Everybody Else is Crazy
Israelis Wonder: Has the World Lost Its Mind?, by Yossi Klein Halevi at wsj.com: The outcry in Israel over the operation against the Gaza flotilla has cut across political lines. Yet unlike the outrage being expressed abroad, the concern here is over tactics, not morality. "It's not enough to be right," wrote one liberal columnist in the daily Ma'ariv, "one also needs to be smart." The assumption that Israel was right to stop the flotilla—and right to maintain its siege on Hamas-led Gaza—is largely a given here.The "dissonant moral languages" problem is that the "the world" is talking morals while the Israelis (and their cheerleaders abroad) are talking tactics.
Israel and the rest of the world seem to be speaking dissonant moral languages. How, Israelis wonder, can pro-Hamas activists wielding knives be confused for peace ...
The derangement of the world, by Melanie Phillips. Her "key point": The treatment being meted out to Israel is qualitatively and quantitatively different from the treatment meted out to any other nation. Ever. It's not just that the tyrannies of the present are not even reported on, let alone seen as a worthy and legitimate target of protest. Even the great progressive causes of the past, such as the campaign against apartheid South Africa, for example, never provoked such hysterical obsession, let alone such a sustained and frenzied onslaught of lie after distortion after fabrication after blood libel. Just like the Jew-hatred of the past, the characteristics of this victimisation are unique; just like the Jew-hatred of the past, it treats the Jewish people as some kind of cosmic evil; and just like the Jew-hatred of the past, ultimately it simply defies explanation. But it is happening, right now, before our disbelieving eyes; it is quite simply a derangement of the world.According to Phillips, the international campaign against South Africa was "great", but the toothless disapproval of Israel is "hysterical obsession", "a sustained and frenzied onslaught of lie after distortion after fabrication after blood libel", "just like the Jew-hatred of the past" (repeated three times).
Right after Phillips insists the contrast between South Africa and Israel "simply defies explanation" she claims the explanation is "simply a derangement of the world". A more plausible explanation is that Phillips is deranged. She treats jews as some kind of cosmic victims of unique hatred. An even more plausible explanation is that Phillips is perfectly sane. She's just hysterically guilt-tripping "the world" about "jew-hate" because she knows that this tactic has worked for jews many times in the past.
For some people it is indeed simple - crazy "jew-hate" explains everything. It's a liberating idea. It justifies any jewish behavior whatsoever.
Just Torpedo The Next Flotilla, by Jonathan Mark at The Jewish Week: The beauty of the almost unanimous international condemnation of Israel for attempting to stop the terrorist flotilla like gentlemen -- using paint guns? -- instead of using serious military force, should send a message to Jews: You can't win by being polite to terrorists who have a schoolyard bully mentality. Weakness brings out even more outrageous behavior in bullies.
Next flotilla that violently resists a search -- just sink it. Torpedo it. See how many more flotillas follow. The condemnation won't be any different. Better that than even one more Jew being injured while boarding these floating Jenins.
Few events in recent decades have illuminated the complete hypocrisy of the world. There is nothing that Israel can do or could have done that would stop the next diplomatic ambush. So start acting tough.
By Israel fighting as if their lives actually depended on it -- which it does -- Israel will, in fact, be taken more seriously by the international scholyard bullies. Bring back the "fear factor." It is the reason why in 1980 Iran released the hostages when Reagan became president, and not during Carter's presidency, because Carter was rightly seen by the Iranians as a wimp and Reagan was feared as a trigger-happy cowboy.Here Mark is rationalizing bank robbery and torpedoing civilian ships, slinging "blood libels" at Europeans, and he thinks the problem is "the complete hypocrisy of the world".
We are no longer in the general Euopean anti-Semitism mode but deeper into the new run-up (in the Arab mind) to the Final Solution -- the extermination of Israel. In old Germany, a Jew sitting on an Aryan park bench was as much of a criminal as a Jew who robs a bank. So we might as well rob the bank. We might as well take out Iran as take out the flotilla.
The Other Side is fearless now. If someone is going to fear anyone, make the bad guys fear Israel. Right now, too many Jews fear the world. Turn the tables. Make the bad guys think that Israel is craziest S.O.B. in the room. Make everyone wonder what the Jews will do. The world will be furious? Imagine that. Imagine winning.
Labels: israel, jonathan mark, melanie phillips, yossi klein halevi
posted by Tanstaafl at 6/10/2010 11:07:00 AM
40 Comments:
They're building themselves up for Iran. Interesting times.
I don't stay on top of current events so don't know if the journalists you quote are representative of Jews in the media, but I did just check out Philip Weiss's blog, and, as usual, he's pretty sane. Are there more like him out there?
The old jewish truism is "two jews, three opinions", so it is difficult to present any position as representative of jews.
The authors of the opinions I quoted are on one extreme of the mainstream discussion about what's good for "the jews" - a topic a great number of jews spend a great deal of time and energy obsessing over, hashing out their different opinions.
Having gathered this particular strain of recent views together, I feel justified in making several points:
1) these people unabashedly favor jews and their interests over everyone else
2) their opinions are not isolated or even marginal and non-jews in media understand they would be isolated and marginalized for criticizing them
3) they are paid to do what they're doing, and will be permitted to continue to do so despite their extreme positions
Last but not least:
4) they did not demonstrate their characterization of "the world" was representative before condemning it
Auster is sounding more and more like a lunatic by the day rather than the reasoned traditionalist who cares about "the good" and Christian morality.
I'd like to second this comment. I used to otherwise enjoy his blog, but he has been monomaniacal after the flotilla incident. It is amazing to see the difference when he is at his best and when he is talking about Israel. He can be a good arguer, but he gets simply hysterical when discussing Israel.
"I'd like to second this comment. I used to otherwise enjoy his blog, but he has been monomaniacal after the flotilla incident. It is amazing to see the difference when he is at his best and when he is talking about Israel. He can be a good arguer, but he gets simply hysterical when discussing Israel."
Yes, he does not allow dissent when talking about Israel does he? He becomes hysterical as if he was an Israeli himself; as if he was living in Israel. It is all so personal for him, a man who lives in New York City talking about a nation near 10,000 miles away. Same with Phillips and the rest of these Jews spread all over the world.
Tanstaafl is doing a very good job documenting this chorus. Most of the organized Jewish community are coming to an open public consensus that Israel must step up their attacks. Israeli citizens favoring the attacks I think are near 90%.
They are using language that they did not use publicly a few years ago. Auster himself remarked how Jews are getting out of their "Oslo" mentality and taking it to their "enemies." Enemies which was defined by Auster as the entire world.
They are growing bolder and bolder with each new attack that they pull off with very little response and action from the world. Of course, on top of this they have a total media lockdown in the United States with an absolute support from all the levers of power in Washington D.C.
Their confidence is soaring. I have never seen the outpouring of Jewish solidarity along with their Christian Zionist allies in America as it has been with Operation Cast Lead, Helen Thomas, and the Flotilla incident. These events have all happened within a 6 month period.
What we are witnessing is that the Israeli's are about to make a huge tactical mistake because of their growing hubris.
They're building themselves up for Iran. Interesting times.
Exactly.
LA continues:
And let me add this. I know very little about Israel or Israeli culture. I have never been to Israel. I have no personal or family connections with Israel. From what I do know about Israel, I don't like its statist politics, its aggressively secular culture, its leftism, its endemic naivite about the nature of Islam. I've often said that if Manhattan's Upper West Side (very Jewish, very leftwing) were made into a country, that would be Israel. But Israel is a country that exists. And the whole world is ganged up against that country and trying to destroy it. And I side with Israel against that evil. Is it really the case that your conscience is not stirred, even a little, by the spectacle of the entire cumulative global power of Islam and the left ganged up against that one country?
He's says "the whole world" is trying to destroy Israel, but what he's trying to do is guilt-trip whoever he can influence into sympathizing with and fighting for Israel, a country he exhibits a deep emotional attachment to, even though he claims to have no direct knowledge of or family links to it.
I'm not a psychiatrist, but Auster appears to exhibit the characteristics of a psychopath:
The Psychopath: The Mask of Sanity
Psychopathy - Wikipedia
What "Psychopath" Means: Scientific American
From that last link:
Some investigators have even speculated that “successful psychopaths”—those who attain prominent positions in society—may be overrepresented in certain occupations, such as politics, business and entertainment.
Gee, I wonder if that has anything to do with jewish overrepresentation in those same occupations.
From the quoted Auster entry above:
Trevor H writes:
I suspect that your religion has given you an affinity to Judaism and Israel that goes beyond intellectual or political considerations.
Are you retarded Trevor?
You suspect it was his "religion" that gave him such an affinity?
I think Auster is freaking out because finally, in keeping with our Western European tradition, we reasonably intelligent adults are dispassionately discussing subjects which the Jews had unilaterally declared taboo such as the jewish Bolshevik role in the Christian Ukranian genocide.
The fact that Jews think that they can dictate what we can or cannot discuss is evidence that they are fundamentally different from us Western Europeans. I don't know if it is cultural or genetic but the Western European desire for Truth at whatever cost is what makes our civilisation great and differentiates from the rest of the world.
This shows that Auster, for all his proclaimed defence of Western civilisation, hasn't got a clue as to what it is all about.
Auster has a post today titled "Ron Paul, Blithering Idiot."
I love how he describes Ron Paul:
"Finally: that voice of his! Egad. He sounds like some broken-down snake oil salesman in a woebegone frontier town."
His contempt for old-stock middle Americans is revealed every once in a while. To him, they're a bunch of potentially dangerous hicks that need to be watched and controlled by him and his ilk. They need to be controlled by making them slavishly devoted to whatever ideological construct that he and his ilk devise and whipped up against their enemies such as Muslims, or they need to be vilified and hounded as potentially dangerous, criminal rubes.
1) these people unabashedly favor jews and their interests over everyone else
The thing is, this is true, but it doesn't go far enough. Non-gentiles are so ethnocentric they'd rather have you die than be inconvenienced themselves. In fact, that doesn't go far enough, either; non-gentile ethnocentrism is so strong that that to a non-gentile, "survival" means destroying everyone else, ipso facto. In short, non-gentiles make life into an existential us-or-them equation.
Auster is probably not a psychopath, but the way Jews interact with other ethnic groups has many parallels to how psychopaths interact with other people. Both are completely selfish, shameless, dishonest, unreliable, domineering and constantly demanding that others submit to them totally. All ethnic groups can do this to some extant, but Jews take it to another level. Especially when it comes to rationalizing and grandiosity(everything is always all about themselves), both of which are traits of psychopaths.
I didn't mean to suggest you were over-generalising, Tan. I ran out of time using a computer in a library otherwise I'd have added that introducing contrarian Jews such as Weiss, Lindemann and Shahak to readers of GoV/BNP-type sites, where the general tenor is more anti-Islam/pro-Jew than rigorously pro-European, can help our efforts to prevent those readers being dragged too far down the wrong road. Appeals to Jewish authorities sweeten the pill for some proto extended phenotypes. Say I wanted to back up danielj's point about Israel not being at all the bulwark for Western Civilisation Auster claims, I might quote Shahak:
“Israel discriminates not only against Arabs, or only against Palestinians… but against all non-Jews, including its best non-Jewish friends. It follows from that official attitude which Israel tries to inculcate among all its Jewish citizens that Israel must regard even its best non-Jewish friends as its potential enemies. A political conclusion follows from that ideological attitude: there exists in Israeli policies a latent (and often a not-so-latent) hostility toward its present allies. Thus, the Israeli claim that its hegemony is intended to be exercised for the benefit of the West (by itself an absurd claim if one considers the ‘normal’ behavior of states) cannot possibly be true in the case of a state which officially defines itself as a ‘Jewish state’ and, as a point of principle, discriminates against all non-Jews."
Weiss is good for undercutting the Israel lobby and the war party, if that's not a redundancy. I'm not saying this should be the only approach, obviously we should speak for ourselves too, including quoting our own scholars, but we can use the privileged status of Jewish Opinion to boost our own arguments and make 'em more palatable for at least some of the people we're trying to reach.
I see the value in that tactic, though I don't usually avail myself of it. First, those who are anti-Islam/pro-jew are as likely to compartmentalize and disregard "self-hating jews" as they are "anti-semites". More important, I oppose the privileged status of jewish opinion and don't wish to reinforce it.
Shahak provides a good example of the danger inherent in the tactic.
Shahak's criticism is based on literal anti-"racism", which is poison to our kind. He firmly criticizes Israel, but he does so from the point of view of that the genocidal standards of "the West" (ie. White countries) are right and good.
A question for those of you who don't think Israel should exist:
Do you think the Jews of Israel should go elsewhere (like, next door to you) or just be exterminated?
Yes, the issue should make you uncomfortable.
Neither. I think Jews should be confined to certain areas, ghettos, as they were under the Catholics and forbidden from excercising certain professions such as banking and teaching,as they were in the Byzantine empire. They should also have no voting rights .
I would like to take the opportunity to remind all WASPs that it was the Protestant emancipation of the Jews which is the source of all our troubles.
Talking about extermination that is what the Bolshevik Jews did to Russian and Ukranian Christians. I don't think white Europeans would ever get on board with mass exterminations;it is a Jewish thing.
@ “I'd have added that introducing contrarian Jews such as Weiss, Lindemann and Shahak to readers of GoV/BNP-type sites... can help our efforts to...” – Fellist
@ “I see the value in that tactic, though I don't usually avail myself of it.” – Tan
I don’t claim to have read Weiss and Shahak, but I’ve started to read the book by Lindemann that Cambridge University published. What strikes me of this book is that it wholly demystifies the likes of Auster and Taksei who see rabid anti-Semites under every rock. One gets the impression that Lindemann recognizes that anti-Semitism is a natural response to the rise of the Jews in the West.
GoV-ers are intellectual cowards. When Fellist and I tried to discuss the JQ recently, only that little Romanian brat (Is she really a teenager, or is she just playing Little Red Ridding Hood so that we old wolves salivate?) engaged us. Even Fjordman, the author of that thread, shunned us when serious discussion started. I mean: these guys don’t even say that the likes of Lindemann “are self-hating Jews.” The fact that Little Red (if she’s indeed an woman) has more balls than GoV-ers speaks volumes about the so-called “males” in counter-jihad (yes: Fj included).
Curiously, Mangan, who is not properly a WN, followed my advice to purchase a copy of Lindemann’s book. He’s still making his mind on the JQ. Obviously, once you wrap your head on it it’s unnecessary to cling on how Jews criticize Jews (Fj once stated that only Jews can criticize themselves): you have already freed yourself from the matrix.
No redpill is necessary any longer.
Do you think the Jews of Israel should go elsewhere (like, next door to you) or just be exterminated?
Yes, the issue should make you uncomfortable.
I'm more concerned about the ongoing extermination of my own kind. Does that make you uncomfortable? I have yet to find a single jew who is uncomfortable about the ongoing extermination of my kind. Does that make you uncomfortable? I kindly invite you to stick your sanctimony about what should make me uncomfortable straight up your ass. Does that make you uncomfortable?
Do you think the Jews of Israel should go elsewhere (like, next door to you) or just be exterminated?
Yes, the issue should make you uncomfortable.
I think Auster is posting here because this is Auster's argument. You don't want Jews to live in Israel and you don't want Jews to live next door therefore you wish their extermination.
Actually I simply do not support Israel because it is not in my interest to do so. I would if all of you promise to leave and go there.
"I think Jews should be confined to certain areas, ghettos, as they were under the Catholics and forbidden from excercising certain professions such as banking and teaching,as they were in the Byzantine empire. They should also have no voting rights."
Constitution of the United States, Article VI, section 3: "... no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." I'd be careful about trying to re-open that part, the unintended consequences would almost certainly be nasty (like Prohibition).
The USA once ghettoized a large part of its population. You can say this might have been a good idea (though my politically-correct friend who teaches adult-ed students who literally cannot compute 5+2 and was robbed and assaulted at gunpoint last year would never admit it), but our history has proven that the disputes over such things can result in the deaths of millions. Besides, trying to ghettoize a very intelligent subgroup is going to be impossible compared to ghettoizing a much less intelligent one.
I can't see why you think ghettoes are a good idea, but a separate country is a bad idea. I am about 100 miles by road from Postville, IA. Sholom Rubashkin's face is on the front page of the newspaper this morning. I would think that forcing Jews to confront corruption among themselves would be much more productive and much less work than trying to police it.
"Talking about extermination that is what the Bolshevik Jews did to Russian and Ukranian Christians."
Extermination is a theme in history, not just when the Jews got the upper hand in Russia. The Turkish (Muslim) genocide of (Christian) Armenians was inspiration for events later in the 20th century. Muslim Indonesians killed about 1/3 of the population of (Christian) E. Timor from 1975-1999. Japanese in Nanking... the list is long.
"don't think white Europeans would ever get on board with mass exterminations"
? Do you deny Germany 1939-1945? It doesn't take everyone or even a majority, just a government with enough willing workers and a populace which is either ignorant or in denial. Since you are concerned about the immigration invasion in the USA, I'll cite the dis-enforcement of US immigration law despite public sentiment as an example of the same thing happening right here. We had a minority re-write the laws of our financial system to its benefit while the public wasn't looking, to give another example. All it takes is the elite.
(continued)
"I'm more concerned about the ongoing extermination of my own kind. Does that make you uncomfortable? I have yet to find a single jew who is uncomfortable about the ongoing extermination of my kind. Does that make you uncomfortable? I kindly invite you to stick your sanctimony about what should make me uncomfortable straight up your ass. Does that make you uncomfortable?"
What makes you think I am not of "your kind"? What makes you think I am not uncomfortable about the immigration invasion and enforced "diversity"? What makes you think I don't read Steve Sailer and OneSTDV approvingly? You leap to conclusions too quickly.
"Israel, because of its "Sampson Option," poses an existential threat to our race."
North Korea and Iran are a much bigger threats. Israel's strategy is MAD, not Samson. Israel faces no military threat from Europe, just the Muslim Middle East.
"I think Auster is posting here because this is Auster's argument."
This is hilarious: those who accuse Auster of seeing Jew-haters under every rock are themselves seeing Jews under every rock. It's a trivial and obvious argument, and the only reason anyone would be suspicious of it is if they are buying into a dogma which shuts down the thought process. Any such dogma is a threat, including to the people who hold it (Islam and fundie Xtianity are like that too).
FYI, I'm an atheist descended from 4 generations of German Lutherans in the USA. I am as gentile as they come. But I also read history and see how consequences of things spin out of control. There are many things I don't wish on my descendants; Mexifornia and another split like the US 1861-65 are on that list.
What makes you think I am not of "your kind"? What makes you think I am not uncomfortable about the immigration invasion and enforced "diversity"? What makes you think I don't read Steve Sailer and OneSTDV approvingly? You leap to conclusions too quickly.
Those are your questions and your conclusions you're leaping to.
The thrust of your first comment strongly suggests that you're most concerned about the interests of jews. Your further comments, especially in trying to turn this interpretation of your first comment into some failure on my part, haven't substantially altered my evaluation.
I'm concerned about the interests of Jews about as much as Martin Niemoller was. Government always uses every new grant of power to its limit, even when the authors of that power promise otherwise. Using power against groups with unpopular beliefs is dangerous to me; atheists are even less popular in the USA than Jews.
If you claim otherwise, explain the 1965 immigration act and the civil "rights" act which created racial preferences. I voted to get rid of preferences in my state (successfully, I might add), but that doesn't mean I want to repeat the same mistake; I am not going to live long enough for that cycle to run its course, and I have too much to lose.
Let me go over your knee-jerk response in detail.
"I'm more concerned about the ongoing extermination of my own kind. Does that make you uncomfortable?"
It's not clear from this if you expect me to be uncomfortable about what's going on, or uncomfortable about your concern about what's going on. It could be read either way. I trust I've adequately explained myself about the former. As for the latter, I think that your extreme position is damaging to the cause as it makes it appear toxic (like "militias").
"I have yet to find a single jew who is uncomfortable about the ongoing extermination of my kind. Does that make you uncomfortable?"
Maybe your attitude has something to do with the kind of Jews who would say anything to you. I've known one who wanted to have my children; she obviously didn't want me exterminated.
I've not seen a single Mexican or Muslim or Chinese who expressed discomfort about the displacement of whites from America (and the rest of the world), but you seem to have a particular dislike of Jews.
That dislike seems to be a common element between you and other commenters. Dorothea wants Jews confined to ghettoes in this country (and I assume others as well), but apparently not allowed a country of their own. It's okay to send unassimilable Mexicans to Mexico, Muslims to the dar al Islam, Communist Chinese to China, Jews to... ghettoes? When they have a multi-millenial attachment to the east shore of the Mediterranian? And you don't object.
You don't object, when the very solution Dorothea doesn't like appears to address all your stated complaints about the status quo. Your silence speaks volumes.
"I kindly invite you to stick your sanctimony about what should make me uncomfortable straight up your ass. Does that make you uncomfortable?"
I invited you to examine your premises with regard to that question. You had a chance to give me more information which might justify it (I'm well aware of the perfidy of e.g. Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, but I don't see why we need to do more than give Marxists the Ward Churchhill treatment), but you didn't bother. I'm not so much uncomfortable with your reply as disappointed. I'd like to see the border closed, the refugee-industrial complex shut down, the welfare subsidies of dysfunctional minorities ended, and illegal aliens repatriated along with their children, but I'm not going to get any useful informational or moral support from you.
First they came...
The moral of Niemoller's story is self-abnegation, because otherwise the evil "racist" "nazis" might come and get you. It works differently in practice today:
First they came for the Whites - and the jews and blacks and mestizos and asians all came running to join in, because they didn't like Whites anyway. And then all the "people of color" lived happily ever after. (Well actually they'll be at each others' throats next, but that's not how the myth goes.)
I'm still not getting any sense that this is of any concern to you. After jews you seem most concerned for atheists. What's next on your list, sexual deviants?
I've not seen a single Mexican or Muslim or Chinese who expressed discomfort about the displacement of whites from America (and the rest of the world), but you seem to have a particular dislike of Jews.
Yeah. You see the problem then. Of course non-Whites don't care about Whites. Makes perfect sense to me. But in your mind it's all about who doesn't like jews.
I'd like to see the border closed, the refugee-industrial complex shut down, the welfare subsidies of dysfunctional minorities ended, and illegal aliens repatriated along with their children, but I'm not going to get any useful informational or moral support from you.
The common themes in your comments are: great concern for jews, no concern for Whites, some lip service about immigration, and trying to manipulate me with moralizing and guilt-tripping. Did I miss anything?
You've got the moral support business back-assward friend. I'm not on your blog haranguing you. You've drawn up quite an agenda. You'd better go off and get to work on it.
God bless you Chechar.
"The common themes in your comments are:"
Keeping score here.
"great concern for jews"
As if expatriation over ghettoization is "great concern".
"no concern for Whites"
As if wanting to end racial preferences, importation of competition, rigid enforcement of immigration law and an end to subsidy of minorities (removing the burden on whites, including myself) is "no concern".
"some lip service about immigration"
As if ending the 125,000/month influx and deporting 20 million illegals plus de-naturalizing "anchor babies" is "lip service".
"and trying to manipulate me with moralizing and guilt-tripping."
Trying to make you aware of the pitfalls of government power, among other things.
Score: 0 for 4.
"Did I miss anything?"
Only all of it, and hoping that you might have information which would help me convince people to support some subset of your desired ends even though I cannot agree with your means. Things like arguments to trip up anti-white Jews at Q&A sessions; wouldn't you just love to pull a Helen Thomas on a bunch of apologists for mass immigration?
But if you'd rather alienate anyone who doesn't agree with 100% of your program, that's your choice.
Anon, you're obviously very energetic, and trying hard to mouth the right words, but the big red flag is your arrogant hypocrisy. You're applying most of your energy to attacking someone who in your own estimation might be on your side, supposedly for attacking you. And boo hoo, what a tragedy it is when it's done to you!
I think you came here not for help or information but to cause trouble. You're the aggressor, and in a series of slimy ways you keep trying to pin that aggression, among other things, on me. It's not working, and every comment you add has only made your insincerity more obvious.
What's wrong with ghettos? It would have been much better for all those millions of Russian and Ukranian intellectuals and farmers if they had been confined to ghettos instead of being ruthlessly exterminated by the Jewisn Bolsheviks. As a Catholic, I cannot condone extermination of any race or people;so ghettos it would have to be. Ghettos worked for hundreds of years until the Protestants emancipated the jews and let the genie out of the bottle. I believe that Jews have been cursed; they are not supposed to have a country.They are destined to wander the earth till the end of times.
If you are an atheist as you claim, what moral objection can you have to ghettos or extermination? Isn't it all a Darwinian question of survival of the fittest?
"How dare you criticise us?"
I'm sorry, did I miss a sign which said "Only Approved Dogmas Allowed"?
I'm criticizing your prescription, Dorothea: "I think Jews should be confined to certain areas, ghettos, as they were under the Catholics and forbidden from excercising certain professions such as banking and teaching,as they were in the Byzantine empire. They should also have no voting rights ." I'm not saying you're wrong (though the huge change in Constitutional powers required would cause a cascade of wrenching shifts—that much is proven by the way our government [ab]uses every new power it gets), I'm saying you haven't thought things through.
Let's start with the conflict between your prescription (above) and your view that "it was the Protestant emancipation of the Jews which is the source of all our troubles." I strongly suspect that you want to re-establish a high-trust, non-clannish society to rebuild social capital and get rid of the burdens of policing elite corruption. However, a high-trust, non-clannish society is not compatible with holding large numbers of people in ghettoes. They are going to become sympathetic figures even more than the southern slaves were. You're going to go right back to emancipation.
There's already another "solution" on the east shore of the Mediterranian, but you have a religious objection to this: "I believe that Jews have been cursed; they are not supposed to have a country." They already have a country. Are you willing to pay the bill to move Israelis to ghettoes and then pay to keep them confined? Fight a nuclear state whose population would see that as a prelude to another Holocaust? Not that you'd get that far; anyone who introduced a bill to do this wouldn't survive the next election (with the possible exceptions of Bobby Rush and Keith Ellison).
If you are really concerned about problems from jews, you'd see the value of object lessons as warnings to the overly-sympathetic. As someone whose taxes are paying for the prosecution of Sholom Rubashkin, I would prefer that the burden of corruption be borne by his co-religionists. I would rather the scandals be far away. Wouldn't you rather be able to say "aren't you glad we don't have to deal with that here?" Ghettoes don't do that.
I don't see why you disagree with Captainchaos. His position is at least consistent.
"If you are an atheist as you claim, what moral objection can you have to ghettos or extermination?"
It's the Golden Rule, which transcends religion.
Well, regardless of what keys he presses in response to that, one reason Anon shouldn't be regarded as an ally is his predilection for attacking allies.
"one reason Anon shouldn't be regarded as an ally is his predilection for attacking allies."
Napoleon Bonaparte said, "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." I'm interrupting, without apology. If you won't take constructive criticism, I have probably mis-judged you.
I'd suggest additional targets for your investigation, such as the Group of 88 at Duke University (which railroaded the white lacrosse players but utterly ignored a sexual assault with a firearm involved at a black fraternity), but I see that you are fixated on certain things. That fixation will make your efforts ineffective.
For some reason I cannot understand, eight comments have mysteriously disappeared from one of my latest posts at The West's Darkest Hour, including one of my own.
Have you had the same problem here, Tan?
I have not, though I have noticed a couple of the most recent comments were duplicated. I think it's a blogger problem. Mangan referred to it earlier today.
But that Mangan thread is now gone, isn't it? (Or did Mangan talked about it in one of the older threads?)
Tanstaafl,
Please... Obsessed with Jews and Israel... Nah, interested in the phenomenon called "Auster fallout" which Is incredibly prevalent among the atheist "right."
Also interested in this new atheist "right" that thinks it can lead an American ethno-nationalist movement while being steeped in anti-Supremacy. An anti-Supremacy that merely has it crying foul about the Jews. There was another anti-Supremacy movement that did the same thing and reached a quite inevitable result.
the phenomenon called "Auster fallout" which Is incredibly prevalent among the atheist "right."
Yeah, exactly, everybody else is crazy.
Tanstaafl,
Nah... It's just the cognitive dissonance between desiring an American ethno-state and one being steeped in atheism, i.e., anti-Supremacy.
It's your atheism that seems to form your opinion on Auster and consequently, his Jewish "loyalty."
I don't believe your problem is atheism.
Thordaddy, you are hereby invited to type your repetitive nonsense elsewhere.
Post a Comment
<< Home