Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Fjordman on the Causes of Anti-Semitism

Fjordman has written previously here about the causes of anti-Semitism. Last night he published a more extensive analysis of the subject at Atlas Shrugs. Below are some excerpts:

AMDG, a Spanish contributor to the Gates of Vienna blog and writer at the website La Yijad en Eurabia, has suggested that I should start with pre-Christian anti-Semitism, since anti-Semitism is much older than Christianity. He has a point. Greeks and Romans (Europeans, or proto-Europeans) could display real anti-Semitism. Jewish and Greek civilizations clashed with regards to nudity in art, the representation of man etc. Traditional Jews resisted Hellenization successfully, which is some of the background for why Hanukkah, or the Festival of Lights, is celebrated today.

The Romans did destroy the Second Temple in Jerusalem in AD 70, but I would be careful with saying that this was because of “anti-Semitism” in the modern understanding of the term. The Romans could be brutal; you don’t create the world’s largest empire by being fluffy little bunnies. However, they were “tolerant” in the sense that they didn’t much care about which religion their subjects adhered to as long as they accepted the political supremacy of the Roman state. Most religious communities did, but the Jews were different. Some of the same applies to the early Christians, who were sometimes persecuted by Roman authorities. They too were “different,” and they were reluctant to honor the emperors as semi-divinities because this was considered to be idolatry and thus conflicted with the Ten Commandments (which they had inherited from the Jews). Jesus of Nazareth himself was executed (according to all four canonical gospels) at the hands of the local Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate.Although Jews have sometimes been vilified as “Christ killers,” those actually carrying out the crucifixion were Romans. So why don’t we hate the Romans?

Among the more recent accusations I’ve heard against Jews among the post-Christian crowd (who don’t care about who did or did not kill Jesus) is that Jews are overrepresented among Marxists and Multiculturalists. It is true that there are quite a few Jews among prominent Multiculturalists. That’s not “anti-Semitism,” it’s a factual statement. I’ve never been able to understand why American Jews vote so overwhelmingly for the Democrats, even for Obama, but they do. I don’t see how that makes Jews substantially different from Christian or post-Christian Westerners, though. There is a suicidal streak to Western culture right now, and it’s almost universally shared by all groups. Those who think that Jews are “conspiring against us” should reflect over the fact that Jews are disproportionately represented among those defending European civilization (Andrew Bostom, Bat Ye’or etc.). Moreover, many of the most prominent “suicide Jews” are suicidal on behalf of Jews, not Gentiles. The prominent left-wing intellectual Noam Chomsky has met on friendly terms with leaders of Hezbollah, an Islamic terrorist organization that wants to murder Jews and destroy the Jewish state of Israel.

One possible reason for hatred against Jews is plain old envy, and here there are parallels with ethnic minorities elsewhere.
- - - - - - - - -
[…]

Hatred of Jews among Christians does exist, but Jew hatred has a much stronger scriptural basis in Islam than it has in Christianity. The Australian Jihadist David Hicks, who has trained with Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan, writes that “Muslims fight against Jews and they kill them.” He can base this directly in Islamic religious scriptures, both the Koran and the hadith. For instance, one authentic (according to Sunni Muslims) hadith states that: “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.’“ (Bukhari 4.52.177)

There is nothing like this in the Christian Gospels. After all, Jesus of Nazareth was himself as Jew, as were many of his early disciples. Muhammad was not. He spent his days murdering many Jews, among them the Medinan tribe of Banu Quraiza. Jesus never killed anybody, nor did he encourage others to do so for him

36 comments:

Fjordman said...

Thank you for posting. I just sent a review of Andrew Bostom's latest book, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, to _Jihad Watch. It is quite good. I will continue with my history of medicine in five parts. Maybe the third part will be published here. I am planning to do a couple of posts on the history of astronomy, starting with the astrolabe, and why astronomy (and the making of clocks) eventually stagnated in the Islamic world, despite the fact that they initially had access to much the same information as did Europeans. I will continue with a couple of posts about the history of wheels and their connection to the expansion of Indo-European languages, and finally something about the history of beer and wine. That should keep me busy for the rest of the summer, I think.

Ypp said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Diamed said...

*Let me post a disclaimer that I love jews, think they're brilliant, beautiful, and have a right to Israel and cheer their war with the muslims on. I am eminently grateful for their hundreds of nobel prize winning scientists among them Johannes Salk who cured polio for the whole of mankind. The war on free speech makes such disclaimers necessary before you can say anything about anyone these days.

Fjordman correctly argues that plenty of non-jews are also liberals, but if liberal Jews control the mainstream media and use it to convert others to the liberal creed, you could say all the rest of the liberals are only victims, and liberal jews alone are the perpetrators of liberalism.

Liberal jews own most of the newspapers, hollywood, music publishers, magazines, ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN. From there they brainwash people into liberalism by simply surrounding our children with their point of view at all hours of the day from every single angle of the media. The best way they make these arguments is to not even make them. Simply present them as agreed upon facts that no one would ever imagine to dispute in all their entertainment shows, editorials, and news broadcasts, and it becomes unthinkable to be anything but a liberal.

Who can help but be liberal with this kind of media onslaught? Where will they learn any other point of view or any other facts than what they're spoon fed? It doesn't end there. Once you get to college, they put you into another liberal brainwashing session. Who are the professors but, again, liberal jews, who are massively disproportionate in the university system? These liberal jews will then teach the marxist version of history to your kids and stamp out whatever remaining vestiges of conservatism they might have had. If a republican student dares to disagree, all it will earn him is a failing grade, so they soon learn to truckle under and write essays with the politically correct point of view. Again, is there any equivalence between the liberal student and the liberal professor? Surely the blame lies on the perpetrator, not the victim.

The moderate jew who opposes what other jews are doing half the time is only speaking out for the interests of Israel, or worried about muslim immigration because muslims are anti-semitic. (Think david horowitz who seems continuously fixated on jewish interests and Israel and is conservative because he sees that as the best way to help jews and Israel) It is a rare jew who is opposing the muslim/mexican onslaught simply because it hurts people of european descent. One can imagine the lonely day in hell jewish conservatives will protest the farm murders of the boers in south africa, rather than write yet another article on why jews have the right to build new settlements or kill more gazan terrorists. I have nothing against this, everyone has a right to look after their own, the point is they aren't us and don't see themselves as us.

You could then break jews down into three categories. 1) Liberal jews who are the most powerful enemy of Europeans on earth, without which no amount of barbaric muslims or anyone else could endanger us. 2) Conservative jews who are perfectly happy with us helping their interests around the world and in Israel, but would turn on us if we ever weren't useful. 3) Jews who actually identify with Europeans and would fight for us against jewish interests or Israel.

Of the first I am clearly anti, of the second I am wary, of the third I am welcoming--whatever (probably small) size that group is.

The simplest cause of anti-semitism is jews are not us, and therefore we will inevitably have conflicts of interest. Jews wish to further the jewish agenda, europeans the european agenda, sometimes they coincide, sometimes they differ. When mexicans and americans collide we don't go crazy about anti-mexicanism. We assume different groups with different agendas will naturally dislike each other and conflict with each other, rather than start handing out thought-crime certificates. Why can't it be the same with jews?

Conservative Swede said...

Hi!

First of all thanks to Fjordman for a great essay. The only thing I would object to is the sort of "fluffy bunny" terminology you use in describing the Romans. But in spite of that you make the point well also in that part.

Diamed,

Also you have an embryo of an interesting perspective. However, as a minimum you'll have to reconsider how you use your words. On Tuesday ALL the problems of the West is because of Women's liberation. Then on Wednesday ALL the problems of the West is because of the Jews. These are clearly two contradicting positions, so you end up not having a substantial position at all, that could be argued with.

So you have said nothing, nada, zilch. You have no opinion. What you write ends up being meaningless. Your problem might be in the way you use words, or it might be something else. However, please consider this in the future, and try to correct it.

ZZMike said...

Diamed makes an intersting proposition (and I certainly wouldn't use his website to reinforce his arguments).

"Liberal jews own most of the newspapers, hollywood, music publishers, magazines, ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN.". [He doesn't capitalize any of the other proper nouns.]

"Who are the professors but, again, liberal jews, who are massively disproportionate in the university system?"

I assume he includes Ward Churchill and Cornel West in the ranks of "liberal Jewish professors".

It's simplistic to say that "this media - The NYT, CNN, NBC - is owned by this liberal Jew". NBC, for example, is owned by General Electric; CBS by Westinghouse. And there's little evidence that Rupert Murdoch goes to Temple on Saturday.

At least Mr Diamed leads off with "... some of my best friends are Jews".

I looked at AMDG's website (that name has a decidedly Jesuit ring to it). I would really like to have a translation, but from what I can make out of "Obama alterna con los vecinos ...". And he recognizes it as "Pura propaganda:". It hearkens back to Dukakis in a tank.

Saharians said...

I think Diamed has a wonderful perspective. Very insightful. Nothing he says, IMO, is particularly controversial, except perhaps to the Israel Firsters among us. Does the counter-jihad exist because Islam is a threat to Jews, or to the West? The behavior of some counter-jihadists suggests the former.

Diamed said...

@ conservative swede: lol. You're right, I hadn't noticed that. I am certain friday I will point out that All our problems are due to corporations wishing to depress the price of labor. I guess I should write with fewer superlatives and more just 'a contributing factor is' or 'part of the problem is.'

Call it youthful exuberance.

Conservative Swede said...

Well, fair enough, Diamed. You took my point well. Let me add that phrases like 'a contributing factor is' or 'part of the problem is' should not just be used for ceremonial reasons, but coined carefully in order describe well the nature of the world we live in and what we observe. Much of the skill of good writing and good thinking comes down to that.

Now think of the Jews as part of the problem, and see what that sort of perspective leads you to. And if this sort of perspective can be described in a more expressive and informative way. Also consider: what are the other parts. What are their natures, and why do they act like they do?

Avery Bullard said...

fjordman: I don’t see how that makes Jews substantially different from Christian or post-Christian Westerners, though. There is a suicidal streak to Western culture right now, and it’s almost universally shared by all groups.

Was that suicidal streak noticeable in the United States when all the institutions where dominated by WASPs?

When the likes of Franz Boas and other Jewish academics began their jihad against white Christendom from the critical Ivy League universities of the soon to be most culturally influential country in the world was it just a matter of timing and not of ethnic interests and animosity? I'd like someone to make the argument that even if anti-Jewish quotas had been maintained and these universities had remained WASP or even white Christian that Marxist ideas still would have been invented and promoted at these universities.

Did the suicidal mindset have much influence in Europe, Canada, and Australasia, prior to US political and cultural hegemony?

Avery Bullard said...

Diamed,

Also you have an embryo of an interesting perspective. However, as a minimum you'll have to reconsider how you use your words. On Tuesday ALL the problems of the West is because of Women's liberation. Then on Wednesday ALL the problems of the West is because of the Jews. These are clearly two contradicting positions


The original Gentile feminists (eg. Margaret Sanger) were not Marxists bent on deconstructing the societies they lived in. Far from it in fact. Post-WW2 feminists were heavily influenced by anti-Western Marxist ideas as they spoke of white male oppression. Jews made up a wildly disproportionate percentage of these Marxian feminists compared to the earlier movements like the suffragettes. These later feminists could not have had the influence they've attained without substantial help from the mass media and universities in promoting their ideas.

latté island said...

Diamed wrote: It is a rare jew who is opposing the muslim/mexican onslaught simply because it hurts people of european descent. One can imagine the lonely day in hell jewish conservatives will protest the farm murders of the boers in south africa

Umm, that would be me. I aggressively promote the South African cause at my blog. I'd like to add a nuance here, that I regard myself as of European descent. The Islamic/Mexican/etc. invasion threatens me as a white person as well as specifically as a Jew.

3) Jews who actually identify with Europeans and would fight for us against jewish interests or Israel.

Why would I need to prove myself by being willing to fight "jewish interests" or Israel? Israel is an ally of the west and stands against enemies of the west. I really believe that even if I weren't Jewish, I'd still be pro-Israel for that reason, just as I'm pro-Serb and pro any other white ethnic group threatened by ethnic cleansing.

Diamed said...

@ Latte Island: I stand corrected. The big name counterjihad jews like bat ye'or, mark steyn, erza levant, david horowitz, etc at least to my knowledge are never interested though. More south african whites have been murdered simply for being white, than jews in Israel in the entire intifada, but all we hear from the jewish mainstream media is about violence in Israel, and crickets in South Africa. The atrocities going on down there are almost unspeakable, but the media is quick to whine about tibetans or darfurans, anyone but whites it seems. I hope you understand my frustration.

As an example of when european and jewish interests collide, I'll give you control of the media and the universities in the USA for example. This certainly favors getting out the jewish point of view, but dampens the ability for Europeans to speak of their interests.

Another example is the foreign aid the USA continuously sends to Israel. Taxing whites and giving to jews seems a clear conflict of interests.

Third would be all wars in the middle east that help secure Israel but cost us trillions in blood and treasure with no measurable gain for ourselves. The war in Iraq seems to be an example, as would be a war in Iran.

Fourth would be the holocaust denial laws, where whites lose their free speech rights in order for jews to feel better.

Fifth would be the historical whitewashing of jewish involvement in the genocide of 30 million whites in Russia, who have never been properly mourned or avenged, and whose killers have never been shamed. Jews have made endless memorials to the holocaust and blamed all whites for our antisemitism, but never apologized once for the horrible atrocities they did to whites in the USSR.

whiskey_199 said...

Diamed is an example IMHO of anti-semitic thinking.

He blames "the Jews" for many bad things, including Communism, which is like blaming the Lutherans for Naziism and Catholics for Italian Fascists, since both movements had many adherents of both Lutheranism and Catholicism.

Like Catholics, Jews are deeply divided, control nothing (it's a classic case of ethnic hatred to label a group "controlling" -- the Chinese Diaspora gets that same label in Indonesia and Malaysia and Vietnam, complete with regular pogroms).

Jews are over-represented in Multiculturalist and Communist movements for obvious reasons. Nationalism in Europe has meant pogroms and death for Jews. Herzl himself was a fervent proponent of national assimilation until the hatred and anti-Semitism he experienced in France during the Dreyfuss Affair convinced him otherwise, and founded Zionism in response. Jews are frozen out of every country but America, and so particularly when influenced by European experiences, seek an antidote to nationalism which they find dangerous.

Jews vote Democrat over Republican for obvious reasons -- Truman was a strong supporter of Israel, over many objections, and Eisenhower disliked Israel and curried favor with the Arabs. A policy continued on into the Nixon and Bush I Administrations. James Baker was not a friend of Israel, to put it mildly.

This is highly likely to change, particularly since Nationalism is friendly to Jews in America, and the Democratic Party's Black-Liberal alliance cannot even bother to conceal over anti-semitism, but it will take time for lifetime loyalties to change.

Mark Steyn is not Jewish.

It is further a matter of record that Ariel Sharon publicly and privately opposed the Iraq War, as he wished to have Saddam in place against Iran.

A war with Iran to preempt Iranian nuclear weapons being used as a "super car bomb" as it was against us in Beirut and Khobar Towers are self-evidently in our interests. Iran has promised to wipe us out too, and has said that the US would collapse if just one of our cities were nuked.

[Holocaust denial laws are legacies of anti-Nazi measures designed to keep Hitler's old pals from coming to power in Germany, Austria, and many other places. Adenauer, no "Jew" thought they were an essential part of de-Nazification, as did Guy Mollet, Charles De Gaulle, and Winston Churchill. They were needed back then, it's debatable if they are still needed now. However I will defer to the wisdom of people imprisoned, tortured, or who fought the Nazis back then as to what was needed in the aftermath of May, 1945.]

Fjordman said...

Diamed: I do write about the media's silence regarding anti-white violence. I also support Israel and see absolutely no reason whatsoever why I cannot do both. We should support anybody fighting against Jihad. I've consistently been against the idea of promoting "democracy" in Iraq, which has always been a stupid idea.

Stalin was not Jewish, the last time I checked. Maybe there are too many charges of anti-Semitism sometimes, but what you wrote here is a textbook case of it. Your claim that a war against Iran would be because of evil, scheming Jews clearly demonstrates that your hatred of Jews clouds your mind on other issues. Taking out the nuclear facilities in Iran would be a good thing, and any sensible person would be in favor of it. If you have a problem with that, then you're clearly on the wrong blog and should go somewhere else.

Avery Bullard said...

Holocaust denial laws are legacies of anti-Nazi measures designed to keep Hitler's old pals from coming to power in Germany, Austria, and many other places. Adenauer, no "Jew" thought they were an essential part of de-Nazification, as did Guy Mollet, Charles De Gaulle, and Winston Churchill. They were needed back then, it's debatable if they are still needed now.

Could you back that up? Seriously. Although there were laws against Nazism back in the 40s laws specifically against Holocaust denial and free speech appear to be relatively recent - late 1970s at the latest I'm guessing. France, for example, did not outlaw Holocaust denial and so-called racist speech until the late 80s or early 90s. (The law is named after communist deputy Jean-Claude Gayssot who is Jewish). In all of the countries I'm aware of these anti-free speech laws were a result of Jewish lobbying and other political activity. Only recently, in the Steyn case in Canada, has there been any sign of Jewish opposition to such laws - from Ezra Levant - but as Diamed says it's all about Muslims.

Ypp said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Avery Bullard said...

fjordman says "Stalin was not Jewish"

I don't think anyone is saying he was. I recommend The Jewish Century by Yuri Slezkine on the issue of the Jewish role in Stalin's crimes. Slezkine is part Russian Jewish and received an award form the Jewish Book Council. He makes some excuses for the Jewish role in early Bolshevism but essentially confirms what "anti-Semites" have been saying for decades and, indeed, adds to the evidence.

The Jewish Century

Avery Bullard said...

Jews vote Democrat over Republican for obvious reasons -- Truman was a strong supporter of Israel, over many objections, and Eisenhower disliked Israel and curried favor with the Arabs. A policy continued on into the Nixon and Bush I Administrations. James Baker was not a friend of Israel, to put it mildly.


Absolute rubbish. Today the GOP is more pro-Israel yet it hasn't changed voting patterns significantly.

The truth is that most American jews vote on domestic issues, not Israel. They see the GOP as the party of the rooted majority ethnic group - historical America if you will. That seems to scare them as they vote overwhelmingly against the party deemed most representative of the traditional majority in every country they live in, except Israel. (Needless to say they are not the only minority that does so - far from it). No amount of support for Israel will change Jewish voting patterns unless the security situation in Israel changes and Israel's very existence becomes an issue. Until then Jewish Americans will be far more concerned about Christian conservatives, immigration restrictionists, and discrimination against minorities..

Tuan Jim said...

I just wanted to make a quick note about Roman tolerance - probably one of the most interesting political/legal points referenced in the Bible:

Acts 18:12-17
"12While Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews made a united attack on Paul and brought him into court. 13"This man," they charged, "is persuading the people to worship God in ways contrary to the law."

14Just as Paul was about to speak, Gallio said to the Jews, "If you Jews were making a complaint about some misdemeanor or serious crime, it would be reasonable for me to listen to you. 15But since it involves questions about words and names and your own law—settle the matter yourselves. I will not be a judge of such things." 16So he had them ejected from the court. 17Then they all turned on Sosthenes the synagogue ruler and beat him in front of the court. But Gallio showed no concern whatever."

Bela said...

During the ongoing election process one the most often used word is “he/she apologized for…”.
— that is, we demand, we exact from everybody speaking publicly to morally clarify his/her stand and to to distance themselves from repugnant, detrimental views, lest we regard the person as guilty by association.

Diamed is 100% correct in his classification namely that the overwhelming majority of Jewish “intellectuals” are rabid Marxist-Leninist driven by innate hatred of Western Civilization including both America AND Israel even though they are the primary beneficiaries of that civilization. They do their utmost effort to hasten the demise of this country AND Israel with incredible zeal.

The Marxist-Bolshevik terror and genocide is well documented yet show us an example when prominent Jews denounced the horror that the Jewish communist committed; (ADL Abe Foxman? HRC Kenneth Roth? ACLU?) Not one! As soon as one presents facts on the ground namely that liberal Jews incite against this country and (YES!) against Israel, the apologists swarm out - akin to modern Turks that deny the Armenian genocide - and shriek: “they weren’t real Jews”, “they were atheist, secular,” “they rejected Judaism” “we have nothing to do with those non-Jews” “Anti-Semitism!” “Ward Churchill is not Jewish”….

Here is my point: the subject of this discussion is about Anti-Semitism or put this way about HATE, isn’t it?
The absolute arrogance with which prominent Jews simply ignore the sufferings of others for which their fellow Jews were guilty or complicit once or now, the lack of a modicum of contrition and sympathy for the leftist genocide and atrocities they had supported then - and now - (Chomsky: Khmer Rouge) is that make one’s blood boil.
If one had a Jewish grandma like I DID, then one is a potential citizen of Israel. Yet with a full Jewish family behind can one be reclassified as non-Jew (George Soros) and absolved of all the malice he is dedicated to commit?
How many Anti-American Jewish individual exist versus Bat Ye'or or Denis Pager? With a Jewish Grandma in my family or may be even more?) I don't fear to express my contempt towards these individuals or groups.

Diamed said...

It's a weak argument when someone says: "this particular bad guy was non-jewish," or "this particular jew was a good guy," as somehow proving that jews are not disproportionately bad for the west. Comments like that are completely irrelevant to the larger picture.

I see a lot of dishonest strawmanning, namecalling, and anecdotal arguments trying to overcome statistical facts, that wouldn't be tolerated except in this case it's defending jews.

Does anyone care to argue my point that jewish liberals are uniquely separate from run-of-the-mill liberals because of their positions of power and influence in government, the media, and universities? Millions of liberals will say 'race is a social construct,' but Boaz, a jew, was the one who invented that line. Millions of liberals will say 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.' But Marx, a jew, invented that line. Millions of liberals will say "geography not culture or genetics was the cause of all variations between civilizations." But Diamond, a jew, invented that line.

The leadership of the left is jewish. There is no getting around this. To defeat the left, its useful idiots (white liberals, largely ignorant kids), its foreign legions (mexicans, muslims,), its stormtroopers, (expo, anti-fascist action, etc), and its institutions (EU, UN), you must cut off the head. We are mainly in a war of ideals, our will is paralyzed because we do not know if we are right to defend ourselves or our people or our culture. The moment we wake up, we could win this war tomorrow and save three continents from eminent destruction. Who, then, are we paralyzed by? Who are we arguing with? What ideals are we opposing? If you can't even name your enemy, what are the odds you'll ever defeat them? And what higher stakes could we possibly be playing for?

Bela said...

diamed:
Your statement is too sound, forceful and cogent argument that no one shall contest.
But it’s not a PC thing (Herbert Marcuse) in the current environment therefore you shall be silenced one way or other.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Except that these jews repudiate their jewish heritage and become "citizens of the world" or what have you. Marx is a good example. he may have been of jewish parentage but that doesn't mean he liked being a jew.

As this proves.

Now if an Englishman repudiates his national heritage and his membership of the english race he is rightly seen as a venal idiot, but they won't then claim that all English are the same. Or lets take the germans. Germans are a race that live much further field than the state of Germany. Germans created the nazi ideaology, yet we don't tar all germanic peoples from the very north of scandinavia to the south of spain and east and west as nazis, do we? Many rather prominent germans of many nationalities were nazis, but we don't say that all germans were out to get everyone, that all germans were racist scum, or that they were trying to rule the world.

So why suddenly change that rule with the jews? You want people to stop treating them as a special case then you also have to stop treating them as a special case. Many of these prominent jews you've mentioned are betraying their people just as surely as those prominent germans (both of ethnicity and nationality) betrayed theirs.

Bela said...

graham dawson:

Do you believe one can repudiate his/her ethnicity and heritage and declare one selves as something else that never was?
Can you morph into a Chinaman by decree? Bill Clinton as Black president?
From tomorrow on I am going to convert myself into Quechua Indian...
It's OK with you?

Diamed said...

Dawson: I was careful not to tar and feather all jews. I broke them down into three categories and discussed each of the groups independently. I have nothing against latte island for instance.

But I don't think it's possible to simply stop being a jew by converting to catholicism, atheism, or anything else. That's as senseless as ceasing to be a german when you join the nazi party, move to argentina, etc.

Fjordman said...

Diamed: I'm tired of this nonsense. What you're saying is that "Jewishness" is a genetic condition which doesn't go away, and you also indicate that Jews, for the most part, constitute a threat to our civilization. Does that mean that Jews have to be eliminated? We've heard that before. I don't care if you whine about censorship, that line of thinking is not welcome at this blog, and if you continue suggesting that then you should leave.

Bela said...

diamed:
I told you: You shall not criticize nor analyze the deeds and intentions of those "that must not be named"!

Please keep bashing the Muslims and the Skinheads.

teacher.paris said...

The ongoing farce of Fjordman continues... See above.
Is he the owner of this blog? Being banned by guest contributor seems a little hubristic.

Baron Bodissey said...

Fjordman is a distinguished an honored contributor at Gates of Vienna. On posts written by him, or on posts in which he has played a major part, his opinion carries the same weight as that of either of the blog owners.

AMDG said...

It is an honour to have contributed –even if it is a marginal contribution- to one of Fjordman’s essays. I have not yet read it, as I use to print long posts in order to read them quietly.

I answered his request here directly in an e-mail because I knew that anything regarding the relations between Jews and Christians would be controversial. In particular, even if my answer was reasoned it could be misunderstood as an attack against Jewish and Jewishness.

The reason why I wanted to single out that European anti-Semitism is previous to Christianity is that some progressive Christians may take the opportunity to make an exercise of public self-flagellation Many of them seem to be crying for opportunities to do it. It should also be noted that they do it always publicly; personal discipline does not work for them.

Concerning progressive Jews. You may try to have a look at this list:


Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Bela Kuhn, Adorno, Fromm, Marcuse, Horkheimer, Luxemburgo, Zinoviev, Lasalle, Kreisky, Cohen, Adler, Breitner, Deutsch, Borkheim, Utin, Finberg, Kahn, Rothstein, Borojov, Beia, Bronstein, Bukharin.


How many of them are Jewish? Their contribution to the destruction of Western values should not be disregarded, but neither exaggerated. If their ideas have been so influential, it is because Westerners have FREELY followed them.

ZZMike, you are right, AMDG is the Jesuit motto. Even if I was thinking on a Spinozian concept of God when I decided to use it.

I am a Spanish practising Catholic.

You have here an index of my English production, published also in GoV

Diamed said...

Fjordman: Any genetic ancestry test can now identify the jewish ethnicity as distinct and separate from english, italian, polish, etc. Jewish ancestry will cluster together in a group separate from other genetic clusters of other groups. At this date to pretend jewishness is only a cultural difference, is dishonest. The science has already spoken. There is such a thing as a jewish ethnicity. This is an undebatable fact established by hundreds of respectable scientific journals and studies. I have no respect for people who insist dogmatically that jews must not be considered as a genetically unique group, simply because that does not sit well with their version of morality. A is A.

As to your next insinuation, it is unnecessary (and undesirable) to eliminate jews. All that is required is to eliminate jewish influence. Simply by establishing:

A) Jews have a disproportionate amount of power over our government, media, universities and institutions.

B) Jews are not us and therefore cannot be trusted to act with our best interest in mind.

C) We have a right to run our own government, media, economy, schools, and everything else for our own benefits and interests, not theirs. We are a government OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people not OF the jews, BY the jews, and FOR the jews.

You have continuously strawmanned, labelled, and bullied but have not made any strong arguments or even attempts at arguments in this thread. If I am found to be the one 'out of line' in this debate, then God help us, but leaving you to the last word with an accusation that I'm the new Hitler is simply not acceptable. Have a nice day.

Fjordman said...

Any half-way sane person would consider it a good thing to take out Iranian nuclear facilities. You indicate above that you are not in favor of such a strike against Iran, mainly because the "Jews" want it, which means that it cannot be a good idea. I don't think Israel's interests always overlap with our own, no, but in this case, they clearly do. You have to be pretty blinded by hatred not to see that.

You are correct that ethnicity has a genetic component. You said above that we should "cut off the head" while you were talking about one genetic group of people. My reaction to that was perfectly legitimate.

Hyphenated American said...

Indeed, Jews are over-represented among the left-wing groups. This is true. But then, Jewish group is much more educated than other groups, so it comes as no surprise that you see Jews in powerful positions. This also explains why there are so many Jews among the right-wingers in America. Just to put things in perspective, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and Barry Goldwater were also Jews.

As far as Jewish views on the communist rule in the USSR go, one must not forget that starting in the 1930ies, the Russian Jews started quickly moving into the anti-communist direction. It comes as no surprise that Russian Jews were very, very over-represented in the pro-Western and anti-communist groups in the USSR since the 1960ies. Majority of Soviet dissidents were Jews.
To summarize it all, great many Jews could be found on both side of the left-wing debate. And juse in case anyone is wondering, David Horowitz is a right-winger, solidly supporting small limited government, radical curtailment of the government power and the Western victory in the culture war.

Now, that I got this out of my system, lets look more closely at Diamed's view. Let me give one quote: "We have a right to run our own government, media, economy, schools, and everything else for our own benefits and interests, not theirs. We are a government OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people not OF the jews, BY the jews, and FOR the jews."
Just based on this quote it is obvious that Diamed is a fascist - and by this word I don't mean a hysterical nazi. What I mean is a classical Italian fascist, or, if you want an FDR "progressive". He see the entire society as simply a part of the government, run by the government, and closely following what the government wants. From this point of view, his disagreement with the "liberal" Jews is no more than a gang war, a war for the absolute government power. If anything, his ideological differences with the commies is skin deep. Any cooperation with him by American right-wingers will be short lived because our ideologies are completely on the opposite side.

That's the message from a Russian right-wing Jew. Do you have any problem with that?

Diamed said...

You're wrong, I never indicated I was against a surgical strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. I'm actually for it, though it's unclear why Israel can't do it itself.



"Third would be all wars in the middle east that help secure Israel but cost us trillions in blood and treasure with no measurable gain for ourselves. The war in Iraq seems to be an example, as would be a war in Iran."

Note, I said a war IN Iran, which implies an occupying ground force fighting INSIDE Iran. You'll also note by the context that I am speaking 'trillions in blood and treasure,' which again, no air strike could cost, since we'd probably not lose a single man. I'm obviously, therefore, not arguing against an air strike, but against another Iraq.

As to being a classical fascist, yes I suppose I am. I believe the government and authority has a large role to play in society, though I would like to see government and authority far more localized and the giant superstates abolished. The individual must subordinate himself to the health of his community, the community in turn should be homogeneous so that the individual is not stuck serving his own enemies, but instead his friends, loved ones, neighbors, and fellow-thinkers. This is the social contract that will save the world. I see no other formula that doesn't end in disaster.

Hyphenated American said...

Diamed,

Firstly, thanks a lot for not going berserk when I called you a "fascist". A lot of people do not realize the difference between the nazis and the fascists. BTW, you are not a nazi, right? I am just trying to make sure.

Now, back to your response, let me comment on it, step by step.

"I believe the government and authority has a large role to play in society, though I would like to see government and authority far more localized and the giant superstates abolished."

This is pretty much in line with views of Rousseau, if you pardon this analogy. Of course, American right-wingers prefer a small limited government - like the one proposed by the American Founding Fathers. And by any measure, America is a glowing example of how successful a state can be when it limits its interests to law and order, and lets the people decide individually everything else. The system you propose, firstly, cannot sustain democracy, since even in a small relatively homogenous country (Sweden or Norway come to mind - given that the number of immigrants is still relatively small) the differences between the people are unsurmountable. Why is it so? The reason is simple - those differences can be easily neglected when people make decisions about their lives individually, those same differences cannot be resolved if there is only one authority to resolve them - i.e. the government. Put it simply - each and everyone one of us can have different tastes of sandwiches, and it matters little to us what kid of sandwiches our neighbor likes. But when it is up to the government to decide which sandwiches were to be produced - not only the different opinions of the citizens go in direct conflict, it is very likely that no single group has a clear majority to make a decision. This is only one simplest example of how the fascist system would fail.


"The individual must subordinate himself to the health of his community,..."

This is essentially is a fascist slogan. Pray tell - who is in the position of such infinite wisdom as to decide what decisions are helping the health of the community? Moreover, an idea that one must give up himself completely in the service of community is nothing more than an idea of voluntary slavery - a morally repugnant idea. You want me to sacrifice myself for your sake? Why should I put your interests or the ill-defined interests of the community above my interests? It's one thing if we decide on some absolute maximum power the ta the community has - i.e. prosecuting domestic and foreign enemies, maybe building roads - but above that - what exactly do you see it doing? If an individual is nothing but a tool of the community - then how can the community can be more than a pathetic collection of tools? You are awfully close into falling for the marxist-leninist dogmas. Would you care to join a kibutz - a perfect community for people like you. Right?


"the community in turn should be homogeneous so that the individual is not stuck serving his own enemies, but instead his friends, loved ones, neighbors, and fellow-thinkers."

How large a community are you envisioning? 1 million people? 10 million people? And what do you mean by "homogenous"? Perfectly homogenous Sweden and Norway are destroying themselves in a heart beat.

"This is the social contract that will save the world. I see no other formula that doesn't end in disaster."

Well, then you should not worry about Sweden and Norway. These largely homogenous and small countries should do just fine - if your theory is correct. Of course, the problem is, while those countries were racially homogenous, they were ruled by fascist and socialist cliques for decades. And those cliques decided that it was in the interest of those communities to turn those countries upside down. A good idea would be to say that it is not homogenuity or lack thereof that damned those countries - but rather the preponderence of socialist-fascist-progressive ideas, which turned independent self-reliant citizens into slaves.
As you said before "The individual must subordinate himself to the health of his community.." - and this is exactly what the Swedes and Norwegians are now doing through their elected representatives. Unfortunately, the slaves cannot know what is good for community, since they must rely on the community elders to decide what is good for it - and the elders have ideas that may require slow subjucation of native Swedes and Norwegians to the foreign hordes. In other words, the Swedes must give their country and their lives - for the good of the community. And if you think they are wrong - well, that's cause you are not enlightenned enough to know what is good for Sweden. By your logic, you are the enemy of the community. If you want to live by the fascist logic, you should expect to die by it.

Diamed said...

No, I'm not a nazi. :P. As to the rest, I would love to debate it but it's off topic. :/. So I'll just let it go.