Nobody Cares: PRS

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

American pay tv network "Hallmark Channel" has not been broadcasting a commercial for a wedding planning service which showed a lesbian bridal couple kissing after the conservative right wing Christian organization "One Million Mums" pressured the CEO of the mother company of the tv network to prevent the airing.

They are only now airing commercial showing heterosexual bridal couples.

One of the actresses in the now cancelled spot has this to say:

And the inevitable Ellen DeGeneres this:

Anti LGBT+-propaganda and the campaign manifesto over at "One million mums", calling those ads as "family unfriendly" and more:

Hallmark is now airing LGBT commercials, open to LGBT movies

Please sign our petition asking Hallmark to do what is right and reject airing movies and commercials with LGBT content!

onemillionmoms.com

Just this excerpt says enough about "One million mums", they are Christians still living in the 19th century at best:
Family entertainment is not the outlet in which to be politically correct by forcing tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality – a sinful lifestyle that Scripture clearly deems as wrong. You can read so in Romans 1:18-32.

Some interestingly quite balanced coverage over at the Daily Mail:

Christian-right group calls for Hallmark Channel boycott over LBGTQ ad

Hallmark Channel aired a Zola commercial featuring two women getting married. One Million Moms, a Christian-right group, condemned the commercial.

www.dailymail.co.uk

This reminds me so much about "some woman in Michigan didn't like it" Tery Rakolta, who also wanted to get something cancelled and instead her protest turned into the best PR you can get for free.

 

[Beebo Brink]

So the answer is no, then. What the fuck ever. I specified what I meant and it had nothing to do with the Jews.

Then you're a useful idiot. You're spewing the tropes without even understanding where they come from and how they're being used. This is no different than a White person railing about welfare queens. "The problem is welfare queens. Oh, I don't mean black people exclusively, anyone can be a welfare cheat."

It's a bullshit denial of the context in which these tropes are created.

It's also not true, which is another reason it's just a trope and not an insight. "The problem is that the bankers run the world" -- it's not just bankers, or even not just oil companies (although they're a much more culpable villain). All these companies and industries are just facets of an overarching architecture that grows organically out of capitalism and human greed. It would be easier to fight if there really were some Evil Agency in charge, but it's far far worse than that. This is sprawl, built of millions of moving pieces, each caught up in its own blinkered task. The result is the tyranny of a system that no one controls, and no one runs.

I get that the human mind wants a tangible enemy to fight. It's this instinct that is exploited by the power-hungry. They create tropes to funnel societal anger in a direction that furthers their own goals. But that does not absolve you from guilt when you play along, unwittingly or not.

 

[Beebo Brink]

So I'm confused. Are those of Jewish persuasion the only ones allowed to be evil bankers? If I'm a holy jewish banker, am I not allowed to run the world?

There are welfare cheats who aren't Black, too, but the word "welfare queen" is coded for Black folk, not for White folk, and it's used to whip up White fear and anger.

If you don't see and understand the origins of these terms, the way they're used, then you're a useful idiot too. A trope such as "The problem is that bankers run the world" is not about creating a system of reasonable regulation for an industry, it's scapegoating Jews. That's its purpose.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I explained pretty specifically what I meant a couple of sentences later - multinational financial organizations. I had not one breath of anything related to Jews. Can we not have a fucking honest discussion about the corrosive nature of the financial industry because of Jews?

I know what you explained, but did you not read the article to which I linked, saying its arguments would inform any attempt I made to answer the question?

In particular,

The rampant inequality of income and wealth Mr Corbyn rightly highlights needs tackling. But in our recent book, Corbynism: A Critical Approach, we use the work of critical theorists like Moishe Postone and David Hirsh to argue that the depiction of capitalism as a “rigged system” imposed by a minority of “wealth extractors” on “the many” carries potentially troubling resonances.

Pushed to its limits, such a depiction can nurture the development of an antisemitic worldview.

[....]

We do not deny that nations assert themselves to wield influence, nor do we deny the role of individual politicians and thinkers in the construction of neoliberalism. We recognise the USA’s historic support for oppressive regimes, and that the pre-2008 financial sector was no paragon of virtue. But we do not think that the crisis and misery of capitalist development can be explained merely by reference to individuals, groups or states maliciously intervening in a system which would otherwise function smoothly.

Rather these actions must be placed in the context of the dynamic of capital as a whole, out of the control of any particular actor, group or state. Poverty, inequality and crises are the result of the internal contradictions of this form of society. This is not to say that there are not better or worse ways of managing these problems. It is merely to recognise that the problems themselves are not solely the product of the secretive machinations of malevolent outsiders. Were capitalism really a conspiracy, it would be a lot simpler to confront.

Today, a populist politics which pits a productive “us” against a morally corrupt “them” is unable to grasp the internal contradictions of capitalism. It attributes the results of the uncontrollable dynamic of capital to the conscious actions of bad people, regarding social conflict as imposed on society from outside rather than emerging from within. This feeds a paranoid and conspiratorial mindset, on left and right alike, which continually searches for individuals and groups who can be blamed for the current malaise.
Such a worldview does not necessarily lead to antisemitism. Nor does it necessarily follow from the recognition that the economic interests of rich and powerful people diverge from those of workers.

But some forms of anti-capitalism see poverty, inequality and exploitation as the result of an external imposition rather than a compulsion internal to the system itself. Given the optimum conditions, this incubates a worldview hardwired into antisemitic conspiracies for centuries, whereby the shadowy omnipotent power of a small elite holds back the development of an otherwise good society.

Briefly, capitalism is a system with its own internal dynamic, in which all the actors -- including the boards of multinational financial organisations -- are responding to the actions of other actors in the system not according to their own agenda but in accordance with capitalism's imperative of generating more capital.

The system isn't neutral, in other words -- inequality and exploitation aren't the consequences of shadowy elites or conspirators, whether they're called Rothschild or Soros or the Bilderberg Group or the G7, or the World Bank or the Elders of Zion, making selfish choices that use a neutral system to exploit the many; rather, they're baked into the very structure of capitalism and colonialism.

The problem isn't that capitalism is run by "Multinational organizations that have no loyalty to anyone or anything other than money."

That suggests that if only we were to replace the boards of these multinational organisations with more right-minded people, then capitalism would work differently and inequality and exploitation would cease to be a problem.

That, I would suggest, is a fatal misunderstanding which, when attempts to apply it fail, tends historically to lead to the conclusion that the shadowy and conspiratorial elites, and their disloyal agents -- "citizens of nowhere" -- are sabotaging the people's well-intentioned attempts to remove exploitation and inequality.

When that's happened in the past, it's generally been bad news for the Jews sooner rather than later.

This recent article from History Today, which I found when trying to check who said "antisemitism is the socialism of fools" (often misattributed to August Bebel but probably someone else, it seems), provides some examples of this in action: Antisemitism: the Socialism of Fools | History Today

 

[Isabeau]

Anti-Semitism might be the "socialism of fools", but socialism doesn't equal anti-Semitism.

If you criticize Isreal, you will be accused of being anti-Semite, like Corbyn is, and now Sanders(!) While im certain there are those who actually hate Jews AND criticize Isreal, one should be able to criticize a country's policies without being branded an anti-Semite. Same thing with criticizing the way banks operate, but using the expression/sentence "banks run the world" is a red flag. Certainly, criticize the lack of regulations, the pass they get (too big to fail, etc.) but unless you want people to understand that you believe in the 'Jews run the world with their greed' conspiracy, stay away from videos/people who use that line.

 

[Beebo Brink]

Briefly, capitalism is a system with its own internal dynamic, in which all the actors -- including the boards of multinational financial organisations -- are responding to the actions of other actors in the system not according to their own agenda but in accordance with capitalism's imperative of generating more capital.

There's no one actually sitting in the captain's chair, although various political groups find it very useful to create shadow figures for that role. We all so desperately want to believe that there's an adult in the room -- even if it's an Evil Adult -- and that there is A Plan in operation. We resist the notion that no one is in charge, that we're all caught up in a mindless web of our own making, and that it has a life of its own that is beyond our control.

 

[Beebo Brink]

Same thing with criticizing the way banks operate, but using the expression/sentence "banks run the world" is a red flag. Certainly, criticize the lack of regulations, the pass they get (too big to fail, etc.) but unless you want people to understand that you believe in the 'Jews run the world with their greed' conspiracy, stay away from videos/people who use that line.

Exactly this. Criticizing banking as an industry is perfectly justifiable; it's an industry rife with abuse and corruption. But that very particular phrase "banks run the world" has a long and distasteful history that I would expect anyone steeped in politics to immediately recognize. It would be far more accurate to say that "oil companies run the world" -- that is the 21st century reality -- but funny how that phrase doesn't crop up. All those White Christian men running oil companies get a free pass.

When I hear someone using catch phrases straight out of the Far Right/hate groups, I know where they're hanging out. That it can roll so easily off their tongue, without any self-reflection, is a bad sign.

 

[Jolene Benoir]

If we are to assign blame for the inequality which we see in the world, it's going to be a pretty large dragnet. We could start with insanely wealthy oligarchs who bear no loyalty to any given country, refusing to pay their share and using their gains to purchase the politicians of any given country; note that they are not limiting themselves to their host countries anymore. If we do that, then we must also blame said politicians for taking the money and doing the bidding. If we do that, then we must also blame judicial entities which have declared that corporations are people and allowed said money influence alongside super pacs that hide the source of the money. Shouldn't there also be some blame laid at the feet of people who consider themselves temporarily embarrassed millionaires and vote to keep whatever prestige and power they believe that they hold despite they also being at the mercy of the system, by making damn well sure, in their mind, that nobody "undeserving" gets any assistance. If we do that, then don't we also have to look at people who cheat in some way (let's say on their taxes, even if it's just a small amount). Don't we also have to look at some media who uphold said system without blinking an eye, in either under-reporting or refusing to report upon the effects of such things as austerity. How about corporations who pillage both the earth and communities in the name of profit? How about consumers who were fine with using the labor of someone thousands of miles away to the tune of less than a dollar a day, but now that it hurts them find inequality distasteful?

In short, there's a whole lot of blame to go around.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

American pay tv network "Hallmark Channel" has not been broadcasting a commercial for a wedding planning service which showed a lesbian bridal couple kissing after the conservative right wing Christian organization "One Million Mums" pressured the CEO of the mother company of the tv network to prevent the airing.

They are only now airing commercial showing heterosexual bridal couples.

One of the actresses in the now cancelled spot has this to say:

And the inevitable Ellen DeGeneres this:

Anti LGBT+-propaganda and the campaign manifesto over at "One million mums", calling those ads as "family unfriendly" and more:

Hallmark is now airing LGBT commercials, open to LGBT movies

Please sign our petition asking Hallmark to do what is right and reject airing movies and commercials with LGBT content!

onemillionmoms.com

Just this excerpt says enough about "One million mums", they are Christians still living in the 19th century at best:
Family entertainment is not the outlet in which to be politically correct by forcing tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality – a sinful lifestyle that Scripture clearly deems as wrong. You can read so in Romans 1:18-32.

Some interestingly quite balanced coverage over at the Daily Mail:

Christian-right group calls for Hallmark Channel boycott over LBGTQ ad

Hallmark Channel aired a Zola commercial featuring two women getting married. One Million Moms, a Christian-right group, condemned the commercial.

www.dailymail.co.uk

This reminds me so much about "some woman in Michigan didn't like it" Tery Rakolta, who also wanted to get something cancelled and instead her protest turned into the best PR you can get for free.

Who are these Christian women, and why have they left their station in the home to take authority over men?

1 Timothy 2:12 English Standard Version (ESV)
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Some interestingly quite balanced coverage over at the Daily Mail:

Christian-right group calls for Hallmark Channel boycott over LBGTQ ad

Hallmark Channel aired a Zola commercial featuring two women getting married. One Million Moms, a Christian-right group, condemned the commercial.

www.dailymail.co.uk

This is one of the main differences, to my mind, between the US and the UK (and, of course, many other countries, too).

Even though the Mail is quite happy to publish the most pernicious right-wing nonsense, since that's what pleases the audience whom its advertisers want to reach, the US Christianist right's obsession with other people's sex lives seens crazed even to the Mail's readership.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - Policy

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - Policy

www.smbc-comics.com

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Dakota Tebaldi you like bees, right?

Interesting thread on historical gender studies and... uh... bees.

 

[Caete]

Let us all take a shot every time the phrase useful idiot is tossed around. A double if get off my lawn is spouted.

I do understand the history and racial stereotyping that has and still is occurring not just in the US but on a global scale.

Sorry if my tongue in cheek comments did not convey their mocking attempt at lowering the danger level.

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

Dakota Tebaldi you like bees, right?

Interesting thread on historical gender studies and... uh... bees.

That's really interesting!

Yeah I'm still into bees even though I don't have any. But while I know what people have been studying and writing about bees ever since Classical times, I didn't know about any of that history. Neato.

 

[danielravennest]

Jeez, even I understand "evil bankers who run the world" to be a derogatory reference to jews. It's a pervasive anti-semitic trope. It's disingenuous to make such a reference and then express surprise that someone recognized the allusion.

If you study history, usury (charging interest) was prohibited to christians and muslims, but it was not prohibited to jews. So they tended to gravitate to banking. Then, as now, nations and their rulers tended to be heavy borrowers. Once in a while they would scapegoat jews, take all their assets, and kick them out rather than pay the large debts they had accumulated. The scapegoating involves ascribing all manner of evil deeds to the targets, much as Donald Trump called Mexicans drug dealers, criminals, and rapists. But in the case of Jews, it has been going on for centuries, and become somewhat culturally ingrained.

Evil bankers, of whatever religion or lack thereof, do in fact run the world in the following sense: The majority of public corporations' stock is held by "institutional investors", such as pension funds, bank brokerage divisions, mutual funds, etc. The stock is held for the benefit of individuals, but the institutions that buy and sell the shares all share a common purpose of maximizing returns. The people who sit on the boards of these companies are aware of this, and are often drawn from the same financial industry pool of executives. They don't need to conspire in dark, smoke-filled rooms (although they sometimes do), because they all share the same goal. So they end up doing certain things because they all think alike.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Apropos of nothing.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

If you study history, usury (charging interest) was prohibited to christians and muslims, but it was not prohibited to jews. So they tended to gravitate to banking. Then, as now, nations and their rulers tended to be heavy borrowers. Once in a while they would scapegoat jews, take all their assets, and kick them out rather than pay the large debts they had accumulated. The scapegoating involves ascribing all manner of evil deeds to the targets, much as Donald Trump called Mexicans drug dealers, criminals, and rapists. But in the case of Jews, it has been going on for centuries, and become somewhat culturally ingrained.

Evil bankers, of whatever religion or lack thereof, do in fact run the world in the following sense: The majority of public corporations' stock is held by "institutional investors", such as pension funds, bank brokerage divisions, mutual funds, etc. The stock is held for the benefit of individuals, but the institutions that buy and sell the shares all share a common purpose of maximizing returns. The people who sit on the boards of these companies are aware of this, and are often drawn from the same financial industry pool of executives. They don't need to conspire in dark, smoke-filled rooms (although they sometimes do), because they all share the same goal. So they end up doing certain things because they all think alike.

And when the banks and other financial institutions seem to be manipulating events, what we're actually seeing is them being very good interpreting the data and predicting the way the markets are moving and are likely to move, and understanding the wider implications of all this.

They've got the data, experience, and expertise to make much better bets on what's likely to happen next than can just about anyone else. How come George Soros has been able to do what he's done? Same way as is anyone else who is astonishingly good at what they do -- a chess grandmaster, or a top level professional poker or pool player, or professional golfer, for example.

 

[Cristalle]

Exactly this. Criticizing banking as an industry is perfectly justifiable; it's an industry rife with abuse and corruption. But that very particular phrase "banks run the world" has a long and distasteful history that I would expect anyone steeped in politics to immediately recognize. It would be far more accurate to say that "oil companies run the world" -- that is the 21st century reality -- but funny how that phrase doesn't crop up. All those White Christian men running oil companies get a free pass.

When I hear someone using catch phrases straight out of the Far Right/hate groups, I know where they're hanging out. That it can roll so easily off their tongue, without any self-reflection, is a bad sign.

That's cute, but I don't go to any far-right hate group sites. I can only name maybe two, and I've never been there. I deliberately avoid Breitbart, the Daily Caller and Fox News as sources if I can. I was being somewhat flippant by calling the financial industry bankers, because that's what a lot of them are. I didn't make the assumption that all bankers are Jews, and said bupkiss about Jews in particular. How odd it must be to refer to people in the financial industry as bankers. The horror!

Evil bankers, of whatever religion or lack thereof, do in fact run the world in the following sense: The majority of public corporations' stock is held by "institutional investors", such as pension funds, bank brokerage divisions, mutual funds, etc. The stock is held for the benefit of individuals, but the institutions that buy and sell the shares all share a common purpose of maximizing returns. The people who sit on the boards of these companies are aware of this, and are often drawn from the same financial industry pool of executives. They don't need to conspire in dark, smoke-filled rooms (although they sometimes do), because they all share the same goal. So they end up doing certain things because they all think alike.

Not only do they do these things, they also have an outsized influence over our politicians. Trump's cabinet and administration was stocked with people from Goldman Sachs. Citigroup selected much of Obama's cabinet. Not only were taxpayers forced to bail out the financial industry, we were forced to pay their bonuses because somehow THEIR contracts are sacrosanct but nobody else's were. There are around a dozen countries in the world protesting the corruption borne of these arrangements and the policies of financial austerity that hobbles the middle class. There is a very reasonable case to be made that they "rule the world" because of the outsized influence that they have on our politicians, hence the "Two Americas," and politicians of all stripes talking about a divide between Wall Street and Main Street, even when it's just lip service.

 

[Beebo Brink]

Bankers are minor players compared to oil cartels and Putin's oligarchs. The president of the United States is bending over backwards to further Putin's agenda, Russian money is pouring into the GOP campaign coffers, Russian trolls are flooding our social media outlets, and Russian hackers are probing state election systems. And you think bankers are running the world? Seriously?

 

[Han Held]

It's not the bankers' -it's the whole fucking class to be frank.

This discussion has been very enlightening as an example of why you need to be careful when you trote out tropes. This could have been a discussion of class dynamics and how the wealthy (as a class) are screwing over ...basically everything.

Instead, it went off into the weeds because the choice to say "the bankers" invoked the jewish stereotype and (rightfully) earned a backlash against that.

Beebo is absolutely right; it was a very bad choice of words.

Lesson learned; either don't use loaded tropes (racist, anti-semetic) or be prepared to acknowlege that they're loaded and be prepared to defend why you used them.