Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old December 22nd, 2011 #1
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Default How you shouldn’t view the Jews: A Reply to Dr. D

How you shouldn’t view the Jews: A Reply to Dr. D

Part I


Recently browsing through the Blogosphere; as I sometimes do when I am not feeling up to conducting research, writing another book or working through a novel, I came across an article by a chap who writes under the pseudonym; ‘Dr. D’, at the ‘Sarah Maid of Albion’ blog. The article concerned is entitled: ‘How should we view the Jews?’ Unfortunately the article is from July 2010 so it is very slightly dated, but as it isn’t too old I have taken the view that it is worth replying to it from the perspective of an educated anti-Semitism. As ‘Dr. D’ is courteous and thoughtful in his writing I shall observe the academic pleasantries as opposed to my preferred polemical style on SC.

D starts off by juxtaposing the two most common forms of non-jewish reaction to jews: the philo-Semitic (the jews are generally good) and the anti-Semitic (the jews are generally bad). His example of the philo-Semitic camp (most Evangelical Christians [well in the US anyway]) is reasonable, but his example of the anti-Semitic camp (the Protocols of Zion proponents) is highly misleading. This is unfortunate as D remarks that ‘we should first know something about’ the jews before we form an opinion: I would point out that D unfortunately has not followed his own creed here as it is plain as day that he knows very little about opponents of the jews (historically or currently) or even the jews in some instances.

I am sure D would disagree upon reading my comments here, but it is worth understanding that although the Protocols of Zion are the most famous anti-jewish text in this day and age: their believers were never the majority of anti-Semites as far as I can ascertain but rather a very vocal minority (rather like pagans in the Third Reich). Unfortunately some authors on the Protocols; who are often jewish, have propounded a large number of myths surrounding their reception and the belief in them beyond the early years of their mass publication in the West (i.e. from 1917 to the mid-1920s).

Be that as it may be: D’s example of the anti-Semitic camp is poorly chosen as it represents only one strand (and not even a major one) of anti-jewish thought and certainly doesn’t in any way equate to the widespread and unusual belief systems of Evangelical Christians regarding jewishness. A better example that D could have used would have been the anti-Semitic groups of the 1880s and 1890s in France and Germany, which; although less useful rhetorically speaking, would more accurately describe anti-jewish thought in both its historic and modern contexts in much the same way that the Evangelical Christian example does (perhaps more so than D is aware).

I am somewhat surprised at D’s comment that the West ‘enjoys’ the ‘benefits’ of a ‘Judeo-Christian heritage’ regardless of one’s present beliefs, which is a tautology as it simply reasserts the premise without giving the required clarity as to why this is the case. Disproving such an assertion is simple enough as it merely requires a thought experiment.

To wit: if; as D posits, the West has acquired ‘benefits’ from its ‘Judeo-Christian heritage’ then surely it has equally acquired ‘benefits’ from various genocidal actions that it has undertaken round the world, which therefore means that the ‘anti-Imperialist’ arguments of ‘national liberation’ used by Marxists and leftists in their various different shades of crimson are correct. In essence: you can’t have your cake and eat it. All or none must be true: unless we do as Nietzsche exclaimed and get back to the core of the issues concerned.

The core of the issue is; of course, biology and its necessary concomitant when trying to understand any biological group: sub-species (better known as race). I don’t propose to point out at length the need to understand history as an exponential and evolving series of individual and group conflicts, but rather to simply observe that the ‘Judeo-Christian heritage’ that D wishes to ascribe such positive values to and derive benefit from has equally been applied to very different peoples with very different effects. Need I remind D of the huge gulf that separate say the Church of Rome from the Coptic Christians of Egypt and the apparent lack of value the Copts have derived from their ‘Judeo-Christian heritage’ in comparison to the West?

After all if it is the ‘values’ and ‘spirituality’ that make the man: then surely we are dealing with the long-debunked theory of the Tabula Rasa (the ‘Blank Slate’) here (which essentially posits a pseudo-Lamarckian view of human biology and the resultant veiled denial of Mendelian genetics)? I don’t wish to ascribe views; that D may not hold, to him, but I would question whether D has fully understood the necessary implications of his arguments; whether he views them as rhetorical or factual, in a wider context.

Thus the objective constant; per the scientific method, cannot be the ‘Judeo-Christian heritage’ of the West that D puts forward, but rather it has to be an objective constant that does differ and does dispassionately alter the socio-cultural expression of a given idea and we have just such an objective constant in biological groups also known as races.

D also incorrectly asserts that the ‘basis’ of ‘civil law’ is Christian (actually Roman and Greek), our customs (a seriously mixed bag often with non-Christian roots) and that everything we know has grown out of this ‘Judeo-Christian’ background. I’d agree with the latter point to an extent, but again D is unfortunately guilty of overstating his case (and in a sense misrepresenting it by doing so) as he doesn’t clarify that it is only a part of the background.

If ‘Judeo-Christian’; a term I personally object to, ideas have played a large background part to things then so have earlier non-Christian ones as well as later secular ones by virtue of the same logic. Need I remind D that the Italian Renaissance has not without reason been styled as the re-emergence of paganism in Europe as it resulted from the rediscovery of pagan art and intellectuals, of which stories are still told (for example the artists who paid to be lowered into Nero’s palace so they could study and paint the luxurious frescos).

In essence: you cannot ascribe single causative status to the so-called ‘Judeo-Christian heritage’ as it is but one of many worldviews that necessarily have impacted the values and ideas that D holds dear if we choose to look at history in terms of ideas, philosophies and intellectual fashions/fetishes. It is also noteworthy that in ascribing to a ‘Judeo-Christian heritage’ a causative power then D is subscribing to the position that an abstract idea; as what on earth is the ‘Judeo-Christian heritage’ specifically (it could literally be almost anything), causes an objective fact (the power of the West) to occur. That is rather like suggesting that because the Prophet Mohammed was the Chosen of Allah then the mountain must therefore have sprouted legs and gone to Mohammed in spite of the objective fact that we know mountains cannot move anywhere on their own.

D then makes the statement that if we should have an opinion about the jews then we should know something about with which I generally occur given that I believe that if one deals with the reality of the jew then the world will applaud anti-Semites; like me, but if we don’t deal with that reality and make the jew a cruel and inhuman monster then the world will have justified contempt for anti-Semites like me. That said while it is clear to me that D has read some literature on the jews: I would question the factual nature of a lot of his assertions about both Judaism and jews.

After an orthodox; if misguided, evangelical exegesis on the origin of the jews D makes a categorical error when he asserts that ‘to be a Jew came to be one who followed the Law of Moses’ as that leaves out the meaning of the ‘Chosen People’; i.e. that that status is handed down from father to son; if you will, not from a confession of religious faith. The jews were already; at this time, associating jewishness not with confession of faith, but with being descended from the Israelites that Moses allegedly brought out of Egypt (600,000 if one believes the Gemara). I am this surprised to find that D leaves out any mention of the Prophets Nehemiah and Ezra; for example, who preach that exact doctrine to the Israelites and note that while he cites a passage from Genesis he does not cite others that contradict his assertion of a confession of faith being sufficient. The only example I can immediately recall from the Tanakh where a confession of faith is thought to be sufficient to be regarded as a jew; of a sort, is Ruth the Moabitess who is something of an exception to the rule and is probably part of the origin; or at least the rabbinic justification, for jewishness being governed by the maternal line in all instances except for the Kohanim and Levites (where it is the paternal line that matters) from at least the era of the academies (but probably far earlier).

This lack of recognition of the biological nature of jewishness at this early juncture means that the remainder of D’s presentation on the history of the jewish kingdoms in Palestine and the sects at the time of Jesus is flawed. He further compounds his error by claiming that ‘Judaism is what makes a Jew, at least historically’ which is; I am afraid, not correct as while Judaism has served as the tool which has kept the jewish community together: the jewish sense of mission; even in this early period, and of having a unique and separate identity is obvious from even a brief reading of the academic literature on the subject.

A pointed case is the Hellenizing; i.e. secular, jews; a representative example being Philo of Alexandria: who while not exactly orthodox worshippers of Hashem sought to reconcile Greek and Latin philosophy with Judaism as it then existed. One wonders how D is to explain that if Judaism was the whole of the jewish experience at this early juncture: then how does explain the explicitly jewish individuals; like Herod Agrippa II, who acted in the jewish communities interests in Rome, but were not even slightly interested in Judaism?

Simply put: I am afraid D cannot do so within his outlined ideological position but rather uses an over-generalization to Christianise; for lack of a better term, Judaism and to make it more like later Christianity than later Judaism. One can quite easily see from D’s comments that he is using Saint Paul’s conception of the meaning of ‘gentile’ rather than the one common to Judaism at the time. This is probably merely an accidental expression of D’s own beliefs than anything malicious or deliberately misleading, but it never-the-less is dangerously lacking in context and does significantly mislead the reader.

D fails to highlight; due to this fundamental error, for example the well-known links between the Essenes and the Zealots: nor does he highlight that both groups started life as extremist variants within the Pharisees. The Essenes choosing a life of seclusion and abstinence following the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ in; what is sometimes argued as, an early form of monasticism. The Zealots fundamentally believed the same thing as the Essenes, but differed in the belief that they were the hand of Yahweh and could bring about the coming of the jewish Messiah by fighting the Romans tooth and nail as well as purifying Israel of those members who collaborated with the original; in jewish eyes, ‘evil empire’.

The difference between the two is perhaps best understood by putting it in the context of modern Judaism: those religious jews who are also Zionists believe that by recreating a jewish state in Palestine they can hasten the advent of the jewish Messiah (like the Zealots) and those religious jews who are anti—Zionists who believe that recreating a jewish state in Palestine does not hasten; and in fact prevents, the advent of the jewish Messiah (like the Essenes). Neither doubt each other’s fundamental religious beliefs, but rather their disagreement is about how to get to the desired state (the Messianic times when the jews rule the world).

Once again the lack of understanding on D’s part that Judaism both at this time and later followed a biological definition of what a jew was comes to the fore. As he fails to note that none of the four parties he mentions; the Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes and Zealots, all believed that membership of Israel was inherited not confessed and that their primary objection was not that non-jews were in Palestine, but that they were subordinated; as the Chosen of Yahweh, to a gentile power (the ‘Rome and Persia’ of the Mishnah). As well as that the definition of a gentile was such that one could not truly convert and usually became a ‘God Fearer’ (a concept from which the Noahide Laws derive whence a gentile unconditionally dedicates themselves to the service of jews as Yahweh’s ‘Chosen nation’) or at very best a ‘jewish soul born into an impure gentile body’ (meaning one is a lower class of jew, not a member of Israel as such and at a hereditary disadvantage in marital, social and religious terms etc).

D’s comments that Judaism is a legalistic religion; with which one can only agree as Arnold Toynbee did when he called it a ‘dead’ religion of ritual and form alone (which follows; for example, Voltaire’s mischievous critique of Judaism), and that ‘most’ of the Judaism of today has roots; in this particular epoch, in the ideas of the Pharisees is correct. However D then moves into a very confused discussion of Judaism and jewish identity when he tries to justify his claim that Judaism; as a confession of faith, makes the jew.

D doesn’t tell us why; after acknowledging that religious and non-religious jews exist within the same identity with a shared historical narrative and assumptions, ‘religious faith’ is the single causative factor of this shared identity; which some politically left-wing elements have sought to conflate with the biological concept of the nation through the medium of the term ‘national identity’, but rather makes the odd claim that ‘despite religious faith, they [the jews] exhibit all of the other characteristics of all Jews.’

This is yet another tautology as it doesn’t explain why; after splitting the jews into religious and secular (which is a gross oversimplification any way you look at it), jews may still be understood as a religious community with non-religious jews exhibiting religious ‘characteristics’. The proverbial ‘elephant in the room’ here is that Judaism defines jewishness biologically and therefore the ‘other characteristics’ of this ‘religious group’ are; in fact, the characteristics of the jewish biological group. There is simply no way around that, but D refuses to mention it although it is clear to me that he understands; but does not wish to or cannot accept, that this is indeed the case.

-------------


This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...ply-to-dr.html
__________________

Last edited by Karl Radl; December 22nd, 2011 at 07:48 PM.
 
Old December 22nd, 2011 #2
Armstrong
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 5,414
Default

Reading some of the passages in the Zohar about "Messiah" indicates to me they missed the Messiah the first time.

Does anyone concur with that assessment?
 
Old January 2nd, 2012 #3
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Default

Part II


D then asks the valid rhetorical question: ‘Why do we tend to distrust the Jews?’ He proceeds to assert that ‘very few Jews are violent’, ‘very few Jews are known to steal’ and ‘very few Jews engage in property damage or vandalism’. Now unfortunately for D all three of these statements; with the possible exception of the second due to the qualifier; ‘known’, that D has inserted, are quite incorrect.

Jews are actually quite a violent people, but not in the way that D is thinking of violence. It is true that although few jews; outside of the Revisionist Zionist community, will go out and physically beat people up today: it has actually been quite common the past. A former director of the Anti-Defamation of B’nai Brith; Nathan Perlmutter, proudly tells the story in his book; ‘The Real Anti-Semitism in America’, of how he once beat up an old man in the street for simply expressing criticism of the jews. Perlmutter sees this as a positive event (hence why he recounts it with pride) and a not dissimilar attitude to violence has been taken by the Israeli state in general and jews historically. Good examples may be found in the jewish gangsters of the early twentieth century; most famously ‘Murder Inc.’, the early jewish Bolsheviks who; during the Russian civil war, routinely killed Rabbis and Hasidim as well as gentiles and the three bloody jewish revolts against the Romans which were extremely violent undertakings that stretched beyond the bounds of Palestine to cities such as Alexandria and Cyrene.

That said however D does; in fact, have some reason to make the claim that jews are not a violent people as such: in that jews as a rule of thumb have never been wonderful soldiers and tend towards violence when the opponent will find it very hard or impossible to meaningfully strike back. As D later notes jewish culture is primarily oral in nature and Judaism believes; at least on the face of it, that to elicit the truth one should debate till one is blue in the face. This oral culture combined with the jewish method of parenting; which inspires the creation of the proverbial ego monster, has further created a strong desire among jews for vengeance: a desire which is heightened by the great Maimonides’ ruling that the eternal enemies of jews; the tribe of Amalek, have descendants still on the earth who the jews are divinely commanded to exterminate.

If one combines this with the belief; often overstated but never-the-less existent, of jewish powerlessness within the Diaspora to attain their goals by direct means then one realises that the lively jewish interest in revenge and fulfilling it only when the chance of effective retaliation is slightly is actually a learned behaviour. Jews simply don’t believe in being violent in the same way that D and myself; as non-jews, do in that to us violence is something to be used directly and without guile. Whereas a jew does not think in quite the same way rather seeing open violence as ‘goyische’ (something that only gentiles would do); similar to how jews perceive body-building and gymnastics outside of the Israeli military, and that violence to a jew should be used to ‘sate’ ones feelings of revenge when one has the chance to do so. This is why; for example, jews tended not to be front-line soldiers in the World Wars but behind-the-lines troops or in support functions.

It also why; as authors such as Rich Cohen have pointed out, jewish units were not often allowed into occupied Germany by the Western Allies because jews were well known to want to do things like ‘rape BDM girls’ and generally murder Germans who; as Elliot Horowitz has noted, they perceived as representatives as amalek. Similarly the USSR encouraged just such behaviour among all its troops, but particularly among its heavily jewish security and blocking detachments.

D; in his analysis, has left out this and has instead made an unjustified assumption in telling us that jews are not prone to violence. However D does not also state that jews are; like it or not, historically and currently disproportionately in positions of high influence within the media and communications industry so it is not very likely that any overt violence caused by jews will be widely acknowledged and spread by most media and communications industry outlets outside of possibly the local area. This stands in direct parallel; as I hope D is aware, with the media and communications industry attitude regarding any violent act; in word or deed, that is committed against a jewish person or group, which will; with near certainty, be widely acknowledged and spread by most media and communications industry outlets. I might further add; without stretching the logic beyond the evidence, that this difference between how the media and communications industry treats jew-on-gentile and gentile-on-jew violence suggests that jewish priorities and interests are predominant in the media and communications industry and that therefore the jews exercise both considerable and highly significant influence in that industry.

D’s next assertion; that ‘very jews are known to steal’, is tied to this media and communications industry dominance as D; as I intimated before, has introduced the qualifier; ‘known’, into the equation and in that fact D is largely correct: if a jew steals then it isn’t likely to be well known outside a few ‘too-large-to-conceal’ issues where a jew has primarily or even significantly stolen from other jews who then; in a form of group sanction, reject the jews concerned by throwing the glare of coverage on the media and communications industry on him or her. Two obvious examples of this are the Ponzi scheme of jewish financier Bernard Madoff; many of whose investors were jewish (including Yeshiva University), and the Agriprocessors scandal where this top producer of Kashrut meat products was found; at their main plant in Postville, Ohio, to be in gross violation of both United States law governing the slaughter of animals and Judaism’s halakhic rulings for what is to be considered kosher and what should be considered treif.

In both cases the implications were significant and widespread within the jewish community and in both cases the spotlight of the media and communications industry was reactively directed on those jews concerned. This does not mean however that jews are not prone to theft, but rather that; as with violence, their theft is not commonly that of stealing old ladies’ handbags in the street rather they tend to; as Richard Lynn has recently observed, go in for ‘white collar crime’ meaning intelligent theft that is much harder to detect and prove as it offers considerably more reward and incentive than snatching handbags in the street. This fits into the assertion; which D later makes, that jews have considerable business acumen: they do, but that business acumen is easily (like the physical strength of an able young male) turned to illegal ends if a suitable opportunity presents itself and the individual concerned is either suitably desperate or believes he simply will not be caught.

D unfortunately does not make this link and once again I believe this to be because D; although asserting that is necessary to know something of the jews to have an opinion on them, has not followed his own sage advice and done his research properly.

Unfortunately for D we do know that jews have something of a reputation as thieves historically speaking and this reputation is not unfounded as if we; for example, read the memoirs of Gluckel of Hameln; until fairly recently the earliest detailed historical record from a jewish woman we have, then we find several mentions of jews acting both as thieves and confidence tricksters. She informs us that these individuals were not just jews of bad family and upbringing but included highly thought-of yeshiva students. One finds not dissimilar accounts of jewish theft if one carefully reads the Torah for example with Joseph using trickery and con-artistry to steal from the Egyptian people; via the medium of tax farming and confiscation, during the ‘years of plenty’ and thus creating an artificially high price of grain when the ‘years of famine’ kicked in.

Thus unfortunately D is incorrect once again as he appears to be thinking predominately in situ and assuming that what appears to be the case today is what must have been the case yesterday. It is also most unfortunate that D does not apply his not inconsiderable talents to the Biblical story, which paint a most unflattering portrait of jews as a nation; to paraphrase Strabo, of murderers and thieves.

The third assertion that D makes is perhaps the least incorrect of the three when he asserts that jews do not often engage in damaging property or vandalism: on the face of it D is quite correct here. Few jews tend to engage in say spray painting walls and mindless vandalism outside of cases like that of a jewish female student in New York who claimed that she was being persecuted by anti-Semites after her door had swastikas daubed over it (which; as before stated, the media and communications industry were not slow to seize upon), but was subsequently discovered to have been ‘persecuting’ herself via footage from a hidden camera of her painting the swastikas. One also brings to mind the firebombing of the Institute for Historical Review in California by the Jewish Defence League for no more reason that said Institute had said things of which jews in general; and the JDL especially, disapproved.

As D’s wording is specific one must concede he is right as far as it goes, but the problem with D’s pointis actually that it is too specific and misleads the readers by tacitly suggesting that jews do not engage in vandalism and the infliction of damage of any kind on others. This is not the case precisely because while jews do not tend to throw Molotov cocktails; for much the same reason as they don’t tend to be overtly violent unless there is little change of effective retaliation against them, they will engage in other forms of vandalism most notably in the form of ad hominem or put more simply: deliberately vandalising a person’s reputation. Examples of this are almost innumerable but prominent among them are ex-President Jimmy Carter; who was and is called an ‘anti-Semite’ by jews worldwide for nothing more than offering a trenchant critique of Israel’s dealings with the Palestinians, and ex-Congressman Paul Findley whose reputation has been subject to long-running smears based on his opposition to what has been termed ‘the Israel Lobby’ in the governing circles of the United States.

So while D may be somewhat correct due to his specific charges he; unintentionally I think, misleads his reader into believing that the jews do not often commit vandalism as a group.

D then; after his three assertions about the jews, makes another surprising claim: that he doesn’t understand why; if there are so many equally blameable gentile high financiers, jewish banking families; particularly the Rothschild dynasty, are singled out as being a major party responsible for financing wars. D wonders; with reasonable justification, why jews are singled out and gentiles are not.

Unfortunately this is once again a false dilemma as it asserts that jews are always singled out specifically as being the agent of wars, which simply isn’t true. It isn’t the jews that tend to get singled out, but rather the Rothschild dynasty who; to answer D’s point directly, are largely responsible for their own sinister reputation as they used; and have continued to use, it to further their business and private interests. If D were to consult a standard history of the Rothschilds such as Count Egon Corti’s or more recently Niall Fergusson’s then he would understand that the Rothschild mystique is largely of Rothschild devising. The most famous example of which is Nathan Rothschild’s knowledge of the outcome of the battle of Waterloo: it is a myth, but a myth that the Rothschild family has used to its great advantage.

The jewish community has not helped matters here as it has historically used the Rothschild dynasty as an indication; to paraphrase Cecil Roth, of the ‘contribution of jews to civilisation’ and the alleged integral part the jew has played in western civilisation. D does not account for this jewish self-promotion in his analysis, which once again demonstrates the unfortunate reality that D has not listened to his own advice.

Due to this unfortunate error in his research D’s dilemma is a false one precisely because the point he is trying to make it that jews are unfairly stigmatised for their business acumen when similar examples of gentiles are not, but he doesn’t account for the self-promotion that has allowed this stigmatisation to take place. In any case however this stigmatisation is not without some truth as jews have historically dominate; and to a lesser extent currently dominate, the banking and financial professions in significant disproportion to their representation in a given population. This has meant when they do get involved in politics they have a large capital base on which they can call for assistance should they require it.

D also ignores that throughout history many banking families; not just the Rothschilds, have been stigmatised as too powerful: a good example being the Fugger family who were the Imperial Bankers to the Holy Roman Empire as well as numerous European princes and other potentates. It isn’t just the Rothschilds as D claims, but rather that the Rothschilds (and the Warburgs) are the most recent examples of powerful banking families who use their financial clout and business acumen to wield political and intellectual clout as they see fit. D’s complaint that the argument as to whether the Rothchilds should have lent money to the countries of the world during the 19th and 20th centuries to enable them to fight wars is another tautology on his part. This is precisely because his complaint brings us no closer to clarifying his actual point and position on the matter.

Indeed I would point out that D is essentially taking the Rothschilds out of their context here after trying to put them in context to defend the jews. To explain: D asserts that uniquely jewish business acumen is; partly or wholly, responsible for the Rothschild rise to financial prominence, which then inevitably givens them an unspecified amount; although presumably large, amount of political and intellectual influence, but then wonders why people notice that the Rothschilds are jewish (with supposed uniquely jewish business acumen) and not notice the; presumably, not so especially or uniquely talented gentile bankers.

It is; as you might say, a Catch 22 that D does not explain, but rather unfortunately leaves it to his reader to try and figure out the point he is trying to make.

----------------------

This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...ply-to-dr.html
__________________
 
Old April 2nd, 2012 #4
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Default Part III

Part III


D next moves on to observing that; while Freemasons, Boy Scouts and others, have something of a bond in relation to their perceived group: this is uniquely powerful among jews.

Personally I would dispute that the bond is that strong, but rather that I would say that the unique nature of jewish psychology (i.e. being egocentric) combined with Judaism's savage legalism (i.e. a means of keeping strong individualists together by trying to curb or cull those who tend to betray the group for their own purposes) has created a group that will ruthlessly take advantage of each other and others while at the same time being utterly terrified of anything that is not jewish, which manifests itself in the typical Freudian sense of expressing personal and group superiority over everything and everyone else (or the concepts schmoozing and chutzpah in jewish parlance). Only once that fear has been somewhat dispelled by the relatively sudden rise to overt power of jews have they begun to express their individualism in ways that are more familiar to non-jews. Ergo why more traditional secular and religious jews have both called on jews to stop 'marrying out' and behaving 'goyische'.

D moves on to state that jews have historically; unlike many other similar 'stateless' groups, kept in contact with jews in other countries even when that contact has been against the interests of their host country. A good example is afforded by the contact between jews in Christian and Islamic lands during the various racially-based wars between the two generalised religious confessions (although the Western Christians were just as prone to kill Middle Eastern Christians as they were Muslims). The jews of the West and Middle East provided a ready-made trading system that could be used to bring spices, silks and other high-value goods to the West, which was exploited by both Christians and Muslims. Likewise jews also provided a diplomatic contact route whereby Christians and Muslims could arrange peace treaties during periods of military and economic exhaustion.

Indeed the jews benefited both materially and legally from this relationship and when the jews of Spain were expelled in the aftermath of the La Guardia ritual murder case in 1492: they were given sanctuary and actively invited to come to the Ottoman Empire by its Sultan through his Exilarch/Nasi (the powerful representative of the jewish community to the Sultan). This increasing wealth and influence; as well as their habitual pushiness and material extravagance, lead to their being fairly and unfairly targeted for attack by the common people, the clergy, the nobles and even monarchs.

One may observe; as Jacob Neusner and Michael Toch have done on more than one occasion, with some amusement that in spite of frequent claims to the contrary: the majority of attacks on the jews were perpetrated by the common people and the rank and file members of the clergy, while the upper echelons of the Church, the nobles and monarchs tended to be the protectors of the jews from the people rather than instigators of pogroms as Leon Poliakov; among others, has sought to assert.

In essence anti-jewish action has historically been a spontaneous and popular beast rather than the top down conspiracy that Simon Dubnow, Salo Baron and Carey McWilliams have; for example, portrayed it as. However by that very nature the anti-jewish violence and action of history tends to be rather unsystematic and short-lived: only when the interests of the population and those in positions of power and influence (as Benjamin Ginsberg has argued) have converged has systematic and sustained action against jews and their influence been possible.

This is the reason why; as is so often observed by those seeking to explain away historical anti-jewish violence and action, anti-jewish legislation and action at the legal level; such as expulsions, mass baptisms and trials, tend to come in batches or 'historical clusters'. Since as with many things intellectual and political: action at that level is governed by fashion, the will to implement and the mood of the populace. So when say a ritual murder trial occurred in one region then it tended to spread to other towns in various forms whereby extreme jewish and/or gentile behaviour is provoked by the anti-jewish violence or action nearby: leading to the spread and frequent escalations of hostilities between the parties.

Historically such events tend to be ended by those in power stepping in to stop the escalating conflict as 'bad for business' so-to-speak as the jews were valuable sources of revenue via lending (which they were very powerfully represented; but not totally dominant, in) and a civil war with most of the town trying to hang a powerful minority for their crimes is hardly conducive to maximising one's income or allowing you to pick a fight with a neighbouring province over your wife's grandfather's cousin's vague historic claim to their title deed.

This leads us then to the recognition that the jews were essentially convenient brokers between social classes, religious confessions and racial groups. Thus pointing to the weakness of D's general analysis in his failure to recognise that while jews were a go-between and had trading networks: they used not only their trading networks but their contacts to their own advantage and never in the interest of the country in which they were living in unless it was parallel or somewhat aligned with their own perceived group and individual interests. Indeed we know of cases of parallel diplomacy between different jewish families and dynasties whereby one family/dynasty was operating completely at odds with the other: thus the need to differentiate on an individual basis between the jews as a generalised group and as individuals operating in their own perceived personal interests.

I would also briefly remark that jews have not kept in contact with all elements of their tribe and over the years jews have lost contact with numerous outlier elements of the jewish community such as the small communities of jews in India, China, Ethiopia and the Caucasian area. That said the three major groupings that we see historically; Ashkenazim, Sephardim and Mizhrahim, have kept in close contact with each other: although they have frequently been at odds in terms of their interests and elements of their cultural and religious beliefs.

Next D makes a bad factual mistake when he asserts that the 'jews have always been in a minority where ever they have lived', which is a common myth bandied about by philo-Semites and those trying to argue that the jews are 'eternal victims'. The idea that jews have always been in a minority where ever they have lived is easily refuted by pointing out that in the Pale of Settlement it was not uncommon for jews to represent over half (i.e.the majority) of a given settlement and to rule it for all intents and purposes. One could also cite the example of the city of Salonika in Greece, which until the Second World War was over 70 percent jewish in terms of population.

Hardly a 'persecuted minority' then historically: are they?

I would also add that for most of the Diaspora: jews have also had the right to self-government by their own rabbinical authorities granted to them, which again disrupts D's argument as it removes the notion that the jews were 'persecuted' by the legal authorities and had no recourse to their own forms of justice. Indeed when jews were freed from; what is frequently called, the Kehilla; or Kahal, system in Eastern Europe: they frequently denounced it or tried to bring it down (which was officially although not actually achieved in 1844). Indeed one of the least known passages of the Russian civil war is the war the jewish revolutionaries and 'Red Guards' waged against the Kehilla system and its primarily Hasidic supports.

We can forgive D the mistake in many respects because it is such a common myth although I am tempted to recall D's own words again that 'it is necessary to know something about the jews' before proceeding to talk and opine about them.

Thus when D asserts that jewish actions were 'survival tactics' he is wrong in the specific sense in that the logic and 'facts' he uses to justify his assertion are incorrect, but he is correct in the general sense in that jewish behaviour is a survival strategy but not the one he is thinking of.

D does however correctly arrive at the laudable conclusion; albeit on somewhat shaky factual knowledge, that when jews talk of 'survival' they are not talking about the survival of gentiles, but rather the survival of the jews.

This is most recently notable in Israel's rather transparent increasing interest in the possibilities offered by very small and localised groups of jewish emigrants (who were largely cut off from the rest of jewry till the 19th and 20th centuries) who lived in both India and China and through whom they can use to press for better relations and 'mutual understanding'. As a young lady of my acquaintance fairly recently brought to my attention Israeli and American jewry have even started writing policy documents on how to bring Israel and China; in particular, closer together that has been greased by the ability of Israel to sell China otherwise off-limits US military technology on the side.

It is little surprising to those of us who have watched jewry for any significant length of time that they have begun casting around for a new 'protector' for Israel: given the increasingly vocal tide of anti-Israel and anti-jewish criticism in the United States and Europe and their own 'advocacy' organisations general inability to silence it by screaming 'anti-Semitism' and 'holocaust' at their top of their lungs. Indeed as D does not note it is increasingly becoming intellectual open season on philo-Semitic jewish history, Judaism and more particularly Israel and its support networks.

It has yet to come anywhere near the scale of anti-jewish sentiment that was prevalent from the 1880s to the 1940s, but it is interesting to note that Alan Hart; in his three volume 'Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews', was correct when he suggested that because of Israel's actions anti-Semitism and anti-jewish criticism have not only made a come back but have become a thunder cloud on the horizon for jews around the world.

And this time the jews really have called 'wolf' too many times..

This is evident in the fact that D; to his credit, does make the apposite point that:

'The two may be quite different, and that causes us a lot of concern. What is good for the individual Jew, or for a group of Jews, may be deadly for our nation. And we must remember that Jews always see themselves as Jews first, and only secondarily as citizens of whatever nation they may belong to. Thus the Jews are seen as always being potential fifth columnists within our society. It is inherent in who they are. How can you trust someone like that?'

Here D is effectively telling us that the fact that jews are inherently both utterly selfish and obsessed with their jewishness to the active exclusion of gentiles, which is quite correct. He also rightly identifies that jews see jewish interests first; although I would personally correct D here in stating that jews see their personal individual interests first and if they correspond with perceived jewish group interests then all the better (as it provides an acceptable rationale for them), and are not particularly interested in gentile interests unless they correspond with their own.

This is; of course, perfectly natural as one should not really expect a donkey to put the interests of its rider first unless the interests of the rider correspond with those of the donkey. Hence why most donkeys are placid and allow themselves to be agreeable mounts where-as the few that don't frequently discover themselves removed from evolutionary competition because they ignored the interests of their rider and thought of themselves alone.

This is rather like the jews in that they do not easily identify their personal interests with those of gentiles and thus have historically had a tendency to try and 'buck'; as they say, and in doing so have tended to provoke massive popular resentment against them and then when they have found themselves in a tight spot they have tried to appeal to gentiles with perceived power to halt the majority because they can 'still be very useful to them'.

Hence rather like a schizophrenic donkey: jews tend to; as a group, alternately try and be the best friends of those in power while giving everyone else the evil eye and the occasional kick in the teeth when they think those in power aren't looking.

In this D tacitly agrees when he points out that jews have historically been viewed as a fifth column in most societies in which they have lived and; I might add, have done exactly what I stipulated above in that they have sought to profess their 'absolute loyalty' to those gentiles in positions of power while taking advantage of anyone else as far as is possible.

In some respects you have to admire the jews for it in that they have evolved a kind of schizophrenia which means they truly believe they have done nothing wrong (as it is always another personalities or somebody else's fault) and at the same time have happily done things which have almost deliberately provoked outpourings of resentment, hatred and violence (sometimes justified and other times not) on the part of the mass of gentiles in the belief that they are 'protected', 'safe' and always in the 'right' (as Yahweh's 'chosen people').

To answer D's rhetorical question; how can you trust the jews, the answer that you simply can't.

------------


This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...ply-to-dr.html
__________________

Last edited by Karl Radl; April 2nd, 2012 at 03:27 PM.
 
Old April 4th, 2012 #5
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Default Part IV

Part IV


D begins his penultimate section by again asking the rhetorical question: 'are jews really like that?'

This is an appropriate way to begin his D's discussion of his somewhat representative selection of the extraordinarily large body of evidence for the thesis that the jews are a negative element in the American body politic and a literal 'fifth column'. Indeed following his first rhetorical rhetorical question D promptly asks another: where he wonders how we can 'suspect a whole people?'

This is an unfortunate bit of phraseology on D's part as it assumes that group-based discrimination and/or judgement is something unusual in the life and behaviour of humans. Indeed in asking his second rhetorical question D forgets to point out that we make such judgments every day as when we see someone on the street then we analyse them based on own experience and that of others and decide if they are threat, a potential mate, somebody we could ask directions off etc. That momentary and almost unthinking analysis is the same thing that D is discussing, but rather than using our instincts to make snap decisions: we are using our intelligence to make; we believe, more considered and nuanced decisions.

Thus if we make these kind of decisions based on instinct every day: how is that making a similar decision based upon ones intellect is somehow problematic or suspect?

D's rhetorical reasoning is fundamentally flawed as we utilize our intellectual thought and influences to help exaggerate or suppress our instinctual responses to various situations.

So when a man sees a woman he may think her attractive and be inclined to try and see whether she is romantically and/or sexually interested in him, but then realise that because he is a Marxist this instinctual response is to be suppressed because it contravenes his intellectual ideology in that it 'objectifies and therefore degrades women'.

By contrast if a woman was walking alone in a dark street at night and she was feeling very uncomfortable her instinctual response might be to walk faster or focus very closely on her surroundings. However because she has say read several recent reports of attacks on lone women in the area she instead exaggerates her instinctual behaviour and phones a friend to come and pick her up in her car or decides to take much more publicly traversed route home.

What is going on in both these responses is the modification of instinctual human behaviour based on group discrimination or judgement based on previous intellectual experiences which have been used to modify behaviour to perceivably conform to intellectual expectations. Whether these expectations are justified is irrelevant to the behaviour modification as the individual considers them to be part of their internal intellectual cosmos and therefore behave to try to best conform to these perceived 'known facts'.

So when D rhetorically asks how we can 'suspect a whole people' then we can very simply answer that not only is this quite natural to do, but that we do it more or less every day!

D then cites a personal story from when he was a child that I quote in full below:

'As a boy, many long years ago, I lived down the street from the family of an Orthodox Rabbi. I often played with one of their sons. On several occasions, on Friday evenings, Mrs. Geller asked me to come into her kitchen to light the gas cook stove for her so she could warm the evening meal for the family. It was a simple matter of striking a match, turning on the gas, and waiting a moment for the flame to catch, but she could not do this because the Sabbath had begun and she could do no work on the Sabbath. She could not do it, but she saw no problem with asking a goy child to do it. She, a member of the Chosen People, could not do this because it violated one of the 613 points of the Pharisaic Law, but she saw no harm in asking me, one of the non–chosen and therefore expendable people, to do this because she was sure I was of no concern anyway. Thus reasons my friend the orthodox Jewish housewife! In the eyes of the Jews, they alone are the elect of God, they alone will be saved, and the rest of us really do not matter at all.'

It is clear in the above that D is relating a real event in his life as the story reads like the typical use of the Shabbos goy by an Orthodox family to do their work for them during the Shabbos celebrations. D's account of the striking of a match to light the gas on a stove so Mrs Geller could cook is something of the past these days as enterprising jews have invented all sorts of weird little gadgets for doing most; although not all, of the tasks that gentiles used to do for them on Shabbos.

Indeed D's point that the fact she could not do it herself, but saw nothing wrong with asking a non-jewish (goy) child to do it is quite the apt characterisation of the place envisaged for obedient gentiles in Judaism. If you are not born a member of Israel (i.e. a jew) then you have very few routes open to you: you can convert (which is very difficult and even then you are not an Israelite and are; as such, a lesser being) or you can follow the Noahide laws (and serve jews your whole life on the promises you will quickly become a spiritual Israelite on death).

Hardly a choice: is it?

D correctly implies that this is not a system that is inherently flattering towards those not born jewish when he talks about how non-jews are considered utterly expendable (but jews are not) in Judaism. A position that you find very occasionally denied by a few rabbis, but implicitly endorsed by the majority of them with the odd rabbi even going as far as to make it very plain that as a gentile you are not worth a proverbial jewish fingernail.

D makes it quite clear that he happily understands this saint and sinner dichotomy in Judaism when he declares that jews believe themselves to be the (biological) 'elect of God' as he introduces the qualification 'alone' thereby signifying that he has correctly identified the jewish self-belief in their uniqueness, chosen status and special mission from Yahweh to rule the non-jews.

He further qualifies this by pointing out that according to the jews 'they alone will be saved' and the 'rest of us do not matter at all'. This is unfortunately somewhat incorrect in that jews do not believe in being 'saved' per se (which is D juxtaposing his Christian beliefs onto Judaism); as they believe their jewishness by birth makes that a foregone conclusion, but rather assert that as born jews; if they have kept the Mitzvoth, then they will go straight to Gan Eden (roughly approximate to heaven). While those jews who have not obeyed the Mitzvoth or have become apostates will have to go through Gehenna (roughly approximate to purgatory) for a short time to make-up for their sins.

In contrast those gentiles who have converted to Judaism will have to go through Gehenna for a time regardless of whether they have kept the Mitzvoth faithfully or not as they are bodily impure and as such need to be magically turned; via the medium of suffering in Gehenna, into bodily pure jewish souls to allow them to enter Gan Eden. Much the same applies to Noahides who are not jewish souls born in gentile bodies (as converts are understood in Judaism), but rather gentiles who have decided to serve jews body and soul so that they may lessen their time in Gehenna. In the case of Noahides the time in Gehenna is held to be longer than that of pious gentile converts, but is generally approximate to it.

In the vast majority of cases however; as I am sure D would note, gentiles are neither converts to Judaism or keepers of the Noahide laws. So what is to become of the gentiles in general?

Well very simply most of these gentile souls according to Judaism will go to Gehenna to be made to suffer for a largely indeterminate amount of time before they can be cleansed of all their bodily and spiritual impurities so that they can evolve into bodily pure jewish souls that can then enter Gan Eden.

For the gentiles who remain; usually termed Amalek or in particularly strident cases Agagite (i.e. King of Amalek), there is to be no suffering and torture in Gehenna to make them bodily pure jewish souls, but rather they are to either to disappear completely (i.e. a kind of divine death sentence from Yahweh) or be held in a sub-area of Gehenna where they are subjected to suffering and torture forever more by the vengeful God of Israel.

These gentiles to be classified as Amalek and/or Agagites are those who have actively opposed the jews during their lifetime and as such are judged to be utterly evil and corrupt souls. As in Judaism to actively oppose jews; as D intimates, is to oppose the elect of Hashem and therefore to oppose the will of the single omnipotent and omnipresent (if rather confused and forgetful) creator of the cosmos: as he has set the jews to rule over the gentiles in his eternal name and show them the 'path of the righteous' to become part of that elect in Gan Eden by suffering the torments of Gehenna to purify body and soul.

I have heard Judaism referred to numerous times as being 'remarkably egalitarian in death'; as I am sure D himself has, however the foregoing discussion shows that this is not the case as there is a clear hierarchy in Judaism in death unrelated to ones own life but rather directly hinging on one's birth and caste position in Judaism.

Action comes second to birth in Judaism: in theory you could be a jewish serial killer and paedophile and still receive less time in Gehenna than a particularly pious gentile convert to Judaism.

In summation Judaism is all about being chosen rather than being charitable.

---------------

This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...-to-dr_04.html
__________________

Last edited by Karl Radl; April 4th, 2012 at 04:01 PM.
 
Old April 5th, 2012 #6
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Default Part V

Part V


D next moves on to talk about three historical examples where he; rightly, asserts that jews have not been of benefit to America which are:

(A) Henry Kissinger's rise to power and role in the US government whereby he allowed the United States to exit the Vietnam war without making provision for recovering the many thousands of American prisoners of war held by the North Vietnamese and thus condemning gentile American draftees and regular soldiers who would have expected to be liberated at wars end to ignominious and lonely deaths in the jungles of South East Asia.

D also correctly points out that Kissinger was heavily involved in covering up the attack on the USS Liberty in 1967, was instrumental in destroying white rule in Rhodesia in 1976 (with disastrous and genocidal consequences) and was key to bringing about the ever increasing pressure on South Africa to abandon the deliberately misunderstood policy of Apartheid.

D rightly sees Kissinger as a kind of jewish 'demon behind the curtain' in mid-to-late 20th century American foreign policy much as I might add Kissinger to this day continues to extol the virtues of non-European countries with his most recent literary attack on Western values in the form of a hagiographic; masquerading as a critical interpretative, presentation of all things Chinese.

(B) Sholom Rubashkin: who was the central figure in the Agriprocessors kosher slaughterhouse fiasco in Postville, Iowa that gripped America's national imagination and indignation in 2008 (in spite of numerous attempts to shut up and distract the media who for once; I might add, actually showed they might have a spine and blew the rotten core of jewish kashrut practices out of the confines of the jewish community for all the world to see) at both the scale of the greed and dishonesty on display and the legalised torture of animals that Agriprocessors profited from. After discovering even more illegal offences such as deliberately using illegal immigrants from Central and Latin America to provide the unskilled labour and then holding back a significant part of their wages to force them to stay and be compliant in the vain hope that Rubashkin would give them their promised back pay.

When the fiasco hit headlines authorities moved in on Rubashkin only to find that they were literally only hours away from losing him entirely as he was in the process of fleeing to Israel with a huge amount of his assets which he had quickly liquidized.

D implies; not unreasonably, that if Rubashkin had managed to get to Israel then it would have been next to impossible for the United States to extradite him back to America to face even one set of charges let alone half the statute book, which they have gratifyingly thrown at him. In spite of this; although D does not mention it, there has been at least two legal attempts to clear Rubashkin of any wrongdoing by the Lubavitcher Chabad (of which he was and is a member).

This is hardly surprising given that a significant group exists in Israel and the United States trying to free the Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard and; like the group operating to try and free Rubashkin, tries to seriously argue that domestic and international law does not actually apply to jews and in any case it is all a dastardly anti-Semitic conspiracy by the US government (or some other international/national agency and even occasionally an ODESSA type global Nazi conspiracy [a-la Frederick Forsyth's 'The Odessa File']).

I will also note that such behaviour on the part of Lubavitcher Chabad is quite in keeping with their radical anti-gentile religious ideology which to quote a representative summary from the former Rebbe of the Chabad on page nineteen of 'Our Man from Dakar': 'even the lowliest of Jews would sacrifice his life for Kiddush Hashem, to sanctify G-d's Name. And in a flash I understood what my parents had been hollering about the whole time: even the worst Jew is forbidden to marry a gentile.'

D doesn't note this radical anti-gentile bent to the Lubavitcher Chabad and it makes his short analysis of the Postville horror somewhat superficial in that he focuses on what Rubashkin did and not why he did it. When D does briefly touch on Rubashkin's motivations it is not to pick up the strands of Rubashkin's sect's radical anti-gentilism but rather to suggest that because Rubashkin was sent to the sticks he was dissatisfied with his life and did bad things because of that dissatisfaction.

D is; in effect, here making excuses for Rubashkin's behaviour without recognising the need to examine its fundamental ideological motivation in the view of gentiles propounded by a very large segment; and most traditional elements, of Judaism as something not wholly human but not wholly animal either.

In essence rather like how the former head of the Lubavitcher Chabad put it in the aforementioned 'Our Man from Dakar' (on page seventy-seven): '“I had a friend,” he told me, “whose son passed away from the dreaded disease. Roughly a half-year later deeply depressed, he told me that the disease had been detected in another of his sons. At the first opportunity I asked the Rebbe for a blessing, and he answered: 'Jews have a protective wall against negative matters, that separates them from non-Jews...'”'

The 'dreaded disease' that that is being referred to is gentile influence (i.e. gentiles are like common vermin bearing disease to the human population in the form of the jews) and the 'death' that it causes is the loss of a religious jew to semi-apostasy (i.e. the jewish custom of sitting Shiva to mourn the spiritual death of a relative who is not a practising religious jew any more).

If one believes in that kind of ideology then it is hardly surprising that one is going to treat one's non-jewish workers (including their children) as mere beasts of burden, defraud the non-jewish authorities of their taxes, brutally sacrifice animals without any recognition that they are living, thinking creatures and then claim that you are totally innocent having been 'framed' for things you didn't do or know about.

I would also point out that Rubashkin was not 'highly educated' as D claims he received a year of Kollel education (the rough jewish equivalent of a year in a trade school or as an apprentice) and was then sent off to run Agriprocessors in Iowa as its CEO. D should not presume a simple equation of being a high-flying religious jew and being well-educated as jews themselves would interject quite correctly that he didn't even qualify through a Yeshiva or spend any time in either the secular university system or studying under established jewish religious scholars.

We have to remember that jews have a primarily oral culture where the so-called 'gift of the gab' is highly prized and as if the ability to debate your opponent into absurdity and thus carrying the day by dint of fighting off a superior argument from an inferior position. That means we cannot take everything they say or imply at face value and have to bury down into the logical concomitant positions and specific implications of what a jew says particularly noting how they say it as that will tell you; in most instances, what you need to look for.

Thus D's analysis of the Postville horror is superficial at best and although it draws the valid conclusion that Rubashkin acted in direct opposition to American domestic interests as well as the law and then tried to flee to the world's only jewish country which would have very likely protected him and his ill-gotten gains from the righteous wrath of the American tax-paying public.

D could and should have drawn out the probable ideological rationale behind Rubashkin's actions and not focused instead on settling for a general link with Israel's law of return as the issue of the jews; as D should and probably does realise, as a negative element in the American body politic and as fifth columnists is a lot wider than merely their relationship with Israel and even transcends it to a large degree.

The thoughtful critic of jewry today; which D otherwise is, needs to comprehend that jewish behaviour towards Israel is symptomatic less of jewish hopes for a new jewish millenium with their Messiah leading them to victory and domination over the gentiles lead by the forces of Amalek, but rather in Israel's identification as the jewish home that has the ability; via both its own means and that of its activist Diaspora, to assist individual jews in their own personal struggles and endeavours.

Thus to most jews today Israel is essentially an entity they can utilize to 'get on' in the world and; in a sense, exists in a symbiotic relationship with the jewish individuals that support it in that it benefits from the jewish Diaspora's largely unconditional support and widespread diplomatic, economic, political, social and cultural contacts. While the individuals of the jewish Diaspora in their turn benefit from their ability to act as unofficial ambassadors for Israel, know they will be protected by Israel's military and diplomatic power that they have helped to create and sustain as well as gain temporary egoistic fulfillment by showcasing their achievements to other jews in the Zionist community (what I have termed 'Keeping up with the Goldbergs').

In essence; as with so many things to do with jewish internal and external politics, it is a marriage of convenience between Israel and the Diaspora: one that can fracture or grow stronger with time dependent on the pressures being exerted on each. However contrary to standard military wisdom I would argue that it is to the benefit of gentiles in the long-run that jewry should identify closer and closer with Israel as it inherently estranges them from the gentiles around them over time and then creates a not easily dispelled link; which we can increasingly see being made today (hence why Alan Dershowitz and Mitchell Bard among others have spent so much time over the last few years trying to undo years of labour to create the public image of Israel equates jews and vice versa), between Israeli conduct and jewish conduct.

Israel has been a propagandistic god-send to critics of the jews as it has forced jews to increasingly defend the indefensible and thus move from the back rooms of power politics to giving the public speeches. Thus the jew has once again become an increasingly recognisable and comprehensible foe for those of a patriotic, nationalist or even mildly reforming political and/or intellectual bent.

(C) The Israeli attack on the USS Liberty during the Six Day War in 1967 is the last of D's selection of evidence against the jews; although he does briefly make some non-specific comments about Israeli espionage rings, and unlike his discussion of the Postville horror of 2008: D's discussion is far more factual and deep-delving.

In it D discusses the basic facts; that the Israelis knew it was a US navy ship attacking it more than once and then proceeded to commit war crimes by trying to cover it up by killing off all the US sailors while they struggling to get to the lifeboats in the water. D also covers the resultant US government cover-up of the incident that; as D rightly implies, only the most rabid of jewish apologists seriously believes.

D asserts quite reasonably that Lyndon Johnson; by failing to hold Israel to public account, effectively betrayed the men of the US Navy; particularly those of the USS Liberty, and his duty of care to the American people by not utilizing that particular juncture in Israeli history to curb rising Israeli military prowess by cutting the supply lines to Israel until Israel gave a full and complete account of itself plus a large amount of reparations to both the individuals it attacked in peacetime and the United States itself.

That; as D points out, simply didn't happen and politicians abetted by a few senior military men at the time covered up the truth and tried to hide from it. It has in effect come back to bite those who assisted Israel as the Liberty; as D's use of the incident testifies, has become a rallying cry for those patriots and nationalists who want to either sever or at least heavily reduce links with Israel.

After all; as D rightly asks later in his article, how can you trust a country that claims it is 'your best friend', then deliberately breaks your arm while claiming that they thought it was someone else's they didn't like.

This is part of the reason; as D infers, that the American and European public are simply growing tired and disillusioned with the pro-Israel circus that is being paraded before them on a routine if not always a daily basis. The jews and Israelis have simply said and done too much that is negative in the long-term to their pan-Judaic cause to give their frequent claims of 'change' and protestations about 'assigning blame elsewhere' any serious traction as reasonable explanations of the situation and where it is going.

It is why I might add; although D does not note it, that one may observe that Israeli policy and attitudes towards the West are becoming increasing shrill, alarmist and outright belligerent, which will only ever serve the cause of those like myself who have said for years now that the West should have nothing to do with Israel and in fact should regard them as it currently does the Muslims: an active and ongoing threat to the West that exists in both a formal state and a large number of informal networks.

---------------


This was originally posted at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...-to-dr_05.html
__________________
 
Old April 9th, 2012 #7
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Default Part VI

Part VI


All that remains of D's article to discuss is his conclusions which are fourfold.

The first; to quote D, is that 'we should see the Jews in some ways like we see the Muzlims; they are always different from us.' I will ignore D's rather odd and overly nasal way of spelling Muslim (the other English convention is Moslem not Muzlim): however his actual point is well made precisely because he rightly suggests that jews are not; as they like to claim when it suits their individual and group interests, like us, of us and will never be us.

This as D implies is a very bad habit among patriots and nationalists in that they have a tendency to assume that the jews are just like us, think like us and have the same priorities as us: when in fact even a cursory glance at the history and literature of the jews would tell you that they do not and in many ways; which D does not mention, have far more in common with the Islamic; rather than the Western, world.

D's clarification of his point again leaves much to be desired as he claims that:

'There is an “otherness” about both Jews and Muzlims that makes them eternally different from us as Western people. We are very foolish if we fail to recognize it. They both have a heritage that takes them both back thousands of years, all the way back to the Patriarch Abraham, and sets them apart from all of the other peoples of the world. They are conscious of this, aware of this, and we must be also.'

This on first reading sounds quite reasonable: however it is in fact an inherently disingenuous tautology in that it doesn't tell us why; after telling us why jews are very different from everyone else, Judaism is directly comparable to Islam. Just because both Islam and Judaism antedate themselves to Abraham does not mean that they are comparable as Islam is a confessional religion while Judaism is a caste-based religion.

In essence anyone and his dog can confess themselves a devout Muslim (or a Christian for that matter as D conveniently leaves out), go through the rituals and become one of the faithful: however as D well knows (his foregoing discussion leaves little doubt of that) this is simply not the case in Judaism as even if one 'converts' then one is still not a member of Israel but rather is slotted into a lower category and regarded suspiciously by the born jews (i.e. the members of Israel).

Thus not only is D's direct comparison of Judaism to Islam dangerous, but also absurd: D would have done better to compare Islam to Christianity and Judaism to Hinduism as these religious pairings have some of their fundamental practices; although not their expressed doctrine, in common.

We can see how dangerous such a comparison is in D's suggestion of Muslims and jews being 'set apart' by their faith: as here D implies that these are the only two religions that believe this and that either Islam is caste-based or Judaism is confessional by necessary implication. That means that D is either completely misstating Islamic belief in the universality of Allah or downplaying Judaism's biological religious theology (and chosen status). Thus it accordingly over-emphasizes the clannish nature of any strongly religious group (and thus makes them seem more dangerous) and under-emphasizes the clannish nature of a caste-based religion (and thus makes it seem less dangerous).

By bringing Islam and Judaism closer together in the reader's mind: D is actually guilty of a misstatement of fact by implying something that fundamentally cannot be true as much as he might wish it to be. This kind of stratagem on D's part maybe quite innocent (as he is looking at this through the eyes of a devout Christian and thus trying to place his thoughts within Christian theology), but the comparison comes after an article where D describes the differences between how jews and gentiles think; after iterating the dictum that if we are to speak of the jews then it is necessary to know something about them, he then ascribes them the same confessional theology as Islam (or gets Islamic theology horrendously wrong) and Christianity for that matter (which is conspicuous by its absence in D's concluding discussion).

Thereby one has to conclude the use of this deliberate comparison is either ignorant or malicious on D's part: as D uses this supposed likeness; as suggested above, to downplay Judaism's maliciousness and emphasize Islam's fanatical; if generally rather impotent, opposition to the West.

This over and de emphasis leads D into his second conclusion, which; considering his discussion of just a small selection of the pertinent facts relating to jewish maliciousness towards non-jews and opportunistic exploitation of the West, is completely at odds with his own article (although it does nicely lead on from his first 'conclusion' which has nothing to do intellectually with his own article before this point either).

That conclusion needs to be read to be believed so I quote D's own words as to not seem unjust or misinterpreting what he has to say:

'2. We should see the Jews as people we can often deal with productively, unlike the Muzlims. The “otherness” of the Muzlims shows itself largely in a completely perverse nature making it impossible to have any enduring productive relation with them. This is assured by their own Koran that enjoins them not to form friendships with non-muzlims. With Jews on the other hand, there are no fundamental barriers to good working relations, although sometimes things are strained. In most cases, however, Jews and Gentiles have been able to work together in the world of work without conflict.'

In answering this the question is not what one should criticise, but rather where on earth one is to begin.

The first point that D makes: that Europeans should view the jews as people who we can 'often deal with productively, unlike the Muslims' is not only absurd but utterly a-historical. I shouldn't need to remind D that although jews have frequently resided in Western cities: so have Muslims. And they did so on a fairly regular basis from the early medieval period to the 18th and 19th centuries when their economic power as traders and merchants was in steep decline and the power of the European trader and merchant was in the ascendant. Need I also remind D that Muslims and jews were equally allies against Christianity in the Iberian Peninsula and in the Ottoman Empire as he could easily ascertain by consulting the works of Yitzhak Baer, Eliyahu Ashtor and Bernard Lewis for example: who I might add are and were all both jewish and Zionists.

Muslims; and before them Arabs and other Semites of a thousand and one different stripes, have lived in Western cities for almost as long as the jews have in similar numbers: they have served similar functions to jews throughout that time, but yet according to D one is 'sort of' our friend while the other is our deadly enemy. I could; and indeed can, empathize and concord with an intellectual position that names both of them as deadly enemies; in slightly different ways, of the West: however to name one as our deadly enemy and one as our 'sort of' friend is not only intellectually absurd: it is also the worst form of intellectual cowardice.

This is the kind of intellectual and moral cowardice I might add that is common to 'conservative' intellectuals in general whereby they want to preserve 'Western values' and restrict the immigration of non-Europeans, but then; because that is an inherently 'racist' proposition, said 'conservative' intellectuals divine an alchemical equation of somehow being able to transmute say African cultural values into Western cultural values by that all-powerful sugar pill of the cowardly modern intellectual of the left and right: 'education'.

Or to put it more eloquently; as Bessie Burchett did in 1941, it is simply 'Education for Destruction'.

I would also question D on what on earth the 'otherness' that is so 'perverse' is that one cannot get along with Muslims. I would suggest that this is another tautological statement from D in that it is stated without any required clarification or supporting reasoning: it is just held to be a form of vague rhetorical truism on its own without a meaning beyond what the reader is prepared to assign it.

I have worked with Islamic and jewish scholars in my time, but while I regard both as a representation of what radical school anthropologists and sociologists have termed 'the other': I have never encountered this alleged 'perverse' nature that forbids me to work and/or cooperate with them (or vice versa). They are simply members of another racial group, which thinks very differently to Europeans and as such you make allowances for that fact. If you don't then it still doesn't make any sense; especially having just discussed why jews are not exactly 'friends of the West', to assign Muslims the maximum possible odium while minimizing that assigned to the jews.

If D wishes to point to the Koran as detailing how Muslims should not form close friendships with non-Muslims then he should also point to where the Mishnah and Gemara; as well as the numerous authoritative commentators such Maimonides and Rashi (as well as the shorter 'everyday' reductions of the Halakhah such as the Kitzur Schulchan Aruch), detail not only the fact that Israel (jews) should not form friendships with non-Israel (gentiles) but rather that gentiles are prone to have sexual intercourse with livestock, rape jewish women, have 'evil natures' and whose very existence on this earth is a 'deadly disease' to the devout Hasidic jew.

I rather think in the greater scheme of things if we compare everything done to and said about gentiles by jews against everything done to and said about non-Muslims by Muslims: then the scales will be somewhat heavier on the jewish side of the fence.

After all Muslims have been concerned; for most of their recorded history, with fighting and extirpating each other not non-Muslims while in the converse religious jews have spent nearly all their recorded history seeking ways to dominate and rule the non-jews: be it through coercion, conquest and/or covert subversion in the name of Tikkun Olam ('Repairing the World') so that they can pass directly into Gan Eden when they go to the Olam Haba ('The World After') via Kiddush Hashem (literally 'Sanctifying the Name' better understood simply as jewish martyrdom) or a more normal death.

I am not here denying or minimizing the fact that the West and Islam have historically been; and currently are, at odds, but rather that the simplistic two dimensional 'productive jew' and 'unproductive Muslim' dichotomy that D is using is not only a-historical but outright unjustifiable as it ignores all the negativity of one group (assigning it a 'productive' role on no evidence) and emphasises all the negativity of the other group (assigning it an 'unproductive' role on selective evidence).

This simply will not do one scholar to another and I suspect D well knows it.

When D talks about there being 'no fundamental barriers' to jews and gentiles working together he is rather obviously forgetting his own dictum from the article he is supposed to be producing logical concluding thoughts from. D himself talks of how Mrs Geller regarded him; as a gentile child, as little more than a servant to do her bidding in lighting her stove and how the jews view themselves as inherently superior to gentiles. Therefore doing whatever they like to them from attacking and committing war crimes against the USS Liberty and her crew in 1967 to simply abandoning American prisoners of war in Vietnam.

Is this the 'getting on without conflict' that D has in mind?

One may; with good reason, wonder where D's justified righteous indignation at these actions; which D has explicitly assigned the fault of to the jews, has disappeared off to: as formerly he was fuming over Israel spying on the United States and getting away with brazenly attacking American military personnel. Now we are told there are fundamental differences between jews and gentiles and that we should all 'just get along'.

I would like D; if it is not too much trouble, to answer the question as to just why this is suddenly the case?

Why is it that we; as Europeans, are supposed to turn the other cheek to the jews all of a sudden when they do things to us, but when Muslims do them: we are supposed to retaliate with all the fury and brutality of Agamemnon and Achilles against the insults. When the Koran calls non-believers names we are supposed to take deep offence, but when the Gemara calls us similar; if not worse, names then we are supposed to turn the other cheek.

I don't disagree that we shouldn't vent the full fury of the West against the forces of Islam, but where I part with D is that I am not interested in turning the other cheek when it comes to jews and Judaism. Perhaps more poignantly: why should we; those fighting in the götterdämmerung in the West, turn the other cheek to the proverbial cause of world unrest?

After all: isn't that what got us into this mess in the first place?

D's third concluding point is in many ways as farcical and unconnected with his foregoing article as the first two. To again give D his due I will quote his point to allow the reader to read his own words rather than just my interpretation of them:

'3.We should remember that the Jews do not see the world through Western eyes. This comment requires some qualification in that, many modern Jews do see the world to some extent through Western eyes. Many of them have been educated in the West, in Europe and the US, so they have Western cultural values to a large extent. On the other hand, many of the Jews in Israel have come from Poland, Ukraine, and Russia and do not have very Western views at all.'

D here starts with the correct summation that the jews do not see the world through Western eyes and as far as this goes this is true: jews do not see the world through Western eyes precisely because they are not from the West and are not even biologically very similar to the peoples of the West.

This is the 'pink elephant in the room' of D's argument in that he talks of 'cultural values' without defining what said 'cultural values' are: let alone how one is supposed to objectively and dispassionately measure them in a given population. Of course unless we definitely link these 'cultural values' to the different; although related, concepts of ethnicity and race then it all becomes rather metaphysical and abstract, which is the only element of truth in the radical anthropological charge about nationalism in that it has to be linked to biology or it is a simply meaningless and empty construct.

It is rather clear that D's argument falls into the latter category as he confidently asserts that jews from Western Europe have 'some Western views' while jews from East Europe do not have very many 'Western views at all'.

One wonders if D is going to try and sell the alleged fact that jews who made Aliyah to Israel from the German Democratic Republic; as part of the former Communist bloc, are 'not very Western' while those jews who have made Aliyah to Israel from the German Federal Republic; as part of the former Western bloc, are have 'some very Western' values. Yet these are more or less jews from the same country: differing only in socio-political ideology for a few decades rather than being jews from a completely alien culture such as China or India.

I would also point out that Russia, the Ukraine, the Baltics and the Balkans are as much members of the 'Western tradition' in the sense that D means it: in that they have arguably the same 'Judeo-Christian' heritage that France, Spain or Italy have (indeed arguably an even more authentic one) and have been regarded as broadly part of Europe (if on the wild frontiers of civilisation) for centuries.

D is basically deliberately introducing an abstract into his argument to avoid naming the jews of the 'West' as being as bad as their; slightly more religiously psychotic, Eastern cousins: who; as D rightly points out, make up a large proportion of the Sabras (Israeli jews).

This is problematic as if one follows D's own argument from his article then one is forced to conclude; using his own selection of evidence, that it is the jews with 'some Western views' that are the ones doing most of the bad things to Europeans. Although I would personally disagree with this conclusion; which one must perforce draw from D's argument, it is never-the-less ironic to point out that D's conclusion is contradicted by his own article that is supposed to lead to that said conclusion.

The only sensible thing to do is to remove the 'degrees of otherness' on cultural axes from the argument completely and then one is left with a biologically-defined issue in relation to the jews, which matches both with what population genetics suggests and also what the jews themselves assert about their jewishness.

If one does this then we get the fact that it is not 'cultural values' that are the issue, but rather that D's first point was fundamentally the right one: jews look at things very differently than we as Europeans do and as such; in spite of residing in Europe for a long period of time, are not of Europe. Much as Islamic traders and merchants who have long-resided; till relatively recent times, in European cities didn't become magically Westernised (as D's argument necessarily implies although I don't doubt he would look askance at that unconsidered side-effect of his thinking): the jewish tinkers, tailors and candlestick makers of many a European city and town did not become magically Westernised by their long residence either. They merely learnt how to appear less foreign to get ahead rather than magically became objectively less alien to their host population.

D's fourth and final concluding point is once again at odds with what his article otherwise argued when he says:

'4. We should generally be supportive of the Jews, in an arms–length sort of way, realizing that they are not, and never will be, us.'

This is again a travesty of linear reasoning on D's part as his foregoing argument in his article essentially evidences the fact that jews have historically been; and currently are, no friends of the West and in his conclusion he brings out; as stated above, the anti-Islamic focus without qualifying it in the context of what Judaism equally says.

What D is essentially stating is that the West has a greater enemy in Islam than Judaism, which I would personally dispute as Islam might be the more visible one, but jews are the more fundamental one. This is easily explained by the following rhetorical adage: until the creation of Israel we had no enemies in the Middle East and after the creation of Israel we have no friends in the Middle East.

I would ask D why on earth he would assert the obvious canard that the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' (which is what he is basically doing albeit in a roundabout way) when it is rather clearer from his own cited evidence that the enemy of our enemies is still our enemy. There is no difference or ability to 'work with' either Muslims or jews: they are both congenital enemies of Europe and should be regarded as such. There is no room at this late hour among those desperately struggling against the prospect of a world without Europeans for those who think themselves Master Machiavellians and can successfully play off two naturally Machiavellian cousins against each other without getting badly hurt in the process.

The future of Europe is for Europe to decide it is not something that should be decided based on those who oppose the perceived enemy of the moment. D's argument is thus sadly not only anti-European but also self-defeating and a-historical: as he clearly didn't know enough about the jews before he began to write about them.

Thus endeth the lesson.

------------------


This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...-to-dr_09.html
__________________
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:01 AM.
Page generated in 0.20580 seconds.