Former Pink Floyd band member Roger Waters, who has spoken about the Russian invasion of Ukraine (he has excused it, so it looks), is a regular critic of Israel, and so on, thinks it was going to be a smart idea to dress up in, er, rather 1930s-looking German militaristic sort of gear at a concert where there is also some sort of large, inflatable pig, with staring eyes, flying through an arena. There is red light, there is talk about conspiracies and the like.
And the kicker: this event took place in Berlin. I read that authorities are investigating the concert. I am no fan of hate-speech laws, being a hardline free speech guy, and I also reserve the right to state my views about this guttersnipe as loudly as I can. But however much one should stay on the JS Mill straight and narrow, it is mighty tempting to wish all bad legal and other consequences for this piece of excrement. No wonder his old band members broke off from him and have no time for him. (See this controversy.)
He’s an anti-semite, plain and simple. The old saying about “once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action”, applies.
Here’s a scene from 1982’s “The Wall”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_leY_LgOuQ
I am not an expert. However I have been told that the mock-Nazi uniform is based on the teacher character from The Wall and that Waters has been wearing it at his concerts for many years. I do know for a fact that the inflatable pig emblazoned with the Star of David has also figured regularly.
The obvious question is considering how many concerts in how many different countries have taken place over the years with this same unacceptable spectacle why has nothing been done to prevent it happening by any venue or local police force who must surely have known what to expect?
FFS surely Germany of all countries should have had the sensibility to take preventative action? Yet we are told that only now, after the event has taken place, the authorities are “investigating”.
And on the subject of happenstance, coincidence and enemy action can there be anyone who honestly believes the guardian will finally cease publishing the work of their unashamedly anti-semetic cartoonist whose name I choose not to mention (the little shit actually went to the same school as me but at that time was not worthy of attention).
And even if he is an anti-semite, so what? Is he not entitled to his beliefs, distasteful and irrational as they may be, the same as everyone else?
“Distasteful and irrational” beliefs about men who think they’re women will get you imprisoned.
Similar beliefs about the religion of peace will cost you your job, force you into hiding in your own country and quite possibly get you killed.
It’s not clear what your “same as everyone else” comment is based on.
Stephen R, if you read my comment you will note that I said I’m hardline defender of free speech. I’m also someone who thinks it right to state that Roger Waters is a wanker.
I trust that clears up the matter.
I’m asking if people are allowed to believe what they want or not, even if those beliefs are repugnant. Or should be be only allowed irrational hatreds from an approved list?
It’s not okay to hate Jews because Hitler was bad, but it’s okay to hate whites because of colonialism.
It’s not okay to hate Muslims because we need to judge men on their actions alone but it’ okay to hate all gun owners because a crazy guy did something with a gun.
It’s not okay to hate Communists because it’s just isn’t, but it’s okay to have MAGA Republicans because it just is.
Everyone has irrational hatreds and biases. I don’t care if he hates Jews or gingers or people who prefer Pepsi over Coke. I just find it very troubling when the authorities say “this hatred is approved but that hatred is not.”
I have no opinion on Roger Waters, I’ve never really given him a thought, to be honest.
But objecting to a performance like this is kind of like seriously objecting to actors putting on a performance of The Producers. They are actors as part of a performance, possibly in poor taste, and maybe deliberately in poor taste as part of the performance. This is a weird time we live in.
Thank you. I misunderstood your previous post.
Changing subjects completely, other than the fact that we’re still in Germany, several weeks ago the achievements of the minnow-sized Union Berlin football club were highlighted on here.
I’m pleased to report that just minutes ago they clinched 4th place in the Bundesliga which means Champions League football next season.
I’m asking if people are allowed to believe what they want or not, even if those beliefs are repugnant. Or should be be only allowed irrational hatreds from an approved list?
People can believe in the giant spaghetti monster if that’s what floats their boat. If they want to spout anti-Jewish hatred (all the while claiming it is not), in Berlin (of all places), with all the rest of it (go and read the linked article, it is quite an eye-opener), then others are also free to condemn, mock and shun them.
Your plaintive tone doesn’t impress me. I made it crystal clear I support freedom of speech, just as I support the right, for example, of people not to associate with people such as Roger Waters, rent them venues to spout their garbage, etc.
If this is still not clear enough, I cannot help you.
I’m not disagreeing with you. I’ve got no problem calling out Waters’ for his anti-Semitism (supposed or overt) or not going to his shows or buying his records. I just have a real problem with laws against free speech to begin with, and especially when the authorities condone approved hatreds while condemning others.
He has, or should have, the right to hate Jews and wear a New Jersey State Police uniform, fly a pig with a yellow star on it and call for the liberation of Palestine and all the rest, just like I have, or should have, the right to call him an asshole for his beliefs. My problem is why there are laws on the issue to begin with and why are the authorities allowed to take sides and say “this hateful speech is wrong, but that hateful speech is perfectly fine”?
I’ve not heard Roger Waters expressed views on “The Juice”, but no doubt he’s one of these wankers like most lefty types, where when challenged upon their anti-Semitism come up with the usual “I am not anti-Semitic, I am anti-Zionist” or some such crap.
At least the Nazis were honest in their hatred.
Roger Waters is an arsehole – but he has a right to be an arsehole.
The “investigation” is an an outrage.
If Mr Waters to march about in an SS uniform (perhaps shouting “Gas Paul Marks” as well) – that is up to him.
C’mon, I think we all understand why, after starting and losing two world wars, Germany might be a bit oversensitive to Nazi militaristic displays.
I’d be annoyed if this “investigation” were happening here in the US, but in Germany, not so much.
I’ve never understood why one cannot be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic. It’s a hate-the-sin-not-the-sinner outlook.
Banning pro-Nazi displays and speech seems like exactly the course to take if your goal is to create a hidden wellspring of pro-Nazi sentiment in the youth of the nation.
Banned speech has instant cachet in youth who are looking to rebel against authority. It’s the idea so dangerous that it’s illegal – how can you get cooler than that?!?
Roger Waters is an odious prick, and his opinions are nasty. But outlawing his opinions doesn’t make those opinions go away. In this instance, sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Agree entirely.
Bobby:
One argument that i am aware of, which seems sound to me, is that it is anti-Semitic to deny legitimacy to a Jewish country by holding it to an impossibly high standard, not applicable to any other country.
(I note that Jews do hold themselves to higher standards — which might or might not explain why there are prominent Jewish-American critics of Israel.)
As Game of Thrones taught us, “There is no cure for being a cunt”.
Perhaps, being incurable, it is it is should be seen as just desserts?
But outlawing his opinions doesn’t make those opinions go away.
Indeed. I have not called for him to be censored. I have, however, expressed the view that it is entirely legitimate for people not to give him a forum if they don’t want. The concert hall that RW rented out is, I think, owned by the Berlin local authority (although I may be wrong about that). The German taxpayers who pay for its upkeep might not be amused at their tax euros being indirectly used to support the rantings of this man.
It is important for classical liberals to remember that freedom of association is important, as is freedom not to associate. I don’t want to interact with certain people, give them any money, or commercially engage.
bobby b – “anti Zionism” means six million (or more) more dead Jews, the Jewish population of Israel,
That is Anti Semitism.
That is what Roger Waters wants.
Should he be allowed to call for that? Yes – most certainly. But let us be honest about what “anti Zionism” is – it is the desire for millions of Jews to be killed.
That is at the heart of the BDS movement in the United States and elsewhere – including the “pet Jews” who are part of it. The Jewish slang for such people is Capo – camp police.
Paul, I think that oversimplifies it.
(To be clear, before I start, I am almost rabidly Zionist. I was raised on tales of Balfour, Orde Wingate, Begin, the early IDF, Britain’s abandonment, etc, in much the same vein as we were all raised to view the taming of the Wild West. Heroes, in short. That is and was my generation’s view of Israel.)
The situation need not be termed a matter of race or religion. It can be viewed specifically as nationalistic. If the region were comprised of all white Norwegian people – in and surrounding Israel, friends and enemies all – there is still a story to be told of the world decision to place this new nation in “this empty space” that wasn’t truly empty, but only became empty when it was cleared out of the indigenous. That is the essence of anti-Zionism – the creation of Zion by destroying something else. (Again, this is not my story.)
That story doesn’t rely upon race or religion. That story holds even when all sides are comprised of Norwegians. That’s how I can distinguish between anti-Zionism and antisemitism.
That Israel has such a high concentration of Jews makes the racism argument easy – but I don’t think it follows well. Their Jewishness is not the main driving force. The land is.
bobby b – sadly it does not oversimplify it, although I did leave out something. Something very important.
Many of the people in the “Anti Zionist” movement do not “just” want the Jewish population of Israel (and those non Jews who side with them) to be exterminated – they want the Western world in general exterminated, especially the United States which they hate most of all. And there are lots (lots and lots) of such people in the American government – working for the total destruction of their own country (because it is “exploitative” – the classic Marxist Big Lie).
The movement is, mostly, part of our old “friend” Frankfurt School Marxism – with “the Palestinians” as the latest “victim group” for the genocidal leftists to weep crocodile tears over. They most certainly do NOT care about Muslims “between the river and the sea” (or anywhere else) – after all these Muslims are against feminism and Trans Rights and all the rest of the Frankfurt School agenda, but they pretend to care – in order to have an excuse to exterminate the “capitalist” Jews.
But they want to exterminate “capitalist Americans” just as much. Indeed “capitalist westerners” generally.
There are various ironies here – for example that the “capitalist corporations” now have many executives indoctrinated in Frankfurt School “Woke” doctrine.
And the biggest irony of all – that Frankfurt School Marxism, the main part of the modern exterminate the Jews movement (Jews being capitalist “exploiters and oppressors” – “exploiting black people in the inner cities” and blah, blah, blah) was founded by people from Jewish families.
But that is an irony that goes back to Dr Karl Marx (1818 to 1883) himself – the person who wrote “What is the God of the Jew? Money! What is the religion of the Jew? Hucksterism!” was himself from a once Jewish family.
The self-destructive self-hatred demonstrated by all too many of the European Jewish faith is a perfect example of why raw intelligence ain’t necessarily a survival trait.
Or, at least, what we’ve all been acclaiming as “intelligent”, based on the theories first laid out by Benet.
From performances in the real world, generating actual results? I’ve got questions. I do.
Were the Jews the great background conspiricists that they’re supposed to be, and such intelligent behind-the-scenes machinators (to coin a word…), then why is it that we know about them? Why do they seemingly go out of their way to piss everyone off, to the point that they’re everyone’s favorite punching bag?
I’ll lay this out as a potential explanation: In real-world terms, in the aggregate? Jews aren’t that smart, not in any useful sense of the concept. They’re possessed of a brittle sort of intellectual advantage, one that works for a limited number of cases, but over the broad spectrum? They’re dumb as rocks, overweeningly proud of themselves for “outsmarting the goyim”, when the reality is that they’re only storing up trouble for themselves over the long haul.
If you’ve ever done business with a traditional Orthodox Jew, you’ll know what I mean. Yeah, you got the best of me, buddy, but… See if I come back, and see what happens when you finally piss off enough people through your contemptuous pride that they decide to come play pogrom. I’ll be over here, minding my own damn business, thankyouverymuch.
Smart is as smart does. If you’re doing really well on the IQ tests, and producing really bad results in the real world, it may well be that those tests are measuring the wrong things, and you might not be the genius they’re telling you that you are…
Same thing with a lot of Mormons in business. They’re so focused on screwing the gentiles that they forget that a.) they can be heard gloating over it, and that b.) they’re pretty much in the minority in most communities. Don’t be really surprised when your ohsosecretandproud little community gets burned to the ground. Chinese in a lot of Asian countries make the same damn mistake, which again, has me wondering if these things we’re calling “intelligence markers” really, truly are.
From where I’m sitting, if you really were all that smart, we’d never know you were Jewish in the first damn place, and you’d never even come up on the radar as being something worth noticing in the first place. It’d all be anonymous and random; you’d never make yourself a magnet for people to abuse you in the first damn place.
I observe a lot of these people in action, and I have to wonder: How smart are they, really? D’ya think skylining yourself is all that intelligent? Is it wise, over the long haul? Or, should you perhaps shine your light in the privacy of your own home, among your own kind, never letting anyone even begin to think that you think you’re better than they are?
Hell, that’s half the problem with all these idjit types, whether you’re talking Chinese merchants in Indonesia, Jewish loansharks in Eastern Europe, or the Ivy League types: They all think they’re smarter than everyone else, and they love putting that in people’s faces. Same-same with the dipshit Bosniak Muslims who started out as Orthodox Serbian townies that took the main chance when the Turks came in, converted to Islam, and got on the gravy train running things for the Turks. How smart was that, when the Ottoman Empire receded, as all such things do? Would it not have been a hell of a lot wiser to play well-loved intercessor with your former country cousins, instead of brutally collecting taxes and selling their kids south in the slave markets of Istanbul?
I mean, yeah… Sure, the descendants of those folks do really well on the tests, but what the f*ck do they all have to show for it, these days? I remain entirely unconvinced that we’re really describing “smart” with all of that, to be quite honest… Because it seems really, really stupid, over the long haul of history.
It’s all a pile on. Why be part of a pile on?
Bobby:
I realize that, but i claim that whoever accepts that story, is ipso facto an anti-Semite. If not before accepting the story, then afterwards.
bobby b.
The Jews tried to return to the land many times over the centuries – their settlements were always, after a period of time, killed – because they were unable to defend themselves. Although a community clung on in Jerusalem itself – where (even according to the Ottoman Empire) the largest ethnic group in Jerusalem in the 19th century.
Contrary to what is sometimes implied, in the mid 19th century the land was largely empty – indeed it was mostly desert or marsh land (marsh land filled with malaria).
It took a lot of hard work to create farming and industry – and many Jews died early on, of sickness or attacks.
The “land between the river and the sea” was no more a developed nation called “Palestine” in the mid 19th century than Minnesota was a “Native American Nation” in the same period.
There was large scale Muslim immigration into the land in the late 19th century because of the job opportunities created by Jewish farming and business interests – in Marxist terms the Muslims came to be “exploited and oppressed” (odd how people always run towards “capitalist exploitation” – not away from it).
Ottoman Turkish rule continued till the First World War (when the “Young Turks” choose to ally with Imperial Germany) – and there were massacres of Jews from time to time, although the plan to exterminate the Jews was vetoed by General Falkenhayn (a German) during the First World War – sadly he was unable to prevent some massacres.
There were more massacres in the 1920s and 1930s under the British Mandate (the British Mandate restricted Jewish immigration – but did NOT restrict Muslim immigration from Egypt and other lands) – but the Jews learned to fight back.
As for the present situation – there are more Muslims “between the river and the sea” than there have ever been before in history.
It should be remembered that the Middle East at the start of the 19th century was less populated and less developed than it was under the Roman Empire – much of it was hardly populated or developed at all (Central Office will not like that truth).
I remember standing outside a mosque in Jaffa reading how the Muslims of Jaffa were all killed or driven out in 1948 – I could either believe what was in the book, or believe my own eyes and ears (plenty of Muslims there).
As for Christian Arabs – their population is indeed in decline, but in the “West Bank” (some of which is only a couple of hours drive away from the sea – yes some of it is nearer the Med, almost cutting Israel in two, rather than the Jordan river) and Gaza – NOT in the area of the land controlled by the “wicked” Jews.
Indeed there are more Christian Arabs, as well as more Muslim Arabs, in “Israel proper” than there have ever been in history – more, not less.
By the way – the same people who tell lies about the settlement of Israel tell lies about the settlement of Minnesota. “Stole the land” and all the other lies.
If they could, they would slit the throat of every “capitalist white” person in Minnesota – even though these Marxists are largely white themselves.
It is not “just” the Jews of Israel they wish to exterminate.
In case anyone really does-not-know….
The vast majority of land “between the river and the sea” was state owned under the Ottoman Empire – and that remained so under the British mandate. This is one of the main reasons why the land was underdeveloped under the Ottoman Empire for centuries – the Ottoman Empire was a “despotism” which is why it is admired by academics, media types, and other collectivists today.
Private land was not “stolen by the Jews” – half of what private land existed is still owned by Muslims to this day, and the rest was bought.
In the case of Minnesota – it is not true that there were great “Native American” cities in the 19th century, with space ships and so on (or whatever the next Hollywood film will claim – see their view of Africa), in reality there were nomadic tribal groups, who no more had respect for the private property of other “Native Americans” than they had for the private property of Europeans.
This, this lack of respect for private property, is precisely why modern “intellectuals” admire them.
The modern establishment elite sees, for example, “Pine Ridge Reservation” in South Dakota – and wants to make the whole world like that.
Communal control of land (very Agenda 2030 – United Nations Sustainable Development goals), “free” medical care and food (and so on). The opposite of what people such as Vice President Curtis wanted for what are now called “Native Americans” – he wanted them to be free and independent property owners.
“But Paul – Pine Ridge is famous for grinding poverty and short and bitter lives”.
The international establishment elite know that very well – and they love it. That is what they want for the whole world.