[spectre] TRACING UNDERCURRENTS: Sonic Routes Between

[sascha brossmann]

On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 03:55:34PM +0100, Simon Biggs wrote:
> I am not going to respond to the full text that Sascha Brossman wrote.
> Most of it was a wilfull misinterpretation of what I have previouly
> written and does not deserve a reply.

my my, aren't we a lovey-dovey one? >;-> that's a pretty convenient way
to avoid proper argumentation, isn't it? especially after spilling
diverse accusations on behalf of the original posting which are, at
least for me, pretty hard *not* to read as willful malevolent. just for
the record, please excuse the sarcasm partly involved in my post - which
you maybe do have some difficulties to recognise, even more as it has
been directed at the very you. 

i still fail to see why israel should be so very special you are not
able to treat it as other states.
 
> However, I will take issue with being called an anti-semite. Whenever
> somebody attacks the right of Israel to exist this is the stock reply
> of those wishing to defend it. 

you don't say! funny, the stock reply of people being accused of
anti-semitism is argumenting that they are only anti-zionist. even more
funny that your so-called anti-zionism does not sound any different from
the run-off-the-mill anti-semitism when it tries to rationalise its
mental distortions. i won't elaborate on this further, there has been
far enough talk on this subject within diverse debates about the
short-comings and blind spots of relic anti-imperialism in the left
during the last decade (which you obviously failed to recognise). you
know how to use a search engine.

> Zionism is specifically concerned with the right of Israel to exist. 
> To question that is not to criticise Jews but to criticise Zionists.

plain and simple: wrong. 

not so plain and not so simple: for one, the population of israel does
not consist of a homogenous mass of ardent zionists, there are numerous
people which are equally fed up with the politics of both the israeli
right-wingers and hamas, al-aqsa and their murderous consorts. second,
your argumentation is invalid in another sense: one might e.g. also say
that zionism is also specifically concerned with the right of jewish
people to live. according to your argument you could euqually well
criticise zionism by questioning the right of jewish people to live. see
my point? just because something which you reject has a certain position
towards a certain subject, taking a negative position in respect to this
subject does not necessarily mean that you properly criticise the matter
of your rejection. you need to differentiate more to do so. at least if
you want to avoid vast collateral damage und prefer not to stink of
pseudo-moralist poisonous self-righteousness and paranoic malevolence up
to plain hatred.

> Whilst these two groups can overlap they are not the same.

i cannot see that differentiation in your earlier postings. 

> As an atheist I treat all religious beliefs equally. 

call me stupid but i fail to make this implication while reading your
former postings.

> I agree with Marx that religion is a negative force in our history and
> culture. 

i strongly disagree, even though my general stance towards systems of
belief should be quite clear if you read my former post carefully
enough. still, religion is not necessarily negative as long as people
are considerate, well-meaning, reflected, etc. it becomes a bane when
paired up with stupidity and hatred. but then, this applies not only to
religion but practically to every mental co-ordinate system. which leads
to the conclusion that it is mainly the latter both that present the
actual problem. you might well be anti-religious but you appear full of
hatred to me and sound like you got a chip on your shoulder.

> I am possibly closer to the position of Richard Dawkins, who argues
> for all religion to be separate from the state, not funded with public
> money and not taught in state run schools or supported by any other
> apparatus of the state.  

position of dawkins? may i regard this attribution as slightly strange?
;-) until now i thought this principle to be more or less public
knowledge at least since the age of enlighenment and that it could
apparently be seen at work e.g. in the french revolution and the u.s.
constitution...

re: religous nuts in the u.s. - remember that the immigration to the
states did not only consist of ardent liberals but quite as well of,
well, religious nuts. keyword 'pilgrim fathers'. go figure...

> So, I am not an anti-semite...although I am anti-religious and
> anti-Zionist.

your anti-religious position does not sound quite equivocal concerning
islamic fundamentalism. especially with the latter being anything but
invisible within the concerned problem field. 

> He is an anti-Zionist, an active and vocal atheist who fights against
> the dark and dangerous ignorance that is religion, a debunker of dogma
> and belief. 

apart from the fact that being an anti-zionist does not automatically
turn one into a fighter against dogma and belief: did you ever happen to
recognise that dogma and belief may not only appear within what you call
religion?

> He is Jewish. He has also been acused of being an anti-semite.

you seem to miss a little detail: you are not harold pinter. >;->
 
> So far as I am aware there is still a dynamic and active left, at
> least in Europe, and the arguments that were won by them over the past
> decades, to gain the rights we now enjoy, are still recognised and
> valid...

i fail to see how those rights would be defended by boycotting
arbitrarily chosen people on the basis that the state they live in does
not behave as it should towards all of its citizens. which unfortunately
does apply to a rather large range of states on this world. or how these
rights should be defended by denying a very certain state its very
existence - completely dismissing the mere consequences for the people
that live in it - on a more than questionable basis of arguments. 

> I had assumed that Spectre was a place where this happened.

so? apparently it does, though maybe not as you intended: it is clearly
*you* who denies the rights of other people which you even moreso dare
to simply select on basis of national affiliation. i would call this at
least discriminating. and i am rather glad to see that there have been
showing up some far more considerate voices and i am by far not the only
one that does not want to put up with this kind of pseudo-moralism gone
haywire.

best,


sascha brossmann

-- 
:: 01 at brsma.de ::. :: .. :... . .... .  .     .   .     .     .
:: www.brsma.de :: ..: .:. . :.. ..:  .   .  .   .  .       .
:: icq #121790750 ::.: .:.  :.  ::. .. .   ..   .     .   .     . 
:: public key id 0x2EA549A0 ::.. :: . .  .  . ..    .    .   .