The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Jewish Confidence in the Press Over Time
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Something Here
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

If they control the media, they don’t do a very good job controlling perceptions of the media! It’s said critique is their thing, so maybe that’s it:

In seriousness, class matters. It’s a big club and most of us, including most Jews, ain’t in it.

General Social Survey variables used: CONPRESS, YEAR, RELIG(3)

 
• Category: Arts/Letters, Culture/Society 
Hide 267 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. This low confidence is probably caused by media’s virtue signalling for Palestine which never amounts to any concrete action.

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    @Caspar von Everec

    Most American Jews don't follow Israel/Palestine especially close. Plus you would be surprised how many take the Palestine side. You have to remember that many Jews are liberals first.

  2. A lot of the press is run anyway by non Jews, Rupert Murdoch being a prime example, i doubt Jews will have much confidence in Murdoch and i for one don’t blame them.

    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
    @oliver elkington

    Murdoch's mother was a Jew, and a fine person by general acclamation. What went wrong? In any case Rupe has been deep in debt for decades, so he knows which piper calls the tune. Murdoch's cancer here in Austfailia is GROVELLINGLY pro-Israel, anti-Palestinian and thoroughly nassty-like its Boss.

    Replies: @Realist

  3. A lot of the press is run anyway by non Jews, Rupert Murdoch being a prime example, i doubt they will have much confidence in folks like him running the media and i for one don’t blame them.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @oliver elkington


    A lot of the press is run anyway by non Jews, ...
     
    Not really.

    Rupert Murdoch being a prime example....
     
    I don't want to delve into the question of Murdoch's mother's maiden name, but Murdoch is not only a prime example of press not run by Jews; he is also a fairly rare example.

    There are some old newspapers now run by crypto-Jews or non-Jews, but that's because Jews realize that newspapers are no longer where the action is. The one newspaper that was most successfully stirring things up in the Anglosphere in the 21st century, England's Daily Mail, has (because successful) been taken over by Jewish management.

    Jews seem spooked by the idea that two gentiles might talk to one another in public without a Jewish intermediary to manage the conversation. It would not astonish me if The Unz Review survived a nationwide crackdown on free speech only because its proprietor is Jewish. (To clarify, I am pro-Unz, for Unz behaves the way one wishes all his coëthnics would.)

    But, yes, if you think that a lot of the press is run anyway by non-Jews, you might want to check again. It's not.

  4. In seriousness, class matters. It’s a big club and most of us, including most Jews, ain’t in it.

    What a moronic take, it’s becasue lot of Jews believe that the press is not pro-Israel enough and they never stop whining. Next you will be arguing that because Jews complain about a wave of anti-semitic hate crimes, they must exist.

    • Replies: @brabantian
    @Kent Nationalist

    There are a lot of Jews not supportive of, not profiting from, and indeed sometimes terrified by, Jewish elite agendas

    Tho that is indeed a good point about how for some Jews, the media which elite Jews significantly own, is still not sufficiently subservient ... and elite Jews are acutely aware of, and neurotically disturbed by, even relatively minor media opposing them

    But you are being too harsh on our gracious host AE ... who brings up the important theme of Jews not in sync with Jewish elites

    Such as Ron Unz himself, Gilad Atzmon, and Israel Shamir, right here on this site, and others such as Henry Makow

    Who all violate the Jewish religious and cultural rule not to publicly criticise other Jews before goyim, this rule long a shield of Jewish elite misconduct

    In today's reality, Jews sometimes express fright that Jewish over-reach, such as Biden's Jewish Attorney General stoking anti-whiteness campaigns, will end in explosive 1930s-tier backlash against all Jews

    One anti-Jewish theme is that rebel dissident Jews such as on this site, are merely tribals trying to avoid the backlash they see looming

    Replies: @AnonStarter, @Fisk Ellington Rutledge IV

    , @AnonStarter
    @Kent Nationalist

    Without getting vicious toward the blog host, I agree.

    Yes, they want the American media to be more pro-Israel than it already is. Their effort to undermine the definitively American First Amendment in order to push anti-BDS legislation and their enlistment of Sasha Baron Cohen in campaigning for the elimination of even legitimate criticism of Israel online provide strong evidence that they can't tolerate even the slightest dissent from the central talking points of the Zionist platform.

    I mean, when you define "anti-Semitism" in such a way as to smear those who merely point to the fact of Jewish control over the media and government, you've seriously overplayed your hand.

  5. How about producing some graphs showing jewish CEOs/Chairman/other senior positions in the media corporations, all of them will end up being somewhere over 50%. If that is not by definition something being run by them, then what is?

  6. @oliver elkington
    A lot of the press is run anyway by non Jews, Rupert Murdoch being a prime example, i doubt Jews will have much confidence in Murdoch and i for one don't blame them.

    Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain

    Murdoch’s mother was a Jew, and a fine person by general acclamation. What went wrong? In any case Rupe has been deep in debt for decades, so he knows which piper calls the tune. Murdoch’s cancer here in Austfailia is GROVELLINGLY pro-Israel, anti-Palestinian and thoroughly nassty-like its Boss.

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @Realist
    @Mulga Mumblebrain


    Murdoch’s mother was a Jew,...
     
    Citation.

    Replies: @AnonStarter, @Charles Pewitt

  7. @Kent Nationalist

    In seriousness, class matters. It’s a big club and most of us, including most Jews, ain’t in it.

     

    What a moronic take, it's becasue lot of Jews believe that the press is not pro-Israel enough and they never stop whining. Next you will be arguing that because Jews complain about a wave of anti-semitic hate crimes, they must exist.

    Replies: @brabantian, @AnonStarter

    There are a lot of Jews not supportive of, not profiting from, and indeed sometimes terrified by, Jewish elite agendas

    Tho that is indeed a good point about how for some Jews, the media which elite Jews significantly own, is still not sufficiently subservient … and elite Jews are acutely aware of, and neurotically disturbed by, even relatively minor media opposing them

    But you are being too harsh on our gracious host AE … who brings up the important theme of Jews not in sync with Jewish elites

    Such as Ron Unz himself, Gilad Atzmon, and Israel Shamir, right here on this site, and others such as Henry Makow

    Who all violate the Jewish religious and cultural rule not to publicly criticise other Jews before goyim, this rule long a shield of Jewish elite misconduct

    In today’s reality, Jews sometimes express fright that Jewish over-reach, such as Biden’s Jewish Attorney General stoking anti-whiteness campaigns, will end in explosive 1930s-tier backlash against all Jews

    One anti-Jewish theme is that rebel dissident Jews such as on this site, are merely tribals trying to avoid the backlash they see looming

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
    @brabantian

    One anti-Jewish theme is that rebel dissident Jews such as on this site, are merely tribals trying to avoid the backlash they see looming

    That, or controlled opposition. This is a good point, and it underscores the need to be discerning in our assessment.

    Yet I do not think the numbers in the cited poll are indicative of said dissidence, and I'm fairly confident the dissidents themselves would agree that most Jews are, rather unfortunately, supportive of the Zionist agenda. Were it otherwise, our Gentile congressfolk would never be as pressured to support Israel to the extent they do.

    , @Fisk Ellington Rutledge IV
    @brabantian

    There may be some Jews who are alarmed by the mainstream Communist tyranny of the Jewish elite, but I guarantee you that those alarmed Jews are still anti-White. And it bears repeating that Jews are not Whites. They are the enemies of Whites and have themselves declared that they are enemies of Whites. They have been our enemies from the beginning and we should never, ever think of them as our allies. They are cuckoos in the nest.

  8. @Kent Nationalist

    In seriousness, class matters. It’s a big club and most of us, including most Jews, ain’t in it.

     

    What a moronic take, it's becasue lot of Jews believe that the press is not pro-Israel enough and they never stop whining. Next you will be arguing that because Jews complain about a wave of anti-semitic hate crimes, they must exist.

    Replies: @brabantian, @AnonStarter

    Without getting vicious toward the blog host, I agree.

    Yes, they want the American media to be more pro-Israel than it already is. Their effort to undermine the definitively American First Amendment in order to push anti-BDS legislation and their enlistment of Sasha Baron Cohen in campaigning for the elimination of even legitimate criticism of Israel online provide strong evidence that they can’t tolerate even the slightest dissent from the central talking points of the Zionist platform.

    I mean, when you define “anti-Semitism” in such a way as to smear those who merely point to the fact of Jewish control over the media and government, you’ve seriously overplayed your hand.

  9. @brabantian
    @Kent Nationalist

    There are a lot of Jews not supportive of, not profiting from, and indeed sometimes terrified by, Jewish elite agendas

    Tho that is indeed a good point about how for some Jews, the media which elite Jews significantly own, is still not sufficiently subservient ... and elite Jews are acutely aware of, and neurotically disturbed by, even relatively minor media opposing them

    But you are being too harsh on our gracious host AE ... who brings up the important theme of Jews not in sync with Jewish elites

    Such as Ron Unz himself, Gilad Atzmon, and Israel Shamir, right here on this site, and others such as Henry Makow

    Who all violate the Jewish religious and cultural rule not to publicly criticise other Jews before goyim, this rule long a shield of Jewish elite misconduct

    In today's reality, Jews sometimes express fright that Jewish over-reach, such as Biden's Jewish Attorney General stoking anti-whiteness campaigns, will end in explosive 1930s-tier backlash against all Jews

    One anti-Jewish theme is that rebel dissident Jews such as on this site, are merely tribals trying to avoid the backlash they see looming

    Replies: @AnonStarter, @Fisk Ellington Rutledge IV

    One anti-Jewish theme is that rebel dissident Jews such as on this site, are merely tribals trying to avoid the backlash they see looming

    That, or controlled opposition. This is a good point, and it underscores the need to be discerning in our assessment.

    Yet I do not think the numbers in the cited poll are indicative of said dissidence, and I’m fairly confident the dissidents themselves would agree that most Jews are, rather unfortunately, supportive of the Zionist agenda. Were it otherwise, our Gentile congressfolk would never be as pressured to support Israel to the extent they do.

  10. American Jews, most of them, have their roots in Russian Empire (they’ve swamped earlier, more “European” German Jewish immigrants). They have retained their national culture (Yiddish, written in Hebrew script), numerous dietary laws & other customs. In short, the US got mostly unassimilated ghetto Jews.

    Due to their work ethics, culture, slightly higher IQ & ethnic networking, they thrived in the US in various areas & became very influential. From the early 1900s to, perhaps, Six Days War in 1967, most of them tried to assimilate & become virtually indistinguishable from WASPs.

    But then, things changed & many US Jews had recovered their primary ethnic-cultural identity as Jews first. Because this is a sensitive issue, there is no profusion of reliable sociological investigation data, graphs, categorizations. Just, as a rule of thumb, we can divide Jewish Americans into a few categories:

    1. JINOs. Many US “Jews” are assimilated & don’t think of themselves as Jews primarily. They account for anything between 20% and 50%.

    2. secular & religious Jews who possess partial Jewish identity, but for them it is blended with broader American loyalty. It is hard to tell how many people belong to this category.

    3. religious Orthodox Jews who may be annoying as neighbors, but are not too politically minded.

    4. the last segment would be American Jews (as different from Jewish Americans). They can be secular or religious; rich or poor; intensity of their commitment to Israel or Jewish ethnic activism may vary, but they are basically cultural aliens in US & Europe. For secularists, Auschwitz & Israel have replaced Torah & Talmud as chief emotional anticorrosives that shield them from assimilation.

    My guess is that they are somewhere between 15% and 25% of all US Jews. This segment can be further divided into subsegments (for instance, some are anti-Christian, while others are not). But, what is common to them is their clear differentiation from host national cultures, stubborn insistence on their ethnic-national individuality & a sense of being an “endangered species”. Some subsegments of this portion of American Jews are true aliens in the US & through their ethnic activism, frequently masked as moral universalism, try to subvert dominant cultural values & change host society into a shapeless mess.

    This is a minority of Jewish Americans, but they have economic, societal, cultural & political impact by far surpassing their numbers. And they seem not to learn from history: Brazilian Jews, because of the slow but inevitable future collapse of multiracial Brazilian society are just trying to “get out”. Jewish elites, across the world, are still in thrall to Nazi-Aryan iconography & mythology as the central threat to their existence, while the world has moved past it long ago.

    In this, last portion of Jewish Americans one can find typical traits of cultural alienation, ethnic paranoia, “us” vs. “them” mentality, ..basically, a sense of being a perpetual stranger who wants to shape the dominant discourse & identity in order to avoid- in their eyes- future pogroms & genocide. Because in the fevered mind of pathological Jewish nationalists, Europeans & whites, virtually all of them, possess the inner Nazi screaming to get out & finally finalize the Final Solution.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Bardon Kaldian


    My guess is that they are somewhere between 15% and 25% of all US Jews.
     
    Your comment seems judicious and balanced—not only the quoted line but the whole thing. It pretty much sums up how I see it, at any rate, though I cannot prove that you are right.

    I would add only three points.

    1. Nonhostile Jews still benefit from Jewish nepotism, to the degree that my son cannot get into Harvard but my Jewish friend's son can. Not that my son and I especially care about Harvard, but it's a little hard to take when, 30 years ago, all one ever heard about Jews and Harvard was how unfair Harvard's past anti-Jewish quotas had been. It's Harvard, not Harvberg. At least, it used to be.

    2. Republican candidates at election time seem pretty reliably to capture 25 to 30 percent of the Jewish vote nationwide. This would suggest that your estimate as quoted above were a little low.

    3. If we wish to retain the loyalty of the segment of American Jews that remains loyal, then we need [a] to make disloyalty costly and [b] keep America a going concern, so to speak. In the end, Lincoln's “mystic chords of memory” simply do not bind the eastern European Jew to the United States as, and less bind the western European Jew to the United States than, the chords bind me and mine. Now it sounds like I've conflated chords with cords, but Lincoln did that, too, and meanwhile I believe that my point stands. Jewish loyalty (where it exists) wants to be challenged and thereby strengthened, else the chord must decay, dissolve and eventually snap.

    I doubt that I can play a very constructive role in making Jews feel welcome. The attempt to do so only feeds Jewish paranoia, and Jews have long since entwined themselves into nearly every American institution of influence and power, anyway. I can however indeed play a constructive role in challenging the Jew, naming the Jew, and making it necessary for the Jew to prove by his ongoing deeds that our ancestors did not make a terrible mistake by letting his ancestors into our country in the first place. I do not wish to be unnecessarily disputatious, but in my estimation, our country has reached regrettably reached a stage at which a more active defense than heretofore against Jewish perfidy is necessary.

    Replies: @A123, @Bardon Kaldian

    , @A123
    @Bardon Kaldian

    The pro-Islam, anti-Israel slant of major media prevents a consistent 85-90% of self identified Jews from having great confidence in the media. The fact that this is not close to 100% points out a problem with self identification. Is the group being polled:

    -1- Anyone with genetic heritage, including those who do not practice Judaism?
    -2- Only those who actively participate in the Jewish Faith?

    One suspects that the first category is the primary source of the 10-15%. Blind submission and belief in the Left-Islamic press is a symptom of Islamification and/or Secularization.
    ______

    The 2010's red bar of "Hardly Any" trust in the Fake Stream Media aligns fairly well with the 2016 Jewish votes for Trump.

    https://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/jews.png

    Too bad this study did not break out branch within Judaism. I have yet to see any reliable numbers on Conservative Branch votes for Trump 2020. Anecdotal evidence suggest that Trump may have obtained 51%+ of the Conservative vote. However, that still needs to be substantiated.

    PEACE 😇

  11. @Bardon Kaldian
    American Jews, most of them, have their roots in Russian Empire (they’ve swamped earlier, more “European” German Jewish immigrants). They have retained their national culture (Yiddish, written in Hebrew script), numerous dietary laws & other customs. In short, the US got mostly unassimilated ghetto Jews.

    Due to their work ethics, culture, slightly higher IQ & ethnic networking, they thrived in the US in various areas & became very influential. From the early 1900s to, perhaps, Six Days War in 1967, most of them tried to assimilate & become virtually indistinguishable from WASPs.

    But then, things changed & many US Jews had recovered their primary ethnic-cultural identity as Jews first. Because this is a sensitive issue, there is no profusion of reliable sociological investigation data, graphs, categorizations. Just, as a rule of thumb, we can divide Jewish Americans into a few categories:

    1. JINOs. Many US “Jews” are assimilated & don’t think of themselves as Jews primarily. They account for anything between 20% and 50%.

    2. secular & religious Jews who possess partial Jewish identity, but for them it is blended with broader American loyalty. It is hard to tell how many people belong to this category.

    3. religious Orthodox Jews who may be annoying as neighbors, but are not too politically minded.

    4. the last segment would be American Jews (as different from Jewish Americans). They can be secular or religious; rich or poor; intensity of their commitment to Israel or Jewish ethnic activism may vary, but they are basically cultural aliens in US & Europe. For secularists, Auschwitz & Israel have replaced Torah & Talmud as chief emotional anticorrosives that shield them from assimilation.

    My guess is that they are somewhere between 15% and 25% of all US Jews. This segment can be further divided into subsegments (for instance, some are anti-Christian, while others are not). But, what is common to them is their clear differentiation from host national cultures, stubborn insistence on their ethnic-national individuality & a sense of being an “endangered species”. Some subsegments of this portion of American Jews are true aliens in the US & through their ethnic activism, frequently masked as moral universalism, try to subvert dominant cultural values & change host society into a shapeless mess.

    This is a minority of Jewish Americans, but they have economic, societal, cultural & political impact by far surpassing their numbers. And they seem not to learn from history: Brazilian Jews, because of the slow but inevitable future collapse of multiracial Brazilian society are just trying to “get out”. Jewish elites, across the world, are still in thrall to Nazi-Aryan iconography & mythology as the central threat to their existence, while the world has moved past it long ago.

    In this, last portion of Jewish Americans one can find typical traits of cultural alienation, ethnic paranoia, “us” vs. “them” mentality, ..basically, a sense of being a perpetual stranger who wants to shape the dominant discourse & identity in order to avoid- in their eyes- future pogroms & genocide. Because in the fevered mind of pathological Jewish nationalists, Europeans & whites, virtually all of them, possess the inner Nazi screaming to get out & finally finalize the Final Solution.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @A123

    My guess is that they are somewhere between 15% and 25% of all US Jews.

    Your comment seems judicious and balanced—not only the quoted line but the whole thing. It pretty much sums up how I see it, at any rate, though I cannot prove that you are right.

    I would add only three points.

    [MORE]

    1. Nonhostile Jews still benefit from Jewish nepotism, to the degree that my son cannot get into Harvard but my Jewish friend’s son can. Not that my son and I especially care about Harvard, but it’s a little hard to take when, 30 years ago, all one ever heard about Jews and Harvard was how unfair Harvard’s past anti-Jewish quotas had been. It’s Harvard, not Harvberg. At least, it used to be.

    2. Republican candidates at election time seem pretty reliably to capture 25 to 30 percent of the Jewish vote nationwide. This would suggest that your estimate as quoted above were a little low.

    3. If we wish to retain the loyalty of the segment of American Jews that remains loyal, then we need [a] to make disloyalty costly and [b] keep America a going concern, so to speak. In the end, Lincoln’s “mystic chords of memory” simply do not bind the eastern European Jew to the United States as, and less bind the western European Jew to the United States than, the chords bind me and mine. Now it sounds like I’ve conflated chords with cords, but Lincoln did that, too, and meanwhile I believe that my point stands. Jewish loyalty (where it exists) wants to be challenged and thereby strengthened, else the chord must decay, dissolve and eventually snap.

    I doubt that I can play a very constructive role in making Jews feel welcome. The attempt to do so only feeds Jewish paranoia, and Jews have long since entwined themselves into nearly every American institution of influence and power, anyway. I can however indeed play a constructive role in challenging the Jew, naming the Jew, and making it necessary for the Jew to prove by his ongoing deeds that our ancestors did not make a terrible mistake by letting his ancestors into our country in the first place. I do not wish to be unnecessarily disputatious, but in my estimation, our country has reached regrettably reached a stage at which a more active defense than heretofore against Jewish perfidy is necessary.

    • Replies: @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Nonhostile Jews still benefit from Jewish nepotism, to the degree that my son cannot get into Harvard but my Jewish friend’s son can.
     
    There is a huge problem with this statement. Look at the math:

    -- How many Jews have attended Harvard? Would you accept 50,000 as a generous over estimate?
    -- How many Jews are in the U.S.? About 7,000,000?
    -- So only 0.75% = (50,000 / 7,000,000) can access Harvard.

    Your non-elite Jewish neighbor has identical access to Harvard that you do... NONE.

    I doubt that I can play a very constructive role in making Jews feel welcome. The attempt to do so only feeds Jewish paranoia
     
    If you are willing to improve your use of the English language, you can be substantially more constructive. The plural "Jews" is a language form for the collection of all Jews. Are you really trying to accuse "All Jews" including U.S. Military veterans?

    If your goal is not targeting "All Jews", the English language contains modifiers, such as adjectives. For example, "Elite Jews" or "Far Left Jews". Let us return to your first accusation using better language with appropriate modifiers:

    Elite Jews benefit from elite Jewish nepotism, to the degree that my non-elite son cannot get into Harvard but an elite Jewish son can.

    Before the introduction of modifiers, the accusation was pejorative and untrue. With modifiers and a little editing, it becomes a non-objectionable and highly accurate statement about elite nepotism.

    Try going a few days only using the modifier construction "_______ Jews". If you mean " All Jews", say it that way. If you do not mean all Jews, define the subset via the "_______". I believe that you will perceive your own writing as better due to improved precision & clarity.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @Bardon Kaldian
    @V. K. Ovelund

    It is virtually impossible to answer such a broad spectrum of hypothetical questions & associations.

    I'll just sketch what I think it is all about...

    Sure, Jewish nepotism exists, and Jews are more ethnocentric than other white groups. Just, I don't see how it can be quantified. For instance, Murray Gell Mann, a great physicist who developed particle physics (quarks) & later got Nobel for it, was not accepted to Harvard. It may sound inflated, but he contemplated suicide because of that (he settled for MIT). It is impossible to ascertain how many gifted Jews & Gentiles were not accepted to Harvard. Harvard (Princeton, Yale, MIT, ..) math & physics departments are, at the highest positions, filled with the best people from around the world, US-born Americans of any ethnicity not being more than 50% of the staff. Certainly, well-connected people profit from this type of nepotism, but the most influential, successful & creative individuals in all areas, from exact sciences to entertainment, find ways to manifest their talents/abilities.

    Of course, it varies hugely from STEM to jurisprudence to soft sciences to entertainment. One simply cannot measure these things.

    As I said earlier- Jews are in some aspects different from other whites in the US. First religion, then historical memory of Auschwitz & attachment to Israel. Without differentiation among US Jews, the only effect would be, considering their historical experience- they’ll continue to stick together like a bunch of paranoid looneys. And I don’t blame them. Right policy would be to differentiate between psycho Jewish supremacists- perhaps not more than 10% of them- and the rest, and that means 80-90% of them, who are decent & productive citizens. It’s Jewish activists, not Jews as such. ADL must go to the garbage can.

    You cannot expect them to fully support the historical, white America idea, simply because they’re a bit”off”. Their heart is not, unconditionally, on white European American matrix of life. But they are also not some implacable enemy. They just want to get by & anti-white psychos are a small, but vocal minority.

    And they are not impervious to arguments. I recall arguing about Charlottesville & “Jews will not replace us” with a bunch, mostly liberal Jews. They were horrified, scared, stunned. Then, I patiently explained stuff about Soros, Jewish & Israeli NGOs deleterious activities etc. More than 90% came over to my side. They said- screw ADL, hang Soros, …

    That’s the problem with this way of thinking- it lacks nuances. And God (or Devil) is in detail.

    Replies: @songbird

  12. A123 says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    American Jews, most of them, have their roots in Russian Empire (they’ve swamped earlier, more “European” German Jewish immigrants). They have retained their national culture (Yiddish, written in Hebrew script), numerous dietary laws & other customs. In short, the US got mostly unassimilated ghetto Jews.

    Due to their work ethics, culture, slightly higher IQ & ethnic networking, they thrived in the US in various areas & became very influential. From the early 1900s to, perhaps, Six Days War in 1967, most of them tried to assimilate & become virtually indistinguishable from WASPs.

    But then, things changed & many US Jews had recovered their primary ethnic-cultural identity as Jews first. Because this is a sensitive issue, there is no profusion of reliable sociological investigation data, graphs, categorizations. Just, as a rule of thumb, we can divide Jewish Americans into a few categories:

    1. JINOs. Many US “Jews” are assimilated & don’t think of themselves as Jews primarily. They account for anything between 20% and 50%.

    2. secular & religious Jews who possess partial Jewish identity, but for them it is blended with broader American loyalty. It is hard to tell how many people belong to this category.

    3. religious Orthodox Jews who may be annoying as neighbors, but are not too politically minded.

    4. the last segment would be American Jews (as different from Jewish Americans). They can be secular or religious; rich or poor; intensity of their commitment to Israel or Jewish ethnic activism may vary, but they are basically cultural aliens in US & Europe. For secularists, Auschwitz & Israel have replaced Torah & Talmud as chief emotional anticorrosives that shield them from assimilation.

    My guess is that they are somewhere between 15% and 25% of all US Jews. This segment can be further divided into subsegments (for instance, some are anti-Christian, while others are not). But, what is common to them is their clear differentiation from host national cultures, stubborn insistence on their ethnic-national individuality & a sense of being an “endangered species”. Some subsegments of this portion of American Jews are true aliens in the US & through their ethnic activism, frequently masked as moral universalism, try to subvert dominant cultural values & change host society into a shapeless mess.

    This is a minority of Jewish Americans, but they have economic, societal, cultural & political impact by far surpassing their numbers. And they seem not to learn from history: Brazilian Jews, because of the slow but inevitable future collapse of multiracial Brazilian society are just trying to “get out”. Jewish elites, across the world, are still in thrall to Nazi-Aryan iconography & mythology as the central threat to their existence, while the world has moved past it long ago.

    In this, last portion of Jewish Americans one can find typical traits of cultural alienation, ethnic paranoia, “us” vs. “them” mentality, ..basically, a sense of being a perpetual stranger who wants to shape the dominant discourse & identity in order to avoid- in their eyes- future pogroms & genocide. Because in the fevered mind of pathological Jewish nationalists, Europeans & whites, virtually all of them, possess the inner Nazi screaming to get out & finally finalize the Final Solution.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @A123

    The pro-Islam, anti-Israel slant of major media prevents a consistent 85-90% of self identified Jews from having great confidence in the media. The fact that this is not close to 100% points out a problem with self identification. Is the group being polled:

    -1- Anyone with genetic heritage, including those who do not practice Judaism?
    -2- Only those who actively participate in the Jewish Faith?

    One suspects that the first category is the primary source of the 10-15%. Blind submission and belief in the Left-Islamic press is a symptom of Islamification and/or Secularization.
    ______

    The 2010’s red bar of “Hardly Any” trust in the Fake Stream Media aligns fairly well with the 2016 Jewish votes for Trump.

    Too bad this study did not break out branch within Judaism. I have yet to see any reliable numbers on Conservative Branch votes for Trump 2020. Anecdotal evidence suggest that Trump may have obtained 51%+ of the Conservative vote. However, that still needs to be substantiated.

    PEACE 😇

  13. @oliver elkington
    A lot of the press is run anyway by non Jews, Rupert Murdoch being a prime example, i doubt they will have much confidence in folks like him running the media and i for one don't blame them.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    A lot of the press is run anyway by non Jews, …

    Not really.

    Rupert Murdoch being a prime example….

    I don’t want to delve into the question of Murdoch’s mother’s maiden name, but Murdoch is not only a prime example of press not run by Jews; he is also a fairly rare example.

    There are some old newspapers now run by crypto-Jews or non-Jews, but that’s because Jews realize that newspapers are no longer where the action is. The one newspaper that was most successfully stirring things up in the Anglosphere in the 21st century, England’s Daily Mail, has (because successful) been taken over by Jewish management.

    Jews seem spooked by the idea that two gentiles might talk to one another in public without a Jewish intermediary to manage the conversation. It would not astonish me if The Unz Review survived a nationwide crackdown on free speech only because its proprietor is Jewish. (To clarify, I am pro-Unz, for Unz behaves the way one wishes all his coëthnics would.)

    But, yes, if you think that a lot of the press is run anyway by non-Jews, you might want to check again. It’s not.

  14. A123 says:
    @V. K. Ovelund
    @Bardon Kaldian


    My guess is that they are somewhere between 15% and 25% of all US Jews.
     
    Your comment seems judicious and balanced—not only the quoted line but the whole thing. It pretty much sums up how I see it, at any rate, though I cannot prove that you are right.

    I would add only three points.

    1. Nonhostile Jews still benefit from Jewish nepotism, to the degree that my son cannot get into Harvard but my Jewish friend's son can. Not that my son and I especially care about Harvard, but it's a little hard to take when, 30 years ago, all one ever heard about Jews and Harvard was how unfair Harvard's past anti-Jewish quotas had been. It's Harvard, not Harvberg. At least, it used to be.

    2. Republican candidates at election time seem pretty reliably to capture 25 to 30 percent of the Jewish vote nationwide. This would suggest that your estimate as quoted above were a little low.

    3. If we wish to retain the loyalty of the segment of American Jews that remains loyal, then we need [a] to make disloyalty costly and [b] keep America a going concern, so to speak. In the end, Lincoln's “mystic chords of memory” simply do not bind the eastern European Jew to the United States as, and less bind the western European Jew to the United States than, the chords bind me and mine. Now it sounds like I've conflated chords with cords, but Lincoln did that, too, and meanwhile I believe that my point stands. Jewish loyalty (where it exists) wants to be challenged and thereby strengthened, else the chord must decay, dissolve and eventually snap.

    I doubt that I can play a very constructive role in making Jews feel welcome. The attempt to do so only feeds Jewish paranoia, and Jews have long since entwined themselves into nearly every American institution of influence and power, anyway. I can however indeed play a constructive role in challenging the Jew, naming the Jew, and making it necessary for the Jew to prove by his ongoing deeds that our ancestors did not make a terrible mistake by letting his ancestors into our country in the first place. I do not wish to be unnecessarily disputatious, but in my estimation, our country has reached regrettably reached a stage at which a more active defense than heretofore against Jewish perfidy is necessary.

    Replies: @A123, @Bardon Kaldian

    Nonhostile Jews still benefit from Jewish nepotism, to the degree that my son cannot get into Harvard but my Jewish friend’s son can.

    There is a huge problem with this statement. Look at the math:

    — How many Jews have attended Harvard? Would you accept 50,000 as a generous over estimate?
    — How many Jews are in the U.S.? About 7,000,000?
    — So only 0.75% = (50,000 / 7,000,000) can access Harvard.

    Your non-elite Jewish neighbor has identical access to Harvard that you do… NONE.

    I doubt that I can play a very constructive role in making Jews feel welcome. The attempt to do so only feeds Jewish paranoia

    If you are willing to improve your use of the English language, you can be substantially more constructive. The plural “Jews” is a language form for the collection of all Jews. Are you really trying to accuse “All Jews” including U.S. Military veterans?

    If your goal is not targeting “All Jews”, the English language contains modifiers, such as adjectives. For example, “Elite Jews” or “Far Left Jews”. Let us return to your first accusation using better language with appropriate modifiers:

    Elite Jews benefit from elite Jewish nepotism, to the degree that my non-elite son cannot get into Harvard but an elite Jewish son can.

    Before the introduction of modifiers, the accusation was pejorative and untrue. With modifiers and a little editing, it becomes a non-objectionable and highly accurate statement about elite nepotism.

    Try going a few days only using the modifier construction “_______ Jews”. If you mean ” All Jews”, say it that way. If you do not mean all Jews, define the subset via the “_______”. I believe that you will perceive your own writing as better due to improved precision & clarity.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @A123

    The Islamo-SJW hypothesis is silly in my opinion. However:


    Try going a few days only using the modifier construction “_______ Jews”. If you mean ” All Jews”, say it that way. If you do not mean all Jews, define the subset via the “_______”. I believe that you will perceive your own writing as better due to improved precision & clarity.
     
    I usually avoid trimming others' speech and consequently, resist others' attempts to trim mine. My words are my own. I have chosen my words and will let them stand.

    However, much is going on I do not understand. A substantial minority among Jews have put great energy and talent into promoting my side in the culture war. Take Ilana Mercer for example: we gentiles lack any of our own as effective, eloquent and persistent at promoting white interests.

    Yet we still have a Jewish problem.

    There exists no ethnocentric Dutch elite (say) acting cohesively to destroy me and mine.

    The trouble with the word elite in my opinion is that it lacks any clear, stable definition. The word becomes a generalized adjective of abuse—not devoid of meaning, but too susceptible to partisan interpretation. The word Jewish by contrast, which means the same today as centuries ago, admits little ambiguity. Even my Jewish friends, who are nonhostile, identify as Jewish. I must deal with reality as it exists.

    I have already gone on too long about ethnic matters I do not understand well enough to go on about, so I'll let it rest there for the moment.

    Replies: @A123

  15. Wency says:

    I wonder how much of what’s going on here is just the rise of things like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. Note that it’s pretty stable after the 90s, which is when conservative media took off.

    But the trouble then is explaining the initial decline in the 80s. Rush got started in the 80s but I didn’t think he was a national figure until the 90s. But he did get started in NYC, and thus the median Jew might have become familiar with him well before the median liberal did.

    Another thought explaining the 80s: was Reagan well-treated by the press (for a Republican)? I’m too young to remember much but my sense is he probably got better press treatment than any Republican since, and better than Nixon or Ford, due to a combination of his charisma and popularity. If so, that might explain part of the 80s move, with Jews upset at the media’s insufficiently hostile treatment of Reagan.

    If we had the data, one thing to look at would be Jewish confidence in, say, the NYT or network TV news over time. If my theory is correct, these would be far more stable than the chart above. Meanwhile conservative confidence in these institutions would plummet.

    • Replies: @Alden
    @Wency

    I remember Raegan administration very well. He was treated very badly by the press. So was Mrs Raegan and all his aides and appointed officials. Mrs Reagan was trashed for being well dressed although a former democrat First Lady Mrs Kennedy was still alive and the press still gushed over every outfit Kennedy wore. Even the Wellesley college alum association despised Mrs Raegan

    Raegan had been active in, and President of, a numerically small but important labor union. screen actors guild since he joined. He’d also been a 2 term governor of a state larger than some important European countries and with one of the 10 largest economies in the world.

    Yet the press, even in California trashed him as a dumb actor as if he’d never been a labor union president and governor. It was really bad. He was treated as badly by the press as Trump and Bush were. At least no fraudulent impeachment.

    And no credit to Raegan when the Soviet Beast From The East communism fell apart less than 2 years after Raegan left office. It was Raegan’s policies that led to the downfall of The Beast From The East. Along with the Polish Pope and other efforts.

  16. @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Nonhostile Jews still benefit from Jewish nepotism, to the degree that my son cannot get into Harvard but my Jewish friend’s son can.
     
    There is a huge problem with this statement. Look at the math:

    -- How many Jews have attended Harvard? Would you accept 50,000 as a generous over estimate?
    -- How many Jews are in the U.S.? About 7,000,000?
    -- So only 0.75% = (50,000 / 7,000,000) can access Harvard.

    Your non-elite Jewish neighbor has identical access to Harvard that you do... NONE.

    I doubt that I can play a very constructive role in making Jews feel welcome. The attempt to do so only feeds Jewish paranoia
     
    If you are willing to improve your use of the English language, you can be substantially more constructive. The plural "Jews" is a language form for the collection of all Jews. Are you really trying to accuse "All Jews" including U.S. Military veterans?

    If your goal is not targeting "All Jews", the English language contains modifiers, such as adjectives. For example, "Elite Jews" or "Far Left Jews". Let us return to your first accusation using better language with appropriate modifiers:

    Elite Jews benefit from elite Jewish nepotism, to the degree that my non-elite son cannot get into Harvard but an elite Jewish son can.

    Before the introduction of modifiers, the accusation was pejorative and untrue. With modifiers and a little editing, it becomes a non-objectionable and highly accurate statement about elite nepotism.

    Try going a few days only using the modifier construction "_______ Jews". If you mean " All Jews", say it that way. If you do not mean all Jews, define the subset via the "_______". I believe that you will perceive your own writing as better due to improved precision & clarity.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    The Islamo-SJW hypothesis is silly in my opinion. However:

    Try going a few days only using the modifier construction “_______ Jews”. If you mean ” All Jews”, say it that way. If you do not mean all Jews, define the subset via the “_______”. I believe that you will perceive your own writing as better due to improved precision & clarity.

    I usually avoid trimming others’ speech and consequently, resist others’ attempts to trim mine. My words are my own. I have chosen my words and will let them stand.

    However, much is going on I do not understand. A substantial minority among Jews have put great energy and talent into promoting my side in the culture war. Take Ilana Mercer for example: we gentiles lack any of our own as effective, eloquent and persistent at promoting white interests.

    Yet we still have a Jewish problem.

    There exists no ethnocentric Dutch elite (say) acting cohesively to destroy me and mine.

    The trouble with the word elite in my opinion is that it lacks any clear, stable definition. The word becomes a generalized adjective of abuse—not devoid of meaning, but too susceptible to partisan interpretation. The word Jewish by contrast, which means the same today as centuries ago, admits little ambiguity. Even my Jewish friends, who are nonhostile, identify as Jewish. I must deal with reality as it exists.

    I have already gone on too long about ethnic matters I do not understand well enough to go on about, so I’ll let it rest there for the moment.

    • Replies: @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund

    The problem with inarticulate use of the English language is miscommunication. Are you intentionally trying to create problems for yourself?

    Let us look at your phrase:


    Yet we still have a Jewish problem.
     
    Jewish is another collective term for "All Jews". So what you are actually saying is:

    Yet we still have an ALL JEWS problem.

    Then you immediately contradict yourself by trying to create a carve out for "personal friends whom you deem nonhostile".

    You have admitted that you have little to no contact with Orthodox Branch members. Yet you denigrate them in your sweeping statements about ALL JEWS via the collective term Jewish.

    If you do not like "Elite" as a modifier, please feel free to use something else. However, you definitely need something that better identifies the specific subgroup that you have an issue with.

    The Islamo-SJW hypothesis is silly in my opinion.
     
    How are objective facts silly?

    In the U.S., the BLM movement offers open SJW support for the Muslim Occupation of Judea & Samaria. Look at all of the signage here:
    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/manufacturing-hate/#comment-4639291

    It is even more clear on the European front:

    • George IslamoSoros is anti-Israel and pro-BDS. These are classic Islamic positions and antithetical to Jewish positions.
    • George IslamoSoros is a huge backer of SJW NGO's like his Open Society Foundation.
    • His pro-Islamic NGO's are directly tied to dumping Muslims in Europe, such as the various Sea Watch human trafficking vessels.

    Everyone can see the incredibly obvious, direct connection between SJW and Islam.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    P.S. You still need to answer the question about 100% exclusive Christian responsibility for keeping the Charlottesville Five in prison. Repeatedly ducking it causes others to perceive you as highly evasive.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Bardon Kaldian, @anon, @anon, @Bill

  17. NATIONALIZE THE CORPORATE MEDIA APPARATUS NOW!

    NATIONALIZE THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK NOW!

    ABOLISH THE CIA AND FBI NOW!

    PEWITT CONJURED LOOT PORTION(PCLP) NOW!

    The Pewitt Conjured Loot Portion(PCLP) will pay each American who has all blood ancestry born in colonial America or the USA before 1924 a cool ten thousand dollars a month. The US Treasury and the Federal Reserve Bank shall work together to conjure up the cash out of thin air, just like the ruling class is doing now.

    I wrote this in October of 2018 about the disproportionate JEW control of the anti-White mass media:

    Patriotic Americans must acknowledge that the Mass Immigration problem or the Flash Mob Caravan problem brings up the JEW QUESTION.

    There is no doubt that certain JEWS have a disproportionate control of the corporate propaganda apparatus in the United States. There is no doubt that the Jew-controlled corporate media pushes an anti-White and anti-Christian message of total hatred for European Christians. No honest person would disagree with that.

    The JEW-controlled corporate propaganda apparatus constantly pushes nation-wrecking open borders mass immigration and multicultural mayhem. In order to stop Mass Immigration and Flash Mob Caravans it will be necessary to remove disproportionate media power from the Jews.

    A political chieftain from the White Core American Patriots will have to dislodge from power all Jew-controlled media outlets in the United States.

    Certain JEWS must be recognized as a hostile element within the WASP/JEW ruling class of the American Empire.

    The United States is a European Christian nation, and elements hostile to the European Christian ancestral core of the United states must not be allowed to have disproportionate power in the media to attack Whites and Christians.

    Jew-controlled corporate media outlets include:

    COMCAST/NBC

    DISNEY/ABC

    VIACOM/CBS

    CNN

    The New York Times

    FOX NEWS is controlled by the Neo-Conservative globalizer Murdoch

    Go read “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” by Walt and Mearsheimer to see how certain JEWS use their disproportionate political and media power to shape the foreign policy of the American Empire.

    The Jew Question is about Mass Immigration and the Iraq War debacle and so much more.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/how-to-deal-with-flash-mob-caravans/#comment-2593739

  18. The JEW QUESTION explained:

    Jews form a nation within a nation everywhere they reside. Can Jews ever be considered to be part of the larger nation in which they reside when they are genetically and culturally predisposed to put the interests of the Jew Nation over and above the interests of the larger nations in which they reside?

  19. In seriousness, class matters. It’s a big club and most of us, including most Jews, ain’t in it.

    In seriousness, class matters. It’s a small club and most of us, including most Jews, ain’t in it.

    FIFY

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  20. @Mulga Mumblebrain
    @oliver elkington

    Murdoch's mother was a Jew, and a fine person by general acclamation. What went wrong? In any case Rupe has been deep in debt for decades, so he knows which piper calls the tune. Murdoch's cancer here in Austfailia is GROVELLINGLY pro-Israel, anti-Palestinian and thoroughly nassty-like its Boss.

    Replies: @Realist

    Murdoch’s mother was a Jew,…

    Citation.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
    @Realist

    David Irving provides some information on Murdoch's origins from the now-defunct Candor magazine:


    "Rupert's father Sir Keith Murdoch [see below] attained his prominent position in Australian society through a fortuitous marriage to the daughter of a wealthy Jewish family, née Elisabeth Joy Greene. Through his wife's connections, Keith Murdoch was subsequently promoted from reporter to chairman of the British-owned newspaper where he worked. There was enough money to buy himself a knighthood of the British realm, two newspapers in Adelaide, South Australia, and a radio station in a faraway mining town. For some reason, Murdoch has always tried to hide the fact that his pious mother brought him up as a Jew...
     
    And there's this article from Richard H. Curtiss of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs:

    Press lord Rupert Murdoch was born in Melbourne, Australia, on March 11, 1931. His grandfather was a Protestant minister who immigrated to Australia from Britain. Rupert's father, Sir Keith Murdoch, was a newspaper publisher, and his mother an Orthodox Jew, although Murdoch never offers that information in his biographies.
     
    But whether one wishes to acknowledge any of this as evidence of his Jewish origins, it appears rather irrelevant, as Murdoch's position has always been that of a Zionist. From the WRMEA article:

    Murdoch's close relationship with (Ariel) Sharon and heavy investment in Israel led former Times Africa correspondent Sam Kiley to resign his position. "The Times foreign editor and other middle managers flew into hysterical terror every time a pro-Israel lobbying group wrote in with a quibble or complaint," Kiley said, "and then usually took [the lobby's] side against their own correspondent...No pro-Israel lobbyist ever dreamed of having such power over a great national newspaper." After one conversation in which Kiley was asked not to mention a 12-year-old Palestinian boy who was killed by Israeli troops, the reporter "was left wordless, so I quit."
     
    , @Charles Pewitt
    @Realist

    Citation.

    Okay:

    https://twitter.com/StGeorgeCross17/status/1385201042325970944?s=20

  21. Would be interesting to see what the trend was in markets that were more limited than the US.

    I suspect that there is a general social trend to express a greater distrust of the media, without left-leaning groups experiencing any ideological divergence from the leftward tilt of the media. That it is the result of increasing the amount of product, and also of people wanting to appear sophisticated.

    One thing that I remember clearly from the ’90s is that the number of newscasts really proliferated. For example, if you count PBS, in Boston, on regular broadcast TV, there were newscasts on at least 7 channels (not counting Spanish language.) And the available hours that they were on each day increased crazily – once you start a newscast, it costs relatively little to extend it an hour and move the second hour onto another channel. I believe local newscasts bring in more money for local stations than nationally-produced TV shows.

    Add in cable, and there were news cable channels on 24/7.

    It was also true of the ’80s to a certain extent. CNN premiered in 1980. Nightline premiered in 1980. Headline News in 1982. And of course, later on, the internet would add to the variety available.

  22. A123 says:
    @V. K. Ovelund
    @A123

    The Islamo-SJW hypothesis is silly in my opinion. However:


    Try going a few days only using the modifier construction “_______ Jews”. If you mean ” All Jews”, say it that way. If you do not mean all Jews, define the subset via the “_______”. I believe that you will perceive your own writing as better due to improved precision & clarity.
     
    I usually avoid trimming others' speech and consequently, resist others' attempts to trim mine. My words are my own. I have chosen my words and will let them stand.

    However, much is going on I do not understand. A substantial minority among Jews have put great energy and talent into promoting my side in the culture war. Take Ilana Mercer for example: we gentiles lack any of our own as effective, eloquent and persistent at promoting white interests.

    Yet we still have a Jewish problem.

    There exists no ethnocentric Dutch elite (say) acting cohesively to destroy me and mine.

    The trouble with the word elite in my opinion is that it lacks any clear, stable definition. The word becomes a generalized adjective of abuse—not devoid of meaning, but too susceptible to partisan interpretation. The word Jewish by contrast, which means the same today as centuries ago, admits little ambiguity. Even my Jewish friends, who are nonhostile, identify as Jewish. I must deal with reality as it exists.

    I have already gone on too long about ethnic matters I do not understand well enough to go on about, so I'll let it rest there for the moment.

    Replies: @A123

    The problem with inarticulate use of the English language is miscommunication. Are you intentionally trying to create problems for yourself?

    Let us look at your phrase:

    Yet we still have a Jewish problem.

    Jewish is another collective term for “All Jews”. So what you are actually saying is:

    Yet we still have an ALL JEWS problem.

    Then you immediately contradict yourself by trying to create a carve out for “personal friends whom you deem nonhostile”.

    You have admitted that you have little to no contact with Orthodox Branch members. Yet you denigrate them in your sweeping statements about ALL JEWS via the collective term Jewish.

    If you do not like “Elite” as a modifier, please feel free to use something else. However, you definitely need something that better identifies the specific subgroup that you have an issue with.

    The Islamo-SJW hypothesis is silly in my opinion.

    How are objective facts silly?

    In the U.S., the BLM movement offers open SJW support for the Muslim Occupation of Judea & Samaria. Look at all of the signage here:
    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/manufacturing-hate/#comment-4639291

    It is even more clear on the European front:

    • George IslamoSoros is anti-Israel and pro-BDS. These are classic Islamic positions and antithetical to Jewish positions.
    • George IslamoSoros is a huge backer of SJW NGO’s like his Open Society Foundation.
    • His pro-Islamic NGO’s are directly tied to dumping Muslims in Europe, such as the various Sea Watch human trafficking vessels.

    Everyone can see the incredibly obvious, direct connection between SJW and Islam.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    P.S. You still need to answer the question about 100% exclusive Christian responsibility for keeping the Charlottesville Five in prison. Repeatedly ducking it causes others to perceive you as highly evasive.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @A123


    Everyone can see ...
     
    Everyone, indeed.

    You still need to answer the question about 100% exclusive Christian responsibility for keeping the Charlottesville Five in prison. Repeatedly ducking it causes others to perceive you as highly evasive.
     
    Everyone and others, too!

    I do not recall ducking the question before, but since I have already answered the question twice in earlier threads, I shall duck it now. I am glad that you remember my compatriots unjustly imprisoned, though. Thank you for that.

    Replies: @A123, @Mario Partisan

    , @Bardon Kaldian
    @A123

    There is no real connection between SJW & Islam. They don't even know Islam (or any other culture), but are against historical Western culture.

    They are what late Harold Bloom termed "The School of Resentment"(in his "Western Canon"). There is not some grand plot, scheme, .... , but more a symptom of a decadent society.

    Replies: @A123, @dfordoom

    , @anon
    @A123

    Asia Times online
    South Asia
    Palestinians pay fro Indian ambitions.

    Sept 10,2003 By Ramtanu Maitra
    Another major even was the first-ever joint Capitol Hill forum that was held on July 16,between the US Indian Political Action Committee ,the American Jewish Committee ,and AIPAC. The event featured nearly a dozen Congress members from across the US, including Tom Lantos and Gary Ackerman .Tom Lantos summarized the binding issue of the evening thus ,” We are drawn together by mindless vicious fanatic Islamic terrorism”. Congressman Ackerman said that Israel was “Surrounded by 120 millions Muslims” while “India has 120 millions Muslims”.


    No wonder Frum wanted USA attack Pakistan ( antiwar.com )

    And then they wonder why muslims of Pakistan or India are anti Semite.

    , @anon
    @A123


    Jewish is another collective term for “All Jews”. So what you are actually saying is:

    Yet we still have an ALL JEWS problem.
     
    not ALL jews, dont be silly

    just like when jews claim whites benefit from some kind of unearned "Privilege" they dont mean ALL whites
    , @Bill
    @A123


    Jewish is another collective term for “All Jews”.
     
    That's false and silly. It would be impossible to talk about groups of things coherently if language worked this way. "Women are shorter than men" is a true statement, and you are a tiresome liar.
  23. I also wonder if there may have been a boost in the 1970s from the perception that the press was challenging the establishment with things like Watergate and the Pentagon Papers.

  24. For me, an interesting poll would be one that tracks Jewish confidence in diversity over time.

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
    @songbird

    Mr Songbird says:

    For me, an interesting poll would be one that tracks Jewish confidence in diversity over time.

    Tweets from 2015:

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/644613032346288128?s=20

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/644569489225437184?s=20

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/575789883744124928?s=20

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/600319106726912000?s=20

    Replies: @songbird

  25. @Realist
    @Mulga Mumblebrain


    Murdoch’s mother was a Jew,...
     
    Citation.

    Replies: @AnonStarter, @Charles Pewitt

    David Irving provides some information on Murdoch’s origins from the now-defunct Candor magazine:

    “Rupert’s father Sir Keith Murdoch [see below] attained his prominent position in Australian society through a fortuitous marriage to the daughter of a wealthy Jewish family, née Elisabeth Joy Greene. Through his wife’s connections, Keith Murdoch was subsequently promoted from reporter to chairman of the British-owned newspaper where he worked. There was enough money to buy himself a knighthood of the British realm, two newspapers in Adelaide, South Australia, and a radio station in a faraway mining town. For some reason, Murdoch has always tried to hide the fact that his pious mother brought him up as a Jew…

    And there’s this article from Richard H. Curtiss of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs:

    Press lord Rupert Murdoch was born in Melbourne, Australia, on March 11, 1931. His grandfather was a Protestant minister who immigrated to Australia from Britain. Rupert’s father, Sir Keith Murdoch, was a newspaper publisher, and his mother an Orthodox Jew, although Murdoch never offers that information in his biographies.

    But whether one wishes to acknowledge any of this as evidence of his Jewish origins, it appears rather irrelevant, as Murdoch’s position has always been that of a Zionist. From the WRMEA article:

    Murdoch’s close relationship with (Ariel) Sharon and heavy investment in Israel led former Times Africa correspondent Sam Kiley to resign his position. “The Times foreign editor and other middle managers flew into hysterical terror every time a pro-Israel lobbying group wrote in with a quibble or complaint,” Kiley said, “and then usually took [the lobby’s] side against their own correspondent…No pro-Israel lobbyist ever dreamed of having such power over a great national newspaper.” After one conversation in which Kiley was asked not to mention a 12-year-old Palestinian boy who was killed by Israeli troops, the reporter “was left wordless, so I quit.”

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  26. @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund

    The problem with inarticulate use of the English language is miscommunication. Are you intentionally trying to create problems for yourself?

    Let us look at your phrase:


    Yet we still have a Jewish problem.
     
    Jewish is another collective term for "All Jews". So what you are actually saying is:

    Yet we still have an ALL JEWS problem.

    Then you immediately contradict yourself by trying to create a carve out for "personal friends whom you deem nonhostile".

    You have admitted that you have little to no contact with Orthodox Branch members. Yet you denigrate them in your sweeping statements about ALL JEWS via the collective term Jewish.

    If you do not like "Elite" as a modifier, please feel free to use something else. However, you definitely need something that better identifies the specific subgroup that you have an issue with.

    The Islamo-SJW hypothesis is silly in my opinion.
     
    How are objective facts silly?

    In the U.S., the BLM movement offers open SJW support for the Muslim Occupation of Judea & Samaria. Look at all of the signage here:
    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/manufacturing-hate/#comment-4639291

    It is even more clear on the European front:

    • George IslamoSoros is anti-Israel and pro-BDS. These are classic Islamic positions and antithetical to Jewish positions.
    • George IslamoSoros is a huge backer of SJW NGO's like his Open Society Foundation.
    • His pro-Islamic NGO's are directly tied to dumping Muslims in Europe, such as the various Sea Watch human trafficking vessels.

    Everyone can see the incredibly obvious, direct connection between SJW and Islam.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    P.S. You still need to answer the question about 100% exclusive Christian responsibility for keeping the Charlottesville Five in prison. Repeatedly ducking it causes others to perceive you as highly evasive.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Bardon Kaldian, @anon, @anon, @Bill

    Everyone can see …

    Everyone, indeed.

    You still need to answer the question about 100% exclusive Christian responsibility for keeping the Charlottesville Five in prison. Repeatedly ducking it causes others to perceive you as highly evasive.

    Everyone and others, too!

    I do not recall ducking the question before, but since I have already answered the question twice in earlier threads, I shall duck it now. I am glad that you remember my compatriots unjustly imprisoned, though. Thank you for that.

    • Replies: @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund


    I do not recall ducking the question before, but since I have already answered the question twice in earlier threads, I shall duck it now.
     
    You have pontificated at great length while avoiding a direct answer. The "question" is about the logic. A diatribe and lengthy reading assignment is a "duck". So, you have not answered the question once. You definitely have not answered twice.

    Let me try again:


    Governor Ralph Northam refuses to pardon Charlottesville Five. There is one-and-only-one Christian totally responsible for keeping the Charlottesville Five in jail.

    Is Ralph Northam:
    -A- One Elite individual
    -B- 100% of “All Christians” in the U.S.

    • Do you believe “All Christians” are guilty due to the Elite Governor’s failure to provide a pardon?
    • If you do not believe Elite Northam’s actions define Christianity — Why do you apply a completely different standard, believing Elite Mayorkas’s actions define Judaism?
     

    Please, try not to be evasive this time.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @Mario Partisan
    @V. K. Ovelund

    A123 wrote:


    Everyone can see the incredibly obvious, direct connection between SJW and Islam.
     
    The phrase should be revised: very few can see the indirect connection between SJW and Islam.

    What is the link? To continue with my theme from yesterday, the link is Zionism and its imperial management methods.



    First, I think I might understand why A123 refers to Soros as a Muslim. It’s a version of the No True Scotsman fallacy – any person of Jewish background who has a difference with Likud is not a true Jew, and therefore must be something else. That something else can’t be a Christian either because a true Christian is one who supports Likud. Therefore the person must be a Muslim. I imagine that in A123’s mind the only true Jews are those who would put a bullet in Yitzhak Rabin.

    That said let’s return to the main theme: the connection between Zionism and Wokism. The first thing to understand is the nature of the State of Israel and its position in the world. Israel cannot stand on its own feet, and I don’t believe it was ever intended to, even if Herzl had wanted that in his vision. For its survival, Israel depends on transfers of financial and technical assets, and direct and indirect military assistance from more powerful states, the main one being the US. Thus, the Zionist project depends, for its survival, on having its agents in positions of influence in foreign countries. In effect, materially endowed foreign countries are made into colonies of Israel. The elite agents of Israel in the West constitute the Tribe Incorporated. The transfers amount to imperial tribute paid by the periphery to the center (Israel).

    At the risk of digressing, it might help to mention a characteristic of former British and French colonies, especially the ones in the ME region, like Iraq and Syria. Iraq has a Shia demographic majority, but prior to 2003, the political elite around Saddam Hussein tended to be Sunni. In neighboring Syria, the demographic majority is Sunni, but the political elite around the Assad family is Shia Alawite.

    This pattern of local elites being from minority groups results from an imperial management strategy. An imperial power needs local proxies for a variety of administrative functions. If the imperial power draws its local administrators from the majority demographic, it heightens the risk that they will go rogue because, being part of the majority, they will be able to remain in power following independence. If, on the other hand, the local elite are part of a minority, they will be more loyal to the colonial power, as seeking independence risks being deposed by the upstarts among the majority group. Obviously, the course of history was more complicated as there are always other factors involved, but it seems logical that this pattern arose out of a strategy for managing loyalty to the colonial centers.

    What is the parallel? PC, SJW and Wokism constitute the ideology of majority replacement and dispossession in favor of a cluster of minority groups who the Tribe Incorporated believe will be more loyal junior partners as the majority becomes restless under the increasing costs of supporting the State of Israel. The risks for Zionism and thus the divisions emerging within the Tribe Incorporated regarding methods stem from the fundamental fact that relations between exploiter and exploited are always unstable.

    This imperial management strategy has to deal with glaring and hypocritical contradictions. Wokism and white replacement in the West risk undermining support for Israel on the Left as Likud’s actions are very unwoke. At the same time, support for Jews everywhere is undermined on the Right, because “wokism for you and ethno-nationalism for me” is disgustingly hypocritical. Thus, having different sets of Tribe Inc figures embrace different sides of the woke/unwoke divide helps to take the heat off the Tribe as a collective. The Left will say, but Soros supports us, so don’t be an anti-semite, just anti-Zionist. The Right will say, but Ben Shapiro supports us, don’t be an anti-semite, just anti-Woke.

    In practice however, Soros’ supposed support for BDS has been completely ineffectual. A majority of states, including woke as hell California have anti-BDS legislation that prescribes potentially serious financial and employment penalties for openly supporting BDS. The ant-BDS legislation proposed at the federal level seems to be largely sponsored by Democrats. So far, it seems Soros is effective in promoting Wokism while conveniently ineffectual in getting it applied to Israel.

    On the other hand, Right Zionism, has been effective in promoting various forms of hostility to Muslims, especially in Europe, but completely ineffectual in stopping Islamic migration in the first place. And why should it want to? Right Zionism and neo-conservatism led the charge to turn the MENA into destroyed Mad Max wastelands. It is much better for Israel that hordes of military age Arab men march into Europe rather than on Israel. And when divisions arise between whites and Arabs in Europe, the Zionists can say, “see what poor Israel has to deal with goyim.” In practice, however, Right Zionism hasn’t done anything to protect Europe. In France, you have the glaringly absurd combinations of hate speech laws both for those who criticize immigration and for those who criticize Zionism. By law, in France, you are mandated to be anti-nationalist for France and pro-nationalist for Israel. Right Zionism hasn’t protected anyone against Wokism and Left Zionism hasn’t protected anyone from Zionism.

    The Zionists, both Left and Right, understand that the Book of Exodus contains a metaphor. The split in the Red Sea is the blood of the goyim spilled as they fight and squabble over inanities. God’s Chosen Master Race ™ walks through the split, unscathed, to its Promised Land.

    Replies: @anon

  27. I wonder how much of this trend is driven by the notorious jewish paranoia? As alternative media sources outside the control of corporate j-media have proliferated, jews have responded by losing faith in media.

  28. Some stats to put things in perspective …

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/rather-than-drifting-away-over-two-thirds-of-us-jews-feel-tie-to-israel-poll/

    US Jews see themselves as overwhelmingly pro-Israel, with a clear majority saying their affinity for the Jewish state has either remained the same or become stronger over the past five years, according to a survey released Tuesday. … Eight out of ten respondents identified as “pro-Israel” and 67 percent said they were emotionally “attached” or “very attached” to the Jewish state, the Ruderman Family Foundation survey found.

    Having sampled 2,500 Jews representing the adult Jewish population in the US, the survey “is the most comprehensive survey of the Jewish community in the United States in recent years, and one of the largest ever,” the statement said.

    I find, however, that these statistics don’t really matter as much as the incessant campaigns to shut down criticism of Israel across every avenue of influence. Even if this “overwhelmingly pro-Israel” sentiment didn’t translate into support for widespread censorship, that effort to suppress criticism remains problematic, and stats such as these only fuel further suspicion about Jews in general.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @AnonStarter

    I'm not necessarily accusing you of this (for all I know, you are an American), but a lot of non-Americans from the Islamic World seem to not understand that the real fulcrum of pro-Israel sentiment ever since the 1980s has come from evangelical Protestant Christianity, not Judaism. That power has been on the decline ever since Bush II imploded. The only reason this doesn't show up in policy more often is because American politics is dominated by geriatrics. Rainbow Coalition is going to be more heavily pro-Palestinian, not that this'll do them any good, because they are the most useless people on the planet.

    In 1967 with the Six Day's War, this was very different: domestic Jewish political sentiment was a decisive factor in Israel's favor. But that was over 50 years ago now: back then, the Holocaust was a real living memory and intermarriage wasn't quite as ubiquitous. Today's American Jews are more likely than not to look at Israelis as vaguely embarrassing, sort of like how upwardly mobile bien-pensants from the American South look at their relatives, to the extent they identify with them at all.

    Replies: @AnonStarter, @songbird, @dfordoom

  29. Alden says:
    @Wency
    I wonder how much of what's going on here is just the rise of things like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. Note that it's pretty stable after the 90s, which is when conservative media took off.

    But the trouble then is explaining the initial decline in the 80s. Rush got started in the 80s but I didn't think he was a national figure until the 90s. But he did get started in NYC, and thus the median Jew might have become familiar with him well before the median liberal did.

    Another thought explaining the 80s: was Reagan well-treated by the press (for a Republican)? I'm too young to remember much but my sense is he probably got better press treatment than any Republican since, and better than Nixon or Ford, due to a combination of his charisma and popularity. If so, that might explain part of the 80s move, with Jews upset at the media's insufficiently hostile treatment of Reagan.

    If we had the data, one thing to look at would be Jewish confidence in, say, the NYT or network TV news over time. If my theory is correct, these would be far more stable than the chart above. Meanwhile conservative confidence in these institutions would plummet.

    Replies: @Alden

    I remember Raegan administration very well. He was treated very badly by the press. So was Mrs Raegan and all his aides and appointed officials. Mrs Reagan was trashed for being well dressed although a former democrat First Lady Mrs Kennedy was still alive and the press still gushed over every outfit Kennedy wore. Even the Wellesley college alum association despised Mrs Raegan

    Raegan had been active in, and President of, a numerically small but important labor union. screen actors guild since he joined. He’d also been a 2 term governor of a state larger than some important European countries and with one of the 10 largest economies in the world.

    Yet the press, even in California trashed him as a dumb actor as if he’d never been a labor union president and governor. It was really bad. He was treated as badly by the press as Trump and Bush were. At least no fraudulent impeachment.

    And no credit to Raegan when the Soviet Beast From The East communism fell apart less than 2 years after Raegan left office. It was Raegan’s policies that led to the downfall of The Beast From The East. Along with the Polish Pope and other efforts.

  30. A123 says:
    @V. K. Ovelund
    @A123


    Everyone can see ...
     
    Everyone, indeed.

    You still need to answer the question about 100% exclusive Christian responsibility for keeping the Charlottesville Five in prison. Repeatedly ducking it causes others to perceive you as highly evasive.
     
    Everyone and others, too!

    I do not recall ducking the question before, but since I have already answered the question twice in earlier threads, I shall duck it now. I am glad that you remember my compatriots unjustly imprisoned, though. Thank you for that.

    Replies: @A123, @Mario Partisan

    I do not recall ducking the question before, but since I have already answered the question twice in earlier threads, I shall duck it now.

    You have pontificated at great length while avoiding a direct answer. The “question” is about the logic. A diatribe and lengthy reading assignment is a “duck”. So, you have not answered the question once. You definitely have not answered twice.

    Let me try again:

    Governor Ralph Northam refuses to pardon Charlottesville Five. There is one-and-only-one Christian totally responsible for keeping the Charlottesville Five in jail.

    Is Ralph Northam:
    -A- One Elite individual
    -B- 100% of “All Christians” in the U.S.

    • Do you believe “All Christians” are guilty due to the Elite Governor’s failure to provide a pardon?
    • If you do not believe Elite Northam’s actions define Christianity — Why do you apply a completely different standard, believing Elite Mayorkas’s actions define Judaism?

    Please, try not to be evasive this time.

    PEACE 😇

    • Agree: Bardon Kaldian
    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @A123

    @Bardon Kalidan

    I have answered so many of A123's questions that one eventually had to start throttling the flow of answers. Did you have a specific question you wanted me to address?

    It was not my intent “to pontificate at great length while avoiding a direct answer.” If I have inadvertently done that, then would you draw my attention to the defect so I can remedy it?

    You might find my answer disagreeable, but I do not mean to be dense.

    Replies: @A123

  31. @songbird
    For me, an interesting poll would be one that tracks Jewish confidence in diversity over time.

    Replies: @Charles Pewitt

    Mr Songbird says:

    For me, an interesting poll would be one that tracks Jewish confidence in diversity over time.

    Tweets from 2015:

    • Replies: @songbird
    @Charles Pewitt

    IMO, future public support for Zionism in the US won't matter very much, as Jews will continue to exert an enormously outsized influence on US politicians.

    What may matter more, in relative terms, though is the reduced capacity of the US to actually do things Israel wants. Reduced US influence - reduced military and economic clout. Though most Muslim countries seem to be happy to play ball with Israel, and it has a nuclear deterrent, so it doesn't seem to be in much danger.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  32. @Realist
    @Mulga Mumblebrain


    Murdoch’s mother was a Jew,...
     
    Citation.

    Replies: @AnonStarter, @Charles Pewitt

    Citation.

    Okay:

  33. @Charles Pewitt
    @songbird

    Mr Songbird says:

    For me, an interesting poll would be one that tracks Jewish confidence in diversity over time.

    Tweets from 2015:

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/644613032346288128?s=20

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/644569489225437184?s=20

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/575789883744124928?s=20

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/600319106726912000?s=20

    Replies: @songbird

    IMO, future public support for Zionism in the US won’t matter very much, as Jews will continue to exert an enormously outsized influence on US politicians.

    What may matter more, in relative terms, though is the reduced capacity of the US to actually do things Israel wants. Reduced US influence – reduced military and economic clout. Though most Muslim countries seem to be happy to play ball with Israel, and it has a nuclear deterrent, so it doesn’t seem to be in much danger.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @songbird

    I don't mind if the Israelis want to talk to, do business with, and share intelligence with China... if we get to do the same with whoever we want, including Iran. They don't want you to do that, but will do that themselves? Well, then, that makes you an idiot for putting up with it, and what are American politicians but just that?

    No such thing as romance in foreign policy, only marriages of convenience and the occasional bit of adultery. ;) That might be overstating things just a bit, given America's inevitable tendencies and our own need to retain the edge in attracting pepole, but I really do think that the substitution of moralizing and symbolism for actual policy all over the board-immigration, trade, taxes, FP, whatever-is a huge part of what is wrong with our nation today.

  34. IMO, future public support for Zionism in the US won’t matter very much, as Jews will continue to exert an enormously outsized influence on US politicians.

    I think the Great Lakes states German Americans — important to the Electoral College — will pull back support from GOP presidential primary contenders who go on and on about putting the interests of Israel over and above the interests of the USA. Iowa and New Hampshire are also not states that Israel First politics will play well. South Carolina saw Trump bash the shit out of George W Bush for the Iraq War debacle.

    Anglo-Celt evangelicals in the South might be tiring of all the Israel First boosterism of the GOP boobs.

    Teddy Cruz and Tom Cotton might be in trouble for their obvious push to put the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of the USA.

  35. @AnonStarter
    Some stats to put things in perspective ...

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/rather-than-drifting-away-over-two-thirds-of-us-jews-feel-tie-to-israel-poll/

    US Jews see themselves as overwhelmingly pro-Israel, with a clear majority saying their affinity for the Jewish state has either remained the same or become stronger over the past five years, according to a survey released Tuesday. ... Eight out of ten respondents identified as “pro-Israel” and 67 percent said they were emotionally “attached” or “very attached” to the Jewish state, the Ruderman Family Foundation survey found.

    Having sampled 2,500 Jews representing the adult Jewish population in the US, the survey “is the most comprehensive survey of the Jewish community in the United States in recent years, and one of the largest ever,” the statement said.
     
    I find, however, that these statistics don't really matter as much as the incessant campaigns to shut down criticism of Israel across every avenue of influence. Even if this "overwhelmingly pro-Israel" sentiment didn't translate into support for widespread censorship, that effort to suppress criticism remains problematic, and stats such as these only fuel further suspicion about Jews in general.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    I’m not necessarily accusing you of this (for all I know, you are an American), but a lot of non-Americans from the Islamic World seem to not understand that the real fulcrum of pro-Israel sentiment ever since the 1980s has come from evangelical Protestant Christianity, not Judaism. That power has been on the decline ever since Bush II imploded. The only reason this doesn’t show up in policy more often is because American politics is dominated by geriatrics. Rainbow Coalition is going to be more heavily pro-Palestinian, not that this’ll do them any good, because they are the most useless people on the planet.

    In 1967 with the Six Day’s War, this was very different: domestic Jewish political sentiment was a decisive factor in Israel’s favor. But that was over 50 years ago now: back then, the Holocaust was a real living memory and intermarriage wasn’t quite as ubiquitous. Today’s American Jews are more likely than not to look at Israelis as vaguely embarrassing, sort of like how upwardly mobile bien-pensants from the American South look at their relatives, to the extent they identify with them at all.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
    @nebulafox

    I’m not necessarily accusing you of this (for all I know, you are an American), but a lot of non-Americans from the Islamic World seem to not understand that the real fulcrum of pro-Israel sentiment ever since the 1980s has come from evangelical Protestant Christianity, not Judaism.

    Well, I've never suggested that Judaism per se is the primary impetus behind pro-Israel sentiment and I'm fully aware of the evangelical factor, being a born-and-raised American who's bothered to pay attention. :)

    But, since we've broached the topic of religion ...

    The implicitly Zionist dispensation of Judaism has its origins in Temple Israel, whose reconstruction of Scripture following the Babylonian exile essentially sowed the seeds of Jewish Manifest Destiny over two and one-half millennia before Herzl was a glimmer in his daddy's eye. Pauline Christianity could not have been but the brainchild of Israel in its apotheosis of a Jewish prophet and concomitant "abrogation" of the Law -- a religion both amenable to pagan Europe and suitable for advancing the Temple's interests therein. That result's been achieved.

    Christians who, prior to the late 19th century, advocated for the restoration of David's kingdom in Palestine are merely reading from a playbook written for them centuries before Jesus came on the scene. Jeremiah 8:8 alludes to that corruption.

    None of this is to glibly dismiss what you mention. Rather, it is to say that the roots of the Zionist endeavor run much deeper in western society than many would be willing to admit.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    , @songbird
    @nebulafox


    I really do think that the substitution of moralizing and symbolism for actual policy all over the board-immigration, trade, taxes, FP, whatever-is a huge part of what is wrong with our nation today.
     
    Couldn't agree more.

    but a lot of non-Americans from the Islamic World seem to not understand that the real fulcrum of pro-Israel sentiment ever since the 1980s has come from evangelical Protestant Christianity, not Judaism
     
    I may just be of a suspicious mind, but my personal view has always been that Jews have laundered their own political support for Israel - in the form of massive campaign contributions and power center influences - in the false clothes of Evangelical support, which by design makes it appear like it is more grass-roots than it is, and as American as apple pie.

    I mean, the policy-influence of Evangelicals never seems to have been very tangible outside of their putative influence on Israel. And there is no question that Jews have a massive media influence and the media has been used to promote the idea of Evangelical support for Israel. I'm not necessarily saying that Evangelicals don't support Israel, but the biggest campaign contributions seem to come from Jews. And the Democrats seem to have broadly supported Israel, despite not being favored or favoring Evangelicals.

    I've seen Jewish talking heads on cable bring up evangelicals and even introduce evangelical guests as an explanation, which seems like a weird hypocrisy, for they would never allow their own power and influence to be discussed.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @dfordoom
    @nebulafox


    I’m not necessarily accusing you of this (for all I know, you are an American), but a lot of non-Americans from the Islamic World seem to not understand that the real fulcrum of pro-Israel sentiment ever since the 1980s has come from evangelical Protestant Christianity, not Judaism.
     
    I agree. And a lot of people in general, not just from the Islamic world, do not understand that. A lot of Americans seem not to understand it. And a huge segment of the American Right (including the alt-right) do not understand it.

    Far rightists carry on incessantly about the Jewish Problem but they refuse to recognise the Evangelical Problem. And the Christian Zionist Problem.

    Evangelicals/Christian Zionists are a much greater menace than Jews.

    Replies: @Rosie, @iffen, @AnonStarter, @V. K. Ovelund, @nebulafox

  36. @songbird
    @Charles Pewitt

    IMO, future public support for Zionism in the US won't matter very much, as Jews will continue to exert an enormously outsized influence on US politicians.

    What may matter more, in relative terms, though is the reduced capacity of the US to actually do things Israel wants. Reduced US influence - reduced military and economic clout. Though most Muslim countries seem to be happy to play ball with Israel, and it has a nuclear deterrent, so it doesn't seem to be in much danger.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    I don’t mind if the Israelis want to talk to, do business with, and share intelligence with China… if we get to do the same with whoever we want, including Iran. They don’t want you to do that, but will do that themselves? Well, then, that makes you an idiot for putting up with it, and what are American politicians but just that?

    No such thing as romance in foreign policy, only marriages of convenience and the occasional bit of adultery. 😉 That might be overstating things just a bit, given America’s inevitable tendencies and our own need to retain the edge in attracting pepole, but I really do think that the substitution of moralizing and symbolism for actual policy all over the board-immigration, trade, taxes, FP, whatever-is a huge part of what is wrong with our nation today.

  37. @nebulafox
    @AnonStarter

    I'm not necessarily accusing you of this (for all I know, you are an American), but a lot of non-Americans from the Islamic World seem to not understand that the real fulcrum of pro-Israel sentiment ever since the 1980s has come from evangelical Protestant Christianity, not Judaism. That power has been on the decline ever since Bush II imploded. The only reason this doesn't show up in policy more often is because American politics is dominated by geriatrics. Rainbow Coalition is going to be more heavily pro-Palestinian, not that this'll do them any good, because they are the most useless people on the planet.

    In 1967 with the Six Day's War, this was very different: domestic Jewish political sentiment was a decisive factor in Israel's favor. But that was over 50 years ago now: back then, the Holocaust was a real living memory and intermarriage wasn't quite as ubiquitous. Today's American Jews are more likely than not to look at Israelis as vaguely embarrassing, sort of like how upwardly mobile bien-pensants from the American South look at their relatives, to the extent they identify with them at all.

    Replies: @AnonStarter, @songbird, @dfordoom

    I’m not necessarily accusing you of this (for all I know, you are an American), but a lot of non-Americans from the Islamic World seem to not understand that the real fulcrum of pro-Israel sentiment ever since the 1980s has come from evangelical Protestant Christianity, not Judaism.

    Well, I’ve never suggested that Judaism per se is the primary impetus behind pro-Israel sentiment and I’m fully aware of the evangelical factor, being a born-and-raised American who’s bothered to pay attention. 🙂

    But, since we’ve broached the topic of religion …

    The implicitly Zionist dispensation of Judaism has its origins in Temple Israel, whose reconstruction of Scripture following the Babylonian exile essentially sowed the seeds of Jewish Manifest Destiny over two and one-half millennia before Herzl was a glimmer in his daddy’s eye. Pauline Christianity could not have been but the brainchild of Israel in its apotheosis of a Jewish prophet and concomitant “abrogation” of the Law — a religion both amenable to pagan Europe and suitable for advancing the Temple’s interests therein. That result’s been achieved.

    Christians who, prior to the late 19th century, advocated for the restoration of David’s kingdom in Palestine are merely reading from a playbook written for them centuries before Jesus came on the scene. Jeremiah 8:8 alludes to that corruption.

    None of this is to glibly dismiss what you mention. Rather, it is to say that the roots of the Zionist endeavor run much deeper in western society than many would be willing to admit.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @AnonStarter

    None taken. I enjoy learning from people who know more than me. Don't let my verbosity fool you, a lot of commentators here do, and you probably do on this topic as well.

    You know what the interesting thing about a lot of post-Roman states in Europe was? They viewed *themselves* as the new Israel, as covenant kingdoms. Even in Byzantium, where the Roman state didn't collapse, a significant shift in self-perception took place during the crisis and collapse of the 7th Century.

    So, yes: that does run deep in the Western psyche. But it still was unmistakably European-or Roman, in the case of Byzantium. Not neo-Jewish. Else, why would they have treated the Jews themselves as outsiders? Neither the Franks nor the Byzantines saw their ark in the Holy Land, but in Francia and Anatolia, respectively. And when the Crusades came, they weren't going to be restoring the kingdom of David. They came for their own wholly native, distinct religion.

    That, and Judaism itself drastically changed after the revolts. It would be a long, long time before most Jews dreamt of restoring the Davidic state after the Romans crushed them. The misguided hopes of a few of them that the Sassanids or the Arabs would restore them aside...

    >Pauline Christianity could not have been but the brainchild of Israel in its apotheosis of a Jewish prophet and concomitant “abrogation” of the Law — a religion both amenable to pagan Europe and suitable for advancing the Temple’s interests therein. That result’s been achieved.

    Christianity had a Jewish womb, but a Greco-Roman father: it's no coincidence that Stoic philosphy melded so well with the upstart religion in the 3rd Century. Irony is, by the time of the high Middle Ages, the comfortable, normative conservatism toward honoring the traditions of ones ancestors-and the belief that this would bring one earthly fortune-was back, a far cry from the ideological revolution of the 4th Century. Human nature remains what it is.

    >None of this is to glibly dismiss what you mention. Rather, it is to say that the roots of the Zionist endeavor run much deeper in western society than many would be willing to admit.

    Isn't it just a little bit pathetic to fetishize another person's program rather than take it for yourself, as happened in previous times? But then, we live in a fundamentally stupid age. ;)

    Ah, well. 'Tis a gay, merry life nevertheless.

    Replies: @Rosie, @AnonStarter, @AnonStarter, @utu

  38. @nebulafox
    @AnonStarter

    I'm not necessarily accusing you of this (for all I know, you are an American), but a lot of non-Americans from the Islamic World seem to not understand that the real fulcrum of pro-Israel sentiment ever since the 1980s has come from evangelical Protestant Christianity, not Judaism. That power has been on the decline ever since Bush II imploded. The only reason this doesn't show up in policy more often is because American politics is dominated by geriatrics. Rainbow Coalition is going to be more heavily pro-Palestinian, not that this'll do them any good, because they are the most useless people on the planet.

    In 1967 with the Six Day's War, this was very different: domestic Jewish political sentiment was a decisive factor in Israel's favor. But that was over 50 years ago now: back then, the Holocaust was a real living memory and intermarriage wasn't quite as ubiquitous. Today's American Jews are more likely than not to look at Israelis as vaguely embarrassing, sort of like how upwardly mobile bien-pensants from the American South look at their relatives, to the extent they identify with them at all.

    Replies: @AnonStarter, @songbird, @dfordoom

    I really do think that the substitution of moralizing and symbolism for actual policy all over the board-immigration, trade, taxes, FP, whatever-is a huge part of what is wrong with our nation today.

    Couldn’t agree more.

    but a lot of non-Americans from the Islamic World seem to not understand that the real fulcrum of pro-Israel sentiment ever since the 1980s has come from evangelical Protestant Christianity, not Judaism

    I may just be of a suspicious mind, but my personal view has always been that Jews have laundered their own political support for Israel – in the form of massive campaign contributions and power center influences – in the false clothes of Evangelical support, which by design makes it appear like it is more grass-roots than it is, and as American as apple pie.

    I mean, the policy-influence of Evangelicals never seems to have been very tangible outside of their putative influence on Israel. And there is no question that Jews have a massive media influence and the media has been used to promote the idea of Evangelical support for Israel. I’m not necessarily saying that Evangelicals don’t support Israel, but the biggest campaign contributions seem to come from Jews. And the Democrats seem to have broadly supported Israel, despite not being favored or favoring Evangelicals.

    I’ve seen Jewish talking heads on cable bring up evangelicals and even introduce evangelical guests as an explanation, which seems like a weird hypocrisy, for they would never allow their own power and influence to be discussed.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @songbird


    I may just be of a suspicious mind, but my personal view has always been that Jews have laundered their own political support for Israel – in the form of massive campaign contributions and power center influences – in the false clothes of Evangelical support, which by design makes it appear like it is more grass-roots than it is, and as American as apple pie.
     
    All the Evangelicals I've ever encountered have been full-on crazy and full-on Zionist. I think it's an inherent problem with Evangelicalism. I don't think there's any need for Jews to encourage Evangelicals in their lunacy. The Evangelical lunacy comes from within. It's baked into the Evangelical cake.

    They're a menace.

    Replies: @anon

  39. @brabantian
    @Kent Nationalist

    There are a lot of Jews not supportive of, not profiting from, and indeed sometimes terrified by, Jewish elite agendas

    Tho that is indeed a good point about how for some Jews, the media which elite Jews significantly own, is still not sufficiently subservient ... and elite Jews are acutely aware of, and neurotically disturbed by, even relatively minor media opposing them

    But you are being too harsh on our gracious host AE ... who brings up the important theme of Jews not in sync with Jewish elites

    Such as Ron Unz himself, Gilad Atzmon, and Israel Shamir, right here on this site, and others such as Henry Makow

    Who all violate the Jewish religious and cultural rule not to publicly criticise other Jews before goyim, this rule long a shield of Jewish elite misconduct

    In today's reality, Jews sometimes express fright that Jewish over-reach, such as Biden's Jewish Attorney General stoking anti-whiteness campaigns, will end in explosive 1930s-tier backlash against all Jews

    One anti-Jewish theme is that rebel dissident Jews such as on this site, are merely tribals trying to avoid the backlash they see looming

    Replies: @AnonStarter, @Fisk Ellington Rutledge IV

    There may be some Jews who are alarmed by the mainstream Communist tyranny of the Jewish elite, but I guarantee you that those alarmed Jews are still anti-White. And it bears repeating that Jews are not Whites. They are the enemies of Whites and have themselves declared that they are enemies of Whites. They have been our enemies from the beginning and we should never, ever think of them as our allies. They are cuckoos in the nest.

    • Disagree: Audacious Epigone
  40. Breaking news:

    [AP] A federal judge in Ohio has ordered a right-wing think tank led by white nationalist Richard Spencer to pay $2.4 million to an Ohio man severely injured during a white supremacist and neo-Nazi rally two years ago in Virginia.

    Bill Burke, of Athens, Ohio, says he was struck by a car driven by James Alex Fields Jr. — in a crash that killed counter-protester Heather Heyer — during the August 2017 rally in Charlottesville, Virginia….

    Burke sued multiple defendants and in recent years received court-ordered payments of $5,000 from former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke and $10,000 from the Traditionalist Worker Party.

    In the 2019 lawsuit, Burke also accused the National Policy Institute, led by Spencer, of helping organize and promote the Charlottesville rally. In a May 4 ruling, federal Judge Michael Watson handed down the $2.4 million judgment against the organization in an order that also brought the lawsuit to a close.

    The order includes $217,613 for past and future medical expenses, $350,000 in punitive damages $500,000 for pain and suffering, and $1 million for emotional distress.

    Watson judge noted that Burke separated from his wife in the attack’s aftermath, was out of work for more than a year, can no longer exercise, and suffers from depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and survivor’s guilt because of surviving the attack when Heyer did not….

    Phone and email messages were left for the National Policy Institute. Despite the ruling, it’s unclear if Burke will ever see money from the judgment.

    Although copies of Burke’s complaints were successfully served on the organization, according to court records, no attorney ever entered a court appearance regarding the lawsuit. The court found the group in default a year ago for not defending itself.

    “It is important that the judgment is satisfied not only to compensate Bill for his damages but also to disrupt and dismantle an organization that attempts to portray white supremacy as an intellectual endeavor,” Burke’s attorney, Michael Fradin, said in a statement….

    The attorney, Michael Fradin, is of course a Holocaust-American, judging by the attorney’s name and photograph. This is why people hate Jews.

    Any reader that believes that Jews did not do similar things to the Germans of the Weimar era believes a thing I do not.

    • Replies: @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund


    The attorney, Michael Fradin, is of course a Holocaust-American, judging by the attorney’s name and photograph. This is why people hate Jews.
     
    Why no blame for the Christian plaintiff Burke?

    Further, Fradin sounds very French Christian to me: (1)


    🇺🇸 Fradin migration to the United States

    Some of the first settlers of this family name were -- Fradin Settlers in United States in the 20th Century

    Henach Fradin, aged 29, originally from Gomel, Russia, who arrived in New York in 1908 aboard the ship "Lucania" from Liverpool, England [1]

    Albert C. Fradin, aged 38, originally from Le Havre, France, who arrived in New York in 1919 aboard the ship "La Lorraine" from Le Havre, France [2]

    Louis Fradin, aged 43, originally from Le Havre, France, who arrived in New York in 1920 aboard the ship "Leopoldina" from Le Havre, France [3]
     

    If it turns out that the attorney is not Jewish, will you stick with your logic? Or, abandon it? If you are consistent I look forward to hearing you proudly announce:

    This is why people hate Christians. Any reader that believes that Christians did not do similar things to the Germans of the Weimar era believes a thing I do not.

    After all -- If one lawyer of {insert faith here} is bad, then 100% of all members of {insert faith here} must be equally bad.

    PEACE 😇

     
    https://www.houseofnames.com/dpreview/FRADET/FR/Fradin/family-crest-coat-of-arms.png

    (1) https://www.houseofnames.com/fradin-family-crest

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  41. A123 says:
    @V. K. Ovelund
    Breaking news:

    [AP] A federal judge in Ohio has ordered a right-wing think tank led by white nationalist Richard Spencer to pay $2.4 million to an Ohio man severely injured during a white supremacist and neo-Nazi rally two years ago in Virginia.

    Bill Burke, of Athens, Ohio, says he was struck by a car driven by James Alex Fields Jr. — in a crash that killed counter-protester Heather Heyer — during the August 2017 rally in Charlottesville, Virginia....

    Burke sued multiple defendants and in recent years received court-ordered payments of $5,000 from former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke and $10,000 from the Traditionalist Worker Party.

    In the 2019 lawsuit, Burke also accused the National Policy Institute, led by Spencer, of helping organize and promote the Charlottesville rally. In a May 4 ruling, federal Judge Michael Watson handed down the $2.4 million judgment against the organization in an order that also brought the lawsuit to a close.

    The order includes $217,613 for past and future medical expenses, $350,000 in punitive damages $500,000 for pain and suffering, and $1 million for emotional distress.

    Watson judge noted that Burke separated from his wife in the attack’s aftermath, was out of work for more than a year, can no longer exercise, and suffers from depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and survivor’s guilt because of surviving the attack when Heyer did not....

    Phone and email messages were left for the National Policy Institute. Despite the ruling, it’s unclear if Burke will ever see money from the judgment.

    Although copies of Burke’s complaints were successfully served on the organization, according to court records, no attorney ever entered a court appearance regarding the lawsuit. The court found the group in default a year ago for not defending itself.

    “It is important that the judgment is satisfied not only to compensate Bill for his damages but also to disrupt and dismantle an organization that attempts to portray white supremacy as an intellectual endeavor,” Burke’s attorney, Michael Fradin, said in a statement....
     

    The attorney, Michael Fradin, is of course a Holocaust-American, judging by the attorney's name and photograph. This is why people hate Jews.

    Any reader that believes that Jews did not do similar things to the Germans of the Weimar era believes a thing I do not.

    Replies: @A123

    The attorney, Michael Fradin, is of course a Holocaust-American, judging by the attorney’s name and photograph. This is why people hate Jews.

    Why no blame for the Christian plaintiff Burke?

    Further, Fradin sounds very French Christian to me: (1)

    🇺🇸 Fradin migration to the United States

    Some of the first settlers of this family name were — Fradin Settlers in United States in the 20th Century

    Henach Fradin, aged 29, originally from Gomel, Russia, who arrived in New York in 1908 aboard the ship “Lucania” from Liverpool, England [1]

    Albert C. Fradin, aged 38, originally from Le Havre, France, who arrived in New York in 1919 aboard the ship “La Lorraine” from Le Havre, France [2]

    Louis Fradin, aged 43, originally from Le Havre, France, who arrived in New York in 1920 aboard the ship “Leopoldina” from Le Havre, France [3]

    If it turns out that the attorney is not Jewish, will you stick with your logic? Or, abandon it? If you are consistent I look forward to hearing you proudly announce:

    This is why people hate Christians. Any reader that believes that Christians did not do similar things to the Germans of the Weimar era believes a thing I do not.

    After all — If one lawyer of {insert faith here} is bad, then 100% of all members of {insert faith here} must be equally bad.

    PEACE 😇

     

    (1) https://www.houseofnames.com/fradin-family-crest

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @A123


    If it turns out that the attorney is not Jewish, will you stick with your logic? Or, abandon it?
     
    Abandon it, of course. Why wouldn't I?

    Do you think that I like being an anti-Semite? Or do you just think it important to me never to admit a mistake, pseudonymously, to a blog's audience?

    The contingency fee the shyster Fradin collects will presumably be the better part of a million dollars, if he can actually make the defendant pay. Money honest, ordinary Americans have given of the sweat of their brows to the National Policy Institute to fight the Great Replacement will be usurped to pay off the mortgage on the shyster's luxury condo in Palm Beach.

    I'll be gobsmacked if the man is not Jewish.

    Meanwhile, one does not mind answering a reasonable number of questions, but I believe that I have answered enough of yours for now. This is a conversation, not a cross-examination. You can supply your own answers to the rest if you like.

    Replies: @A123, @iffen

  42. @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund


    The attorney, Michael Fradin, is of course a Holocaust-American, judging by the attorney’s name and photograph. This is why people hate Jews.
     
    Why no blame for the Christian plaintiff Burke?

    Further, Fradin sounds very French Christian to me: (1)


    🇺🇸 Fradin migration to the United States

    Some of the first settlers of this family name were -- Fradin Settlers in United States in the 20th Century

    Henach Fradin, aged 29, originally from Gomel, Russia, who arrived in New York in 1908 aboard the ship "Lucania" from Liverpool, England [1]

    Albert C. Fradin, aged 38, originally from Le Havre, France, who arrived in New York in 1919 aboard the ship "La Lorraine" from Le Havre, France [2]

    Louis Fradin, aged 43, originally from Le Havre, France, who arrived in New York in 1920 aboard the ship "Leopoldina" from Le Havre, France [3]
     

    If it turns out that the attorney is not Jewish, will you stick with your logic? Or, abandon it? If you are consistent I look forward to hearing you proudly announce:

    This is why people hate Christians. Any reader that believes that Christians did not do similar things to the Germans of the Weimar era believes a thing I do not.

    After all -- If one lawyer of {insert faith here} is bad, then 100% of all members of {insert faith here} must be equally bad.

    PEACE 😇

     
    https://www.houseofnames.com/dpreview/FRADET/FR/Fradin/family-crest-coat-of-arms.png

    (1) https://www.houseofnames.com/fradin-family-crest

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    If it turns out that the attorney is not Jewish, will you stick with your logic? Or, abandon it?

    Abandon it, of course. Why wouldn’t I?

    Do you think that I like being an anti-Semite? Or do you just think it important to me never to admit a mistake, pseudonymously, to a blog’s audience?

    The contingency fee the shyster Fradin collects will presumably be the better part of a million dollars, if he can actually make the defendant pay. Money honest, ordinary Americans have given of the sweat of their brows to the National Policy Institute to fight the Great Replacement will be usurped to pay off the mortgage on the shyster’s luxury condo in Palm Beach.

    I’ll be gobsmacked if the man is not Jewish.

    Meanwhile, one does not mind answering a reasonable number of questions, but I believe that I have answered enough of yours for now. This is a conversation, not a cross-examination. You can supply your own answers to the rest if you like.

    • Replies: @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I am just trying to understand your logic, not cross examine you.

    For those of us who are consistent, this type of construction fails -- If one lawyer of {insert faith here} is bad, then 100% of all members of {insert faith here} must be equally bad. I am obviously no fan of Islam, but I would not condemn 100% of all Muslims for a single bad lawyer.

    -- You seem to have no problem with this logic when:
    {insert faith here} = Jewish

    -- You have completely different logic when:
    {insert faith here} = Christian

    Why is your thought process so inconsistent? I honestly want to understand.

    I suspect the way out of the logical dichotomy is available via my earlier suggestion about English Language usage. You really do not have an problem with "All Jews" (a.k.a. Jews, Jewish). You have an issue with a small, wealthy, powerful, ~1% minority within the Jewish community.


    The contingency fee the shyster Fradin collects will presumably be the better part of a million dollars, if he can actually make the defendant pay.
     
    • How many people (of any religion) can make over $1,000,000 from a single event?
    • What % is that of the over 300 million population of the U.S.?
    • How would you describe the tiny number of Americans who have incomes over $1,000,000 per year (or event)?

    As you refuse to accept my suggested term "Elite", I do not want to poison the well with additional options.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @anon

    , @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Yeah, what part of anti-Semite can he not understand?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  43. @Caspar von Everec
    This low confidence is probably caused by media's virtue signalling for Palestine which never amounts to any concrete action.

    Replies: @Jay Fink

    Most American Jews don’t follow Israel/Palestine especially close. Plus you would be surprised how many take the Palestine side. You have to remember that many Jews are liberals first.

  44. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Bardon Kaldian


    My guess is that they are somewhere between 15% and 25% of all US Jews.
     
    Your comment seems judicious and balanced—not only the quoted line but the whole thing. It pretty much sums up how I see it, at any rate, though I cannot prove that you are right.

    I would add only three points.

    1. Nonhostile Jews still benefit from Jewish nepotism, to the degree that my son cannot get into Harvard but my Jewish friend's son can. Not that my son and I especially care about Harvard, but it's a little hard to take when, 30 years ago, all one ever heard about Jews and Harvard was how unfair Harvard's past anti-Jewish quotas had been. It's Harvard, not Harvberg. At least, it used to be.

    2. Republican candidates at election time seem pretty reliably to capture 25 to 30 percent of the Jewish vote nationwide. This would suggest that your estimate as quoted above were a little low.

    3. If we wish to retain the loyalty of the segment of American Jews that remains loyal, then we need [a] to make disloyalty costly and [b] keep America a going concern, so to speak. In the end, Lincoln's “mystic chords of memory” simply do not bind the eastern European Jew to the United States as, and less bind the western European Jew to the United States than, the chords bind me and mine. Now it sounds like I've conflated chords with cords, but Lincoln did that, too, and meanwhile I believe that my point stands. Jewish loyalty (where it exists) wants to be challenged and thereby strengthened, else the chord must decay, dissolve and eventually snap.

    I doubt that I can play a very constructive role in making Jews feel welcome. The attempt to do so only feeds Jewish paranoia, and Jews have long since entwined themselves into nearly every American institution of influence and power, anyway. I can however indeed play a constructive role in challenging the Jew, naming the Jew, and making it necessary for the Jew to prove by his ongoing deeds that our ancestors did not make a terrible mistake by letting his ancestors into our country in the first place. I do not wish to be unnecessarily disputatious, but in my estimation, our country has reached regrettably reached a stage at which a more active defense than heretofore against Jewish perfidy is necessary.

    Replies: @A123, @Bardon Kaldian

    It is virtually impossible to answer such a broad spectrum of hypothetical questions & associations.

    I’ll just sketch what I think it is all about…

    Sure, Jewish nepotism exists, and Jews are more ethnocentric than other white groups. Just, I don’t see how it can be quantified. For instance, Murray Gell Mann, a great physicist who developed particle physics (quarks) & later got Nobel for it, was not accepted to Harvard. It may sound inflated, but he contemplated suicide because of that (he settled for MIT). It is impossible to ascertain how many gifted Jews & Gentiles were not accepted to Harvard. Harvard (Princeton, Yale, MIT, ..) math & physics departments are, at the highest positions, filled with the best people from around the world, US-born Americans of any ethnicity not being more than 50% of the staff. Certainly, well-connected people profit from this type of nepotism, but the most influential, successful & creative individuals in all areas, from exact sciences to entertainment, find ways to manifest their talents/abilities.

    Of course, it varies hugely from STEM to jurisprudence to soft sciences to entertainment. One simply cannot measure these things.

    As I said earlier- Jews are in some aspects different from other whites in the US. First religion, then historical memory of Auschwitz & attachment to Israel. Without differentiation among US Jews, the only effect would be, considering their historical experience- they’ll continue to stick together like a bunch of paranoid looneys. And I don’t blame them. Right policy would be to differentiate between psycho Jewish supremacists- perhaps not more than 10% of them- and the rest, and that means 80-90% of them, who are decent & productive citizens. It’s Jewish activists, not Jews as such. ADL must go to the garbage can.

    You cannot expect them to fully support the historical, white America idea, simply because they’re a bit”off”. Their heart is not, unconditionally, on white European American matrix of life. But they are also not some implacable enemy. They just want to get by & anti-white psychos are a small, but vocal minority.

    And they are not impervious to arguments. I recall arguing about Charlottesville & “Jews will not replace us” with a bunch, mostly liberal Jews. They were horrified, scared, stunned. Then, I patiently explained stuff about Soros, Jewish & Israeli NGOs deleterious activities etc. More than 90% came over to my side. They said- screw ADL, hang Soros, …

    That’s the problem with this way of thinking- it lacks nuances. And God (or Devil) is in detail.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @songbird
    @Bardon Kaldian

    I think you are discounting ideology too much.

    Not everything that happens in the world is about maximizing the wealth of the rich. Clearly, that's not what Communism was about, or Nazism, and I think it is a mistake to suppose that our system is non-ideological just because it is the last one standing of those three.

    Sherman didn't burn Georgia to maximize economic growth. And that's certainly not why blacks were given the vote, or why it was taken away from white Southerners during Reconstruction. Or why the British fought the slave trade.

    At the very least there is a meta-economics which goes way beyond oligarchs. Some political parties can grow their supporters with open borders. Some people get a dopamine hit by virtue-signaling. People are rewarded for some behaviors and punished for others.

    There's a lot of ethnocentriscism of specific groups - and the rewards of them spreading their genes into the West - which underpins what is happening. It is impossible to ignore the biological, whether it is about race, bioleninism, or how conformist and conflict averse women tend to be.

    I mean, if the British wanted Third World labor, you've got to ask why they gave up their global empire.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Rosie

  45. @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund

    The problem with inarticulate use of the English language is miscommunication. Are you intentionally trying to create problems for yourself?

    Let us look at your phrase:


    Yet we still have a Jewish problem.
     
    Jewish is another collective term for "All Jews". So what you are actually saying is:

    Yet we still have an ALL JEWS problem.

    Then you immediately contradict yourself by trying to create a carve out for "personal friends whom you deem nonhostile".

    You have admitted that you have little to no contact with Orthodox Branch members. Yet you denigrate them in your sweeping statements about ALL JEWS via the collective term Jewish.

    If you do not like "Elite" as a modifier, please feel free to use something else. However, you definitely need something that better identifies the specific subgroup that you have an issue with.

    The Islamo-SJW hypothesis is silly in my opinion.
     
    How are objective facts silly?

    In the U.S., the BLM movement offers open SJW support for the Muslim Occupation of Judea & Samaria. Look at all of the signage here:
    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/manufacturing-hate/#comment-4639291

    It is even more clear on the European front:

    • George IslamoSoros is anti-Israel and pro-BDS. These are classic Islamic positions and antithetical to Jewish positions.
    • George IslamoSoros is a huge backer of SJW NGO's like his Open Society Foundation.
    • His pro-Islamic NGO's are directly tied to dumping Muslims in Europe, such as the various Sea Watch human trafficking vessels.

    Everyone can see the incredibly obvious, direct connection between SJW and Islam.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    P.S. You still need to answer the question about 100% exclusive Christian responsibility for keeping the Charlottesville Five in prison. Repeatedly ducking it causes others to perceive you as highly evasive.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Bardon Kaldian, @anon, @anon, @Bill

    There is no real connection between SJW & Islam. They don’t even know Islam (or any other culture), but are against historical Western culture.

    They are what late Harold Bloom termed “The School of Resentment”(in his “Western Canon”). There is not some grand plot, scheme, …. , but more a symptom of a decadent society.

    • Replies: @A123
    @Bardon Kaldian


    There is no real connection between SJW & Islam. They don’t even know Islam (or any other culture), but are against historical Western culture.
     
    If there was no connection, one would expect a statistical distribution among SJW views. This does not exist. For example, when a Muslim nation abuses women, the SJW's are totally silent. There is a clear hierarchy of power within the SJW movement and pro-Islam is the #1 or #2 SJW value, the other being pro-China.

    Have you recently seen pro-Israel SJW's? If they still exist, they are very rare and ostracized. In 2018, the anti-Semitic SJW purge was quite open: (1)

    The unity did not last long. Vanessa Wruble, a Brooklyn-based activist, said she told the group that her Jewish heritage inspired her to try to help repair the world. But she said the conversation took a turn when Tamika Mallory, a black gun control activist, and Carmen Perez, a Latina criminal justice reform activist, replied that Jews needed to confront their own role in racism.
    ...
    But the divisions apparent at that very first meeting continue to haunt the Women’s March organization, as charges of anti-Semitism are now roiling the movement and overshadowing plans for more marches next month.
     
    Key funders of SJW are known to be anti-Semites, sympathetic to the Islamic BDS movement. Figures like George Soros are so dangerous that the Palestinian Jewish nation (a.k.a. Israel) openly warns about what he represents: (2)

    Financing tied to billionaire activist George Soros is a common yet largely under-reported theme among organizations that lead or support the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign attempting to delegitimize the Jewish state.

    In January, Israel released a list of 20 BDS-supporting organizations whose members will be banned from entering Israel due to their BDS activism, prominently featuring six American groups. At least four of the six BDS-promoting U.S. groups receive funding tied to Soros. Scores of other U.S. organizations that support the BDS movement are financed by Soros.
     
    If you want to say that there are "useful idiot" foot soldiers that know nothing outside of their little world.... I would concur. However, those running the movement and defining SJW Values, like George IslamoSoros, are anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, and pro-Islamic.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/23/us/womens-march-anti-semitism.html

    (2) https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2019/01/21/target-israel-george-soros-funded-groups-leading-bds-war-on-jewish-state/

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    , @dfordoom
    @Bardon Kaldian


    There is no real connection between SJW & Islam.
     
    Unless you're a conspiracy theorist.

    Conspiracy theories are often depressing but some are genuinely funny. They provide some much-needed comedy relief.

    The "SJWism is an Islamic plot" theory is pure comedy gold. It's almost as amusing as the "moon landing was a hoax" conspiracy theory.

    My personal favourite at the moment is "those weren't aircraft that hit the Twin Towers on 9/11, those were holograms" - you can find that one right here on UR.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  46. A123 says:
    @V. K. Ovelund
    @A123


    If it turns out that the attorney is not Jewish, will you stick with your logic? Or, abandon it?
     
    Abandon it, of course. Why wouldn't I?

    Do you think that I like being an anti-Semite? Or do you just think it important to me never to admit a mistake, pseudonymously, to a blog's audience?

    The contingency fee the shyster Fradin collects will presumably be the better part of a million dollars, if he can actually make the defendant pay. Money honest, ordinary Americans have given of the sweat of their brows to the National Policy Institute to fight the Great Replacement will be usurped to pay off the mortgage on the shyster's luxury condo in Palm Beach.

    I'll be gobsmacked if the man is not Jewish.

    Meanwhile, one does not mind answering a reasonable number of questions, but I believe that I have answered enough of yours for now. This is a conversation, not a cross-examination. You can supply your own answers to the rest if you like.

    Replies: @A123, @iffen

    I am just trying to understand your logic, not cross examine you.

    For those of us who are consistent, this type of construction fails — If one lawyer of {insert faith here} is bad, then 100% of all members of {insert faith here} must be equally bad. I am obviously no fan of Islam, but I would not condemn 100% of all Muslims for a single bad lawyer.

    — You seem to have no problem with this logic when:
    {insert faith here} = Jewish

    — You have completely different logic when:
    {insert faith here} = Christian

    Why is your thought process so inconsistent? I honestly want to understand.

    I suspect the way out of the logical dichotomy is available via my earlier suggestion about English Language usage. You really do not have an problem with “All Jews” (a.k.a. Jews, Jewish). You have an issue with a small, wealthy, powerful, ~1% minority within the Jewish community.

    The contingency fee the shyster Fradin collects will presumably be the better part of a million dollars, if he can actually make the defendant pay.

    • How many people (of any religion) can make over $1,000,000 from a single event?
    • What % is that of the over 300 million population of the U.S.?
    • How would you describe the tiny number of Americans who have incomes over $1,000,000 per year (or event)?

    As you refuse to accept my suggested term “Elite”, I do not want to poison the well with additional options.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @anon
    @A123

    Say, I wonder if you could explain "pilpul" to all the rest of us?

    Thanks.

    Replies: @A123

  47. I’m tired of this nonsense. I’m truly tired.

    1. immigration inundation is not some Jewish conspiracy. This is idiotic.

    It actually is a product of unrestrained liberal capitalism where big money thinks only in terms of quick bucks- and don’t care for consequences. One should have in mind that Ellis Island mass immigration was dictated by economic interests of Mellon, Carnegie, Rockefeller …and virtually nothing with US Jews.

    On the other hand, Jews- as an American ethnicity- tend to be strategically short sighted. I think it is rooted in their history where they got clobbered by various Europeans in past few centuries. It isn’t for nothing that an honest Jewish guy who wrote a very good & sincere piece on the topic – got immediately cancelled after it.

    https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/american-jewrys-disgraceful-hypocrisy/

    American Jewry’s Disgraceful Hypocrisy

    Jews, as an ethnicity, have nothing to do with US & Western European unrestricted immigration.

    Only idiots imagine it otherwise.

    It has everything to do with cheap labor for corporate capitalism, going back to idiotic slave traders to Carnegie et. comp, to the Windrush lunacy & to the Blair, Macron, Merkel suicidal immigration policies.

    There is no some grand Jewish conspiracy, and only loser lunatics believe in this. It’s all about quick profit of super-rich whose main motive is- greed. And nothing else. Nobody plans “destruction of white race” or of “Western civilization”.

    When your whole life revolves about money, and when you create a climate where Bezoses and Gates are idols- then, your civilization is doomed. Because you ceased to be a nation long time ago.

    2. ADL is a piece of garbage serving, like SPLC, only as a money making machine. Sure, they support Israel- so do I, and so what?- but they are a part of the US financial establishment with all its sacred cows, pervert ideologies on race & culture & whatnot.

    3. Re ADL & Carlson: Tucker Carlson should seriously expose the biggest American lie- everybody can become an American. Of course he’d have lost a cushy job, but, you know- dixi et salvavi animam meam.

    He should have said: look guys, I don’t want to offend anyone- but America was built primarily as a British, and then broadly European country. This is our heritage- European, white, Western, English speaking. I value contribution of African Americans, local Indian peoples & later Asians, Hindu Indians,…- but we are not culturally Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist. Our American identity is rooted in the West- and not elsewhere.

    And what about race?

    Without being racist, we all know, the whole worlds knows that the core people are, give or take, of the same race. That goes for Russia, China, Israel, Germany, Argentina etc. The core people is always at least 70-75%. If it comes under this- the entire nation will disintegrate, sooner or later. So, if you wish for less white people- you call for America to vanish. It will linger on for some time, but will eventually cease to be a unified country.

    You may not like to hear it, but the future of the US is with unrestricted immigration and especially demonization of white Western culture: FUIT ILIUM.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Your analysis is overly simplistic and either/or. Either there is some grand, unified conspiracy, or Jewish influence is insignificant.

    First of all, you radically overstate the importance of conspiratorial intent to destroy the White race and Western civilization. Our overlords surely understand the ultimate consequences of their actions, and are, at the very least, indifferent. We know they understand the importance of ethnic self-determination because of their defense of Israel as a Jewish state. Yet they actively suppress any discussion of the matter here. Suppose you're right that the motive is greed rather than racial animus. How does that make the deed any less egregious?

    For that matter, how do you separate greed from racial animus in a context where the object of the wrongdoer greed is the inherited wealth of other peoples. Human nature being what it is, the wrongdoer will demonize his victim, even to the point of instilling self-hatred in the victim, to justify and escape consequences for his malfeasance. I don't think you can.

    Finally, yes, it's true that greedy profiteers of cheap labor have been promoting mass immigration since forever. Yet, it is also true that a loyal populist elite was able, in alliance with the voters, to finally turn off the spigot and make clear that America was entitled to and would in fact preserve its ethnic staus quo with the 1917 Immigration Act. This law was undermined by Jewish activism and money power. It doesn't matter that plenty of White traitors collaborated, and it doesn’t matter that not every single Jew was complicit. Jewish influence was marginal, but decisive.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @Bardon Kaldian


    I’m tired of this nonsense. I’m truly tired.
     
    I'll refrain from arguing further against you, then. You make some sound points, anyway. That's a good experience you have related with the 90% of Jews horrified at the ADL and Soros, at any rate.

    Thanks for the colloquy. And the Latin.

  48. The graph reflects the rise of Fox News and other alternative media. There are a lot of leftists who think media is dominated by right wing outlets.

  49. A123 says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    @A123

    There is no real connection between SJW & Islam. They don't even know Islam (or any other culture), but are against historical Western culture.

    They are what late Harold Bloom termed "The School of Resentment"(in his "Western Canon"). There is not some grand plot, scheme, .... , but more a symptom of a decadent society.

    Replies: @A123, @dfordoom

    There is no real connection between SJW & Islam. They don’t even know Islam (or any other culture), but are against historical Western culture.

    If there was no connection, one would expect a statistical distribution among SJW views. This does not exist. For example, when a Muslim nation abuses women, the SJW’s are totally silent. There is a clear hierarchy of power within the SJW movement and pro-Islam is the #1 or #2 SJW value, the other being pro-China.

    Have you recently seen pro-Israel SJW’s? If they still exist, they are very rare and ostracized. In 2018, the anti-Semitic SJW purge was quite open: (1)

    The unity did not last long. Vanessa Wruble, a Brooklyn-based activist, said she told the group that her Jewish heritage inspired her to try to help repair the world. But she said the conversation took a turn when Tamika Mallory, a black gun control activist, and Carmen Perez, a Latina criminal justice reform activist, replied that Jews needed to confront their own role in racism.

    But the divisions apparent at that very first meeting continue to haunt the Women’s March organization, as charges of anti-Semitism are now roiling the movement and overshadowing plans for more marches next month.

    Key funders of SJW are known to be anti-Semites, sympathetic to the Islamic BDS movement. Figures like George Soros are so dangerous that the Palestinian Jewish nation (a.k.a. Israel) openly warns about what he represents: (2)

    Financing tied to billionaire activist George Soros is a common yet largely under-reported theme among organizations that lead or support the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign attempting to delegitimize the Jewish state.

    In January, Israel released a list of 20 BDS-supporting organizations whose members will be banned from entering Israel due to their BDS activism, prominently featuring six American groups. At least four of the six BDS-promoting U.S. groups receive funding tied to Soros. Scores of other U.S. organizations that support the BDS movement are financed by Soros.

    If you want to say that there are “useful idiot” foot soldiers that know nothing outside of their little world…. I would concur. However, those running the movement and defining SJW Values, like George IslamoSoros, are anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, and pro-Islamic.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/23/us/womens-march-anti-semitism.html

    (2) https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2019/01/21/target-israel-george-soros-funded-groups-leading-bds-war-on-jewish-state/

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @A123

    SJWs are natural followers of the New Left ideology in the 60s, which was a beginning of anti-white lunacy. Some of its more articulate preachers were Jewish (Herbert Marcuse), some were not (Frantz Fanon). You got the entire corpus of influential works, originating mainly in the 50s & the 60s (Gunnar Myrdal, Herbert Marcuse, Simone de Beauvoir, Frantz Fanon, ..) and later by Edward Said, Kate Millett, Michel Foucault, ..) which advocated moral nihilism, feminism, gay activism, anti-whitism & anti-Europeanism … a cartoon ideology Harold Bloom christened School of Resentment.

    This “movement”- let’s call it Minoritarianist School of Resentment- has grown out of post-WW2 Western cultural condition & was not planned or anything like that.

    There was nothing ideological in paradigm shifts in Anglosphere & Western cultural world -most suicidal moves in these societies were caused/provoked/influenced? by popular culture of Beatles, the Countercultural 60’s and later, and not by German-Jewish (or other Jewish) “intellectuals” like Marcuse & the rest. If there is a ruling New Left world-view in affluent Western societies, it cannot be ascribed to any group or a set of individuals of any ethnicity. The New Left ideology (idolization of homosexuals & other “sexual minorities”, hatred towards national identity, extreme feminism & war against nuclear family, fetishization of blacks & Muslims, jabbering about weed & other drugs, female sexual promiscuity, cartoon war against the imperial past of some European peoples, war against normalcy, idolatry of non-European cultures & primitive forms of society, …)- I don’t see that as a final crystallization of some ideological warfare, but as an almost inevitable end of the trajectory of Western culture in its decadent phase, as in famous hypothetical question ascribed to Lenin: ” Are the forces which propel us to greatness the same that will, transformed by mutations of History, eventually lead to our collapse ?”

    Israel is seen as an imperialist fossil, something like former South Africa. SJW are silent about Muslim violence in the West, because Muslims- globally, mostly brown & black with some whites- are "global victims", similar to blacks and Native Americans, so they cannot do anything wrong. In the eyes of SJWs, everything anti-Western is good, regardless of empirical facts.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @A123

  50. @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I am just trying to understand your logic, not cross examine you.

    For those of us who are consistent, this type of construction fails -- If one lawyer of {insert faith here} is bad, then 100% of all members of {insert faith here} must be equally bad. I am obviously no fan of Islam, but I would not condemn 100% of all Muslims for a single bad lawyer.

    -- You seem to have no problem with this logic when:
    {insert faith here} = Jewish

    -- You have completely different logic when:
    {insert faith here} = Christian

    Why is your thought process so inconsistent? I honestly want to understand.

    I suspect the way out of the logical dichotomy is available via my earlier suggestion about English Language usage. You really do not have an problem with "All Jews" (a.k.a. Jews, Jewish). You have an issue with a small, wealthy, powerful, ~1% minority within the Jewish community.


    The contingency fee the shyster Fradin collects will presumably be the better part of a million dollars, if he can actually make the defendant pay.
     
    • How many people (of any religion) can make over $1,000,000 from a single event?
    • What % is that of the over 300 million population of the U.S.?
    • How would you describe the tiny number of Americans who have incomes over $1,000,000 per year (or event)?

    As you refuse to accept my suggested term "Elite", I do not want to poison the well with additional options.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @anon

    Say, I wonder if you could explain “pilpul” to all the rest of us?

    Thanks.

    • Thanks: Mario Partisan
    • Replies: @A123
    @anon


    Say, I wonder if you could explain “pilpul” to all the rest of us?
     
    (A) Your spell checker / auto correct has a problem. Is the term even English?

    (B) The best match I can come up with is:
    pupil
    noun
    • (STUDENT) a person who is being taught, esp. a child at school pupil noun
    • (EYE PART) the circular, black area in the center of the eye that gets larger and smaller and lets in light

    Does that answer you question?

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  51. Rosie says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    I’m tired of this nonsense. I’m truly tired.

    1. immigration inundation is not some Jewish conspiracy. This is idiotic.

    It actually is a product of unrestrained liberal capitalism where big money thinks only in terms of quick bucks- and don’t care for consequences. One should have in mind that Ellis Island mass immigration was dictated by economic interests of Mellon, Carnegie, Rockefeller …and virtually nothing with US Jews.

    On the other hand, Jews- as an American ethnicity- tend to be strategically short sighted. I think it is rooted in their history where they got clobbered by various Europeans in past few centuries. It isn’t for nothing that an honest Jewish guy who wrote a very good & sincere piece on the topic – got immediately cancelled after it.

    https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/american-jewrys-disgraceful-hypocrisy/

    American Jewry’s Disgraceful Hypocrisy

    Jews, as an ethnicity, have nothing to do with US & Western European unrestricted immigration.

    Only idiots imagine it otherwise.

    It has everything to do with cheap labor for corporate capitalism, going back to idiotic slave traders to Carnegie et. comp, to the Windrush lunacy & to the Blair, Macron, Merkel suicidal immigration policies.

    There is no some grand Jewish conspiracy, and only loser lunatics believe in this. It’s all about quick profit of super-rich whose main motive is- greed. And nothing else. Nobody plans “destruction of white race” or of “Western civilization”.

    When your whole life revolves about money, and when you create a climate where Bezoses and Gates are idols- then, your civilization is doomed. Because you ceased to be a nation long time ago.

    2. ADL is a piece of garbage serving, like SPLC, only as a money making machine. Sure, they support Israel- so do I, and so what?- but they are a part of the US financial establishment with all its sacred cows, pervert ideologies on race & culture & whatnot.

    3. Re ADL & Carlson: Tucker Carlson should seriously expose the biggest American lie- everybody can become an American. Of course he’d have lost a cushy job, but, you know- dixi et salvavi animam meam.

    He should have said: look guys, I don’t want to offend anyone- but America was built primarily as a British, and then broadly European country. This is our heritage- European, white, Western, English speaking. I value contribution of African Americans, local Indian peoples & later Asians, Hindu Indians,…- but we are not culturally Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist. Our American identity is rooted in the West- and not elsewhere.

    And what about race?

    Without being racist, we all know, the whole worlds knows that the core people are, give or take, of the same race. That goes for Russia, China, Israel, Germany, Argentina etc. The core people is always at least 70-75%. If it comes under this- the entire nation will disintegrate, sooner or later. So, if you wish for less white people- you call for America to vanish. It will linger on for some time, but will eventually cease to be a unified country.

    You may not like to hear it, but the future of the US is with unrestricted immigration and especially demonization of white Western culture: FUIT ILIUM.

    Replies: @Rosie, @V. K. Ovelund

    Your analysis is overly simplistic and either/or. Either there is some grand, unified conspiracy, or Jewish influence is insignificant.

    First of all, you radically overstate the importance of conspiratorial intent to destroy the White race and Western civilization. Our overlords surely understand the ultimate consequences of their actions, and are, at the very least, indifferent. We know they understand the importance of ethnic self-determination because of their defense of Israel as a Jewish state. Yet they actively suppress any discussion of the matter here. Suppose you’re right that the motive is greed rather than racial animus. How does that make the deed any less egregious?

    For that matter, how do you separate greed from racial animus in a context where the object of the wrongdoer greed is the inherited wealth of other peoples. Human nature being what it is, the wrongdoer will demonize his victim, even to the point of instilling self-hatred in the victim, to justify and escape consequences for his malfeasance. I don’t think you can.

    Finally, yes, it’s true that greedy profiteers of cheap labor have been promoting mass immigration since forever. Yet, it is also true that a loyal populist elite was able, in alliance with the voters, to finally turn off the spigot and make clear that America was entitled to and would in fact preserve its ethnic staus quo with the 1917 Immigration Act. This law was undermined by Jewish activism and money power. It doesn’t matter that plenty of White traitors collaborated, and it doesn’t matter that not every single Jew was complicit. Jewish influence was marginal, but decisive.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    First of all, you radically overstate the importance of conspiratorial intent to destroy the White race and Western civilization.
     
    Your enemies, the liberals and the Wokeists, are fighting on the side of western civilisation. They're fighting for the core values of western civilisation today - homosexual marriage, transgenderism and Wokeism. That's western civilisation today. They're fighting to impose those values on the entire planet, and dumb whites still sign up for the military to help them impose those values on other nations.

    The western civilisation that you would like to save is long gone.

    It's not a race war. It's an ideological war and a class war. The aim is to grind non-elites into the ground and force ideological orthodoxy on everybody, white and non-white.
  52. @Bardon Kaldian
    @V. K. Ovelund

    It is virtually impossible to answer such a broad spectrum of hypothetical questions & associations.

    I'll just sketch what I think it is all about...

    Sure, Jewish nepotism exists, and Jews are more ethnocentric than other white groups. Just, I don't see how it can be quantified. For instance, Murray Gell Mann, a great physicist who developed particle physics (quarks) & later got Nobel for it, was not accepted to Harvard. It may sound inflated, but he contemplated suicide because of that (he settled for MIT). It is impossible to ascertain how many gifted Jews & Gentiles were not accepted to Harvard. Harvard (Princeton, Yale, MIT, ..) math & physics departments are, at the highest positions, filled with the best people from around the world, US-born Americans of any ethnicity not being more than 50% of the staff. Certainly, well-connected people profit from this type of nepotism, but the most influential, successful & creative individuals in all areas, from exact sciences to entertainment, find ways to manifest their talents/abilities.

    Of course, it varies hugely from STEM to jurisprudence to soft sciences to entertainment. One simply cannot measure these things.

    As I said earlier- Jews are in some aspects different from other whites in the US. First religion, then historical memory of Auschwitz & attachment to Israel. Without differentiation among US Jews, the only effect would be, considering their historical experience- they’ll continue to stick together like a bunch of paranoid looneys. And I don’t blame them. Right policy would be to differentiate between psycho Jewish supremacists- perhaps not more than 10% of them- and the rest, and that means 80-90% of them, who are decent & productive citizens. It’s Jewish activists, not Jews as such. ADL must go to the garbage can.

    You cannot expect them to fully support the historical, white America idea, simply because they’re a bit”off”. Their heart is not, unconditionally, on white European American matrix of life. But they are also not some implacable enemy. They just want to get by & anti-white psychos are a small, but vocal minority.

    And they are not impervious to arguments. I recall arguing about Charlottesville & “Jews will not replace us” with a bunch, mostly liberal Jews. They were horrified, scared, stunned. Then, I patiently explained stuff about Soros, Jewish & Israeli NGOs deleterious activities etc. More than 90% came over to my side. They said- screw ADL, hang Soros, …

    That’s the problem with this way of thinking- it lacks nuances. And God (or Devil) is in detail.

    Replies: @songbird

    I think you are discounting ideology too much.

    Not everything that happens in the world is about maximizing the wealth of the rich. Clearly, that’s not what Communism was about, or Nazism, and I think it is a mistake to suppose that our system is non-ideological just because it is the last one standing of those three.

    Sherman didn’t burn Georgia to maximize economic growth. And that’s certainly not why blacks were given the vote, or why it was taken away from white Southerners during Reconstruction. Or why the British fought the slave trade.

    At the very least there is a meta-economics which goes way beyond oligarchs. Some political parties can grow their supporters with open borders. Some people get a dopamine hit by virtue-signaling. People are rewarded for some behaviors and punished for others.

    There’s a lot of ethnocentriscism of specific groups – and the rewards of them spreading their genes into the West – which underpins what is happening. It is impossible to ignore the biological, whether it is about race, bioleninism, or how conformist and conflict averse women tend to be.

    I mean, if the British wanted Third World labor, you’ve got to ask why they gave up their global empire.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @songbird


    I mean, if the British wanted Third World labor, you’ve got to ask why they gave up their global empire.
     
    The British gave up their global empire because the United States made it clear that the British were no longer allowed to have an empire.

    Replies: @songbird

    , @Rosie
    @songbird


    or how conformist and conflict averse women tend to be.
     
    Don't start. There is no evidence whatsoever that women being slightly more conformist and conflict-averse had anything whatsoever to do with mass immigration.

    You are correct about the importance of ideology, though. Greed does not explain corporate wokeism.

    Replies: @songbird

  53. @Bardon Kaldian
    I’m tired of this nonsense. I’m truly tired.

    1. immigration inundation is not some Jewish conspiracy. This is idiotic.

    It actually is a product of unrestrained liberal capitalism where big money thinks only in terms of quick bucks- and don’t care for consequences. One should have in mind that Ellis Island mass immigration was dictated by economic interests of Mellon, Carnegie, Rockefeller …and virtually nothing with US Jews.

    On the other hand, Jews- as an American ethnicity- tend to be strategically short sighted. I think it is rooted in their history where they got clobbered by various Europeans in past few centuries. It isn’t for nothing that an honest Jewish guy who wrote a very good & sincere piece on the topic – got immediately cancelled after it.

    https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/american-jewrys-disgraceful-hypocrisy/

    American Jewry’s Disgraceful Hypocrisy

    Jews, as an ethnicity, have nothing to do with US & Western European unrestricted immigration.

    Only idiots imagine it otherwise.

    It has everything to do with cheap labor for corporate capitalism, going back to idiotic slave traders to Carnegie et. comp, to the Windrush lunacy & to the Blair, Macron, Merkel suicidal immigration policies.

    There is no some grand Jewish conspiracy, and only loser lunatics believe in this. It’s all about quick profit of super-rich whose main motive is- greed. And nothing else. Nobody plans “destruction of white race” or of “Western civilization”.

    When your whole life revolves about money, and when you create a climate where Bezoses and Gates are idols- then, your civilization is doomed. Because you ceased to be a nation long time ago.

    2. ADL is a piece of garbage serving, like SPLC, only as a money making machine. Sure, they support Israel- so do I, and so what?- but they are a part of the US financial establishment with all its sacred cows, pervert ideologies on race & culture & whatnot.

    3. Re ADL & Carlson: Tucker Carlson should seriously expose the biggest American lie- everybody can become an American. Of course he’d have lost a cushy job, but, you know- dixi et salvavi animam meam.

    He should have said: look guys, I don’t want to offend anyone- but America was built primarily as a British, and then broadly European country. This is our heritage- European, white, Western, English speaking. I value contribution of African Americans, local Indian peoples & later Asians, Hindu Indians,…- but we are not culturally Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist. Our American identity is rooted in the West- and not elsewhere.

    And what about race?

    Without being racist, we all know, the whole worlds knows that the core people are, give or take, of the same race. That goes for Russia, China, Israel, Germany, Argentina etc. The core people is always at least 70-75%. If it comes under this- the entire nation will disintegrate, sooner or later. So, if you wish for less white people- you call for America to vanish. It will linger on for some time, but will eventually cease to be a unified country.

    You may not like to hear it, but the future of the US is with unrestricted immigration and especially demonization of white Western culture: FUIT ILIUM.

    Replies: @Rosie, @V. K. Ovelund

    I’m tired of this nonsense. I’m truly tired.

    I’ll refrain from arguing further against you, then. You make some sound points, anyway. That’s a good experience you have related with the 90% of Jews horrified at the ADL and Soros, at any rate.

    Thanks for the colloquy. And the Latin.

  54. @nebulafox
    @AnonStarter

    I'm not necessarily accusing you of this (for all I know, you are an American), but a lot of non-Americans from the Islamic World seem to not understand that the real fulcrum of pro-Israel sentiment ever since the 1980s has come from evangelical Protestant Christianity, not Judaism. That power has been on the decline ever since Bush II imploded. The only reason this doesn't show up in policy more often is because American politics is dominated by geriatrics. Rainbow Coalition is going to be more heavily pro-Palestinian, not that this'll do them any good, because they are the most useless people on the planet.

    In 1967 with the Six Day's War, this was very different: domestic Jewish political sentiment was a decisive factor in Israel's favor. But that was over 50 years ago now: back then, the Holocaust was a real living memory and intermarriage wasn't quite as ubiquitous. Today's American Jews are more likely than not to look at Israelis as vaguely embarrassing, sort of like how upwardly mobile bien-pensants from the American South look at their relatives, to the extent they identify with them at all.

    Replies: @AnonStarter, @songbird, @dfordoom

    I’m not necessarily accusing you of this (for all I know, you are an American), but a lot of non-Americans from the Islamic World seem to not understand that the real fulcrum of pro-Israel sentiment ever since the 1980s has come from evangelical Protestant Christianity, not Judaism.

    I agree. And a lot of people in general, not just from the Islamic world, do not understand that. A lot of Americans seem not to understand it. And a huge segment of the American Right (including the alt-right) do not understand it.

    Far rightists carry on incessantly about the Jewish Problem but they refuse to recognise the Evangelical Problem. And the Christian Zionist Problem.

    Evangelicals/Christian Zionists are a much greater menace than Jews.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @dfordoom


    Evangelicals/Christian Zionists are a much greater menace than Jews.
     
    That's just your Australian Christophobia talking.
    , @iffen
    @dfordoom

    Damn, what is taking those Red Chinese so long to put you and yours out of your misery?

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @AnonStarter
    @dfordoom

    How about we not speak of the matter as "the Jewish problem" or the "Christian Zionist problem," but rather, the issue of Zionist influence?

    There's a big difficulty in assigning the lion's share of this influence to Christian Zionists in that it almost entirely deprives Jewish Zionists of agency. If the majority of Jews actually opposed the evangelical agenda or were sincerely ambivalent about it, it would be a relatively simple matter for those with influence over American media and politics to resist it.

    For one familiar with the copious reliable archival material on the subject of Zionism, it truly beggars the imagination to consider that Israel in Palestine thrives primarily because of a constituency of American evangelicals.

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    Evangelicals/Christian Zionists are a much greater menace than Jews.
     
    Nonsense. In the United States, Evangelicals/Christian Zionists are your neighbors who bring meals when your wife is recovering from childbirth.

    You probably would not want them running the country, but they don't run it. Instead, who does run it?

    The learnèd presidents of Harvberg, Yaleowitz and Princesky Harvard, Yale and Princeton would like to know.

    Oh yes, I forgot: élites run the country! That's good to know.

    Replies: @AnonStarter

    , @nebulafox
    @dfordoom

    >Evangelicals/Christian Zionists are a much greater menace than Jews.

    The big thing that has changed about American politics in the last 15 years is that it has become relatively (in comparison to Europe) but significantly more secularized: like many long-term trends in American politics, it is less apparent on the surface because of inertia and a domination by the elderly at the top, but it is there, and history is beginning to accelerate. As I said, the political potency of the Religious Right reached a height during the Bush II years, and it never recovered from his implosion. One might compare that to the frenzied pro-black sentiment on the left: it's a swan song born of desperation, indicating long term weakness, not strength. Much like BLM today, the triumphalism of the Bush II years was a desperate attempt to try and clothe the emperor again.

    IMO, post-religious bien-pensants are the real force assaulting reason, honor, love, everything good and noble and healthy, and they've immensely changed my own attitude toward faith in my own life in the past few years. We're human beings in the end. Observing their behavior makes it clear that religion is far from the cause of the world's problems. If anything, it shows that when old cults fail, new ones will take hold. In many ways, the progressives have taken up all the negative parts about revivalist Protestant Christianity in the US, without any of the positives. They have all the universalist drive, but none of the belief in redemption. Diversity is not just a fundamentally limited, feeble deity, but a petty, cruel one too.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  55. @V. K. Ovelund
    @A123


    Everyone can see ...
     
    Everyone, indeed.

    You still need to answer the question about 100% exclusive Christian responsibility for keeping the Charlottesville Five in prison. Repeatedly ducking it causes others to perceive you as highly evasive.
     
    Everyone and others, too!

    I do not recall ducking the question before, but since I have already answered the question twice in earlier threads, I shall duck it now. I am glad that you remember my compatriots unjustly imprisoned, though. Thank you for that.

    Replies: @A123, @Mario Partisan

    A123 wrote:

    Everyone can see the incredibly obvious, direct connection between SJW and Islam.

    The phrase should be revised: very few can see the indirect connection between SJW and Islam.

    What is the link? To continue with my theme from yesterday, the link is Zionism and its imperial management methods.

    [MORE]

    First, I think I might understand why A123 refers to Soros as a Muslim. It’s a version of the No True Scotsman fallacy – any person of Jewish background who has a difference with Likud is not a true Jew, and therefore must be something else. That something else can’t be a Christian either because a true Christian is one who supports Likud. Therefore the person must be a Muslim. I imagine that in A123’s mind the only true Jews are those who would put a bullet in Yitzhak Rabin.

    That said let’s return to the main theme: the connection between Zionism and Wokism. The first thing to understand is the nature of the State of Israel and its position in the world. Israel cannot stand on its own feet, and I don’t believe it was ever intended to, even if Herzl had wanted that in his vision. For its survival, Israel depends on transfers of financial and technical assets, and direct and indirect military assistance from more powerful states, the main one being the US. Thus, the Zionist project depends, for its survival, on having its agents in positions of influence in foreign countries. In effect, materially endowed foreign countries are made into colonies of Israel. The elite agents of Israel in the West constitute the Tribe Incorporated. The transfers amount to imperial tribute paid by the periphery to the center (Israel).

    At the risk of digressing, it might help to mention a characteristic of former British and French colonies, especially the ones in the ME region, like Iraq and Syria. Iraq has a Shia demographic majority, but prior to 2003, the political elite around Saddam Hussein tended to be Sunni. In neighboring Syria, the demographic majority is Sunni, but the political elite around the Assad family is Shia Alawite.

    This pattern of local elites being from minority groups results from an imperial management strategy. An imperial power needs local proxies for a variety of administrative functions. If the imperial power draws its local administrators from the majority demographic, it heightens the risk that they will go rogue because, being part of the majority, they will be able to remain in power following independence. If, on the other hand, the local elite are part of a minority, they will be more loyal to the colonial power, as seeking independence risks being deposed by the upstarts among the majority group. Obviously, the course of history was more complicated as there are always other factors involved, but it seems logical that this pattern arose out of a strategy for managing loyalty to the colonial centers.

    What is the parallel? PC, SJW and Wokism constitute the ideology of majority replacement and dispossession in favor of a cluster of minority groups who the Tribe Incorporated believe will be more loyal junior partners as the majority becomes restless under the increasing costs of supporting the State of Israel. The risks for Zionism and thus the divisions emerging within the Tribe Incorporated regarding methods stem from the fundamental fact that relations between exploiter and exploited are always unstable.

    This imperial management strategy has to deal with glaring and hypocritical contradictions. Wokism and white replacement in the West risk undermining support for Israel on the Left as Likud’s actions are very unwoke. At the same time, support for Jews everywhere is undermined on the Right, because “wokism for you and ethno-nationalism for me” is disgustingly hypocritical. Thus, having different sets of Tribe Inc figures embrace different sides of the woke/unwoke divide helps to take the heat off the Tribe as a collective. The Left will say, but Soros supports us, so don’t be an anti-semite, just anti-Zionist. The Right will say, but Ben Shapiro supports us, don’t be an anti-semite, just anti-Woke.

    In practice however, Soros’ supposed support for BDS has been completely ineffectual. A majority of states, including woke as hell California have anti-BDS legislation that prescribes potentially serious financial and employment penalties for openly supporting BDS. The ant-BDS legislation proposed at the federal level seems to be largely sponsored by Democrats. So far, it seems Soros is effective in promoting Wokism while conveniently ineffectual in getting it applied to Israel.

    On the other hand, Right Zionism, has been effective in promoting various forms of hostility to Muslims, especially in Europe, but completely ineffectual in stopping Islamic migration in the first place. And why should it want to? Right Zionism and neo-conservatism led the charge to turn the MENA into destroyed Mad Max wastelands. It is much better for Israel that hordes of military age Arab men march into Europe rather than on Israel. And when divisions arise between whites and Arabs in Europe, the Zionists can say, “see what poor Israel has to deal with goyim.” In practice, however, Right Zionism hasn’t done anything to protect Europe. In France, you have the glaringly absurd combinations of hate speech laws both for those who criticize immigration and for those who criticize Zionism. By law, in France, you are mandated to be anti-nationalist for France and pro-nationalist for Israel. Right Zionism hasn’t protected anyone against Wokism and Left Zionism hasn’t protected anyone from Zionism.

    The Zionists, both Left and Right, understand that the Book of Exodus contains a metaphor. The split in the Red Sea is the blood of the goyim spilled as they fight and squabble over inanities. God’s Chosen Master Race ™ walks through the split, unscathed, to its Promised Land.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @anon
    @Mario Partisan

    One morning in Paris, I had coffee with Alex Soros, who is 32 and the second-youngest of George’s five children… When the caffeine finally kicked in, Alex told me that for many years, his father had not been eager to advertise his Judaism because “this was something he was almost killed for.” But he had always “identified firstly as a Jew,” and his philanthropy was ultimately an expression of his Jewish identity, in that he felt a solidarity with other minority groups and also because he recognized that a Jew could only truly be safe in a world in which all minorities were protected. Explaining his father’s motives, he said, “The reason you fight for an open society is because that’s the only society that you can live in, as a Jew…“

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/17/magazine/george-soros-democrat-open-society.html

  56. @songbird
    @nebulafox


    I really do think that the substitution of moralizing and symbolism for actual policy all over the board-immigration, trade, taxes, FP, whatever-is a huge part of what is wrong with our nation today.
     
    Couldn't agree more.

    but a lot of non-Americans from the Islamic World seem to not understand that the real fulcrum of pro-Israel sentiment ever since the 1980s has come from evangelical Protestant Christianity, not Judaism
     
    I may just be of a suspicious mind, but my personal view has always been that Jews have laundered their own political support for Israel - in the form of massive campaign contributions and power center influences - in the false clothes of Evangelical support, which by design makes it appear like it is more grass-roots than it is, and as American as apple pie.

    I mean, the policy-influence of Evangelicals never seems to have been very tangible outside of their putative influence on Israel. And there is no question that Jews have a massive media influence and the media has been used to promote the idea of Evangelical support for Israel. I'm not necessarily saying that Evangelicals don't support Israel, but the biggest campaign contributions seem to come from Jews. And the Democrats seem to have broadly supported Israel, despite not being favored or favoring Evangelicals.

    I've seen Jewish talking heads on cable bring up evangelicals and even introduce evangelical guests as an explanation, which seems like a weird hypocrisy, for they would never allow their own power and influence to be discussed.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    I may just be of a suspicious mind, but my personal view has always been that Jews have laundered their own political support for Israel – in the form of massive campaign contributions and power center influences – in the false clothes of Evangelical support, which by design makes it appear like it is more grass-roots than it is, and as American as apple pie.

    All the Evangelicals I’ve ever encountered have been full-on crazy and full-on Zionist. I think it’s an inherent problem with Evangelicalism. I don’t think there’s any need for Jews to encourage Evangelicals in their lunacy. The Evangelical lunacy comes from within. It’s baked into the Evangelical cake.

    They’re a menace.

    • Replies: @anon
    @dfordoom

    All the Evangelicals I’ve ever encountered have been full-on crazy and full-on Zionist

    How many would that be, and in what age group?

  57. In seriousness, class matters.

    A simple truth generally disregarded to the detriment of ever understanding what the fuck is actually going down. Thanks AE.

    • Agree: dfordoom
  58. @dfordoom
    @songbird


    I may just be of a suspicious mind, but my personal view has always been that Jews have laundered their own political support for Israel – in the form of massive campaign contributions and power center influences – in the false clothes of Evangelical support, which by design makes it appear like it is more grass-roots than it is, and as American as apple pie.
     
    All the Evangelicals I've ever encountered have been full-on crazy and full-on Zionist. I think it's an inherent problem with Evangelicalism. I don't think there's any need for Jews to encourage Evangelicals in their lunacy. The Evangelical lunacy comes from within. It's baked into the Evangelical cake.

    They're a menace.

    Replies: @anon

    All the Evangelicals I’ve ever encountered have been full-on crazy and full-on Zionist

    How many would that be, and in what age group?

  59. @Bardon Kaldian
    @A123

    There is no real connection between SJW & Islam. They don't even know Islam (or any other culture), but are against historical Western culture.

    They are what late Harold Bloom termed "The School of Resentment"(in his "Western Canon"). There is not some grand plot, scheme, .... , but more a symptom of a decadent society.

    Replies: @A123, @dfordoom

    There is no real connection between SJW & Islam.

    Unless you’re a conspiracy theorist.

    Conspiracy theories are often depressing but some are genuinely funny. They provide some much-needed comedy relief.

    The “SJWism is an Islamic plot” theory is pure comedy gold. It’s almost as amusing as the “moon landing was a hoax” conspiracy theory.

    My personal favourite at the moment is “those weren’t aircraft that hit the Twin Towers on 9/11, those were holograms” – you can find that one right here on UR.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom

    As far as I can tell, the only real conspiracy is the synagogue. The brilliance of the synagogue is that, like Sherlock Holmes' Purloined Letter, it operates right out in the open.


    Unless you’re a conspiracy theorist.
     
    The term conspiracy theorist has been popularized by Jewish publishers to discredit gentiles who notice persistent, antisocial patterns of Jewish behavior. (Please note, A123: I did not say “all Jews.” It's not even close to all Jews, though the relationship between the Jewish conspiracist and the ordinary, honest Jew appears to be complicated.)

    The term conspiracy theorist works by maliciously conflating sensible anti-Semites with various harmless eccentrics that are temperamentally inclined to believe nonsense such as the notion that the earth were flat or that the source of the Freemasons' secret energy were the miniature Egyptian obelisks the Masons stowed nightly under their bed pillows.

    Here is a test: do anti-Semites disproportionately fall for carb-free/carb-only diet fads or for multilevel marketing schemes? Because I'll warrant that actual conspiracy theorists do.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @AnonStarter

  60. @Rosie
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Your analysis is overly simplistic and either/or. Either there is some grand, unified conspiracy, or Jewish influence is insignificant.

    First of all, you radically overstate the importance of conspiratorial intent to destroy the White race and Western civilization. Our overlords surely understand the ultimate consequences of their actions, and are, at the very least, indifferent. We know they understand the importance of ethnic self-determination because of their defense of Israel as a Jewish state. Yet they actively suppress any discussion of the matter here. Suppose you're right that the motive is greed rather than racial animus. How does that make the deed any less egregious?

    For that matter, how do you separate greed from racial animus in a context where the object of the wrongdoer greed is the inherited wealth of other peoples. Human nature being what it is, the wrongdoer will demonize his victim, even to the point of instilling self-hatred in the victim, to justify and escape consequences for his malfeasance. I don't think you can.

    Finally, yes, it's true that greedy profiteers of cheap labor have been promoting mass immigration since forever. Yet, it is also true that a loyal populist elite was able, in alliance with the voters, to finally turn off the spigot and make clear that America was entitled to and would in fact preserve its ethnic staus quo with the 1917 Immigration Act. This law was undermined by Jewish activism and money power. It doesn't matter that plenty of White traitors collaborated, and it doesn’t matter that not every single Jew was complicit. Jewish influence was marginal, but decisive.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    First of all, you radically overstate the importance of conspiratorial intent to destroy the White race and Western civilization.

    Your enemies, the liberals and the Wokeists, are fighting on the side of western civilisation. They’re fighting for the core values of western civilisation today – homosexual marriage, transgenderism and Wokeism. That’s western civilisation today. They’re fighting to impose those values on the entire planet, and dumb whites still sign up for the military to help them impose those values on other nations.

    The western civilisation that you would like to save is long gone.

    It’s not a race war. It’s an ideological war and a class war. The aim is to grind non-elites into the ground and force ideological orthodoxy on everybody, white and non-white.

  61. @songbird
    @Bardon Kaldian

    I think you are discounting ideology too much.

    Not everything that happens in the world is about maximizing the wealth of the rich. Clearly, that's not what Communism was about, or Nazism, and I think it is a mistake to suppose that our system is non-ideological just because it is the last one standing of those three.

    Sherman didn't burn Georgia to maximize economic growth. And that's certainly not why blacks were given the vote, or why it was taken away from white Southerners during Reconstruction. Or why the British fought the slave trade.

    At the very least there is a meta-economics which goes way beyond oligarchs. Some political parties can grow their supporters with open borders. Some people get a dopamine hit by virtue-signaling. People are rewarded for some behaviors and punished for others.

    There's a lot of ethnocentriscism of specific groups - and the rewards of them spreading their genes into the West - which underpins what is happening. It is impossible to ignore the biological, whether it is about race, bioleninism, or how conformist and conflict averse women tend to be.

    I mean, if the British wanted Third World labor, you've got to ask why they gave up their global empire.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Rosie

    I mean, if the British wanted Third World labor, you’ve got to ask why they gave up their global empire.

    The British gave up their global empire because the United States made it clear that the British were no longer allowed to have an empire.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @dfordoom

    The US made it clear that it did not want France, the UK, and Israel to militarily hold the Suez from Egyptians when it was fighting a cold war with the greatest land power in the world.

    I don't know if the US really made Britain give up its colonies. Portugal, certainly a much weaker country, kept them in some measure until 1974 or 1975. And I believe it was a US ally.

  62. @dfordoom
    @nebulafox


    I’m not necessarily accusing you of this (for all I know, you are an American), but a lot of non-Americans from the Islamic World seem to not understand that the real fulcrum of pro-Israel sentiment ever since the 1980s has come from evangelical Protestant Christianity, not Judaism.
     
    I agree. And a lot of people in general, not just from the Islamic world, do not understand that. A lot of Americans seem not to understand it. And a huge segment of the American Right (including the alt-right) do not understand it.

    Far rightists carry on incessantly about the Jewish Problem but they refuse to recognise the Evangelical Problem. And the Christian Zionist Problem.

    Evangelicals/Christian Zionists are a much greater menace than Jews.

    Replies: @Rosie, @iffen, @AnonStarter, @V. K. Ovelund, @nebulafox

    Evangelicals/Christian Zionists are a much greater menace than Jews.

    That’s just your Australian Christophobia talking.

  63. @songbird
    @Bardon Kaldian

    I think you are discounting ideology too much.

    Not everything that happens in the world is about maximizing the wealth of the rich. Clearly, that's not what Communism was about, or Nazism, and I think it is a mistake to suppose that our system is non-ideological just because it is the last one standing of those three.

    Sherman didn't burn Georgia to maximize economic growth. And that's certainly not why blacks were given the vote, or why it was taken away from white Southerners during Reconstruction. Or why the British fought the slave trade.

    At the very least there is a meta-economics which goes way beyond oligarchs. Some political parties can grow their supporters with open borders. Some people get a dopamine hit by virtue-signaling. People are rewarded for some behaviors and punished for others.

    There's a lot of ethnocentriscism of specific groups - and the rewards of them spreading their genes into the West - which underpins what is happening. It is impossible to ignore the biological, whether it is about race, bioleninism, or how conformist and conflict averse women tend to be.

    I mean, if the British wanted Third World labor, you've got to ask why they gave up their global empire.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Rosie

    or how conformist and conflict averse women tend to be.

    Don’t start. There is no evidence whatsoever that women being slightly more conformist and conflict-averse had anything whatsoever to do with mass immigration.

    You are correct about the importance of ideology, though. Greed does not explain corporate wokeism.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @Rosie


    There is no evidence whatsoever that women being slightly more conformist and conflict-averse had anything whatsoever to do with mass immigration.
     
    Have you ever been to an AfD rally?

    They generally come with counter-demonstrations of a larger scale. A lot of women in one crowd and not in the other.

    Similarly, it is quite common for women to signal on social media how they will unfriend anyone for being too political (I don't know how they say it), but whatever it is it clearly favors the establishment.

    Replies: @Rosie

  64. @V. K. Ovelund
    @A123


    If it turns out that the attorney is not Jewish, will you stick with your logic? Or, abandon it?
     
    Abandon it, of course. Why wouldn't I?

    Do you think that I like being an anti-Semite? Or do you just think it important to me never to admit a mistake, pseudonymously, to a blog's audience?

    The contingency fee the shyster Fradin collects will presumably be the better part of a million dollars, if he can actually make the defendant pay. Money honest, ordinary Americans have given of the sweat of their brows to the National Policy Institute to fight the Great Replacement will be usurped to pay off the mortgage on the shyster's luxury condo in Palm Beach.

    I'll be gobsmacked if the man is not Jewish.

    Meanwhile, one does not mind answering a reasonable number of questions, but I believe that I have answered enough of yours for now. This is a conversation, not a cross-examination. You can supply your own answers to the rest if you like.

    Replies: @A123, @iffen

    Yeah, what part of anti-Semite can he not understand?

    • LOL: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen

    As to nominating it for best line of the week, I must recuse myself.


    Yeah, what part of anti-Semite can he not understand?
     
    Nevertheless, it is my favorite line of the week.

    I hope that A123 can prove me wrong about the shyster Fradin. One would rather be wrong about something like that. I just doubt that he can, unfortunately.

    Replies: @A123

  65. @dfordoom
    @nebulafox


    I’m not necessarily accusing you of this (for all I know, you are an American), but a lot of non-Americans from the Islamic World seem to not understand that the real fulcrum of pro-Israel sentiment ever since the 1980s has come from evangelical Protestant Christianity, not Judaism.
     
    I agree. And a lot of people in general, not just from the Islamic world, do not understand that. A lot of Americans seem not to understand it. And a huge segment of the American Right (including the alt-right) do not understand it.

    Far rightists carry on incessantly about the Jewish Problem but they refuse to recognise the Evangelical Problem. And the Christian Zionist Problem.

    Evangelicals/Christian Zionists are a much greater menace than Jews.

    Replies: @Rosie, @iffen, @AnonStarter, @V. K. Ovelund, @nebulafox

    Damn, what is taking those Red Chinese so long to put you and yours out of your misery?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @iffen


    Damn, what is taking those Red Chinese so long to put you and yours out of your misery?
     
    In case you hadn't noticed Australia is preparing for war with China. We're doing that to make Americans like you happy. And you're still not happy.

    I can remember the Cold War. There was never this kind of hysteria.
  66. @A123
    @Bardon Kaldian


    There is no real connection between SJW & Islam. They don’t even know Islam (or any other culture), but are against historical Western culture.
     
    If there was no connection, one would expect a statistical distribution among SJW views. This does not exist. For example, when a Muslim nation abuses women, the SJW's are totally silent. There is a clear hierarchy of power within the SJW movement and pro-Islam is the #1 or #2 SJW value, the other being pro-China.

    Have you recently seen pro-Israel SJW's? If they still exist, they are very rare and ostracized. In 2018, the anti-Semitic SJW purge was quite open: (1)

    The unity did not last long. Vanessa Wruble, a Brooklyn-based activist, said she told the group that her Jewish heritage inspired her to try to help repair the world. But she said the conversation took a turn when Tamika Mallory, a black gun control activist, and Carmen Perez, a Latina criminal justice reform activist, replied that Jews needed to confront their own role in racism.
    ...
    But the divisions apparent at that very first meeting continue to haunt the Women’s March organization, as charges of anti-Semitism are now roiling the movement and overshadowing plans for more marches next month.
     
    Key funders of SJW are known to be anti-Semites, sympathetic to the Islamic BDS movement. Figures like George Soros are so dangerous that the Palestinian Jewish nation (a.k.a. Israel) openly warns about what he represents: (2)

    Financing tied to billionaire activist George Soros is a common yet largely under-reported theme among organizations that lead or support the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign attempting to delegitimize the Jewish state.

    In January, Israel released a list of 20 BDS-supporting organizations whose members will be banned from entering Israel due to their BDS activism, prominently featuring six American groups. At least four of the six BDS-promoting U.S. groups receive funding tied to Soros. Scores of other U.S. organizations that support the BDS movement are financed by Soros.
     
    If you want to say that there are "useful idiot" foot soldiers that know nothing outside of their little world.... I would concur. However, those running the movement and defining SJW Values, like George IslamoSoros, are anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, and pro-Islamic.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/23/us/womens-march-anti-semitism.html

    (2) https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2019/01/21/target-israel-george-soros-funded-groups-leading-bds-war-on-jewish-state/

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    SJWs are natural followers of the New Left ideology in the 60s, which was a beginning of anti-white lunacy. Some of its more articulate preachers were Jewish (Herbert Marcuse), some were not (Frantz Fanon). You got the entire corpus of influential works, originating mainly in the 50s & the 60s (Gunnar Myrdal, Herbert Marcuse, Simone de Beauvoir, Frantz Fanon, ..) and later by Edward Said, Kate Millett, Michel Foucault, ..) which advocated moral nihilism, feminism, gay activism, anti-whitism & anti-Europeanism … a cartoon ideology Harold Bloom christened School of Resentment.

    This “movement”- let’s call it Minoritarianist School of Resentment- has grown out of post-WW2 Western cultural condition & was not planned or anything like that.

    There was nothing ideological in paradigm shifts in Anglosphere & Western cultural world -most suicidal moves in these societies were caused/provoked/influenced? by popular culture of Beatles, the Countercultural 60’s and later, and not by German-Jewish (or other Jewish) “intellectuals” like Marcuse & the rest. If there is a ruling New Left world-view in affluent Western societies, it cannot be ascribed to any group or a set of individuals of any ethnicity. The New Left ideology (idolization of homosexuals & other “sexual minorities”, hatred towards national identity, extreme feminism & war against nuclear family, fetishization of blacks & Muslims, jabbering about weed & other drugs, female sexual promiscuity, cartoon war against the imperial past of some European peoples, war against normalcy, idolatry of non-European cultures & primitive forms of society, …)- I don’t see that as a final crystallization of some ideological warfare, but as an almost inevitable end of the trajectory of Western culture in its decadent phase, as in famous hypothetical question ascribed to Lenin: ” Are the forces which propel us to greatness the same that will, transformed by mutations of History, eventually lead to our collapse ?”

    Israel is seen as an imperialist fossil, something like former South Africa. SJW are silent about Muslim violence in the West, because Muslims- globally, mostly brown & black with some whites- are “global victims”, similar to blacks and Native Americans, so they cannot do anything wrong. In the eyes of SJWs, everything anti-Western is good, regardless of empirical facts.

    • Thanks: Mark G.
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Bardon Kaldian


    I don’t see that as a final crystallization of some ideological warfare, but as an almost inevitable end of the trajectory of Western culture in its decadent phase
     
    What distinguishes the modern version of western civilisation (which started with the Reformation) from every other civilisation is its extreme dynamism. That dynamism made it, right from the start, inherently unstable.

    The things that made western civilisation great and allowed it to dominate the globe (intellectual scepticism, extreme materialism, individualism, the belief in the inevitability of progress, the decline of religion, capitalism, etc) are the very same things that are now destroying it. It was a civilisation with a built-in self-destruct mechanism.

    By the late 19th century we had mass education, mass media and democracy. At that point we were already doomed.

    What we now seem to be heading towards is a weird kind of decadent totalitarianism. That may be the inescapable result of mass media and democracy.

    The West made its first serious suicide attempt in 1914. Most failed suicides try again.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    , @A123
    @Bardon Kaldian


    SJWs are natural followers of the New Left ideology in the 60s, which was a beginning of anti-white lunacy. Some of its more articulate preachers were Jewish (Herbert Marcuse), some were not (Frantz Fanon). You got the entire corpus of influential works, originating mainly in the 50s & the 60s
     
    Your point is well taken. The historical SJW movement did not start with Islam. However, organizations and movements change over time.

    Islam has infiltrated today's SJW movement and crafted it into a scimitar wielded against the neck of Infidels. How else can one explain The IslamoSoros funding illegal human trafficking of Jihadi "rape-ugees" to invade Europe. His Muslim human trafficking vessel, Sea Watch 4, was photographed flying both Antifa & Rainbow LBGTQXYZ flags as part of their Islamic mission.

     
    https://www.idea.de/fileadmin/_processed_/5/b/csm_sea_watch_antifa_regenbogen_schiff_870_twitter_seawatchcrew_sc21_ca2ee8cec9.jpg
     

    Given the vast number of openly visible ties linking Islam & SJW, it is hard to understand how anyone can miss all of them. The tale begins to have the character of a Greek or Shakespearean tragedy.

    There is no way to fit these deliberate actions against Infidels (Christians & Jews) into either Christian or Jewish belief. Blaming the victims makes no sense even if 60+ years ago they had something to do with pre-Islamic SJW.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

  67. @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Yeah, what part of anti-Semite can he not understand?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    As to nominating it for best line of the week, I must recuse myself.

    Yeah, what part of anti-Semite can he not understand?

    Nevertheless, it is my favorite line of the week.

    I hope that A123 can prove me wrong about the shyster Fradin. One would rather be wrong about something like that. I just doubt that he can, unfortunately.

    • Replies: @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund



    Yeah, what part of anti-Semite can he not understand?

     

    Nevertheless, it is my favorite line of the week.
     
    I cannot understand irrationality. Anti-Semitism against 100% of All Jews is totally detached from reality.

    On subjects other that Elite Jews, you seem rational. I do not want to give up on you as incoherent & deranged. However, you make that very difficult every time you rant about 100% of All Jews by using over inclusive terminology.


    I hope that A123 can prove me wrong about the shyster Fradin. One would rather be wrong about something like that. I just doubt that he can, unfortunately.
     
    I was trying to point out the huge problem with your logic:
    • If Fradin is Jewish. Hate all Jews
    • If Fradin is Christian. Hate all Christians.

    You have conceded, "If Fradin is Christian, you would not hate all Christians". Now you just need to be rational enough to say, "If Fradin is Jewish, you would not hate all Jews".

    If you really are a Christian, you should let go of the illogical hate that is damaging your soul.

    PEACE 😇
    _________

    "Faith sustains us in the hour when reason tells us that we can not continue, that the whole of our whole lives is without meaning."

    "Faith and reason are the shoes on your feet. You can travel further with both than you can with just one."

    -- Brother Alwyn in Babylon 5: "The Deconstruction of Falling Stars"

    Replies: @iffen

  68. @dfordoom
    @nebulafox


    I’m not necessarily accusing you of this (for all I know, you are an American), but a lot of non-Americans from the Islamic World seem to not understand that the real fulcrum of pro-Israel sentiment ever since the 1980s has come from evangelical Protestant Christianity, not Judaism.
     
    I agree. And a lot of people in general, not just from the Islamic world, do not understand that. A lot of Americans seem not to understand it. And a huge segment of the American Right (including the alt-right) do not understand it.

    Far rightists carry on incessantly about the Jewish Problem but they refuse to recognise the Evangelical Problem. And the Christian Zionist Problem.

    Evangelicals/Christian Zionists are a much greater menace than Jews.

    Replies: @Rosie, @iffen, @AnonStarter, @V. K. Ovelund, @nebulafox

    How about we not speak of the matter as “the Jewish problem” or the “Christian Zionist problem,” but rather, the issue of Zionist influence?

    There’s a big difficulty in assigning the lion’s share of this influence to Christian Zionists in that it almost entirely deprives Jewish Zionists of agency. If the majority of Jews actually opposed the evangelical agenda or were sincerely ambivalent about it, it would be a relatively simple matter for those with influence over American media and politics to resist it.

    For one familiar with the copious reliable archival material on the subject of Zionism, it truly beggars the imagination to consider that Israel in Palestine thrives primarily because of a constituency of American evangelicals.

  69. @dfordoom
    @nebulafox


    I’m not necessarily accusing you of this (for all I know, you are an American), but a lot of non-Americans from the Islamic World seem to not understand that the real fulcrum of pro-Israel sentiment ever since the 1980s has come from evangelical Protestant Christianity, not Judaism.
     
    I agree. And a lot of people in general, not just from the Islamic world, do not understand that. A lot of Americans seem not to understand it. And a huge segment of the American Right (including the alt-right) do not understand it.

    Far rightists carry on incessantly about the Jewish Problem but they refuse to recognise the Evangelical Problem. And the Christian Zionist Problem.

    Evangelicals/Christian Zionists are a much greater menace than Jews.

    Replies: @Rosie, @iffen, @AnonStarter, @V. K. Ovelund, @nebulafox

    Evangelicals/Christian Zionists are a much greater menace than Jews.

    Nonsense. In the United States, Evangelicals/Christian Zionists are your neighbors who bring meals when your wife is recovering from childbirth.

    You probably would not want them running the country, but they don’t run it. Instead, who does run it?

    The learnèd presidents of Harvberg, Yaleowitz and Princesky Harvard, Yale and Princeton would like to know.

    Oh yes, I forgot: élites run the country! That’s good to know.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
    @V. K. Ovelund

    In the United States, Evangelicals/Christian Zionists are your neighbors who bring meals when your wife is recovering from childbirth.

    Seems there's quite a sizeable constituency of evangelicals on the BDS bandwagon:

    https://s3.amazonaws.com/VP2/visuals/en/5e99a5aba0d69a9774ebd662e57e0c67.jpg?2019

  70. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    Evangelicals/Christian Zionists are a much greater menace than Jews.
     
    Nonsense. In the United States, Evangelicals/Christian Zionists are your neighbors who bring meals when your wife is recovering from childbirth.

    You probably would not want them running the country, but they don't run it. Instead, who does run it?

    The learnèd presidents of Harvberg, Yaleowitz and Princesky Harvard, Yale and Princeton would like to know.

    Oh yes, I forgot: élites run the country! That's good to know.

    Replies: @AnonStarter

    In the United States, Evangelicals/Christian Zionists are your neighbors who bring meals when your wife is recovering from childbirth.

    Seems there’s quite a sizeable constituency of evangelicals on the BDS bandwagon:

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  71. @dfordoom
    @Bardon Kaldian


    There is no real connection between SJW & Islam.
     
    Unless you're a conspiracy theorist.

    Conspiracy theories are often depressing but some are genuinely funny. They provide some much-needed comedy relief.

    The "SJWism is an Islamic plot" theory is pure comedy gold. It's almost as amusing as the "moon landing was a hoax" conspiracy theory.

    My personal favourite at the moment is "those weren't aircraft that hit the Twin Towers on 9/11, those were holograms" - you can find that one right here on UR.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    As far as I can tell, the only real conspiracy is the synagogue. The brilliance of the synagogue is that, like Sherlock Holmes’ Purloined Letter, it operates right out in the open.

    Unless you’re a conspiracy theorist.

    The term conspiracy theorist has been popularized by Jewish publishers to discredit gentiles who notice persistent, antisocial patterns of Jewish behavior. (Please note, A123: I did not say “all Jews.” It’s not even close to all Jews, though the relationship between the Jewish conspiracist and the ordinary, honest Jew appears to be complicated.)

    The term conspiracy theorist works by maliciously conflating sensible anti-Semites with various harmless eccentrics that are temperamentally inclined to believe nonsense such as the notion that the earth were flat or that the source of the Freemasons’ secret energy were the miniature Egyptian obelisks the Masons stowed nightly under their bed pillows.

    Here is a test: do anti-Semites disproportionately fall for carb-free/carb-only diet fads or for multilevel marketing schemes? Because I’ll warrant that actual conspiracy theorists do.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @V. K. Ovelund

    P.S. Richard M. Nixon, 37th U.S. president, was a fine example of a sensible anti-Semite, and a remarkably popular one. Hardly any American was temperamentally less inclined to conspiracy theorizing than Nixon, which is precisely why the Jewish press went into overdrive to insinuate that Nixon were so inclined.

    The insinuation was rich, considering the source. Anyway, they got rid of him, didn't they? (Yes, I know, Watergate, blah blah. Lyndon B. Johnson and Bill Clinton did worse, with less provocation, but the press didn't care. Anyway, you can lump me with Nixon if you like.)

    Replies: @utu

    , @AnonStarter
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Conspiracy theories exist due to the opacity of governments and institutions who ... well, conspire in order to meet their objectives. There is nothing inherently wrong with covert planning and the expectation of unequivocal transparency in administration is quite naive.

    But theories regarding 9/11 and JFK are clearly of a different sort than flat earth hypotheses, particularly given the preponderance of evidence that militates against the "official" narratives. In any event, the current stats on Americans who don't believe the government as per 9/11 and JFK are over 50%, so conspiracy denialists in those domains are now in the minority.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom

  72. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom

    As far as I can tell, the only real conspiracy is the synagogue. The brilliance of the synagogue is that, like Sherlock Holmes' Purloined Letter, it operates right out in the open.


    Unless you’re a conspiracy theorist.
     
    The term conspiracy theorist has been popularized by Jewish publishers to discredit gentiles who notice persistent, antisocial patterns of Jewish behavior. (Please note, A123: I did not say “all Jews.” It's not even close to all Jews, though the relationship between the Jewish conspiracist and the ordinary, honest Jew appears to be complicated.)

    The term conspiracy theorist works by maliciously conflating sensible anti-Semites with various harmless eccentrics that are temperamentally inclined to believe nonsense such as the notion that the earth were flat or that the source of the Freemasons' secret energy were the miniature Egyptian obelisks the Masons stowed nightly under their bed pillows.

    Here is a test: do anti-Semites disproportionately fall for carb-free/carb-only diet fads or for multilevel marketing schemes? Because I'll warrant that actual conspiracy theorists do.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @AnonStarter

    P.S. Richard M. Nixon, 37th U.S. president, was a fine example of a sensible anti-Semite, and a remarkably popular one. Hardly any American was temperamentally less inclined to conspiracy theorizing than Nixon, which is precisely why the Jewish press went into overdrive to insinuate that Nixon were so inclined.

    The insinuation was rich, considering the source. Anyway, they got rid of him, didn’t they? (Yes, I know, Watergate, blah blah. Lyndon B. Johnson and Bill Clinton did worse, with less provocation, but the press didn’t care. Anyway, you can lump me with Nixon if you like.)

    • Replies: @utu
    @V. K. Ovelund

    "a sensible anti-Semit[ism]" - should be a default position which should come naturally from the fact that we are not them as they are not us. All it takes to become a sensible anti-Semite is to gain the awareness of Jews. Jews are always anti-gentile because this is a core of their identity. A Jew becomes aware of gentiles and not being one of them on the eights days after birth when he is circumcised. Sensible anti-Semitism is a necessary symmetry, which obviously Jews always fight against and any signs of awareness of Jewishness among gentiles that is not philo-Semitic and a subservient adoration of Jews will be stumped out by using the curse and anathema of true anti-Semitism. At the same time we should be tolerant and protect Jews and not interfere in their Jewishness while encouraging their assimilation and abandoning of their self-chosen otherness and hostility to us. We should return to the old doctrine preached by Church: we will not harm you but you must not' interfere in our culture, religion and politics. This means that we must fight Jews political and cultural activism because it is almost alway directed agains our interests.

    How to proceed? First we must clean up our ranks and get rid of defeatists like dfordoom fifth-columnists like Bardon Kaldian.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  73. @iffen
    @dfordoom

    Damn, what is taking those Red Chinese so long to put you and yours out of your misery?

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Damn, what is taking those Red Chinese so long to put you and yours out of your misery?

    In case you hadn’t noticed Australia is preparing for war with China. We’re doing that to make Americans like you happy. And you’re still not happy.

    I can remember the Cold War. There was never this kind of hysteria.

  74. @Rosie
    @songbird


    or how conformist and conflict averse women tend to be.
     
    Don't start. There is no evidence whatsoever that women being slightly more conformist and conflict-averse had anything whatsoever to do with mass immigration.

    You are correct about the importance of ideology, though. Greed does not explain corporate wokeism.

    Replies: @songbird

    There is no evidence whatsoever that women being slightly more conformist and conflict-averse had anything whatsoever to do with mass immigration.

    Have you ever been to an AfD rally?

    They generally come with counter-demonstrations of a larger scale. A lot of women in one crowd and not in the other.

    Similarly, it is quite common for women to signal on social media how they will unfriend anyone for being too political (I don’t know how they say it), but whatever it is it clearly favors the establishment.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @songbird


    They generally come with counter-demonstrations of a larger scale. A lot of women in one crowd and not in the other.
     
    That women come to afd counter-demonstrations suggests they are not particularly conflict-averse, does it not? The conflict averse would stay home.

    In any event, do you think having women at afd rallies would make a difference? If so, I wonder what, if anything afd are doing to attract women. If they're anything like the American dissident right, they're doing their best to repel them while ignoring the fact that only a tiny fraction of German men is putting up even the slightest resistance to national destruction.

    Replies: @songbird

  75. @Bardon Kaldian
    @A123

    SJWs are natural followers of the New Left ideology in the 60s, which was a beginning of anti-white lunacy. Some of its more articulate preachers were Jewish (Herbert Marcuse), some were not (Frantz Fanon). You got the entire corpus of influential works, originating mainly in the 50s & the 60s (Gunnar Myrdal, Herbert Marcuse, Simone de Beauvoir, Frantz Fanon, ..) and later by Edward Said, Kate Millett, Michel Foucault, ..) which advocated moral nihilism, feminism, gay activism, anti-whitism & anti-Europeanism … a cartoon ideology Harold Bloom christened School of Resentment.

    This “movement”- let’s call it Minoritarianist School of Resentment- has grown out of post-WW2 Western cultural condition & was not planned or anything like that.

    There was nothing ideological in paradigm shifts in Anglosphere & Western cultural world -most suicidal moves in these societies were caused/provoked/influenced? by popular culture of Beatles, the Countercultural 60’s and later, and not by German-Jewish (or other Jewish) “intellectuals” like Marcuse & the rest. If there is a ruling New Left world-view in affluent Western societies, it cannot be ascribed to any group or a set of individuals of any ethnicity. The New Left ideology (idolization of homosexuals & other “sexual minorities”, hatred towards national identity, extreme feminism & war against nuclear family, fetishization of blacks & Muslims, jabbering about weed & other drugs, female sexual promiscuity, cartoon war against the imperial past of some European peoples, war against normalcy, idolatry of non-European cultures & primitive forms of society, …)- I don’t see that as a final crystallization of some ideological warfare, but as an almost inevitable end of the trajectory of Western culture in its decadent phase, as in famous hypothetical question ascribed to Lenin: ” Are the forces which propel us to greatness the same that will, transformed by mutations of History, eventually lead to our collapse ?”

    Israel is seen as an imperialist fossil, something like former South Africa. SJW are silent about Muslim violence in the West, because Muslims- globally, mostly brown & black with some whites- are "global victims", similar to blacks and Native Americans, so they cannot do anything wrong. In the eyes of SJWs, everything anti-Western is good, regardless of empirical facts.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @A123

    I don’t see that as a final crystallization of some ideological warfare, but as an almost inevitable end of the trajectory of Western culture in its decadent phase

    What distinguishes the modern version of western civilisation (which started with the Reformation) from every other civilisation is its extreme dynamism. That dynamism made it, right from the start, inherently unstable.

    The things that made western civilisation great and allowed it to dominate the globe (intellectual scepticism, extreme materialism, individualism, the belief in the inevitability of progress, the decline of religion, capitalism, etc) are the very same things that are now destroying it. It was a civilisation with a built-in self-destruct mechanism.

    By the late 19th century we had mass education, mass media and democracy. At that point we were already doomed.

    What we now seem to be heading towards is a weird kind of decadent totalitarianism. That may be the inescapable result of mass media and democracy.

    The West made its first serious suicide attempt in 1914. Most failed suicides try again.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @dfordoom

    Yeah, but you can have all this (individualism, skepticism, rationalism, capitalism, progress, ...) along with strong national identity (in their various variants - Israel & Russia now, who are Western in the early 20th C sense, not post-modernist 21st).

  76. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom

    As far as I can tell, the only real conspiracy is the synagogue. The brilliance of the synagogue is that, like Sherlock Holmes' Purloined Letter, it operates right out in the open.


    Unless you’re a conspiracy theorist.
     
    The term conspiracy theorist has been popularized by Jewish publishers to discredit gentiles who notice persistent, antisocial patterns of Jewish behavior. (Please note, A123: I did not say “all Jews.” It's not even close to all Jews, though the relationship between the Jewish conspiracist and the ordinary, honest Jew appears to be complicated.)

    The term conspiracy theorist works by maliciously conflating sensible anti-Semites with various harmless eccentrics that are temperamentally inclined to believe nonsense such as the notion that the earth were flat or that the source of the Freemasons' secret energy were the miniature Egyptian obelisks the Masons stowed nightly under their bed pillows.

    Here is a test: do anti-Semites disproportionately fall for carb-free/carb-only diet fads or for multilevel marketing schemes? Because I'll warrant that actual conspiracy theorists do.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @AnonStarter

    Conspiracy theories exist due to the opacity of governments and institutions who … well, conspire in order to meet their objectives. There is nothing inherently wrong with covert planning and the expectation of unequivocal transparency in administration is quite naive.

    But theories regarding 9/11 and JFK are clearly of a different sort than flat earth hypotheses, particularly given the preponderance of evidence that militates against the “official” narratives. In any event, the current stats on Americans who don’t believe the government as per 9/11 and JFK are over 50%, so conspiracy denialists in those domains are now in the minority.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @AnonStarter


    In any event, the current stats on Americans who don’t believe the government as per 9/11 and JFK are over 50%, so conspiracy denialists in those domains are now in the minority.
     
    Being more or less agnostic regarding the 9/11 and JFK debacles, I was not thinking of them when I wrote the earlier comment, but of course you have a point.
    , @dfordoom
    @AnonStarter


    In any event, the current stats on Americans who don’t believe the government as per 9/11 and JFK are over 50%, so conspiracy denialists in those domains are now in the minority.
     
    In the 17th century witch denialists were in the minority, but they were right. Witchcraft really was nonsense. It was a kind of conspiracy theory.

    In an age of fear, anxiety and superstition (such as ours) people will believe the most ludicrous things.

    You are right in the sense that belief in conspiracy theories reflects a collapse in faith in governments and the media. Which is dangerous precisely because it encourages people to believe in crazy conspiracy theories. The fact that faith in governments and the media is of course mostly the fault of governments and the media.

    Replies: @AnonStarter

  77. @AnonStarter
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Conspiracy theories exist due to the opacity of governments and institutions who ... well, conspire in order to meet their objectives. There is nothing inherently wrong with covert planning and the expectation of unequivocal transparency in administration is quite naive.

    But theories regarding 9/11 and JFK are clearly of a different sort than flat earth hypotheses, particularly given the preponderance of evidence that militates against the "official" narratives. In any event, the current stats on Americans who don't believe the government as per 9/11 and JFK are over 50%, so conspiracy denialists in those domains are now in the minority.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom

    In any event, the current stats on Americans who don’t believe the government as per 9/11 and JFK are over 50%, so conspiracy denialists in those domains are now in the minority.

    Being more or less agnostic regarding the 9/11 and JFK debacles, I was not thinking of them when I wrote the earlier comment, but of course you have a point.

  78. @dfordoom
    @songbird


    I mean, if the British wanted Third World labor, you’ve got to ask why they gave up their global empire.
     
    The British gave up their global empire because the United States made it clear that the British were no longer allowed to have an empire.

    Replies: @songbird

    The US made it clear that it did not want France, the UK, and Israel to militarily hold the Suez from Egyptians when it was fighting a cold war with the greatest land power in the world.

    I don’t know if the US really made Britain give up its colonies. Portugal, certainly a much weaker country, kept them in some measure until 1974 or 1975. And I believe it was a US ally.

  79. Here’s a very current example that provides evidence of conspiracy:

    Sheikh Jarrah: Activists raise concerns over deleted social media content

    Rights groups and activists have raised concerns that the social media platforms Instagram, Facebook and Twitter are silencing Palestinian voices, after a number of posts about increased tensions in the East Jerusalem Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood were taken down and accounts suspended. …

    Shtaya also said she had noticed an ongoing trend of Palestine-related social media posts being removed and silenced over the years.

    “This is not the first time that we monitor these cases. Annually there are tens of thousands of requests that the Israeli cyber unit send to social media companies in an attempt to silence Palestinians. The number of requests is increasing annually. In 2019 Israel made 19,606 requests from the cyber unit to social media companies regarding content takedowns,” she said.

    Instagram claims there was a “technical issue,” a euphemism for censorship that I myself have encountered on numerous occasions when attempting to publish news about Palestine.

    Nothing theoretical about this. It’s quite obvious what’s going on.

  80. Rosie says:
    @songbird
    @Rosie


    There is no evidence whatsoever that women being slightly more conformist and conflict-averse had anything whatsoever to do with mass immigration.
     
    Have you ever been to an AfD rally?

    They generally come with counter-demonstrations of a larger scale. A lot of women in one crowd and not in the other.

    Similarly, it is quite common for women to signal on social media how they will unfriend anyone for being too political (I don't know how they say it), but whatever it is it clearly favors the establishment.

    Replies: @Rosie

    They generally come with counter-demonstrations of a larger scale. A lot of women in one crowd and not in the other.

    That women come to afd counter-demonstrations suggests they are not particularly conflict-averse, does it not? The conflict averse would stay home.

    In any event, do you think having women at afd rallies would make a difference? If so, I wonder what, if anything afd are doing to attract women. If they’re anything like the American dissident right, they’re doing their best to repel them while ignoring the fact that only a tiny fraction of German men is putting up even the slightest resistance to national destruction.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @Rosie


    That women come to afd counter-demonstrations suggests they are not particularly conflict-averse, does it not? The conflict averse would stay home.
     
    It is a social experience. They are in no danger of negative repercussions, when they ally with the state. And they would not get the emotional hit from staying home.

    In any event, do you think having women at afd rallies would make a difference?
     
    Yes, optics count for a lot. It doesn't look good, when European states harass young European women.

    In fact, I have said this before: I would really like to see some country like the UK ban a young American women with pure British ancestry from traveling to the UK, in order to speak at an identitarian event. They'd do it - I have no doubt of that - but it would look very bad.

    Replies: @German_reader, @Rosie

  81. @Rosie
    @songbird


    They generally come with counter-demonstrations of a larger scale. A lot of women in one crowd and not in the other.
     
    That women come to afd counter-demonstrations suggests they are not particularly conflict-averse, does it not? The conflict averse would stay home.

    In any event, do you think having women at afd rallies would make a difference? If so, I wonder what, if anything afd are doing to attract women. If they're anything like the American dissident right, they're doing their best to repel them while ignoring the fact that only a tiny fraction of German men is putting up even the slightest resistance to national destruction.

    Replies: @songbird

    That women come to afd counter-demonstrations suggests they are not particularly conflict-averse, does it not? The conflict averse would stay home.

    It is a social experience. They are in no danger of negative repercussions, when they ally with the state. And they would not get the emotional hit from staying home.

    In any event, do you think having women at afd rallies would make a difference?

    Yes, optics count for a lot. It doesn’t look good, when European states harass young European women.

    In fact, I have said this before: I would really like to see some country like the UK ban a young American women with pure British ancestry from traveling to the UK, in order to speak at an identitarian event. They’d do it – I have no doubt of that – but it would look very bad.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @songbird


    I would really like to see some country like the UK ban a young American women with pure British ancestry from traveling to the UK, in order to speak at an identitarian event.

     

    That already sort of happened - in 2018 they detained Martin Sellner and his then girlfriend (now wife) Brittany Pettibone and then deported them:
    https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-43393035
    I don't know about Pettibone's ancestry, but given her name I suppose it would be at least partly British.
    Anyway, nobody cared, and many normies probably approved.

    Replies: @songbird

    , @Rosie
    @songbird


    They’d do it – I have no doubt of that – but it would look very bad.
     
    That was the thinking behind women getting involved in anti-desegregation activism. It didn't do any good.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/02/opinion/sunday/white-supremacy-forgot-women.html

    It is a social experience. They are in no danger of negative repercussions, when they ally with the state. And they would not get the emotional hit from staying home.
     
    And how did the enemies of White folks gain control of White nation-states to begin with?

    Male greed, status-mongering, and cowardice. Look. There's plenty of blame to go around. It's probably true that men and women's different natures have a lot to do with the particular ways I which we have facilitated the enemy's work. Indeed, a clever enemy will always target the weaknesses of each gender to advance their agenda. Why wouldn't they? You singling out women as especially blameworthy in this fiasco is not going to help anything.

    Replies: @songbird

  82. @AnonStarter
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Conspiracy theories exist due to the opacity of governments and institutions who ... well, conspire in order to meet their objectives. There is nothing inherently wrong with covert planning and the expectation of unequivocal transparency in administration is quite naive.

    But theories regarding 9/11 and JFK are clearly of a different sort than flat earth hypotheses, particularly given the preponderance of evidence that militates against the "official" narratives. In any event, the current stats on Americans who don't believe the government as per 9/11 and JFK are over 50%, so conspiracy denialists in those domains are now in the minority.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom

    In any event, the current stats on Americans who don’t believe the government as per 9/11 and JFK are over 50%, so conspiracy denialists in those domains are now in the minority.

    In the 17th century witch denialists were in the minority, but they were right. Witchcraft really was nonsense. It was a kind of conspiracy theory.

    In an age of fear, anxiety and superstition (such as ours) people will believe the most ludicrous things.

    You are right in the sense that belief in conspiracy theories reflects a collapse in faith in governments and the media. Which is dangerous precisely because it encourages people to believe in crazy conspiracy theories. The fact that faith in governments and the media is of course mostly the fault of governments and the media.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
    @dfordoom

    Evidence of witchcraft is hardly the same as that which undermines the government's narrative of 9/11, and selecting the more absurd theories about 9/11 as evidence of crackpottery does nothing to undermine the more cogent ones.

    If you're arguing for more transparency, that's all fine and good, but it's just as wrongheadedly extreme to broadbrush those who advance alternative theories as it is to blame all Jews for the transgressions of Zionists.

    Frankly, I'm surprised you can't see this.

  83. @dfordoom
    @nebulafox


    I’m not necessarily accusing you of this (for all I know, you are an American), but a lot of non-Americans from the Islamic World seem to not understand that the real fulcrum of pro-Israel sentiment ever since the 1980s has come from evangelical Protestant Christianity, not Judaism.
     
    I agree. And a lot of people in general, not just from the Islamic world, do not understand that. A lot of Americans seem not to understand it. And a huge segment of the American Right (including the alt-right) do not understand it.

    Far rightists carry on incessantly about the Jewish Problem but they refuse to recognise the Evangelical Problem. And the Christian Zionist Problem.

    Evangelicals/Christian Zionists are a much greater menace than Jews.

    Replies: @Rosie, @iffen, @AnonStarter, @V. K. Ovelund, @nebulafox

    >Evangelicals/Christian Zionists are a much greater menace than Jews.

    The big thing that has changed about American politics in the last 15 years is that it has become relatively (in comparison to Europe) but significantly more secularized: like many long-term trends in American politics, it is less apparent on the surface because of inertia and a domination by the elderly at the top, but it is there, and history is beginning to accelerate. As I said, the political potency of the Religious Right reached a height during the Bush II years, and it never recovered from his implosion. One might compare that to the frenzied pro-black sentiment on the left: it’s a swan song born of desperation, indicating long term weakness, not strength. Much like BLM today, the triumphalism of the Bush II years was a desperate attempt to try and clothe the emperor again.

    IMO, post-religious bien-pensants are the real force assaulting reason, honor, love, everything good and noble and healthy, and they’ve immensely changed my own attitude toward faith in my own life in the past few years. We’re human beings in the end. Observing their behavior makes it clear that religion is far from the cause of the world’s problems. If anything, it shows that when old cults fail, new ones will take hold. In many ways, the progressives have taken up all the negative parts about revivalist Protestant Christianity in the US, without any of the positives. They have all the universalist drive, but none of the belief in redemption. Diversity is not just a fundamentally limited, feeble deity, but a petty, cruel one too.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @nebulafox


    IMO, post-religious bien-pensants are the real force assaulting reason, honor, love, everything good and noble and healthy, and they’ve immensely changed my own attitude toward faith in my own life in the past few years. We’re human beings in the end. Observing their behavior makes it clear that religion is far from the cause of the world’s problems. If anything, it shows that when old cults fail, new ones will take hold. In many ways, the progressives have taken up all the negative parts about revivalist Protestant Christianity in the US, without any of the positives. They have all the universalist drive, but none of the belief in redemption.
     
    I can see your point, but I think it actually strengthens the view that religion is the problem. Not particular religions perhaps, but the religious mindset. If new cults take the place of old ones and if progressivism has all the bad features of religion (which it does) then doesn't that mean that the religious mindset is the problem?

    If the problem with progressivism is that it encourages the same kind of thinking as revivalist Protestant Christianity then doesn't that suggest that both progressivism and revivalist Protestant Christianity are fundamentally flawed ways of thinking?

    Maybe the problem is just a particular kind of personality. Some people (whether they're religious or secular) seem to be natural authoritarians who will always, if they can, seek to control other people's lives. Some people (whether they're religious or secular) seem to be naturally disposed towards a live-and-let-live attitude towards other people's lives. Maybe that's just a fundamental fact about human psychology which will always assert itself whether people are religious or not.

    It also seems to have nothing to do with Left of Right. There are right-wingers who are authoritarian personalities and there are left-wingers who are authoritarian personalities. There are right-wingers who are anti-authoritarian personalities and there are left-wingers who are anti-authoritarian personalities.

    In recent times we've seen governments ostensibly of both Left and Right that have increasingly embraced totalitarianism. In Britain there have been three successive right-wing Tory prime ministers (Cameron, May and Johnson) who have enthusiastically embraced the totalitarian approach. In Australia we've had three successive right-wing prime ministers (Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison) and we've seen an alarming growth in the Nanny State outlook.

    Some people like to push other people around. Some people prefer to let other people live their own lives. For some reason it's the authoritarian personalities who are now dominant to an extraordinary degree.
  84. @AnonStarter
    @nebulafox

    I’m not necessarily accusing you of this (for all I know, you are an American), but a lot of non-Americans from the Islamic World seem to not understand that the real fulcrum of pro-Israel sentiment ever since the 1980s has come from evangelical Protestant Christianity, not Judaism.

    Well, I've never suggested that Judaism per se is the primary impetus behind pro-Israel sentiment and I'm fully aware of the evangelical factor, being a born-and-raised American who's bothered to pay attention. :)

    But, since we've broached the topic of religion ...

    The implicitly Zionist dispensation of Judaism has its origins in Temple Israel, whose reconstruction of Scripture following the Babylonian exile essentially sowed the seeds of Jewish Manifest Destiny over two and one-half millennia before Herzl was a glimmer in his daddy's eye. Pauline Christianity could not have been but the brainchild of Israel in its apotheosis of a Jewish prophet and concomitant "abrogation" of the Law -- a religion both amenable to pagan Europe and suitable for advancing the Temple's interests therein. That result's been achieved.

    Christians who, prior to the late 19th century, advocated for the restoration of David's kingdom in Palestine are merely reading from a playbook written for them centuries before Jesus came on the scene. Jeremiah 8:8 alludes to that corruption.

    None of this is to glibly dismiss what you mention. Rather, it is to say that the roots of the Zionist endeavor run much deeper in western society than many would be willing to admit.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    None taken. I enjoy learning from people who know more than me. Don’t let my verbosity fool you, a lot of commentators here do, and you probably do on this topic as well.

    You know what the interesting thing about a lot of post-Roman states in Europe was? They viewed *themselves* as the new Israel, as covenant kingdoms. Even in Byzantium, where the Roman state didn’t collapse, a significant shift in self-perception took place during the crisis and collapse of the 7th Century.

    So, yes: that does run deep in the Western psyche. But it still was unmistakably European-or Roman, in the case of Byzantium. Not neo-Jewish. Else, why would they have treated the Jews themselves as outsiders? Neither the Franks nor the Byzantines saw their ark in the Holy Land, but in Francia and Anatolia, respectively. And when the Crusades came, they weren’t going to be restoring the kingdom of David. They came for their own wholly native, distinct religion.

    That, and Judaism itself drastically changed after the revolts. It would be a long, long time before most Jews dreamt of restoring the Davidic state after the Romans crushed them. The misguided hopes of a few of them that the Sassanids or the Arabs would restore them aside…

    >Pauline Christianity could not have been but the brainchild of Israel in its apotheosis of a Jewish prophet and concomitant “abrogation” of the Law — a religion both amenable to pagan Europe and suitable for advancing the Temple’s interests therein. That result’s been achieved.

    Christianity had a Jewish womb, but a Greco-Roman father: it’s no coincidence that Stoic philosphy melded so well with the upstart religion in the 3rd Century. Irony is, by the time of the high Middle Ages, the comfortable, normative conservatism toward honoring the traditions of ones ancestors-and the belief that this would bring one earthly fortune-was back, a far cry from the ideological revolution of the 4th Century. Human nature remains what it is.

    >None of this is to glibly dismiss what you mention. Rather, it is to say that the roots of the Zionist endeavor run much deeper in western society than many would be willing to admit.

    Isn’t it just a little bit pathetic to fetishize another person’s program rather than take it for yourself, as happened in previous times? But then, we live in a fundamentally stupid age. 😉

    Ah, well. ‘Tis a gay, merry life nevertheless.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @nebulafox


    Christianity had a Jewish womb, but a Greco-Roman father: it’s no coincidence that Stoic philosphy melded so well with the upstart religion in the 3rd Century. Irony is, by the time of the high Middle Ages, the comfortable, normative conservatism toward honoring the traditions of ones ancestors-and the belief that this would bring one earthly fortune-was back, a far cry from the ideological revolution of the 4th Century. Human nature remains what it is.
     
    Quite. Christianity was no great rupture with the European past. The Greco-Roman world was already moving toward ethical monotheism even before the birth of Christ, whether because of the work of the Holy Spirit or the fruits of human intellect, the writing was on the wall already.
    , @AnonStarter
    @nebulafox

    Thanks for the reply.

    I'll get to it in more detail later. Gotta work for now.

    , @AnonStarter
    @nebulafox

    They viewed *themselves* as the new Israel, as covenant kingdoms.

    Yes, though in spite of the subordinate status of Jews in Middle Age Christendom, we also witness influential countervailing positions, many of which predicated advocacy of protecting Jews upon such biblical arguments as we find in Romans 11 -- a favorite of Zionist Evangelists. In fact, for as much as Jews may have endured great hardship in early Christian Byzantium, they still fared better than pagan populations, most of whom were wholly obliterated or forcibly converted. The missionary imperative embedded in Christianity, as well as the Jews' familiarity with Scripture that -- by Christian standards -- evidently led to Christ, gave strength to the case that Jews merited special protection for the purpose of eventual conversion.

    No, this didn't make life rosy for them in the least, but it's easy enough to see how Pauline dogma provided just enough of a safe space for Jews that they could secure their niche in the dominion of Japheth's progeny. Even 109 expulsions couldn't keep them from returning.

    The motivation for so doing lies in Jewish religion -- more specifically, in Jewish prophecy. Japheth, forefather of the European peoples and the only son of Noah who remained with him following the flood, is singled out in Genesis as one to whom "God opens." (Literal translation of Gen. 9:27) Additionally, it is held that, in the end times, following great conflagration between Edom (Roman/Christian) and Ishmael (Arab/Muslim), these forces will eventually unite against Israel. (That prophecy occurred five centuries before the birth of Muhammad.)

    Now, one can make of this what he will. In antiquity, these prophecies determined the course of Jewish conduct, and even today, they remain integral to understanding the motivations of Israel, motivations that include advancing a clash of civilizations agenda in which the advocate remains conspicuously aloof from the conflict. Israel's fear of an Edom-Ishmael alliance is far more genuine than most of us can possibly understand, and it explains their interests in the realm of American foreign policy throughout the Muslim world.

    Temple Israel's interest in Europe is very old, and the struggle to contain it has been a long and difficult one demanding great patience and fortitude. It's attained a significant measure of success, but there are noticeable fissures in its foundation which only multiply and widen with time.

    Playing God never ends well for the pretender. One would think that lesson had been learned enough already.

    , @utu
    @nebulafox

    "They viewed *themselves* as the new Israel, as covenant kingdoms." - Never heard of it. I am sure that even if there were manifestation of such fantasies it was completely irrelevant.

    Replies: @AnonStarter, @nebulafox

  85. German_reader says:
    @songbird
    @Rosie


    That women come to afd counter-demonstrations suggests they are not particularly conflict-averse, does it not? The conflict averse would stay home.
     
    It is a social experience. They are in no danger of negative repercussions, when they ally with the state. And they would not get the emotional hit from staying home.

    In any event, do you think having women at afd rallies would make a difference?
     
    Yes, optics count for a lot. It doesn't look good, when European states harass young European women.

    In fact, I have said this before: I would really like to see some country like the UK ban a young American women with pure British ancestry from traveling to the UK, in order to speak at an identitarian event. They'd do it - I have no doubt of that - but it would look very bad.

    Replies: @German_reader, @Rosie

    I would really like to see some country like the UK ban a young American women with pure British ancestry from traveling to the UK, in order to speak at an identitarian event.

    That already sort of happened – in 2018 they detained Martin Sellner and his then girlfriend (now wife) Brittany Pettibone and then deported them:
    https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-43393035
    I don’t know about Pettibone’s ancestry, but given her name I suppose it would be at least partly British.
    Anyway, nobody cared, and many normies probably approved.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @German_reader


    in 2018 they detained Martin Sellner and his then girlfriend (now wife) Brittany Pettibone and then deported them
     
    I recall that - it was actually the basis of my idea.

    I don’t know about Pettibone’s ancestry, but given her name I suppose it would be at least partly British.
     
    I imagine so, but wikipedia has this: Sellner was born Brittany Pettibone on October 7, 1992 in California to parents of mostly German, Spanish and Czech ancestry.

    The small difference here would be one of rhetoric. Though it may be difficult to find a young woman of pure English (or Welsh of Scottish) ancestry in the US.

    Anyway, nobody cared, and many normies probably approved.
     
    I think it might have woken a few people up - there are those who believe that what is happening is just an accident, and it is hard to still believe that, when events like that happen. But, of course, we are talking minor effects - small numbers swayed.

    Ideally, if such a woman were found, she would be blocked at the airport and then smuggled in by boat.

    Replies: @German_reader

  86. A123 says:
    @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen

    As to nominating it for best line of the week, I must recuse myself.


    Yeah, what part of anti-Semite can he not understand?
     
    Nevertheless, it is my favorite line of the week.

    I hope that A123 can prove me wrong about the shyster Fradin. One would rather be wrong about something like that. I just doubt that he can, unfortunately.

    Replies: @A123

    Yeah, what part of anti-Semite can he not understand?

    Nevertheless, it is my favorite line of the week.

    I cannot understand irrationality. Anti-Semitism against 100% of All Jews is totally detached from reality.

    On subjects other that Elite Jews, you seem rational. I do not want to give up on you as incoherent & deranged. However, you make that very difficult every time you rant about 100% of All Jews by using over inclusive terminology.

    I hope that A123 can prove me wrong about the shyster Fradin. One would rather be wrong about something like that. I just doubt that he can, unfortunately.

    I was trying to point out the huge problem with your logic:
    • If Fradin is Jewish. Hate all Jews
    • If Fradin is Christian. Hate all Christians.

    You have conceded, “If Fradin is Christian, you would not hate all Christians”. Now you just need to be rational enough to say, “If Fradin is Jewish, you would not hate all Jews”.

    If you really are a Christian, you should let go of the illogical hate that is damaging your soul.

    PEACE 😇
    _________

    “Faith sustains us in the hour when reason tells us that we can not continue, that the whole of our whole lives is without meaning.”

    “Faith and reason are the shoes on your feet. You can travel further with both than you can with just one.”

    — Brother Alwyn in Babylon 5: “The Deconstruction of Falling Stars”

    • Replies: @iffen
    @A123

    Anti-Semitism against 100% of All Jews is totally detached from reality.

    Whose reality are you you using?

    If Kevin MacDonald's thesis is accurate then anti-Semitism is very much tached.

  87. Rosie says:
    @songbird
    @Rosie


    That women come to afd counter-demonstrations suggests they are not particularly conflict-averse, does it not? The conflict averse would stay home.
     
    It is a social experience. They are in no danger of negative repercussions, when they ally with the state. And they would not get the emotional hit from staying home.

    In any event, do you think having women at afd rallies would make a difference?
     
    Yes, optics count for a lot. It doesn't look good, when European states harass young European women.

    In fact, I have said this before: I would really like to see some country like the UK ban a young American women with pure British ancestry from traveling to the UK, in order to speak at an identitarian event. They'd do it - I have no doubt of that - but it would look very bad.

    Replies: @German_reader, @Rosie

    They’d do it – I have no doubt of that – but it would look very bad.

    That was the thinking behind women getting involved in anti-desegregation activism. It didn’t do any good.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/02/opinion/sunday/white-supremacy-forgot-women.html

    It is a social experience. They are in no danger of negative repercussions, when they ally with the state. And they would not get the emotional hit from staying home.

    And how did the enemies of White folks gain control of White nation-states to begin with?

    Male greed, status-mongering, and cowardice. Look. There’s plenty of blame to go around. It’s probably true that men and women’s different natures have a lot to do with the particular ways I which we have facilitated the enemy’s work. Indeed, a clever enemy will always target the weaknesses of each gender to advance their agenda. Why wouldn’t they? You singling out women as especially blameworthy in this fiasco is not going to help anything.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @Rosie


    That was the thinking behind women getting involved in anti-desegregation activism. It didn’t do any good.
     
    I am familiar with Louise Day Hicks, at least. The local media still vilify her. Probably it was easier to get women involved in these things when society was less particularized and ethnic neighborhoods in the city were still semi-intact. No, she didn't stop busing in Boston, which probably would have required military force to oppose the force that was used to institute it, but I still think that she set a good example.

    And I, for one, find it jarring to see her, a woman dead and buried, vilified today, by elderly harlots like Andy Rooney's daughter, who was wearing miniskirts and showing off her wizened bust, when her father was 100 and she 70.

    You singling out women as especially blameworthy in this fiasco is not going to help anything.
     
    I must disagree. Many of our problems come from blank-slatism, and this is not limited to different racial groups, but obviously includes the sexes.

    As the Chinese seem to realize, feminism was not a good development for society. It is doubtful Chauvin would have been convicted without women jurors. Some states did not have them until the mid '70s. Any healthy society would at least be capable of articulating that trannies are freaks and that the sex ratio of students in tertiary education is something with negative social consequences. That single African mothers should not get an income from dropping babies in Europe.

    A feminist society cannot articulate these ideas. Clearly, moving towards a more patriarchal society would help.

    Replies: @Rosie

  88. Rosie says:
    @nebulafox
    @AnonStarter

    None taken. I enjoy learning from people who know more than me. Don't let my verbosity fool you, a lot of commentators here do, and you probably do on this topic as well.

    You know what the interesting thing about a lot of post-Roman states in Europe was? They viewed *themselves* as the new Israel, as covenant kingdoms. Even in Byzantium, where the Roman state didn't collapse, a significant shift in self-perception took place during the crisis and collapse of the 7th Century.

    So, yes: that does run deep in the Western psyche. But it still was unmistakably European-or Roman, in the case of Byzantium. Not neo-Jewish. Else, why would they have treated the Jews themselves as outsiders? Neither the Franks nor the Byzantines saw their ark in the Holy Land, but in Francia and Anatolia, respectively. And when the Crusades came, they weren't going to be restoring the kingdom of David. They came for their own wholly native, distinct religion.

    That, and Judaism itself drastically changed after the revolts. It would be a long, long time before most Jews dreamt of restoring the Davidic state after the Romans crushed them. The misguided hopes of a few of them that the Sassanids or the Arabs would restore them aside...

    >Pauline Christianity could not have been but the brainchild of Israel in its apotheosis of a Jewish prophet and concomitant “abrogation” of the Law — a religion both amenable to pagan Europe and suitable for advancing the Temple’s interests therein. That result’s been achieved.

    Christianity had a Jewish womb, but a Greco-Roman father: it's no coincidence that Stoic philosphy melded so well with the upstart religion in the 3rd Century. Irony is, by the time of the high Middle Ages, the comfortable, normative conservatism toward honoring the traditions of ones ancestors-and the belief that this would bring one earthly fortune-was back, a far cry from the ideological revolution of the 4th Century. Human nature remains what it is.

    >None of this is to glibly dismiss what you mention. Rather, it is to say that the roots of the Zionist endeavor run much deeper in western society than many would be willing to admit.

    Isn't it just a little bit pathetic to fetishize another person's program rather than take it for yourself, as happened in previous times? But then, we live in a fundamentally stupid age. ;)

    Ah, well. 'Tis a gay, merry life nevertheless.

    Replies: @Rosie, @AnonStarter, @AnonStarter, @utu

    Christianity had a Jewish womb, but a Greco-Roman father: it’s no coincidence that Stoic philosphy melded so well with the upstart religion in the 3rd Century. Irony is, by the time of the high Middle Ages, the comfortable, normative conservatism toward honoring the traditions of ones ancestors-and the belief that this would bring one earthly fortune-was back, a far cry from the ideological revolution of the 4th Century. Human nature remains what it is.

    Quite. Christianity was no great rupture with the European past. The Greco-Roman world was already moving toward ethical monotheism even before the birth of Christ, whether because of the work of the Holy Spirit or the fruits of human intellect, the writing was on the wall already.

  89. A123 says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    @A123

    SJWs are natural followers of the New Left ideology in the 60s, which was a beginning of anti-white lunacy. Some of its more articulate preachers were Jewish (Herbert Marcuse), some were not (Frantz Fanon). You got the entire corpus of influential works, originating mainly in the 50s & the 60s (Gunnar Myrdal, Herbert Marcuse, Simone de Beauvoir, Frantz Fanon, ..) and later by Edward Said, Kate Millett, Michel Foucault, ..) which advocated moral nihilism, feminism, gay activism, anti-whitism & anti-Europeanism … a cartoon ideology Harold Bloom christened School of Resentment.

    This “movement”- let’s call it Minoritarianist School of Resentment- has grown out of post-WW2 Western cultural condition & was not planned or anything like that.

    There was nothing ideological in paradigm shifts in Anglosphere & Western cultural world -most suicidal moves in these societies were caused/provoked/influenced? by popular culture of Beatles, the Countercultural 60’s and later, and not by German-Jewish (or other Jewish) “intellectuals” like Marcuse & the rest. If there is a ruling New Left world-view in affluent Western societies, it cannot be ascribed to any group or a set of individuals of any ethnicity. The New Left ideology (idolization of homosexuals & other “sexual minorities”, hatred towards national identity, extreme feminism & war against nuclear family, fetishization of blacks & Muslims, jabbering about weed & other drugs, female sexual promiscuity, cartoon war against the imperial past of some European peoples, war against normalcy, idolatry of non-European cultures & primitive forms of society, …)- I don’t see that as a final crystallization of some ideological warfare, but as an almost inevitable end of the trajectory of Western culture in its decadent phase, as in famous hypothetical question ascribed to Lenin: ” Are the forces which propel us to greatness the same that will, transformed by mutations of History, eventually lead to our collapse ?”

    Israel is seen as an imperialist fossil, something like former South Africa. SJW are silent about Muslim violence in the West, because Muslims- globally, mostly brown & black with some whites- are "global victims", similar to blacks and Native Americans, so they cannot do anything wrong. In the eyes of SJWs, everything anti-Western is good, regardless of empirical facts.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @A123

    SJWs are natural followers of the New Left ideology in the 60s, which was a beginning of anti-white lunacy. Some of its more articulate preachers were Jewish (Herbert Marcuse), some were not (Frantz Fanon). You got the entire corpus of influential works, originating mainly in the 50s & the 60s

    Your point is well taken. The historical SJW movement did not start with Islam. However, organizations and movements change over time.

    Islam has infiltrated today’s SJW movement and crafted it into a scimitar wielded against the neck of Infidels. How else can one explain The IslamoSoros funding illegal human trafficking of Jihadi “rape-ugees” to invade Europe. His Muslim human trafficking vessel, Sea Watch 4, was photographed flying both Antifa & Rainbow LBGTQXYZ flags as part of their Islamic mission.

     

     

    Given the vast number of openly visible ties linking Islam & SJW, it is hard to understand how anyone can miss all of them. The tale begins to have the character of a Greek or Shakespearean tragedy.

    There is no way to fit these deliberate actions against Infidels (Christians & Jews) into either Christian or Jewish belief. Blaming the victims makes no sense even if 60+ years ago they had something to do with pre-Islamic SJW.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @A123

    Soros is not a pro-Islamist as he is the enemy of normal Western civilization he seeks to undermine or destroy (he uses Christian Africans, as well Christian Hispanics in the US. He would have done the same with Indians or the Chinese). He perverted initially healthy Popper's ideas into a monstrosity.

    The bigger question is that of the affluent European & American political elites. Why do they let him? Various secret services etc. know everything about his misdeeds. Why don't they unmask him? Hungary, not a powerful country, has ditched him & completely destroyed his efforts.

    France, Germany, Sweden, Italy..... crickets. And they all know.

    If he had tried anything similar with Russia, he would have been Litvinenkoed. Mossad could be helpful, too.

  90. @German_reader
    @songbird


    I would really like to see some country like the UK ban a young American women with pure British ancestry from traveling to the UK, in order to speak at an identitarian event.

     

    That already sort of happened - in 2018 they detained Martin Sellner and his then girlfriend (now wife) Brittany Pettibone and then deported them:
    https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-43393035
    I don't know about Pettibone's ancestry, but given her name I suppose it would be at least partly British.
    Anyway, nobody cared, and many normies probably approved.

    Replies: @songbird

    in 2018 they detained Martin Sellner and his then girlfriend (now wife) Brittany Pettibone and then deported them

    I recall that – it was actually the basis of my idea.

    I don’t know about Pettibone’s ancestry, but given her name I suppose it would be at least partly British.

    I imagine so, but wikipedia has this: Sellner was born Brittany Pettibone on October 7, 1992 in California to parents of mostly German, Spanish and Czech ancestry.

    The small difference here would be one of rhetoric. Though it may be difficult to find a young woman of pure English (or Welsh of Scottish) ancestry in the US.

    Anyway, nobody cared, and many normies probably approved.

    I think it might have woken a few people up – there are those who believe that what is happening is just an accident, and it is hard to still believe that, when events like that happen. But, of course, we are talking minor effects – small numbers swayed.

    Ideally, if such a woman were found, she would be blocked at the airport and then smuggled in by boat.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @songbird


    Though it may be difficult to find a young woman of pure English (or Welsh of Scottish) ancestry in the US.
     
    I would have thought there still are plenty of people with predominantly British ancestry at least in the American South, but I suppose my mental map may be out of date.

    I think it might have woken a few people up – there are those who believe that what is happening is just an accident, and it is hard to still believe that, when events like that happen.
     
    imo one should never underestimate how gullible, naive and apolitical most normies are (and tbh that includes quite a few commenters on this blog too).

    Replies: @songbird

  91. A123 says:
    @anon
    @A123

    Say, I wonder if you could explain "pilpul" to all the rest of us?

    Thanks.

    Replies: @A123

    Say, I wonder if you could explain “pilpul” to all the rest of us?

    (A) Your spell checker / auto correct has a problem. Is the term even English?

    (B) The best match I can come up with is:
    pupil
    noun
    • (STUDENT) a person who is being taught, esp. a child at school pupil noun
    • (EYE PART) the circular, black area in the center of the eye that gets larger and smaller and lets in light

    Does that answer you question?

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @A123


    The best match I can come up with is ...
     
    I think that you missed the joke, but a quick engine web search might help.

    @anon obviously thinks that you get the joke, which I believe was his point.

    Replies: @A123

  92. German_reader says:
    @songbird
    @German_reader


    in 2018 they detained Martin Sellner and his then girlfriend (now wife) Brittany Pettibone and then deported them
     
    I recall that - it was actually the basis of my idea.

    I don’t know about Pettibone’s ancestry, but given her name I suppose it would be at least partly British.
     
    I imagine so, but wikipedia has this: Sellner was born Brittany Pettibone on October 7, 1992 in California to parents of mostly German, Spanish and Czech ancestry.

    The small difference here would be one of rhetoric. Though it may be difficult to find a young woman of pure English (or Welsh of Scottish) ancestry in the US.

    Anyway, nobody cared, and many normies probably approved.
     
    I think it might have woken a few people up - there are those who believe that what is happening is just an accident, and it is hard to still believe that, when events like that happen. But, of course, we are talking minor effects - small numbers swayed.

    Ideally, if such a woman were found, she would be blocked at the airport and then smuggled in by boat.

    Replies: @German_reader

    Though it may be difficult to find a young woman of pure English (or Welsh of Scottish) ancestry in the US.

    I would have thought there still are plenty of people with predominantly British ancestry at least in the American South, but I suppose my mental map may be out of date.

    I think it might have woken a few people up – there are those who believe that what is happening is just an accident, and it is hard to still believe that, when events like that happen.

    imo one should never underestimate how gullible, naive and apolitical most normies are (and tbh that includes quite a few commenters on this blog too).

    • Replies: @songbird
    @German_reader


    I would have thought there still are plenty of people with predominantly British ancestry at least in the American South
     
    I think that Scotch-Irish would come into that. It may be a difference without much of a genetic significance, but I think it would lose a little of the rhetorical edge.

    imo one should never underestimate how gullible, naive and apolitical most normies are (and tbh that includes quite a few commenters on this blog too).
     
    I agree, in fact, many to me seem like they are programmable, a kind of vector sum of propaganda, according to volume.

    Maybe, it is not really so, and they just have deep instinctual susceptibilities to egalitarianism. There's the idea that Europeans, living historically in low density areas aren't evolved for dealing with other groups, like Indians or Middle Easterners might be.
  93. @A123
    @anon


    Say, I wonder if you could explain “pilpul” to all the rest of us?
     
    (A) Your spell checker / auto correct has a problem. Is the term even English?

    (B) The best match I can come up with is:
    pupil
    noun
    • (STUDENT) a person who is being taught, esp. a child at school pupil noun
    • (EYE PART) the circular, black area in the center of the eye that gets larger and smaller and lets in light

    Does that answer you question?

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    The best match I can come up with is …

    I think that you missed the joke, but a quick engine web search might help.

    obviously thinks that you get the joke, which I believe was his point.

    • Replies: @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I did an English language web search and nothing came back that applies to me as a Christian. That is why I believe it was a typo of some kind.

    PEACE 😇

  94. @dfordoom
    @AnonStarter


    In any event, the current stats on Americans who don’t believe the government as per 9/11 and JFK are over 50%, so conspiracy denialists in those domains are now in the minority.
     
    In the 17th century witch denialists were in the minority, but they were right. Witchcraft really was nonsense. It was a kind of conspiracy theory.

    In an age of fear, anxiety and superstition (such as ours) people will believe the most ludicrous things.

    You are right in the sense that belief in conspiracy theories reflects a collapse in faith in governments and the media. Which is dangerous precisely because it encourages people to believe in crazy conspiracy theories. The fact that faith in governments and the media is of course mostly the fault of governments and the media.

    Replies: @AnonStarter

    Evidence of witchcraft is hardly the same as that which undermines the government’s narrative of 9/11, and selecting the more absurd theories about 9/11 as evidence of crackpottery does nothing to undermine the more cogent ones.

    If you’re arguing for more transparency, that’s all fine and good, but it’s just as wrongheadedly extreme to broadbrush those who advance alternative theories as it is to blame all Jews for the transgressions of Zionists.

    Frankly, I’m surprised you can’t see this.

  95. @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund


    I do not recall ducking the question before, but since I have already answered the question twice in earlier threads, I shall duck it now.
     
    You have pontificated at great length while avoiding a direct answer. The "question" is about the logic. A diatribe and lengthy reading assignment is a "duck". So, you have not answered the question once. You definitely have not answered twice.

    Let me try again:


    Governor Ralph Northam refuses to pardon Charlottesville Five. There is one-and-only-one Christian totally responsible for keeping the Charlottesville Five in jail.

    Is Ralph Northam:
    -A- One Elite individual
    -B- 100% of “All Christians” in the U.S.

    • Do you believe “All Christians” are guilty due to the Elite Governor’s failure to provide a pardon?
    • If you do not believe Elite Northam’s actions define Christianity — Why do you apply a completely different standard, believing Elite Mayorkas’s actions define Judaism?
     

    Please, try not to be evasive this time.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    @Bardon Kalidan

    I have answered so many of A123’s questions that one eventually had to start throttling the flow of answers. Did you have a specific question you wanted me to address?

    It was not my intent “to pontificate at great length while avoiding a direct answer.” If I have inadvertently done that, then would you draw my attention to the defect so I can remedy it?

    You might find my answer disagreeable, but I do not mean to be dense.

    • Replies: @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund

    The problem you keep avoiding is having:

    • One logic for extending behaviour of one or some Jews, blaming "ALL JEWS" (a.k.a. Jews, Jewish)
    • Different logic for extending behaviour of one or some Christians, refusing to blame "ALL CHRISTIANS" (a.k.a. Christians)

    Logic is method that must be consistent. Having "two different logics" is inherently irrational. It makes no sense. I cannot follow it.
    ____

    I have tried to push you to address this logic break point multiple times and, I have not been able to get you to deal with it directly. To me it seems like you are ducking the question. If you are not being intentionally evasive, I apologize.

    I do not enjoy asking the same thing over and over again, but I am unable to proceed until I can follow your thought process. And, I simply cannot do so.

    PEACE 😇

  96. @nebulafox
    @AnonStarter

    None taken. I enjoy learning from people who know more than me. Don't let my verbosity fool you, a lot of commentators here do, and you probably do on this topic as well.

    You know what the interesting thing about a lot of post-Roman states in Europe was? They viewed *themselves* as the new Israel, as covenant kingdoms. Even in Byzantium, where the Roman state didn't collapse, a significant shift in self-perception took place during the crisis and collapse of the 7th Century.

    So, yes: that does run deep in the Western psyche. But it still was unmistakably European-or Roman, in the case of Byzantium. Not neo-Jewish. Else, why would they have treated the Jews themselves as outsiders? Neither the Franks nor the Byzantines saw their ark in the Holy Land, but in Francia and Anatolia, respectively. And when the Crusades came, they weren't going to be restoring the kingdom of David. They came for their own wholly native, distinct religion.

    That, and Judaism itself drastically changed after the revolts. It would be a long, long time before most Jews dreamt of restoring the Davidic state after the Romans crushed them. The misguided hopes of a few of them that the Sassanids or the Arabs would restore them aside...

    >Pauline Christianity could not have been but the brainchild of Israel in its apotheosis of a Jewish prophet and concomitant “abrogation” of the Law — a religion both amenable to pagan Europe and suitable for advancing the Temple’s interests therein. That result’s been achieved.

    Christianity had a Jewish womb, but a Greco-Roman father: it's no coincidence that Stoic philosphy melded so well with the upstart religion in the 3rd Century. Irony is, by the time of the high Middle Ages, the comfortable, normative conservatism toward honoring the traditions of ones ancestors-and the belief that this would bring one earthly fortune-was back, a far cry from the ideological revolution of the 4th Century. Human nature remains what it is.

    >None of this is to glibly dismiss what you mention. Rather, it is to say that the roots of the Zionist endeavor run much deeper in western society than many would be willing to admit.

    Isn't it just a little bit pathetic to fetishize another person's program rather than take it for yourself, as happened in previous times? But then, we live in a fundamentally stupid age. ;)

    Ah, well. 'Tis a gay, merry life nevertheless.

    Replies: @Rosie, @AnonStarter, @AnonStarter, @utu

    Thanks for the reply.

    I’ll get to it in more detail later. Gotta work for now.

  97. @Rosie
    @songbird


    They’d do it – I have no doubt of that – but it would look very bad.
     
    That was the thinking behind women getting involved in anti-desegregation activism. It didn't do any good.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/02/opinion/sunday/white-supremacy-forgot-women.html

    It is a social experience. They are in no danger of negative repercussions, when they ally with the state. And they would not get the emotional hit from staying home.
     
    And how did the enemies of White folks gain control of White nation-states to begin with?

    Male greed, status-mongering, and cowardice. Look. There's plenty of blame to go around. It's probably true that men and women's different natures have a lot to do with the particular ways I which we have facilitated the enemy's work. Indeed, a clever enemy will always target the weaknesses of each gender to advance their agenda. Why wouldn't they? You singling out women as especially blameworthy in this fiasco is not going to help anything.

    Replies: @songbird

    That was the thinking behind women getting involved in anti-desegregation activism. It didn’t do any good.

    I am familiar with Louise Day Hicks, at least. The local media still vilify her. Probably it was easier to get women involved in these things when society was less particularized and ethnic neighborhoods in the city were still semi-intact. No, she didn’t stop busing in Boston, which probably would have required military force to oppose the force that was used to institute it, but I still think that she set a good example.

    And I, for one, find it jarring to see her, a woman dead and buried, vilified today, by elderly harlots like Andy Rooney’s daughter, who was wearing miniskirts and showing off her wizened bust, when her father was 100 and she 70.

    You singling out women as especially blameworthy in this fiasco is not going to help anything.

    I must disagree. Many of our problems come from blank-slatism, and this is not limited to different racial groups, but obviously includes the sexes.

    As the Chinese seem to realize, feminism was not a good development for society. It is doubtful Chauvin would have been convicted without women jurors. Some states did not have them until the mid ’70s. Any healthy society would at least be capable of articulating that trannies are freaks and that the sex ratio of students in tertiary education is something with negative social consequences. That single African mothers should not get an income from dropping babies in Europe.

    A feminist society cannot articulate these ideas. Clearly, moving towards a more patriarchal society would help.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @Rosie
    @songbird


    I must disagree. Many of our problems come from blank-slatism, and this is not limited to different racial groups, but obviously includes the sexes.
     
    All you're doing here is attempting to claim that problems stemming from race denial prove that women shouldn't have equal rights. This is both lazy and absurd. Try again.

    It is doubtful Chauvin would have been convicted without women jurors.
     
    Worthless counterfactual speculation. A jury verdict must be unanimous. There were two White males on the jury, either of whom could have hung the jury. They didn't.

    An all-female jury acquitted George Zimmerman. All but one were White women.

    https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/0620/Zimmerman-jury-of-peers-is-jury-of-mostly-white-women

    That single African mothers should not get an income from dropping babies in Europe.
     
    The problem is not single mothers. White women use welfare as it was intended: as a temporary handup when they have made a mistake. The problem is Africans being in Europe because of male Imperial adventuring and greed for cheap labor.

    Clearly...
     
    Hold on to your wallets, folks.

    Replies: @songbird

  98. @German_reader
    @songbird


    Though it may be difficult to find a young woman of pure English (or Welsh of Scottish) ancestry in the US.
     
    I would have thought there still are plenty of people with predominantly British ancestry at least in the American South, but I suppose my mental map may be out of date.

    I think it might have woken a few people up – there are those who believe that what is happening is just an accident, and it is hard to still believe that, when events like that happen.
     
    imo one should never underestimate how gullible, naive and apolitical most normies are (and tbh that includes quite a few commenters on this blog too).

    Replies: @songbird

    I would have thought there still are plenty of people with predominantly British ancestry at least in the American South

    I think that Scotch-Irish would come into that. It may be a difference without much of a genetic significance, but I think it would lose a little of the rhetorical edge.

    imo one should never underestimate how gullible, naive and apolitical most normies are (and tbh that includes quite a few commenters on this blog too).

    I agree, in fact, many to me seem like they are programmable, a kind of vector sum of propaganda, according to volume.

    Maybe, it is not really so, and they just have deep instinctual susceptibilities to egalitarianism. There’s the idea that Europeans, living historically in low density areas aren’t evolved for dealing with other groups, like Indians or Middle Easterners might be.

  99. Rosie says:
    @songbird
    @Rosie


    That was the thinking behind women getting involved in anti-desegregation activism. It didn’t do any good.
     
    I am familiar with Louise Day Hicks, at least. The local media still vilify her. Probably it was easier to get women involved in these things when society was less particularized and ethnic neighborhoods in the city were still semi-intact. No, she didn't stop busing in Boston, which probably would have required military force to oppose the force that was used to institute it, but I still think that she set a good example.

    And I, for one, find it jarring to see her, a woman dead and buried, vilified today, by elderly harlots like Andy Rooney's daughter, who was wearing miniskirts and showing off her wizened bust, when her father was 100 and she 70.

    You singling out women as especially blameworthy in this fiasco is not going to help anything.
     
    I must disagree. Many of our problems come from blank-slatism, and this is not limited to different racial groups, but obviously includes the sexes.

    As the Chinese seem to realize, feminism was not a good development for society. It is doubtful Chauvin would have been convicted without women jurors. Some states did not have them until the mid '70s. Any healthy society would at least be capable of articulating that trannies are freaks and that the sex ratio of students in tertiary education is something with negative social consequences. That single African mothers should not get an income from dropping babies in Europe.

    A feminist society cannot articulate these ideas. Clearly, moving towards a more patriarchal society would help.

    Replies: @Rosie

    I must disagree. Many of our problems come from blank-slatism, and this is not limited to different racial groups, but obviously includes the sexes.

    All you’re doing here is attempting to claim that problems stemming from race denial prove that women shouldn’t have equal rights. This is both lazy and absurd. Try again.

    It is doubtful Chauvin would have been convicted without women jurors.

    Worthless counterfactual speculation. A jury verdict must be unanimous. There were two White males on the jury, either of whom could have hung the jury. They didn’t.

    An all-female jury acquitted George Zimmerman. All but one were White women.

    https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/0620/Zimmerman-jury-of-peers-is-jury-of-mostly-white-women

    That single African mothers should not get an income from dropping babies in Europe.

    The problem is not single mothers. White women use welfare as it was intended: as a temporary handup when they have made a mistake. The problem is Africans being in Europe because of male Imperial adventuring and greed for cheap labor.

    Clearly…

    Hold on to your wallets, folks.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @Rosie


    The problem is Africans being in Europe because of male Imperial adventuring
     
    Seriously, the imperial narrative? You actually believe that? I didn't realize the Finns or Irish had African colonies, or that Wilhelm was the one who ordered the Armenians done-in, when he was oppressing the Turks.

    From now on, I shall have a hard time believing you are not a crypto-Indian, Arab, or African.

    Replies: @Rosie

  100. @V. K. Ovelund
    @A123


    The best match I can come up with is ...
     
    I think that you missed the joke, but a quick engine web search might help.

    @anon obviously thinks that you get the joke, which I believe was his point.

    Replies: @A123

    I did an English language web search and nothing came back that applies to me as a Christian. That is why I believe it was a typo of some kind.

    PEACE 😇

  101. @Rosie
    @songbird


    I must disagree. Many of our problems come from blank-slatism, and this is not limited to different racial groups, but obviously includes the sexes.
     
    All you're doing here is attempting to claim that problems stemming from race denial prove that women shouldn't have equal rights. This is both lazy and absurd. Try again.

    It is doubtful Chauvin would have been convicted without women jurors.
     
    Worthless counterfactual speculation. A jury verdict must be unanimous. There were two White males on the jury, either of whom could have hung the jury. They didn't.

    An all-female jury acquitted George Zimmerman. All but one were White women.

    https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/0620/Zimmerman-jury-of-peers-is-jury-of-mostly-white-women

    That single African mothers should not get an income from dropping babies in Europe.
     
    The problem is not single mothers. White women use welfare as it was intended: as a temporary handup when they have made a mistake. The problem is Africans being in Europe because of male Imperial adventuring and greed for cheap labor.

    Clearly...
     
    Hold on to your wallets, folks.

    Replies: @songbird

    The problem is Africans being in Europe because of male Imperial adventuring

    Seriously, the imperial narrative? You actually believe that? I didn’t realize the Finns or Irish had African colonies, or that Wilhelm was the one who ordered the Armenians done-in, when he was oppressing the Turks.

    From now on, I shall have a hard time believing you are not a crypto-Indian, Arab, or African.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @songbird


    Seriously, the imperial narrative? You actually believe that? I didn’t realize the Finns or Irish had African colonies, or that Wilhelm was the one who ordered the Armenians done-in, when he was oppressing the Turks.

    From now on, I shall have a hard time believing you are not a crypto-Indian, Arab, or African.
     
    And I shall have a hard time believing that you are not a (((troll))) here to stir up divisions among White people. I have made very clear that I'm no expert on history, but here's what I know. There would be no Africans in the New World at all but for greedy White men who brought them here to avoid paying a living wage to free White workers. Women had nothing to do with it.

    White men bought, enslaved, emancipated, and ultimately enfranchised black people before women got the right to vote. Nothing women have ever done could possibly compare to that world-historical f***-up. Well, except maybe importing Asians to put educated middle-class White men out of work, or my personal favorite, outsourcing military production to to the Asian behemoth.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-military-china/u-s-military-comes-to-grips-with-over-reliance-on-chinese-imports-idUSKCN1MC275

    It's very unfortunate that Ireland and Finland have to pay for the mistakes of White male colonialism, but it couldn't have been otherwise. When you tell people that diversity is a strength, you can't very well have homogenous White countries continuing to exist and putting diverse countries to shame with their success.

    Replies: @iffen, @Bardon Kaldian

  102. A123 says:
    @V. K. Ovelund
    @A123

    @Bardon Kalidan

    I have answered so many of A123's questions that one eventually had to start throttling the flow of answers. Did you have a specific question you wanted me to address?

    It was not my intent “to pontificate at great length while avoiding a direct answer.” If I have inadvertently done that, then would you draw my attention to the defect so I can remedy it?

    You might find my answer disagreeable, but I do not mean to be dense.

    Replies: @A123

    The problem you keep avoiding is having:

    • One logic for extending behaviour of one or some Jews, blaming “ALL JEWS” (a.k.a. Jews, Jewish)
    • Different logic for extending behaviour of one or some Christians, refusing to blame “ALL CHRISTIANS” (a.k.a. Christians)

    Logic is method that must be consistent. Having “two different logics” is inherently irrational. It makes no sense. I cannot follow it.
    ____

    I have tried to push you to address this logic break point multiple times and, I have not been able to get you to deal with it directly. To me it seems like you are ducking the question. If you are not being intentionally evasive, I apologize.

    I do not enjoy asking the same thing over and over again, but I am unable to proceed until I can follow your thought process. And, I simply cannot do so.

    PEACE 😇

  103. Rosie says:
    @songbird
    @Rosie


    The problem is Africans being in Europe because of male Imperial adventuring
     
    Seriously, the imperial narrative? You actually believe that? I didn't realize the Finns or Irish had African colonies, or that Wilhelm was the one who ordered the Armenians done-in, when he was oppressing the Turks.

    From now on, I shall have a hard time believing you are not a crypto-Indian, Arab, or African.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Seriously, the imperial narrative? You actually believe that? I didn’t realize the Finns or Irish had African colonies, or that Wilhelm was the one who ordered the Armenians done-in, when he was oppressing the Turks.

    From now on, I shall have a hard time believing you are not a crypto-Indian, Arab, or African.

    And I shall have a hard time believing that you are not a (((troll))) here to stir up divisions among White people. I have made very clear that I’m no expert on history, but here’s what I know. There would be no Africans in the New World at all but for greedy White men who brought them here to avoid paying a living wage to free White workers. Women had nothing to do with it.

    White men bought, enslaved, emancipated, and ultimately enfranchised black people before women got the right to vote. Nothing women have ever done could possibly compare to that world-historical f***-up. Well, except maybe importing Asians to put educated middle-class White men out of work, or my personal favorite, outsourcing military production to to the Asian behemoth.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-military-china/u-s-military-comes-to-grips-with-over-reliance-on-chinese-imports-idUSKCN1MC275

    It’s very unfortunate that Ireland and Finland have to pay for the mistakes of White male colonialism, but it couldn’t have been otherwise. When you tell people that diversity is a strength, you can’t very well have homogenous White countries continuing to exist and putting diverse countries to shame with their success.

    • Troll: songbird
    • Replies: @iffen
    @Rosie

    here to stir up divisions among White people.

    We don't need (((them))) for that.

    We can do well enough on our own.

    I like to think of it in the same terms as diversity; it's one of our strengths.

    , @Bardon Kaldian
    @Rosie

    Some nations are coming to their senses

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u931Y1zPVe8

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLlwXIZrWPQ

    Replies: @anon, @A123

  104. anon[325] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mario Partisan
    @V. K. Ovelund

    A123 wrote:


    Everyone can see the incredibly obvious, direct connection between SJW and Islam.
     
    The phrase should be revised: very few can see the indirect connection between SJW and Islam.

    What is the link? To continue with my theme from yesterday, the link is Zionism and its imperial management methods.



    First, I think I might understand why A123 refers to Soros as a Muslim. It’s a version of the No True Scotsman fallacy – any person of Jewish background who has a difference with Likud is not a true Jew, and therefore must be something else. That something else can’t be a Christian either because a true Christian is one who supports Likud. Therefore the person must be a Muslim. I imagine that in A123’s mind the only true Jews are those who would put a bullet in Yitzhak Rabin.

    That said let’s return to the main theme: the connection between Zionism and Wokism. The first thing to understand is the nature of the State of Israel and its position in the world. Israel cannot stand on its own feet, and I don’t believe it was ever intended to, even if Herzl had wanted that in his vision. For its survival, Israel depends on transfers of financial and technical assets, and direct and indirect military assistance from more powerful states, the main one being the US. Thus, the Zionist project depends, for its survival, on having its agents in positions of influence in foreign countries. In effect, materially endowed foreign countries are made into colonies of Israel. The elite agents of Israel in the West constitute the Tribe Incorporated. The transfers amount to imperial tribute paid by the periphery to the center (Israel).

    At the risk of digressing, it might help to mention a characteristic of former British and French colonies, especially the ones in the ME region, like Iraq and Syria. Iraq has a Shia demographic majority, but prior to 2003, the political elite around Saddam Hussein tended to be Sunni. In neighboring Syria, the demographic majority is Sunni, but the political elite around the Assad family is Shia Alawite.

    This pattern of local elites being from minority groups results from an imperial management strategy. An imperial power needs local proxies for a variety of administrative functions. If the imperial power draws its local administrators from the majority demographic, it heightens the risk that they will go rogue because, being part of the majority, they will be able to remain in power following independence. If, on the other hand, the local elite are part of a minority, they will be more loyal to the colonial power, as seeking independence risks being deposed by the upstarts among the majority group. Obviously, the course of history was more complicated as there are always other factors involved, but it seems logical that this pattern arose out of a strategy for managing loyalty to the colonial centers.

    What is the parallel? PC, SJW and Wokism constitute the ideology of majority replacement and dispossession in favor of a cluster of minority groups who the Tribe Incorporated believe will be more loyal junior partners as the majority becomes restless under the increasing costs of supporting the State of Israel. The risks for Zionism and thus the divisions emerging within the Tribe Incorporated regarding methods stem from the fundamental fact that relations between exploiter and exploited are always unstable.

    This imperial management strategy has to deal with glaring and hypocritical contradictions. Wokism and white replacement in the West risk undermining support for Israel on the Left as Likud’s actions are very unwoke. At the same time, support for Jews everywhere is undermined on the Right, because “wokism for you and ethno-nationalism for me” is disgustingly hypocritical. Thus, having different sets of Tribe Inc figures embrace different sides of the woke/unwoke divide helps to take the heat off the Tribe as a collective. The Left will say, but Soros supports us, so don’t be an anti-semite, just anti-Zionist. The Right will say, but Ben Shapiro supports us, don’t be an anti-semite, just anti-Woke.

    In practice however, Soros’ supposed support for BDS has been completely ineffectual. A majority of states, including woke as hell California have anti-BDS legislation that prescribes potentially serious financial and employment penalties for openly supporting BDS. The ant-BDS legislation proposed at the federal level seems to be largely sponsored by Democrats. So far, it seems Soros is effective in promoting Wokism while conveniently ineffectual in getting it applied to Israel.

    On the other hand, Right Zionism, has been effective in promoting various forms of hostility to Muslims, especially in Europe, but completely ineffectual in stopping Islamic migration in the first place. And why should it want to? Right Zionism and neo-conservatism led the charge to turn the MENA into destroyed Mad Max wastelands. It is much better for Israel that hordes of military age Arab men march into Europe rather than on Israel. And when divisions arise between whites and Arabs in Europe, the Zionists can say, “see what poor Israel has to deal with goyim.” In practice, however, Right Zionism hasn’t done anything to protect Europe. In France, you have the glaringly absurd combinations of hate speech laws both for those who criticize immigration and for those who criticize Zionism. By law, in France, you are mandated to be anti-nationalist for France and pro-nationalist for Israel. Right Zionism hasn’t protected anyone against Wokism and Left Zionism hasn’t protected anyone from Zionism.

    The Zionists, both Left and Right, understand that the Book of Exodus contains a metaphor. The split in the Red Sea is the blood of the goyim spilled as they fight and squabble over inanities. God’s Chosen Master Race ™ walks through the split, unscathed, to its Promised Land.

    Replies: @anon

    One morning in Paris, I had coffee with Alex Soros, who is 32 and the second-youngest of George’s five children… When the caffeine finally kicked in, Alex told me that for many years, his father had not been eager to advertise his Judaism because “this was something he was almost killed for.” But he had always “identified firstly as a Jew,” and his philanthropy was ultimately an expression of his Jewish identity, in that he felt a solidarity with other minority groups and also because he recognized that a Jew could only truly be safe in a world in which all minorities were protected. Explaining his father’s motives, he said, “The reason you fight for an open society is because that’s the only society that you can live in, as a Jew…“

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/17/magazine/george-soros-democrat-open-society.html

  105. @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund



    Yeah, what part of anti-Semite can he not understand?

     

    Nevertheless, it is my favorite line of the week.
     
    I cannot understand irrationality. Anti-Semitism against 100% of All Jews is totally detached from reality.

    On subjects other that Elite Jews, you seem rational. I do not want to give up on you as incoherent & deranged. However, you make that very difficult every time you rant about 100% of All Jews by using over inclusive terminology.


    I hope that A123 can prove me wrong about the shyster Fradin. One would rather be wrong about something like that. I just doubt that he can, unfortunately.
     
    I was trying to point out the huge problem with your logic:
    • If Fradin is Jewish. Hate all Jews
    • If Fradin is Christian. Hate all Christians.

    You have conceded, "If Fradin is Christian, you would not hate all Christians". Now you just need to be rational enough to say, "If Fradin is Jewish, you would not hate all Jews".

    If you really are a Christian, you should let go of the illogical hate that is damaging your soul.

    PEACE 😇
    _________

    "Faith sustains us in the hour when reason tells us that we can not continue, that the whole of our whole lives is without meaning."

    "Faith and reason are the shoes on your feet. You can travel further with both than you can with just one."

    -- Brother Alwyn in Babylon 5: "The Deconstruction of Falling Stars"

    Replies: @iffen

    Anti-Semitism against 100% of All Jews is totally detached from reality.

    Whose reality are you you using?

    If Kevin MacDonald’s thesis is accurate then anti-Semitism is very much tached.

  106. @Rosie
    @songbird


    Seriously, the imperial narrative? You actually believe that? I didn’t realize the Finns or Irish had African colonies, or that Wilhelm was the one who ordered the Armenians done-in, when he was oppressing the Turks.

    From now on, I shall have a hard time believing you are not a crypto-Indian, Arab, or African.
     
    And I shall have a hard time believing that you are not a (((troll))) here to stir up divisions among White people. I have made very clear that I'm no expert on history, but here's what I know. There would be no Africans in the New World at all but for greedy White men who brought them here to avoid paying a living wage to free White workers. Women had nothing to do with it.

    White men bought, enslaved, emancipated, and ultimately enfranchised black people before women got the right to vote. Nothing women have ever done could possibly compare to that world-historical f***-up. Well, except maybe importing Asians to put educated middle-class White men out of work, or my personal favorite, outsourcing military production to to the Asian behemoth.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-military-china/u-s-military-comes-to-grips-with-over-reliance-on-chinese-imports-idUSKCN1MC275

    It's very unfortunate that Ireland and Finland have to pay for the mistakes of White male colonialism, but it couldn't have been otherwise. When you tell people that diversity is a strength, you can't very well have homogenous White countries continuing to exist and putting diverse countries to shame with their success.

    Replies: @iffen, @Bardon Kaldian

    here to stir up divisions among White people.

    We don’t need (((them))) for that.

    We can do well enough on our own.

    I like to think of it in the same terms as diversity; it’s one of our strengths.

  107. anon[325] • Disclaimer says:
    @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund

    The problem with inarticulate use of the English language is miscommunication. Are you intentionally trying to create problems for yourself?

    Let us look at your phrase:


    Yet we still have a Jewish problem.
     
    Jewish is another collective term for "All Jews". So what you are actually saying is:

    Yet we still have an ALL JEWS problem.

    Then you immediately contradict yourself by trying to create a carve out for "personal friends whom you deem nonhostile".

    You have admitted that you have little to no contact with Orthodox Branch members. Yet you denigrate them in your sweeping statements about ALL JEWS via the collective term Jewish.

    If you do not like "Elite" as a modifier, please feel free to use something else. However, you definitely need something that better identifies the specific subgroup that you have an issue with.

    The Islamo-SJW hypothesis is silly in my opinion.
     
    How are objective facts silly?

    In the U.S., the BLM movement offers open SJW support for the Muslim Occupation of Judea & Samaria. Look at all of the signage here:
    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/manufacturing-hate/#comment-4639291

    It is even more clear on the European front:

    • George IslamoSoros is anti-Israel and pro-BDS. These are classic Islamic positions and antithetical to Jewish positions.
    • George IslamoSoros is a huge backer of SJW NGO's like his Open Society Foundation.
    • His pro-Islamic NGO's are directly tied to dumping Muslims in Europe, such as the various Sea Watch human trafficking vessels.

    Everyone can see the incredibly obvious, direct connection between SJW and Islam.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    P.S. You still need to answer the question about 100% exclusive Christian responsibility for keeping the Charlottesville Five in prison. Repeatedly ducking it causes others to perceive you as highly evasive.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Bardon Kaldian, @anon, @anon, @Bill

    Asia Times online
    South Asia
    Palestinians pay fro Indian ambitions.

    Sept 10,2003 By Ramtanu Maitra
    Another major even was the first-ever joint Capitol Hill forum that was held on July 16,between the US Indian Political Action Committee ,the American Jewish Committee ,and AIPAC. The event featured nearly a dozen Congress members from across the US, including Tom Lantos and Gary Ackerman .Tom Lantos summarized the binding issue of the evening thus ,” We are drawn together by mindless vicious fanatic Islamic terrorism”. Congressman Ackerman said that Israel was “Surrounded by 120 millions Muslims” while “India has 120 millions Muslims”.

    No wonder Frum wanted USA attack Pakistan ( antiwar.com )

    And then they wonder why muslims of Pakistan or India are anti Semite.

  108. @dfordoom
    @Bardon Kaldian


    I don’t see that as a final crystallization of some ideological warfare, but as an almost inevitable end of the trajectory of Western culture in its decadent phase
     
    What distinguishes the modern version of western civilisation (which started with the Reformation) from every other civilisation is its extreme dynamism. That dynamism made it, right from the start, inherently unstable.

    The things that made western civilisation great and allowed it to dominate the globe (intellectual scepticism, extreme materialism, individualism, the belief in the inevitability of progress, the decline of religion, capitalism, etc) are the very same things that are now destroying it. It was a civilisation with a built-in self-destruct mechanism.

    By the late 19th century we had mass education, mass media and democracy. At that point we were already doomed.

    What we now seem to be heading towards is a weird kind of decadent totalitarianism. That may be the inescapable result of mass media and democracy.

    The West made its first serious suicide attempt in 1914. Most failed suicides try again.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    Yeah, but you can have all this (individualism, skepticism, rationalism, capitalism, progress, …) along with strong national identity (in their various variants – Israel & Russia now, who are Western in the early 20th C sense, not post-modernist 21st).

  109. @A123
    @Bardon Kaldian


    SJWs are natural followers of the New Left ideology in the 60s, which was a beginning of anti-white lunacy. Some of its more articulate preachers were Jewish (Herbert Marcuse), some were not (Frantz Fanon). You got the entire corpus of influential works, originating mainly in the 50s & the 60s
     
    Your point is well taken. The historical SJW movement did not start with Islam. However, organizations and movements change over time.

    Islam has infiltrated today's SJW movement and crafted it into a scimitar wielded against the neck of Infidels. How else can one explain The IslamoSoros funding illegal human trafficking of Jihadi "rape-ugees" to invade Europe. His Muslim human trafficking vessel, Sea Watch 4, was photographed flying both Antifa & Rainbow LBGTQXYZ flags as part of their Islamic mission.

     
    https://www.idea.de/fileadmin/_processed_/5/b/csm_sea_watch_antifa_regenbogen_schiff_870_twitter_seawatchcrew_sc21_ca2ee8cec9.jpg
     

    Given the vast number of openly visible ties linking Islam & SJW, it is hard to understand how anyone can miss all of them. The tale begins to have the character of a Greek or Shakespearean tragedy.

    There is no way to fit these deliberate actions against Infidels (Christians & Jews) into either Christian or Jewish belief. Blaming the victims makes no sense even if 60+ years ago they had something to do with pre-Islamic SJW.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    Soros is not a pro-Islamist as he is the enemy of normal Western civilization he seeks to undermine or destroy (he uses Christian Africans, as well Christian Hispanics in the US. He would have done the same with Indians or the Chinese). He perverted initially healthy Popper’s ideas into a monstrosity.

    The bigger question is that of the affluent European & American political elites. Why do they let him? Various secret services etc. know everything about his misdeeds. Why don’t they unmask him? Hungary, not a powerful country, has ditched him & completely destroyed his efforts.

    France, Germany, Sweden, Italy….. crickets. And they all know.

    If he had tried anything similar with Russia, he would have been Litvinenkoed. Mossad could be helpful, too.

  110. @Rosie
    @songbird


    Seriously, the imperial narrative? You actually believe that? I didn’t realize the Finns or Irish had African colonies, or that Wilhelm was the one who ordered the Armenians done-in, when he was oppressing the Turks.

    From now on, I shall have a hard time believing you are not a crypto-Indian, Arab, or African.
     
    And I shall have a hard time believing that you are not a (((troll))) here to stir up divisions among White people. I have made very clear that I'm no expert on history, but here's what I know. There would be no Africans in the New World at all but for greedy White men who brought them here to avoid paying a living wage to free White workers. Women had nothing to do with it.

    White men bought, enslaved, emancipated, and ultimately enfranchised black people before women got the right to vote. Nothing women have ever done could possibly compare to that world-historical f***-up. Well, except maybe importing Asians to put educated middle-class White men out of work, or my personal favorite, outsourcing military production to to the Asian behemoth.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-military-china/u-s-military-comes-to-grips-with-over-reliance-on-chinese-imports-idUSKCN1MC275

    It's very unfortunate that Ireland and Finland have to pay for the mistakes of White male colonialism, but it couldn't have been otherwise. When you tell people that diversity is a strength, you can't very well have homogenous White countries continuing to exist and putting diverse countries to shame with their success.

    Replies: @iffen, @Bardon Kaldian

    Some nations are coming to their senses

    • Replies: @anon
    @Bardon Kaldian

    SOROS- not a friend of a normal human being.


    "The cynicism of the Soros call for the EU taxpayers to step up to the plate and accept millions of new refugees, to fly them in without papers, and more, is clear when we look at the same Soros-financed network of NGOs active in Syria trying to create the propaganda background to get acceptance of yet another US “No Fly Zone” over Syria as was done against Iraq after 1991 and against Libya in 2012 to bomb those countries back to the stone age.

One of the key online advocates for a US-UK “No Fly Zone” over Syria, something the Russian intervention since September 30 has de facto blocked, is an organization known as Avaaz. Avaaz was given initial financial support by Soros’ foundation in 2007 to promote key policies suitable to the US State Department. They cite Soros’ Open Society foundation as their foundation partner. Avaaz played a key role promoting the 2011 No Fly Zone in Libya that introduced a regime of terror and chaos in that once prosperous and stable African nation. Avaaz is now very actively promoting the same treatment for Syria.

Another Soros-financed NGO active demonizing the Assad government as cause of all atrocities in Syria and helping build public support for a war in Syria from the US and EU is Amnesty International. Suzanne Nossel, until 2013 the Executive Director of Amnesty International USA, came to the job from the US State Department where she was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, not exactly an unbiased agency in regard to Syria. As well, the Soros-financed Human Rights Watch has played a major role in falsely portraying ISIS and Al Qaeda civilian bombings and other atrocities as the work of the Assad regime, building support for military action from the US and EU.-----" http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2015/december/31/soros-plays-both-ends-in-syria-refugee-chaos/

    , @A123
    @Bardon Kaldian


    Some nations are coming to their senses
     
    You are correct.

    De-Islamification is coming to Europe. It is not a question of "If?" It is a question of "When?"

    Ten years ago, if you suggested that someone named Le Pen could win a French general election, you would have been laughed at. Now, the scourge of Muslims that will never assimilate to Western society have made Le Pen a highly credible candidate in next years election. (1)


    France saw a myriad of terrorist attacks between May 2020 and April 2021. In the months of September and October, alone, four people were wounded (two seriously) after a radical Islamic terrorist from Pakistan attacked them with a butcher knife outside of the old Charlie Hebdo headquarters; the history teacher Samuel Paty was beheaded by a Chechen Islamist migrant after showing caricatures of the Muslim prophet as a part a class on freedom of speech; three Christians were murdered in the Basilica of Notre-Dame in Nice by a Tunisian boat migrant; and a Greek orthodox priest was wounded seriously after being shot by an assailant.

    The populist leader Marine Le Pen — who enjoys widespread support among police officers and the military for her hardline positions on crime and migration — undoubtedly see opportunity in the poll numbers. A survey published last month by the French cable channel BMFTV showed that 48 percent of those questioned about France’s 2022 presidential election said that Marine Le Pen’s victory was “probable”.
     
    The TRUTH has reached Les Deplorables in France. Accurate information about Muslim violence against Christian children is propelling Le Pen to front runner status.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://rmx.news/article/article/poll-nearly-9-in-10-french-citizens-say-terrorism-and-security-are-major-issues-in-2022-election

  111. anon[168] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    @Rosie

    Some nations are coming to their senses

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u931Y1zPVe8

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLlwXIZrWPQ

    Replies: @anon, @A123

    SOROS- not a friend of a normal human being.

    “The cynicism of the Soros call for the EU taxpayers to step up to the plate and accept millions of new refugees, to fly them in without papers, and more, is clear when we look at the same Soros-financed network of NGOs active in Syria trying to create the propaganda background to get acceptance of yet another US “No Fly Zone” over Syria as was done against Iraq after 1991 and against Libya in 2012 to bomb those countries back to the stone age.

One of the key online advocates for a US-UK “No Fly Zone” over Syria, something the Russian intervention since September 30 has de facto blocked, is an organization known as Avaaz. Avaaz was given initial financial support by Soros’ foundation in 2007 to promote key policies suitable to the US State Department. They cite Soros’ Open Society foundation as their foundation partner. Avaaz played a key role promoting the 2011 No Fly Zone in Libya that introduced a regime of terror and chaos in that once prosperous and stable African nation. Avaaz is now very actively promoting the same treatment for Syria.

Another Soros-financed NGO active demonizing the Assad government as cause of all atrocities in Syria and helping build public support for a war in Syria from the US and EU is Amnesty International. Suzanne Nossel, until 2013 the Executive Director of Amnesty International USA, came to the job from the US State Department where she was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, not exactly an unbiased agency in regard to Syria. As well, the Soros-financed Human Rights Watch has played a major role in falsely portraying ISIS and Al Qaeda civilian bombings and other atrocities as the work of the Assad regime, building support for military action from the US and EU.—–” http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2015/december/31/soros-plays-both-ends-in-syria-refugee-chaos/

  112. @nebulafox
    @dfordoom

    >Evangelicals/Christian Zionists are a much greater menace than Jews.

    The big thing that has changed about American politics in the last 15 years is that it has become relatively (in comparison to Europe) but significantly more secularized: like many long-term trends in American politics, it is less apparent on the surface because of inertia and a domination by the elderly at the top, but it is there, and history is beginning to accelerate. As I said, the political potency of the Religious Right reached a height during the Bush II years, and it never recovered from his implosion. One might compare that to the frenzied pro-black sentiment on the left: it's a swan song born of desperation, indicating long term weakness, not strength. Much like BLM today, the triumphalism of the Bush II years was a desperate attempt to try and clothe the emperor again.

    IMO, post-religious bien-pensants are the real force assaulting reason, honor, love, everything good and noble and healthy, and they've immensely changed my own attitude toward faith in my own life in the past few years. We're human beings in the end. Observing their behavior makes it clear that religion is far from the cause of the world's problems. If anything, it shows that when old cults fail, new ones will take hold. In many ways, the progressives have taken up all the negative parts about revivalist Protestant Christianity in the US, without any of the positives. They have all the universalist drive, but none of the belief in redemption. Diversity is not just a fundamentally limited, feeble deity, but a petty, cruel one too.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    IMO, post-religious bien-pensants are the real force assaulting reason, honor, love, everything good and noble and healthy, and they’ve immensely changed my own attitude toward faith in my own life in the past few years. We’re human beings in the end. Observing their behavior makes it clear that religion is far from the cause of the world’s problems. If anything, it shows that when old cults fail, new ones will take hold. In many ways, the progressives have taken up all the negative parts about revivalist Protestant Christianity in the US, without any of the positives. They have all the universalist drive, but none of the belief in redemption.

    I can see your point, but I think it actually strengthens the view that religion is the problem. Not particular religions perhaps, but the religious mindset. If new cults take the place of old ones and if progressivism has all the bad features of religion (which it does) then doesn’t that mean that the religious mindset is the problem?

    If the problem with progressivism is that it encourages the same kind of thinking as revivalist Protestant Christianity then doesn’t that suggest that both progressivism and revivalist Protestant Christianity are fundamentally flawed ways of thinking?

    Maybe the problem is just a particular kind of personality. Some people (whether they’re religious or secular) seem to be natural authoritarians who will always, if they can, seek to control other people’s lives. Some people (whether they’re religious or secular) seem to be naturally disposed towards a live-and-let-live attitude towards other people’s lives. Maybe that’s just a fundamental fact about human psychology which will always assert itself whether people are religious or not.

    It also seems to have nothing to do with Left of Right. There are right-wingers who are authoritarian personalities and there are left-wingers who are authoritarian personalities. There are right-wingers who are anti-authoritarian personalities and there are left-wingers who are anti-authoritarian personalities.

    In recent times we’ve seen governments ostensibly of both Left and Right that have increasingly embraced totalitarianism. In Britain there have been three successive right-wing Tory prime ministers (Cameron, May and Johnson) who have enthusiastically embraced the totalitarian approach. In Australia we’ve had three successive right-wing prime ministers (Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison) and we’ve seen an alarming growth in the Nanny State outlook.

    Some people like to push other people around. Some people prefer to let other people live their own lives. For some reason it’s the authoritarian personalities who are now dominant to an extraordinary degree.

  113. @nebulafox
    @AnonStarter

    None taken. I enjoy learning from people who know more than me. Don't let my verbosity fool you, a lot of commentators here do, and you probably do on this topic as well.

    You know what the interesting thing about a lot of post-Roman states in Europe was? They viewed *themselves* as the new Israel, as covenant kingdoms. Even in Byzantium, where the Roman state didn't collapse, a significant shift in self-perception took place during the crisis and collapse of the 7th Century.

    So, yes: that does run deep in the Western psyche. But it still was unmistakably European-or Roman, in the case of Byzantium. Not neo-Jewish. Else, why would they have treated the Jews themselves as outsiders? Neither the Franks nor the Byzantines saw their ark in the Holy Land, but in Francia and Anatolia, respectively. And when the Crusades came, they weren't going to be restoring the kingdom of David. They came for their own wholly native, distinct religion.

    That, and Judaism itself drastically changed after the revolts. It would be a long, long time before most Jews dreamt of restoring the Davidic state after the Romans crushed them. The misguided hopes of a few of them that the Sassanids or the Arabs would restore them aside...

    >Pauline Christianity could not have been but the brainchild of Israel in its apotheosis of a Jewish prophet and concomitant “abrogation” of the Law — a religion both amenable to pagan Europe and suitable for advancing the Temple’s interests therein. That result’s been achieved.

    Christianity had a Jewish womb, but a Greco-Roman father: it's no coincidence that Stoic philosphy melded so well with the upstart religion in the 3rd Century. Irony is, by the time of the high Middle Ages, the comfortable, normative conservatism toward honoring the traditions of ones ancestors-and the belief that this would bring one earthly fortune-was back, a far cry from the ideological revolution of the 4th Century. Human nature remains what it is.

    >None of this is to glibly dismiss what you mention. Rather, it is to say that the roots of the Zionist endeavor run much deeper in western society than many would be willing to admit.

    Isn't it just a little bit pathetic to fetishize another person's program rather than take it for yourself, as happened in previous times? But then, we live in a fundamentally stupid age. ;)

    Ah, well. 'Tis a gay, merry life nevertheless.

    Replies: @Rosie, @AnonStarter, @AnonStarter, @utu

    They viewed *themselves* as the new Israel, as covenant kingdoms.

    Yes, though in spite of the subordinate status of Jews in Middle Age Christendom, we also witness influential countervailing positions, many of which predicated advocacy of protecting Jews upon such biblical arguments as we find in Romans 11 — a favorite of Zionist Evangelists. In fact, for as much as Jews may have endured great hardship in early Christian Byzantium, they still fared better than pagan populations, most of whom were wholly obliterated or forcibly converted. The missionary imperative embedded in Christianity, as well as the Jews’ familiarity with Scripture that — by Christian standards — evidently led to Christ, gave strength to the case that Jews merited special protection for the purpose of eventual conversion.

    No, this didn’t make life rosy for them in the least, but it’s easy enough to see how Pauline dogma provided just enough of a safe space for Jews that they could secure their niche in the dominion of Japheth’s progeny. Even 109 expulsions couldn’t keep them from returning.

    The motivation for so doing lies in Jewish religion — more specifically, in Jewish prophecy. Japheth, forefather of the European peoples and the only son of Noah who remained with him following the flood, is singled out in Genesis as one to whom “God opens.” (Literal translation of Gen. 9:27) Additionally, it is held that, in the end times, following great conflagration between Edom (Roman/Christian) and Ishmael (Arab/Muslim), these forces will eventually unite against Israel. (That prophecy occurred five centuries before the birth of Muhammad.)

    Now, one can make of this what he will. In antiquity, these prophecies determined the course of Jewish conduct, and even today, they remain integral to understanding the motivations of Israel, motivations that include advancing a clash of civilizations agenda in which the advocate remains conspicuously aloof from the conflict. Israel’s fear of an Edom-Ishmael alliance is far more genuine than most of us can possibly understand, and it explains their interests in the realm of American foreign policy throughout the Muslim world.

    Temple Israel’s interest in Europe is very old, and the struggle to contain it has been a long and difficult one demanding great patience and fortitude. It’s attained a significant measure of success, but there are noticeable fissures in its foundation which only multiply and widen with time.

    Playing God never ends well for the pretender. One would think that lesson had been learned enough already.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  114. If they [Jews] control the media, they don’t do a very good job controlling perceptions of the media!

    (((They))) certainly are freaking out about a new song…

    “‘They Own the Media’ –
    new Van Morrison song amplifies antisemitic trope”:
    — (https://forward.com/culture/469116/van-morrison-antisemitic-they-own-the-media/)
    (The Forward; 5-6-2021)

    The song:
    — (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3Zg023J-ok)

    🙂

    • Thanks: AnonStarter
  115. A123 says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    @Rosie

    Some nations are coming to their senses

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u931Y1zPVe8

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLlwXIZrWPQ

    Replies: @anon, @A123

    Some nations are coming to their senses

    You are correct.

    De-Islamification is coming to Europe. It is not a question of “If?” It is a question of “When?”

    Ten years ago, if you suggested that someone named Le Pen could win a French general election, you would have been laughed at. Now, the scourge of Muslims that will never assimilate to Western society have made Le Pen a highly credible candidate in next years election. (1)

    France saw a myriad of terrorist attacks between May 2020 and April 2021. In the months of September and October, alone, four people were wounded (two seriously) after a radical Islamic terrorist from Pakistan attacked them with a butcher knife outside of the old Charlie Hebdo headquarters; the history teacher Samuel Paty was beheaded by a Chechen Islamist migrant after showing caricatures of the Muslim prophet as a part a class on freedom of speech; three Christians were murdered in the Basilica of Notre-Dame in Nice by a Tunisian boat migrant; and a Greek orthodox priest was wounded seriously after being shot by an assailant.

    The populist leader Marine Le Pen — who enjoys widespread support among police officers and the military for her hardline positions on crime and migration — undoubtedly see opportunity in the poll numbers. A survey published last month by the French cable channel BMFTV showed that 48 percent of those questioned about France’s 2022 presidential election said that Marine Le Pen’s victory was “probable”.

    The TRUTH has reached Les Deplorables in France. Accurate information about Muslim violence against Christian children is propelling Le Pen to front runner status.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://rmx.news/article/article/poll-nearly-9-in-10-french-citizens-say-terrorism-and-security-are-major-issues-in-2022-election

  116. @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund

    The problem with inarticulate use of the English language is miscommunication. Are you intentionally trying to create problems for yourself?

    Let us look at your phrase:


    Yet we still have a Jewish problem.
     
    Jewish is another collective term for "All Jews". So what you are actually saying is:

    Yet we still have an ALL JEWS problem.

    Then you immediately contradict yourself by trying to create a carve out for "personal friends whom you deem nonhostile".

    You have admitted that you have little to no contact with Orthodox Branch members. Yet you denigrate them in your sweeping statements about ALL JEWS via the collective term Jewish.

    If you do not like "Elite" as a modifier, please feel free to use something else. However, you definitely need something that better identifies the specific subgroup that you have an issue with.

    The Islamo-SJW hypothesis is silly in my opinion.
     
    How are objective facts silly?

    In the U.S., the BLM movement offers open SJW support for the Muslim Occupation of Judea & Samaria. Look at all of the signage here:
    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/manufacturing-hate/#comment-4639291

    It is even more clear on the European front:

    • George IslamoSoros is anti-Israel and pro-BDS. These are classic Islamic positions and antithetical to Jewish positions.
    • George IslamoSoros is a huge backer of SJW NGO's like his Open Society Foundation.
    • His pro-Islamic NGO's are directly tied to dumping Muslims in Europe, such as the various Sea Watch human trafficking vessels.

    Everyone can see the incredibly obvious, direct connection between SJW and Islam.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    P.S. You still need to answer the question about 100% exclusive Christian responsibility for keeping the Charlottesville Five in prison. Repeatedly ducking it causes others to perceive you as highly evasive.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Bardon Kaldian, @anon, @anon, @Bill

    Jewish is another collective term for “All Jews”. So what you are actually saying is:

    Yet we still have an ALL JEWS problem.

    not ALL jews, dont be silly

    just like when jews claim whites benefit from some kind of unearned “Privilege” they dont mean ALL whites

  117. If you can’t trust Bret Stephens, who can you trust?

    • LOL: AnonStarter
  118. @nebulafox
    @AnonStarter

    None taken. I enjoy learning from people who know more than me. Don't let my verbosity fool you, a lot of commentators here do, and you probably do on this topic as well.

    You know what the interesting thing about a lot of post-Roman states in Europe was? They viewed *themselves* as the new Israel, as covenant kingdoms. Even in Byzantium, where the Roman state didn't collapse, a significant shift in self-perception took place during the crisis and collapse of the 7th Century.

    So, yes: that does run deep in the Western psyche. But it still was unmistakably European-or Roman, in the case of Byzantium. Not neo-Jewish. Else, why would they have treated the Jews themselves as outsiders? Neither the Franks nor the Byzantines saw their ark in the Holy Land, but in Francia and Anatolia, respectively. And when the Crusades came, they weren't going to be restoring the kingdom of David. They came for their own wholly native, distinct religion.

    That, and Judaism itself drastically changed after the revolts. It would be a long, long time before most Jews dreamt of restoring the Davidic state after the Romans crushed them. The misguided hopes of a few of them that the Sassanids or the Arabs would restore them aside...

    >Pauline Christianity could not have been but the brainchild of Israel in its apotheosis of a Jewish prophet and concomitant “abrogation” of the Law — a religion both amenable to pagan Europe and suitable for advancing the Temple’s interests therein. That result’s been achieved.

    Christianity had a Jewish womb, but a Greco-Roman father: it's no coincidence that Stoic philosphy melded so well with the upstart religion in the 3rd Century. Irony is, by the time of the high Middle Ages, the comfortable, normative conservatism toward honoring the traditions of ones ancestors-and the belief that this would bring one earthly fortune-was back, a far cry from the ideological revolution of the 4th Century. Human nature remains what it is.

    >None of this is to glibly dismiss what you mention. Rather, it is to say that the roots of the Zionist endeavor run much deeper in western society than many would be willing to admit.

    Isn't it just a little bit pathetic to fetishize another person's program rather than take it for yourself, as happened in previous times? But then, we live in a fundamentally stupid age. ;)

    Ah, well. 'Tis a gay, merry life nevertheless.

    Replies: @Rosie, @AnonStarter, @AnonStarter, @utu

    “They viewed *themselves* as the new Israel, as covenant kingdoms.” – Never heard of it. I am sure that even if there were manifestation of such fantasies it was completely irrelevant.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
    @utu

    Never heard of it. I am sure that even if there were manifestation of such fantasies it was completely irrelevant.

    It's inherent to the conviction that, as Christians, they were the true disciples of the Messiah promised in Scripture. As such, those Christians necessarily assimilated many aspects of a religiously Jewish worldview without becoming Jewish.

    That's not exactly irrelevant.

    Replies: @utu

    , @nebulafox
    @utu

    Let's use Byzantium as an example, because that's what I'm most familiar with, though my understanding is that the Franks had a similar conception of themselves as "God's chosen people" under Charlemagne.

    Prior to the 7th Century collapse, the Byzantines-remember, they are still really East Rome at this point in the game-continued to have a universalistic world-view. The Christianization of the Roman state and even the collapse of the West didn't change this: state propaganda still trumpeted the emperor as master of the civilized world, assimilating others and making them Roman. Justinian's wars are inconceivable without this self-conception.

    Such a self-conception became impossible to maintain with the disasters of the 7th Century, coming on the heels of long-term decay before that. The Roman state went from superpower to beleaguered rump state, first with the Sassanid Persians and Slavs, and then permanently with the Arabs. It can't be understated how much psychologically damaging the Yarmouk and its aftermath was: the empire had been through 3rd Century levels of hell, but instead of recovering and consolidating, they were bumped back to a backwater clinging desperately for survival.

    So, what did the Roman government replace their self-conception with? The notion of the Byzantines-and this is when they really start becoming "the Byzantines"-as this special people, God's chosen people, rather than the universalistic realm of worldwide Christianity. Complete with the emperor not as master of the civilized world, not as a classical world Great Man as Justinian and Belisarius still saw themselves as, but as someone akin to Hezekiah from the Old Testament. Elements of this were already there, but it was only under Heraclius, not least to dodge blame for the disasters he oversaw before his final desperate campaign of 622 AD, that this really got going. State propaganda began to emphasize not going out and making others Roman, but "Roman" as a special identity, the limited, chosen people who need to ride out the storm in the proverbial ark, so to speak. The language used by the emperors and their cronies is explicitly Biblical.

    This meant that when the caliphate imploded and the Byzantine state underwent a brief period of expansion during the 11th Century, they were unable to simply stay there and "make people Roman" as they would have done earlier. State ideology had become too entrenched for that. More significantly, it also meant Byzantium grew more detached, more alien to Western Christians, and vice versa.

    Replies: @utu

  119. utu says:
    @V. K. Ovelund
    @V. K. Ovelund

    P.S. Richard M. Nixon, 37th U.S. president, was a fine example of a sensible anti-Semite, and a remarkably popular one. Hardly any American was temperamentally less inclined to conspiracy theorizing than Nixon, which is precisely why the Jewish press went into overdrive to insinuate that Nixon were so inclined.

    The insinuation was rich, considering the source. Anyway, they got rid of him, didn't they? (Yes, I know, Watergate, blah blah. Lyndon B. Johnson and Bill Clinton did worse, with less provocation, but the press didn't care. Anyway, you can lump me with Nixon if you like.)

    Replies: @utu

    “a sensible anti-Semit[ism]” – should be a default position which should come naturally from the fact that we are not them as they are not us. All it takes to become a sensible anti-Semite is to gain the awareness of Jews. Jews are always anti-gentile because this is a core of their identity. A Jew becomes aware of gentiles and not being one of them on the eights days after birth when he is circumcised. Sensible anti-Semitism is a necessary symmetry, which obviously Jews always fight against and any signs of awareness of Jewishness among gentiles that is not philo-Semitic and a subservient adoration of Jews will be stumped out by using the curse and anathema of true anti-Semitism. At the same time we should be tolerant and protect Jews and not interfere in their Jewishness while encouraging their assimilation and abandoning of their self-chosen otherness and hostility to us. We should return to the old doctrine preached by Church: we will not harm you but you must not’ interfere in our culture, religion and politics. This means that we must fight Jews political and cultural activism because it is almost alway directed agains our interests.

    How to proceed? First we must clean up our ranks and get rid of defeatists like dfordoom fifth-columnists like Bardon Kaldian.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @utu


    “a sensible anti-Semit[ism]” – should be a default position which should come naturally from the fact that we are not them as they are not us.
     
    Recognising that "we are not them as they are not us" is hardly anti-semitism. It's simply a realistic recognition of cultural differences. You can recognise cultural differences without having any dislike of other cultures or of people from other cultures. My attitude towards Buddhists is that they're not the same as me, they have their own obsessions and agendas and cultural attitudes. My feelings towards Buddhists are entirely neutral. I'm happy to respect their cultural different-ness. Live and let live. I don't see why we can't regard Jews in the same way.

    At the same time we should be tolerant and protect Jews and not interfere in their Jewishness while encouraging their assimilation and abandoning of their self-chosen otherness and hostility to us.
     
    I agree with the first part of your statement. As for assimilation, it depends on what you mean by that term. If you simply mean that we should encourage them to respect our culture then I agree. And yeah, encouraging them not to be hostile to us would be fine (of course that would require not being hostile to their culture). But I don't like the idea of encouraging other people to abandon their own cultures.

    Replies: @utu

  120. @utu
    @V. K. Ovelund

    "a sensible anti-Semit[ism]" - should be a default position which should come naturally from the fact that we are not them as they are not us. All it takes to become a sensible anti-Semite is to gain the awareness of Jews. Jews are always anti-gentile because this is a core of their identity. A Jew becomes aware of gentiles and not being one of them on the eights days after birth when he is circumcised. Sensible anti-Semitism is a necessary symmetry, which obviously Jews always fight against and any signs of awareness of Jewishness among gentiles that is not philo-Semitic and a subservient adoration of Jews will be stumped out by using the curse and anathema of true anti-Semitism. At the same time we should be tolerant and protect Jews and not interfere in their Jewishness while encouraging their assimilation and abandoning of their self-chosen otherness and hostility to us. We should return to the old doctrine preached by Church: we will not harm you but you must not' interfere in our culture, religion and politics. This means that we must fight Jews political and cultural activism because it is almost alway directed agains our interests.

    How to proceed? First we must clean up our ranks and get rid of defeatists like dfordoom fifth-columnists like Bardon Kaldian.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    “a sensible anti-Semit[ism]” – should be a default position which should come naturally from the fact that we are not them as they are not us.

    Recognising that “we are not them as they are not us” is hardly anti-semitism. It’s simply a realistic recognition of cultural differences. You can recognise cultural differences without having any dislike of other cultures or of people from other cultures. My attitude towards Buddhists is that they’re not the same as me, they have their own obsessions and agendas and cultural attitudes. My feelings towards Buddhists are entirely neutral. I’m happy to respect their cultural different-ness. Live and let live. I don’t see why we can’t regard Jews in the same way.

    At the same time we should be tolerant and protect Jews and not interfere in their Jewishness while encouraging their assimilation and abandoning of their self-chosen otherness and hostility to us.

    I agree with the first part of your statement. As for assimilation, it depends on what you mean by that term. If you simply mean that we should encourage them to respect our culture then I agree. And yeah, encouraging them not to be hostile to us would be fine (of course that would require not being hostile to their culture). But I don’t like the idea of encouraging other people to abandon their own cultures.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @utu
    @dfordoom

    "Recognising that “we are not them as they are not us” is hardly anti-semitism." - Actually it is in the eyes of Jews who do not practice the dictum "what is good for the gander is good for the goose." But perhaps we should rephrase V. K. Ovelund's "sensible anti-Semit[ism]” to something like "Judeo realism" to move away form the territory of invectives that Jews use.

    "I don’t see why we can’t regard Jews in the same [as Buddhists] way." - Because Jews are not Buddhists.

    "But I don’t like the idea of encouraging other people to abandon their own cultures." - You may not like it but you may have to do it because "the other people" have no problem doing what you do not like.

  121. @utu
    @nebulafox

    "They viewed *themselves* as the new Israel, as covenant kingdoms." - Never heard of it. I am sure that even if there were manifestation of such fantasies it was completely irrelevant.

    Replies: @AnonStarter, @nebulafox

    Never heard of it. I am sure that even if there were manifestation of such fantasies it was completely irrelevant.

    It’s inherent to the conviction that, as Christians, they were the true disciples of the Messiah promised in Scripture. As such, those Christians necessarily assimilated many aspects of a religiously Jewish worldview without becoming Jewish.

    That’s not exactly irrelevant.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @utu
    @AnonStarter

    I want specific examples from "post-Roman states in Europe" where Christians "viewed *themselves* as the new Israel."

    What you saying about what presumably is inherent in Christians doctrine is a much later construct that would be completely incomprehensible to Christians 1000 or so years ago. Keep in mind that nobody was really reading Old Testament until 16th century. The story of Christianity was simple: Jesus came to save us and we accepted him while Jews killed him so screw Israel and Jews. Nobody had any fantasy to become Israel though many wanted to save the Jews. And this was attempted by various heretics like Jan Hus or Martin Luther who thought that by making some changes accommodating Jews Jews would convert and their souls would be saved. The proof that Luther really meant it is his lashing out against Jews later in his life when he realized that he has been fooled. Luther was a very passionate and intemperate man.

    Replies: @AnonStarter, @German_reader

  122. utu says:
    @AnonStarter
    @utu

    Never heard of it. I am sure that even if there were manifestation of such fantasies it was completely irrelevant.

    It's inherent to the conviction that, as Christians, they were the true disciples of the Messiah promised in Scripture. As such, those Christians necessarily assimilated many aspects of a religiously Jewish worldview without becoming Jewish.

    That's not exactly irrelevant.

    Replies: @utu

    I want specific examples from “post-Roman states in Europe” where Christians “viewed *themselves* as the new Israel.”

    What you saying about what presumably is inherent in Christians doctrine is a much later construct that would be completely incomprehensible to Christians 1000 or so years ago. Keep in mind that nobody was really reading Old Testament until 16th century. The story of Christianity was simple: Jesus came to save us and we accepted him while Jews killed him so screw Israel and Jews. Nobody had any fantasy to become Israel though many wanted to save the Jews. And this was attempted by various heretics like Jan Hus or Martin Luther who thought that by making some changes accommodating Jews Jews would convert and their souls would be saved. The proof that Luther really meant it is his lashing out against Jews later in his life when he realized that he has been fooled. Luther was a very passionate and intemperate man.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
    @utu

    What you saying about what presumably is inherent in Christians doctrine is a much later construct that would be completely incomprehensible to Christians 1000 or so years ago.

    How could the conviction of being God's true vicegerents be incomprehensible to Christians at any time in their history? Christians held that they, not Jews, were the genuine elect of God. That's not entertaining any "fantasy to become Jews," though it does evince assimilation of a comparable religious exclusivity.

    The laity's lack of access to the Pentateuch and Psalms wouldn't have made any difference, since they still received instruction from a literate priesthood who, at a minimum, had some familiarity with them. They had to be, since that text provided ostensible justification for their entire religion. Otherwise, why bother to incorporate it into the canon?

    Replies: @utu

    , @German_reader
    @utu


    Keep in mind that nobody was really reading Old Testament until 16th century.
     
    That's not true like you seem to imagine. The "ideology" of early medieval realms was replete with OT references. King David was an important model for Christian rulers (already so with the Byzantine emperor Heraclius in the 7th century, also prominent with Carolingians and other Western rulers). The entire rite of royal anointment which became standard for most Western kings is obviously inspired by OT models, and to some extent this was at times linked to a kind of "chosen people" idea (Franks, Saxons etc. as the people now favoured by God, the new Israel).
    If you read medieval texts (say something like the Church reformers of the 11th century, Humbert of Silva Candida or some other pro-papacy hardliner, who can't be accused of being a proto-Protestant), they're full of references to the OT and its stories. Obviously their interpretation was frequently contested and the typological way they were read would strike most people today as pretty strange. But the OT was definitely important for medieval Christians. Markion lost after all.

    Replies: @German_reader, @utu

  123. @utu
    @AnonStarter

    I want specific examples from "post-Roman states in Europe" where Christians "viewed *themselves* as the new Israel."

    What you saying about what presumably is inherent in Christians doctrine is a much later construct that would be completely incomprehensible to Christians 1000 or so years ago. Keep in mind that nobody was really reading Old Testament until 16th century. The story of Christianity was simple: Jesus came to save us and we accepted him while Jews killed him so screw Israel and Jews. Nobody had any fantasy to become Israel though many wanted to save the Jews. And this was attempted by various heretics like Jan Hus or Martin Luther who thought that by making some changes accommodating Jews Jews would convert and their souls would be saved. The proof that Luther really meant it is his lashing out against Jews later in his life when he realized that he has been fooled. Luther was a very passionate and intemperate man.

    Replies: @AnonStarter, @German_reader

    What you saying about what presumably is inherent in Christians doctrine is a much later construct that would be completely incomprehensible to Christians 1000 or so years ago.

    How could the conviction of being God’s true vicegerents be incomprehensible to Christians at any time in their history? Christians held that they, not Jews, were the genuine elect of God. That’s not entertaining any “fantasy to become Jews,” though it does evince assimilation of a comparable religious exclusivity.

    The laity’s lack of access to the Pentateuch and Psalms wouldn’t have made any difference, since they still received instruction from a literate priesthood who, at a minimum, had some familiarity with them. They had to be, since that text provided ostensible justification for their entire religion. Otherwise, why bother to incorporate it into the canon?

    • Replies: @utu
    @AnonStarter

    Aren't you supposed to be a Muslim? I do not think this is your fight. What are you doing here on the neoconish and Islamophobic end of the UR spectrum?

    Replies: @AnonStarter, @RSDB

  124. German_reader says:
    @utu
    @AnonStarter

    I want specific examples from "post-Roman states in Europe" where Christians "viewed *themselves* as the new Israel."

    What you saying about what presumably is inherent in Christians doctrine is a much later construct that would be completely incomprehensible to Christians 1000 or so years ago. Keep in mind that nobody was really reading Old Testament until 16th century. The story of Christianity was simple: Jesus came to save us and we accepted him while Jews killed him so screw Israel and Jews. Nobody had any fantasy to become Israel though many wanted to save the Jews. And this was attempted by various heretics like Jan Hus or Martin Luther who thought that by making some changes accommodating Jews Jews would convert and their souls would be saved. The proof that Luther really meant it is his lashing out against Jews later in his life when he realized that he has been fooled. Luther was a very passionate and intemperate man.

    Replies: @AnonStarter, @German_reader

    Keep in mind that nobody was really reading Old Testament until 16th century.

    That’s not true like you seem to imagine. The “ideology” of early medieval realms was replete with OT references. King David was an important model for Christian rulers (already so with the Byzantine emperor Heraclius in the 7th century, also prominent with Carolingians and other Western rulers). The entire rite of royal anointment which became standard for most Western kings is obviously inspired by OT models, and to some extent this was at times linked to a kind of “chosen people” idea (Franks, Saxons etc. as the people now favoured by God, the new Israel).
    If you read medieval texts (say something like the Church reformers of the 11th century, Humbert of Silva Candida or some other pro-papacy hardliner, who can’t be accused of being a proto-Protestant), they’re full of references to the OT and its stories. Obviously their interpretation was frequently contested and the typological way they were read would strike most people today as pretty strange. But the OT was definitely important for medieval Christians. Markion lost after all.

    • Agree: RSDB
    • Replies: @German_reader
    @German_reader

    Here's a more specific example, from a depiction of the German king/Roman emperor Henry II (early 11th century) in a liturgical codex:
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakramentar_Heinrichs_II.#/media/Datei:Kronung_Heinrich_II.jpg
    His raised arms supported by the saints at his sides are clearly modeled on Moses in the battle against the Amalekites, supported by the priests Aaron and Hur. Such OT references were very important to the ideology of Christian kingship.

    Replies: @iffen, @RSDB

    , @utu
    @German_reader

    The few kings in early Christianity who took the name of David and the illustrations from the liturgical codex that alludes to Moses that you posted (thanks!) still do not support the statement that in the “post-Roman states in Europe” Christians “viewed themselves as the new Israel.” It was just impossible before Protestantism and its doctrine of predestination that opened the door for the Judaic concept of collective chosenness. Jesus came for all people and becoming a Christian was an individual choice even if some conversions were done under pressure under orders of rulers or conquerors. Every pagan out there was a potential Christian.

    Replies: @German_reader, @anon

  125. German_reader says:
    @German_reader
    @utu


    Keep in mind that nobody was really reading Old Testament until 16th century.
     
    That's not true like you seem to imagine. The "ideology" of early medieval realms was replete with OT references. King David was an important model for Christian rulers (already so with the Byzantine emperor Heraclius in the 7th century, also prominent with Carolingians and other Western rulers). The entire rite of royal anointment which became standard for most Western kings is obviously inspired by OT models, and to some extent this was at times linked to a kind of "chosen people" idea (Franks, Saxons etc. as the people now favoured by God, the new Israel).
    If you read medieval texts (say something like the Church reformers of the 11th century, Humbert of Silva Candida or some other pro-papacy hardliner, who can't be accused of being a proto-Protestant), they're full of references to the OT and its stories. Obviously their interpretation was frequently contested and the typological way they were read would strike most people today as pretty strange. But the OT was definitely important for medieval Christians. Markion lost after all.

    Replies: @German_reader, @utu

    Here’s a more specific example, from a depiction of the German king/Roman emperor Henry II (early 11th century) in a liturgical codex:His raised arms supported by the saints at his sides are clearly modeled on Moses in the battle against the Amalekites, supported by the priests Aaron and Hur. Such OT references were very important to the ideology of Christian kingship.

    • Thanks: iffen
    • Replies: @iffen
    @German_reader

    GR, while we are on the subject would you comment on the use of the term Judeo-Christian? I know that the term came into its own in the WWII time period and I understand the reason that many Christians promoted the idea and the use of the term at that time.

    Also, currently it seems to attract the wrath of Islamic fanciers in the Woke culture and comes in for disputation by a cline of thinking that rather quickly gets to full bore anti-Semitism. Many in this cline unhesitatingly use notions like Adam and Eve, Genesis, the Ten Commandments, etc. It seems to me, from a limited knowledge base, that the concept of Judeo-Christian Civilization was there early on and the term just got major status in WWII. It has now taken on new political meanings for the Woke and the group that I would call: Not a Fan of Jews.

    Thanks

    Replies: @German_reader, @AnonStarter

    , @RSDB
    @German_reader

    At the same time, clearly nobody viewed Henry, saint or no saint, as the equivalent of Moses in anything like a literal sense-- certainly not the other Christians against whom most of his wars were fought.

    Replies: @German_reader

  126. @German_reader
    @German_reader

    Here's a more specific example, from a depiction of the German king/Roman emperor Henry II (early 11th century) in a liturgical codex:
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakramentar_Heinrichs_II.#/media/Datei:Kronung_Heinrich_II.jpg
    His raised arms supported by the saints at his sides are clearly modeled on Moses in the battle against the Amalekites, supported by the priests Aaron and Hur. Such OT references were very important to the ideology of Christian kingship.

    Replies: @iffen, @RSDB

    GR, while we are on the subject would you comment on the use of the term Judeo-Christian? I know that the term came into its own in the WWII time period and I understand the reason that many Christians promoted the idea and the use of the term at that time.

    Also, currently it seems to attract the wrath of Islamic fanciers in the Woke culture and comes in for disputation by a cline of thinking that rather quickly gets to full bore anti-Semitism. Many in this cline unhesitatingly use notions like Adam and Eve, Genesis, the Ten Commandments, etc. It seems to me, from a limited knowledge base, that the concept of Judeo-Christian Civilization was there early on and the term just got major status in WWII. It has now taken on new political meanings for the Woke and the group that I would call: Not a Fan of Jews.

    Thanks

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @iffen


    It seems to me, from a limited knowledge base, that the concept of Judeo-Christian Civilization was there early on
     
    I don't think so. Utu isn't wrong when he writes that for most of Christian history the predominant view of Jews was as the people who had rejected the saviour and murdered Him. Where I disagree is with his view that the OT didn't matter at all to medieval Christians. It did matter, in the sense that it had prefigured the NT, was part of sacred history, and that Christians were now the new Israel and continuators of that history (whereas Judaism was basically obsolete and had lost God's favour). Jews have of course always regarded that as an usurpation (or to use modern parlance "cultural appropriation") and the root of antisemitism, which explains why after the Holocaust relevant church teachings were changed (iirc the Catholic church and many other churches nowadays claim God's covenant with the Jews is still in force, and was merely supplemented, not supplanted by Christianity - this is definitely NOT what most churches taught for the majority of the past 2000 years).
    Anyway, make of that what you will...I merely wanted to correct utu, since imo he was making some inaccurate statements.

    Replies: @German_reader

    , @AnonStarter
    @iffen

    I'm an orthodox Muslim fundamentalist imam with over thirty years experience as a practitioner of Islam. Outrage over the term "Judeo-Christian" isn't something I've seen much of in our communities, though I've noticed the appeal of it for those who desire to exclude Islam from American society. I also use biblical terminology when communicating both among People of the Book or those familiar with it. After all, those terms and the concepts they embody are part and parcel of one of the most significant influences upon western civilization.

    Nobody has to believe what's written in Scripture, but, since Jews, Christians, and Muslims all have mutually competing claims about the biblical narrative, it behooves any student of history and current events to attain clear comprehension of those claims. For some folks, the mere presentation of any alternative to their firmly held conviction elicits a knee-jerk "anti-(whatever religion they imagine they're defending)" accusation.

    That's a phenomenon transcending "wokeness," one that speaks to insecurity.

    Replies: @iffen

  127. @German_reader
    @German_reader

    Here's a more specific example, from a depiction of the German king/Roman emperor Henry II (early 11th century) in a liturgical codex:
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakramentar_Heinrichs_II.#/media/Datei:Kronung_Heinrich_II.jpg
    His raised arms supported by the saints at his sides are clearly modeled on Moses in the battle against the Amalekites, supported by the priests Aaron and Hur. Such OT references were very important to the ideology of Christian kingship.

    Replies: @iffen, @RSDB

    At the same time, clearly nobody viewed Henry, saint or no saint, as the equivalent of Moses in anything like a literal sense– certainly not the other Christians against whom most of his wars were fought.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @RSDB

    Sure, there may have been a certain discrepancy between the sacral ideology of kingship and realities, iirc Henry was criticized by contemporaries for his alliance with the pagan Liutizians.

  128. German_reader says:
    @iffen
    @German_reader

    GR, while we are on the subject would you comment on the use of the term Judeo-Christian? I know that the term came into its own in the WWII time period and I understand the reason that many Christians promoted the idea and the use of the term at that time.

    Also, currently it seems to attract the wrath of Islamic fanciers in the Woke culture and comes in for disputation by a cline of thinking that rather quickly gets to full bore anti-Semitism. Many in this cline unhesitatingly use notions like Adam and Eve, Genesis, the Ten Commandments, etc. It seems to me, from a limited knowledge base, that the concept of Judeo-Christian Civilization was there early on and the term just got major status in WWII. It has now taken on new political meanings for the Woke and the group that I would call: Not a Fan of Jews.

    Thanks

    Replies: @German_reader, @AnonStarter

    It seems to me, from a limited knowledge base, that the concept of Judeo-Christian Civilization was there early on

    I don’t think so. Utu isn’t wrong when he writes that for most of Christian history the predominant view of Jews was as the people who had rejected the saviour and murdered Him. Where I disagree is with his view that the OT didn’t matter at all to medieval Christians. It did matter, in the sense that it had prefigured the NT, was part of sacred history, and that Christians were now the new Israel and continuators of that history (whereas Judaism was basically obsolete and had lost God’s favour). Jews have of course always regarded that as an usurpation (or to use modern parlance “cultural appropriation”) and the root of antisemitism, which explains why after the Holocaust relevant church teachings were changed (iirc the Catholic church and many other churches nowadays claim God’s covenant with the Jews is still in force, and was merely supplemented, not supplanted by Christianity – this is definitely NOT what most churches taught for the majority of the past 2000 years).
    Anyway, make of that what you will…I merely wanted to correct utu, since imo he was making some inaccurate statements.

    • Agree: songbird
    • Replies: @German_reader
    @German_reader

    I would add that as far as I can tell the term "Judeo-Christian" is actually rejected by many Jews as well, who regard it as whitewashing Christianity's anti-Jewish history. At least that's my impression.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @dfordoom

  129. German_reader says:
    @RSDB
    @German_reader

    At the same time, clearly nobody viewed Henry, saint or no saint, as the equivalent of Moses in anything like a literal sense-- certainly not the other Christians against whom most of his wars were fought.

    Replies: @German_reader

    Sure, there may have been a certain discrepancy between the sacral ideology of kingship and realities, iirc Henry was criticized by contemporaries for his alliance with the pagan Liutizians.

  130. German_reader says:
    @German_reader
    @iffen


    It seems to me, from a limited knowledge base, that the concept of Judeo-Christian Civilization was there early on
     
    I don't think so. Utu isn't wrong when he writes that for most of Christian history the predominant view of Jews was as the people who had rejected the saviour and murdered Him. Where I disagree is with his view that the OT didn't matter at all to medieval Christians. It did matter, in the sense that it had prefigured the NT, was part of sacred history, and that Christians were now the new Israel and continuators of that history (whereas Judaism was basically obsolete and had lost God's favour). Jews have of course always regarded that as an usurpation (or to use modern parlance "cultural appropriation") and the root of antisemitism, which explains why after the Holocaust relevant church teachings were changed (iirc the Catholic church and many other churches nowadays claim God's covenant with the Jews is still in force, and was merely supplemented, not supplanted by Christianity - this is definitely NOT what most churches taught for the majority of the past 2000 years).
    Anyway, make of that what you will...I merely wanted to correct utu, since imo he was making some inaccurate statements.

    Replies: @German_reader

    I would add that as far as I can tell the term “Judeo-Christian” is actually rejected by many Jews as well, who regard it as whitewashing Christianity’s anti-Jewish history. At least that’s my impression.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @German_reader

    It's neocon quatsch that is distinctly post-Cold War American, created for ideological-political purposes, nothing more. Historically nonsensical.

    Replies: @German_reader

    , @dfordoom
    @German_reader


    I would add that as far as I can tell the term “Judeo-Christian” is actually rejected by many Jews as well, who regard it as whitewashing Christianity’s anti-Jewish history. At least that’s my impression.
     
    I'm not a Jew or a Christian so I don't really have a dog in this fight. But my feeling, for what it's worth, is that “Judeo-Christian” seems disrespectful to both Jews and Christians.

    My impression is that “Judeo-Christian” is a term mostly favoured by neocons and Christian Zionists.

    Replies: @iffen

  131. @utu
    @nebulafox

    "They viewed *themselves* as the new Israel, as covenant kingdoms." - Never heard of it. I am sure that even if there were manifestation of such fantasies it was completely irrelevant.

    Replies: @AnonStarter, @nebulafox

    Let’s use Byzantium as an example, because that’s what I’m most familiar with, though my understanding is that the Franks had a similar conception of themselves as “God’s chosen people” under Charlemagne.

    Prior to the 7th Century collapse, the Byzantines-remember, they are still really East Rome at this point in the game-continued to have a universalistic world-view. The Christianization of the Roman state and even the collapse of the West didn’t change this: state propaganda still trumpeted the emperor as master of the civilized world, assimilating others and making them Roman. Justinian’s wars are inconceivable without this self-conception.

    Such a self-conception became impossible to maintain with the disasters of the 7th Century, coming on the heels of long-term decay before that. The Roman state went from superpower to beleaguered rump state, first with the Sassanid Persians and Slavs, and then permanently with the Arabs. It can’t be understated how much psychologically damaging the Yarmouk and its aftermath was: the empire had been through 3rd Century levels of hell, but instead of recovering and consolidating, they were bumped back to a backwater clinging desperately for survival.

    So, what did the Roman government replace their self-conception with? The notion of the Byzantines-and this is when they really start becoming “the Byzantines”-as this special people, God’s chosen people, rather than the universalistic realm of worldwide Christianity. Complete with the emperor not as master of the civilized world, not as a classical world Great Man as Justinian and Belisarius still saw themselves as, but as someone akin to Hezekiah from the Old Testament. Elements of this were already there, but it was only under Heraclius, not least to dodge blame for the disasters he oversaw before his final desperate campaign of 622 AD, that this really got going. State propaganda began to emphasize not going out and making others Roman, but “Roman” as a special identity, the limited, chosen people who need to ride out the storm in the proverbial ark, so to speak. The language used by the emperors and their cronies is explicitly Biblical.

    This meant that when the caliphate imploded and the Byzantine state underwent a brief period of expansion during the 11th Century, they were unable to simply stay there and “make people Roman” as they would have done earlier. State ideology had become too entrenched for that. More significantly, it also meant Byzantium grew more detached, more alien to Western Christians, and vice versa.

    • Replies: @utu
    @nebulafox

    Thanks for your explanation. But I have my doubts though no time or energy to look for some of examples where "The language used by the emperors and their cronies is explicitly Biblical."

    Replies: @nebulafox

  132. @German_reader
    @German_reader

    I would add that as far as I can tell the term "Judeo-Christian" is actually rejected by many Jews as well, who regard it as whitewashing Christianity's anti-Jewish history. At least that's my impression.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @dfordoom

    It’s neocon quatsch that is distinctly post-Cold War American, created for ideological-political purposes, nothing more. Historically nonsensical.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @nebulafox


    t’s neocon quatsch that is distinctly post-Cold War American
     
    I thought it goes back to the 1940s/1950s, as part of the American nation-building process which saw Jews and Catholics being integrated into the American mainstream (which had previously been dominated by Protestants). Also part of the opposition to godless communism (similarly like with "In God we trust"...details of denominations don't matter so much, as long as you believe in the God derived from the Bible).
    Agreed that historically it's a dubious concept.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @RSDB, @A123

  133. German_reader says:
    @nebulafox
    @German_reader

    It's neocon quatsch that is distinctly post-Cold War American, created for ideological-political purposes, nothing more. Historically nonsensical.

    Replies: @German_reader

    t’s neocon quatsch that is distinctly post-Cold War American

    I thought it goes back to the 1940s/1950s, as part of the American nation-building process which saw Jews and Catholics being integrated into the American mainstream (which had previously been dominated by Protestants). Also part of the opposition to godless communism (similarly like with “In God we trust”…details of denominations don’t matter so much, as long as you believe in the God derived from the Bible).
    Agreed that historically it’s a dubious concept.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @German_reader

    I can't recall anybody using the term prior to the 1980s, but I could be wrong, this isn't my best subject. What I do remember is that in the context of the 2000s, it had a very specific ideological agenda with Dominionist overtones on Israel and general hyper-Judeophilia: I remember this very well from my childhood. It spread surprisingly far in right-wing sectors of American culture, including parts of the military with a strong evangelical Christian (to the point where it even permeates non-Protestant Christianity) streak.

    If so, the agenda and purpose mutated. As far as I know, it became more extreme, to the point where Jews are seen as pseudo-Christians rather than something noticeably different if wholly "American".

    Replies: @anon, @German_reader

    , @RSDB
    @German_reader


    Agreed that historically it’s a dubious concept.

     

    A place we might expect to find such a view is in a tale such as Boccaccio's tale (Decameron I.3) of Melchisedek, involving a Jewish protagonist and a Muslim antagonist; instead the moral of this story is the famous analogy of the three rings, one of which is the true ring.
    , @A123
    @German_reader


    I thought it goes back to the 1940s/1950s, as part of the American nation-building process which saw Jews and Catholics being integrated into the American mainstream (which had previously been dominated by Protestants).
     
    Judeo-Christian was around before then, but it was not used very often. It was more a description about common traditions based on the shared Old Testament, including the Ten Commandments.

    The use of "Judeo-Christian Values" is popularised and unshakable due to Muslims senselessly butchering defenseless Infidels (Christians & Jews). It became very common after:
        • 1972 -- The Munich Olympics Massacre
        • 1983 -- The Beirut Airport Bombing
    Muslims dancing on the blood of Christians & Jews created an undeniable need for unity in the face of an existential threat to survival.

    Mutti Merkel's importation of Muslim Rape-ugees to the EU has made the phrase much more prevalent in Europe. As Infidels experience the horror of Islam, they come together to resist it.

    When Christian America is 100% Muslim free, and Christian Europe is 100% Muslim free, and Jewish Palestine is 100% Muslim free -- the existential threat will end. Until then, Judeo-Christian Values are unassailable, as they are a necessity for survival. There is no other way.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @songbird, @anon

  134. @German_reader
    @nebulafox


    t’s neocon quatsch that is distinctly post-Cold War American
     
    I thought it goes back to the 1940s/1950s, as part of the American nation-building process which saw Jews and Catholics being integrated into the American mainstream (which had previously been dominated by Protestants). Also part of the opposition to godless communism (similarly like with "In God we trust"...details of denominations don't matter so much, as long as you believe in the God derived from the Bible).
    Agreed that historically it's a dubious concept.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @RSDB, @A123

    I can’t recall anybody using the term prior to the 1980s, but I could be wrong, this isn’t my best subject. What I do remember is that in the context of the 2000s, it had a very specific ideological agenda with Dominionist overtones on Israel and general hyper-Judeophilia: I remember this very well from my childhood. It spread surprisingly far in right-wing sectors of American culture, including parts of the military with a strong evangelical Christian (to the point where it even permeates non-Protestant Christianity) streak.

    If so, the agenda and purpose mutated. As far as I know, it became more extreme, to the point where Jews are seen as pseudo-Christians rather than something noticeably different if wholly “American”.

    • Replies: @anon
    @nebulafox

    https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=judeochristian&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cjudeochristian%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cjudeochristian%3B%2Cc0

    , @German_reader
    @nebulafox

    https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Judeo-Christian&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2CJudeo%20-%20Christian%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2CJudeo%20-%20Christian%3B%2Cc0

    Seems like the term had modest beginnings in the 1930s (I suppose as a reaction to Nazi antisemitism), then experienced a steady rise since the late 1940s/1950s which would fit with the explanation proposed in my previous comment (mid-century "nation building" and anticommunism).
    I understand that the term today has connotations as described by you, but were evangelicals with strongly pro-Israel views that prominent before the 1970s? So I suppose there may have been some change. But since I'm not even American, I'm not really qualified to answer that anyway. Maybe some other commenter can.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @V. K. Ovelund, @songbird

  135. @nebulafox
    @German_reader

    I can't recall anybody using the term prior to the 1980s, but I could be wrong, this isn't my best subject. What I do remember is that in the context of the 2000s, it had a very specific ideological agenda with Dominionist overtones on Israel and general hyper-Judeophilia: I remember this very well from my childhood. It spread surprisingly far in right-wing sectors of American culture, including parts of the military with a strong evangelical Christian (to the point where it even permeates non-Protestant Christianity) streak.

    If so, the agenda and purpose mutated. As far as I know, it became more extreme, to the point where Jews are seen as pseudo-Christians rather than something noticeably different if wholly "American".

    Replies: @anon, @German_reader

  136. German_reader says:
    @nebulafox
    @German_reader

    I can't recall anybody using the term prior to the 1980s, but I could be wrong, this isn't my best subject. What I do remember is that in the context of the 2000s, it had a very specific ideological agenda with Dominionist overtones on Israel and general hyper-Judeophilia: I remember this very well from my childhood. It spread surprisingly far in right-wing sectors of American culture, including parts of the military with a strong evangelical Christian (to the point where it even permeates non-Protestant Christianity) streak.

    If so, the agenda and purpose mutated. As far as I know, it became more extreme, to the point where Jews are seen as pseudo-Christians rather than something noticeably different if wholly "American".

    Replies: @anon, @German_reader

    https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Judeo-Christian&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2CJudeo%20-%20Christian%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2CJudeo%20-%20Christian%3B%2Cc0

    Seems like the term had modest beginnings in the 1930s (I suppose as a reaction to Nazi antisemitism), then experienced a steady rise since the late 1940s/1950s which would fit with the explanation proposed in my previous comment (mid-century “nation building” and anticommunism).
    I understand that the term today has connotations as described by you, but were evangelicals with strongly pro-Israel views that prominent before the 1970s? So I suppose there may have been some change. But since I’m not even American, I’m not really qualified to answer that anyway. Maybe some other commenter can.

    • Agree: RSDB
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @German_reader

    My impression is that they had nowhere near the level of ideological influence they'd come to have in more recent decades, and perhaps not the same concerns, either. Back in 1967, the main thrust of that initial burst of pro-Israel sentiment came from American Jews, not evangelicals, which was really surprising to learn considering how left-ish American Jews generally are. I suppose back then for mainstream central-left liberals, Israel was considered a bastion of liberal rights in an Arab sea rather than your embarrassing Afrikaner-esque co-religionists who more resemble those Red State Americans you really hate (in terms of attitudes toward guns, race, general world-view, etc, if not always consistent religious faith) than you.

    But I'm not really qualified to comment, either. Everything before the last quarter century or so was before my time. IMO, given how the meaning of words change with the times, our explanations aren't mutually incompatible.

    Replies: @German_reader

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @German_reader

    May I ask you a question without pulling you afoul of your country's speech law? (If the answer is no, please just say so, and I'll drop it.)

    Alt-Rightists including me conjecture that what Jews are doing to gentiles in the United States in the 2010s and 2020s resembles, in significant ways, what Jews were doing to gentiles in Germany in the 1910s and 1920s. However, it is extremely difficult to find reliable references on the subject: almost every available source either is Holocaust-related agitprop or relies upon Holocaust-related agitprop.

    Unless you are over 100 years of age, you have no direct personal knowledge of that, of course; but perhaps you had older relatives who spoke of such things in camera in your presence when you were a child. Anyway, if your anonymity is sufficiently secure, then would you care to comment?

    I am not fishing for agreement. I do not even ask you to accept my premise. (Why would you accept it? I am not even German. Besides, my premise is obviously a crude, gross overapproximation, at best.) I would merely like to read whatever you chose to write in response—for the response of an ordinary German like you, even a pseudonymous German, is more believable than is the nonsense that comes out of a bookshelf full of Lügenbücher.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @German_reader

    , @songbird
    @German_reader


    Seems like the term had modest beginnings in the 1930s (I suppose as a reaction to Nazi antisemitism)
     
    I'm just speculating, but as far as it is possible to separate world events, it would not surprise me if it was an entirely indigenous development.

    The Great Depression turned a lot of people against the banks. Various groups mobilized to censor Hollywood. There were public figures like Father Coughlin or Henry Ford (silenced by 1927). Cities were practically entirely white, with ethnic neighborhoods that made political and social organizing easy. Jews probably had an increasing awareness of quotas and secret covenants. I bet that their applications to prestigious universities were at a then historical peak and (consequently the rejection rate).

    America had a lot of schools, newspapers, and churches. Many entryways for new ideas, particularly universalist ones.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  137. RSDB says:
    @German_reader
    @nebulafox


    t’s neocon quatsch that is distinctly post-Cold War American
     
    I thought it goes back to the 1940s/1950s, as part of the American nation-building process which saw Jews and Catholics being integrated into the American mainstream (which had previously been dominated by Protestants). Also part of the opposition to godless communism (similarly like with "In God we trust"...details of denominations don't matter so much, as long as you believe in the God derived from the Bible).
    Agreed that historically it's a dubious concept.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @RSDB, @A123

    Agreed that historically it’s a dubious concept.

    A place we might expect to find such a view is in a tale such as Boccaccio’s tale (Decameron I.3) of Melchisedek, involving a Jewish protagonist and a Muslim antagonist; instead the moral of this story is the famous analogy of the three rings, one of which is the true ring.

  138. @German_reader
    @nebulafox

    https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Judeo-Christian&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2CJudeo%20-%20Christian%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2CJudeo%20-%20Christian%3B%2Cc0

    Seems like the term had modest beginnings in the 1930s (I suppose as a reaction to Nazi antisemitism), then experienced a steady rise since the late 1940s/1950s which would fit with the explanation proposed in my previous comment (mid-century "nation building" and anticommunism).
    I understand that the term today has connotations as described by you, but were evangelicals with strongly pro-Israel views that prominent before the 1970s? So I suppose there may have been some change. But since I'm not even American, I'm not really qualified to answer that anyway. Maybe some other commenter can.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @V. K. Ovelund, @songbird

    My impression is that they had nowhere near the level of ideological influence they’d come to have in more recent decades, and perhaps not the same concerns, either. Back in 1967, the main thrust of that initial burst of pro-Israel sentiment came from American Jews, not evangelicals, which was really surprising to learn considering how left-ish American Jews generally are. I suppose back then for mainstream central-left liberals, Israel was considered a bastion of liberal rights in an Arab sea rather than your embarrassing Afrikaner-esque co-religionists who more resemble those Red State Americans you really hate (in terms of attitudes toward guns, race, general world-view, etc, if not always consistent religious faith) than you.

    But I’m not really qualified to comment, either. Everything before the last quarter century or so was before my time. IMO, given how the meaning of words change with the times, our explanations aren’t mutually incompatible.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @nebulafox


    that initial burst of pro-Israel sentiment came from American Jews, not evangelicals, which was really surprising to learn considering how left-ish American Jews generally are.
     
    I don't think it's surprising at all, American Jews had already played a crucial part in the creation of Israel, both through financial contributions and through political pressure (this goes up to the highest levels, Roosevelt's former advisor Bernard Baruch seems to have put pressure on France to vote for the UN partition plan). A lot of things happened then that have been conveniently forgotten by mainstream conservatives in the US (e.g. sections of the US Jewish community openly voicing support for Zionist terrorists killing British soldiers, and playing on anti-British sentiment through analogies with America's own independence struggle). And that's not really a hidden history either which you could only learn about on questionable sites like Unz review, that stuff is even in relatively mainstream and not particularly anti-Zionist books (e.g. James Barr, A line in the sand, which is more anti-French than anything else).

    Replies: @nebulafox

  139. German_reader says:
    @nebulafox
    @German_reader

    My impression is that they had nowhere near the level of ideological influence they'd come to have in more recent decades, and perhaps not the same concerns, either. Back in 1967, the main thrust of that initial burst of pro-Israel sentiment came from American Jews, not evangelicals, which was really surprising to learn considering how left-ish American Jews generally are. I suppose back then for mainstream central-left liberals, Israel was considered a bastion of liberal rights in an Arab sea rather than your embarrassing Afrikaner-esque co-religionists who more resemble those Red State Americans you really hate (in terms of attitudes toward guns, race, general world-view, etc, if not always consistent religious faith) than you.

    But I'm not really qualified to comment, either. Everything before the last quarter century or so was before my time. IMO, given how the meaning of words change with the times, our explanations aren't mutually incompatible.

    Replies: @German_reader

    that initial burst of pro-Israel sentiment came from American Jews, not evangelicals, which was really surprising to learn considering how left-ish American Jews generally are.

    I don’t think it’s surprising at all, American Jews had already played a crucial part in the creation of Israel, both through financial contributions and through political pressure (this goes up to the highest levels, Roosevelt’s former advisor Bernard Baruch seems to have put pressure on France to vote for the UN partition plan). A lot of things happened then that have been conveniently forgotten by mainstream conservatives in the US (e.g. sections of the US Jewish community openly voicing support for Zionist terrorists killing British soldiers, and playing on anti-British sentiment through analogies with America’s own independence struggle). And that’s not really a hidden history either which you could only learn about on questionable sites like Unz review, that stuff is even in relatively mainstream and not particularly anti-Zionist books (e.g. James Barr, A line in the sand, which is more anti-French than anything else).

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @German_reader

    >A lot of things happened then that have been conveniently forgotten by mainstream conservatives in the US

    A lot of things that are forgotten or just not known by people in the US, period, regardless of ideological stripe. Hell, I didn't know this, and I'm hardly an Israel fanboy.

    Or, to be fair, in other societies. Most people in general just aren't that intellectually curious. But the US is insular in a way that most countries aren't. I knew people my age growing up who were shocked to see slaves that weren't black in films like "Gladiator".

  140. @iffen
    @German_reader

    GR, while we are on the subject would you comment on the use of the term Judeo-Christian? I know that the term came into its own in the WWII time period and I understand the reason that many Christians promoted the idea and the use of the term at that time.

    Also, currently it seems to attract the wrath of Islamic fanciers in the Woke culture and comes in for disputation by a cline of thinking that rather quickly gets to full bore anti-Semitism. Many in this cline unhesitatingly use notions like Adam and Eve, Genesis, the Ten Commandments, etc. It seems to me, from a limited knowledge base, that the concept of Judeo-Christian Civilization was there early on and the term just got major status in WWII. It has now taken on new political meanings for the Woke and the group that I would call: Not a Fan of Jews.

    Thanks

    Replies: @German_reader, @AnonStarter

    I’m an orthodox Muslim fundamentalist imam with over thirty years experience as a practitioner of Islam. Outrage over the term “Judeo-Christian” isn’t something I’ve seen much of in our communities, though I’ve noticed the appeal of it for those who desire to exclude Islam from American society. I also use biblical terminology when communicating both among People of the Book or those familiar with it. After all, those terms and the concepts they embody are part and parcel of one of the most significant influences upon western civilization.

    Nobody has to believe what’s written in Scripture, but, since Jews, Christians, and Muslims all have mutually competing claims about the biblical narrative, it behooves any student of history and current events to attain clear comprehension of those claims. For some folks, the mere presentation of any alternative to their firmly held conviction elicits a knee-jerk “anti-(whatever religion they imagine they’re defending)” accusation.

    That’s a phenomenon transcending “wokeness,” one that speaks to insecurity.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @AnonStarter

    Outrage over the term “Judeo-Christian” isn’t something I’ve seen much of in our communities, though I’ve noticed the appeal of it for those who desire to exclude Islam from American society.

    Well, the Woke don't really care what Muslims think, they have their own agendas. I will pay closer attention to its use in the future to see how often its use is meant as a means to exclude Muslims. Maybe somebody needs to popularize the term Judeo-Islamic Values, or Judeo-Christian/Islam Values.

    I guess I spend too much time at Unz because most of the complaints that I see about its use seem to be politically motivated by some animus toward Jews.

    Anyway, GR partly answered my question here:

    It did matter, in the sense that it had prefigured the NT, was part of sacred history, and that Christians were now the new Israel and continuators of that history

    even though he likely wouldn't agree with my reading of his comment.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @anon, @RSDB, @V. K. Ovelund, @AnonStarter, @songbird, @dfordoom

  141. A123 says:
    @German_reader
    @nebulafox


    t’s neocon quatsch that is distinctly post-Cold War American
     
    I thought it goes back to the 1940s/1950s, as part of the American nation-building process which saw Jews and Catholics being integrated into the American mainstream (which had previously been dominated by Protestants). Also part of the opposition to godless communism (similarly like with "In God we trust"...details of denominations don't matter so much, as long as you believe in the God derived from the Bible).
    Agreed that historically it's a dubious concept.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @RSDB, @A123

    I thought it goes back to the 1940s/1950s, as part of the American nation-building process which saw Jews and Catholics being integrated into the American mainstream (which had previously been dominated by Protestants).

    Judeo-Christian was around before then, but it was not used very often. It was more a description about common traditions based on the shared Old Testament, including the Ten Commandments.

    The use of “Judeo-Christian Values” is popularised and unshakable due to Muslims senselessly butchering defenseless Infidels (Christians & Jews). It became very common after:
        • 1972 — The Munich Olympics Massacre
        • 1983 — The Beirut Airport Bombing
    Muslims dancing on the blood of Christians & Jews created an undeniable need for unity in the face of an existential threat to survival.

    Mutti Merkel’s importation of Muslim Rape-ugees to the EU has made the phrase much more prevalent in Europe. As Infidels experience the horror of Islam, they come together to resist it.

    When Christian America is 100% Muslim free, and Christian Europe is 100% Muslim free, and Jewish Palestine is 100% Muslim free — the existential threat will end. Until then, Judeo-Christian Values are unassailable, as they are a necessity for survival. There is no other way.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @songbird
    @A123


    It became very common after:
    • 1972 — The Munich Olympics Massacre
    • 1983 — The Beirut Airport Bombing
     
    I believe this view is partly correct. For example, there was the hijacking of Trans World Airlines Flight 847 in 1985. This was fictionalized into a movie starring Chuck Norris filmed in Israel, called Delta Force (1986).

    The film hits a lot of notes. A German flight attendant forced to identify Jews. A Catholic priest who joins the Jews in solidarity, saying something like "Jesus was a Jew." An Orthodox priest who helps locate some hostages that have been unloaded. There's a strong message of approval for US militarization in the Middle East.

    Chuck was the leading star of Cannon Films, run by Menahem Golan, who produced the film. After the hijacking, Norris said this: the United States is becoming a "paper tiger" in the Middle East. "What we're facing here is the fact that our passive approach to terrorism is going to instigate much more terrorism throughout the world," he said, adding, "I would have sent the Delta Force immediately... I've been all over the world, and seeing the devastation that terrorism has done in Europe and the Middle East, I know eventually it's going to come here," added Norris. "It's just a matter of time. They're doing all this devastation in Europe now, and the next stepping stone is America and Canada. Being a free country, with the freedom of movement that we have, it's an open door policy for terrorism. It's like Khadafy said a few weeks ago. 'If Reagan doesn't back off, I'm going to release my killer squads in America.' And there's no doubt in my mind that he has them."
    , @anon
    @A123

    Judeo-Christian was around before then, but it was not used very often. It was more a description about common traditions based on the shared Old Testament, including the Ten Commandments.

    Please provide examples from the time period in question. Verifiable cites are required.

    The use of “Judeo-Christian Values” is popularised and unshakable due to Muslims senselessly butchering defenseless Infidels (Christians & Jews).

    Yet the Google Ngram shows it being used in the 1940's. Please explain this anomaly.

    Muslims dancing on the blood of Christians & Jews created an undeniable need for unity in the face of an existential threat to survival.

    In other words, it is a propaganda term that has nothing to do with Christ.

    Mutti Merkel’s importation of Muslim Rape-ugees to the EU has made the phrase much more prevalent in Europe.

    Please provide examples of this "much more prevalent" in Europe. Google Ngram doesn't agree/

    As Infidels experience the horror of Islam, they come together to resist it.
    When Christian America is 100% Muslim free, and Christian Europe is 100% Muslim free, and Jewish Palestine is 100% Muslim free — the existential threat will end.

    Hasbara in some form or another, no question. So "Christian" Zionist, or something else?

    Until then, Judeo-Christian Values are unassailable, as they are a necessity for survival.

    Nah.

    PEACE

    Hypocrite.

  142. @German_reader
    @nebulafox

    https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Judeo-Christian&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2CJudeo%20-%20Christian%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2CJudeo%20-%20Christian%3B%2Cc0

    Seems like the term had modest beginnings in the 1930s (I suppose as a reaction to Nazi antisemitism), then experienced a steady rise since the late 1940s/1950s which would fit with the explanation proposed in my previous comment (mid-century "nation building" and anticommunism).
    I understand that the term today has connotations as described by you, but were evangelicals with strongly pro-Israel views that prominent before the 1970s? So I suppose there may have been some change. But since I'm not even American, I'm not really qualified to answer that anyway. Maybe some other commenter can.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @V. K. Ovelund, @songbird

    May I ask you a question without pulling you afoul of your country’s speech law? (If the answer is no, please just say so, and I’ll drop it.)

    Alt-Rightists including me conjecture that what Jews are doing to gentiles in the United States in the 2010s and 2020s resembles, in significant ways, what Jews were doing to gentiles in Germany in the 1910s and 1920s. However, it is extremely difficult to find reliable references on the subject: almost every available source either is Holocaust-related agitprop or relies upon Holocaust-related agitprop.

    Unless you are over 100 years of age, you have no direct personal knowledge of that, of course; but perhaps you had older relatives who spoke of such things in camera in your presence when you were a child. Anyway, if your anonymity is sufficiently secure, then would you care to comment?

    I am not fishing for agreement. I do not even ask you to accept my premise. (Why would you accept it? I am not even German. Besides, my premise is obviously a crude, gross overapproximation, at best.) I would merely like to read whatever you chose to write in response—for the response of an ordinary German like you, even a pseudonymous German, is more believable than is the nonsense that comes out of a bookshelf full of Lügenbücher.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @V. K. Ovelund

    @German_reader

    Your written English is so good, it made me forget that I was writing for English as a second language. By in camera, I was not referring to a photographic device but meant the older, Latin phrase. I meant geheimlich, privat or unbekannt.

    , @German_reader
    @V. K. Ovelund


    but perhaps you had older relatives who spoke of such things in camera in your presence when you were a child.
     
    No, not in your sense. They did mention the persecution of the Jews during the Nazi era and what they had seen of it, but didn't try to justify it. Obviously I can't know for sure what they thought or did at the time, and they're all dead now anyway.
  143. @German_reader
    @nebulafox

    https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Judeo-Christian&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2CJudeo%20-%20Christian%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2CJudeo%20-%20Christian%3B%2Cc0

    Seems like the term had modest beginnings in the 1930s (I suppose as a reaction to Nazi antisemitism), then experienced a steady rise since the late 1940s/1950s which would fit with the explanation proposed in my previous comment (mid-century "nation building" and anticommunism).
    I understand that the term today has connotations as described by you, but were evangelicals with strongly pro-Israel views that prominent before the 1970s? So I suppose there may have been some change. But since I'm not even American, I'm not really qualified to answer that anyway. Maybe some other commenter can.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @V. K. Ovelund, @songbird

    Seems like the term had modest beginnings in the 1930s (I suppose as a reaction to Nazi antisemitism)

    I’m just speculating, but as far as it is possible to separate world events, it would not surprise me if it was an entirely indigenous development.

    The Great Depression turned a lot of people against the banks. Various groups mobilized to censor Hollywood. There were public figures like Father Coughlin or Henry Ford (silenced by 1927). Cities were practically entirely white, with ethnic neighborhoods that made political and social organizing easy. Jews probably had an increasing awareness of quotas and secret covenants. I bet that their applications to prestigious universities were at a then historical peak and (consequently the rejection rate).

    America had a lot of schools, newspapers, and churches. Many entryways for new ideas, particularly universalist ones.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @songbird

    John Dillinger was something of a folk hero for a brief while in the Midwest during the 1930s.

  144. @V. K. Ovelund
    @German_reader

    May I ask you a question without pulling you afoul of your country's speech law? (If the answer is no, please just say so, and I'll drop it.)

    Alt-Rightists including me conjecture that what Jews are doing to gentiles in the United States in the 2010s and 2020s resembles, in significant ways, what Jews were doing to gentiles in Germany in the 1910s and 1920s. However, it is extremely difficult to find reliable references on the subject: almost every available source either is Holocaust-related agitprop or relies upon Holocaust-related agitprop.

    Unless you are over 100 years of age, you have no direct personal knowledge of that, of course; but perhaps you had older relatives who spoke of such things in camera in your presence when you were a child. Anyway, if your anonymity is sufficiently secure, then would you care to comment?

    I am not fishing for agreement. I do not even ask you to accept my premise. (Why would you accept it? I am not even German. Besides, my premise is obviously a crude, gross overapproximation, at best.) I would merely like to read whatever you chose to write in response—for the response of an ordinary German like you, even a pseudonymous German, is more believable than is the nonsense that comes out of a bookshelf full of Lügenbücher.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @German_reader

    Your written English is so good, it made me forget that I was writing for English as a second language. By in camera, I was not referring to a photographic device but meant the older, Latin phrase. I meant geheimlich, privat or unbekannt.

  145. @German_reader
    @nebulafox


    that initial burst of pro-Israel sentiment came from American Jews, not evangelicals, which was really surprising to learn considering how left-ish American Jews generally are.
     
    I don't think it's surprising at all, American Jews had already played a crucial part in the creation of Israel, both through financial contributions and through political pressure (this goes up to the highest levels, Roosevelt's former advisor Bernard Baruch seems to have put pressure on France to vote for the UN partition plan). A lot of things happened then that have been conveniently forgotten by mainstream conservatives in the US (e.g. sections of the US Jewish community openly voicing support for Zionist terrorists killing British soldiers, and playing on anti-British sentiment through analogies with America's own independence struggle). And that's not really a hidden history either which you could only learn about on questionable sites like Unz review, that stuff is even in relatively mainstream and not particularly anti-Zionist books (e.g. James Barr, A line in the sand, which is more anti-French than anything else).

    Replies: @nebulafox

    >A lot of things happened then that have been conveniently forgotten by mainstream conservatives in the US

    A lot of things that are forgotten or just not known by people in the US, period, regardless of ideological stripe. Hell, I didn’t know this, and I’m hardly an Israel fanboy.

    Or, to be fair, in other societies. Most people in general just aren’t that intellectually curious. But the US is insular in a way that most countries aren’t. I knew people my age growing up who were shocked to see slaves that weren’t black in films like “Gladiator”.

  146. @songbird
    @German_reader


    Seems like the term had modest beginnings in the 1930s (I suppose as a reaction to Nazi antisemitism)
     
    I'm just speculating, but as far as it is possible to separate world events, it would not surprise me if it was an entirely indigenous development.

    The Great Depression turned a lot of people against the banks. Various groups mobilized to censor Hollywood. There were public figures like Father Coughlin or Henry Ford (silenced by 1927). Cities were practically entirely white, with ethnic neighborhoods that made political and social organizing easy. Jews probably had an increasing awareness of quotas and secret covenants. I bet that their applications to prestigious universities were at a then historical peak and (consequently the rejection rate).

    America had a lot of schools, newspapers, and churches. Many entryways for new ideas, particularly universalist ones.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    John Dillinger was something of a folk hero for a brief while in the Midwest during the 1930s.

    • Agree: songbird
  147. @A123
    @German_reader


    I thought it goes back to the 1940s/1950s, as part of the American nation-building process which saw Jews and Catholics being integrated into the American mainstream (which had previously been dominated by Protestants).
     
    Judeo-Christian was around before then, but it was not used very often. It was more a description about common traditions based on the shared Old Testament, including the Ten Commandments.

    The use of "Judeo-Christian Values" is popularised and unshakable due to Muslims senselessly butchering defenseless Infidels (Christians & Jews). It became very common after:
        • 1972 -- The Munich Olympics Massacre
        • 1983 -- The Beirut Airport Bombing
    Muslims dancing on the blood of Christians & Jews created an undeniable need for unity in the face of an existential threat to survival.

    Mutti Merkel's importation of Muslim Rape-ugees to the EU has made the phrase much more prevalent in Europe. As Infidels experience the horror of Islam, they come together to resist it.

    When Christian America is 100% Muslim free, and Christian Europe is 100% Muslim free, and Jewish Palestine is 100% Muslim free -- the existential threat will end. Until then, Judeo-Christian Values are unassailable, as they are a necessity for survival. There is no other way.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @songbird, @anon

    It became very common after:
    • 1972 — The Munich Olympics Massacre
    • 1983 — The Beirut Airport Bombing

    I believe this view is partly correct. For example, there was the hijacking of Trans World Airlines Flight 847 in 1985. This was fictionalized into a movie starring Chuck Norris filmed in Israel, called Delta Force (1986).

    The film hits a lot of notes. A German flight attendant forced to identify Jews. A Catholic priest who joins the Jews in solidarity, saying something like “Jesus was a Jew.” An Orthodox priest who helps locate some hostages that have been unloaded. There’s a strong message of approval for US militarization in the Middle East.

    Chuck was the leading star of Cannon Films, run by Menahem Golan, who produced the film. After the hijacking, Norris said this: the United States is becoming a “paper tiger” in the Middle East. “What we’re facing here is the fact that our passive approach to terrorism is going to instigate much more terrorism throughout the world,” he said, adding, “I would have sent the Delta Force immediately… I’ve been all over the world, and seeing the devastation that terrorism has done in Europe and the Middle East, I know eventually it’s going to come here,” added Norris. “It’s just a matter of time. They’re doing all this devastation in Europe now, and the next stepping stone is America and Canada. Being a free country, with the freedom of movement that we have, it’s an open door policy for terrorism. It’s like Khadafy said a few weeks ago. ‘If Reagan doesn’t back off, I’m going to release my killer squads in America.’ And there’s no doubt in my mind that he has them.”

  148. @AnonStarter
    @iffen

    I'm an orthodox Muslim fundamentalist imam with over thirty years experience as a practitioner of Islam. Outrage over the term "Judeo-Christian" isn't something I've seen much of in our communities, though I've noticed the appeal of it for those who desire to exclude Islam from American society. I also use biblical terminology when communicating both among People of the Book or those familiar with it. After all, those terms and the concepts they embody are part and parcel of one of the most significant influences upon western civilization.

    Nobody has to believe what's written in Scripture, but, since Jews, Christians, and Muslims all have mutually competing claims about the biblical narrative, it behooves any student of history and current events to attain clear comprehension of those claims. For some folks, the mere presentation of any alternative to their firmly held conviction elicits a knee-jerk "anti-(whatever religion they imagine they're defending)" accusation.

    That's a phenomenon transcending "wokeness," one that speaks to insecurity.

    Replies: @iffen

    Outrage over the term “Judeo-Christian” isn’t something I’ve seen much of in our communities, though I’ve noticed the appeal of it for those who desire to exclude Islam from American society.

    Well, the Woke don’t really care what Muslims think, they have their own agendas. I will pay closer attention to its use in the future to see how often its use is meant as a means to exclude Muslims. Maybe somebody needs to popularize the term Judeo-Islamic Values, or Judeo-Christian/Islam Values.

    I guess I spend too much time at Unz because most of the complaints that I see about its use seem to be politically motivated by some animus toward Jews.

    Anyway, GR partly answered my question here:

    It did matter, in the sense that it had prefigured the NT, was part of sacred history, and that Christians were now the new Israel and continuators of that history

    even though he likely wouldn’t agree with my reading of his comment.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @iffen

    When I hear woke people talk about Muslims, the impression I get is that they imagine people who are carbon copies of them underneath the funny prayer rituals and headscarves and other "exotic" things that make them exciting.

    (Irony is, Islam prides itself on being an explicitly universalist, race-agnostic religion: there are countries out there where the ideal falls short of practice of course, like Malaysia, but for the most part, this is something Muslims take a fair amount of pride in, from my experience. The de facto racialization of Islam by lefties who want to use it as a weapon against those guys with Sulla pics in their social media profiles or the rednecks is bizarre for anybody who understand the most basic facts about the faith.)

    This fits in well with the general woke attitude toward diversity. All the skin colors you can think of who happen to share the same set of schools and the same basic assumptions about the world. Those who love, love, love diversity of cuisine or color or other trivialities tend to want hive-thinking for the stuff that actually matters.

    Replies: @anon, @A123, @RSDB, @dfordoom, @AnonStarter

    , @anon
    @iffen

    Maybe somebody needs to popularize the term Judeo-Islamic Values, or Judeo-Christian/Islam Values.

    Those would be just as meaningless, and offensive to actual believers in the respective faiths.

    Suggest you pay attention to who uses "Judeo Christian", and where, and how. Does Ben Shapiro use it? If so, how? Does Dennis Prager use it? If so, how?

    Really, it is not really a term for communication, more for emotional manipulation. That's how 123 is attempting to use it. That's how it has been used for decades, to manipulate via emotions.

    , @RSDB
    @iffen


    It did matter, in the sense that it had prefigured the NT, was part of sacred history, and that Christians were now the new Israel and continuators of that history


     

    St Augustine is endlessly quoted saying in Vetere Novum lateat, et in Novo Vetus pateat, which is sometimes translated

    The New is in the old concealed,
    the Old is in the New revealed.
     
    and also: This grace hid itself under a veil in the Old Testament, but it has been revealed in the New Testament according to the most perfectly ordered dispensation of the ages.
    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen


    I guess I spend too much time at Unz because most of the complaints that I see about its use seem to be politically motivated by some animus toward Jews.
     
    Excepting maybe one or two commenters, I have seen little animus toward Jews in this blog.

    Now, one can guess what you might be thinking: “Then find a mirror, V. K.!” If so, though, I disagree.

    What you have is a situation where those of us who notice (or at any rate believe we notice) Jewish behavior are hardly permitted to comment about it online in any forum more mainstream than Unz. So this is where we end up.

    We might be mistaken, of course, but since the information needed to prove our mistake has been censored and we anti-Semites are just ordered to shut up (and since we are likely to be the targets of career destruction and lawfare merely for having the audacity to ask the question), it is rather difficult to show us our errors. Even the most well-meaning of us will commit many errors when left to operate in a milieu full of lies.

    On the other hand, it is trivial to find Jewish speech online, in print and in broadcast that is motivated by animus toward us. Such speech has been so ubiquitous so long it almost seems normal.

    Replies: @iffen, @A123

    , @AnonStarter
    @iffen

    Well, the Woke don’t really care what Muslims think, they have their own agendas.

    True.

    I will pay closer attention to its use in the future to see how often its use is meant as a means to exclude Muslims.

    It's been used by the likes of Robert Spencer and Pam Geller, activists openly engaged in an effort to stop the "Islamification" of America. Of course, they'll also tell us they have nothing against Muslims, they're all lovely people (once their faith has been neutralized). Off-hand, I also recall Ben Shapiro using it upon intimating that Muslims were behind the Notre Dame blaze.

    Maybe somebody needs to popularize the term Judeo-Islamic Values, or Judeo-Christian/Islam Values.

    Jonathan Sarna of Brandeis University has suggested as much.

    I guess I spend too much time at Unz because most of the complaints that I see about its use seem to be politically motivated by some animus toward Jews.

    Here, those grievances arise because many want to clearly distinguish Christianity from Judaism, which is understandable, though sometimes the rhetoric seems a little over the top.

    I think my own description of religious history appears that way to some. Fact is, I'm well aware that most Jews had nothing whatsoever to do with the machinations of the ancient Levites against whom Jeremiah and Isaiah apparently railed. Being unable to even touch the scrolls, how could they?

    We're going to have these profound differences of faith for a long time to come. In some cases, they'll precipitate enmity toward the out-group, but I find it difficult to believe that God's religion would warrant such a thing.

    Replies: @iffen, @German_reader

    , @songbird
    @iffen


    I guess I spend too much time at Unz because most of the complaints that I see about its use seem to be politically motivated by some animus toward Jews.
     
    What is the value proposition of the term for Christians? Being embroiled in Middle Eastern wars? Dropping the Gospels - the text that their ancestors used to swear sacred oaths on? Keeping the schools secularist?

    I don't think it takes antipathy to realize that it only has costs and not even the slightest benefit, for Christians. Jews and secularists might find it an attractive proposition though. Possibly, they would attribute resistance to the term as antipathy because that is the only framing that allows one to feel morally superior.

    I mean if you want Christians to act in contravention to the core traditions of their faith and ancestors, for the benefit of your own petty political vision, then framing it in your own prejudices might bruise the ego, in addition to not being very effective.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @dfordoom
    @iffen


    I guess I spend too much time at Unz because most of the complaints that I see about its use seem to be politically motivated by some animus toward Jews.
     
    There's no question that the hostility of the alt-right to the term "Judeo-Christian" is almost entirely driven by hatred of Jews.

    It's one of those situations in which you have two different groups pursuing two different agendas and both are equally wrong and destructive.

    Whenever you have two extreme opposed ideological views you do generally find that both are wrong and that the correct answer is to be found by taking the deeply unfashionable view that maybe there's something to be said for the moderate pragmatic centrist position.

    Replies: @iffen, @anon

  149. anon[330] • Disclaimer says:
    @A123
    @German_reader


    I thought it goes back to the 1940s/1950s, as part of the American nation-building process which saw Jews and Catholics being integrated into the American mainstream (which had previously been dominated by Protestants).
     
    Judeo-Christian was around before then, but it was not used very often. It was more a description about common traditions based on the shared Old Testament, including the Ten Commandments.

    The use of "Judeo-Christian Values" is popularised and unshakable due to Muslims senselessly butchering defenseless Infidels (Christians & Jews). It became very common after:
        • 1972 -- The Munich Olympics Massacre
        • 1983 -- The Beirut Airport Bombing
    Muslims dancing on the blood of Christians & Jews created an undeniable need for unity in the face of an existential threat to survival.

    Mutti Merkel's importation of Muslim Rape-ugees to the EU has made the phrase much more prevalent in Europe. As Infidels experience the horror of Islam, they come together to resist it.

    When Christian America is 100% Muslim free, and Christian Europe is 100% Muslim free, and Jewish Palestine is 100% Muslim free -- the existential threat will end. Until then, Judeo-Christian Values are unassailable, as they are a necessity for survival. There is no other way.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @songbird, @anon

    Judeo-Christian was around before then, but it was not used very often. It was more a description about common traditions based on the shared Old Testament, including the Ten Commandments.

    Please provide examples from the time period in question. Verifiable cites are required.

    The use of “Judeo-Christian Values” is popularised and unshakable due to Muslims senselessly butchering defenseless Infidels (Christians & Jews).

    Yet the Google Ngram shows it being used in the 1940’s. Please explain this anomaly.

    Muslims dancing on the blood of Christians & Jews created an undeniable need for unity in the face of an existential threat to survival.

    In other words, it is a propaganda term that has nothing to do with Christ.

    Mutti Merkel’s importation of Muslim Rape-ugees to the EU has made the phrase much more prevalent in Europe.

    Please provide examples of this “much more prevalent” in Europe. Google Ngram doesn’t agree/

    As Infidels experience the horror of Islam, they come together to resist it.
    When Christian America is 100% Muslim free, and Christian Europe is 100% Muslim free, and Jewish Palestine is 100% Muslim free — the existential threat will end.

    Hasbara in some form or another, no question. So “Christian” Zionist, or something else?

    Until then, Judeo-Christian Values are unassailable, as they are a necessity for survival.

    Nah.

    PEACE

    Hypocrite.

  150. @iffen
    @AnonStarter

    Outrage over the term “Judeo-Christian” isn’t something I’ve seen much of in our communities, though I’ve noticed the appeal of it for those who desire to exclude Islam from American society.

    Well, the Woke don't really care what Muslims think, they have their own agendas. I will pay closer attention to its use in the future to see how often its use is meant as a means to exclude Muslims. Maybe somebody needs to popularize the term Judeo-Islamic Values, or Judeo-Christian/Islam Values.

    I guess I spend too much time at Unz because most of the complaints that I see about its use seem to be politically motivated by some animus toward Jews.

    Anyway, GR partly answered my question here:

    It did matter, in the sense that it had prefigured the NT, was part of sacred history, and that Christians were now the new Israel and continuators of that history

    even though he likely wouldn't agree with my reading of his comment.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @anon, @RSDB, @V. K. Ovelund, @AnonStarter, @songbird, @dfordoom

    When I hear woke people talk about Muslims, the impression I get is that they imagine people who are carbon copies of them underneath the funny prayer rituals and headscarves and other “exotic” things that make them exciting.

    (Irony is, Islam prides itself on being an explicitly universalist, race-agnostic religion: there are countries out there where the ideal falls short of practice of course, like Malaysia, but for the most part, this is something Muslims take a fair amount of pride in, from my experience. The de facto racialization of Islam by lefties who want to use it as a weapon against those guys with Sulla pics in their social media profiles or the rednecks is bizarre for anybody who understand the most basic facts about the faith.)

    This fits in well with the general woke attitude toward diversity. All the skin colors you can think of who happen to share the same set of schools and the same basic assumptions about the world. Those who love, love, love diversity of cuisine or color or other trivialities tend to want hive-thinking for the stuff that actually matters.

    • Replies: @anon
    @nebulafox

    When I hear woke people talk about Muslims, the impression I get is that they imagine people who are carbon copies of them underneath the funny prayer rituals and headscarves and other “exotic” things that make them exciting.

    Yes. Because the Woke are true believers in the blank slate. All is nurture, nature is nothing. This false premise underpins everything else. They are incredibly hostile to facts that contradict these elements of faith. They also tend to regard other people as bit players in their private psychodramas. Woke are not well.

    The attitude towards Muslims is the same attitude Wokies have towards black people as well - just a different paint job, that's all. This requires the Woke to construct ever more elaborate excuses and justifications for certain actions, such as hanging homosexuals or the high black murder rate in the US. Because "everyone is the same under the skin" requires it; otherwise they have to discard a fundamental premise, and that collapses their entire world view.

    The Woke are like pre-Galilean astronomers who assume the Earth is the center of the universe; perpetually having to create yet more epicycles and epi-epicycles in order to account for planet movements.

    The answer is the same in both cases.

    Eppur Si Muove

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @RSDB

    , @A123
    @nebulafox


    When I hear woke people talk about Muslims, the impression I get is that they imagine people who are carbon copies of them underneath the funny prayer rituals and headscarves and other “exotic” things that make them exciting.
     
    At a practical level, SJW and Islam (in the U.S.) are indistinguishable. Rashid Tlaib and Ilhan Omar are the recognized thought leaders for Islam in in America. The Squad is the beating heart of the Progressive SJW Islamic Left.

    Can you name any GOP Muslim holding a significant office? No?

    You can find Woke-slam everywhere in American politics. Sorry if this is a repeat, but it is a useful sample:

    • Rashid Tlaib — Michigan, U.S. House
    • Andre Carson — Indiana, U.S. House
    • Keith Ellison (a.k.a. Hakim Muhammad) — Minnesota, AG
    • Mauree Turner — Oklahoma, State Legislature — Known for identifying as sexual “non-binary”
    • Zohran Kwame Mamdani — NY, State Assembly — Democratic Socialists of America
    • Iman Jodeh — Colorado, State Legislature
    • Madinah Wilson-Anton — Delaware, State Legislature — Policy analyst at the University of Delaware’s Biden Institute

    Mauree Turner is an especially powerful symbol as he/she/xe's embrace by Muslim thought leaders is an open proclamation that LGBT-slam is a real thing.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @AnonStarter

    , @RSDB
    @nebulafox


    When I hear woke people talk about Muslims, the impression I get is that they imagine people who are carbon copies of them underneath the funny prayer rituals and headscarves and other “exotic” things that make them exciting.


     

    Don't underestimate the extent to which that might become true: https://www.unz.com/akarlin/houellebecq-submission/ (scroll down a bit).

    On the other hand, I wouldn't overestimate it either; then again, on the gripping hand, America's best-known Muslim politician, with a considerable base of support in her own Somali community, is a woman who openly flouts Islamic law at the drop of a hat. I suppose it remains to be seen where things will go from here.

    , @dfordoom
    @nebulafox


    When I hear woke people talk about Muslims, the impression I get is that they imagine people who are carbon copies of them underneath the funny prayer rituals and headscarves and other “exotic” things that make them exciting.
     
    Yep. The Woke are convinced that Muslims are just desperate to turn themselves into environmentally friendly touchy-feely LGBT-loving liberals, eating their veggie burgers before hurrying off to celebrate a homosexual marriage.

    Those who love, love, love diversity of cuisine or color or other trivialities tend to want hive-thinking for the stuff that actually matters.
     
    Yep. It's sad but true that the ultimate aim of Diversity is to crush all actual diversity and create a single monolithic American culturally imperialist mono-culture.

    The Woke are in fact helping to create a neo-colonialist world. They're helping to create an empire that will be much more arrogant and exploitative and culturally insensitive and oppressive than the worst 19th century European colonial empires.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @AnonStarter
    @nebulafox

    Islam prides itself on being an explicitly universalist, race-agnostic religion

    From The Qur'an:


    O, you who keep faith! Be steadfast witnesses for God in equity, and let not hatred of any people seduce you that you deal not justly. Deal justly, that is nearer to your duty. Observe your duty to God. Surely, God is informed of what you do. [5:8]
     
    Here, the term used for "people" is qawm, as in an ethnic collective (e.g. tribe), though it could extend to religious groups as well. Note that presciption is not against xenophobia of itself, but rather, against inequity toward others.

    Birds of an ethnic feather generally flock together. In Islam, there is no prohibition against this kind of association, nor is there any against integrating an ethnic minority.
  151. anon[330] • Disclaimer says:
    @iffen
    @AnonStarter

    Outrage over the term “Judeo-Christian” isn’t something I’ve seen much of in our communities, though I’ve noticed the appeal of it for those who desire to exclude Islam from American society.

    Well, the Woke don't really care what Muslims think, they have their own agendas. I will pay closer attention to its use in the future to see how often its use is meant as a means to exclude Muslims. Maybe somebody needs to popularize the term Judeo-Islamic Values, or Judeo-Christian/Islam Values.

    I guess I spend too much time at Unz because most of the complaints that I see about its use seem to be politically motivated by some animus toward Jews.

    Anyway, GR partly answered my question here:

    It did matter, in the sense that it had prefigured the NT, was part of sacred history, and that Christians were now the new Israel and continuators of that history

    even though he likely wouldn't agree with my reading of his comment.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @anon, @RSDB, @V. K. Ovelund, @AnonStarter, @songbird, @dfordoom

    Maybe somebody needs to popularize the term Judeo-Islamic Values, or Judeo-Christian/Islam Values.

    Those would be just as meaningless, and offensive to actual believers in the respective faiths.

    Suggest you pay attention to who uses “Judeo Christian”, and where, and how. Does Ben Shapiro use it? If so, how? Does Dennis Prager use it? If so, how?

    Really, it is not really a term for communication, more for emotional manipulation. That’s how 123 is attempting to use it. That’s how it has been used for decades, to manipulate via emotions.

  152. @iffen
    @AnonStarter

    Outrage over the term “Judeo-Christian” isn’t something I’ve seen much of in our communities, though I’ve noticed the appeal of it for those who desire to exclude Islam from American society.

    Well, the Woke don't really care what Muslims think, they have their own agendas. I will pay closer attention to its use in the future to see how often its use is meant as a means to exclude Muslims. Maybe somebody needs to popularize the term Judeo-Islamic Values, or Judeo-Christian/Islam Values.

    I guess I spend too much time at Unz because most of the complaints that I see about its use seem to be politically motivated by some animus toward Jews.

    Anyway, GR partly answered my question here:

    It did matter, in the sense that it had prefigured the NT, was part of sacred history, and that Christians were now the new Israel and continuators of that history

    even though he likely wouldn't agree with my reading of his comment.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @anon, @RSDB, @V. K. Ovelund, @AnonStarter, @songbird, @dfordoom

    It did matter, in the sense that it had prefigured the NT, was part of sacred history, and that Christians were now the new Israel and continuators of that history

    St Augustine is endlessly quoted saying in Vetere Novum lateat, et in Novo Vetus pateat, which is sometimes translated

    The New is in the old concealed,
    the Old is in the New revealed.

    and also: This grace hid itself under a veil in the Old Testament, but it has been revealed in the New Testament according to the most perfectly ordered dispensation of the ages.

    • Thanks: iffen
  153. anon[232] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox
    @iffen

    When I hear woke people talk about Muslims, the impression I get is that they imagine people who are carbon copies of them underneath the funny prayer rituals and headscarves and other "exotic" things that make them exciting.

    (Irony is, Islam prides itself on being an explicitly universalist, race-agnostic religion: there are countries out there where the ideal falls short of practice of course, like Malaysia, but for the most part, this is something Muslims take a fair amount of pride in, from my experience. The de facto racialization of Islam by lefties who want to use it as a weapon against those guys with Sulla pics in their social media profiles or the rednecks is bizarre for anybody who understand the most basic facts about the faith.)

    This fits in well with the general woke attitude toward diversity. All the skin colors you can think of who happen to share the same set of schools and the same basic assumptions about the world. Those who love, love, love diversity of cuisine or color or other trivialities tend to want hive-thinking for the stuff that actually matters.

    Replies: @anon, @A123, @RSDB, @dfordoom, @AnonStarter

    When I hear woke people talk about Muslims, the impression I get is that they imagine people who are carbon copies of them underneath the funny prayer rituals and headscarves and other “exotic” things that make them exciting.

    Yes. Because the Woke are true believers in the blank slate. All is nurture, nature is nothing. This false premise underpins everything else. They are incredibly hostile to facts that contradict these elements of faith. They also tend to regard other people as bit players in their private psychodramas. Woke are not well.

    The attitude towards Muslims is the same attitude Wokies have towards black people as well – just a different paint job, that’s all. This requires the Woke to construct ever more elaborate excuses and justifications for certain actions, such as hanging homosexuals or the high black murder rate in the US. Because “everyone is the same under the skin” requires it; otherwise they have to discard a fundamental premise, and that collapses their entire world view.

    The Woke are like pre-Galilean astronomers who assume the Earth is the center of the universe; perpetually having to create yet more epicycles and epi-epicycles in order to account for planet movements.

    The answer is the same in both cases.

    Eppur Si Muove

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @anon

    Your comment is excellent. It's too good for an @anon. Would you consider making up a Handle and employing it so that interested readers can track your future comments at The Unz Review?

    , @RSDB
    @anon


    The Woke are like pre-Galilean astronomers who assume the Earth is the center of the universe; perpetually having to create yet more epicycles and epi-epicycles in order to account for planet movements.

     

    Galileo supported the Copernican model, which had plenty of epicycles of its own; given that Kepler's work was already known there is really no good reason for this.

    Sorry, you have made an interesting comment; I just couldn't resist.

    Anyway, with reference to handles-- I, too, used to post under "Anon". There are pros and cons to doing so; one negative is that discussions become partly about personalities, in harmony or in conflict, which can be a pain. On the other hand there is some upside to that as well.

    Replies: @RSDB

  154. German_reader says:
    @V. K. Ovelund
    @German_reader

    May I ask you a question without pulling you afoul of your country's speech law? (If the answer is no, please just say so, and I'll drop it.)

    Alt-Rightists including me conjecture that what Jews are doing to gentiles in the United States in the 2010s and 2020s resembles, in significant ways, what Jews were doing to gentiles in Germany in the 1910s and 1920s. However, it is extremely difficult to find reliable references on the subject: almost every available source either is Holocaust-related agitprop or relies upon Holocaust-related agitprop.

    Unless you are over 100 years of age, you have no direct personal knowledge of that, of course; but perhaps you had older relatives who spoke of such things in camera in your presence when you were a child. Anyway, if your anonymity is sufficiently secure, then would you care to comment?

    I am not fishing for agreement. I do not even ask you to accept my premise. (Why would you accept it? I am not even German. Besides, my premise is obviously a crude, gross overapproximation, at best.) I would merely like to read whatever you chose to write in response—for the response of an ordinary German like you, even a pseudonymous German, is more believable than is the nonsense that comes out of a bookshelf full of Lügenbücher.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @German_reader

    but perhaps you had older relatives who spoke of such things in camera in your presence when you were a child.

    No, not in your sense. They did mention the persecution of the Jews during the Nazi era and what they had seen of it, but didn’t try to justify it. Obviously I can’t know for sure what they thought or did at the time, and they’re all dead now anyway.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  155. @nebulafox
    @iffen

    When I hear woke people talk about Muslims, the impression I get is that they imagine people who are carbon copies of them underneath the funny prayer rituals and headscarves and other "exotic" things that make them exciting.

    (Irony is, Islam prides itself on being an explicitly universalist, race-agnostic religion: there are countries out there where the ideal falls short of practice of course, like Malaysia, but for the most part, this is something Muslims take a fair amount of pride in, from my experience. The de facto racialization of Islam by lefties who want to use it as a weapon against those guys with Sulla pics in their social media profiles or the rednecks is bizarre for anybody who understand the most basic facts about the faith.)

    This fits in well with the general woke attitude toward diversity. All the skin colors you can think of who happen to share the same set of schools and the same basic assumptions about the world. Those who love, love, love diversity of cuisine or color or other trivialities tend to want hive-thinking for the stuff that actually matters.

    Replies: @anon, @A123, @RSDB, @dfordoom, @AnonStarter

    When I hear woke people talk about Muslims, the impression I get is that they imagine people who are carbon copies of them underneath the funny prayer rituals and headscarves and other “exotic” things that make them exciting.

    At a practical level, SJW and Islam (in the U.S.) are indistinguishable. Rashid Tlaib and Ilhan Omar are the recognized thought leaders for Islam in in America. The Squad is the beating heart of the Progressive SJW Islamic Left.

    Can you name any GOP Muslim holding a significant office? No?

    You can find Woke-slam everywhere in American politics. Sorry if this is a repeat, but it is a useful sample:

    • Rashid Tlaib — Michigan, U.S. House
    • Andre Carson — Indiana, U.S. House
    • Keith Ellison (a.k.a. Hakim Muhammad) — Minnesota, AG
    • Mauree Turner — Oklahoma, State Legislature — Known for identifying as sexual “non-binary”
    • Zohran Kwame Mamdani — NY, State Assembly — Democratic Socialists of America
    • Iman Jodeh — Colorado, State Legislature
    • Madinah Wilson-Anton — Delaware, State Legislature — Policy analyst at the University of Delaware’s Biden Institute

    Mauree Turner is an especially powerful symbol as he/she/xe’s embrace by Muslim thought leaders is an open proclamation that LGBT-slam is a real thing.

    PEACE 😇

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @AnonStarter
    @A123

    Can you name any GOP Muslim holding a significant office?

    All depends on what you mean by "significant office."

    Would Vice Chairman of a county GOP qualify as significant? On the local level, it certainly would. Just two years back, in Tarrant County, Texas, Republicans attempted to remove a Muslim from this position strictly on the basis of his religion:

    https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2019/01/11/tarrant-county-gop-votes-to-retain-muslim-vice-chair-following-months-of-controversy/

    I give credit to the local Republicans who overwhelmingly threw their support behind Dr. Shafi, though, as the local party chairman said, "Regardless of whether he's removed or not, we've got a long-lasting label ... Just the fact that there was a movement to remove him is embarrassing." That kind of controversy is the likely reason you'll find today's voting Muslims inclining toward the DP (in spite of the fact that the Muslim vote likely decided Florida in favor of Bush in 2000).

    Too bad, actually. Back in 2008, one of the last voting cycles in which I participated, I was a registered Republican. (I'm registered with neither party now.) I was right there at the local caucus, engaged in deliberation over the party's support for the "war on terror." (We successfully got that part of platform amended, thank God, and many locals -- most of whom supported Ron Paul -- were grateful for it.)

    In my opinion, traditional republicanism is a natural fit for Muslim Americans. Family-oriented, socially conservative, minimal federal oversight, low taxation, substantive currency, meritocratic ...

    But the Republican Party no longer represents these principles, just as Democrats no longer represent working-class folks or minorities except as useful idiots telling a tale of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  156. utu says:
    @dfordoom
    @utu


    “a sensible anti-Semit[ism]” – should be a default position which should come naturally from the fact that we are not them as they are not us.
     
    Recognising that "we are not them as they are not us" is hardly anti-semitism. It's simply a realistic recognition of cultural differences. You can recognise cultural differences without having any dislike of other cultures or of people from other cultures. My attitude towards Buddhists is that they're not the same as me, they have their own obsessions and agendas and cultural attitudes. My feelings towards Buddhists are entirely neutral. I'm happy to respect their cultural different-ness. Live and let live. I don't see why we can't regard Jews in the same way.

    At the same time we should be tolerant and protect Jews and not interfere in their Jewishness while encouraging their assimilation and abandoning of their self-chosen otherness and hostility to us.
     
    I agree with the first part of your statement. As for assimilation, it depends on what you mean by that term. If you simply mean that we should encourage them to respect our culture then I agree. And yeah, encouraging them not to be hostile to us would be fine (of course that would require not being hostile to their culture). But I don't like the idea of encouraging other people to abandon their own cultures.

    Replies: @utu

    “Recognising that “we are not them as they are not us” is hardly anti-semitism.” – Actually it is in the eyes of Jews who do not practice the dictum “what is good for the gander is good for the goose.” But perhaps we should rephrase V. K. Ovelund’s “sensible anti-Semit[ism]” to something like “Judeo realism” to move away form the territory of invectives that Jews use.

    “I don’t see why we can’t regard Jews in the same [as Buddhists] way.” – Because Jews are not Buddhists.

    “But I don’t like the idea of encouraging other people to abandon their own cultures.” – You may not like it but you may have to do it because “the other people” have no problem doing what you do not like.

  157. @nebulafox
    @iffen

    When I hear woke people talk about Muslims, the impression I get is that they imagine people who are carbon copies of them underneath the funny prayer rituals and headscarves and other "exotic" things that make them exciting.

    (Irony is, Islam prides itself on being an explicitly universalist, race-agnostic religion: there are countries out there where the ideal falls short of practice of course, like Malaysia, but for the most part, this is something Muslims take a fair amount of pride in, from my experience. The de facto racialization of Islam by lefties who want to use it as a weapon against those guys with Sulla pics in their social media profiles or the rednecks is bizarre for anybody who understand the most basic facts about the faith.)

    This fits in well with the general woke attitude toward diversity. All the skin colors you can think of who happen to share the same set of schools and the same basic assumptions about the world. Those who love, love, love diversity of cuisine or color or other trivialities tend to want hive-thinking for the stuff that actually matters.

    Replies: @anon, @A123, @RSDB, @dfordoom, @AnonStarter

    When I hear woke people talk about Muslims, the impression I get is that they imagine people who are carbon copies of them underneath the funny prayer rituals and headscarves and other “exotic” things that make them exciting.

    Don’t underestimate the extent to which that might become true: https://www.unz.com/akarlin/houellebecq-submission/ (scroll down a bit).

    On the other hand, I wouldn’t overestimate it either; then again, on the gripping hand, America’s best-known Muslim politician, with a considerable base of support in her own Somali community, is a woman who openly flouts Islamic law at the drop of a hat. I suppose it remains to be seen where things will go from here.

  158. utu says:
    @German_reader
    @utu


    Keep in mind that nobody was really reading Old Testament until 16th century.
     
    That's not true like you seem to imagine. The "ideology" of early medieval realms was replete with OT references. King David was an important model for Christian rulers (already so with the Byzantine emperor Heraclius in the 7th century, also prominent with Carolingians and other Western rulers). The entire rite of royal anointment which became standard for most Western kings is obviously inspired by OT models, and to some extent this was at times linked to a kind of "chosen people" idea (Franks, Saxons etc. as the people now favoured by God, the new Israel).
    If you read medieval texts (say something like the Church reformers of the 11th century, Humbert of Silva Candida or some other pro-papacy hardliner, who can't be accused of being a proto-Protestant), they're full of references to the OT and its stories. Obviously their interpretation was frequently contested and the typological way they were read would strike most people today as pretty strange. But the OT was definitely important for medieval Christians. Markion lost after all.

    Replies: @German_reader, @utu

    The few kings in early Christianity who took the name of David and the illustrations from the liturgical codex that alludes to Moses that you posted (thanks!) still do not support the statement that in the “post-Roman states in Europe” Christians “viewed themselves as the new Israel.” It was just impossible before Protestantism and its doctrine of predestination that opened the door for the Judaic concept of collective chosenness. Jesus came for all people and becoming a Christian was an individual choice even if some conversions were done under pressure under orders of rulers or conquerors. Every pagan out there was a potential Christian.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @utu


    and becoming a Christian was an individual choice
     
    Not really, conversion frequently was a top-down affair (which doesn't mean that it was an especially violent process or involved lots of force, but missionaries in the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, among the Slavs, in Scandinavia etc. tried to win the support of kings and princes, whose followers and subjects then would also convert).

    Every pagan out there was a potential Christian.
     
    Sure, but Judaism hadn't been totally closed in antiquity either, there was some proselytism (and during the times of the last Jewish kingdom even forced conversions, iirc Herodes came from such a background).
    And that Christians viewed themselves as the new Israel under a new covenant would seem to be pretty uncontroversial to me. That this was sometimes applied to specific peoples, is of course a somewhat distinct phenomenon, you might see it as a perversion detracting from Christian universalism.
    , @anon
    @utu

    It was just impossible before Protestantism and its doctrine of predestination that opened the door for the Judaic concept of collective chosenness.

    Not all Protestants accept the doctrine of predestination. Some strongly reject it. Therefore this statement is without meaning.

    It is not possible to discuss European Christianity over the last 450 years without understanding how and why post-Westphalian Europe was different from Carolingian Europe. Unfortunately history is not generally taught or learned now.

    Plus...Moldbuggery...smh.

  159. @AnonStarter
    @utu

    What you saying about what presumably is inherent in Christians doctrine is a much later construct that would be completely incomprehensible to Christians 1000 or so years ago.

    How could the conviction of being God's true vicegerents be incomprehensible to Christians at any time in their history? Christians held that they, not Jews, were the genuine elect of God. That's not entertaining any "fantasy to become Jews," though it does evince assimilation of a comparable religious exclusivity.

    The laity's lack of access to the Pentateuch and Psalms wouldn't have made any difference, since they still received instruction from a literate priesthood who, at a minimum, had some familiarity with them. They had to be, since that text provided ostensible justification for their entire religion. Otherwise, why bother to incorporate it into the canon?

    Replies: @utu

    Aren’t you supposed to be a Muslim? I do not think this is your fight. What are you doing here on the neoconish and Islamophobic end of the UR spectrum?

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
    @utu

    I do not think this is your fight.

    What "fight" are you talking about? I'm simply having a conversation.

    Replies: @iffen, @utu

    , @RSDB
    @utu

    I don't think I would describe this part of the UR comment boards in precisely that way, though it is more American than many other sections, which may leave a certain impression on readers. It is a relatively calm backwater of this website and there is not the same degree of entertaining craziness that Mr. Karlin's blog/salon used to have (and probably still does).

    I don't know of any part of this website that could be reasonably called "neoconnish" but Mr. Sailer's section is probably the closest to that description.

  160. German_reader says:
    @utu
    @German_reader

    The few kings in early Christianity who took the name of David and the illustrations from the liturgical codex that alludes to Moses that you posted (thanks!) still do not support the statement that in the “post-Roman states in Europe” Christians “viewed themselves as the new Israel.” It was just impossible before Protestantism and its doctrine of predestination that opened the door for the Judaic concept of collective chosenness. Jesus came for all people and becoming a Christian was an individual choice even if some conversions were done under pressure under orders of rulers or conquerors. Every pagan out there was a potential Christian.

    Replies: @German_reader, @anon

    and becoming a Christian was an individual choice

    Not really, conversion frequently was a top-down affair (which doesn’t mean that it was an especially violent process or involved lots of force, but missionaries in the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, among the Slavs, in Scandinavia etc. tried to win the support of kings and princes, whose followers and subjects then would also convert).

    Every pagan out there was a potential Christian.

    Sure, but Judaism hadn’t been totally closed in antiquity either, there was some proselytism (and during the times of the last Jewish kingdom even forced conversions, iirc Herodes came from such a background).
    And that Christians viewed themselves as the new Israel under a new covenant would seem to be pretty uncontroversial to me. That this was sometimes applied to specific peoples, is of course a somewhat distinct phenomenon, you might see it as a perversion detracting from Christian universalism.

  161. @iffen
    @AnonStarter

    Outrage over the term “Judeo-Christian” isn’t something I’ve seen much of in our communities, though I’ve noticed the appeal of it for those who desire to exclude Islam from American society.

    Well, the Woke don't really care what Muslims think, they have their own agendas. I will pay closer attention to its use in the future to see how often its use is meant as a means to exclude Muslims. Maybe somebody needs to popularize the term Judeo-Islamic Values, or Judeo-Christian/Islam Values.

    I guess I spend too much time at Unz because most of the complaints that I see about its use seem to be politically motivated by some animus toward Jews.

    Anyway, GR partly answered my question here:

    It did matter, in the sense that it had prefigured the NT, was part of sacred history, and that Christians were now the new Israel and continuators of that history

    even though he likely wouldn't agree with my reading of his comment.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @anon, @RSDB, @V. K. Ovelund, @AnonStarter, @songbird, @dfordoom

    I guess I spend too much time at Unz because most of the complaints that I see about its use seem to be politically motivated by some animus toward Jews.

    Excepting maybe one or two commenters, I have seen little animus toward Jews in this blog.

    Now, one can guess what you might be thinking: “Then find a mirror, V. K.!” If so, though, I disagree.

    What you have is a situation where those of us who notice (or at any rate believe we notice) Jewish behavior are hardly permitted to comment about it online in any forum more mainstream than Unz. So this is where we end up.

    We might be mistaken, of course, but since the information needed to prove our mistake has been censored and we anti-Semites are just ordered to shut up (and since we are likely to be the targets of career destruction and lawfare merely for having the audacity to ask the question), it is rather difficult to show us our errors. Even the most well-meaning of us will commit many errors when left to operate in a milieu full of lies.

    On the other hand, it is trivial to find Jewish speech online, in print and in broadcast that is motivated by animus toward us. Such speech has been so ubiquitous so long it almost seems normal.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Excepting maybe one or two commenters, I have seen little animus toward Jews in this blog.

    Best one liner of the year, nay, decade.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Now, one can guess what you might be thinking: “Then find a mirror, V. K.!” If so, though, I disagree.

    What you have is a situation where those of us who notice (or at any rate believe we notice) Jewish behavior are hardly permitted to comment about it online in any forum more mainstream than Unz. So this is where we end up.
     
    I keep hoping that the problem is your unintentional misuse of the English language.

    You repeatedly denigrate the behaviour of ALL JEWS and then try to justify you position based on a tiny minority of Elites who happen to have Jewish sounding last names.

    If you want to specifically call out a subgroup of SOME JEWS not ALL JEWS, please use the English language correctly. You will be happier. I will be happier. You will communicate more effectively. It really is a WIN-WIN.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @iffen

  162. @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen


    I guess I spend too much time at Unz because most of the complaints that I see about its use seem to be politically motivated by some animus toward Jews.
     
    Excepting maybe one or two commenters, I have seen little animus toward Jews in this blog.

    Now, one can guess what you might be thinking: “Then find a mirror, V. K.!” If so, though, I disagree.

    What you have is a situation where those of us who notice (or at any rate believe we notice) Jewish behavior are hardly permitted to comment about it online in any forum more mainstream than Unz. So this is where we end up.

    We might be mistaken, of course, but since the information needed to prove our mistake has been censored and we anti-Semites are just ordered to shut up (and since we are likely to be the targets of career destruction and lawfare merely for having the audacity to ask the question), it is rather difficult to show us our errors. Even the most well-meaning of us will commit many errors when left to operate in a milieu full of lies.

    On the other hand, it is trivial to find Jewish speech online, in print and in broadcast that is motivated by animus toward us. Such speech has been so ubiquitous so long it almost seems normal.

    Replies: @iffen, @A123

    Excepting maybe one or two commenters, I have seen little animus toward Jews in this blog.

    Best one liner of the year, nay, decade.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen


    Best one liner of the year, nay, decade.
     
    Decade? Decade!? Why, I've been working on that line since 1954.
  163. @iffen
    @AnonStarter

    Outrage over the term “Judeo-Christian” isn’t something I’ve seen much of in our communities, though I’ve noticed the appeal of it for those who desire to exclude Islam from American society.

    Well, the Woke don't really care what Muslims think, they have their own agendas. I will pay closer attention to its use in the future to see how often its use is meant as a means to exclude Muslims. Maybe somebody needs to popularize the term Judeo-Islamic Values, or Judeo-Christian/Islam Values.

    I guess I spend too much time at Unz because most of the complaints that I see about its use seem to be politically motivated by some animus toward Jews.

    Anyway, GR partly answered my question here:

    It did matter, in the sense that it had prefigured the NT, was part of sacred history, and that Christians were now the new Israel and continuators of that history

    even though he likely wouldn't agree with my reading of his comment.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @anon, @RSDB, @V. K. Ovelund, @AnonStarter, @songbird, @dfordoom

    Well, the Woke don’t really care what Muslims think, they have their own agendas.

    True.

    I will pay closer attention to its use in the future to see how often its use is meant as a means to exclude Muslims.

    It’s been used by the likes of Robert Spencer and Pam Geller, activists openly engaged in an effort to stop the “Islamification” of America. Of course, they’ll also tell us they have nothing against Muslims, they’re all lovely people (once their faith has been neutralized). Off-hand, I also recall Ben Shapiro using it upon intimating that Muslims were behind the Notre Dame blaze.

    Maybe somebody needs to popularize the term Judeo-Islamic Values, or Judeo-Christian/Islam Values.

    Jonathan Sarna of Brandeis University has suggested as much.

    I guess I spend too much time at Unz because most of the complaints that I see about its use seem to be politically motivated by some animus toward Jews.

    Here, those grievances arise because many want to clearly distinguish Christianity from Judaism, which is understandable, though sometimes the rhetoric seems a little over the top.

    I think my own description of religious history appears that way to some. Fact is, I’m well aware that most Jews had nothing whatsoever to do with the machinations of the ancient Levites against whom Jeremiah and Isaiah apparently railed. Being unable to even touch the scrolls, how could they?

    We’re going to have these profound differences of faith for a long time to come. In some cases, they’ll precipitate enmity toward the out-group, but I find it difficult to believe that God’s religion would warrant such a thing.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @AnonStarter

    which is understandable

    Why do you say that it is understandable?

    Replies: @AnonStarter

    , @German_reader
    @AnonStarter


    most Jews had nothing whatsoever to do with the machinations of the ancient Levites against whom Jeremiah and Isaiah apparently railed. Being unable to even touch the scrolls, how could they?
     
    What does this refer to? Do you mean the levites corrupted God's true precepts (which had to be rectified later through the revelation sent to God's messenger Mohammed)?

    Replies: @AnonStarter

  164. @utu
    @AnonStarter

    Aren't you supposed to be a Muslim? I do not think this is your fight. What are you doing here on the neoconish and Islamophobic end of the UR spectrum?

    Replies: @AnonStarter, @RSDB

    I do not think this is your fight.

    What “fight” are you talking about? I’m simply having a conversation.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @AnonStarter

    I’m simply having a conversation.

    Are you working overtime since Talha doesn't seem to be around anymore?

    Replies: @AnonStarter

    , @utu
    @AnonStarter

    "I’m simply having a conversation." - I understand but are you oblivious to the fact that you are in the neoconish and Islamophobic environment? All conversations here are political.

    Replies: @AnonStarter

  165. @AnonStarter
    @iffen

    Well, the Woke don’t really care what Muslims think, they have their own agendas.

    True.

    I will pay closer attention to its use in the future to see how often its use is meant as a means to exclude Muslims.

    It's been used by the likes of Robert Spencer and Pam Geller, activists openly engaged in an effort to stop the "Islamification" of America. Of course, they'll also tell us they have nothing against Muslims, they're all lovely people (once their faith has been neutralized). Off-hand, I also recall Ben Shapiro using it upon intimating that Muslims were behind the Notre Dame blaze.

    Maybe somebody needs to popularize the term Judeo-Islamic Values, or Judeo-Christian/Islam Values.

    Jonathan Sarna of Brandeis University has suggested as much.

    I guess I spend too much time at Unz because most of the complaints that I see about its use seem to be politically motivated by some animus toward Jews.

    Here, those grievances arise because many want to clearly distinguish Christianity from Judaism, which is understandable, though sometimes the rhetoric seems a little over the top.

    I think my own description of religious history appears that way to some. Fact is, I'm well aware that most Jews had nothing whatsoever to do with the machinations of the ancient Levites against whom Jeremiah and Isaiah apparently railed. Being unable to even touch the scrolls, how could they?

    We're going to have these profound differences of faith for a long time to come. In some cases, they'll precipitate enmity toward the out-group, but I find it difficult to believe that God's religion would warrant such a thing.

    Replies: @iffen, @German_reader

    which is understandable

    Why do you say that it is understandable?

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
    @iffen

    Why do you say that it is understandable?

    Why shouldn't a Christian want to distinguish his faith from Judaism?

    Replies: @iffen

  166. @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Excepting maybe one or two commenters, I have seen little animus toward Jews in this blog.

    Best one liner of the year, nay, decade.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Best one liner of the year, nay, decade.

    Decade? Decade!? Why, I’ve been working on that line since 1954.

  167. German_reader says:
    @AnonStarter
    @iffen

    Well, the Woke don’t really care what Muslims think, they have their own agendas.

    True.

    I will pay closer attention to its use in the future to see how often its use is meant as a means to exclude Muslims.

    It's been used by the likes of Robert Spencer and Pam Geller, activists openly engaged in an effort to stop the "Islamification" of America. Of course, they'll also tell us they have nothing against Muslims, they're all lovely people (once their faith has been neutralized). Off-hand, I also recall Ben Shapiro using it upon intimating that Muslims were behind the Notre Dame blaze.

    Maybe somebody needs to popularize the term Judeo-Islamic Values, or Judeo-Christian/Islam Values.

    Jonathan Sarna of Brandeis University has suggested as much.

    I guess I spend too much time at Unz because most of the complaints that I see about its use seem to be politically motivated by some animus toward Jews.

    Here, those grievances arise because many want to clearly distinguish Christianity from Judaism, which is understandable, though sometimes the rhetoric seems a little over the top.

    I think my own description of religious history appears that way to some. Fact is, I'm well aware that most Jews had nothing whatsoever to do with the machinations of the ancient Levites against whom Jeremiah and Isaiah apparently railed. Being unable to even touch the scrolls, how could they?

    We're going to have these profound differences of faith for a long time to come. In some cases, they'll precipitate enmity toward the out-group, but I find it difficult to believe that God's religion would warrant such a thing.

    Replies: @iffen, @German_reader

    most Jews had nothing whatsoever to do with the machinations of the ancient Levites against whom Jeremiah and Isaiah apparently railed. Being unable to even touch the scrolls, how could they?

    What does this refer to? Do you mean the levites corrupted God’s true precepts (which had to be rectified later through the revelation sent to God’s messenger Mohammed)?

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
    @German_reader

    What does this refer to?


    How do you say 'We are wise and the Law of the Lord is with us'? Surely the lying pens of the scribes have turned it into The Lie. ~ Jeremiah 8:8

    Therefore hear the Word of the Lord, you scoffers who rule this people in Jerusalem: Because you have said, "We have made a covenant with death, and with Sheol we have an agreement, when the overwhelming whip passes through it will not come to us, for we have made lies our refuge, and in falsehood we have taken shelter." ~ Isaiah 28:14-15
     
    Both refer to the Levitical class entrusted with preservation of the written record of Scripture, a record that was "reconstructed" by Ezra following Nebuchadnezzar's destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish exile in Babylon, where Hebrew was outlawed.
  168. @AnonStarter
    @utu

    I do not think this is your fight.

    What "fight" are you talking about? I'm simply having a conversation.

    Replies: @iffen, @utu

    I’m simply having a conversation.

    Are you working overtime since Talha doesn’t seem to be around anymore?

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
    @iffen

    Are you working overtime since Talha doesn’t seem to be around anymore?

    This is work?

  169. @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen


    I guess I spend too much time at Unz because most of the complaints that I see about its use seem to be politically motivated by some animus toward Jews.
     
    Excepting maybe one or two commenters, I have seen little animus toward Jews in this blog.

    Now, one can guess what you might be thinking: “Then find a mirror, V. K.!” If so, though, I disagree.

    What you have is a situation where those of us who notice (or at any rate believe we notice) Jewish behavior are hardly permitted to comment about it online in any forum more mainstream than Unz. So this is where we end up.

    We might be mistaken, of course, but since the information needed to prove our mistake has been censored and we anti-Semites are just ordered to shut up (and since we are likely to be the targets of career destruction and lawfare merely for having the audacity to ask the question), it is rather difficult to show us our errors. Even the most well-meaning of us will commit many errors when left to operate in a milieu full of lies.

    On the other hand, it is trivial to find Jewish speech online, in print and in broadcast that is motivated by animus toward us. Such speech has been so ubiquitous so long it almost seems normal.

    Replies: @iffen, @A123

    Now, one can guess what you might be thinking: “Then find a mirror, V. K.!” If so, though, I disagree.

    What you have is a situation where those of us who notice (or at any rate believe we notice) Jewish behavior are hardly permitted to comment about it online in any forum more mainstream than Unz. So this is where we end up.

    I keep hoping that the problem is your unintentional misuse of the English language.

    You repeatedly denigrate the behaviour of ALL JEWS and then try to justify you position based on a tiny minority of Elites who happen to have Jewish sounding last names.

    If you want to specifically call out a subgroup of SOME JEWS not ALL JEWS, please use the English language correctly. You will be happier. I will be happier. You will communicate more effectively. It really is a WIN-WIN.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @iffen
    @A123

    You will communicate more effectively.

    Everyone but you seems to know exactly what he is saying. Let's go Occam and say that maybe the communication problem is yours.

  170. @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Now, one can guess what you might be thinking: “Then find a mirror, V. K.!” If so, though, I disagree.

    What you have is a situation where those of us who notice (or at any rate believe we notice) Jewish behavior are hardly permitted to comment about it online in any forum more mainstream than Unz. So this is where we end up.
     
    I keep hoping that the problem is your unintentional misuse of the English language.

    You repeatedly denigrate the behaviour of ALL JEWS and then try to justify you position based on a tiny minority of Elites who happen to have Jewish sounding last names.

    If you want to specifically call out a subgroup of SOME JEWS not ALL JEWS, please use the English language correctly. You will be happier. I will be happier. You will communicate more effectively. It really is a WIN-WIN.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @iffen

    You will communicate more effectively.

    Everyone but you seems to know exactly what he is saying. Let’s go Occam and say that maybe the communication problem is yours.

  171. @iffen
    @AnonStarter

    Outrage over the term “Judeo-Christian” isn’t something I’ve seen much of in our communities, though I’ve noticed the appeal of it for those who desire to exclude Islam from American society.

    Well, the Woke don't really care what Muslims think, they have their own agendas. I will pay closer attention to its use in the future to see how often its use is meant as a means to exclude Muslims. Maybe somebody needs to popularize the term Judeo-Islamic Values, or Judeo-Christian/Islam Values.

    I guess I spend too much time at Unz because most of the complaints that I see about its use seem to be politically motivated by some animus toward Jews.

    Anyway, GR partly answered my question here:

    It did matter, in the sense that it had prefigured the NT, was part of sacred history, and that Christians were now the new Israel and continuators of that history

    even though he likely wouldn't agree with my reading of his comment.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @anon, @RSDB, @V. K. Ovelund, @AnonStarter, @songbird, @dfordoom

    I guess I spend too much time at Unz because most of the complaints that I see about its use seem to be politically motivated by some animus toward Jews.

    What is the value proposition of the term for Christians? Being embroiled in Middle Eastern wars? Dropping the Gospels – the text that their ancestors used to swear sacred oaths on? Keeping the schools secularist?

    I don’t think it takes antipathy to realize that it only has costs and not even the slightest benefit, for Christians. Jews and secularists might find it an attractive proposition though. Possibly, they would attribute resistance to the term as antipathy because that is the only framing that allows one to feel morally superior.

    I mean if you want Christians to act in contravention to the core traditions of their faith and ancestors, for the benefit of your own petty political vision, then framing it in your own prejudices might bruise the ego, in addition to not being very effective.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @songbird


    I don’t think it takes antipathy to realize that it only has costs and not even the slightest benefit, for Christians. Jews and secularists might find it an attractive proposition though.
     
    Im a secularist and I can't see any benefit at all in the term Judeo-Christian. In fact the way it's often used implies that western civilisation is and always has been and always will be Judeo-Christian. I find that ridiculous and offensive.

    I think the term Judeo-Christian is offensive to everyone except neocons and Christian Zionists.

    Replies: @songbird

  172. @AnonStarter
    @utu

    I do not think this is your fight.

    What "fight" are you talking about? I'm simply having a conversation.

    Replies: @iffen, @utu

    “I’m simply having a conversation.” – I understand but are you oblivious to the fact that you are in the neoconish and Islamophobic environment? All conversations here are political.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
    @utu

    Anti-Islam sentiment is fairly commonplace at UR, yet so are some perspectives which are implicitly Islamic, such as advocacy of patriarchal society and social conservatism.

    I hadn't noticed that this particular blog is a haven for neocons. Perhaps I'm missing something.

    Yes, "we live in a political world." I think I've heard this somewhere before ...

    Replies: @dfordoom

  173. @iffen
    @AnonStarter

    which is understandable

    Why do you say that it is understandable?

    Replies: @AnonStarter

    Why do you say that it is understandable?

    Why shouldn’t a Christian want to distinguish his faith from Judaism?

    • Replies: @iffen
    @AnonStarter

    Why shouldn’t a Christian want to distinguish his faith from Judaism?

    I wasn't talking about religion and Christians.

    I was talking about a certain political ideology that wants to separate Christians and Jews into incompatible groups.

    Replies: @AnonStarter

  174. @German_reader
    @German_reader

    I would add that as far as I can tell the term "Judeo-Christian" is actually rejected by many Jews as well, who regard it as whitewashing Christianity's anti-Jewish history. At least that's my impression.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @dfordoom

    I would add that as far as I can tell the term “Judeo-Christian” is actually rejected by many Jews as well, who regard it as whitewashing Christianity’s anti-Jewish history. At least that’s my impression.

    I’m not a Jew or a Christian so I don’t really have a dog in this fight. But my feeling, for what it’s worth, is that “Judeo-Christian” seems disrespectful to both Jews and Christians.

    My impression is that “Judeo-Christian” is a term mostly favoured by neocons and Christian Zionists.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @dfordoom

    But my feeling, for what it’s worth,

    Have you considered practicing what you preach.

    You chastised Rosie when she expressed her opinion as to the improper age differences of marriage partners.

    Something along the lines of mind your own business.

    And yet here you are holding forth even after giving a disclaimer that you have no dog.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  175. @AnonStarter
    @iffen

    Why do you say that it is understandable?

    Why shouldn't a Christian want to distinguish his faith from Judaism?

    Replies: @iffen

    Why shouldn’t a Christian want to distinguish his faith from Judaism?

    I wasn’t talking about religion and Christians.

    I was talking about a certain political ideology that wants to separate Christians and Jews into incompatible groups.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
    @iffen

    I was talking about a certain political ideology that wants to separate Christians and Jews into incompatible groups.

    Certainly, there are a lot of folks here who feel that irreconcilable differences of religion make it impossible for the "other" to live among them. You say that most of them here are motivated by anti-Semitism.

    Perhaps this describes some, though we have to account for the fact that a good percentage of those Christians are motivated more by a desire to distinguish themselves from Jews than by animus toward them. These days, the term "Judeo-Christian" is used more often as an implement taken from the clash of civilizations toolbox, and the key players in advancing conflict between a predominantly Christian west and the Muslim world are usually Zionist, if not Jewish.

    And no, it is not "anti-Semitic" to state this fact.

    Replies: @iffen

  176. @iffen
    @AnonStarter

    Outrage over the term “Judeo-Christian” isn’t something I’ve seen much of in our communities, though I’ve noticed the appeal of it for those who desire to exclude Islam from American society.

    Well, the Woke don't really care what Muslims think, they have their own agendas. I will pay closer attention to its use in the future to see how often its use is meant as a means to exclude Muslims. Maybe somebody needs to popularize the term Judeo-Islamic Values, or Judeo-Christian/Islam Values.

    I guess I spend too much time at Unz because most of the complaints that I see about its use seem to be politically motivated by some animus toward Jews.

    Anyway, GR partly answered my question here:

    It did matter, in the sense that it had prefigured the NT, was part of sacred history, and that Christians were now the new Israel and continuators of that history

    even though he likely wouldn't agree with my reading of his comment.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @anon, @RSDB, @V. K. Ovelund, @AnonStarter, @songbird, @dfordoom

    I guess I spend too much time at Unz because most of the complaints that I see about its use seem to be politically motivated by some animus toward Jews.

    There’s no question that the hostility of the alt-right to the term “Judeo-Christian” is almost entirely driven by hatred of Jews.

    It’s one of those situations in which you have two different groups pursuing two different agendas and both are equally wrong and destructive.

    Whenever you have two extreme opposed ideological views you do generally find that both are wrong and that the correct answer is to be found by taking the deeply unfashionable view that maybe there’s something to be said for the moderate pragmatic centrist position.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @dfordoom

    There’s no question that the hostility of the alt-right to the term “Judeo-Christian” is almost entirely driven by hatred of Jews.

    This is one of the main reasons that it has limited political traction. Although, the pointed attempt to not accept anti-Semitism by the Jared Taylor group hasn't seemed to help them that much.

    I definitely see deciding the position on the JQ as a foundational issue for White Identitarians/Nationalists.

    Are Jews white? How do you decide who is white? Basic stuff.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom, @V. K. Ovelund

    , @anon
    @dfordoom

    There’s no question that the hostility of the alt-right to the term “Judeo-Christian” is almost entirely driven by hatred of Jews.

    I question it. Can you prove it?

  177. @German_reader
    @AnonStarter


    most Jews had nothing whatsoever to do with the machinations of the ancient Levites against whom Jeremiah and Isaiah apparently railed. Being unable to even touch the scrolls, how could they?
     
    What does this refer to? Do you mean the levites corrupted God's true precepts (which had to be rectified later through the revelation sent to God's messenger Mohammed)?

    Replies: @AnonStarter

    What does this refer to?

    How do you say ‘We are wise and the Law of the Lord is with us’? Surely the lying pens of the scribes have turned it into The Lie. ~ Jeremiah 8:8

    Therefore hear the Word of the Lord, you scoffers who rule this people in Jerusalem: Because you have said, “We have made a covenant with death, and with Sheol we have an agreement, when the overwhelming whip passes through it will not come to us, for we have made lies our refuge, and in falsehood we have taken shelter.” ~ Isaiah 28:14-15

    Both refer to the Levitical class entrusted with preservation of the written record of Scripture, a record that was “reconstructed” by Ezra following Nebuchadnezzar’s destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish exile in Babylon, where Hebrew was outlawed.

    • Thanks: German_reader
  178. @iffen
    @AnonStarter

    I’m simply having a conversation.

    Are you working overtime since Talha doesn't seem to be around anymore?

    Replies: @AnonStarter

    Are you working overtime since Talha doesn’t seem to be around anymore?

    This is work?

    • LOL: iffen
  179. @nebulafox
    @iffen

    When I hear woke people talk about Muslims, the impression I get is that they imagine people who are carbon copies of them underneath the funny prayer rituals and headscarves and other "exotic" things that make them exciting.

    (Irony is, Islam prides itself on being an explicitly universalist, race-agnostic religion: there are countries out there where the ideal falls short of practice of course, like Malaysia, but for the most part, this is something Muslims take a fair amount of pride in, from my experience. The de facto racialization of Islam by lefties who want to use it as a weapon against those guys with Sulla pics in their social media profiles or the rednecks is bizarre for anybody who understand the most basic facts about the faith.)

    This fits in well with the general woke attitude toward diversity. All the skin colors you can think of who happen to share the same set of schools and the same basic assumptions about the world. Those who love, love, love diversity of cuisine or color or other trivialities tend to want hive-thinking for the stuff that actually matters.

    Replies: @anon, @A123, @RSDB, @dfordoom, @AnonStarter

    When I hear woke people talk about Muslims, the impression I get is that they imagine people who are carbon copies of them underneath the funny prayer rituals and headscarves and other “exotic” things that make them exciting.

    Yep. The Woke are convinced that Muslims are just desperate to turn themselves into environmentally friendly touchy-feely LGBT-loving liberals, eating their veggie burgers before hurrying off to celebrate a homosexual marriage.

    Those who love, love, love diversity of cuisine or color or other trivialities tend to want hive-thinking for the stuff that actually matters.

    Yep. It’s sad but true that the ultimate aim of Diversity is to crush all actual diversity and create a single monolithic American culturally imperialist mono-culture.

    The Woke are in fact helping to create a neo-colonialist world. They’re helping to create an empire that will be much more arrogant and exploitative and culturally insensitive and oppressive than the worst 19th century European colonial empires.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    The Woke are convinced that Muslims are just desperate to turn themselves into environmentally friendly touchy-feely LGBT-loving liberals, eating their veggie burgers before hurrying off to celebrate a homosexual marriage.
     
    A123's notice regarding this point contradicts my preconceptions. Maybe it contradicts yours, too, but (unexpectedly to me) it does seem to fit some observable facts.

    Replies: @AnonStarter

  180. @utu
    @AnonStarter

    "I’m simply having a conversation." - I understand but are you oblivious to the fact that you are in the neoconish and Islamophobic environment? All conversations here are political.

    Replies: @AnonStarter

    Anti-Islam sentiment is fairly commonplace at UR, yet so are some perspectives which are implicitly Islamic, such as advocacy of patriarchal society and social conservatism.

    I hadn’t noticed that this particular blog is a haven for neocons. Perhaps I’m missing something.

    Yes, “we live in a political world.” I think I’ve heard this somewhere before …

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @AnonStarter


    I hadn’t noticed that this particular blog is a haven for neocons.
     
    I'd have said that the atmosphere here is fairly hostile to neocons.
  181. @nebulafox
    @utu

    Let's use Byzantium as an example, because that's what I'm most familiar with, though my understanding is that the Franks had a similar conception of themselves as "God's chosen people" under Charlemagne.

    Prior to the 7th Century collapse, the Byzantines-remember, they are still really East Rome at this point in the game-continued to have a universalistic world-view. The Christianization of the Roman state and even the collapse of the West didn't change this: state propaganda still trumpeted the emperor as master of the civilized world, assimilating others and making them Roman. Justinian's wars are inconceivable without this self-conception.

    Such a self-conception became impossible to maintain with the disasters of the 7th Century, coming on the heels of long-term decay before that. The Roman state went from superpower to beleaguered rump state, first with the Sassanid Persians and Slavs, and then permanently with the Arabs. It can't be understated how much psychologically damaging the Yarmouk and its aftermath was: the empire had been through 3rd Century levels of hell, but instead of recovering and consolidating, they were bumped back to a backwater clinging desperately for survival.

    So, what did the Roman government replace their self-conception with? The notion of the Byzantines-and this is when they really start becoming "the Byzantines"-as this special people, God's chosen people, rather than the universalistic realm of worldwide Christianity. Complete with the emperor not as master of the civilized world, not as a classical world Great Man as Justinian and Belisarius still saw themselves as, but as someone akin to Hezekiah from the Old Testament. Elements of this were already there, but it was only under Heraclius, not least to dodge blame for the disasters he oversaw before his final desperate campaign of 622 AD, that this really got going. State propaganda began to emphasize not going out and making others Roman, but "Roman" as a special identity, the limited, chosen people who need to ride out the storm in the proverbial ark, so to speak. The language used by the emperors and their cronies is explicitly Biblical.

    This meant that when the caliphate imploded and the Byzantine state underwent a brief period of expansion during the 11th Century, they were unable to simply stay there and "make people Roman" as they would have done earlier. State ideology had become too entrenched for that. More significantly, it also meant Byzantium grew more detached, more alien to Western Christians, and vice versa.

    Replies: @utu

    Thanks for your explanation. But I have my doubts though no time or energy to look for some of examples where “The language used by the emperors and their cronies is explicitly Biblical.”

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @utu

    One example off the top of my head is Leo III's Ecloga: a law code which attempted to make Roman law more in line with Old Testament practice. This was after a century of state ideology changing in the manner I described, under Heraclius and his descendants.

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ecloga

    Leo was the emperor who stopped the Arabs at the gates of Constantinople in 717: aka, when the empire hit a point of absolute rock bottom that it hadn't seen... well, maybe since the days of Cannae or even the Gallic sack of Rome (remember, when the West fell, the East didn't), and wouldn't see again until 1204. His motives in propagating this legal reform show the mindset of the time: the Romans had lost God's favor-that jealous deity of the Old Testament-and needed to gain it back. This was similar to how the kingdom of Israel strayed and were punished for that.

    It's interesting to note that being born in Syria, he probably was influenced to some degree by heterodox "Eastern" Christianity and perhaps, to a limited extent, Islamic success: or, according to one hostile biographer, he was "Saracen minded". (He probably spoke fluent Arabic.) However, one of the big propaganda points for Muslims-and Jews-back in the day was the relative lack of religious legalism in Christianity. So, it's easy to read this as a cynical propaganda exercise.

    But to people at the time, there was no contradiction or division between religious piety and practical politics. Leo probably genuinely believed he was working the Romans back to God's favor while simultaneously wishing to PR legitimize the Christian state in the face of constant Islamic attack. The Roman government had to legitimize their rule for survival in an age where military victory was synonymous with divine favor: just like in the classical world.

  182. @iffen
    @AnonStarter

    Why shouldn’t a Christian want to distinguish his faith from Judaism?

    I wasn't talking about religion and Christians.

    I was talking about a certain political ideology that wants to separate Christians and Jews into incompatible groups.

    Replies: @AnonStarter

    I was talking about a certain political ideology that wants to separate Christians and Jews into incompatible groups.

    Certainly, there are a lot of folks here who feel that irreconcilable differences of religion make it impossible for the “other” to live among them. You say that most of them here are motivated by anti-Semitism.

    Perhaps this describes some, though we have to account for the fact that a good percentage of those Christians are motivated more by a desire to distinguish themselves from Jews than by animus toward them. These days, the term “Judeo-Christian” is used more often as an implement taken from the clash of civilizations toolbox, and the key players in advancing conflict between a predominantly Christian west and the Muslim world are usually Zionist, if not Jewish.

    And no, it is not “anti-Semitic” to state this fact.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @AnonStarter

    the key players in advancing conflict

    Indeed.

    We all have our biases and stereotypes that we use. One of mine is that when I find out a person is Catholic or Muslim, I assume that they are anti-Semitic until shown otherwise.

  183. @nebulafox
    @iffen

    When I hear woke people talk about Muslims, the impression I get is that they imagine people who are carbon copies of them underneath the funny prayer rituals and headscarves and other "exotic" things that make them exciting.

    (Irony is, Islam prides itself on being an explicitly universalist, race-agnostic religion: there are countries out there where the ideal falls short of practice of course, like Malaysia, but for the most part, this is something Muslims take a fair amount of pride in, from my experience. The de facto racialization of Islam by lefties who want to use it as a weapon against those guys with Sulla pics in their social media profiles or the rednecks is bizarre for anybody who understand the most basic facts about the faith.)

    This fits in well with the general woke attitude toward diversity. All the skin colors you can think of who happen to share the same set of schools and the same basic assumptions about the world. Those who love, love, love diversity of cuisine or color or other trivialities tend to want hive-thinking for the stuff that actually matters.

    Replies: @anon, @A123, @RSDB, @dfordoom, @AnonStarter

    Islam prides itself on being an explicitly universalist, race-agnostic religion

    From The Qur’an:

    O, you who keep faith! Be steadfast witnesses for God in equity, and let not hatred of any people seduce you that you deal not justly. Deal justly, that is nearer to your duty. Observe your duty to God. Surely, God is informed of what you do. [5:8]

    Here, the term used for “people” is qawm, as in an ethnic collective (e.g. tribe), though it could extend to religious groups as well. Note that presciption is not against xenophobia of itself, but rather, against inequity toward others.

    Birds of an ethnic feather generally flock together. In Islam, there is no prohibition against this kind of association, nor is there any against integrating an ethnic minority.

  184. @A123
    @nebulafox


    When I hear woke people talk about Muslims, the impression I get is that they imagine people who are carbon copies of them underneath the funny prayer rituals and headscarves and other “exotic” things that make them exciting.
     
    At a practical level, SJW and Islam (in the U.S.) are indistinguishable. Rashid Tlaib and Ilhan Omar are the recognized thought leaders for Islam in in America. The Squad is the beating heart of the Progressive SJW Islamic Left.

    Can you name any GOP Muslim holding a significant office? No?

    You can find Woke-slam everywhere in American politics. Sorry if this is a repeat, but it is a useful sample:

    • Rashid Tlaib — Michigan, U.S. House
    • Andre Carson — Indiana, U.S. House
    • Keith Ellison (a.k.a. Hakim Muhammad) — Minnesota, AG
    • Mauree Turner — Oklahoma, State Legislature — Known for identifying as sexual “non-binary”
    • Zohran Kwame Mamdani — NY, State Assembly — Democratic Socialists of America
    • Iman Jodeh — Colorado, State Legislature
    • Madinah Wilson-Anton — Delaware, State Legislature — Policy analyst at the University of Delaware’s Biden Institute

    Mauree Turner is an especially powerful symbol as he/she/xe's embrace by Muslim thought leaders is an open proclamation that LGBT-slam is a real thing.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @AnonStarter

    Can you name any GOP Muslim holding a significant office?

    All depends on what you mean by “significant office.”

    Would Vice Chairman of a county GOP qualify as significant? On the local level, it certainly would. Just two years back, in Tarrant County, Texas, Republicans attempted to remove a Muslim from this position strictly on the basis of his religion:

    https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2019/01/11/tarrant-county-gop-votes-to-retain-muslim-vice-chair-following-months-of-controversy/

    I give credit to the local Republicans who overwhelmingly threw their support behind Dr. Shafi, though, as the local party chairman said, “Regardless of whether he’s removed or not, we’ve got a long-lasting label … Just the fact that there was a movement to remove him is embarrassing.” That kind of controversy is the likely reason you’ll find today’s voting Muslims inclining toward the DP (in spite of the fact that the Muslim vote likely decided Florida in favor of Bush in 2000).

    Too bad, actually. Back in 2008, one of the last voting cycles in which I participated, I was a registered Republican. (I’m registered with neither party now.) I was right there at the local caucus, engaged in deliberation over the party’s support for the “war on terror.” (We successfully got that part of platform amended, thank God, and many locals — most of whom supported Ron Paul — were grateful for it.)

    In my opinion, traditional republicanism is a natural fit for Muslim Americans. Family-oriented, socially conservative, minimal federal oversight, low taxation, substantive currency, meritocratic …

    But the Republican Party no longer represents these principles, just as Democrats no longer represent working-class folks or minorities except as useful idiots telling a tale of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @AnonStarter


    That kind of controversy is the likely reason you’ll find today’s voting Muslims inclining toward the DP (in spite of the fact that the Muslim vote likely decided Florida in favor of Bush in 2000).
     
    Republicans have been stupid about this (and that includes me). Stupidity has consequences. It's too bad.


    What follows is not as focused as I would like, for I do not know the right conclusion to draw from it; but interested readers can skim and pick out the parts that interest them. (I assume that uninterested readers have not clicked the MORE switch above and, thus, are not even reading this notice.)

    A heritage American need not celebrate the Great Replacement to recognize that the vote to keep America American needs to come from somewhere. It needs to come from nonheritage Americans who are nonhostile to heritage America. There isn't any other place to get it.

    The good news is, Republicans—who do not deserve to be the party of heritage America but nevertheless by default are—seem to be advancing with Mexican-Americans. That's a big bloc. I expect to see many reverses, but an uncommonly large share of the Mexican-American vote appears to be persuadable.

    The bad news is that, instead of sensibly throttling immigration, George H. W. Bush (the father, not the son) and successors (including the son) have decided to entangle the United States in a series of middle eastern wars while importing middle easterners who bear grudges because of those wars.

    What makes it worse is that many of the aforementioned grudges are eminently fair. U.S. forces really have, in the broader middle east, cruelly slaughtered tens of thousands of hapless Muslim peasants who had never done anything to the U.S. I do not know how many non-Iranian Muslim-Americans care specifically about the Soleimani assassination, but that was no isolated incident. It was only an especially spectacular incident.

    The 9/11 attack was indeed heinous from the American point of view, nor is it useful to deny the regrettable Muslim predilection toward a certain style of political violence, but on the other hand the Dancing Israelis have never been adequately explained, either. Moreover, some seem to believe, with at least a little justification (though I do not say that I believe it; I don't), that some or most of the 9/11 destruction was caused by explosives other than the airplanes. The least that can be said is that legitimate questions regarding 9/11 still have not been answered in as transparent a way as one would like.

    One could write a lengthy comment or even article to try to connect the various scattered facts, but regular Unz readers are already familiar with the scattered facts and have their own ideas about them. Meanwhile, little purpose is served by refusal to acknowledge the evident troubles that come of mixing large numbers of Muslims into a Christian country; yet as others here have observed, on the whole, when it comes to white Muslims, the ones the U.S. taken in are chiefly of the better sort. White U.S. Muslims, in my opinion, are people with whom heritage Americans should be able to work. Easily.

    And even if my opinion were mistaken, blacks in the United States are far more violent than white Muslims are. It's not even close. We've allowed mischievous Jewish media to warp our perception of this.

    Instead of figuring all that out and coming to a judicious, balanced settlement in the matter, though, Republican officeholders have decided to favor Jewish-derived campaign contributions and, consequently, not to think about or engage with white U.S. Muslims in a serious way. That's got Republicans all twisted on the Muslim question. It's unfortunate.

    One can only imagine how differently, and better, it might have worked out if Al Gore had won the presidency in 2000, as he so very nearly did. Republicans might be winning the Muslim vote now, and we'd never have had to suffer the wretched disappointment of the younger Bush's presidency; but, alas, Gore didn't quite make it.

    This is approximately the 200th comment in a long thread, nor has it been a short comment, so I can only guess how few are still reading, but I would like to add one more observation before I close: large Muslim women's headscarves spook Americans. I have no opinion as whether Muslim-American women should get smaller scarves, but the large scarves do spook. On the other hand, Americans who actually talk to the large-scarved Muslim-American women they encounter tend to discover that most of those women are pretty normal. In my observation, this is an instance in which a little talk helps a lot.

    I am not sure exactly where I am going with all this, so I'll close, but I strongly agree with you that Republicans have gotten badly onto the wrong track where Muslims are concerned.
  185. @songbird
    @iffen


    I guess I spend too much time at Unz because most of the complaints that I see about its use seem to be politically motivated by some animus toward Jews.
     
    What is the value proposition of the term for Christians? Being embroiled in Middle Eastern wars? Dropping the Gospels - the text that their ancestors used to swear sacred oaths on? Keeping the schools secularist?

    I don't think it takes antipathy to realize that it only has costs and not even the slightest benefit, for Christians. Jews and secularists might find it an attractive proposition though. Possibly, they would attribute resistance to the term as antipathy because that is the only framing that allows one to feel morally superior.

    I mean if you want Christians to act in contravention to the core traditions of their faith and ancestors, for the benefit of your own petty political vision, then framing it in your own prejudices might bruise the ego, in addition to not being very effective.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    I don’t think it takes antipathy to realize that it only has costs and not even the slightest benefit, for Christians. Jews and secularists might find it an attractive proposition though.

    Im a secularist and I can’t see any benefit at all in the term Judeo-Christian. In fact the way it’s often used implies that western civilisation is and always has been and always will be Judeo-Christian. I find that ridiculous and offensive.

    I think the term Judeo-Christian is offensive to everyone except neocons and Christian Zionists.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @dfordoom


    I think the term Judeo-Christian is offensive to everyone except neocons and Christian Zionists.
     
    Is iffen one of these? That is what I was trying to figure out.

    My assumption is that it is the inner hippy talking. A kind of John Lennon:

    Imagine there's no countries
    It isn't hard to do
    Nothing to kill or die for
    And no religion too
    Imagine all the people
    Living life in peace
     
    And that he sees Jews as an oppressed class, rather than an extremely wealthy and successful one.

    Maybe, it would be better to characterize it as universalism than secularism? I think there is an implicit disdain for the values, traditions, and interests of Christians in the promotion of the phrase "Judeo-Christian." Perhaps, it is not an antipathy, but I feel there is a pretty significant disregard or indifference for Christianity in it.

    I mean, I just try to think back to the old country. Probably every fourth girl had the the name "Mary." Everyone used pray "Hail Mary." The most common response to a hail on the street was to say "God and Mary to you." But the Talmud does not have nice things to say about her, nor of Christians. I don't think a peasant who had in all probability never seen a Jew would appreciate some alien heresy being prefixed to his sacred faith. So, the phrase strikes me as quite unhistorical, and I just can't see the utility in it. Christianity is certainly well-known the world over, it does not help to promote it, to add the prefix of "Judeo" to it. It would probably just confuse people.

    Furthermore, the historical relationship between Christians and Jews was never one of a multifaith, tolerant society. What similarities they might share is not a historical endorsement of a radical tolerance. The multifaith societies that we know of were simply not the best places for Christians to live.

    No seriously fervent person believes in ecumenism or interfaith dialogue. In this day and age, such things inevitably result in extreme poz. I mean, do you want your church talking with another church that has a tranny for a bishop?

    Replies: @dfordoom, @A123

  186. @AnonStarter
    @utu

    Anti-Islam sentiment is fairly commonplace at UR, yet so are some perspectives which are implicitly Islamic, such as advocacy of patriarchal society and social conservatism.

    I hadn't noticed that this particular blog is a haven for neocons. Perhaps I'm missing something.

    Yes, "we live in a political world." I think I've heard this somewhere before ...

    Replies: @dfordoom

    I hadn’t noticed that this particular blog is a haven for neocons.

    I’d have said that the atmosphere here is fairly hostile to neocons.

    • Agree: AnonStarter, Mark G.
  187. @AnonStarter
    @iffen

    I was talking about a certain political ideology that wants to separate Christians and Jews into incompatible groups.

    Certainly, there are a lot of folks here who feel that irreconcilable differences of religion make it impossible for the "other" to live among them. You say that most of them here are motivated by anti-Semitism.

    Perhaps this describes some, though we have to account for the fact that a good percentage of those Christians are motivated more by a desire to distinguish themselves from Jews than by animus toward them. These days, the term "Judeo-Christian" is used more often as an implement taken from the clash of civilizations toolbox, and the key players in advancing conflict between a predominantly Christian west and the Muslim world are usually Zionist, if not Jewish.

    And no, it is not "anti-Semitic" to state this fact.

    Replies: @iffen

    the key players in advancing conflict

    Indeed.

    We all have our biases and stereotypes that we use. One of mine is that when I find out a person is Catholic or Muslim, I assume that they are anti-Semitic until shown otherwise.

  188. @dfordoom
    @German_reader


    I would add that as far as I can tell the term “Judeo-Christian” is actually rejected by many Jews as well, who regard it as whitewashing Christianity’s anti-Jewish history. At least that’s my impression.
     
    I'm not a Jew or a Christian so I don't really have a dog in this fight. But my feeling, for what it's worth, is that “Judeo-Christian” seems disrespectful to both Jews and Christians.

    My impression is that “Judeo-Christian” is a term mostly favoured by neocons and Christian Zionists.

    Replies: @iffen

    But my feeling, for what it’s worth,

    Have you considered practicing what you preach.

    You chastised Rosie when she expressed her opinion as to the improper age differences of marriage partners.

    Something along the lines of mind your own business.

    And yet here you are holding forth even after giving a disclaimer that you have no dog.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @iffen


    You chastised Rosie when she expressed her opinion as to the improper age differences of marriage partners.

    Something along the lines of mind your own business.

    And yet here you are holding forth even after giving a disclaimer that you have no dog.
     
    Having thought about it, the term Judeo-Christian can be, and sometimes is, used to implicitly exclude secularists from western civilisation. So, since I'm a secularist, I actually do have a dog in this fight.

    I chastised Rosie for her desire to control other people's lives. Had she simply said, "personally I think it 's better to marry someone of roughly your own age" I would have had no issue with her. But she was talking about the desirability of inflicting negative consequences on people for making choices she didn't like. I'm not trying to control anyone's life by merely offering an opinion on a subject of interest.

    There is a world of difference. But you already knew that.
  189. @anon
    @nebulafox

    When I hear woke people talk about Muslims, the impression I get is that they imagine people who are carbon copies of them underneath the funny prayer rituals and headscarves and other “exotic” things that make them exciting.

    Yes. Because the Woke are true believers in the blank slate. All is nurture, nature is nothing. This false premise underpins everything else. They are incredibly hostile to facts that contradict these elements of faith. They also tend to regard other people as bit players in their private psychodramas. Woke are not well.

    The attitude towards Muslims is the same attitude Wokies have towards black people as well - just a different paint job, that's all. This requires the Woke to construct ever more elaborate excuses and justifications for certain actions, such as hanging homosexuals or the high black murder rate in the US. Because "everyone is the same under the skin" requires it; otherwise they have to discard a fundamental premise, and that collapses their entire world view.

    The Woke are like pre-Galilean astronomers who assume the Earth is the center of the universe; perpetually having to create yet more epicycles and epi-epicycles in order to account for planet movements.

    The answer is the same in both cases.

    Eppur Si Muove

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @RSDB

    Your comment is excellent. It’s too good for an . Would you consider making up a Handle and employing it so that interested readers can track your future comments at The Unz Review?

  190. @dfordoom
    @iffen


    I guess I spend too much time at Unz because most of the complaints that I see about its use seem to be politically motivated by some animus toward Jews.
     
    There's no question that the hostility of the alt-right to the term "Judeo-Christian" is almost entirely driven by hatred of Jews.

    It's one of those situations in which you have two different groups pursuing two different agendas and both are equally wrong and destructive.

    Whenever you have two extreme opposed ideological views you do generally find that both are wrong and that the correct answer is to be found by taking the deeply unfashionable view that maybe there's something to be said for the moderate pragmatic centrist position.

    Replies: @iffen, @anon

    There’s no question that the hostility of the alt-right to the term “Judeo-Christian” is almost entirely driven by hatred of Jews.

    This is one of the main reasons that it has limited political traction. Although, the pointed attempt to not accept anti-Semitism by the Jared Taylor group hasn’t seemed to help them that much.

    I definitely see deciding the position on the JQ as a foundational issue for White Identitarians/Nationalists.

    Are Jews white? How do you decide who is white? Basic stuff.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen


    Are Jews white?
     
    I suggest that one ask a Jew.

    Many Jews will give a straight answer (namely, yes), but a large minority will get that typically Jewish evasive look in their eyes as they calculate, at lightning speed, which answer is most likely to advance the interests of the Jewish people, or most likely to deflect blame for Jewish misdeeds onto the head of a gentile scapegoat, in that specific circumstance.

    If you would rather ask someone other than a Jew, then ask a nonwhite. A nonwhite will tell you that Jews are white, because Jews are, in fact, obviously, white. (Before A123 points it out, I am aware of the Ethiopian Jews. I do not much care about them, but am aware of them. That's just some weird problem for the Israelis to work out, not something for me to analyze. Ethiopian Jews are causing no trouble in the United States that I know.)

    Unfortunately, Jewish interests tend to be the very opposite of white interests; so, operationally, Jews are antiwhite. One can say, “anti-white-gentile,” instead, but that's just too many syllables.

    Replies: @A123

    , @dfordoom
    @iffen


    Are Jews white? How do you decide who is white? Basic stuff.
     
    Alt-righters seem to favour the one-drop rule. If they discover that someone has a single Jewish ancestor they seem to assume that that person is Jewish.

    Are Persians white? What about Arabs? Are Russians white?

    Some Americans think Hispanics are non-white. An Hispanic is someone whose mother tongue is Spanish. Does that mean the Spanish are non-white?

    It's all pretty silly. People have lots of identities - class identities, religious identities, cultural identities, ideological identities. These days people even think they have gender identities. Uniting people on the basis of being white seems doomed to failure.

    Ashkenazi Jews seem pretty obviously white to me. Culturally and (sometimes) religiously distinctive from Anglos, but white. And there are lots of groups that are culturally and religiously different from Anglos but still white. Lots of Albanians are both white and Muslim. Greeks are clearly culturally and religiously distinct from Anglos, but still white.

    It's an awful thing for alt-righters to contemplate, but whites have lots of diversity!

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen


    How do you decide who is white?
     
    A good start might be to ask them.

    This is seldom a real dilemma in practice, though. I agree with Mike Peinovich: hardly anyone ever asks blacks how they decide who is black. If not, then your question is not a real question.

    Most likely, if your average six-year-old, who is not yet old enough to have had his brain addled by Political Correctness, perceives someone as white, they're white.

  191. @dfordoom
    @nebulafox


    When I hear woke people talk about Muslims, the impression I get is that they imagine people who are carbon copies of them underneath the funny prayer rituals and headscarves and other “exotic” things that make them exciting.
     
    Yep. The Woke are convinced that Muslims are just desperate to turn themselves into environmentally friendly touchy-feely LGBT-loving liberals, eating their veggie burgers before hurrying off to celebrate a homosexual marriage.

    Those who love, love, love diversity of cuisine or color or other trivialities tend to want hive-thinking for the stuff that actually matters.
     
    Yep. It's sad but true that the ultimate aim of Diversity is to crush all actual diversity and create a single monolithic American culturally imperialist mono-culture.

    The Woke are in fact helping to create a neo-colonialist world. They're helping to create an empire that will be much more arrogant and exploitative and culturally insensitive and oppressive than the worst 19th century European colonial empires.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    The Woke are convinced that Muslims are just desperate to turn themselves into environmentally friendly touchy-feely LGBT-loving liberals, eating their veggie burgers before hurrying off to celebrate a homosexual marriage.

    A123’s notice regarding this point contradicts my preconceptions. Maybe it contradicts yours, too, but (unexpectedly to me) it does seem to fit some observable facts.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
    @V. K. Ovelund

    "At a practical level, SJW and Islam (in the U.S.) are indistinguishable."

    For someone who has expended most of his effort in this thread attempting to take you to task for a purportedly imprecise use of the term "Jew," he's not very short on irony when the shoe's on the other foot.

    Islam forbids homosexual relations. Where are SJWs in relation to this?
    Islam proscribes adultery and the murder of unborn children. Where are SJWs in relation to this?
    Islam establishes traditional, family-oriented ethics. Where are SJWs in relation to this?
    Islam commands protection of religious liberty. Where are SJWs in relation to this?
    Islam prescribes capital punishment for rape, murder, brigandage, and abuse of the public trust. Where are SJWs in relation to this?

    So now we witness nominally "Muslim" individuals who, in flagrant defiance of the religion, juke and jive with the LGBTQ crew or exploit the zeitgeist eschewing "white supremacy" in order to make a name for themselves and descend the ladder to perdition.

    If you imagine these folks are actually representative of Islam, I've got some nice oceanside property in Topeka you might be interested in.

    Replies: @A123

  192. @iffen
    @dfordoom

    There’s no question that the hostility of the alt-right to the term “Judeo-Christian” is almost entirely driven by hatred of Jews.

    This is one of the main reasons that it has limited political traction. Although, the pointed attempt to not accept anti-Semitism by the Jared Taylor group hasn't seemed to help them that much.

    I definitely see deciding the position on the JQ as a foundational issue for White Identitarians/Nationalists.

    Are Jews white? How do you decide who is white? Basic stuff.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom, @V. K. Ovelund

    Are Jews white?

    I suggest that one ask a Jew.

    Many Jews will give a straight answer (namely, yes), but a large minority will get that typically Jewish evasive look in their eyes as they calculate, at lightning speed, which answer is most likely to advance the interests of the Jewish people, or most likely to deflect blame for Jewish misdeeds onto the head of a gentile scapegoat, in that specific circumstance.

    If you would rather ask someone other than a Jew, then ask a nonwhite. A nonwhite will tell you that Jews are white, because Jews are, in fact, obviously, white. (Before A123 points it out, I am aware of the Ethiopian Jews. I do not much care about them, but am aware of them. That’s just some weird problem for the Israelis to work out, not something for me to analyze. Ethiopian Jews are causing no trouble in the United States that I know.)

    Unfortunately, Jewish interests tend to be the very opposite of white interests; so, operationally, Jews are antiwhite. One can say, “anti-white-gentile,” instead, but that’s just too many syllables.

    • Replies: @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Unfortunately, Jewish interests tend to be the very opposite of white interests; so, operationally, Jews are antiwhite.
     
    As a White Christian, I have Judeo-Christian values. Jews share those Judeo-Christian values. Thus, operationally Jews are 100% committed to White Judeo-Christian interests.

    Before VK points it out... There are a tiny number of non-practicing, apostates that support Globalist Islamic SJW values. Chuck Schumer and Adam Schiff spring to mind as examples of this tiny Elite minority. However, these few examples have no connection to the vast majority of American Jews.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @anon

  193. @AnonStarter
    @A123

    Can you name any GOP Muslim holding a significant office?

    All depends on what you mean by "significant office."

    Would Vice Chairman of a county GOP qualify as significant? On the local level, it certainly would. Just two years back, in Tarrant County, Texas, Republicans attempted to remove a Muslim from this position strictly on the basis of his religion:

    https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2019/01/11/tarrant-county-gop-votes-to-retain-muslim-vice-chair-following-months-of-controversy/

    I give credit to the local Republicans who overwhelmingly threw their support behind Dr. Shafi, though, as the local party chairman said, "Regardless of whether he's removed or not, we've got a long-lasting label ... Just the fact that there was a movement to remove him is embarrassing." That kind of controversy is the likely reason you'll find today's voting Muslims inclining toward the DP (in spite of the fact that the Muslim vote likely decided Florida in favor of Bush in 2000).

    Too bad, actually. Back in 2008, one of the last voting cycles in which I participated, I was a registered Republican. (I'm registered with neither party now.) I was right there at the local caucus, engaged in deliberation over the party's support for the "war on terror." (We successfully got that part of platform amended, thank God, and many locals -- most of whom supported Ron Paul -- were grateful for it.)

    In my opinion, traditional republicanism is a natural fit for Muslim Americans. Family-oriented, socially conservative, minimal federal oversight, low taxation, substantive currency, meritocratic ...

    But the Republican Party no longer represents these principles, just as Democrats no longer represent working-class folks or minorities except as useful idiots telling a tale of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    That kind of controversy is the likely reason you’ll find today’s voting Muslims inclining toward the DP (in spite of the fact that the Muslim vote likely decided Florida in favor of Bush in 2000).

    Republicans have been stupid about this (and that includes me). Stupidity has consequences. It’s too bad.

    [MORE]

    What follows is not as focused as I would like, for I do not know the right conclusion to draw from it; but interested readers can skim and pick out the parts that interest them. (I assume that uninterested readers have not clicked the MORE switch above and, thus, are not even reading this notice.)

    A heritage American need not celebrate the Great Replacement to recognize that the vote to keep America American needs to come from somewhere. It needs to come from nonheritage Americans who are nonhostile to heritage America. There isn’t any other place to get it.

    The good news is, Republicans—who do not deserve to be the party of heritage America but nevertheless by default are—seem to be advancing with Mexican-Americans. That’s a big bloc. I expect to see many reverses, but an uncommonly large share of the Mexican-American vote appears to be persuadable.

    The bad news is that, instead of sensibly throttling immigration, George H. W. Bush (the father, not the son) and successors (including the son) have decided to entangle the United States in a series of middle eastern wars while importing middle easterners who bear grudges because of those wars.

    What makes it worse is that many of the aforementioned grudges are eminently fair. U.S. forces really have, in the broader middle east, cruelly slaughtered tens of thousands of hapless Muslim peasants who had never done anything to the U.S. I do not know how many non-Iranian Muslim-Americans care specifically about the Soleimani assassination, but that was no isolated incident. It was only an especially spectacular incident.

    The 9/11 attack was indeed heinous from the American point of view, nor is it useful to deny the regrettable Muslim predilection toward a certain style of political violence, but on the other hand the Dancing Israelis have never been adequately explained, either. Moreover, some seem to believe, with at least a little justification (though I do not say that I believe it; I don’t), that some or most of the 9/11 destruction was caused by explosives other than the airplanes. The least that can be said is that legitimate questions regarding 9/11 still have not been answered in as transparent a way as one would like.

    One could write a lengthy comment or even article to try to connect the various scattered facts, but regular Unz readers are already familiar with the scattered facts and have their own ideas about them. Meanwhile, little purpose is served by refusal to acknowledge the evident troubles that come of mixing large numbers of Muslims into a Christian country; yet as others here have observed, on the whole, when it comes to white Muslims, the ones the U.S. taken in are chiefly of the better sort. White U.S. Muslims, in my opinion, are people with whom heritage Americans should be able to work. Easily.

    And even if my opinion were mistaken, blacks in the United States are far more violent than white Muslims are. It’s not even close. We’ve allowed mischievous Jewish media to warp our perception of this.

    Instead of figuring all that out and coming to a judicious, balanced settlement in the matter, though, Republican officeholders have decided to favor Jewish-derived campaign contributions and, consequently, not to think about or engage with white U.S. Muslims in a serious way. That’s got Republicans all twisted on the Muslim question. It’s unfortunate.

    One can only imagine how differently, and better, it might have worked out if Al Gore had won the presidency in 2000, as he so very nearly did. Republicans might be winning the Muslim vote now, and we’d never have had to suffer the wretched disappointment of the younger Bush’s presidency; but, alas, Gore didn’t quite make it.

    This is approximately the 200th comment in a long thread, nor has it been a short comment, so I can only guess how few are still reading, but I would like to add one more observation before I close: large Muslim women’s headscarves spook Americans. I have no opinion as whether Muslim-American women should get smaller scarves, but the large scarves do spook. On the other hand, Americans who actually talk to the large-scarved Muslim-American women they encounter tend to discover that most of those women are pretty normal. In my observation, this is an instance in which a little talk helps a lot.

    I am not sure exactly where I am going with all this, so I’ll close, but I strongly agree with you that Republicans have gotten badly onto the wrong track where Muslims are concerned.

  194. @Audacious Epigone

    The MORE tag kicks comments into the moderation queue. Do you know why?

    (One can work around by posting the comment without MORE and then adding the MORE during the five-minute editing period, but the workaround sometimes causes problems of its own.)

    No one is asking you to investigate. I just wondered whether you knew.

  195. A123 says:
    @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen


    Are Jews white?
     
    I suggest that one ask a Jew.

    Many Jews will give a straight answer (namely, yes), but a large minority will get that typically Jewish evasive look in their eyes as they calculate, at lightning speed, which answer is most likely to advance the interests of the Jewish people, or most likely to deflect blame for Jewish misdeeds onto the head of a gentile scapegoat, in that specific circumstance.

    If you would rather ask someone other than a Jew, then ask a nonwhite. A nonwhite will tell you that Jews are white, because Jews are, in fact, obviously, white. (Before A123 points it out, I am aware of the Ethiopian Jews. I do not much care about them, but am aware of them. That's just some weird problem for the Israelis to work out, not something for me to analyze. Ethiopian Jews are causing no trouble in the United States that I know.)

    Unfortunately, Jewish interests tend to be the very opposite of white interests; so, operationally, Jews are antiwhite. One can say, “anti-white-gentile,” instead, but that's just too many syllables.

    Replies: @A123

    Unfortunately, Jewish interests tend to be the very opposite of white interests; so, operationally, Jews are antiwhite.

    As a White Christian, I have Judeo-Christian values. Jews share those Judeo-Christian values. Thus, operationally Jews are 100% committed to White Judeo-Christian interests.

    Before VK points it out… There are a tiny number of non-practicing, apostates that support Globalist Islamic SJW values. Chuck Schumer and Adam Schiff spring to mind as examples of this tiny Elite minority. However, these few examples have no connection to the vast majority of American Jews.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @A123


    However, these few examples have no connection to the vast majority of American Jews.
     
    Well, I hope that you are right.

    Jews are too clever with words to be trusted as a rule when they speak, except perhaps when their speech remains consistent (like Mark Levin's, say) over a period of years; but if American Jews wish to show me via acts, rather than mere speech, that they're more like Ron Unz than Adam Schiff, I'll be thrilled.

    Unfortunately, I doubt that the thrill will arrive any time soon, but we'll see.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @anon
    @A123

    As a White Christian, I have Judeo-Christian values.

    Such as the Apostles Creed?

    Such as the deity of Christ?

    Those Christian values don't mix at all with Talmudic Judaism or any other form of Judaism. Even the atheist Jewish man I work with would reject them.

    "Judeo-Christian" is a fake term use for propaganda, to fool Christians.

  196. @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Unfortunately, Jewish interests tend to be the very opposite of white interests; so, operationally, Jews are antiwhite.
     
    As a White Christian, I have Judeo-Christian values. Jews share those Judeo-Christian values. Thus, operationally Jews are 100% committed to White Judeo-Christian interests.

    Before VK points it out... There are a tiny number of non-practicing, apostates that support Globalist Islamic SJW values. Chuck Schumer and Adam Schiff spring to mind as examples of this tiny Elite minority. However, these few examples have no connection to the vast majority of American Jews.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @anon

    However, these few examples have no connection to the vast majority of American Jews.

    Well, I hope that you are right.

    Jews are too clever with words to be trusted as a rule when they speak, except perhaps when their speech remains consistent (like Mark Levin’s, say) over a period of years; but if American Jews wish to show me via acts, rather than mere speech, that they’re more like Ron Unz than Adam Schiff, I’ll be thrilled.

    Unfortunately, I doubt that the thrill will arrive any time soon, but we’ll see.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @V. K. Ovelund

    By the way, I am vaguely under the impression for various reasons that my comment feed might be followed more closely by Jews than gentiles. Maybe not, but supposing that my impression is correct, I have a suggestion for Jewish followers: secure full Virginia and federal pardons for Fields, Borden, Ramos, Goodwin and Davis. Jews have lawyers who can get this done, I suspect, if they want to.

    If Jews would like to deflate the Alt-Right and its successors, to drain away most of the Alt-Right's and successors' useful personnel, and to dampen future recruitment, this would be how to do it; because some of us are sitting, in spirit, right there along with James Alex Fields, Jr., in that prison cell, and more of us join him in spirit as the word regarding the injustice done to him slowly spreads.

    A fine American Jew could take the lead in setting this injustice right. If the right-setting were genuinely and uncomplicatedly done for the sake of justice, don't you see what a kill-shot against American anti-Semitism that would be?

    I do not know whether it matters to Jews following this feed, but if it helps, I believe that Fields himself is a quarter Jewish.

  197. @V. K. Ovelund
    @A123


    However, these few examples have no connection to the vast majority of American Jews.
     
    Well, I hope that you are right.

    Jews are too clever with words to be trusted as a rule when they speak, except perhaps when their speech remains consistent (like Mark Levin's, say) over a period of years; but if American Jews wish to show me via acts, rather than mere speech, that they're more like Ron Unz than Adam Schiff, I'll be thrilled.

    Unfortunately, I doubt that the thrill will arrive any time soon, but we'll see.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    By the way, I am vaguely under the impression for various reasons that my comment feed might be followed more closely by Jews than gentiles. Maybe not, but supposing that my impression is correct, I have a suggestion for Jewish followers: secure full Virginia and federal pardons for Fields, Borden, Ramos, Goodwin and Davis. Jews have lawyers who can get this done, I suspect, if they want to.

    If Jews would like to deflate the Alt-Right and its successors, to drain away most of the Alt-Right’s and successors’ useful personnel, and to dampen future recruitment, this would be how to do it; because some of us are sitting, in spirit, right there along with James Alex Fields, Jr., in that prison cell, and more of us join him in spirit as the word regarding the injustice done to him slowly spreads.

    A fine American Jew could take the lead in setting this injustice right. If the right-setting were genuinely and uncomplicatedly done for the sake of justice, don’t you see what a kill-shot against American anti-Semitism that would be?

    I do not know whether it matters to Jews following this feed, but if it helps, I believe that Fields himself is a quarter Jewish.

  198. @iffen
    @dfordoom

    But my feeling, for what it’s worth,

    Have you considered practicing what you preach.

    You chastised Rosie when she expressed her opinion as to the improper age differences of marriage partners.

    Something along the lines of mind your own business.

    And yet here you are holding forth even after giving a disclaimer that you have no dog.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    You chastised Rosie when she expressed her opinion as to the improper age differences of marriage partners.

    Something along the lines of mind your own business.

    And yet here you are holding forth even after giving a disclaimer that you have no dog.

    Having thought about it, the term Judeo-Christian can be, and sometimes is, used to implicitly exclude secularists from western civilisation. So, since I’m a secularist, I actually do have a dog in this fight.

    I chastised Rosie for her desire to control other people’s lives. Had she simply said, “personally I think it ‘s better to marry someone of roughly your own age” I would have had no issue with her. But she was talking about the desirability of inflicting negative consequences on people for making choices she didn’t like. I’m not trying to control anyone’s life by merely offering an opinion on a subject of interest.

    There is a world of difference. But you already knew that.

  199. @iffen
    @dfordoom

    There’s no question that the hostility of the alt-right to the term “Judeo-Christian” is almost entirely driven by hatred of Jews.

    This is one of the main reasons that it has limited political traction. Although, the pointed attempt to not accept anti-Semitism by the Jared Taylor group hasn't seemed to help them that much.

    I definitely see deciding the position on the JQ as a foundational issue for White Identitarians/Nationalists.

    Are Jews white? How do you decide who is white? Basic stuff.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom, @V. K. Ovelund

    Are Jews white? How do you decide who is white? Basic stuff.

    Alt-righters seem to favour the one-drop rule. If they discover that someone has a single Jewish ancestor they seem to assume that that person is Jewish.

    Are Persians white? What about Arabs? Are Russians white?

    Some Americans think Hispanics are non-white. An Hispanic is someone whose mother tongue is Spanish. Does that mean the Spanish are non-white?

    It’s all pretty silly. People have lots of identities – class identities, religious identities, cultural identities, ideological identities. These days people even think they have gender identities. Uniting people on the basis of being white seems doomed to failure.

    Ashkenazi Jews seem pretty obviously white to me. Culturally and (sometimes) religiously distinctive from Anglos, but white. And there are lots of groups that are culturally and religiously different from Anglos but still white. Lots of Albanians are both white and Muslim. Greeks are clearly culturally and religiously distinct from Anglos, but still white.

    It’s an awful thing for alt-righters to contemplate, but whites have lots of diversity!

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    Alt-righters seem to favour the one-drop rule.
     
    Incorrect. As far as I know, you cannot identify a single significant figure on the American alt right that favours the one-drop rule when it comes to Jews. Negroes, yes; Jews, no. The most that can be said is that, [i] when someone with Jewish ancestry himself voluntarily draws attention to the fact, the alt-right naturally assumes that he's not doing it for friendly reasons and [ii] half-Jews, whose fathers are Jewish but mothers are not, are mistrusted.

    Your past criticism regarding the alt right has been taken. The criticism wasn't all factual, but I got out ahead of the criticism and on some points, one ultimately had to admit that you were right. However, it is understood (for example) among the alt-right that James Alex Fields, Jr., is a quarter Jewish. This does not bother a single alt-righter that I know.

    By the way, the alt-right had nothing to do with the established conventional social understanding in the United States regarding who is negro and who is Jewish. The negro standard predates George Washington: blacks themselves still use it to tell you who is black, and will not brook your interference nor mine in that determination. The Jewish standard has been enforced by Jews since time immemorial; so, whatever you might like to blame the alt-right for, I do not think that you can blame it for these.

  200. @dfordoom
    @songbird


    I don’t think it takes antipathy to realize that it only has costs and not even the slightest benefit, for Christians. Jews and secularists might find it an attractive proposition though.
     
    Im a secularist and I can't see any benefit at all in the term Judeo-Christian. In fact the way it's often used implies that western civilisation is and always has been and always will be Judeo-Christian. I find that ridiculous and offensive.

    I think the term Judeo-Christian is offensive to everyone except neocons and Christian Zionists.

    Replies: @songbird

    I think the term Judeo-Christian is offensive to everyone except neocons and Christian Zionists.

    Is iffen one of these? That is what I was trying to figure out.

    My assumption is that it is the inner hippy talking. A kind of John Lennon:

    Imagine there’s no countries
    It isn’t hard to do
    Nothing to kill or die for
    And no religion too
    Imagine all the people
    Living life in peace

    And that he sees Jews as an oppressed class, rather than an extremely wealthy and successful one.

    Maybe, it would be better to characterize it as universalism than secularism?

    [MORE]
    I think there is an implicit disdain for the values, traditions, and interests of Christians in the promotion of the phrase “Judeo-Christian.” Perhaps, it is not an antipathy, but I feel there is a pretty significant disregard or indifference for Christianity in it.

    I mean, I just try to think back to the old country. Probably every fourth girl had the the name “Mary.” Everyone used pray “Hail Mary.” The most common response to a hail on the street was to say “God and Mary to you.” But the Talmud does not have nice things to say about her, nor of Christians. I don’t think a peasant who had in all probability never seen a Jew would appreciate some alien heresy being prefixed to his sacred faith. So, the phrase strikes me as quite unhistorical, and I just can’t see the utility in it. Christianity is certainly well-known the world over, it does not help to promote it, to add the prefix of “Judeo” to it. It would probably just confuse people.

    Furthermore, the historical relationship between Christians and Jews was never one of a multifaith, tolerant society. What similarities they might share is not a historical endorsement of a radical tolerance. The multifaith societies that we know of were simply not the best places for Christians to live.

    No seriously fervent person believes in ecumenism or interfaith dialogue. In this day and age, such things inevitably result in extreme poz. I mean, do you want your church talking with another church that has a tranny for a bishop?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @songbird


    I think there is an implicit disdain for the values, traditions, and interests of Christians in the promotion of the phrase “Judeo-Christian.”
     
    And, weirdly, in the case of Christian Zionists there is also an implicit disdain for the values, traditions, and interests of Jews. Christian Zionists have their own reasons for going with the Judeo-Christian thing (in some cases bizarre religious cultish reasons like the hope that an alliance of Jews and Christians will bring about the Second Coming) but I don't think they have any actual respect for the Jewish religion or for Jewish culture and values.

    Christian Zionists are seriously weird.

    Neocons and Christian Zionists use the Judeo-Christian concept in very different ways.

    Replies: @songbird

    , @A123
    @songbird


    ... he sees Jews as an oppressed class, rather than an extremely wealthy and successful one.
     
    There are ~7MM individuals descended from Jews in the U.S. Why is there a need to lump them into only one class? It is hard to imagine more different people than Orthodox Jews versus the fully secularized Hollywood types.

    How many have Elite power in banking, government, or media? Jewish Elites are a poor predictor for non-elite Jews, just as Christian Elites are a poor predictor for non-elite Christians.

    In the real world, non-elite Jews and non-elite Christians are very similar. This is another reason why the term Judeo-Christian is both accurate and powerful for generating political traction. American Jews have gone to some fairly dramatic lengths to fit better with the dominant Christian culture. Hanukkah was a relatively minor observance that has been elevated as it roughly aligns with Christmas.

    The idea that there is a "Jewish Problem" is ludicrous and detached from reality. The country has an "Elite SJW Problem". Misidentifying the source of a problem is a good way to perpetuate it.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @songbird, @V. K. Ovelund

  201. @dfordoom
    @iffen


    Are Jews white? How do you decide who is white? Basic stuff.
     
    Alt-righters seem to favour the one-drop rule. If they discover that someone has a single Jewish ancestor they seem to assume that that person is Jewish.

    Are Persians white? What about Arabs? Are Russians white?

    Some Americans think Hispanics are non-white. An Hispanic is someone whose mother tongue is Spanish. Does that mean the Spanish are non-white?

    It's all pretty silly. People have lots of identities - class identities, religious identities, cultural identities, ideological identities. These days people even think they have gender identities. Uniting people on the basis of being white seems doomed to failure.

    Ashkenazi Jews seem pretty obviously white to me. Culturally and (sometimes) religiously distinctive from Anglos, but white. And there are lots of groups that are culturally and religiously different from Anglos but still white. Lots of Albanians are both white and Muslim. Greeks are clearly culturally and religiously distinct from Anglos, but still white.

    It's an awful thing for alt-righters to contemplate, but whites have lots of diversity!

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Alt-righters seem to favour the one-drop rule.

    Incorrect. As far as I know, you cannot identify a single significant figure on the American alt right that favours the one-drop rule when it comes to Jews. Negroes, yes; Jews, no. The most that can be said is that, [i] when someone with Jewish ancestry himself voluntarily draws attention to the fact, the alt-right naturally assumes that he’s not doing it for friendly reasons and [ii] half-Jews, whose fathers are Jewish but mothers are not, are mistrusted.

    Your past criticism regarding the alt right has been taken. The criticism wasn’t all factual, but I got out ahead of the criticism and on some points, one ultimately had to admit that you were right. However, it is understood (for example) among the alt-right that James Alex Fields, Jr., is a quarter Jewish. This does not bother a single alt-righter that I know.

    By the way, the alt-right had nothing to do with the established conventional social understanding in the United States regarding who is negro and who is Jewish. The negro standard predates George Washington: blacks themselves still use it to tell you who is black, and will not brook your interference nor mine in that determination. The Jewish standard has been enforced by Jews since time immemorial; so, whatever you might like to blame the alt-right for, I do not think that you can blame it for these.

  202. @songbird
    @dfordoom


    I think the term Judeo-Christian is offensive to everyone except neocons and Christian Zionists.
     
    Is iffen one of these? That is what I was trying to figure out.

    My assumption is that it is the inner hippy talking. A kind of John Lennon:

    Imagine there's no countries
    It isn't hard to do
    Nothing to kill or die for
    And no religion too
    Imagine all the people
    Living life in peace
     
    And that he sees Jews as an oppressed class, rather than an extremely wealthy and successful one.

    Maybe, it would be better to characterize it as universalism than secularism? I think there is an implicit disdain for the values, traditions, and interests of Christians in the promotion of the phrase "Judeo-Christian." Perhaps, it is not an antipathy, but I feel there is a pretty significant disregard or indifference for Christianity in it.

    I mean, I just try to think back to the old country. Probably every fourth girl had the the name "Mary." Everyone used pray "Hail Mary." The most common response to a hail on the street was to say "God and Mary to you." But the Talmud does not have nice things to say about her, nor of Christians. I don't think a peasant who had in all probability never seen a Jew would appreciate some alien heresy being prefixed to his sacred faith. So, the phrase strikes me as quite unhistorical, and I just can't see the utility in it. Christianity is certainly well-known the world over, it does not help to promote it, to add the prefix of "Judeo" to it. It would probably just confuse people.

    Furthermore, the historical relationship between Christians and Jews was never one of a multifaith, tolerant society. What similarities they might share is not a historical endorsement of a radical tolerance. The multifaith societies that we know of were simply not the best places for Christians to live.

    No seriously fervent person believes in ecumenism or interfaith dialogue. In this day and age, such things inevitably result in extreme poz. I mean, do you want your church talking with another church that has a tranny for a bishop?

    Replies: @dfordoom, @A123

    I think there is an implicit disdain for the values, traditions, and interests of Christians in the promotion of the phrase “Judeo-Christian.”

    And, weirdly, in the case of Christian Zionists there is also an implicit disdain for the values, traditions, and interests of Jews. Christian Zionists have their own reasons for going with the Judeo-Christian thing (in some cases bizarre religious cultish reasons like the hope that an alliance of Jews and Christians will bring about the Second Coming) but I don’t think they have any actual respect for the Jewish religion or for Jewish culture and values.

    Christian Zionists are seriously weird.

    Neocons and Christian Zionists use the Judeo-Christian concept in very different ways.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @dfordoom


    in the case of Christian Zionists there is also an implicit disdain for the values, traditions, and interests of Jews.
     
    Well, I think it touches Jewish society less. The only explicitly Jewish state is Israel. By definition, I don't think they will take the phrase that seriously. Maybe, humor tourists a bit, or use it with foreign delegations, or on foreign dockets.

    Don't know what regular Jewish secularists or Orthodox Jews think of the term, or the average Israeli, but I think Christian Zionists are approached and courted by Jewish Zionists, so, I can see how they might think that Jews favor the term.

    Replies: @German_reader, @dfordoom

  203. @iffen
    @dfordoom

    There’s no question that the hostility of the alt-right to the term “Judeo-Christian” is almost entirely driven by hatred of Jews.

    This is one of the main reasons that it has limited political traction. Although, the pointed attempt to not accept anti-Semitism by the Jared Taylor group hasn't seemed to help them that much.

    I definitely see deciding the position on the JQ as a foundational issue for White Identitarians/Nationalists.

    Are Jews white? How do you decide who is white? Basic stuff.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom, @V. K. Ovelund

    How do you decide who is white?

    A good start might be to ask them.

    This is seldom a real dilemma in practice, though. I agree with Mike Peinovich: hardly anyone ever asks blacks how they decide who is black. If not, then your question is not a real question.

    Most likely, if your average six-year-old, who is not yet old enough to have had his brain addled by Political Correctness, perceives someone as white, they’re white.

  204. @utu
    @nebulafox

    Thanks for your explanation. But I have my doubts though no time or energy to look for some of examples where "The language used by the emperors and their cronies is explicitly Biblical."

    Replies: @nebulafox

    One example off the top of my head is Leo III’s Ecloga: a law code which attempted to make Roman law more in line with Old Testament practice. This was after a century of state ideology changing in the manner I described, under Heraclius and his descendants.

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ecloga

    Leo was the emperor who stopped the Arabs at the gates of Constantinople in 717: aka, when the empire hit a point of absolute rock bottom that it hadn’t seen… well, maybe since the days of Cannae or even the Gallic sack of Rome (remember, when the West fell, the East didn’t), and wouldn’t see again until 1204. His motives in propagating this legal reform show the mindset of the time: the Romans had lost God’s favor-that jealous deity of the Old Testament-and needed to gain it back. This was similar to how the kingdom of Israel strayed and were punished for that.

    It’s interesting to note that being born in Syria, he probably was influenced to some degree by heterodox “Eastern” Christianity and perhaps, to a limited extent, Islamic success: or, according to one hostile biographer, he was “Saracen minded”. (He probably spoke fluent Arabic.) However, one of the big propaganda points for Muslims-and Jews-back in the day was the relative lack of religious legalism in Christianity. So, it’s easy to read this as a cynical propaganda exercise.

    But to people at the time, there was no contradiction or division between religious piety and practical politics. Leo probably genuinely believed he was working the Romans back to God’s favor while simultaneously wishing to PR legitimize the Christian state in the face of constant Islamic attack. The Roman government had to legitimize their rule for survival in an age where military victory was synonymous with divine favor: just like in the classical world.

  205. @dfordoom
    @songbird


    I think there is an implicit disdain for the values, traditions, and interests of Christians in the promotion of the phrase “Judeo-Christian.”
     
    And, weirdly, in the case of Christian Zionists there is also an implicit disdain for the values, traditions, and interests of Jews. Christian Zionists have their own reasons for going with the Judeo-Christian thing (in some cases bizarre religious cultish reasons like the hope that an alliance of Jews and Christians will bring about the Second Coming) but I don't think they have any actual respect for the Jewish religion or for Jewish culture and values.

    Christian Zionists are seriously weird.

    Neocons and Christian Zionists use the Judeo-Christian concept in very different ways.

    Replies: @songbird

    in the case of Christian Zionists there is also an implicit disdain for the values, traditions, and interests of Jews.

    Well, I think it touches Jewish society less. The only explicitly Jewish state is Israel. By definition, I don’t think they will take the phrase that seriously. Maybe, humor tourists a bit, or use it with foreign delegations, or on foreign dockets.

    Don’t know what regular Jewish secularists or Orthodox Jews think of the term, or the average Israeli, but I think Christian Zionists are approached and courted by Jewish Zionists, so, I can see how they might think that Jews favor the term.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @songbird


    Don’t know what regular Jewish secularists or Orthodox Jews think of the term, or the average Israeli
     
    In Germany Jews have criticized the term, arguing that it whitewashes the history of Christians oppressing and persecuting Jews, and that it's merely a cynical attempt by right-wingers to make discrimination of Muslims palatable (which is probably true tbh).
    My general impression is that a lot of Jews view Christianity's anti-Jewish elements as the root of Nazi antisemitism (even if the Nazis were secular extreme nationalists, not Christians in any sense); that's clearly discernible in the highly negative attitude of many Jews towards Catholic Poland (I've seen comments by American Jews who wrote of Polish guards at Auschwitz, something which didn't exist). So I doubt the term could be uncontroversial among Jews (though that doesn't preclude Zionist activists cynically using it).

    Replies: @songbird, @nebulafox

    , @dfordoom
    @songbird


    but I think Christian Zionists are approached and courted by Jewish Zionists
     
    The amusing thing is that they both think they're getting the best of the deal, and Christian Zionists have no real respect for Jews and Jewish Zionists have no real respect for Christian Zionists.
  206. A123 says:
    @songbird
    @dfordoom


    I think the term Judeo-Christian is offensive to everyone except neocons and Christian Zionists.
     
    Is iffen one of these? That is what I was trying to figure out.

    My assumption is that it is the inner hippy talking. A kind of John Lennon:

    Imagine there's no countries
    It isn't hard to do
    Nothing to kill or die for
    And no religion too
    Imagine all the people
    Living life in peace
     
    And that he sees Jews as an oppressed class, rather than an extremely wealthy and successful one.

    Maybe, it would be better to characterize it as universalism than secularism? I think there is an implicit disdain for the values, traditions, and interests of Christians in the promotion of the phrase "Judeo-Christian." Perhaps, it is not an antipathy, but I feel there is a pretty significant disregard or indifference for Christianity in it.

    I mean, I just try to think back to the old country. Probably every fourth girl had the the name "Mary." Everyone used pray "Hail Mary." The most common response to a hail on the street was to say "God and Mary to you." But the Talmud does not have nice things to say about her, nor of Christians. I don't think a peasant who had in all probability never seen a Jew would appreciate some alien heresy being prefixed to his sacred faith. So, the phrase strikes me as quite unhistorical, and I just can't see the utility in it. Christianity is certainly well-known the world over, it does not help to promote it, to add the prefix of "Judeo" to it. It would probably just confuse people.

    Furthermore, the historical relationship between Christians and Jews was never one of a multifaith, tolerant society. What similarities they might share is not a historical endorsement of a radical tolerance. The multifaith societies that we know of were simply not the best places for Christians to live.

    No seriously fervent person believes in ecumenism or interfaith dialogue. In this day and age, such things inevitably result in extreme poz. I mean, do you want your church talking with another church that has a tranny for a bishop?

    Replies: @dfordoom, @A123

    … he sees Jews as an oppressed class, rather than an extremely wealthy and successful one.

    There are ~7MM individuals descended from Jews in the U.S. Why is there a need to lump them into only one class? It is hard to imagine more different people than Orthodox Jews versus the fully secularized Hollywood types.

    How many have Elite power in banking, government, or media? Jewish Elites are a poor predictor for non-elite Jews, just as Christian Elites are a poor predictor for non-elite Christians.

    In the real world, non-elite Jews and non-elite Christians are very similar. This is another reason why the term Judeo-Christian is both accurate and powerful for generating political traction. American Jews have gone to some fairly dramatic lengths to fit better with the dominant Christian culture. Hanukkah was a relatively minor observance that has been elevated as it roughly aligns with Christmas.

    The idea that there is a “Jewish Problem” is ludicrous and detached from reality. The country has an “Elite SJW Problem”. Misidentifying the source of a problem is a good way to perpetuate it.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @songbird
    @A123


    There are ~7MM individuals descended from Jews in the U.S. Why is there a need to lump them into only one class?
     
    Well, the average one seems to be doing well economically. I don't think their social position justifies the common rhetoric of ethnic victimhood, which I have personally heard from very privileged people. I mean, if you go to Harvard, you are probably not on the top of the victimhood totem pole.

    This is another reason why the term Judeo-Christian is both accurate and powerful for generating political traction.
     
    What percentage of the 37 Jews in Congress are Republican?

    Jews have gone to some fairly dramatic lengths to fit better with the dominant Christian culture. Hanukkah was a relatively minor observance that has been elevated as it roughly aligns with Christmas.
     
    Making me spin the dreidel in public elementary school does fit my definition of going to dramatic lengths to fit in.

    Replies: @A123

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @A123


    Misidentifying the source of a problem is a good way to perpetuate it.
     
    True.
  207. German_reader says:
    @songbird
    @dfordoom


    in the case of Christian Zionists there is also an implicit disdain for the values, traditions, and interests of Jews.
     
    Well, I think it touches Jewish society less. The only explicitly Jewish state is Israel. By definition, I don't think they will take the phrase that seriously. Maybe, humor tourists a bit, or use it with foreign delegations, or on foreign dockets.

    Don't know what regular Jewish secularists or Orthodox Jews think of the term, or the average Israeli, but I think Christian Zionists are approached and courted by Jewish Zionists, so, I can see how they might think that Jews favor the term.

    Replies: @German_reader, @dfordoom

    Don’t know what regular Jewish secularists or Orthodox Jews think of the term, or the average Israeli

    In Germany Jews have criticized the term, arguing that it whitewashes the history of Christians oppressing and persecuting Jews, and that it’s merely a cynical attempt by right-wingers to make discrimination of Muslims palatable (which is probably true tbh).
    My general impression is that a lot of Jews view Christianity’s anti-Jewish elements as the root of Nazi antisemitism (even if the Nazis were secular extreme nationalists, not Christians in any sense); that’s clearly discernible in the highly negative attitude of many Jews towards Catholic Poland (I’ve seen comments by American Jews who wrote of Polish guards at Auschwitz, something which didn’t exist). So I doubt the term could be uncontroversial among Jews (though that doesn’t preclude Zionist activists cynically using it).

    • Replies: @songbird
    @German_reader


    In Germany Jews have criticized the term, arguing that it whitewashes the history of Christians oppressing and persecuting Jews, and that it’s merely a cynical attempt by right-wingers to make discrimination of Muslims palatable (which is probably true tbh).
     
    Interesting, I wonder if this is related to their origin which seems to be overwhelmingly recent immigrants from Eastern Europe. Probably from Russia?

    I don't feel educated enough on the issue to evaluate it, but in America, some say that the Jews that caused the most trouble were "Russian" Jews, and not the ones from further West, who had been more culturally Westernized, while in Europe. Personally, I am a bit skeptical of it, other than maybe terrorists. I mean, from what I can tell, even Sephardics in the West broadly have the same political skew.

    and that it’s merely a cynical attempt by right-wingers to make discrimination of Muslims palatable (which is probably true tbh).
     
    One of the reasons that I don't like the term is that it seems to have an implicit whiff of blank-slatism about it. A tacit approval of hordes of nominally Christian African immigrants coming to Europe - maybe, to "solve" its Muslim problem. The "Judeo" really gives it that touch of universalism.

    Replies: @German_reader

    , @nebulafox
    @German_reader

    Vibe I got was that it was more about being pro-Jew than anti-Muslim per se, if that makes sense. The kind of righties in the US who are overtly anti-Muslim are usually downstream of the neocons and GOP ideologues, or adjacent to them (military officers): they used the term, but were not the creators. They share the same Israelphilia and Judeophilia, so the difference is subtle, but it is there.

    The Nazis themselves had no time for Christianity, but the Poles and Ukrainians and other peoples who took advantage of Barbarossa to settle scores with people seen as Soviet collaborators (which, yes and no: Jews were over represented in leadership of early Communism but Stalin had killed most of them by 1940) might have been another story. Perhaps memories there?

    Replies: @German_reader

  208. @songbird
    @dfordoom


    in the case of Christian Zionists there is also an implicit disdain for the values, traditions, and interests of Jews.
     
    Well, I think it touches Jewish society less. The only explicitly Jewish state is Israel. By definition, I don't think they will take the phrase that seriously. Maybe, humor tourists a bit, or use it with foreign delegations, or on foreign dockets.

    Don't know what regular Jewish secularists or Orthodox Jews think of the term, or the average Israeli, but I think Christian Zionists are approached and courted by Jewish Zionists, so, I can see how they might think that Jews favor the term.

    Replies: @German_reader, @dfordoom

    but I think Christian Zionists are approached and courted by Jewish Zionists

    The amusing thing is that they both think they’re getting the best of the deal, and Christian Zionists have no real respect for Jews and Jewish Zionists have no real respect for Christian Zionists.

  209. @utu
    @German_reader

    The few kings in early Christianity who took the name of David and the illustrations from the liturgical codex that alludes to Moses that you posted (thanks!) still do not support the statement that in the “post-Roman states in Europe” Christians “viewed themselves as the new Israel.” It was just impossible before Protestantism and its doctrine of predestination that opened the door for the Judaic concept of collective chosenness. Jesus came for all people and becoming a Christian was an individual choice even if some conversions were done under pressure under orders of rulers or conquerors. Every pagan out there was a potential Christian.

    Replies: @German_reader, @anon

    It was just impossible before Protestantism and its doctrine of predestination that opened the door for the Judaic concept of collective chosenness.

    Not all Protestants accept the doctrine of predestination. Some strongly reject it. Therefore this statement is without meaning.

    It is not possible to discuss European Christianity over the last 450 years without understanding how and why post-Westphalian Europe was different from Carolingian Europe. Unfortunately history is not generally taught or learned now.

    Plus…Moldbuggery…smh.

  210. @dfordoom
    @iffen


    I guess I spend too much time at Unz because most of the complaints that I see about its use seem to be politically motivated by some animus toward Jews.
     
    There's no question that the hostility of the alt-right to the term "Judeo-Christian" is almost entirely driven by hatred of Jews.

    It's one of those situations in which you have two different groups pursuing two different agendas and both are equally wrong and destructive.

    Whenever you have two extreme opposed ideological views you do generally find that both are wrong and that the correct answer is to be found by taking the deeply unfashionable view that maybe there's something to be said for the moderate pragmatic centrist position.

    Replies: @iffen, @anon

    There’s no question that the hostility of the alt-right to the term “Judeo-Christian” is almost entirely driven by hatred of Jews.

    I question it. Can you prove it?

  211. anon[363] • Disclaimer says:
    @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Unfortunately, Jewish interests tend to be the very opposite of white interests; so, operationally, Jews are antiwhite.
     
    As a White Christian, I have Judeo-Christian values. Jews share those Judeo-Christian values. Thus, operationally Jews are 100% committed to White Judeo-Christian interests.

    Before VK points it out... There are a tiny number of non-practicing, apostates that support Globalist Islamic SJW values. Chuck Schumer and Adam Schiff spring to mind as examples of this tiny Elite minority. However, these few examples have no connection to the vast majority of American Jews.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @anon

    As a White Christian, I have Judeo-Christian values.

    Such as the Apostles Creed?

    Such as the deity of Christ?

    Those Christian values don’t mix at all with Talmudic Judaism or any other form of Judaism. Even the atheist Jewish man I work with would reject them.

    “Judeo-Christian” is a fake term use for propaganda, to fool Christians.

  212. @German_reader
    @songbird


    Don’t know what regular Jewish secularists or Orthodox Jews think of the term, or the average Israeli
     
    In Germany Jews have criticized the term, arguing that it whitewashes the history of Christians oppressing and persecuting Jews, and that it's merely a cynical attempt by right-wingers to make discrimination of Muslims palatable (which is probably true tbh).
    My general impression is that a lot of Jews view Christianity's anti-Jewish elements as the root of Nazi antisemitism (even if the Nazis were secular extreme nationalists, not Christians in any sense); that's clearly discernible in the highly negative attitude of many Jews towards Catholic Poland (I've seen comments by American Jews who wrote of Polish guards at Auschwitz, something which didn't exist). So I doubt the term could be uncontroversial among Jews (though that doesn't preclude Zionist activists cynically using it).

    Replies: @songbird, @nebulafox

    In Germany Jews have criticized the term, arguing that it whitewashes the history of Christians oppressing and persecuting Jews, and that it’s merely a cynical attempt by right-wingers to make discrimination of Muslims palatable (which is probably true tbh).

    Interesting, I wonder if this is related to their origin which seems to be overwhelmingly recent immigrants from Eastern Europe. Probably from Russia?

    I don’t feel educated enough on the issue to evaluate it, but in America, some say that the Jews that caused the most trouble were “Russian” Jews, and not the ones from further West, who had been more culturally Westernized, while in Europe. Personally, I am a bit skeptical of it, other than maybe terrorists. I mean, from what I can tell, even Sephardics in the West broadly have the same political skew.

    and that it’s merely a cynical attempt by right-wingers to make discrimination of Muslims palatable (which is probably true tbh).

    One of the reasons that I don’t like the term is that it seems to have an implicit whiff of blank-slatism about it. A tacit approval of hordes of nominally Christian African immigrants coming to Europe – maybe, to “solve” its Muslim problem. The “Judeo” really gives it that touch of universalism.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @songbird


    it seems to have an implicit whiff of blank-slatism about it. A tacit approval of hordes of nominally Christian African immigrants coming to Europe – maybe, to “solve” its Muslim problem.
     
    Sure, but you'd have the same problem if you used "Christian values" instead of "Judeo-Christian" as a slogan.
    Kind of an academic question right now though, as it is today you can't exclude anybody on any grounds whatsoever, the entire world is entitled to come to Western countries.

    Replies: @songbird

  213. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    The Woke are convinced that Muslims are just desperate to turn themselves into environmentally friendly touchy-feely LGBT-loving liberals, eating their veggie burgers before hurrying off to celebrate a homosexual marriage.
     
    A123's notice regarding this point contradicts my preconceptions. Maybe it contradicts yours, too, but (unexpectedly to me) it does seem to fit some observable facts.

    Replies: @AnonStarter

    “At a practical level, SJW and Islam (in the U.S.) are indistinguishable.”

    For someone who has expended most of his effort in this thread attempting to take you to task for a purportedly imprecise use of the term “Jew,” he’s not very short on irony when the shoe’s on the other foot.

    Islam forbids homosexual relations. Where are SJWs in relation to this?
    Islam proscribes adultery and the murder of unborn children. Where are SJWs in relation to this?
    Islam establishes traditional, family-oriented ethics. Where are SJWs in relation to this?
    Islam commands protection of religious liberty. Where are SJWs in relation to this?
    Islam prescribes capital punishment for rape, murder, brigandage, and abuse of the public trust. Where are SJWs in relation to this?

    So now we witness nominally “Muslim” individuals who, in flagrant defiance of the religion, juke and jive with the LGBTQ crew or exploit the zeitgeist eschewing “white supremacy” in order to make a name for themselves and descend the ladder to perdition.

    If you imagine these folks are actually representative of Islam, I’ve got some nice oceanside property in Topeka you might be interested in.

    • LOL: A123
    • Replies: @A123
    @AnonStarter

    One key problem is the Islamic weaponization of deception (known as Taqiyya). When Muslims speak to Infidels, anything resembling accuracy is accidental. Let me fix your statements to remove the lies:

    Islam endorses homosexual relations.
    Islam encourages adultery and the murder of unborn children.
    Islam abhors traditional, family-oriented ethics.
    Islam commands elimination of religious liberty.
    Islam rewards rape, murder, brigandage, and abuse of the public trust.

    Where are SJWs in relation to this?

    Once the TRUTH about Islam is shown, it looks nearly identical to SJW in almost all respects. Ilhan Omar could use it as her platform statement about Islam in America. As a consequence, Muslims are impossible to assimilate and represent a huge portion of thus U.S. prison population. (1)


    In 5 States, 1 in 5 Prisoners are Muslim

    American taxpayers are spending billions a year on Muslim prisoners. At 1%, Muslims are still a small percentage of the population. But there’s one place in America where they are vastly over-represented.

    Muslims make up 1% of the population in Pennsylvania, but 1 in 5 of its prisoners. Of the 48,438 prisoners in Pennsylvania, 10,264 were Muslim. That’s 8% of an estimated statewide Muslim population of 128,000, meaning that 1 in 12 Muslims in Pennsylvania were in prison in 2017.
     

    For someone who has expended most of his effort in this thread attempting to take you to task for a purportedly imprecise use of the term “Jew,” he’s not very short on irony when the shoe’s on the other foot.

    The term Jews is overly broad. There are obvious subgroups than apply to the topics at hand. Orthodox Jews, Conservative Jews, Reform Jews, Hollywood/Media Elites, non-elite Jews. And, the membership in each group is fairly obvious.

    What are the Muslim subgroups? Given that all Quran mandates "All Muslims Must Lie to Infidels", how can Infidels clearly and objectively identify who is in which group?

    In the past twenty years, how many religious mass murders have been committed in the U.S. by:
        -1- Muslims for Allah?
        -2- Christians for Jesus?
        -3- Jews for YHWH?
    As a % of each religion's population it is going to be in that order, and Islamic murder is going to have a huge lead.

    There is no way to tell where the murders are going to come from:
        • The Fort Hood Massacre was committed by a fairly privileged medical professional.
        • The Pulse Night Club Butcher was 2nd generation, in theory assimilated.
    Muslim Radicalization can happen anywhere at anytime resulting in Jihadi violence against Infidels.

    Given the level of physical threat, my position is quite moderate.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/08/in-5-states-1-in-5-prisoners-are-muslim

    Replies: @AnonStarter, @AnonStarter, @V. K. Ovelund

  214. German_reader says:
    @songbird
    @German_reader


    In Germany Jews have criticized the term, arguing that it whitewashes the history of Christians oppressing and persecuting Jews, and that it’s merely a cynical attempt by right-wingers to make discrimination of Muslims palatable (which is probably true tbh).
     
    Interesting, I wonder if this is related to their origin which seems to be overwhelmingly recent immigrants from Eastern Europe. Probably from Russia?

    I don't feel educated enough on the issue to evaluate it, but in America, some say that the Jews that caused the most trouble were "Russian" Jews, and not the ones from further West, who had been more culturally Westernized, while in Europe. Personally, I am a bit skeptical of it, other than maybe terrorists. I mean, from what I can tell, even Sephardics in the West broadly have the same political skew.

    and that it’s merely a cynical attempt by right-wingers to make discrimination of Muslims palatable (which is probably true tbh).
     
    One of the reasons that I don't like the term is that it seems to have an implicit whiff of blank-slatism about it. A tacit approval of hordes of nominally Christian African immigrants coming to Europe - maybe, to "solve" its Muslim problem. The "Judeo" really gives it that touch of universalism.

    Replies: @German_reader

    it seems to have an implicit whiff of blank-slatism about it. A tacit approval of hordes of nominally Christian African immigrants coming to Europe – maybe, to “solve” its Muslim problem.

    Sure, but you’d have the same problem if you used “Christian values” instead of “Judeo-Christian” as a slogan.
    Kind of an academic question right now though, as it is today you can’t exclude anybody on any grounds whatsoever, the entire world is entitled to come to Western countries.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @German_reader

    There's really no getting around the fact that, today, every church seems to be pozzed.

    For example, there is this story out of Germany:
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/100-german-catholic-churches-to-issue-same-sex-blessings-defying-vatican/ar-BB1gzBUT

    Replies: @German_reader, @nebulafox, @V. K. Ovelund

  215. @A123
    @songbird


    ... he sees Jews as an oppressed class, rather than an extremely wealthy and successful one.
     
    There are ~7MM individuals descended from Jews in the U.S. Why is there a need to lump them into only one class? It is hard to imagine more different people than Orthodox Jews versus the fully secularized Hollywood types.

    How many have Elite power in banking, government, or media? Jewish Elites are a poor predictor for non-elite Jews, just as Christian Elites are a poor predictor for non-elite Christians.

    In the real world, non-elite Jews and non-elite Christians are very similar. This is another reason why the term Judeo-Christian is both accurate and powerful for generating political traction. American Jews have gone to some fairly dramatic lengths to fit better with the dominant Christian culture. Hanukkah was a relatively minor observance that has been elevated as it roughly aligns with Christmas.

    The idea that there is a "Jewish Problem" is ludicrous and detached from reality. The country has an "Elite SJW Problem". Misidentifying the source of a problem is a good way to perpetuate it.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @songbird, @V. K. Ovelund

    There are ~7MM individuals descended from Jews in the U.S. Why is there a need to lump them into only one class?

    Well, the average one seems to be doing well economically. I don’t think their social position justifies the common rhetoric of ethnic victimhood, which I have personally heard from very privileged people. I mean, if you go to Harvard, you are probably not on the top of the victimhood totem pole.

    This is another reason why the term Judeo-Christian is both accurate and powerful for generating political traction.

    What percentage of the 37 Jews in Congress are Republican?

    Jews have gone to some fairly dramatic lengths to fit better with the dominant Christian culture. Hanukkah was a relatively minor observance that has been elevated as it roughly aligns with Christmas.

    Making me spin the dreidel in public elementary school does fit my definition of going to dramatic lengths to fit in.

    • Replies: @A123
    @songbird



    There are ~7MM individuals descended from Jews in the U.S. Why is there a need to lump them into only one class?
     
    Well, the average one seems to be doing well economically. I don’t think their social position justifies the common rhetoric of ethnic victimhood, which I have personally heard from very privileged people. I mean, if you go to Harvard, you are probably not on the top of the victimhood totem pole
     
    Why go to one average for all?

    • Orthodox tend to be poorer, and abuses are aimed at them.
    • Non-Elites have no access to Harvard.
    • Elites have access to the top universities.

    When an Elite claims to be a victim, I am very skeptical. When an Orthodox reports that their kids are being harassed by NYC officials, that is highly plausible.


    This is another reason why the term Judeo-Christian is both accurate and powerful for generating political traction.
     
    What percentage of the 37 Jews in Congress are Republican?
     
    MAGA Jews who believe in Judeo-Christian values are willing to back MAGA Christians in elections. To me that adds to the strength of the position. We know that GOP campaigns take in contributions from various Jewish groups at a significant rate.

    Out of 37, I would guess 3 are Jewish, all in the House. Is your point:
        • The GOP picks the best people for office regardless of group.
        • The DNC is made up of exclusionary groups that only vote for their own kind.


    The more important question is -- How many MAGA Judeo-Christians will be in the House after the 2022 elections?

    Making me spin the dreidel in public elementary school does fit my definition of going to dramatic lengths to fit in.
     
    Were you really forced to spin a dreidel in elementary school? Even if you were, all that gets you is some alphabet characters from Hebrew. There is nothing intrinsically religious about it.

    Given a choice between kids:
        • Spinning driedels, possibly learning some foreign language -or-
        • Reading SJW Islamic propaganda like Heather has Two Mommies

    Introductory Hebrew 101 is much less toxic than anti-Christian, pro-Muslim, SJW propaganda.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @German_reader, @songbird

  216. @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund

    The problem with inarticulate use of the English language is miscommunication. Are you intentionally trying to create problems for yourself?

    Let us look at your phrase:


    Yet we still have a Jewish problem.
     
    Jewish is another collective term for "All Jews". So what you are actually saying is:

    Yet we still have an ALL JEWS problem.

    Then you immediately contradict yourself by trying to create a carve out for "personal friends whom you deem nonhostile".

    You have admitted that you have little to no contact with Orthodox Branch members. Yet you denigrate them in your sweeping statements about ALL JEWS via the collective term Jewish.

    If you do not like "Elite" as a modifier, please feel free to use something else. However, you definitely need something that better identifies the specific subgroup that you have an issue with.

    The Islamo-SJW hypothesis is silly in my opinion.
     
    How are objective facts silly?

    In the U.S., the BLM movement offers open SJW support for the Muslim Occupation of Judea & Samaria. Look at all of the signage here:
    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/manufacturing-hate/#comment-4639291

    It is even more clear on the European front:

    • George IslamoSoros is anti-Israel and pro-BDS. These are classic Islamic positions and antithetical to Jewish positions.
    • George IslamoSoros is a huge backer of SJW NGO's like his Open Society Foundation.
    • His pro-Islamic NGO's are directly tied to dumping Muslims in Europe, such as the various Sea Watch human trafficking vessels.

    Everyone can see the incredibly obvious, direct connection between SJW and Islam.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    P.S. You still need to answer the question about 100% exclusive Christian responsibility for keeping the Charlottesville Five in prison. Repeatedly ducking it causes others to perceive you as highly evasive.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Bardon Kaldian, @anon, @anon, @Bill

    Jewish is another collective term for “All Jews”.

    That’s false and silly. It would be impossible to talk about groups of things coherently if language worked this way. “Women are shorter than men” is a true statement, and you are a tiresome liar.

  217. @German_reader
    @songbird


    Don’t know what regular Jewish secularists or Orthodox Jews think of the term, or the average Israeli
     
    In Germany Jews have criticized the term, arguing that it whitewashes the history of Christians oppressing and persecuting Jews, and that it's merely a cynical attempt by right-wingers to make discrimination of Muslims palatable (which is probably true tbh).
    My general impression is that a lot of Jews view Christianity's anti-Jewish elements as the root of Nazi antisemitism (even if the Nazis were secular extreme nationalists, not Christians in any sense); that's clearly discernible in the highly negative attitude of many Jews towards Catholic Poland (I've seen comments by American Jews who wrote of Polish guards at Auschwitz, something which didn't exist). So I doubt the term could be uncontroversial among Jews (though that doesn't preclude Zionist activists cynically using it).

    Replies: @songbird, @nebulafox

    Vibe I got was that it was more about being pro-Jew than anti-Muslim per se, if that makes sense. The kind of righties in the US who are overtly anti-Muslim are usually downstream of the neocons and GOP ideologues, or adjacent to them (military officers): they used the term, but were not the creators. They share the same Israelphilia and Judeophilia, so the difference is subtle, but it is there.

    The Nazis themselves had no time for Christianity, but the Poles and Ukrainians and other peoples who took advantage of Barbarossa to settle scores with people seen as Soviet collaborators (which, yes and no: Jews were over represented in leadership of early Communism but Stalin had killed most of them by 1940) might have been another story. Perhaps memories there?

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @nebulafox


    to settle scores with people seen as Soviet collaborators (which, yes and no: Jews were over represented in leadership of early Communism but Stalin had killed most of them by 1940)
     
    That's the standard line, but it may miss some important facts. Years ago I read a book about Latvia in WW2 (Björn Felder, Lettland im Zweiten Weltkrieg). The study (which was by no means "revisionist" in the pro-Nazi sense so common at UR) made absolutely clear that the overwhelming number of Communist party members in Latvia during the Soviet occupation of 1939-1941, that is the kind of people who supported the Soviet occupiers and were trusted by them, were ethnic Russians and Jews; whereas the elites of the old Latvian state (a comparatively mild nationalist-authoritarian regime) faced persecution and deportation. The Soviet authorities also made a big show of combating antisemitism in their propaganda. I haven't read anything as detailed about Estonia, Lithuania and the formerly Polish territories occupied by the Soviets, but similar dynamics were probably at play there.
    Obviously this a highly taboo topic, given the mass murders subsequently conducted by Einsatzgruppen and native collaborators.

    Perhaps memories there?
     
    American Jews (presumably born long after WW2) writing in 2020 how much they hate Poland, because Poles don't admit to their Holocaust responsibility (including the mythical Polish concentration camp guards), don't have "memories", they have ethnic resentment, plain and simple.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  218. @German_reader
    @songbird


    it seems to have an implicit whiff of blank-slatism about it. A tacit approval of hordes of nominally Christian African immigrants coming to Europe – maybe, to “solve” its Muslim problem.
     
    Sure, but you'd have the same problem if you used "Christian values" instead of "Judeo-Christian" as a slogan.
    Kind of an academic question right now though, as it is today you can't exclude anybody on any grounds whatsoever, the entire world is entitled to come to Western countries.

    Replies: @songbird

    There’s really no getting around the fact that, today, every church seems to be pozzed.

    For example, there is this story out of Germany:
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/100-german-catholic-churches-to-issue-same-sex-blessings-defying-vatican/ar-BB1gzBUT

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @songbird

    I know.
    Gets even more insane: The kind of progressive Catholics behind that kind of thing wanted to award a prize for the best Catholic young adolescent novel of the year to a book dealing sympathetically with transgenderism. That apparently was a step too far for bishops who blocked it, but the trend is of course clear.

    Replies: @songbird

    , @nebulafox
    @songbird

    Not Eastern Orthodoxy...

    Replies: @songbird

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @songbird

    It is most perplexing.


    There’s really no getting around the fact that, today, every church seems to be pozzed.
     
    For various unlikely reasons I have had cause during the past 40 years to attend an unusually large number of different churches of disparate denominations in multiple U.S. states, coast to coast: Lutheran; Baptist; Methodist; Presbyterian; Pentacostal (in two, distinct flavors); Episcopalian; Congregational; Mormon; Eastern Orthodox; Roman Catholic; and one or two others of which you have probably never heard. While my experience with some was longer than with others, I do not refer merely to attendance at a wedding or visiting one Sunday or some such; I refer to more significant participation. (I can make no excuse for the embarrassing length of the list, except that life is complicated and there were reasons in each case.)

    In my experience, every one is significantly pozzed—with the single exception of Roman Catholic Latin Mass which, where I attended, was conspicuously overrun by weird persons and individuals who craved attention—but at least the priest for once was normal. The Mormons were probably the least pozzed, but they made up for the poz deficit with hypocrisy. (Whether the Mormons are a Christian church that can even be listed with the others is a question I would rather not touch.)

    Or maybe the problem lies with me. That is hard to say, but I really must confirm your perplexing observation. I have no theory to explain it. I do not understand it. But I can see it, just as you can.

    The only churches I did not notice to be pozzed were the Roman Catholic churches I attended for a few weeks each in Germany and Mexico, but that's mostly because I'd no clue what the heck was going on.

    Replies: @songbird

  219. German_reader says:
    @nebulafox
    @German_reader

    Vibe I got was that it was more about being pro-Jew than anti-Muslim per se, if that makes sense. The kind of righties in the US who are overtly anti-Muslim are usually downstream of the neocons and GOP ideologues, or adjacent to them (military officers): they used the term, but were not the creators. They share the same Israelphilia and Judeophilia, so the difference is subtle, but it is there.

    The Nazis themselves had no time for Christianity, but the Poles and Ukrainians and other peoples who took advantage of Barbarossa to settle scores with people seen as Soviet collaborators (which, yes and no: Jews were over represented in leadership of early Communism but Stalin had killed most of them by 1940) might have been another story. Perhaps memories there?

    Replies: @German_reader

    to settle scores with people seen as Soviet collaborators (which, yes and no: Jews were over represented in leadership of early Communism but Stalin had killed most of them by 1940)

    That’s the standard line, but it may miss some important facts. Years ago I read a book about Latvia in WW2 (Björn Felder, Lettland im Zweiten Weltkrieg). The study (which was by no means “revisionist” in the pro-Nazi sense so common at UR) made absolutely clear that the overwhelming number of Communist party members in Latvia during the Soviet occupation of 1939-1941, that is the kind of people who supported the Soviet occupiers and were trusted by them, were ethnic Russians and Jews; whereas the elites of the old Latvian state (a comparatively mild nationalist-authoritarian regime) faced persecution and deportation. The Soviet authorities also made a big show of combating antisemitism in their propaganda. I haven’t read anything as detailed about Estonia, Lithuania and the formerly Polish territories occupied by the Soviets, but similar dynamics were probably at play there.
    Obviously this a highly taboo topic, given the mass murders subsequently conducted by Einsatzgruppen and native collaborators.

    Perhaps memories there?

    American Jews (presumably born long after WW2) writing in 2020 how much they hate Poland, because Poles don’t admit to their Holocaust responsibility (including the mythical Polish concentration camp guards), don’t have “memories”, they have ethnic resentment, plain and simple.

    • Agree: iffen, RSDB
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @German_reader

    I believe you, though this is interesting to compare to the amount of ethnic Latvians in the early Cheka and NKVD. Founder was a Polish noble. Maybe the nuts moved to Russia after the revolution, leaving behind a leftist diluted populace. Anyway, I will read that myself when I get the chance. YMMV, but I naively think the atrocities committed by Hitler are so obvious and well documented that such revisionism should not be controversial.

    In the West, the much ballyhooed Resistance aside, German occupation forces seemed to utilize local structures handily.

    Re, your second point: American leftists inhabit an outdated world in general, so it is not a huge leap for Jewish leftists to graft that to their own preoccupations, though I would note that the Polish government is offensive to American lefties in general. Rightists do too, but in different ways with different resentments.

  220. German_reader says:
    @songbird
    @German_reader

    There's really no getting around the fact that, today, every church seems to be pozzed.

    For example, there is this story out of Germany:
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/100-german-catholic-churches-to-issue-same-sex-blessings-defying-vatican/ar-BB1gzBUT

    Replies: @German_reader, @nebulafox, @V. K. Ovelund

    I know.
    Gets even more insane: The kind of progressive Catholics behind that kind of thing wanted to award a prize for the best Catholic young adolescent novel of the year to a book dealing sympathetically with transgenderism. That apparently was a step too far for bishops who blocked it, but the trend is of course clear.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @German_reader

    The Lutherans in the US seem to have topped it:
    https://www.npr.org/2021/05/09/995271758/megan-rohrer-elected-as-1st-openly-transgender-bishop-in-u-s-lutheran-church

    Though, she was a lesbian to start, so I guess there is room for further escalation.

    Replies: @German_reader

  221. @German_reader
    @nebulafox


    to settle scores with people seen as Soviet collaborators (which, yes and no: Jews were over represented in leadership of early Communism but Stalin had killed most of them by 1940)
     
    That's the standard line, but it may miss some important facts. Years ago I read a book about Latvia in WW2 (Björn Felder, Lettland im Zweiten Weltkrieg). The study (which was by no means "revisionist" in the pro-Nazi sense so common at UR) made absolutely clear that the overwhelming number of Communist party members in Latvia during the Soviet occupation of 1939-1941, that is the kind of people who supported the Soviet occupiers and were trusted by them, were ethnic Russians and Jews; whereas the elites of the old Latvian state (a comparatively mild nationalist-authoritarian regime) faced persecution and deportation. The Soviet authorities also made a big show of combating antisemitism in their propaganda. I haven't read anything as detailed about Estonia, Lithuania and the formerly Polish territories occupied by the Soviets, but similar dynamics were probably at play there.
    Obviously this a highly taboo topic, given the mass murders subsequently conducted by Einsatzgruppen and native collaborators.

    Perhaps memories there?
     
    American Jews (presumably born long after WW2) writing in 2020 how much they hate Poland, because Poles don't admit to their Holocaust responsibility (including the mythical Polish concentration camp guards), don't have "memories", they have ethnic resentment, plain and simple.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    I believe you, though this is interesting to compare to the amount of ethnic Latvians in the early Cheka and NKVD. Founder was a Polish noble. Maybe the nuts moved to Russia after the revolution, leaving behind a leftist diluted populace. Anyway, I will read that myself when I get the chance. YMMV, but I naively think the atrocities committed by Hitler are so obvious and well documented that such revisionism should not be controversial.

    In the West, the much ballyhooed Resistance aside, German occupation forces seemed to utilize local structures handily.

    Re, your second point: American leftists inhabit an outdated world in general, so it is not a huge leap for Jewish leftists to graft that to their own preoccupations, though I would note that the Polish government is offensive to American lefties in general. Rightists do too, but in different ways with different resentments.

  222. @songbird
    @German_reader

    There's really no getting around the fact that, today, every church seems to be pozzed.

    For example, there is this story out of Germany:
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/100-german-catholic-churches-to-issue-same-sex-blessings-defying-vatican/ar-BB1gzBUT

    Replies: @German_reader, @nebulafox, @V. K. Ovelund

    Not Eastern Orthodoxy…

    • Replies: @songbird
    @nebulafox

    I think that Eastern Orthodox Christians probably have the best pre-existing structure for fighting poz, among Christians. I mean, they take Lent seriously, for one. Then there are the beards - an implicit sign of patriarchy. Married men can become priests, which doesn't require sacrificing TFR.

    The Catholic Church has an obvious demographic problem - it was built around high TFR societies, where there were many sons and daughters. One brother could become a priest and officiate at the weddings of his siblings. There's probably been more missionary efforts to the Third World, and plenty of non-native priests to draw from now, which I think really encourages poz. Historically, many Irish priests were nationalists exactly because they were locals.

    Still, I have heard rumors of poz among the Orthodox leadership. The Patriarch of Constantinople seems like a wonky seat of leadership to have, seeing how the Turks have massacred all the local Christians. Though I can't comment as I don't know the specifics behind the rumors of poz.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @RSDB

  223. @A123
    @songbird


    ... he sees Jews as an oppressed class, rather than an extremely wealthy and successful one.
     
    There are ~7MM individuals descended from Jews in the U.S. Why is there a need to lump them into only one class? It is hard to imagine more different people than Orthodox Jews versus the fully secularized Hollywood types.

    How many have Elite power in banking, government, or media? Jewish Elites are a poor predictor for non-elite Jews, just as Christian Elites are a poor predictor for non-elite Christians.

    In the real world, non-elite Jews and non-elite Christians are very similar. This is another reason why the term Judeo-Christian is both accurate and powerful for generating political traction. American Jews have gone to some fairly dramatic lengths to fit better with the dominant Christian culture. Hanukkah was a relatively minor observance that has been elevated as it roughly aligns with Christmas.

    The idea that there is a "Jewish Problem" is ludicrous and detached from reality. The country has an "Elite SJW Problem". Misidentifying the source of a problem is a good way to perpetuate it.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @songbird, @V. K. Ovelund

    Misidentifying the source of a problem is a good way to perpetuate it.

    True.

  224. @German_reader
    @songbird

    I know.
    Gets even more insane: The kind of progressive Catholics behind that kind of thing wanted to award a prize for the best Catholic young adolescent novel of the year to a book dealing sympathetically with transgenderism. That apparently was a step too far for bishops who blocked it, but the trend is of course clear.

    Replies: @songbird

    The Lutherans in the US seem to have topped it:
    https://www.npr.org/2021/05/09/995271758/megan-rohrer-elected-as-1st-openly-transgender-bishop-in-u-s-lutheran-church

    Though, she was a lesbian to start, so I guess there is room for further escalation.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @songbird

    I see they're using "they" and "their" for this person.
    Also in "their" Wikipedia entry:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_Rohrer
    How did such madness become the norm?

    Replies: @songbird, @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom

  225. @songbird
    @German_reader

    There's really no getting around the fact that, today, every church seems to be pozzed.

    For example, there is this story out of Germany:
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/100-german-catholic-churches-to-issue-same-sex-blessings-defying-vatican/ar-BB1gzBUT

    Replies: @German_reader, @nebulafox, @V. K. Ovelund

    It is most perplexing.

    There’s really no getting around the fact that, today, every church seems to be pozzed.

    For various unlikely reasons I have had cause during the past 40 years to attend an unusually large number of different churches of disparate denominations in multiple U.S. states, coast to coast: Lutheran; Baptist; Methodist; Presbyterian; Pentacostal (in two, distinct flavors); Episcopalian; Congregational; Mormon; Eastern Orthodox; Roman Catholic; and one or two others of which you have probably never heard. While my experience with some was longer than with others, I do not refer merely to attendance at a wedding or visiting one Sunday or some such; I refer to more significant participation. (I can make no excuse for the embarrassing length of the list, except that life is complicated and there were reasons in each case.)

    In my experience, every one is significantly pozzed—with the single exception of Roman Catholic Latin Mass which, where I attended, was conspicuously overrun by weird persons and individuals who craved attention—but at least the priest for once was normal. The Mormons were probably the least pozzed, but they made up for the poz deficit with hypocrisy. (Whether the Mormons are a Christian church that can even be listed with the others is a question I would rather not touch.)

    Or maybe the problem lies with me. That is hard to say, but I really must confirm your perplexing observation. I have no theory to explain it. I do not understand it. But I can see it, just as you can.

    The only churches I did not notice to be pozzed were the Roman Catholic churches I attended for a few weeks each in Germany and Mexico, but that’s mostly because I’d no clue what the heck was going on.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @V. K. Ovelund

    In the Catholic context, I think it is partly a demographic problem. The convents and seminaries are empty - less candidates probably means a drop in quality. I mean, there isn't a lot of opportunity to be selective. The pews are more empty. And there is more interaction with Catholics of different races, who have moved here. Some see it as a growth opportunity, probably not understanding that whites are the financial backbone of the whole organization.

    The loss of Catholic ethnic neighborhoods in the cities was probably a big deal.


    The only churches I did not notice to be pozzed were the Roman Catholic churches I attended for a few weeks each in Germany and Mexico
     
    The thing that I find unsavory about churches in Germany is that they have no public collections. To me, with the state as the intermediary to collection, this makes them a lot weaker.

    Also, I recall them singing the Pfadfinder song and clapping, with surprised me greatly. That was many years ago, but if it is like the Boyscouts now, it must be super-pozzed.

    Replies: @German_reader, @dfordoom

  226. German_reader says:
    @songbird
    @German_reader

    The Lutherans in the US seem to have topped it:
    https://www.npr.org/2021/05/09/995271758/megan-rohrer-elected-as-1st-openly-transgender-bishop-in-u-s-lutheran-church

    Though, she was a lesbian to start, so I guess there is room for further escalation.

    Replies: @German_reader

    I see they’re using “they” and “their” for this person.
    Also in “their” Wikipedia entry:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_Rohrer
    How did such madness become the norm?

    • Replies: @songbird
    @German_reader


    How did such madness become the norm?
     
    I notice "San Francisco" in the bio.

    I would theorize it has something to do with urbanization. Specifically, in part, gays congregating in cities, on a massive scale and developing a gay culture. Some say that gay and lesbian bars are the best places for social and political networking. As families have been pushed out of cities, they have effectively become gay strongholds.

    And it also feeds well into alliances with alien migrants. To me, it is just a demographic consequence. Put in the proper inputs, and we will have inevitably arrived here, even if nobody could have predicted it, without a strong prior example. Hopefully, differential fertility will correct it, in the long term.
    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @German_reader

    Here is a fine point of the English language that might interest you.


    How did such madness become the norm?
     
    English pronouns follow a Germanic pattern, as you know. However, a peculiar feature of English, unlike other Germanic languages, is that the pronoun they has long occasionally (not often) been used in place of he as a sex-indefinite singular—and by good writers, too, like the 19th century's Jane Austen, for example—and not only in a rustic or colloquial sense. The usage appears in Britain and the United States (and maybe other English-speaking countries). It is rare but old.

    It makes a mess of conjugations (“A person can open an account at this bank with as little as $100, as long as they have photo identification.”) so it is unsuited to complex or precise constructions, but languages are not always logical, are they?

    However, that fine point of literary history has little to do with the present madness. You are quite right.

    , @dfordoom
    @German_reader


    How did such madness become the norm?
     
    Social media. Social media is both the source of the Poz and the enforcement arm.

    Political correctness existed before social media but it could be and often was opposed. Often successfully. It was kept within limits.

    Social media provided an ideal environment for the Poz virus to propagate and mutate. A kind of petri dish for the Poz. And social media provided a weapon with which to enforce the Poz.

    With social media all you need is a relatively small number of highly motivated fanatics and you can both spread and enforce the Poz. Wokeness was also a creation of social media.
  227. @nebulafox
    @songbird

    Not Eastern Orthodoxy...

    Replies: @songbird

    I think that Eastern Orthodox Christians probably have the best pre-existing structure for fighting poz, among Christians. I mean, they take Lent seriously, for one. Then there are the beards – an implicit sign of patriarchy. Married men can become priests, which doesn’t require sacrificing TFR.

    The Catholic Church has an obvious demographic problem – it was built around high TFR societies, where there were many sons and daughters. One brother could become a priest and officiate at the weddings of his siblings. There’s probably been more missionary efforts to the Third World, and plenty of non-native priests to draw from now, which I think really encourages poz. Historically, many Irish priests were nationalists exactly because they were locals.

    Still, I have heard rumors of poz among the Orthodox leadership. The Patriarch of Constantinople seems like a wonky seat of leadership to have, seeing how the Turks have massacred all the local Christians. Though I can’t comment as I don’t know the specifics behind the rumors of poz.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @songbird


    I think that Eastern Orthodox Christians probably have the best pre-existing structure for fighting poz, among Christians. I mean, they take Lent seriously, for one. Then there are the beards – an implicit sign of patriarchy. Married men can become priests, which doesn’t require sacrificing TFR.
     
    Actually, now that you mention it, I think that I agree with you. This is a good point.

    To my sense, Eastern Orthodox has insufficient paganism and lacks the crusader's spirit. It hardly has a place for C. S. Lewis but this is chiefly a matter of style. In substance, I believe that you are probably right.

    Replies: @songbird

    , @RSDB
    @songbird


    I think that Eastern Orthodox Christians probably have the best pre-existing structure for fighting poz, among Christians. I mean, they take Lent seriously, for one. Then there are the beards – an implicit sign of patriarchy. Married men can become priests, which doesn’t require sacrificing TFR.

     

    Well, you could be an Eastern Catholic and make the best of both worlds, if you're inclined to look at things that way.
  228. A123 says:
    @AnonStarter
    @V. K. Ovelund

    "At a practical level, SJW and Islam (in the U.S.) are indistinguishable."

    For someone who has expended most of his effort in this thread attempting to take you to task for a purportedly imprecise use of the term "Jew," he's not very short on irony when the shoe's on the other foot.

    Islam forbids homosexual relations. Where are SJWs in relation to this?
    Islam proscribes adultery and the murder of unborn children. Where are SJWs in relation to this?
    Islam establishes traditional, family-oriented ethics. Where are SJWs in relation to this?
    Islam commands protection of religious liberty. Where are SJWs in relation to this?
    Islam prescribes capital punishment for rape, murder, brigandage, and abuse of the public trust. Where are SJWs in relation to this?

    So now we witness nominally "Muslim" individuals who, in flagrant defiance of the religion, juke and jive with the LGBTQ crew or exploit the zeitgeist eschewing "white supremacy" in order to make a name for themselves and descend the ladder to perdition.

    If you imagine these folks are actually representative of Islam, I've got some nice oceanside property in Topeka you might be interested in.

    Replies: @A123

    One key problem is the Islamic weaponization of deception (known as Taqiyya). When Muslims speak to Infidels, anything resembling accuracy is accidental. Let me fix your statements to remove the lies:

    Islam endorses homosexual relations.
    Islam encourages adultery and the murder of unborn children.
    Islam abhors traditional, family-oriented ethics.
    Islam commands elimination of religious liberty.
    Islam rewards rape, murder, brigandage, and abuse of the public trust.

    Where are SJWs in relation to this?

    Once the TRUTH about Islam is shown, it looks nearly identical to SJW in almost all respects. Ilhan Omar could use it as her platform statement about Islam in America. As a consequence, Muslims are impossible to assimilate and represent a huge portion of thus U.S. prison population. (1)

    In 5 States, 1 in 5 Prisoners are Muslim

    American taxpayers are spending billions a year on Muslim prisoners. At 1%, Muslims are still a small percentage of the population. But there’s one place in America where they are vastly over-represented.

    Muslims make up 1% of the population in Pennsylvania, but 1 in 5 of its prisoners. Of the 48,438 prisoners in Pennsylvania, 10,264 were Muslim. That’s 8% of an estimated statewide Muslim population of 128,000, meaning that 1 in 12 Muslims in Pennsylvania were in prison in 2017.

    For someone who has expended most of his effort in this thread attempting to take you to task for a purportedly imprecise use of the term “Jew,” he’s not very short on irony when the shoe’s on the other foot.

    The term Jews is overly broad. There are obvious subgroups than apply to the topics at hand. Orthodox Jews, Conservative Jews, Reform Jews, Hollywood/Media Elites, non-elite Jews. And, the membership in each group is fairly obvious.

    What are the Muslim subgroups? Given that all Quran mandates “All Muslims Must Lie to Infidels”, how can Infidels clearly and objectively identify who is in which group?

    In the past twenty years, how many religious mass murders have been committed in the U.S. by:
        -1- Muslims for Allah?
        -2- Christians for Jesus?
        -3- Jews for YHWH?
    As a % of each religion’s population it is going to be in that order, and Islamic murder is going to have a huge lead.

    There is no way to tell where the murders are going to come from:
        • The Fort Hood Massacre was committed by a fairly privileged medical professional.
        • The Pulse Night Club Butcher was 2nd generation, in theory assimilated.
    Muslim Radicalization can happen anywhere at anytime resulting in Jihadi violence against Infidels.

    Given the level of physical threat, my position is quite moderate.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/08/in-5-states-1-in-5-prisoners-are-muslim

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
    @A123

    One key problem is the Islamic weaponization of deception (known as Taqiyya).

    Well, there's a slight problem with this angle in that my description of Islam is supported by The Qur'an itself and corroborated by centuries of non-Muslim scholarship.

    I don't think the taqiyyah shtick is going to work very well for you here.

    What are the Muslim subgroups?

    Qadiri, Naqshibandi, Chishti, Tijani, Shadhili, Rifa'i, Mawlawi, Uwaisi, Sanusi, Darqawi, Rahmani, Khalwati ... Those are just a small list of tariqat, each of which has representatives here in America. And that's not to mention myriad other Muslim American foundations, each of which adopts a distinct approach to the religion, not a one of which advocates for the path espoused by the likes of false-flag organizations such as da'esh (ISIS).

    I have no problem differentiating among various groups of Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, what have you. To be taken seriously, however, you need to apply the same logic toward Muslims.

    Replies: @A123

    , @AnonStarter
    @A123

    In 5 States, 1 in 5 Prisoners are Muslim

    For a short time, I used to visit a federal correctional facility as part of an outreach program, ministering to incarcerated Muslims. Most of those guys became Muslims after incarceration, that's the usual route they take.

    Sure, there are some who do so for practical reasons, such as protection in stir, and among these we might find insincere individuals who pose a risk of recidivism.

    But those who absorb whatever material they can find aren't typically repeat offenders. They're eventually released and do what they can to straighten themselves out.

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @A123


    The term Jews is overly broad.
     
    Yes, it probably is. My personal experience happens to be chiefly with Reform Jews and atheist Jews. As I have noted here before, paradoxically, my personal experience has mostly been favorable.

    I do not know what kind of Jew, say, Adam Schiff is. As far as I know, though, there is no dispensational differentiation between Reform and Orthodox as there is, say, between Protestants and Catholics. That is, it would be normal as far as I know for a Reform Jew to have an Orthodox brother; so I am unsure that these distinctions map well to familiar Christian concepts.

    Nevertheless, by all means, if you (or anyone else here) can show me a distinction among Jews that Jews themselves recognize, and if that distinction divides the hostile Jewish party from the friendly Jewish party, and especially if the distinction runs in families such that friendly Jews raise children who grow up to be friendly Jews, then I would like to learn more about it.

    I have mentioned the Brooklyn Orthodox before. Were they whom you had in mind? They are not actually very hostile that I can see, but they do seem insular and aloof.

    However, when only 25 to 30 percent of U.S. Jews vote Republican, I am skeptical.

    Replies: @A123

  229. @German_reader
    @songbird

    I see they're using "they" and "their" for this person.
    Also in "their" Wikipedia entry:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_Rohrer
    How did such madness become the norm?

    Replies: @songbird, @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom

    How did such madness become the norm?

    I notice “San Francisco” in the bio.

    I would theorize it has something to do with urbanization. Specifically, in part, gays congregating in cities, on a massive scale and developing a gay culture. Some say that gay and lesbian bars are the best places for social and political networking. As families have been pushed out of cities, they have effectively become gay strongholds.

    And it also feeds well into alliances with alien migrants. To me, it is just a demographic consequence. Put in the proper inputs, and we will have inevitably arrived here, even if nobody could have predicted it, without a strong prior example. Hopefully, differential fertility will correct it, in the long term.

  230. @V. K. Ovelund
    @songbird

    It is most perplexing.


    There’s really no getting around the fact that, today, every church seems to be pozzed.
     
    For various unlikely reasons I have had cause during the past 40 years to attend an unusually large number of different churches of disparate denominations in multiple U.S. states, coast to coast: Lutheran; Baptist; Methodist; Presbyterian; Pentacostal (in two, distinct flavors); Episcopalian; Congregational; Mormon; Eastern Orthodox; Roman Catholic; and one or two others of which you have probably never heard. While my experience with some was longer than with others, I do not refer merely to attendance at a wedding or visiting one Sunday or some such; I refer to more significant participation. (I can make no excuse for the embarrassing length of the list, except that life is complicated and there were reasons in each case.)

    In my experience, every one is significantly pozzed—with the single exception of Roman Catholic Latin Mass which, where I attended, was conspicuously overrun by weird persons and individuals who craved attention—but at least the priest for once was normal. The Mormons were probably the least pozzed, but they made up for the poz deficit with hypocrisy. (Whether the Mormons are a Christian church that can even be listed with the others is a question I would rather not touch.)

    Or maybe the problem lies with me. That is hard to say, but I really must confirm your perplexing observation. I have no theory to explain it. I do not understand it. But I can see it, just as you can.

    The only churches I did not notice to be pozzed were the Roman Catholic churches I attended for a few weeks each in Germany and Mexico, but that's mostly because I'd no clue what the heck was going on.

    Replies: @songbird

    In the Catholic context, I think it is partly a demographic problem. The convents and seminaries are empty – less candidates probably means a drop in quality. I mean, there isn’t a lot of opportunity to be selective. The pews are more empty. And there is more interaction with Catholics of different races, who have moved here. Some see it as a growth opportunity, probably not understanding that whites are the financial backbone of the whole organization.

    The loss of Catholic ethnic neighborhoods in the cities was probably a big deal.

    The only churches I did not notice to be pozzed were the Roman Catholic churches I attended for a few weeks each in Germany and Mexico

    The thing that I find unsavory about churches in Germany is that they have no public collections. To me, with the state as the intermediary to collection, this makes them a lot weaker.

    Also, I recall them singing the Pfadfinder song and clapping, with surprised me greatly. That was many years ago, but if it is like the Boyscouts now, it must be super-pozzed.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @songbird

    The churches in Germany (both the Lutherans and the Catholics) are really terrible, they are among the main promoters of mass immigration, even going to so far as to send ships of their own to the Mediterranean for picking up migrants and bringing them to Europe, it's pretty much the only thing they care about (makes them feel relevant, I suppose). They're shedding members like crazy (hundreds of thousands formally leaving church every year), obviously many reasons for that, like the church tax and the cover-ups about pederast priests, but their political role must be at least one factor. In 30 years there won't be much left of them, but of course by then Germany will also have been submerged by immigration and become unrecognizable.

    Replies: @songbird, @dfordoom

    , @dfordoom
    @songbird


    In the Catholic context, I think it is partly a demographic problem. The convents and seminaries are empty – less candidates probably means a drop in quality.
     
    A shortage of candidates for the priesthood makes it very easy for homosexuals to take over. The Catholic and Anglican churches faced that problem decades ago.

    And since the mid-20th century the only men interested in entering the priesthood are homosexuals.

    The more homosexuals you get in the priesthood the more difficult it gets to attract normal heterosexual men. Which means you then get even more homosexuals. Eventually you end up with a church that attracts no heterosexual men at all.

    It's not just a homosexual problem. When Christianity does attract heterosexual men it attracts the wrong kinds - too many creepy betas. Too many men who are heterosexual but effeminate.

    There's also the problem that churches decide the only way to fill those empty pews is to "become relevant" which means embracing the latest social fads.

    The process has gone so far it's now irreversible.

    Replies: @songbird

  231. German_reader says:
    @songbird
    @V. K. Ovelund

    In the Catholic context, I think it is partly a demographic problem. The convents and seminaries are empty - less candidates probably means a drop in quality. I mean, there isn't a lot of opportunity to be selective. The pews are more empty. And there is more interaction with Catholics of different races, who have moved here. Some see it as a growth opportunity, probably not understanding that whites are the financial backbone of the whole organization.

    The loss of Catholic ethnic neighborhoods in the cities was probably a big deal.


    The only churches I did not notice to be pozzed were the Roman Catholic churches I attended for a few weeks each in Germany and Mexico
     
    The thing that I find unsavory about churches in Germany is that they have no public collections. To me, with the state as the intermediary to collection, this makes them a lot weaker.

    Also, I recall them singing the Pfadfinder song and clapping, with surprised me greatly. That was many years ago, but if it is like the Boyscouts now, it must be super-pozzed.

    Replies: @German_reader, @dfordoom

    The churches in Germany (both the Lutherans and the Catholics) are really terrible, they are among the main promoters of mass immigration, even going to so far as to send ships of their own to the Mediterranean for picking up migrants and bringing them to Europe, it’s pretty much the only thing they care about (makes them feel relevant, I suppose). They’re shedding members like crazy (hundreds of thousands formally leaving church every year), obviously many reasons for that, like the church tax and the cover-ups about pederast priests, but their political role must be at least one factor. In 30 years there won’t be much left of them, but of course by then Germany will also have been submerged by immigration and become unrecognizable.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @German_reader

    It is also true in the US:


    IMMIGRATION ADVOCACY & REFUGEE SERVICES
    Catholic Charities provides essential services to immigrants and newcomers to this country. CCUSA advocates for policies that protect family unity and allow newcomers an opportunity to contribute and participate more fully in our communities.
     

    OUR IMPACT
    Catholic Charities works to welcome and integrate immigrants, refugees and asylees, assisting over 393,000 individuals over the past year.
     

    160,000 asylum seekers received shelter or respite services
     

    143,204 benefited from legal assistance
     
    https://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/our-vision-and-ministry/immigration-refugee-services/

    Some years ago, I was listening to an historical holdover from my grandfather's time, ethnic Irish music on the AM radio band. There, of course, was a Catholic connection, and they were having a fundraising event for some orphanage in the Dominican Republic. They introduced some kid who had come to America to go to college (moved permanently here) as a success story. What amazed me was the host was very working class, and he must have gotten a lot of negative feedback off-air from working-class people calling in, and so he starting saying how important it was to sent money there, so they don't come here. And I could really sense the essential schizophrenia of a position like that, which is very notable in the US, as they often had extra collections in church, to for example, sent money to Haiti.

    I know there's a common rhetoric among many alt-right types, like "How strong is your faith, if your willing to abandon your church?" Or, "You've got to be part of the lay community." But I don't see a way around bad leadership or a seemingly total inability to think in ethnic terms, or address ethnic concerns.

    I'm not sure the Church really is eternal. But, then again, I suppose it is true that it isn't the same place my ancestors went to church. It is really different in many ways, for example, how the Normans reformed it. Or Vatican II.
    , @dfordoom
    @German_reader


    even going to so far as to send ships of their own to the Mediterranean for picking up migrants and bringing them to Europe, it’s pretty much the only thing they care about (makes them feel relevant, I suppose).
     
    It makes them feel both relevant and virtuous. Christianity these days is to a large extent just virtue-signalling.
  232. A123 says:
    @songbird
    @A123


    There are ~7MM individuals descended from Jews in the U.S. Why is there a need to lump them into only one class?
     
    Well, the average one seems to be doing well economically. I don't think their social position justifies the common rhetoric of ethnic victimhood, which I have personally heard from very privileged people. I mean, if you go to Harvard, you are probably not on the top of the victimhood totem pole.

    This is another reason why the term Judeo-Christian is both accurate and powerful for generating political traction.
     
    What percentage of the 37 Jews in Congress are Republican?

    Jews have gone to some fairly dramatic lengths to fit better with the dominant Christian culture. Hanukkah was a relatively minor observance that has been elevated as it roughly aligns with Christmas.
     
    Making me spin the dreidel in public elementary school does fit my definition of going to dramatic lengths to fit in.

    Replies: @A123

    There are ~7MM individuals descended from Jews in the U.S. Why is there a need to lump them into only one class?

    Well, the average one seems to be doing well economically. I don’t think their social position justifies the common rhetoric of ethnic victimhood, which I have personally heard from very privileged people. I mean, if you go to Harvard, you are probably not on the top of the victimhood totem pole

    Why go to one average for all?

    • Orthodox tend to be poorer, and abuses are aimed at them.
    • Non-Elites have no access to Harvard.
    • Elites have access to the top universities.

    When an Elite claims to be a victim, I am very skeptical. When an Orthodox reports that their kids are being harassed by NYC officials, that is highly plausible.

    This is another reason why the term Judeo-Christian is both accurate and powerful for generating political traction.

    What percentage of the 37 Jews in Congress are Republican?

    MAGA Jews who believe in Judeo-Christian values are willing to back MAGA Christians in elections. To me that adds to the strength of the position. We know that GOP campaigns take in contributions from various Jewish groups at a significant rate.

    Out of 37, I would guess 3 are Jewish, all in the House. Is your point:
        • The GOP picks the best people for office regardless of group.
        • The DNC is made up of exclusionary groups that only vote for their own kind.

    The more important question is — How many MAGA Judeo-Christians will be in the House after the 2022 elections?

    Making me spin the dreidel in public elementary school does fit my definition of going to dramatic lengths to fit in.

    Were you really forced to spin a dreidel in elementary school? Even if you were, all that gets you is some alphabet characters from Hebrew. There is nothing intrinsically religious about it.

    Given a choice between kids:
        • Spinning driedels, possibly learning some foreign language -or-
        • Reading SJW Islamic propaganda like Heather has Two Mommies

    Introductory Hebrew 101 is much less toxic than anti-Christian, pro-Muslim, SJW propaganda.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @A123


    Reading SJW Islamic propaganda like Heather has Two Mommies
     
    Islamic propaganda written by a Jewish lesbian, lol:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesl%C3%A9a_Newman
    First published in 1989, when the Islamic population in the US must still have been relatively small.

    Aren't you even a little bit ashamed of writing so many patently idiotic comments? I'm pretty anti-Islam myself, but your efforts are really embarrassing.

    Replies: @A123, @Svidomyatheart

    , @songbird
    @A123


    Were you really forced to spin a dreidel in elementary school?
     
    Well, I did not think it politic to ask, what happened to the traditions of my ancestors and those of vast majority of the class? Why references to Christmas were very bland, commercial and irreligious. Why we were singing Christmas songs written by Jews? Why was I learning about Jewish religious stories and Jewish ethnic struggles? And why was the faith of my fathers driven out of school?

    They don't teach those things. God knows there were other indignities, including being forced to celebrate black charlatans. But I feel really bad for the kids who came after, they had to put up with being forced to sing Kwanzaa songs.

    Replies: @A123

  233. @A123
    @AnonStarter

    One key problem is the Islamic weaponization of deception (known as Taqiyya). When Muslims speak to Infidels, anything resembling accuracy is accidental. Let me fix your statements to remove the lies:

    Islam endorses homosexual relations.
    Islam encourages adultery and the murder of unborn children.
    Islam abhors traditional, family-oriented ethics.
    Islam commands elimination of religious liberty.
    Islam rewards rape, murder, brigandage, and abuse of the public trust.

    Where are SJWs in relation to this?

    Once the TRUTH about Islam is shown, it looks nearly identical to SJW in almost all respects. Ilhan Omar could use it as her platform statement about Islam in America. As a consequence, Muslims are impossible to assimilate and represent a huge portion of thus U.S. prison population. (1)


    In 5 States, 1 in 5 Prisoners are Muslim

    American taxpayers are spending billions a year on Muslim prisoners. At 1%, Muslims are still a small percentage of the population. But there’s one place in America where they are vastly over-represented.

    Muslims make up 1% of the population in Pennsylvania, but 1 in 5 of its prisoners. Of the 48,438 prisoners in Pennsylvania, 10,264 were Muslim. That’s 8% of an estimated statewide Muslim population of 128,000, meaning that 1 in 12 Muslims in Pennsylvania were in prison in 2017.
     

    For someone who has expended most of his effort in this thread attempting to take you to task for a purportedly imprecise use of the term “Jew,” he’s not very short on irony when the shoe’s on the other foot.

    The term Jews is overly broad. There are obvious subgroups than apply to the topics at hand. Orthodox Jews, Conservative Jews, Reform Jews, Hollywood/Media Elites, non-elite Jews. And, the membership in each group is fairly obvious.

    What are the Muslim subgroups? Given that all Quran mandates "All Muslims Must Lie to Infidels", how can Infidels clearly and objectively identify who is in which group?

    In the past twenty years, how many religious mass murders have been committed in the U.S. by:
        -1- Muslims for Allah?
        -2- Christians for Jesus?
        -3- Jews for YHWH?
    As a % of each religion's population it is going to be in that order, and Islamic murder is going to have a huge lead.

    There is no way to tell where the murders are going to come from:
        • The Fort Hood Massacre was committed by a fairly privileged medical professional.
        • The Pulse Night Club Butcher was 2nd generation, in theory assimilated.
    Muslim Radicalization can happen anywhere at anytime resulting in Jihadi violence against Infidels.

    Given the level of physical threat, my position is quite moderate.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/08/in-5-states-1-in-5-prisoners-are-muslim

    Replies: @AnonStarter, @AnonStarter, @V. K. Ovelund

    One key problem is the Islamic weaponization of deception (known as Taqiyya).

    Well, there’s a slight problem with this angle in that my description of Islam is supported by The Qur’an itself and corroborated by centuries of non-Muslim scholarship.

    I don’t think the taqiyyah shtick is going to work very well for you here.

    What are the Muslim subgroups?

    Qadiri, Naqshibandi, Chishti, Tijani, Shadhili, Rifa’i, Mawlawi, Uwaisi, Sanusi, Darqawi, Rahmani, Khalwati … Those are just a small list of tariqat, each of which has representatives here in America. And that’s not to mention myriad other Muslim American foundations, each of which adopts a distinct approach to the religion, not a one of which advocates for the path espoused by the likes of false-flag organizations such as da’esh (ISIS).

    I have no problem differentiating among various groups of Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, what have you. To be taken seriously, however, you need to apply the same logic toward Muslims.

    • Replies: @A123
    @AnonStarter

    Do you really think you can cover up your Quran's requirements for Jihad (Murder) and Taqiyya (Lying)? (1)


    Quran (3:28)
    This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves" against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim may appear friendly to non-Muslims, even though they should not feel friendly.

    Quran (3:54)
    "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers."
    The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which means 'cunning,' 'guile' and 'deceit'. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same.
     
    Admittedly, you are not alone. Every major Islamic organization embraces Taqiyya deception as a core value. (1)

    The notorious Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is so well known for shamelessly lying about its ties to terror and extremism that books have been written on the subject. They take seriously the part of Sharia that says "it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory". The "goal" is the ascendency of Islam (and Sharia itself) on the American landscape.

    In 2007, CAIR's Ibrahim Hooper published an op-ed with a fabricated story about Muhammad that portrayed him as a forgiving man:

    There was a lady who threw garbage in the path of the prophet on a daily basis. One day, she didn‘t do it. The prophet went to inquire about her health, because he thought she might be sick. This lady ended up converting to Islam. So, that‘s how you respond to people who attack you, with forgiveness and with kindness.
     
    Hooper is not ignorant. He knew what he was deceiving his audience. After getting caught, he changed the wording slightly to say that it is a tradition "Muslims are taught," but he continues to promote the story without qualifying it - thus causing others to unwittingly repeat a lie.
     
    Another problem with your painfully obvious attempt at Taqiyya deception is that centuries of Muslim violence towards Infidels has been corroborated by both Muslim & Infidel historians.

    Every lie you tell strengthens my position. So... Please... Keep lying.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/taqiyya.aspx

    Replies: @AnonStarter

  234. German_reader says:
    @A123
    @songbird



    There are ~7MM individuals descended from Jews in the U.S. Why is there a need to lump them into only one class?
     
    Well, the average one seems to be doing well economically. I don’t think their social position justifies the common rhetoric of ethnic victimhood, which I have personally heard from very privileged people. I mean, if you go to Harvard, you are probably not on the top of the victimhood totem pole
     
    Why go to one average for all?

    • Orthodox tend to be poorer, and abuses are aimed at them.
    • Non-Elites have no access to Harvard.
    • Elites have access to the top universities.

    When an Elite claims to be a victim, I am very skeptical. When an Orthodox reports that their kids are being harassed by NYC officials, that is highly plausible.


    This is another reason why the term Judeo-Christian is both accurate and powerful for generating political traction.
     
    What percentage of the 37 Jews in Congress are Republican?
     
    MAGA Jews who believe in Judeo-Christian values are willing to back MAGA Christians in elections. To me that adds to the strength of the position. We know that GOP campaigns take in contributions from various Jewish groups at a significant rate.

    Out of 37, I would guess 3 are Jewish, all in the House. Is your point:
        • The GOP picks the best people for office regardless of group.
        • The DNC is made up of exclusionary groups that only vote for their own kind.


    The more important question is -- How many MAGA Judeo-Christians will be in the House after the 2022 elections?

    Making me spin the dreidel in public elementary school does fit my definition of going to dramatic lengths to fit in.
     
    Were you really forced to spin a dreidel in elementary school? Even if you were, all that gets you is some alphabet characters from Hebrew. There is nothing intrinsically religious about it.

    Given a choice between kids:
        • Spinning driedels, possibly learning some foreign language -or-
        • Reading SJW Islamic propaganda like Heather has Two Mommies

    Introductory Hebrew 101 is much less toxic than anti-Christian, pro-Muslim, SJW propaganda.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @German_reader, @songbird

    Reading SJW Islamic propaganda like Heather has Two Mommies

    Islamic propaganda written by a Jewish lesbian, lol:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesl%C3%A9a_Newman
    First published in 1989, when the Islamic population in the US must still have been relatively small.

    Aren’t you even a little bit ashamed of writing so many patently idiotic comments? I’m pretty anti-Islam myself, but your efforts are really embarrassing.

    • LOL: AnonStarter
    • Replies: @A123
    @German_reader

    I am not ashamed at telling the truth.

    Islam recruits and deploys "useful idiots" as cover. For example, Iranian runs J Street: (1) (2)


    Genevieve Lynch, a board member of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), an apparent agent for the Islamic Republican of Iran. NIAC has worked closely with J Street to block Congressional sanctions against Iran
     
    Muslim operators finding a Jewish name to be "author" of Islamic SJW propaganda is simply typical behaviour.

    PEACE 😇
    _________

    (1) http://www.jstreetexposed.com

    (2) From 2009 — https://www.jpost.com/International/Muslims-Arabs-among-J-Street-donors

    Replies: @German_reader

    , @Svidomyatheart
    @German_reader

    He is a Zionist, dont bother trying to argue or reason with him, imho.

    Exactly same carbon copy as those Palestinians, except he wants you to take his side

    Replies: @German_reader

  235. @German_reader
    @songbird

    I see they're using "they" and "their" for this person.
    Also in "their" Wikipedia entry:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_Rohrer
    How did such madness become the norm?

    Replies: @songbird, @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom

    Here is a fine point of the English language that might interest you.

    How did such madness become the norm?

    English pronouns follow a Germanic pattern, as you know. However, a peculiar feature of English, unlike other Germanic languages, is that the pronoun they has long occasionally (not often) been used in place of he as a sex-indefinite singular—and by good writers, too, like the 19th century’s Jane Austen, for example—and not only in a rustic or colloquial sense. The usage appears in Britain and the United States (and maybe other English-speaking countries). It is rare but old.

    [MORE]

    It makes a mess of conjugations (“A person can open an account at this bank with as little as $100, as long as they have photo identification.”) so it is unsuited to complex or precise constructions, but languages are not always logical, are they?

    However, that fine point of literary history has little to do with the present madness. You are quite right.

  236. A123 says:
    @German_reader
    @A123


    Reading SJW Islamic propaganda like Heather has Two Mommies
     
    Islamic propaganda written by a Jewish lesbian, lol:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesl%C3%A9a_Newman
    First published in 1989, when the Islamic population in the US must still have been relatively small.

    Aren't you even a little bit ashamed of writing so many patently idiotic comments? I'm pretty anti-Islam myself, but your efforts are really embarrassing.

    Replies: @A123, @Svidomyatheart

    I am not ashamed at telling the truth.

    Islam recruits and deploys “useful idiots” as cover. For example, Iranian runs J Street: (1) (2)

    Genevieve Lynch, a board member of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), an apparent agent for the Islamic Republican of Iran. NIAC has worked closely with J Street to block Congressional sanctions against Iran

    Muslim operators finding a Jewish name to be “author” of Islamic SJW propaganda is simply typical behaviour.

    PEACE 😇
    _________

    (1) http://www.jstreetexposed.com

    (2) From 2009 — https://www.jpost.com/International/Muslims-Arabs-among-J-Street-donors

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @A123

    J Street are liberal Zionists who want to preserve Israel as a Jewish nation state, calling these people Iranian stooges is bizarre.
    I really wonder if you're some kind of disinfo troll or actually believe all the nonsense you're writing (a disturbing thought!).

    Replies: @A123

  237. German_reader says:
    @A123
    @German_reader

    I am not ashamed at telling the truth.

    Islam recruits and deploys "useful idiots" as cover. For example, Iranian runs J Street: (1) (2)


    Genevieve Lynch, a board member of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), an apparent agent for the Islamic Republican of Iran. NIAC has worked closely with J Street to block Congressional sanctions against Iran
     
    Muslim operators finding a Jewish name to be "author" of Islamic SJW propaganda is simply typical behaviour.

    PEACE 😇
    _________

    (1) http://www.jstreetexposed.com

    (2) From 2009 — https://www.jpost.com/International/Muslims-Arabs-among-J-Street-donors

    Replies: @German_reader

    J Street are liberal Zionists who want to preserve Israel as a Jewish nation state, calling these people Iranian stooges is bizarre.
    I really wonder if you’re some kind of disinfo troll or actually believe all the nonsense you’re writing (a disturbing thought!).

    • Replies: @A123
    @German_reader


    J Street are liberal Zionists who want to preserve Israel as a Jewish nation state, calling these people Iranian
     
    If you look at their actions (instead of their Taqiyya propaganda) they are liberal pro-Muslim SJW anti-Zionists who campaign for the destruction of Israel.

    If you believe J Street is authentically Jewish, you are exactly the kind of "useful idiot" that Islam wants to recruit. This is unsurprising as your writings are riddled with inconsistencies. You claim to dislike Merkel, yet every time her policies are challenged you rush to defend your precious Mutti.

    Why are you not ashamed and embarrassed by your writing. Are you so anti-intellectual that you cannot see the problems? Or, is this part of your SJW Islamic mental compartmentalization? You really can believe mutually exclusive things at the same time.

    PEACE 😇
  238. @A123
    @AnonStarter

    One key problem is the Islamic weaponization of deception (known as Taqiyya). When Muslims speak to Infidels, anything resembling accuracy is accidental. Let me fix your statements to remove the lies:

    Islam endorses homosexual relations.
    Islam encourages adultery and the murder of unborn children.
    Islam abhors traditional, family-oriented ethics.
    Islam commands elimination of religious liberty.
    Islam rewards rape, murder, brigandage, and abuse of the public trust.

    Where are SJWs in relation to this?

    Once the TRUTH about Islam is shown, it looks nearly identical to SJW in almost all respects. Ilhan Omar could use it as her platform statement about Islam in America. As a consequence, Muslims are impossible to assimilate and represent a huge portion of thus U.S. prison population. (1)


    In 5 States, 1 in 5 Prisoners are Muslim

    American taxpayers are spending billions a year on Muslim prisoners. At 1%, Muslims are still a small percentage of the population. But there’s one place in America where they are vastly over-represented.

    Muslims make up 1% of the population in Pennsylvania, but 1 in 5 of its prisoners. Of the 48,438 prisoners in Pennsylvania, 10,264 were Muslim. That’s 8% of an estimated statewide Muslim population of 128,000, meaning that 1 in 12 Muslims in Pennsylvania were in prison in 2017.
     

    For someone who has expended most of his effort in this thread attempting to take you to task for a purportedly imprecise use of the term “Jew,” he’s not very short on irony when the shoe’s on the other foot.

    The term Jews is overly broad. There are obvious subgroups than apply to the topics at hand. Orthodox Jews, Conservative Jews, Reform Jews, Hollywood/Media Elites, non-elite Jews. And, the membership in each group is fairly obvious.

    What are the Muslim subgroups? Given that all Quran mandates "All Muslims Must Lie to Infidels", how can Infidels clearly and objectively identify who is in which group?

    In the past twenty years, how many religious mass murders have been committed in the U.S. by:
        -1- Muslims for Allah?
        -2- Christians for Jesus?
        -3- Jews for YHWH?
    As a % of each religion's population it is going to be in that order, and Islamic murder is going to have a huge lead.

    There is no way to tell where the murders are going to come from:
        • The Fort Hood Massacre was committed by a fairly privileged medical professional.
        • The Pulse Night Club Butcher was 2nd generation, in theory assimilated.
    Muslim Radicalization can happen anywhere at anytime resulting in Jihadi violence against Infidels.

    Given the level of physical threat, my position is quite moderate.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/08/in-5-states-1-in-5-prisoners-are-muslim

    Replies: @AnonStarter, @AnonStarter, @V. K. Ovelund

    In 5 States, 1 in 5 Prisoners are Muslim

    For a short time, I used to visit a federal correctional facility as part of an outreach program, ministering to incarcerated Muslims. Most of those guys became Muslims after incarceration, that’s the usual route they take.

    Sure, there are some who do so for practical reasons, such as protection in stir, and among these we might find insincere individuals who pose a risk of recidivism.

    But those who absorb whatever material they can find aren’t typically repeat offenders. They’re eventually released and do what they can to straighten themselves out.

  239. A123 says:
    @AnonStarter
    @A123

    One key problem is the Islamic weaponization of deception (known as Taqiyya).

    Well, there's a slight problem with this angle in that my description of Islam is supported by The Qur'an itself and corroborated by centuries of non-Muslim scholarship.

    I don't think the taqiyyah shtick is going to work very well for you here.

    What are the Muslim subgroups?

    Qadiri, Naqshibandi, Chishti, Tijani, Shadhili, Rifa'i, Mawlawi, Uwaisi, Sanusi, Darqawi, Rahmani, Khalwati ... Those are just a small list of tariqat, each of which has representatives here in America. And that's not to mention myriad other Muslim American foundations, each of which adopts a distinct approach to the religion, not a one of which advocates for the path espoused by the likes of false-flag organizations such as da'esh (ISIS).

    I have no problem differentiating among various groups of Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, what have you. To be taken seriously, however, you need to apply the same logic toward Muslims.

    Replies: @A123

    Do you really think you can cover up your Quran’s requirements for Jihad (Murder) and Taqiyya (Lying)? (1)

    Quran (3:28)
    This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to “guard themselves” against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim may appear friendly to non-Muslims, even though they should not feel friendly.

    Quran (3:54)
    And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.”
    The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which means ‘cunning,’ ‘guile’ and ‘deceit’. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same.

    Admittedly, you are not alone. Every major Islamic organization embraces Taqiyya deception as a core value. (1)

    The notorious Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is so well known for shamelessly lying about its ties to terror and extremism that books have been written on the subject. They take seriously the part of Sharia that says “it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory”. The “goal” is the ascendency of Islam (and Sharia itself) on the American landscape.

    In 2007, CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper published an op-ed with a fabricated story about Muhammad that portrayed him as a forgiving man:

    There was a lady who threw garbage in the path of the prophet on a daily basis. One day, she didn‘t do it. The prophet went to inquire about her health, because he thought she might be sick. This lady ended up converting to Islam. So, that‘s how you respond to people who attack you, with forgiveness and with kindness.

    Hooper is not ignorant. He knew what he was deceiving his audience. After getting caught, he changed the wording slightly to say that it is a tradition “Muslims are taught,” but he continues to promote the story without qualifying it – thus causing others to unwittingly repeat a lie.

    Another problem with your painfully obvious attempt at Taqiyya deception is that centuries of Muslim violence towards Infidels has been corroborated by both Muslim & Infidel historians.

    Every lie you tell strengthens my position. So… Please… Keep lying.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/taqiyya.aspx

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
    @A123

    Uh huh.

    Not really interested in revisiting the same old arguments with you, and I don't imagine others here will be persuaded either way.

    When even those with anti-Islam sentiment call out your crackpottery, it just might be time for you to reconsider your approach.

    Replies: @A123

  240. @German_reader
    @songbird

    The churches in Germany (both the Lutherans and the Catholics) are really terrible, they are among the main promoters of mass immigration, even going to so far as to send ships of their own to the Mediterranean for picking up migrants and bringing them to Europe, it's pretty much the only thing they care about (makes them feel relevant, I suppose). They're shedding members like crazy (hundreds of thousands formally leaving church every year), obviously many reasons for that, like the church tax and the cover-ups about pederast priests, but their political role must be at least one factor. In 30 years there won't be much left of them, but of course by then Germany will also have been submerged by immigration and become unrecognizable.

    Replies: @songbird, @dfordoom

    It is also true in the US:

    IMMIGRATION ADVOCACY & REFUGEE SERVICES
    Catholic Charities provides essential services to immigrants and newcomers to this country. CCUSA advocates for policies that protect family unity and allow newcomers an opportunity to contribute and participate more fully in our communities.

    OUR IMPACT
    Catholic Charities works to welcome and integrate immigrants, refugees and asylees, assisting over 393,000 individuals over the past year.

    160,000 asylum seekers received shelter or respite services

    143,204 benefited from legal assistance

    https://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/our-vision-and-ministry/immigration-refugee-services/

    Some years ago, I was listening to an historical holdover from my grandfather’s time, ethnic Irish music on the AM radio band. There, of course, was a Catholic connection, and they were having a fundraising event for some orphanage in the Dominican Republic. They introduced some kid who had come to America to go to college (moved permanently here) as a success story. What amazed me was the host was very working class, and he must have gotten a lot of negative feedback off-air from working-class people calling in, and so he starting saying how important it was to sent money there, so they don’t come here. And I could really sense the essential schizophrenia of a position like that, which is very notable in the US, as they often had extra collections in church, to for example, sent money to Haiti.

    I know there’s a common rhetoric among many alt-right types, like “How strong is your faith, if your willing to abandon your church?” Or, “You’ve got to be part of the lay community.” But I don’t see a way around bad leadership or a seemingly total inability to think in ethnic terms, or address ethnic concerns.

    I’m not sure the Church really is eternal. But, then again, I suppose it is true that it isn’t the same place my ancestors went to church. It is really different in many ways, for example, how the Normans reformed it. Or Vatican II.

  241. A123 says:
    @German_reader
    @A123

    J Street are liberal Zionists who want to preserve Israel as a Jewish nation state, calling these people Iranian stooges is bizarre.
    I really wonder if you're some kind of disinfo troll or actually believe all the nonsense you're writing (a disturbing thought!).

    Replies: @A123

    J Street are liberal Zionists who want to preserve Israel as a Jewish nation state, calling these people Iranian

    If you look at their actions (instead of their Taqiyya propaganda) they are liberal pro-Muslim SJW anti-Zionists who campaign for the destruction of Israel.

    If you believe J Street is authentically Jewish, you are exactly the kind of “useful idiot” that Islam wants to recruit. This is unsurprising as your writings are riddled with inconsistencies. You claim to dislike Merkel, yet every time her policies are challenged you rush to defend your precious Mutti.

    Why are you not ashamed and embarrassed by your writing. Are you so anti-intellectual that you cannot see the problems? Or, is this part of your SJW Islamic mental compartmentalization? You really can believe mutually exclusive things at the same time.

    PEACE 😇

  242. @A123
    @songbird



    There are ~7MM individuals descended from Jews in the U.S. Why is there a need to lump them into only one class?
     
    Well, the average one seems to be doing well economically. I don’t think their social position justifies the common rhetoric of ethnic victimhood, which I have personally heard from very privileged people. I mean, if you go to Harvard, you are probably not on the top of the victimhood totem pole
     
    Why go to one average for all?

    • Orthodox tend to be poorer, and abuses are aimed at them.
    • Non-Elites have no access to Harvard.
    • Elites have access to the top universities.

    When an Elite claims to be a victim, I am very skeptical. When an Orthodox reports that their kids are being harassed by NYC officials, that is highly plausible.


    This is another reason why the term Judeo-Christian is both accurate and powerful for generating political traction.
     
    What percentage of the 37 Jews in Congress are Republican?
     
    MAGA Jews who believe in Judeo-Christian values are willing to back MAGA Christians in elections. To me that adds to the strength of the position. We know that GOP campaigns take in contributions from various Jewish groups at a significant rate.

    Out of 37, I would guess 3 are Jewish, all in the House. Is your point:
        • The GOP picks the best people for office regardless of group.
        • The DNC is made up of exclusionary groups that only vote for their own kind.


    The more important question is -- How many MAGA Judeo-Christians will be in the House after the 2022 elections?

    Making me spin the dreidel in public elementary school does fit my definition of going to dramatic lengths to fit in.
     
    Were you really forced to spin a dreidel in elementary school? Even if you were, all that gets you is some alphabet characters from Hebrew. There is nothing intrinsically religious about it.

    Given a choice between kids:
        • Spinning driedels, possibly learning some foreign language -or-
        • Reading SJW Islamic propaganda like Heather has Two Mommies

    Introductory Hebrew 101 is much less toxic than anti-Christian, pro-Muslim, SJW propaganda.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @German_reader, @songbird

    Were you really forced to spin a dreidel in elementary school?

    Well, I did not think it politic to ask, what happened to the traditions of my ancestors and those of vast majority of the class? Why references to Christmas were very bland, commercial and irreligious. Why we were singing Christmas songs written by Jews? Why was I learning about Jewish religious stories and Jewish ethnic struggles? And why was the faith of my fathers driven out of school?

    They don’t teach those things. God knows there were other indignities, including being forced to celebrate black charlatans. But I feel really bad for the kids who came after, they had to put up with being forced to sing Kwanzaa songs.

    • Replies: @A123
    @songbird

    I have stated multiple times that excluding Christianity from schools and the public square is a huge part of the problem. But it was not driven out by spinning a dreidel. Much more malign forces against Judeo-Christian values worked to purge the shared traditions of Christians and Jews.

    When black communities were anchored by traditional values and non-woke Churches they were much more civilized. Being poorer than whites was not an excuse for criminal behaviour. White communities were better off too. Breaking churches & synagogues devalued marriage and increased out of wedlock births for all ethnicities. As long as SJW Islamic Globalism continues to have victories over MAGA Judeo-Christian values, things will continue to decline.

    While I am appalled by the Blue Coup, it could have a silver lining. The NeoConDemocrats now own the impending economic problems plus the Harris/Biden foreign policy mistakes. Hopefully, the Gruesome Twosome will not create a nuclear war in the next 3½ years.

    Trump's presidency created a shared vision, anchored in traditional Christian Main Street America. Deep State resistance and GOP(e) Globalists blocked execution of that vision. MAGA 2024 will have House appropriations authority, and a real shot at undoing this disaster.

    If you want schools to have Christianity back, this is your only option. The DNC is following Rashid Tlaib and Ilhan Omar. Anything headed that way is guaranteed to be worse for Christians.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @songbird

  243. @A123
    @AnonStarter

    One key problem is the Islamic weaponization of deception (known as Taqiyya). When Muslims speak to Infidels, anything resembling accuracy is accidental. Let me fix your statements to remove the lies:

    Islam endorses homosexual relations.
    Islam encourages adultery and the murder of unborn children.
    Islam abhors traditional, family-oriented ethics.
    Islam commands elimination of religious liberty.
    Islam rewards rape, murder, brigandage, and abuse of the public trust.

    Where are SJWs in relation to this?

    Once the TRUTH about Islam is shown, it looks nearly identical to SJW in almost all respects. Ilhan Omar could use it as her platform statement about Islam in America. As a consequence, Muslims are impossible to assimilate and represent a huge portion of thus U.S. prison population. (1)


    In 5 States, 1 in 5 Prisoners are Muslim

    American taxpayers are spending billions a year on Muslim prisoners. At 1%, Muslims are still a small percentage of the population. But there’s one place in America where they are vastly over-represented.

    Muslims make up 1% of the population in Pennsylvania, but 1 in 5 of its prisoners. Of the 48,438 prisoners in Pennsylvania, 10,264 were Muslim. That’s 8% of an estimated statewide Muslim population of 128,000, meaning that 1 in 12 Muslims in Pennsylvania were in prison in 2017.
     

    For someone who has expended most of his effort in this thread attempting to take you to task for a purportedly imprecise use of the term “Jew,” he’s not very short on irony when the shoe’s on the other foot.

    The term Jews is overly broad. There are obvious subgroups than apply to the topics at hand. Orthodox Jews, Conservative Jews, Reform Jews, Hollywood/Media Elites, non-elite Jews. And, the membership in each group is fairly obvious.

    What are the Muslim subgroups? Given that all Quran mandates "All Muslims Must Lie to Infidels", how can Infidels clearly and objectively identify who is in which group?

    In the past twenty years, how many religious mass murders have been committed in the U.S. by:
        -1- Muslims for Allah?
        -2- Christians for Jesus?
        -3- Jews for YHWH?
    As a % of each religion's population it is going to be in that order, and Islamic murder is going to have a huge lead.

    There is no way to tell where the murders are going to come from:
        • The Fort Hood Massacre was committed by a fairly privileged medical professional.
        • The Pulse Night Club Butcher was 2nd generation, in theory assimilated.
    Muslim Radicalization can happen anywhere at anytime resulting in Jihadi violence against Infidels.

    Given the level of physical threat, my position is quite moderate.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/08/in-5-states-1-in-5-prisoners-are-muslim

    Replies: @AnonStarter, @AnonStarter, @V. K. Ovelund

    The term Jews is overly broad.

    Yes, it probably is. My personal experience happens to be chiefly with Reform Jews and atheist Jews. As I have noted here before, paradoxically, my personal experience has mostly been favorable.

    [MORE]

    I do not know what kind of Jew, say, Adam Schiff is. As far as I know, though, there is no dispensational differentiation between Reform and Orthodox as there is, say, between Protestants and Catholics. That is, it would be normal as far as I know for a Reform Jew to have an Orthodox brother; so I am unsure that these distinctions map well to familiar Christian concepts.

    Nevertheless, by all means, if you (or anyone else here) can show me a distinction among Jews that Jews themselves recognize, and if that distinction divides the hostile Jewish party from the friendly Jewish party, and especially if the distinction runs in families such that friendly Jews raise children who grow up to be friendly Jews, then I would like to learn more about it.

    I have mentioned the Brooklyn Orthodox before. Were they whom you had in mind? They are not actually very hostile that I can see, but they do seem insular and aloof.

    However, when only 25 to 30 percent of U.S. Jews vote Republican, I am skeptical.

    • Thanks: A123
    • Replies: @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund


    As far as I know, though, there is no dispensational differentiation between Reform and Orthodox as there is, say, between Protestants and Catholics. That is, it would be normal as far as I know for a Reform Jew to have an Orthodox brother; so I am unsure that these distinctions map well to familiar Christian concepts.
     
    Based on what I have seen.

    it would be very unusual to see siblings, one Orthodox, one not. Youth are raging bundles of hormones, but the distinctive Orthodox clothing helps there. Any potential couple with mismatched dress codes will immediately draw adult intervention from both sides. The Orthodox Branch has pretty reliable non-mixing. Insular seems fair, aloof has a connotation that probably does not apply.

    As an outsider, it is hard for me to broadly judge Reform / Conservative crossover. From the limited number of people I know, it seems like such changes are rare absent a compelling life change, such as marriage or work relocation with limited options. However, that sample is too small for me to jump to a solid conclusion.

    PEACE 😇
  244. @songbird
    @A123


    Were you really forced to spin a dreidel in elementary school?
     
    Well, I did not think it politic to ask, what happened to the traditions of my ancestors and those of vast majority of the class? Why references to Christmas were very bland, commercial and irreligious. Why we were singing Christmas songs written by Jews? Why was I learning about Jewish religious stories and Jewish ethnic struggles? And why was the faith of my fathers driven out of school?

    They don't teach those things. God knows there were other indignities, including being forced to celebrate black charlatans. But I feel really bad for the kids who came after, they had to put up with being forced to sing Kwanzaa songs.

    Replies: @A123

    I have stated multiple times that excluding Christianity from schools and the public square is a huge part of the problem. But it was not driven out by spinning a dreidel. Much more malign forces against Judeo-Christian values worked to purge the shared traditions of Christians and Jews.

    When black communities were anchored by traditional values and non-woke Churches they were much more civilized. Being poorer than whites was not an excuse for criminal behaviour. White communities were better off too. Breaking churches & synagogues devalued marriage and increased out of wedlock births for all ethnicities. As long as SJW Islamic Globalism continues to have victories over MAGA Judeo-Christian values, things will continue to decline.

    While I am appalled by the Blue Coup, it could have a silver lining. The NeoConDemocrats now own the impending economic problems plus the Harris/Biden foreign policy mistakes. Hopefully, the Gruesome Twosome will not create a nuclear war in the next 3½ years.

    Trump’s presidency created a shared vision, anchored in traditional Christian Main Street America. Deep State resistance and GOP(e) Globalists blocked execution of that vision. MAGA 2024 will have House appropriations authority, and a real shot at undoing this disaster.

    If you want schools to have Christianity back, this is your only option. The DNC is following Rashid Tlaib and Ilhan Omar. Anything headed that way is guaranteed to be worse for Christians.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @songbird
    @A123


    The DNC is following Rashid Tlaib and Ilhan Omar. Anything headed that way is guaranteed to be worse
     
    More or less true for any politicians from the global South, I'm afraid. (And more besides)
  245. @songbird
    @nebulafox

    I think that Eastern Orthodox Christians probably have the best pre-existing structure for fighting poz, among Christians. I mean, they take Lent seriously, for one. Then there are the beards - an implicit sign of patriarchy. Married men can become priests, which doesn't require sacrificing TFR.

    The Catholic Church has an obvious demographic problem - it was built around high TFR societies, where there were many sons and daughters. One brother could become a priest and officiate at the weddings of his siblings. There's probably been more missionary efforts to the Third World, and plenty of non-native priests to draw from now, which I think really encourages poz. Historically, many Irish priests were nationalists exactly because they were locals.

    Still, I have heard rumors of poz among the Orthodox leadership. The Patriarch of Constantinople seems like a wonky seat of leadership to have, seeing how the Turks have massacred all the local Christians. Though I can't comment as I don't know the specifics behind the rumors of poz.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @RSDB

    I think that Eastern Orthodox Christians probably have the best pre-existing structure for fighting poz, among Christians. I mean, they take Lent seriously, for one. Then there are the beards – an implicit sign of patriarchy. Married men can become priests, which doesn’t require sacrificing TFR.

    Actually, now that you mention it, I think that I agree with you. This is a good point.

    To my sense, Eastern Orthodox has insufficient paganism and lacks the crusader’s spirit. It hardly has a place for C. S. Lewis but this is chiefly a matter of style. In substance, I believe that you are probably right.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @V. K. Ovelund


    To my sense, Eastern Orthodox has insufficient paganism
     
    From what I've seen of them (weddings) the inside of the churches are more colorful than Catholic ones. But I don't know very much about them otherwise.

    To my mind, in Western Europe, the saints really come alive in medieval annals. I was just reading of some event, and I was amazed at how different it was from any modern conception of the Christianity.

    According to the story, before a battle with Vikings, a clan prayed to their local saint (from the same clan), who was known as something of a seaman and for his hatred of Vikings. During the battle, they killed nearly all of Vikings, took their gold, silver, and "fair women." Meanwhile, so the story goes, the saint appeared to the king of the Vikings hundreds of miles away, and attacked him in a vision, driving him insane until he died.

    Hard to believe, perhaps, but, nevertheless, very powerful. And there are many stories like that, of saints being evoked before battle.

    It is also quite interesting to see pictures from the 1800s of people making pilgrimages to the wells of saints.
  246. @German_reader
    @A123


    Reading SJW Islamic propaganda like Heather has Two Mommies
     
    Islamic propaganda written by a Jewish lesbian, lol:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesl%C3%A9a_Newman
    First published in 1989, when the Islamic population in the US must still have been relatively small.

    Aren't you even a little bit ashamed of writing so many patently idiotic comments? I'm pretty anti-Islam myself, but your efforts are really embarrassing.

    Replies: @A123, @Svidomyatheart

    He is a Zionist, dont bother trying to argue or reason with him, imho.

    Exactly same carbon copy as those Palestinians, except he wants you to take his side

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @Svidomyatheart


    He is a Zionist, dont bother trying to argue or reason with him
     
    Don't worry, I won't, it would be a waste of time, since the guy is either engaging in deception (if his "Christian Zionist" persona is just an act) or utterly deranged (if he really believes everything he's writing). I just couldn't resist pointing out how absurd this particular piece of nonsense was.

    Replies: @A123

  247. @A123
    @AnonStarter

    Do you really think you can cover up your Quran's requirements for Jihad (Murder) and Taqiyya (Lying)? (1)


    Quran (3:28)
    This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves" against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim may appear friendly to non-Muslims, even though they should not feel friendly.

    Quran (3:54)
    "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers."
    The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which means 'cunning,' 'guile' and 'deceit'. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same.
     
    Admittedly, you are not alone. Every major Islamic organization embraces Taqiyya deception as a core value. (1)

    The notorious Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is so well known for shamelessly lying about its ties to terror and extremism that books have been written on the subject. They take seriously the part of Sharia that says "it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory". The "goal" is the ascendency of Islam (and Sharia itself) on the American landscape.

    In 2007, CAIR's Ibrahim Hooper published an op-ed with a fabricated story about Muhammad that portrayed him as a forgiving man:

    There was a lady who threw garbage in the path of the prophet on a daily basis. One day, she didn‘t do it. The prophet went to inquire about her health, because he thought she might be sick. This lady ended up converting to Islam. So, that‘s how you respond to people who attack you, with forgiveness and with kindness.
     
    Hooper is not ignorant. He knew what he was deceiving his audience. After getting caught, he changed the wording slightly to say that it is a tradition "Muslims are taught," but he continues to promote the story without qualifying it - thus causing others to unwittingly repeat a lie.
     
    Another problem with your painfully obvious attempt at Taqiyya deception is that centuries of Muslim violence towards Infidels has been corroborated by both Muslim & Infidel historians.

    Every lie you tell strengthens my position. So... Please... Keep lying.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/taqiyya.aspx

    Replies: @AnonStarter

    Uh huh.

    Not really interested in revisiting the same old arguments with you, and I don’t imagine others here will be persuaded either way.

    When even those with anti-Islam sentiment call out your crackpottery, it just might be time for you to reconsider your approach.

    • LOL: A123
    • Replies: @A123
    @AnonStarter

    When will you stop your lying and blood libels?

    Given my 100% success rate defeating your absurd fabrications & pro-terrorist extremism. I see your "advice" to change tactics for what it is. A desperate attempt to get me to adopt a stance that is less effective. Not Going To Happen.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @AnonStarter, @anon

  248. @V. K. Ovelund
    @A123


    The term Jews is overly broad.
     
    Yes, it probably is. My personal experience happens to be chiefly with Reform Jews and atheist Jews. As I have noted here before, paradoxically, my personal experience has mostly been favorable.

    I do not know what kind of Jew, say, Adam Schiff is. As far as I know, though, there is no dispensational differentiation between Reform and Orthodox as there is, say, between Protestants and Catholics. That is, it would be normal as far as I know for a Reform Jew to have an Orthodox brother; so I am unsure that these distinctions map well to familiar Christian concepts.

    Nevertheless, by all means, if you (or anyone else here) can show me a distinction among Jews that Jews themselves recognize, and if that distinction divides the hostile Jewish party from the friendly Jewish party, and especially if the distinction runs in families such that friendly Jews raise children who grow up to be friendly Jews, then I would like to learn more about it.

    I have mentioned the Brooklyn Orthodox before. Were they whom you had in mind? They are not actually very hostile that I can see, but they do seem insular and aloof.

    However, when only 25 to 30 percent of U.S. Jews vote Republican, I am skeptical.

    Replies: @A123

    As far as I know, though, there is no dispensational differentiation between Reform and Orthodox as there is, say, between Protestants and Catholics. That is, it would be normal as far as I know for a Reform Jew to have an Orthodox brother; so I am unsure that these distinctions map well to familiar Christian concepts.

    Based on what I have seen.

    it would be very unusual to see siblings, one Orthodox, one not. Youth are raging bundles of hormones, but the distinctive Orthodox clothing helps there. Any potential couple with mismatched dress codes will immediately draw adult intervention from both sides. The Orthodox Branch has pretty reliable non-mixing. Insular seems fair, aloof has a connotation that probably does not apply.

    As an outsider, it is hard for me to broadly judge Reform / Conservative crossover. From the limited number of people I know, it seems like such changes are rare absent a compelling life change, such as marriage or work relocation with limited options. However, that sample is too small for me to jump to a solid conclusion.

    PEACE 😇

  249. @AnonStarter
    @A123

    Uh huh.

    Not really interested in revisiting the same old arguments with you, and I don't imagine others here will be persuaded either way.

    When even those with anti-Islam sentiment call out your crackpottery, it just might be time for you to reconsider your approach.

    Replies: @A123

    When will you stop your lying and blood libels?

    Given my 100% success rate defeating your absurd f