
Basically, I find it interesting that dancing around the end zone is forbidden, but getting down on your knees and praying is not.
George Haberberger
January 19, 2012 - 11:41 am
I only know about all this peripherally. As I said on the other thread, my greatest involvement with football is that I am annoyed when 60 Minutes starts late. I don’t watch football. I’ve never seen Tebow play. How long does he pray? Is it as long as an end zone dance or does he just get down on one knee and then up again a couple of seconds later? And as I understand it, end zone dances can be ruled excessive celebration because much of it may be intended to stick it to the other team. Could the opposing team object to someone thanking God?
If that is what he is doing, (down and up again in a couple of seconds), that I wouldn’t say it falls under the hypocritical actions that Jesus talked about in the Gospel of Matthew.
Referring to your previous post: People called the police because someone was praying the rosary!? Why would that be alarming? What could they arrest him for?
Rick Oliver
January 19, 2012 - 1:59 pm
George: I don’t know if the police arrested him. The train arrived and I left before the incident was resolved. The police were talking to him when the train left. I think most people would find it a bit alarming to have to navigate around a young man kneeling in the middle of the platform praying for an extended period of time.
And back to football, as I understand it, taunting is a separate category of offense covered by the same rule. And I don’t know how long Tebow prays, since I didn’t get a chance to see any Broncos games. I have definitely seen others kneel and pray very quickly after a touchdown — but I haven’t seen it for a while, which is why I mentioned the “excessive celebration” rule.
And I stopped watching 60 Minutes years ago. Maybe it was because I never knew when it would start.
Mike Gold
January 19, 2012 - 3:41 pm
Sarah Palin is people. So was Lucricia Borgia.
Reg’s comment is skewered considerably. It’s the Christians who get these ridiculously high numbers. Us nasty untrustworthy atheists have been screaming undercount forever. I strongly suspect I’m on somebody’s Jew list… In addition to former American Nazi Party leader Frank Collin, of course, who back in the day not only put me on that list but called to tell me. “Hi, Frank! Neil Frank!” I said. “We only Heil the Leader,” he responded. “yeah, that’s what I said.” I said.
The ow is an obnoxious glory hound for his lord. He has the right to be that, but his defenders aware hypocrites for putting down those opponents who take advantage of that same right.
I agree with George about football. It’s really boring. To me.
I tend to listen to 60 Minutes on radio (WCBS-AM, at the very least, available online) because it starts on time.
Mike Gold
January 19, 2012 - 3:43 pm
Wow. That’s Heil Frank! I’m on the road (northeast Ohio today, Detroit tomorrow) and I’m on iPhone. I’ll try to write on the iPad in the future. Maybe.
Reg
January 19, 2012 - 9:36 pm
Ummm, yeah Mike…that last rant of yours was downright confusing. What the heck were you going on about, dude?
:-_
Rick Oliver
January 20, 2012 - 9:02 pm
Damn smart phone autocorrect. Was trying to tell someone about Hagbard Celine. Didn’t help that my phone changed Hagbard to Haggard. Wanted to ask someone what they meant by “wtgb”, and my phone changed that to “ethnic”. (That actually makes sense if you look at the keyboard.)
Maybe I’ll start referring to Tebow as “The ow”. A friend sent me email from his smart phone about another marginal quarterback: Kyle Proton.
furnished apartments in orlando
May 30, 2012 - 10:13 pm
obviously like your web site but you need to check the spelling on quite a few of your posts. A number of them are rife with spelling problems and I to find it very troublesome to inform the truth on the other hand I will definitely come again again.