A commenter here re-posted a comment by VFR reader Sage McLaughlin (original can be found here) which the commenter deemed "excellent". Martin B. made this reply, which I found excellent (McLaughlin's comment in quotes.)
"First of all, anybody who thinks that it would be a matter of indifference for any country to abandon their closest ally to complete slaughter--......."
Funny, I thought the UK was our closest ally. Now all of a sudden it's Israel, a nation with which we have no formal defence treaty. And why are the pro-Israelites in this discussion saying that we want to abandon Israel to slaughter. I'm perfectly happy for the U.S. to sell Israel all the arms it can buy (and, were it up to me, I wouldn't sell any to any Arab country). I just don't think we should GIVE them 3 billion dollars a years. Nor do I think we should allow a concerted lobby for Israel to make policy for this country.
Moreover, I don't particularly care how they deal with the Palestinians. The Palestinians have made themselves obnoxious. They're tiresome. To hell with them.
"Secondly,......
Do these people not realize the importance of Israeli scientists in the fields of medicine, energy, military research, aeronautics, and on and on? Do they have so little imaginations as to be incapable of seeing how the world will change forever when Jewish brilliance is erased from the intellectual store of mankind? Are they not aware of the necessity of a Jewish homeland for defending that unending font of achievement? Do they not know how directly their lives are impacted every day by the explosion of productive intelligence unleashed by the formation of an ethnic Jewish state?"
So, the world, and all it's history, is nothing but a play starring Jews, and the rest of us are just supporting players. If that's your belief, then all I can honestly say in reply is: "Screw you!". I, and my people, don't exist to serve Israel and the supposed historic mission you ascribe to it.
"We have a stake in this because just as whites are slowly being overwhelmed by the Third-Worlding of America, so also the Jewish state is threatened by a tide of foes bent on submerging it in a sea of intellectual and civilizational barbarism. And do they think that, once driven from Israel, Jews will be safe in an ever-Islamisized West?"
And it is has not escaped the notice of a lot of Gentiles that Jews have been among the most enthusiastic supporters and instigators of the third-worlding of America.
The "excellent" comments by Sage McLaughlin are a prime exhibit for the reason why many Americans, including people who used to consider themselves philo-Semites, have begun to think that they can't trust anyone who is a supporter of Israel to make decisions for our nation. Good job, fellahs - you're making those who are friendly indifferent, and those who are indifferent hostile.
I honestly don't think this discussion, Dennis, merits the effort you are putting into it, because the international die has already been rolled. Here are the facts I think are most important:
ReplyDelete1) By all reasonable estimates, Iran will have an atomic bomb within a year.
2) Obama has proven that he is dead set against any meaningful course of action that would deprive Iran of the bomb - namely, crippling sanctions on Iran's refining capabilities.
3) The Middle East is a tinderbox ready to explode at any moment. Hezbollah has 40,000 rockets, anti-air and anti-sea missiles, and now Scuds. Syria has been heavily arming, as has Hamas in Gaza. The question is when, not if, regional war is going to break out. Support or non-support of Israel at this point, even with the so-called "peace process", will do nothing to stop this.
4) When war breaks out, the possibility of conflagration is high, and major powers may get dragged in very easily - regardless of whether the US supports Israel. This is because of *oil* - the Straits of Hormuz will almost certainly be blocked, tripling the price of oil overnight, US assets will be attacked mercilessly in Iraq and Afghanistan, and many oil producing countries (Saudi Arabia especially) will be threatened.
None of this analysis takes into the account that Ahmadinejad is a fervent believer in the Hidden Imam, who will only return once the end of days occurs. Mutually assured destruction to such a man is at best questionable. Tripling of the price of oil is the least of our worries if he sets off a bomb.
I the text above summarizes the attitude left in many Westerners in regards to Israel. You see AIPAC apparatichiks like Elliot Abrams call for the US to take in at least one million Haitians after an earthquake (but no calls for Israel to take in *any* Haitians), and other prominent neo-cons describing America as a "proposition nation" in the pages of National Review that everyone on earth has a birthright to, and the neo-con invention of calling illegal-immigrants "borderless human capital" to support open-ended migration of third worlders here, and being called "yahoos" by Bill Kristol, a neo-cons neo-con, makes it pretty hard even though you are empathetic to summon up much fire to back any cause (Israel's security) that these same people passionately advocate. They also passionately advocate your country (and Europe, and Australia's, and Canada's) ethnic demise.
ReplyDeleteNote: The maddest Ive ever been at any neocon was when I read in Jewish World Review, which I no longer read, Ben Wattenberg state that "the non-Europeanization of America brings (him) a happiness of an almost trancendental quality". This is the same guy who demands that we support Israel. I wonder if he expects Israel to have a immigration policy that will see its ethnic majority eclipsed by third worlders, and if he would appreciate it if some Frenchman noted that it brought the French "trancendental happiness" to see the non-Judaisation of Israel. Im kinda inclined to think that Ben wouldn't appreciate that. I quit reading JWR when I seen that column, I had looked at it through much of the later 90's because it syndicated several conservative columnists that I enjoyed reading like Sowell.
Wow, I thought they both made very good points. In the end I must agree that U.S. policy shouldn't be driven by Israel's needs. But I highly doubt the demise of the traditional American/Israeli relationship would pacify the Middle East. We shall soon see, I suppose, considering the current administration's chilly attitude toward Israel...
ReplyDeleteSage McLaughlin's second comment from the same thread on why Israel is a Western nation:
ReplyDeleteTrevor H. seems to be taking the now-common position that the West is basically Greco-Roman to the core--based, he says, on "Greek or Roman ideas or law." He seems oblivious to the fact that the forgefire of Western religion is the Jewish Temple, that its religious texts are principally composed of Jews speaking to other Jews, and that its whole notion of the transcendent depends on the Jewish conception of God.
For this reason, I would not be surprised to learn that he thought Christianity is an alien imposition on an essentially pagan European culture, which he defines as "The West." I don't know this to be the case, of course. But I would guess that he does not believe Christianity is fundamental to Western Civilization. If that's not true, I'd be interested to know how he reconciles the idea that Western Civilization is basically Christian with the idea that it is founded wholly upon pre-Christian philosophy and law.
Trevor says that Israel is not a country "out of the West," and that's true if one forgets tiny historical details like the Holocaust and Zionism, the fact that it is a democracy with a republican government of separated powers, a suspiciously Roman-looking Executive-Parliament-Judiciary schematic, and so forth. They're doing an excellent impression of a Western nation formed by a movement that began in the West for reasons having to do with events in the West.
Furthermore, it's simply false to say that our conception of virtues such as charity and courage are utterly disconnected with that of the Jews--the just war tradition did not begin with Christians serving in the Roman legions, but in Old Testament exhortations placing moral limits on the manner of warfare allowable by God, limits of a sort that were completely foreign to the Romans and had to be imported from elsewhere. Speaking of "Greek/Roman/European-American" civilization as Trevor does is nonsense--what is it that distinguishes the "European-American" from the Greco-Roman? Christianity, of course, which is essentially Levantine.
And obviously, to the extent that Christianity and Judaism are radically divergent, it is true to say Israel is not entirely Western. The ancient religion of the Jews is not an artifact of Western Civilization, the way that Gothic Christianity is, and their origins as a people obviously lie elsewhere. So there is an important sense in which the Jews must always remain a people apart in the West, which incidentally is a big part of the reason Israel exists in the first place. But neither can Western Civilization be imagined without its Judaic component, unless one seeks to re-imagine the West altogether along pre-Christian lines, which is of course what neopagans of every stripe, leftists, and other enemies of Christianity would like to do.
The West is Aristotle and Aquinas, it is Rome and Jerusalem. To deny this is to engage in an act of destruction.
Can I express a waffling ambivalence and deem them both excellent?
ReplyDeleteI also find it ironic that Auster claims you're anti-Israel when, IIRC, you spent time there in the 70's.
ReplyDeleteI'm an American and a Zionist and I agree that the "ally" argument is pretty weak.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that the "Jews are special" argument is a bit insulting.
Still, the fact is that the Jews are special and everyone knows it, even the people who want to annhialate the Jews.
That said, as a Zionist, I would not mind if the US stopped giving aid to Israel. Especially if the US would stop pressuring Israel on settlements, etc. And if the EU would stop donating money to left wing organizations in Israel. And if the UN would stop singling Israel out. And so forth.
But realistically that will never happen. Israel will never be just another country.
An excellent source for understanding how Christianity in the West really worked in the olde days is T. Cahills "How the Irish Saved Civilization." He makes it plain that very little of Levantine thought patterns survived the collapse of the classical world and the subsequent melding of barbarian-paganism with the remnants of those thought patterns passed on by semi-literate wandering, evangelizing monks.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is, 98% of the "gospels" have always been irrelevant to the spirituality of 98% of european christians.
Faith, hope, and love are just transmutations of courage, resolution, and generosity. These (barbarian) archetypes are much older and more authentic than anything from S. Paul, et al.
OneSTDV: I lived in Israel for most of the year 1980, though not out of any Zionist - Christian or otherwise - convictions. I was backpacking around the world and sort of ended up there, on a kibbutz. I made many friends there, mostly from a group of South Africans who lived on the kibbutz. I like Israel and Israelis well enough, but I could say the same about many other countries and their people without believing that that entails American support.
ReplyDeleteSee where I argue against interventionism.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite is when they say Israel is the front line in a global war with Islam. As if Muslims are a marching land army with one way get into Europe instead of migrants who fly in on planes through collaboration with our treasonous governments.
I'll post what I wrote here since I think it's important.
I’ve never taken time to carefully refute the arguments of interventionists and I think I probably should now since I’ve discovered there are a few HBD bloggers who are.
The argument usually goes that the founding fathers lived in a different time. Since so much of what we do depends on world stability and we engage in international commerce, we need to make sure the world is peaceful. We rely on oil, etc. from other countries. And if America doesn’t police the world, no one else will.
There’s a contradiction inherent in that argument. America isn’t unique in trading with the world. If the US stopped policing the entire planet supposedly there would be other nations which would realize that their economies depend on vanquishing evil everywhere. China, Japan, Britain and the other powerful countries would realize that it’s in their own self-interest to interfere in the affairs of Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan and God knows where else. America could at least divide up the global responsibility with other nations. But the interventionists claim that powerful countries must police the world in their own self-interest and at the same time that if the US stopped doing it the international scene would be a jungle. The reason China wouldn’t police the world if America didn’t is because China isn’t stupid enough to convince itself that the stability of Africa, the Middle East, etc. matter.
Of course, the easiest way to trade with the world is to trade with the world. Poor countries need to trade with the West more than vice versa. That’s why all of them fear sanctions so much and we understand the tactic as a form of punishment that at least has the potential to alter behavior. We work under this indisputable assumption while at the same time interventionists tell us that without Western meddling there would be no international trade.
We can see very clearly that it’s American and Israeli belligerence which is the source of instability in the first place. Every doomsday scenario of the price of oil going through the roof starts with one of those two countries provoking Iran into doing something in retaliation. Even if certain regions did become more unstable without American power, the cost of dealing with the occasional problems that popped up would be less than the costs of running the globe. Imagine that I buy apples from five sources and the ample supply keeps the price of the good low. Should I make sure that all five of my suppliers are in good health and have paved roads in order for them to keep supplying me? Or would it be more efficient to assume that there will always be people who find ways to get a product that I find valuable to me wherever it exists? There’s no guarantee that the apple supply will always remain consistent and there won’t be occasional shocks but in the long run relying on the self-interest of trading partners is a more efficient strategy than babysitting them.
The reason the US has so many foreign bases and fights so many wars has nothing to do with the good of the nation. We do what we do for the sake of certain corporate interests, ethnic activists, neo-Wilsonians and ideological globalists. Nobody wants to tell people that America spends and bleeds for Israel and idealist fantasies, so we have to pretend that there’s some advantage to the country as a whole from all this carnage and waste.
The fact is, 98% of the "gospels" have always been irrelevant to the spirituality of 98% of european christians.
ReplyDeleteAn absurd, ridiculous thing to say, unworthy of a response.
Andrew
ReplyDeleteWould you rather that I lie?
I mean, why should a red-haired Celt living in the 7th century in the wilds of N Britain give a flying fuc/ about the peculiar obsessions of a Greco-Roman like St. Paul?
What was in it for him? Or her? To care about, for example, the relationship between faith and obediance to the Torah?
I'm an American and a Zionist and I agree that the "ally" argument is pretty weak.
ReplyDeletesabril, if you're going to identify yourself, you shouldn't omit your ethnicity which is Jewish. You might say that it was implied in "Zionist" but some people may think that it means Christian Zionist, or gentile who is a fervent supporter of Jews/Israel. I suspect though that being somewhat vague wasn't entirely inadvertant.
Sage McLaughlin's comment is basically an attempt to hold us hostage memetically.
ReplyDeleteThe implication is that the destruction or removal of a particular memeplex will mean the destruction of our genes. This is of course nonsense. It takes advantage of the implicit connection we tend to make between our memes and genes.
I wonder if the commenters who criticise the pro-Israelis for demanding that they should give their undying support to Israel, are in fact themselves criticising other Caucasian for not pledging their undying support to the white population of South Africa?
ReplyDeleteDo these people not realize the importance of Israeli scientists in the fields of medicine, energy, military research, aeronautics, and on and on? Do they have so little imaginations as to be incapable of seeing how the world will change forever when Jewish brilliance is erased from the intellectual store of mankind?
ReplyDeleteI've heard and read dozens of times this pseudo-argument about Jewish exceptionalism which somehow makes us - morally or historically - indebted to them for eternity.
This pseudo-argument is so moronic and illogic, that I don't know where I should start from.
First of all, the people who use this false argument undermine their own premise. Because they deny Jewish negative influence in the West, arguing that the Jews are too weak and few to determine a serious change in the course of the Western civilization.
But on the other hand, the same people who deny the Jewish influence as an impossibility claim that the West would not be the same without Jewish contribution in science, art, literature, etc.
So: if the Jews have such an overwhelming contribution that our existence itself depends on their intellectual achievements - how does it happen that the same people deny the Jewish over-involvment in pro-immigration policies, the Bolshevik revolution, Frankfurt school, Hollywood and media anti-white propaganda, etc.?
If the Jews are so powerful that our health depends on their scientists and doctors - how, at the same time, the Jews are so weak that they are not able to bring any negatives to the Western civilization?
It is funny how the arguments of the philo-Semites are so similar to those of David Duke. Because David Duke & comp. argue that the Jews are the source of almost all evil in the Western world; at the same time, the philo-Semites claim that the Jews have such an extraordinary contribution to the well-being of the Western civilization, that we wouldn't be the same without them.
Really, this guy - Sage McLaughlin - is a David Duke in reverse. They mirror each other perfectly, the sides of the same coin.
The rational side of the story is that the Jewish positive or negative influence is exaggerated and we should act accordingly: no special place or status for them, in our countries or in relation to Israel. They should be treated as any other minority or country of the world: pragmatically. Our fate is not connected to their fate, our existence does not depend on them.
Rum, the Torah is the first 5 books of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. It covers the 1st Covenant between God and Israel and is part of the Old Testament. It is definitely not "the Gospels".
ReplyDeleteThe Gospels are the first 4 books of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These sunder the 1st Covenant with the Jews with a new Covenant to all men.
St Paul wrote letters to the various Christian communities. He didn't write the Gospels.
Paul provides a fleshing out of the new Covenant and explanation of Christ's mission, via his epistles, which runs counter to the accepted Jewish understanding of the Torah. Paul didn't observe the Torah the way Jews do after his conversion.
You make a good point but your terms are incorrect. Your claim that "...98% of the "gospels" have always been irrelevant to the spirituality of 98% of european christians." is extravagant and obviously incorrect unless by Gospels you mean the Jewish Torah.
Pat Hannagan
You see AIPAC apparatichiks like Elliot Abrams call for the US to take in at least one million Haitians after an earthquake (but no calls for Israel to take in *any* Haitians)
ReplyDeleteHe probably didn't call for the UK or France to take in any Haitians either; this doesn't really mean anything. In general, I find the 'Jewish Hypocrisy' argument lacking. There's really no shortage of Jews criticizing Israel for 'apartheid' or what-have-you, and far from being a monoracial ethnostate, Israel's long term demographics look more like the US or UK than Poland or Japan. They have the same problems we do; significant ethnic minority population that greatly outbreeds the majority.
Anyways, after two long discussions on Israel we still have no idea what 'support for Israel' entails. Moral support, rhetorical support, financial support, military support...I doubt many people have a problem with the first, but the last couple will raise reasonable objections.
But I highly doubt the demise of the traditional American/Israeli relationship would pacify the Middle East.
Of course it wouldn't; it's naive to think that Mohammedans are going to stop hating America because we adopt a more neutral position towards Israel. How many of the 72 virgin types even know the details of our relationship with Israel. I'm sorry to say that the damage is done in that respect, and the Moslems are just running on inertia at this point.
This, of course, doesn't mean that we shouldn't review our relationship with Israel.
Kritisk_Borger:
ReplyDelete"I wonder if the commenters who criticise the pro-Israelis for demanding that they should give their undying support to Israel, are in fact themselves criticising other Caucasian for not pledging their undying support to the white population of South Africa?"
Israel receives billions from the US every year, in addition to the billions of dollars and thousands of lives we've spent on foreign wars at their behest. I would be content, as another reader said, with selling them arms and giving moral support to their apartheid system.
I don't support sending US troops to South Africa either, but would be very pleased to see the US govt sell the whites there weapons and give tacit support to them returning to apartheid.
The US gov actively sold the whites in South Africa out. No one is saying we should sell Israel out, we are just saying that they are big boys and can take care of themselves.
Sorry, I meant "overt approval".
ReplyDeleteI also agree that the "Jews are special" argument is a bit insulting.
ReplyDeleteStill, the fact is that the Jews are special and everyone knows it
Every ethnic group is special. Jews are no more special than others.
I guess I'm not part of your "everyone".
I mean, why should a red-haired Celt living in the 7th century in the wilds of N Britain give a flying fuc/ about the peculiar obsessions of a Greco-Roman like St. Paul?
ReplyDeleteThere's an element of truth to this. It's why modern Christianity has travelled far from it's initial Jewish roots. The Christianity of northern Europe is so different that it probably really deserves a different name altogether.
For instance, no Jewish religion would ever declare all men to be equal and seek to abolish slavery. Jewishness is too tied up in the idea of the superiority and specialness of Jews. It's this un-Christian and anti-universalist aspect of Jewishness which makes it special to HBDers.
I want to make note of this somewhere, and this seems like the right place to do it. In Auster's latest piece on Hispanics and the new Arizona law, he writes:
ReplyDelete" It tells us that Hispanics as an organized community (there are of course many individual exceptions, but they are not expressing themselves publicly as an organized commmunity and so don't count politically) are not loyal to the United States."
... and my immediate thought was, replace "Hispanics" with "Jews" and is it any less accurate?
I am not as obsessed with negative Jewish influences as some. However I thought it was an interesting position for him to maneuver himself into, apparently without even realizing it.
In general: aid to a foreign country is not a gift - it is buying influence.
ReplyDeleteUS aid to Irael is buying US influence on Israeli policy.
What is the effect of US influence on Israel? Overall, I think it is making Israel less 'hawkish', more PC, more 'multilateral'.
Is US aid therefore improving Israel's ability to defend itself; is it increasing the chance of Israel surviving as a home for the Jews?
In the short term and for specific objectives - perhaps yes. Overall and in the long term, I doubt it. In the end, US 'aid' may well lead to the destruction of Israel.
... and my immediate thought was, replace "Hispanics" with "Jews" and is it any less accurate?
ReplyDeleteI am not as obsessed with negative Jewish influences as some. However I thought it was an interesting position for him to maneuver himself into, apparently without even realizing it.
Yet another commenter here who clearly has not read Auster thoroughly, yet presumes to opine. I recently posted this quote from Auster in another thread here (apparently still not proactive enough to inform the ill-informed):
The ADL’s latest assault on normal Americans is a report entitled “Extremists Declare ‘Open Season’ on Immigrants: Hispanics Target of Incitement and Violence.” The document wickedly conflates the current opposition to Bush’s Hispanic amnesty plan with a long catalog of racist hate crimes against Hispanics, all but two of which pre-date the current amnesty issue, many of them by many years.
The ADL is an evil, lying, anti-American organization.
I therefore repeat the political truth, that if the so-called moderates in any given group do not forcefully denounce and dissociate themselves from the extremists in that group, then the group itself can rightly be seen as extremist. In the absence of a B’nai Brith Anti-Anti-Defamation League, the ADL’s equation of normal Americans’ opposition to amnesty with violent racist hate crimes can be legitimately seen as an expression of the American Jewish community.
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005533.html
BGC,
ReplyDelete"In general: aid to a foreign country is not a gift - it is buying influence.
US aid to Irael is buying US influence on Israeli policy.
What is the effect of US influence on Israel? Overall, I think it is making Israel less 'hawkish', more PC, more 'multilateral'."
Really, be honest BGC.
We all know that AIPAC, Jewish and Christian Zionist organizations have lobbied for aid. This is a fact. It's ethnic and religious activism. The US is not influencing Israel; Israel's supporters are influencing US policy. There's nothing controversial about this, lobbies work like that -- Mancur Olson 101.
To state Israel is not hawkish is truly unreal. Israel has been in quite some wars since its founding. Recently, Israel acted quite forcefully against Gazans and Lebanese -- crocodile tears aside, it wasn't dovish. You may believe that Israel should be even more rogue and nuke the Middle East already. (If not, please enlighten us on what counts as 'hawkish' enough for you?)
And Israel PC? It's the only country in the West that's explicitly ethnocentric, on both religious and ethnic grounds. It's far from PC.
I also just read Eric Kaufmann's "Shall the religious inherit the earth?", it's pretty clear to me that the orthodox Haredim are population replacing the secular Ashkenazim. Israel, as we in the West know it, is changing into something else entirely.
I've no problem with Israel, may the Zionist dream go on -- but it's a Zionist dream, not mine. They're on their own.
The link posted by Andrew E. supports Rollory's point.
ReplyDeleteAuster's own arguments tell us that jews as an organized community (there are of course many individual exceptions, like Larry, but they are not expressing themselves publicly as an organized commmunity and so don't count politically) are not loyal to the United States.
how the world will change forever when Jewish brilliance is erased from the intellectual store of mankind?
ReplyDeleteSpoken like a guy who knows perfectly well that non-gentiles need us far more than we'll ever need them.
All non-gentiles know this, and this should be the response to anyone who starts harping about how much we "need" non-gentiles.
"The link posted by Andrew E. supports Rollory's point."
ReplyDeleteNope. Rollory implies that Auster has opened the door for critics of Jews to draw similar conclusions that Auster has done here about Hispanics in America. And that this is probably something Auster would not want to happen (as the groupthink here is firmly of the opinion that Auster gives Jews a pass, a pass he does not give to other minorities). When in fact Auster has actually been severely critical of liberal Jewish organizations and the American Jewish community itself.
"sabril said...
ReplyDeleteThat said, as a Zionist, I would not mind if the US stopped giving aid to Israel. Especially if the US would stop pressuring Israel on settlements, etc. And if the EU would stop donating money to left wing organizations in Israel. And if the UN would stop singling Israel out. And so forth."
I agree with you. I think Israel should do what it deems necessary to protect its territory and people. I just don't want to go along for the ride. And I would love to see the UN stop singling out Israel. I would love to see the United States withdraw from the UN, and UN heaquarters in New York seized and auctioned off to the highest bidder. Oh, and while we're at it, we should send all those foreign countries a bill for all the parking citations their diplomats have incurred over the last sixty years. That in itself would be enough to bankrupt some of them.
"But realistically that will never happen. Israel will never be just another country."
Perhaps not to you, but it is to me.
To the general point about paleocons and their attitudes toward Israel: Some, like Auster, condemn Pat Buchanan for taking the side of the palestinians and labeling Israel's policy "apartheid". I agree that the word "apartheid" is funny coming from Buchanan, given that he was generally supportive of the white South African government. And Buchanan does seem somewhat bent out of shape about jews. Perhaps he harbors some personal animus (perhaps from being an Irish Catholic involved in both the media and the federal government - I imagine he took a lot of guff from liberal jews). Still, I won't condemn him, even though I disagree with his view of Israel (I do agree with him on his view of the baleful influence of an Israeli lobby on American politics). Why? Because he's generally on my side. When it comes to matters of trade, immigration, war and peace, traditional culture, opposition to socialism, I mostly like what he has to say, or at least find what he has to say interesting and useful. And I think the same about Lawrence Auster. I disagree with him on some things, but I'm not going to pronounce a ban on him. We traditionalists are too marginal and too few in number that we can afford to indulge in squabbles amongst ourselves.
Also, thanks Dennis for your favorable words on my previous post. I enjoy your blog very much, and find it to be one of the best sites on the net - a great forum for neo-reactionary thought.
Rollory implies that Auster has opened the door for critics of Jews to draw similar conclusions that Auster has done here about Hispanics in America.
ReplyDeleteCorrect.
And that this is probably something Auster would not want to happen
Correct. Auster demonstrated as much with his reaction to his "First Law" and "separationism" being applied to jews. He denounces and dismisses any such arguments on the grounds that they are "anti-semitic".
When in fact Auster has actually been severely critical of liberal Jewish organizations and the American Jewish community itself.
Auster has made it clear that however much he blames jews he blames "the majority" and "the anti-semites" more.
Auster himself has been critical, yes. But if anyone else is, it needs to be accompanied by "but of course Jews are on balance a good thing" or else he goes into defensive furious denunciation mode. That's why he's a hypocrite.
ReplyDelete(Try it. Create a random email account somewhere with a fake name and send him a comment quoting that line and saying "Unfortunately, this also seems to apply to organized Jewish influence. Should the policy response be the same?". See what sort of response you get.)
Andrew E, why pre-Christian philosophy? Actually, religion isn't that important to philosophy nor law and as I said before, I hardly see these people put bolshevism, the extreme liberalism and so on on the back of the Jews, since by their logic, they are Jewish creations too. I'm really fed up with the 'Judeo-Christian' foundation of the West, considering that it's not Judeo at all and not even THAT much Christian. This is why I don't even use the Western civilization stupid name anymore, but I use the European civilization name. In the end, the civilization is the result of European people and that's about it. I don't see Israel's support as something related to the survival or even beneficial to my people to the extent where it should be unconditional and Jews aren't my people. The intellectual dishonest in that article is quite hilarious considering the Old Testament finds slavery as moral and doesn't mind the marrying off of rape victims to their rapists. Or doesn't mind stoning, for example. Basically, the European interpretation of Christianity has nothing to do with Judaism or the Jews. A lot of the good things that are attributed to the Jews are older and a lot of them don't even come from Christianity.
ReplyDeletesabril, why shouldn't the UN single out Israel? I mean, if my country would do to the gypsies what the Israelis do the Arabs, they'd single it out too. This doesn't mean that I mind what Israel does, it's just funny to wonder why the UN singles them out. And yes, I'd like the US and EU stop giving foreign aid for good, regardless of whom unless it directly benefits Americans or Europeans. That's it. And Jews aren't anything different to me, it's just that I mind being called anti-Semite for not caring about them more then I care about Chinese people.
Richard Hoste, the best way for Americans to have cheap oil is to stop blowing money on stupid wars and create inflation. :)
kritisk, I support the European people in South Africa, in a way, and I don't care much about the Jews. Both are probably as important to me, but the difference is that the former are from the same racial group as me and the latter aren't. Just like I will care more about a Hungarian than a Somali and a Romanian than a Hungarian and my father over my friend's father and so on.Armance, great comment. You must be my clone. lol
Rollory, I wrote about that on another blog post of Dennis and then I found you saying it here. I guess not only Armance is my clone. And Andrew E, Auster didn't say that La Raza is an anti-American organization, but that Hispanics that support illegals are anti-American. The real analogy isn't to the ADL, but to Jews supporting Israel at the expense of the American interests.