What's with historical French socialists (including former Communards) and antisemitism? And we're not talking about "antisemitism" as found in the questionable rhetoric employed by Marx in the Jewish Question, we're talking literally Hitler-tier levels of delusion. I mean, look at this shit.
It's not French socialism, French culture itself has a history of anti-semitism.
Jeremiah Hill
So did Russia, yet Russian socialists were vehemently opposed to antisemitism.
Adrian Hill
The nature of Russian and French anti-semitism were different: In Russian it was because they were "foreign" peoples, (fun fact, the Russian for Germans, the other despide minority, is derived from "those that do not speak our language"). Anti-semitism in France is because the jews were seen as a community that held-on to pre-revolutionary ideals, as such revolutionaries and progressives in France saw the jews as a reactionary element (which is wrong ofc). So you see, the forces of reaction in Russia hated the jews, ergo the jews were seen as progressive revolutionaries (there is a yiddish russian song that's chorus is basically "fuck the police, fuck the government") whereas in the french revolutionary ideal, the jews were seen as reactionary. Not condoning anti-semitism, but does that make sense?
Zachary Cox
But that's wrong. They were first and foremost seen as exploiters, conspirators and parasites — which was epitomized by the "plutocratic banker" and "German spy" tropes popular at the time. In fact, virtually everyone involved with late-19th-century French antisemitic organizations were violently opposed to the liberal values born of the French Revolution, and some of the most vocal Jew-baiters were militants of the royalist, anti-republican Action Française.
"Philosemitism" has become a meme term, kind of like "cuck".
Daniel Brooks
This is actually true. Many later joined nationalist and/or antisemitic leagues and those who lived long enough to see the rise of fascism often admired or even embraced it. Georges Valois, the founder of the first properly fascist party in France called the Faisceau, used to be an anarcho-syndicalist.
Isaiah Rivera
Funny how they all have last names like Berg or Stein
Your liberalism is showing
Landon Richardson
Yes like JD Witherspoon, Rupert Murdoch, James Dyson or Michael O'Leary.
Luis Turner
What does liberalism even have to do with any of this…?
The Rothschild family literally ran France as their personal fiefdom prior to 1848 and even afterwards were by the far both the wealthiest individuals and the wealthiest family in France until post-WWI at the earliest. Hell, James de Rothschild was probably held the title of wealthiest man on the planet (barring some Eastern Kings) until the rise of Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford. There may have been a few others like Rhodes and Beit but even that is speculation.
If you think I'm exaggerating about the first part, James de Rothschild literally had a monopolistic position when it came to lending to the French government–it couldn't sustain itself without him. It wasn't until the founding of Crédit Mobilier that the French government had financial options and even that fell through. All the philosemites and business history fanboys of the Rothschild family tend to forget that they helped finance the Holy Alliance's war against France and then Rothschilds partied it up with Paris's most famous celebrities under the bourgeois king and the restoration when only the wealthy could vote. But I guess all that is "anti-semitism" even if its not defensible it helps you understand why these feelings emerged. Only when James sons helped finance the enormous reparations to Germany that came out of the Franco-Prussian War did some of the hostility against the family subside.
Tbf fair that Action Francais was a bastard synthesis of ultra royalist bourbonism and fragments of the revolutionary left blanquist who had drifted toward nationalist politics in the wake of the failure of the Paris Commune and the Boulanger Affair.
Henry Lopez
Yes Sorel the ex devout catholic and ultra monarchist-turned-socialist. Its almost as if he didnt throw away all of his older ideas and radically revised marxism toward his own ends and was a direct influence on fascist movements ideologists and leaders like mussolini.
Benjamin Peterson
My view is that, left antisemitism (or at least, leftist suspicion of Jews) is primarily rooted in the fact that they see Jews as not conforming to their rules, so to say. Jews tend to be highly conformist with each other, but not so much around outsiders ("tribalism" if you want to put it this way).
For instance, since the 1970s western Jews have by in large moved towards the right. Two reasons: 1. secular Jews who were historically leftist are dying off, given that they're not reproducing, raising their kids as Jewish, or just giving a fuck about it at all, all while the religious Jews (including hardcore religious Zionists) are having bucketloads of children; and 2. the left really hasn't done anything to give Jews a reason to remain on the left. I've seen anti-Zionism turn into crypto-antisemitism among other leftists (specifically, ☭TANKIE☭s and Maoists, shocker) in the sense where they claim Jews have to center their existence around the Palestinian struggle or else they're "genocidal apartheid apologists" or some shit. That kind of blackmail will absolutely cause you to lose support among whatever group you're blackmailing, even if you feel as if you're in the moral right.
I'd equate it a lot to how the right views Muslims: as children who need to be disciplined so that they follow a post-Enlightenment secularized Christian ethic. Muslims and Jews are very similar in the sense where both groups don't care what others outside their groups think of them and instead focus primarily on their own way of life rather than what the mainstream culture dictates to them.
Jordan Jones
Philosemitism is the main form of racism upheld by the western political establishment right now
Brayden Robinson
Lemme guess, you also think BLM is worse than the alt-right solely on the basis that BLM isn't Marxist, right?
Joseph Mitchell
There is no philosemitism. Americans support Israel not because they love Jews but for geopolitical reasons, i.e. Israel fights eeevul Muslims.
Josiah Rivera
Not an argument I don't like either of them honestly, but I probably hate BLM a little bit less than most people on this board and Zig Forums. I will say the alt right are better than neocons though
Brandon Cooper
"Philosemitism" isn't racism. It's like saying black liberationists are racist against white people, or CAIR is racist against kuffar.
Cooper Torres
Because Jews are bank capitulators
Samuel Stewart
Listen OP I get what you're trying to ask but it's best for the entire left if we stop talking about Jews as a whole unless it's about celebrating them, threads like these always enable Zig Forums and nazbols, for the love of god can we ban these threads.
There is no philosemitism. Politicians pander to Jews for votes and support, not because they love Jews.
Isaac Smith
You can't ignore the historical role Jews collectively have in the rise up capitalism, and the current maintaining thereof
While this can be applied to any national bourgeoisie, the Jews are so over-represented in the international bourgeoisie that it should clearly sign alarms in any leftists head
Before anyone calls me antisemitic, there is nothing antisemitic about mentioning the role that Jewish financialists play in propping up the current state of things
Eli Hughes
Lol popular support a shit. People are too dumb to self-rule
Liam Phillips
false flag? theres no reason to condemn OR praise them
Samuel Lopez
nor can you ignore their role in the rise of anticapitalist thought and action, retard
Angel Phillips
...
Owen King
Philio-semitism == Anti-Semitism At least feeds it.
Noah Cruz
I'm not ignoring that. In fact that's a good point
Likewise European people's can be criticized for their historical tendencies for imperialism, war, and genocide, but can also be recognized for their role in great advancements in technology, living standards, etc.
Don't be undialectical
Kayden Wilson
even the "anticapitalist" jews were pretty anti communist as well
if you can recognize it then you have to recognize there's a better explanation than shunting come kind of collective guilt onto jews. plenty of european and developing countries lack a jewish bourgeoisie, first of all. China, Japan, India, Brazil and South Africa are significant players in the international economy but they lack a jewish bourgeoisie (SA has jews but afaik they aren't the biggest economic players, just look at the indian Gupta's plutocracy in the headline lately) Why can't it be acknowledged that historical factors have propelled jews to success within the capitalist system and in movements against it? It's ahistorical to think jews are some special element in capitalism and its perpetuation, where other groups are not. They may be disproportionate in the system, but they are by no means the majority and never have been CLOSE to the majority of elites that control the international economy. That would be the transatlantic anglo class for most of recent history, of which jews (and others who have joined) are essentially culturally assimilated into at this point.
anti communist =/= anticapitalist and anyway to use trotsky as an example of an anticommunist is sophistry
Ayden Morales
lol if you actually think Jews are marginalized in the west you're a fucking idiot and not worth my time
Not something you see everyday
Charles Thompson
I bet a dork you would probably be the first to go above and beyond to prove your one of the “good white people” for your left-twitter friends
If “punching upwards” is okay for white people then you know it’s okay for Jews. I bet you make fun of Zig Forumstards for thinking there’s racism against white people with one breath while screeching about anti-semitism with the other
Alexander Jackson
Probably because Jews were a massive part of the Russian population but a trivial part of the French population.
If you lived in Russia from 1700-1941, unless you were in Siberia you probably knew multiple Jews. People living in the western part of the Empire/USSR would have known hundreds of Jews. Antisemitism was thus a much more pressing issue for Russian people. They were more likely to have experienced it personally or borne witness to it.
I believe France has a larger Jewish population today than it did before the Holocaust, and France still has only ~300,000 Jewish people.
Brody Jenkins
Jews were largely (and legally) excluded from Russia proper till the late 19th century, hence why the "Pale of Settlement" was a thing. They lived overwhelmingling in all non-russian or recently conquered areas like Ukraine until that time. In other words, most russian speakers DID NOT encounter jews unless they had converted to christianity (Lenin's grandfather was an example of this).
Alexander Clark
pic related. jews in russia itself was almost nonexistent. this is 1905 map
Criticizing philosemitism or having issue with Jewish culture =/= antisemitism
"Punching upwards" in regards to race or ethnicity and not class is stupid liberal bullshit.
Nathaniel Torres
We agree actually
Jackson Anderson
you are ignoring historical materialism. after the end of primitive accumulation, jewish bankers who were allowed to commit Usury kick started capitalism in continental europe
There is nothing undialectical or wrong with speaking about any culture/ethnicity collectively given that economic/social factors are taken into account. more specifically I was speaking of historical developments of fact
leftcums tend to criticize literally everything that exists but im one of a few that will criticize jews and their historical role within capitalism
Grayson Campbell
Really hate when they do this. Can't they at least use the color picker tool?
Brody Nguyen
you haven't taken economic factors into account. You speak about jews as though all jews belong to the same economic class. There are bourgeois jews and there are proletariat jews. And fyi your "analysis"is just a Zig Forums tier historical analysis-rich people who happened to be jews benefited from capitalism, therefore capitalism was invented by jews.
Wat. Not all jews practiced usury and a significant amount of christians practiced usury, such as the Venetians. The venetians among other italians created or transmitted some of the most useful tools of capitalism (banks, double entry book keeping, arabic numerals). The low countries, england (and lyons for a tiny bit) refined and developed further italian products, creating the first stock markets, corporations and legal infrastructure for capitalism. Petty money lenders that many jews were hardly participated. And if they did the biggest actors were entirely Sephardic Jews who despised and refused to mix with poor ashkenazi (spinoza, disraeli and ricardo to name some famous people of jewish descent were sephardi). This was highlighted by arrival of poor ashkenazi from the baltic in golden age amsterdam, which bewildered their well acculturated sephardic coreligionists with their poverty and foreign customs
Cooper Allen
Zig Forums, you're adorable.
Elijah Phillips
Im also forgetting those crypto and regular jewish communities who important (but not essential) elements in the development of the and spanish and portuguese atlantic economy and caribbean who were mainly sephardim.
Luke Edwards
what was "their" historical role bar the infamous Rothschilds? Are you referring to the fact they enacted usury and and were generally employed in such professions? If so I honestly wouldn't ascribe them a unique role in that, considering the Italians, Dutch and probably the Belgian and Swiss as well were involved in this historical process.
those "non-Russian areas" were still part of the Russian state and chock full of ethnic Russians
Aiden Thompson
nonsense, their towns and villages existed side by side with Christian ones. See
Jose Robinson
meant to be the 2nd link
Wyatt Walker
Russian in what sense. Belorussians and ukrainians? Thats why I said “conquered areas” too. The ukraine was a historical frontier zone/steppe conquered from nomadic turks and cossacks. Otherwise tell me where the Pale was “chock full of russians”
Elijah Sullivan
Yes but jews were a problem to the extent that they were one factor among a zillion others to be taken into account when ruling a gigantic multicultural empire
I dont get what your saying. Of course they lived next to christians, just not russian christians.
Isaiah Brooks
Also to stress the point further jews were almost the sole minority in france (if you discount the variety of romance dialects and de facto languages that the french republican government eliminated or periperhal ones like bretons basques and occitans) and so were arguably more magnified when they were the sole foreign element in the nation besides maybe protestants. This perception would have been strengthened in such instances as the little talked about panama crisis in the early 1890s where one of the main characters was the german jewish descended baron reinach (who commites suicide in guilt ironically) and of course then the dreyfus affair
Logan Johnson
Exactly. What the left has done to the white working class it has also done to Jews: denouncing all of them as supportive of Israeli crimes and insisting they no longer have a place on the left unless they self-flagellate for Palestine.
What "philosemitism"? Can you prove to me that philosemitism is real and is the main drive behind western support for Israel?
Bentley Garcia
This is a very vague statement, one that deliberately obscures the large amount of source material we have regarding left-wing antisemitism. Sounds like an unsubstantiated stereotype but okay. Pretty much everybody has been moving towards the right since the '70s. The majority of Jews identifies as non-believers and they're one of the least religious ethnic groups in the world. Many of he most ardent defenders of Israeli imperialism use secular arguments — even historically, the most right-wing and fascist-inspired faction of the Zionist movement such as the Lehi were secular. This is true for any ethnic group. Do you believe white Americans beyond a handful of campus-based liberal monk-warriors seriously "care what other think of them"…?
Christian Phillips
There is no such thing as "philosemitism". Philosemitism when used that way is a codeword for "not antisemitism".
Wyatt Lee
How is a fondness for Jewish culture even related to race-based discrimination?
Camden Moore
Why should we care about the "Jewish" role in the maintenance of capitalism? Is the Jewish way of maintaining capitalism special or different from the white European or East-Asian ways…?
Isaiah Cox
But that's completely wrong, you silly boy.
Juan Watson
Jewish identity and religion should be ruthlessly extirpated
Likewise for Christians, Muslims, and other reactionaries of all stripes
Because in their brain all jews are bankers who loan money. Same thing with NutSacs.
Matthew Miller
and before you say Philosemitism isn't Zionism, it is one of the main ideological justifications for propping up Israel and its interests, especially in the US
Lincoln Davis
I never said anything even remotely like that, you disingenuous piece of shit. Maybe you should start by clarifying your own definition of "philosemitism". The actual meaning of the term is "affection for Jewish culture", and I'm not sure how listening to klezmer music makes me a supporter of Israeli imperialism.
No. Either make your point explicit or admit you have no argument to defend.
Jayden Fisher
This
Wyatt King
Just lol at all you good goys tripping over yourselves to absolve the Jews and basically calling French fathers of social justice dumb narrow-minded proles.
Historically speaking, at least half of everyone who ever gave a shit about the working man detested Jews. Why do you think that is, OP? Is there a non-zero possibility that, maybe, in some way, they're right?
Brody Moore
sounds like an anticommunist left-populist
Kevin Hernandez
Again, refer to the thread I linked in , nobody questions that there are bourgeoisie Jews or that early decisions in the mercantile transition into capitalism led to Jewish families being placed in rather lucrative positions that translated into later generations, like the bans on usury putting Jews in the position of lending or urban and ghetto Jews being forced into the merchant and trading business to survive as they would not be hired for other positions or the hiring of "court Jews" and the like as they were seen as inherently "frugal and thrifty". What we object to is saying that the Edelman bagging your groceries for minimum and who drives home in his 2008 Toyota is in on some conspiracy to purge and control all non-jews and manipulate the economy. Even if some shadowy group within the upper classes was doing so, the removal of the bourgeoisie would completely abolish any form of economic control that they would have permanently making all forms of racial dislike or favoritism merely attitudes with no real power behind them.
Liam Gomez
You say that there's 'not actually any evidence'. Perhaps you just refuse to read outside your circle.
Tell that to the Romanians.
As long as the Left remains committed to interpreting all social phenomena through the prism of Material, it will continue to J-slumber. Some things are prior to economic phenomena, Jewish-identity supremacism among them.
You are so eager to pretend that a culture, contemptuous of labor from the very beginning, would resent being forced into the position of easy-living parasitism. Furthermore, you talk as though there had never been any attempts to reconcile the Jewish people to genuine productivity. Attempts have been made to introduce them to honest living (Dershavin memorandum, Pavel Pestel', Mikhail Gerschenson). These attempts resulted in Jews selling their MoP for the start-up capital required for distilling or trading or otherwise.
Ethan Cook
Shahak talks about this. The Jewish peasantry is extremely hostile to the peasantry because classical Judaism had no peasantry. Pls dont hit me up with that "what about Ancient Israel?" shit because only the ignorant think that Judaism is a pre-Christian, pre-diaspora religion.
The Israels are actually quite pissed off that they havent yet been able to create a society where there isn't a Jewish working class. The ideal Jewish society is one where Goys do all the work while Jews sit around in luxury pondering on weighty matters as sages. The problem is is that Israeli racism makes this dream practically impossible, so they settle for merely trying to make a big "middle class" or labor aristocracy in I$rael.
Shahak is completely right, Jews and their philosemite friends are hellbent on ignoring the reactionary totalitarian nature of Judaism. He even went so far as to say that Jewish theocratic society was the most totalitarian society yet known. It was only with the enlightenment, which he argues correctly was mostly a gentile project, that Jews were set free from the tyranny of the Jewish ruling class and its brutal communitarianism. This also shows why Jews were some of the most fanatical converts to enlightenment ideas. The rabbis and other reactionary Jews never forgave this.
Contrary to what popular culture and media might show you, merchant work in those times was scarce living with most barely making a profit and acting within the boundaries of their kingdom or nation's interest. Given that it was trading commodities however, you could count it as parasitism. But it is parasitism that was inevitable in the system, otherwise trade simply would not occur. These small merchants would be what would later grow into mercantilism, but this would not be until far later. Is this honest living in the capitalist sense or the communist sense? If they were able to sell their MOP, it wasn't socialist to begin with. If it is still capitalist, it should be understood that from the Marxist perspective all people work in their self-interest and so if such a thing is possible and remains profitable to the one who undertakes it, it will inevitably happen. Even if we were to say the Jews did it first, which isn't even always the case for the majority of history, someone would eventually do it. Capitalism rewards all those who are willing to be less scrupulous (in the "moral" sense") and who can get away with whatever action that will result in profit, even if that action is disfavored or disapproved. When you come to the bargining table, it will be the person who doesn't play fair and who nobody catches who will get the job, and the world is always on a state of those competing for power. I know you will say "but the Jews are these people, and if we combated them then the problem would be solved!", but it would simply move the position to be taken by whoever is willing, and such will is insentivised by survival. You act like culture makes the material, but it is first that culture emerges from the material. Someone being a Jew or having a Jewish culture does not make capitalism, but the system of capital that shapes all cultures within it. What you critique as inherently "Jewish" (Greed and miserlyness) is simply the logic of capitalism that all people who wish to survive follow, or perish to those who do. This is the reality of all prior systems, from feudal to capitalist, and is why all nation's at the time of kingdoms made knigdom, because to not do so was to lose.
Jackson Johnson
That's impressive, keep going.
Mason Carter
Read the book. Its actually a classic even in Israel itself. The foreword was written by Said and Vidal and Shahak did some major colabs with Chomsky.
If the only thing you can find to say against it is something about where it was hosted then you're nothing but a liberal bien-pensant. But I have a feeling that you're that same poster from the other thread who just wants to cry about left-antisemitism and refuses to learn anything. libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=FEF3D55770E4D21F20291831C7D3A80A
Benjamin Morgan
The crux of your argument is that "Judaism" is a monolithic, unchanging category — and one that is intrinsically "reactionary" and "totalitarian" at that! This is idealist, ahistorical tripe.
Christian Myers
Not really, Shahak identifies several major phases of change and development over the course of Judaism and Jewish life. I'm not sure why you put Judaism in quotation marks as if the religion itself doesn't exist and isn't institutionalized.
Today's friendly-faced Judaism that liberals love is the result of an attempt by Jewish religious authorities and elites to stem the crisis and damage caused to the religion by the onset of the Enlightenment and the threat of assimilation. Shahak shows that even some pre-eminently "Jewish" qualities such as humor, irony, and humanism are not to be found in the Jewish tradition prior to the Enlightenment. Now that a Jewish state exists, there is real institutionalized Jewish fundamentalism and theocracy in Israel. Shahak also shows that during the middle ages in order to insulate Judaism from Christian critique that racist passages of the Talmud were edited out and watered-down, now that Israel exists they are being included back into the texts and religious passages. Is that not reactionary?
Jordan Campbell
Absolve the Jews of what? Nobody here denies Jews (like any other ethnicity) can be part of the bourgeoisie and nobody has any sort of sympathy for bourgeois Jews. Antisemitism that lumps all Jews together as a common enemy is unacceptable and any """socialist""" who pretends otherwise is a poison to the left, period. "Social justice" is a paper-thin liberal concept. Nobody ever said anything even remotely resembling that you disingenuous piece of shit. Besides, none of the mentioned author qualify as "proles" except Proudhon. [citation needed]
Religions aren't just a collection of institutions and scriptures, they're first and foremost a multi-faceted social phenomenon. It's not something you can summarize monolithically like you do. >
Owen Rivera
I was referring to their role as merchants in early mercantilism which was, by a Marxist definition, somewhat parasitic. I never defended it, merely explained that it was an inevitability of the system that existed and was emerging. Also, your statement of "cultures emphasize hard-work, moral integrity, and moral obligation to thy neighbor" assumes that such culture usurps the systems and material conditions of a society, which is simply untrue when societies with such assumed "cultures" were okay with only certain groups of people or peasantry working for an upper class or aristocracy, were ready to abandon morals in material scarcity or during war, and backstabbed their neighbors over petty family disputs when they could stand to benefit. Your arguments put non-material over material and puts blame on entire groups for what is the material struggle of history. It's "X european were involved in the development of feudalism, therefore they are responsible for feudalism" tier.
Levi Howard
He isn't saying all proles are inherently narrow minded and dumb, he's saying that the conditions of some societies have made it easier for lies and thought of conspiracy to spread and for proles to remain ignorant to the reality of their situation. When the people are pushed to the point of desperation, workers especially, many are willing to take the quick answers provided to account for their condition as to temporarily "alleviate" their suffering. Your framing puts it as if we think their status as proles mean their ideas are dumb or that everyone who is a prole can't have a bad idea. If such was the case, then both of our statuses as prole (assuming here) would mean that neither of us could be "wrong".
Nathan Kelly
You're telling me there isn't a hint of derogation in the use of the term "abysmal ignorance"? Nor is there a hint of derogation in, essentially, referring to some trains of thought as peasant-status? You certainly give yourself plenty of room to escape through what ought to be a coin-sized hole, meanwhile (assuming it's you) give me nothing.
I don't assume that. If you want me to make a claim on culture and its effects on the systems we inhabit: it molds them, to a degree, and it defines the upper and lower bounds for moral conduct within those systems. You're falsely attributing a certain belief to me and there is much, much more grey area in the relationships between culture, morality, and social systems than you're allowing for. Taking that insight in-mind, the moral behavior of the European individual at the median of societal hierarchy was leaps and bounds higher than that of the Jew at the median of his own social hierarchy.
Christian Wright
Zygmunt Bauman (socialist sociologist) talks about this a bit in his book "Modernity and the Holocaust". I don't remember all the details, but basically the thesis is that European society came to identify Jews with modernity. The socialist movement, in his view, was part of the larger movement against modernity, or at least its excesses. Therefore in the earlier stages of the leftist/anti-modernist movement you see a mingling of anti-semitic and more tolerant socialist thought; mildly for someone like Marx, and to the extreme for those like Proudhon. He argues that these two tendencies came to a more or less permanent schism only around World War I. You have one group, many of them ex-leftists like Mussolini, move their primary focus to romantic nationalism and anti-semitism, and another that sticks with leftism and at least outwardly expunges anti-semitic tendencies.
On a related note, I know that Sorel for example started out as a reactionary monarchist and carried some foundational assumptions from that into his later ideas. He embraced socialism because he saw it as a myth that could motivate social rejuvenation against "social decay". It's not hard to see how fascists ended up drawing inspiration from him.
Aaron Murphy
I'm actually not the user who posted that, but I felt I needed to respond anyway. If its Lenin were talking about, then if there is derogation to be had its not for the people being proles or peasants or the peasants being inherently dumb but for the ruling classes who Lenin always felt purposely keep the populace in the dark. This isn't a coin sized hole, in the context of his other works it clearly means what I described it to be earlier. You made the claim earlier that we thought they were narrow minded proles, to which that user is correct, we never thought such. All posts before that user never made the claim even.
Nolan Murphy
your posts stink of historical illiteracy. abstract marxist framework can't make up for that fact
Benjamin Jackson
or maybe i'm misquoting, whoever is asserting jews created capitalism
Anthony Nguyen
I'm arguing that certain Jews being involved in extremely early capitalism doesn't mean capitalism was "created" by Jews as capitalism is an inevitable historical stage that would happen regardless of who in particular was involved, just like feudalism wasn't "created" by x European.
