The verdict is in on the Toulouse killings of Jewish children and the villain is that old standby, "Failure to Integrate". What it comes down to is that Mohammed Merah did not kill Jewish children because he hated Jews, because he had breathed in the foul poisonous vapors of a creed which believes Jews to be subhuman devils whose destruction must come to pass before the golden age of Islam finally arrives. Mohammed Merah killed Jews because he was unhappy and it was France that made him unhappy.
Murder across religious and ethnic boundaries in Europe is inevitably a crime against multiculturalism. If someone kills a Muslim, it's an assault on multiculturalism. If a Muslim kills someone, it's also an assault on multiculturalism. Whoever ends up in the morgue, the incident becomes a clarion call for recommitting ourselves to more multiculturalism.
It's unsurprising then that the real villains of the Toulouse killings are Sarkozy for banning burqas, Marine LePen for being critical of Islam and anyone who employs words or images which make Muslims feel unwelcome in France. Alienate a Muslim from French society and before you know it he's shooting up some children in order to express his grievances about integration. Fail to make him happy and the blood of his victims is on your hands.
Tariq Ramadan, the epitome of the modern moderate Muslim thinker, explained that Mohammed Merah was only a bit confused and "soft-hearted". Ramadan does have a point. When Mohammed Merah grabbed a little girl, put a gun to her head and pulled the trigger, he was being soft-hearted by the standards of the Muslim Jihadis back in Afghanistan or Iraq. After all he didn't torture or rape her first. By Islamic mores that is soft-hearted.
As the debate has shifted to Muslim integration, Muslim happiness and how Muslims see the killings, the actual victims of the attack have receded into the distance, over that far horizon where dead Jews go until they are wanted by the champions of progress and enlightenment to make a point about tolerance. That is where the six million sleep, wakened to occasionally stir from the tomb and appear at a Holocaust museum or at a film showing whose message is that we must learn to be more tolerant. But somehow the only people we need to learn to be tolerant of are the people killing us.
Jewish suffering has been universalized into multicultural pablum that has nothing to do with Jews anymore. The hijacking of Jewish history has been so comprehensive that Jews have become the new Nazis in the mythology of multiculturalism. They wear uniforms, don't they. They have a state that they're proud of. And they're fighting against all the Mohammed Merahs who only kill because they haven't gotten their fill of tolerance. Clearly Jews are the new Nazis.
No other ethno-religious group has been subject to the same vile mockery from the left, the complete disregard for their history and civil rights as the Jews. To mention the Holocaust in the context of a potential Jewish genocide is an invitation to being ridiculed or accused of exploiting history, by the same people who shamelessly exploit it when they want to bomb Yugoslavia or protest against budget cuts for minority studies programs.
The left can call anyone and everyone Hitler, but when the Jews point to an actual short dark haired world leader who keeps talking about wiping out Israel, it's just more irrational alarmism. The left imagines that it has acquired the Holocaust by virtue of its moral power and that any effort by the Jews to lay claim to their own history is vile theft. Jewish history, along with black history and Native-American history were acquired by the left when it anointed itself as the defender of the multi-cultural society. And like most copyright owners, it has a limited tolerance for violations of its intellectual property.
If Muslims suffer from a failure to integrate, Jews for the most part have been integrated quite well. They have taken on the habits of the liberal upper classes, copied their politics, their despite for the traditional and the original, and their fetishism of anything different and exotic. There are occasional separatist communities which right-thinking liberal Jews sneer at for their backwardness, but they are for the most part the rare success story of multiculturalism. They became exactly what their hosts wanted them to be.
The trouble though is that their hosts didn't really want to create more Unitarians and Presbyterians with last names like Goldberg or Cohen. Sure they taught them the phrases, created the educational systems and rewarded them for jumping through the right intellectual hoops. But the liberals never really wanted integration to succeed.In their secret hearts, they wanted it to fail. Not just fail, but fail spectacularly in blames and riots so the whole system would come toppling down.
The Jews disappointed Western liberals by becoming like them, but if Western liberals had wanted more copies of themselves, they wouldn't have been trying to tear down their own societies to begin with. The successful integration of the Jews did not win them respect, it earned them contempt from liberals who reserved their respect for the defiant ones, for the rioters and the terrorists.
That contempt isn't limited to Jews. Asians, who insist on studying, striving and succeeding, are held in similar distaste for working, instead of venting their outrage against the system. Anyone who wants to be part of the system, even the liberal system, is a toady and not worth bothering with. Unlike the defiant revolutionaries of La Raza or the New Black Panther Party.
Liberal Jews have absorbed that contempt and piled it on their self-hatred, ridiculing Jews for not living up to liberal standards and for trying to live up to them. Even as they pay lip service to liberal verities and the upward march to a progressive world, there is a part of them that that knows there is no escape from their own paradox but disintegration, no way out but the absurd madness that lies at the heart of their work.
Trendy black writers talk about black oppression. Trendy Jewish writers ridicule Jews. Fictional depictions of Holocaust survivors must show twisted people who were warped by their experiences. And the persecution of Jews can never be written about unless the oppressors are safely white and protestant types. And even that is frowned upon. American Jewish literature is a litany of the twisted hatred of Jews from Philip Roth to Nathan Englander. Even John Updike got in on the fun.
How does one talk of Antisemitism in the face of a rigid insistence that Jews are to be the comic sidekick to the Unitarian liberal. Funny people with large noses who occasionally mutter something about the Holocaust, but can be counted on to show up at civil rights rallies, donate to the cause and run some organizations. Not fully trustworthy, but useful except for when they start going on about their own selfish concerns and insist on having their own country just because an old book that most modern people no longer take seriously anymore says they used to have one there.
And of what relevance is Antisemitism anyway, except as a word crudely coined by a man who hated Jews to describe the ideology of hating Jews. Jewish organizations have spent generations battling Antisemitism, as if bigotry and xenophobia could be gotten rid of with a mailing and a donation. And that has only sucked Jews further into the tolerance machine, while failing to understand that defensiveness is no substitute for identity and multiculturalism is no substitute for interests.
Liberal Jews have become the eunuchs in the modern Byzantiums, trusted to administer the system because they have no interests of their own. When Jewish groups are asked to define Jewish interests they inevitably reel off a series of liberal platitudes about immigration, abortion, tolerance and gay rights. It's not that Jewish interests don't exists, it's that they have been steadily excluded from the dialogue space and liberal policies have been treated as their equivalent. Israel is the last stand. It's the last Jewish interest that is specifically ethnic and religious, rather than some vague nostrum about Tikkun Olam and what Jewish values have to say about importing HIV positive Peruvians. And it's no wonder that it's so fiercely under attack.
The eunuchs can be trusted because they have no families and no children. They have no future and so they have no outside interests. They are contemptible for those reasons, but also useful for those reasons. You can trust a eunuch to see to things without worrying that he will selfishly help his own, because he has no 'own', he is an isolate, a dead end, a withered branch. The liberal Jew has the same role and for the same reason. His identity is a transitory thing on the path to integration. He has a future, but not a Jewish future. Like the eunuch, he is a dead branch of the tree.
Everyone knows Jews are clannish. It's one of the stereotypes, right up there with cheap. But the Jewish eunuch can't be clannish, not really, because the eunuch has no clan except his own kind and they aren't much of a worry because eunuchs don't reproduce. They may form their own groups and chatter on about whatever it is eunuchs care about, but everyone knows they have no future. Wait a few generations and they'll be gone.
And that is the trouble with Israel, it is much too alive. It is a Jewish country swarming with Jews. It actually calls on ethnic and religious allegiances. It is the last Jewish interest there is. It is the dream muddying the waters of the eunuch's loyalties. And it has to be destroyed for the liberals eunuchs to keep their place in the bureaucracy of the postmodern borderless state.
The liberal Jewish eunuch hates Israel with a desperate passion that even few Muslims can equal because his entire credibility rests on its destruction or on presenting it as no threat to the beliefs of his liberal masters. Israel has made him seem unreliable and untrustworthy. It emphasizes his impotence and his cowardice. He flies into fits of anxiety over its every move, he tries to reconcile his contradictory roles without being able to fully articulate what is wrong because he has been a eunuch for so long that he no longer remembers that he doesn't have to be one anymore. That he can stop integrating, stop disintegrating and stop universalizing everything and just be himself again.
That is the great crisis of the liberal Jewish eunuch, his history has been castrated and his identity is a comical thing that even he finds absurd. There is no such crisis on the other side of the fence. The Mohammed Merahs and Tariq Ramadans know exactly who they are. They have no identity crisis and no confusing mass of half-formed identities to choose from. They are a knife at the throat and they know it.
The liberal Jewish eunuch may have tried to forget who he is, but the Muslim has not forgotten him. That is the true meaning of Antisemitism, even when Jews forget who they are, the people who hate them still remember. The blood spilled by that knife is accounted by the modernists as part of the sacrifice of multiculturalism. But as the blood spills, even the liberal eunuchs remember that they are not being killed because someone hates multiculturalism, but because someone hates Jews.
Jewish experience has been universalized by the liberal eunuch so as not to be particular or individual, but there is no escaping that particular and individual history because the past is the present and the future. The progressive march to tomorrow is not a golden door to a better world, it is a mirage and behind the mirage is a savage with a knife who has not integrated, who does not believe in all the liberal pieties and has no mercy.
The eunuch can easily become a Dhimmi. The difference between the two is not particularly great. Once again all that stands in the way is Israel. And it is Israel that shows him what he is giving up, that inspires him and infuriates him, that unsettles him with its flavor of old dreams and tales, of wars and heroism, and of a different notion of history than the one that he is used to. And what weighs most heavily on him is that even underneath the liberal pieties, he senses that there is a choice to be made here that will define who he is.
The eunuch let himself be drawn away from his deepest self and that betrayal has long since been forgotten, but the betrayal of Israel will not be as easy as turning away. There will be blood, fire and there will be death. And he will be asked to take a hand in it. But worst of all is his faint suspicious that he will have done it all for nothing. That Israel will survive despite him and having betrayed his past, present and future, he will be left with nothing at all. Not even the satisfaction of having been right all along.
It's unsurprising then that the real villains of the Toulouse killings are Sarkozy for banning burqas, Marine LePen for being critical of Islam and anyone who employs words or images which make Muslims feel unwelcome in France. Alienate a Muslim from French society and before you know it he's shooting up some children in order to express his grievances about integration. Fail to make him happy and the blood of his victims is on your hands.
Tariq Ramadan, the epitome of the modern moderate Muslim thinker, explained that Mohammed Merah was only a bit confused and "soft-hearted". Ramadan does have a point. When Mohammed Merah grabbed a little girl, put a gun to her head and pulled the trigger, he was being soft-hearted by the standards of the Muslim Jihadis back in Afghanistan or Iraq. After all he didn't torture or rape her first. By Islamic mores that is soft-hearted.
As the debate has shifted to Muslim integration, Muslim happiness and how Muslims see the killings, the actual victims of the attack have receded into the distance, over that far horizon where dead Jews go until they are wanted by the champions of progress and enlightenment to make a point about tolerance. That is where the six million sleep, wakened to occasionally stir from the tomb and appear at a Holocaust museum or at a film showing whose message is that we must learn to be more tolerant. But somehow the only people we need to learn to be tolerant of are the people killing us.
Jewish suffering has been universalized into multicultural pablum that has nothing to do with Jews anymore. The hijacking of Jewish history has been so comprehensive that Jews have become the new Nazis in the mythology of multiculturalism. They wear uniforms, don't they. They have a state that they're proud of. And they're fighting against all the Mohammed Merahs who only kill because they haven't gotten their fill of tolerance. Clearly Jews are the new Nazis.
No other ethno-religious group has been subject to the same vile mockery from the left, the complete disregard for their history and civil rights as the Jews. To mention the Holocaust in the context of a potential Jewish genocide is an invitation to being ridiculed or accused of exploiting history, by the same people who shamelessly exploit it when they want to bomb Yugoslavia or protest against budget cuts for minority studies programs.
The left can call anyone and everyone Hitler, but when the Jews point to an actual short dark haired world leader who keeps talking about wiping out Israel, it's just more irrational alarmism. The left imagines that it has acquired the Holocaust by virtue of its moral power and that any effort by the Jews to lay claim to their own history is vile theft. Jewish history, along with black history and Native-American history were acquired by the left when it anointed itself as the defender of the multi-cultural society. And like most copyright owners, it has a limited tolerance for violations of its intellectual property.
If Muslims suffer from a failure to integrate, Jews for the most part have been integrated quite well. They have taken on the habits of the liberal upper classes, copied their politics, their despite for the traditional and the original, and their fetishism of anything different and exotic. There are occasional separatist communities which right-thinking liberal Jews sneer at for their backwardness, but they are for the most part the rare success story of multiculturalism. They became exactly what their hosts wanted them to be.
The trouble though is that their hosts didn't really want to create more Unitarians and Presbyterians with last names like Goldberg or Cohen. Sure they taught them the phrases, created the educational systems and rewarded them for jumping through the right intellectual hoops. But the liberals never really wanted integration to succeed.In their secret hearts, they wanted it to fail. Not just fail, but fail spectacularly in blames and riots so the whole system would come toppling down.
The Jews disappointed Western liberals by becoming like them, but if Western liberals had wanted more copies of themselves, they wouldn't have been trying to tear down their own societies to begin with. The successful integration of the Jews did not win them respect, it earned them contempt from liberals who reserved their respect for the defiant ones, for the rioters and the terrorists.
That contempt isn't limited to Jews. Asians, who insist on studying, striving and succeeding, are held in similar distaste for working, instead of venting their outrage against the system. Anyone who wants to be part of the system, even the liberal system, is a toady and not worth bothering with. Unlike the defiant revolutionaries of La Raza or the New Black Panther Party.
Trendy black writers talk about black oppression. Trendy Jewish writers ridicule Jews. Fictional depictions of Holocaust survivors must show twisted people who were warped by their experiences. And the persecution of Jews can never be written about unless the oppressors are safely white and protestant types. And even that is frowned upon. American Jewish literature is a litany of the twisted hatred of Jews from Philip Roth to Nathan Englander. Even John Updike got in on the fun.
How does one talk of Antisemitism in the face of a rigid insistence that Jews are to be the comic sidekick to the Unitarian liberal. Funny people with large noses who occasionally mutter something about the Holocaust, but can be counted on to show up at civil rights rallies, donate to the cause and run some organizations. Not fully trustworthy, but useful except for when they start going on about their own selfish concerns and insist on having their own country just because an old book that most modern people no longer take seriously anymore says they used to have one there.
And of what relevance is Antisemitism anyway, except as a word crudely coined by a man who hated Jews to describe the ideology of hating Jews. Jewish organizations have spent generations battling Antisemitism, as if bigotry and xenophobia could be gotten rid of with a mailing and a donation. And that has only sucked Jews further into the tolerance machine, while failing to understand that defensiveness is no substitute for identity and multiculturalism is no substitute for interests.
Liberal Jews have become the eunuchs in the modern Byzantiums, trusted to administer the system because they have no interests of their own. When Jewish groups are asked to define Jewish interests they inevitably reel off a series of liberal platitudes about immigration, abortion, tolerance and gay rights. It's not that Jewish interests don't exists, it's that they have been steadily excluded from the dialogue space and liberal policies have been treated as their equivalent. Israel is the last stand. It's the last Jewish interest that is specifically ethnic and religious, rather than some vague nostrum about Tikkun Olam and what Jewish values have to say about importing HIV positive Peruvians. And it's no wonder that it's so fiercely under attack.
The eunuchs can be trusted because they have no families and no children. They have no future and so they have no outside interests. They are contemptible for those reasons, but also useful for those reasons. You can trust a eunuch to see to things without worrying that he will selfishly help his own, because he has no 'own', he is an isolate, a dead end, a withered branch. The liberal Jew has the same role and for the same reason. His identity is a transitory thing on the path to integration. He has a future, but not a Jewish future. Like the eunuch, he is a dead branch of the tree.
Everyone knows Jews are clannish. It's one of the stereotypes, right up there with cheap. But the Jewish eunuch can't be clannish, not really, because the eunuch has no clan except his own kind and they aren't much of a worry because eunuchs don't reproduce. They may form their own groups and chatter on about whatever it is eunuchs care about, but everyone knows they have no future. Wait a few generations and they'll be gone.
And that is the trouble with Israel, it is much too alive. It is a Jewish country swarming with Jews. It actually calls on ethnic and religious allegiances. It is the last Jewish interest there is. It is the dream muddying the waters of the eunuch's loyalties. And it has to be destroyed for the liberals eunuchs to keep their place in the bureaucracy of the postmodern borderless state.
The liberal Jewish eunuch hates Israel with a desperate passion that even few Muslims can equal because his entire credibility rests on its destruction or on presenting it as no threat to the beliefs of his liberal masters. Israel has made him seem unreliable and untrustworthy. It emphasizes his impotence and his cowardice. He flies into fits of anxiety over its every move, he tries to reconcile his contradictory roles without being able to fully articulate what is wrong because he has been a eunuch for so long that he no longer remembers that he doesn't have to be one anymore. That he can stop integrating, stop disintegrating and stop universalizing everything and just be himself again.
The liberal Jewish eunuch may have tried to forget who he is, but the Muslim has not forgotten him. That is the true meaning of Antisemitism, even when Jews forget who they are, the people who hate them still remember. The blood spilled by that knife is accounted by the modernists as part of the sacrifice of multiculturalism. But as the blood spills, even the liberal eunuchs remember that they are not being killed because someone hates multiculturalism, but because someone hates Jews.Jewish experience has been universalized by the liberal eunuch so as not to be particular or individual, but there is no escaping that particular and individual history because the past is the present and the future. The progressive march to tomorrow is not a golden door to a better world, it is a mirage and behind the mirage is a savage with a knife who has not integrated, who does not believe in all the liberal pieties and has no mercy.
The eunuch can easily become a Dhimmi. The difference between the two is not particularly great. Once again all that stands in the way is Israel. And it is Israel that shows him what he is giving up, that inspires him and infuriates him, that unsettles him with its flavor of old dreams and tales, of wars and heroism, and of a different notion of history than the one that he is used to. And what weighs most heavily on him is that even underneath the liberal pieties, he senses that there is a choice to be made here that will define who he is.
The eunuch let himself be drawn away from his deepest self and that betrayal has long since been forgotten, but the betrayal of Israel will not be as easy as turning away. There will be blood, fire and there will be death. And he will be asked to take a hand in it. But worst of all is his faint suspicious that he will have done it all for nothing. That Israel will survive despite him and having betrayed his past, present and future, he will be left with nothing at all. Not even the satisfaction of having been right all along.
Comments
Brilliant! Your exceptionally powerful insight hits the nail on the head. I despise the liberal self hating Jews. I was one once. I have very few Jewish friends in my circle now days. They stink.
ReplyDeleteI have passed your fine piece on! Thanks Daniel.
PeaceAtAllCosts
Anti-Jewish Oikophobic Jews would do well to remember that they can never run away from the fact that they are Jewish, no matter whether they marry out, convert to another religion or even be at the forefront of openly bearing ill-will / violently lashing out with a zeal few Jew-haters can match.
ReplyDeleteIt will change nothing.
Btw, I am aware of the fact that muslims abuse / murder other muslims of Jewish origin or suspected Jewish origin since they will never be accepted as true muslims (see the case of Rashid-al-Din Hamadani who despite converting to islam in Persia during the Mongol period was executed on fake charges of poisoning Öljeitü and for several days crowds carried his head around his native city of Tabriz, chanting "This is the head of the Jew who abused the name of God; may God's curse be upon him!").
Though I find it somewhat strange of them not to have yet adopted a multigenerational "blood purity-style" hunt for people with Jewish origins like the Nazis did but spanning many centuries. (The only thing that came anywhere close was some inconclusive debate on MEMRI from a while back on whether the Jews should be killed or converted.)
For example in Latin America/Europe, I seem to recall it being mentioned somewhere that there are approximately 100 million or so people of Jewish origin who are the descendants of Anusim / Conversos and wonder how likely is it that people of distant Jewish origin will be targeted by the new Nazis, given the progress made in DNA testing / Genealogy?
"They have taken on the habits of the liberal upper classes, copied their politics, their despite for the traditional and the original"
ReplyDeleteYou mean "their CONTEMPT for the traditional.."
"despite" is not a noun form of despise, it means "in spite of" or "such and such happened even though such and such force was trying to prevent it from happening"
Also, i noticed that trend of presenting holocaust survivors as murderers. The character "magneto" is a genocidal maniac who who tortured in a death camp. I find such a depiction to be utterly contemptible. Only a true hater of Jews, whether of our blood or otherwise could promote such a twisted and evil concept. The depravity of such an image is that it attempts to morally disarm the survivor of brutality from standing up for himself.
Imagine your typical arrogant liberal, sneering at a male rape survivor (female rape survivors are treated far differently because they can be used as a class to dehumanize and deligitimize all men and women) "because of the brutality you were subjected to, you are less capable than me of deciding how to take care of yourself. For if I allow you to have the power to look after yourself you will become a WORSE monster than the people who harmed you."
How sick. How evil. How typically leftist, in that the leftist always believes he knows better than anyone else,due to his superior education, intellect, culture, breeding, etc. and because of this superiority he can abrogate to himself the right of self determination that the less worthy have. Basically the leftist wishes to create a new feudalism (i think you pointed that last part out).
The goal of the leftist is always to arrogate power to himself. He does this by disempowering others, or by empowering those he can control. In each case, it results in his aquisition of power. Hence, he empowers all women to make any rape charge without evidence or real consequence of false testimony, because he can control, that is, the State and those he make up the State, are never in danger of such charges (Olmert, Clinton, etc) whereas the accusation can be used to destroy, with no evodence whatsoever any man who protests. So all common men are effectively at the mercy of all women, or rather the police, the courts and the political class who pull their strings.
On the other hand, a rape charge against a woman, is usually dismissed. In fact, if a man is raped by a woman and she becomes pregnant he can be made to pay child support, even if he is a minor. The concept of a woman raping a man seems fantastic, but one must understand that the genitalia of a man, like those of a woman, can be stimulated and caused to react in spite of the wishes of the victim. This is part of what makes the event so horrifiying to the identiy of the victim.
Daniel, I do not agree with your analysis this time. For all intents and purposes Jews are white liberal men. The whole Jewish cause for some time has been synonymous with socialist liberal philosophy, with many of the most influential thinkers and major supporters in this movement being Jewish. The whole reason d'etre of the socialist movement is to act against the interests of its own community with a view to remaking its power structure.
ReplyDeleteThe leftist ideology of multiculturalism was founded by and strongly supported by Jews as a means to dissipate the us and them relationship they had with the mainly mono-ethnic societies they lived in. The extension and adoption of this philosophy in western countries to all non-white groups, which they encouraged, gave it a legitimacy and power that went beyond Jewish interests. This fed directly into the rights movements.
Unfortunately, as this process became recognized as a model of gaining political power, it has taken on a life of its own. There are much greater numbers in other minority groups compared to the Jewish community. There are rich pickings to be found in stoking grievances in these larger communities. Where their interests differ, Jews will tend to miss out. Additionally, from the perspective of non-white communities and those who seek to gain power on their behalf, the Jews are, for all intents and purposes, the rich white men against whom the philosophy was always intended to be aimed.
The anti-Jewish tendency of this evolving model was exacerbated by the fact that at its essence was the dictum that no culture could be considered superior to another, meaning that the west was effectively disempowered from exercising any discrimination regarding the truly dangerous ideologies that have now entered its borders, particularly the extremist muslim groups that are so abundently funded to pursue anti-Jewish sentiment.
The indigenous community of the west is now fully indoctrinated in these ideologies and is easily co-opted into sympathizing with those that are presented as "disadvantaged". I doubt whether the victims of the Toulouse shooting would receive any more sympathy had they been white indigenous folk.
I fear it is time for the Jewish community to adjust some of its long and closely held views, since they are effectively becoming tools for its own demise together with the western civilisation it once struggled with.
"swarming with Jews" You Go Daniel!
ReplyDeleteYou really nailed it .
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDG
ReplyDeleteGreat analysis. If not multiculturalism, what then?
Is a reasonably peaceful within, homogenous mono-cultural nation states?
Jesterhead, same phenomenon occurred during the Inquisition. It's hypocritical because it deals with a bigotry that is racial/ethnic at its core.
ReplyDeletesome dude, despite has both meanings
jewishsupporter, no jews are not liberal white men. Some are. The cause is not Jewish, it is post-Jewish. Just as it is post-Western.
peace, thank you
ReplyDeleteActually, "despite" in that sense is perfectly fine (though the usage is rarely employed anymore). The exercise of uncommon uses of common words can produce vivid prose (as in this case).
ReplyDelete"can abrogate to himself'
ReplyDeleteThat's 'arrogate, SomeDude. ;)
Sultan, you hagve expressed some of the things I was thinking regarding what you call the 'liberal Jewish eunuch".
Too tired to detail them, but well said, sir Sultan!
Good heavens, apologies to Some Dude! I misread the word "arrogate" you used correctly!!
ReplyDeletemy eyes, my eyes!!
"The liberal Jewish eunuch hates Israel with a desperate passion that even few Muslims can equal..." Because the covenant that G-d cut with Abram was land-specific. And the relationship between the tents of Jacob and that promised land is a uniquely tangible reality of both esoteric and revealed truth, which births and rebirths the mystery of Jewish identity.
ReplyDeleteThe G-d of Torah didn't emasculate Jacob---but he fashioned a separate kind of adam called, Israel. And the signification of the revealed truth concerning that otherwise natural son of humanity was the absence of a foreskin---not because he didn't have one when he was born a Jew---but because it was taken off by a Jew eight days after he was born in Torah. This national identity that G-d articulated is the coalescence of a physical and spiritual mystery---a unique union of natural and revealed truth in Creation. The literal and tangible people comprising a puzzle known as Jacob, and called Israel, are the revelation of HaShem in the earth.
Most peoples---Jew and gentile alike---are ill at ease with this arrangement.
A Jew may forsake the G-d of his forefathers, but he can't unchoose himself---anymore than he can uncircumcise himself.
But what's a decent self-respecting Freudian Jew supposed to do? Suffer from foreskin envy? Clitorectomize his state of Israel? Ah, there's a thought. Maybe that would help.
Ishmael and Esau suffer from Ma Tovu envy and so they kill Jews and circumcise their own daughters. But it doesn't help.
Klal Yisrael weeps for her son who has emasculated himself---and she can't forget him as he was on that eighth day.
He may forget how to say the Shema; but he can't escape the words, "I was born a Jew, and I'll die a Jew." No matter what he does, or doesn't do.
But may it be soon that even he takes the hand of his daughter of Zion and says, "This year in the streets of Jerusalem and the cities of Judah."
"Public Religion Research Institute poll finds 62% of Jewish voters would like to see Obama re-elected versus 30% who prefer a Republican to win election"
ReplyDeleteThe higher the assimilation, the higher the antisemitism. How can He remind us otherwise that we are a separate goy?
I'm just impressed at someone who uses the word "goy" correctly to mean 'nation'.
ReplyDeleteWow Mr.Knish - this is one of your most astute and analytical posts ever!
ReplyDeleteAs a follow up
ReplyDeleteMr. Knish - I first became aware of the concept of "Liberal Jewish Eunuch" (without hearing that term used specifically when I was 15 years (1968) old living in Brooklyn during the Ocean-Hill Brownsville school strike by the UFT regarding the dismissal of teachers (most of whom were Jewish) by the community school board. The anti-Semitism was palpable but so many liberal Jews took the side of the racist anti -Semites and attacked Al Shanker of the UFT because they just could not make a break with the "blacks" even though the anti- Semitism was coming from that direction. Cognitive dissonance was the order of the day. Liberal Jewish Eunuchs indeed.
pity that the Jews during the crusades/pograms/exterminations... whatever....missed out on this phenomena called 'multiculturism'
ReplyDeleteinstead we tried to intergrate into society...to the extent that some forget who they were....but in many cases this was not good enough
now comes the muslim horde....with no intention of integrating....and furthermore he visits murder and mayhem on his hosts
forgive me if i'm confused and bitter....and proclaim NEVER AGAIN
In some situations, multiculturalism can increase pressure against jews.
ReplyDeleteFor example, before 20-30 years the leading anti-israeli force in Europe was the Left, with the muslims small in number and the rather dormant Far Right. With the muslim influx though, the Far Right is again resurgent, and jews find themselves under attack from three sides - the Far Left, the Far Right, and the Islamists. This is why jews are under strong, multidimensional pressure in Europe today.
This process will eventually repeat in the US and Canada too.
No New Age
ReplyDeleteIt is an excellent column. I would add two other points. There seems to be some confusion about what the "chosen people" really means. It doesn't mean that Jews are superior humans. In fact Jews are subject to the same moral weaknesses as any other group of people. Chosen means they as a community were meant to bring down through thousands of years moral laws as found in the Torah and interpreted to help humanity improve and live decently. Too many think their choice of behaviors is superior to that of the Torah.
I do believe that God created good and evil, but I don't understand how the process of evil is constructed. Through history I see Jews being discriminated against even to the point of death by those who have accepted evil as normal behavior. It's as if the reminder of the good stands as a recrimination against supporters of evil. Evil needs to destroy the good. That is what is happening with the New Age networks. (See the antisemitic writings of Bailey and Blavatsky.)
To Anonimous who didn't understand evil.
ReplyDeleteBefore Adam ate from the tree, evil was an outsider, after his fall "yetzer ha ra" (evil inclination) entered man. So here we are Jews and non Jews with a choice: yetzer ha tov (good inclination) or yetzer ha ra (bad inclination). For us it's simple you chose which one you serve. Jews have 613 laws to serve (hence the "chosen") while non Jews or Noahides have 7. Easy, people who try to do the best after these laws are "good" people who go with the "yetzer ha tov", the ones who choose bad, the "yetzer hara" are evil, all to a degree. Don't forget excuses are always the "yetzer ha ra". G-d did give us a choice otherwise we would be just robots, so each choses what to be, good or evil.
I would add to that, that evil is in all of us to some extent. We all accept certain wrongs as normative. Every society has.
ReplyDeleteEvil inevitably comes to represent a monopoly on power, which requires extinguishing moral codes and conscience. Or in depicting them as contemptible and the people who hold them as disgusting. This has been the longtime role of Jews.
The more this succeeds, the less there is awareness of the wrongness of evil. 'Good' to the extent that it can exist in this world, particularly among human beings, serves as a contrast with evil. And yet the existence of evil also helps define good by reminding us of the alternative.
I've not seen something like this before, it was very well written. I recently read a JPost article about why no Ashkenazim had shown up at some programme about an Iraqi Jewish massacre. Then the author slid into identity & then began to talk about "the Israelis," & how many Jews in exile are IRKED by "the Israelis." She finally decoded "the Israelis" to mean the Sefaradim of Israel who are unabashedly JEWISH & interested in Jewish things FIRST. As a high school teacher in Israel, I see an extreme turbulence of points of views amongst the different Jewish ethnic groups where people are far more aware & actually tolerant of each others positions &...Ashkenazim are becoming more Middle Eastern (we are talking degrees here), while the secular Ashkenazim of northern Tel Aviv who DON'T JOIN UP (they still have a CHOICE here) become EUNUCHS!!! But something strange happens because of being in Israel & that's even the most vicious eunuch can be caught in the act of doing things far more Jewish than you'd ever guess (it blew my mind that former Meretz leader Yossi Sarid had sent a check to...Kefar CHABAD!!!). The question remains, how can you give a eunuch a new pair of testicles?
ReplyDeleteHere in France it is spelled Toulouse not Tolouse.
ReplyDeleteI understand that Americans tend to be somewhat insular and often don't know a great deal about Europe but if you are going to write about a place where such dreadful sickening murders took place you should try to get it's name right.
Having said that I like most of your articles despite a tendency to stereotype Muslims in a way that you would condemn if it were done to Jews.Madge Hirsch
Post a Comment