Brtish Court Declares Judaism "Racist"

Given my frustration with First Things magazine’s registration problems, I probably should wait until this essay comes out from behind the registration wall to tell you about it. However, my disgust at the British Court’s recent rulings against Jews trumps my aggravation at First Things clunky on line registration glitches.

I have received the print edition for January 2010. Having read this appalling news, I am compelled to let you know about it. I can’t provide a URL for this essay, but next month it should be available (and by then I’ll be no less apoplectic about the UK court but perhaps the website issues of First Things) will have been resolved.

David Goldman writes (and I am forced to transcribe by hand):

Since Oliver Cromwell allowed Jews to settle in England in 1656, Britain’s Jews have often suffered indignities, but have they ever undergone a legal assault on the practice of their religion within their own institutions?

Certainly they have now.

– – – – – – – –

On June 26, a British court of appeals labeled “racist” a founding premise of Judaism: the election of Abraham and his descendants and the determination of Jewish status by matrilineal descent. That the court’s decision is preposterous is the least of the matter. Not since the Middle Ages have Jews had to defend their religion before state authorities. And not since the Treaty of Westphalia have states claimed the right to compel changes in religious doctrine. For the first time in many years, a secular liberal state has arrogated to itself the right to determine the legality of millennia-old practices of a monotheistic religion.

Britain’s chief rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, was apoplectic, declaring, “An English court has declared [the religious definition of Jewish status] racist, and since this is an essential element of Jewish law, it is in effect declaring Judaism racist. To be told now that Judaism is racist is distressing. To confuse religion and race is a mistake.”

The leaders of the various forms of Judaism – Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform – have joined Rabbi Sacks in his condemnation of this ruling.

The Catholic Education Services of England and Wales gave public support to their Jewish colleagues. Oona Stannard, the director, said:

It is important that the right to determine who is a member of any religions ought to lie with the religious…I am extremely dismayed that the ruling has so far gone against our Jewish colleagues/providers of schools with a religious character. England’s chief Catholic prelate…fully backs the CES statement.

So what does the Archbishop of Canterbury say? Birds chirp in the bare, ruined choirs. Silence. They won’t be issuing a statement is what they said.

Meanwhile, that segment of Judaism known as the suicidal Jews (probably with a few Unitarians thrown in for good measure) hailed the ruling (warning: barf bag moment coming up here) because it would make Judaism “more inclusive”. There goes the idea of God’s chosen people, right down the chute with the rest of those who would attempt to differentiate themselves. Lovers of their own culture, nationalists, believers in sovereignty, those who thought the wall between Church and State was pretty well established…Forget it; we’re all racist hamburger now.

Except the Muslims, of course. They can continue to make their arrogant, in-your-face demands for their religious tenets. No pork, no Christmas, disruptive five-times-a-day prayer (wherever), separate schools, separate hospitals, separate pools, different rules, public threats to destroy the UK…that all pales beside the Jewish law regarding matrilineal descent.

This is a new low-water mark for British jurisprudence. You can read the full essay shortly, when it becomes the “current issue” on line at First Things. Meanwhile, I’ll close with Mr. Goldman’s final statement:

More than any other major Jewish population in the Diaspora, Britain’s Jewish community has attempted to steer clear of controversy – for example by keeping its distance from the state of Israel…but much as Britain’s Jews have tried to avoid trouble, trouble has come looking for them.

There is a moral in that somewhere…one that I hope Israel considers very carefully before it hands over any flu vaccines to Gaza. Just one Muslim death and the bombs will be flying, Jews will be dying.

Such perverted altruism has to stop before it gets any more people killed. Just as the rest of the world, particularly America, has got to take off its blinders regarding zombie jihadists like Major Hasan. We knew with fair certainty he was psychotic, but in the name of saving his superiors’ precious careers, we let him go on his merry way, until he had killed enough of us for people to take notice. Even then, it’s “shush, shush, can’t say it aloud/killing kufar makes the Jihadist proud”. No, the mantra is, instead: “wrong, wrong, you Islamophobes. The Religion of Peace shall rule the globe.”*

Close your eyes, cover your ears, yell real loud. Then when the blade is on your throat, or the bullet lodged in your son’s heart, you won’t be able to feel it till everything is over. Painless, right?

What a price to pay for a deeply false sense of security: a paralyzed fear that cannot speak its name.

*admittedly bad doggerel. You are encouraged to improve upon it.

37 thoughts on “Brtish Court Declares Judaism "Racist"

  1. In view of what Chaim Weitzmann, Zionist activist and future first president of Israel, contributed to the Brits during World War I, this is unconscionable. Weitzmann, a chemistry professor, developed the process whereby acetone, a crucial component in the manufacture of cordite propellant, could be made by bacterial fermentation instead of processing wood. This solved an ammunition supply crisis for British forces and likely forestalled their defeat.

    But then, HM government showed its gratitude to Jewry much earlier than this, by choking off Jewish immigration to mandate-era Palestine in the increasingly dire years before the Nazi genocide — all to placate the Arab Muslim population.

  2. This school is a victim of the times in another time and under different circumstances it maybe would not have been an issue. In the interests of both the parties it probably would have been wiser to have sorted this dispute out behind closed doors.

    If the ruling had gone the other way this would have allowed for the state funding of madrassas.

  3. Goldman: More than any other major Jewish population in the Diaspora, Britain’s Jewish community has attempted to steer clear of controversy

    The collective efforts of British Jewry to restrict free speech for British nationalists/patriots is rather controversial to many in Britain.

    In fact most observers will see this ruling as a case of the Jewish community being hoist on its own petard.

    Goldman went on to say for example by keeping its distance from the state of Israel…

    Untrue. The main Jewish diaspora organisation in Britain, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, is very pro-Israel. Many Jewish commentators in the British press (and famous blogs like Harry’s Place) who condemn all British patriotism as ‘fascism’ have a whole list of excuses for Israel when it acts in a nationalistic way. Goldman’s victim complex gets the better of him when talking about anti-Semitism.

  4. “…most observers will see this ruling as a case of the Jewish community being hoist on its own petard”

    I have to agree with this.

    This case wasn’t about determining who is Jewish as much as it was about a school keeping a child out because of their ethnicity (the child wasn’t ethnically Jewish but was a practicing Jew).

    Jewish groups and individuals seem to be the most vocal about discrimination based on ethnicity and seem determined to diversify any school, business, organization or neighborhood that is deemed to be too white.

    They can’t practice discrimination themselves while lecturing us about how wrong it is.

    Perhaps, as a result of this ruling, there will be a bit more empathy in certain members of the Jewish community for those who no longer have ethnically homogeneous schools or anything else.

  5. Maybe Western Jews will quit voting for the Left.

    I wouldnt hold my breath waiting for that one, though.

    Its kinda like the claptrap Cultural Marxism that they have been supporting and promoting for the last 50 years has turned on them, in Israel as well as in the West.

    I admit to a small amount of schadenfreude on the matter. However I dont wish to see ill come to Jews. I just wish they would stop their war on Christians and Christianity via Leftwingism.

    I also dont wish to see their culture be destroyed in this manner, however I wish they would return the favor.

    Perhaps the Islamics are doing everyone a huge favor after all, we can throw off this New Left Virus.

  6. “…most observers will see this ruling as a case of the Jewish community being hoist on its own petard”

    I second Avery Bullard and WASPY’s posts.

    It is my hope that Israel being Jewish State and Jews being the majority there, will teach Jews something about majority rights.

    There hypocrisy at this point, knows no bounds. But that hypocrisy can be weilded intellectually to change Jewish mindsets.

  7. The sentence “Judaism is racism” is 100% true.
    It continues to confound me that so many people see anything and everything connected to jews-muslims as for one and against the other, as if it is a zero sum game. Judaism must be judged on its own merit.
    Judaism preaches that one blood-related nation is superior to all others, relegating the rest of humanity to a permanent and unmitigable status of untermenschen. If that isn’t racism then what is?

  8. Looking at this at a slant the evidence and the labels race and religion do no fit. The undercurrent of these labels appear to have the meaning of birth right or bloodline.

    The implication being that birth right and bloodline are racist in law, if so the ruling could outlaw the Royal Family.

  9. If Judaism is racist, then doesn’t that make Islam racist too since Islam claims to descend from Abraham as well?

  10. Archonix–

    The correct term at GoV is “raaacist”…or if you’re Elmer Fudd, “waaaycist”.

    You see, Elmer’s fight to the death with Bugs was a waaaycist war. He wanted all those carrots he’d planted for himself. Didn’t want to share with a lazy wabbit. Makes him a waaaycist from waaay back…

    The t-shit should read “We all waaaycists now”.

    Just a suggestion.

  11. There is nothing wrong with the Jews being tribalists. The problem arises when they presume to criticize Caucasian Christians of European Ancestry for being tribalist(s). To implement policy that would never be implemented in Israel which has as Exhibit A, a very peculiar Immigration policy. One which shouldnt be peculiar but emmulated throughout Europe.

    It is my hope that Caucasian Christians of European Ancestry, get their mojo back.


  12. Hoss,

    No, ‘born of a Jewish mother’ is the usual criterion to be a Jew,that’s a genetic connection. Moslems’ claims of descent from Abraham are spiritual, not genetic, since Islam is spread by conversion. Jews are not unique in this attitude of course,the Parsees are another group where DNA and religion are intertwined.Whether Jews are a “race” and their attitude to the goyim is “racist” is an open question,despite the court ruling.

    …”hoist by its own petard indeed”, and very high.

  13. Base Details (General Casey version)

    IF I were fierce, and bald, and short of breath,
    I’d live with jihadi Majors at the Base,
    And speed glum heroes up the line to death.
    You’d see me with my puffy petulant face,
    Guzzling and gulping in the best hotel,
    Reading the Roll of Honour. ‘Poor young chap,’
    I’d say—‘He added to our country’s diversity;
    Yes, we’ve lost heavily in this last adversity.’
    And when the war is done and youth stone dead,
    I’d toddle safely home and die—in bed.

    (Original here.)

  14. “Gates of Vienna’s rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum.” Exceptions to the above are made for anti-Semitic fascists, as long as they’re anti-Muslim as well.

    “Judaism preaches that one blood-related nation is superior to all others, relegating the rest of humanity to a permanent and unmitigable status of untermenschen.” This statement is a contemptible lie. Judaism preaches that the Israelites were chosen by God for a mission. The fallibility of the Israelites is documented amply in the Hebrew Bible – that same Bible that is accepted as holy scripture by Christians as well.

    For the record, I am a right-wing pro-Western-civilization anti-jihadist Jew. I also know that 0.2% of the world’s population doesn’t control the world. In the task of waking the Jews of the West to their peril, the Jew-haters who find GoV so congenial are making the task much harder.

    Publish that if you dare!

  15. Religious Jews are anodyne except to those who interfere with their national rights. The people who interfere with those rights will seek to expand well beyond Jerusalem, to a mosque near you.

    Stop talking about “superior to all the others.” A mystical folk lore — the chosen people myth — is not the same as a this-worldly intent — Koran 9.

  16. Exceptions to the above are made for anti-Semitic fascists

    As long as they’re temperate and don’t resort to swearing…

    At risk of seeming to speak for the owners, GoV is lightly moderated and allows a widely divergent set of viewpoints for debate. NO echo chamber here.

    And whilst I Agree that a lot of the comments above show a certain illogic (to put it mildly) you might have better served your argument by starting with that rather than by starting with the cry of anti-semitism. Like the accusation of racism (or raaaaacism! with five A’s) it loses impact if its your first weapon in the debate because it soon becomes your only weapon.

    Now the jewish belief of the “chosen people” is taken different ways by different people. Based on the behaviour of the ones Pamela occasionally calls JINOs it would be easy to assume that the tag of “chosen people” is an arrogantly assumed badge of superiority, but that isn’t the case. As with anything in judaism there are many schools of thought on the issue (I’m sure I don’t need to repeat the old joke about three rabbis in a room) but from mmy understanding the majority see the chosen people status as a burden, not a blessingl. A burden because they’re required to live a more holy life, under more rules.

    This could still be taken as arrogance, and in a lot of cases it’s held up as a way for some to declare themselves more holier than everyone else, but that’s human nature.

    And considering the recent past of the jews it’s not surprising that they would make the effort of trying to prevent the same thing happening again. They saw a perversion of nationalism used to justify their own destruction and the lesson they took from this experience that all nationalisms are bad. It’s like a woman who grew up being abused by her father concluding that all men are evil. Within he context of their experience it’s entirely logical, but only within that context. In the wider context the assumption that all men/nations are bad makes no sense. most often the resulting behaviour patterns engendered by the original abuse work to crate repetitions of the abuse. A woman faced with a man who isn’t abusive will subconsciously attempt to provoke abusive behaviour in order to reaffirm her internal understanding of how men behave, often consciously rationalising her provocations as an attempt to defend herself against abuse that she “knows” is inevitable, and of course when the man behaves in a way her mind can perceive as abusive her previous assumptions about the abusive nature of all men are reinforced.

    The tragedy is that jewish efforts to mitigate the perceived danger, from nationalism, of their own destruction almost guarantee its repeat, but this is ABSOLUTELY NOT something to gloat about, as that just reinforces the cycle of provocation and abuse.

  17. Whenever there is a Jewish topic, one sees antisemites of all stripes crawl out of the woodwork.

    To say that Judaism sees others as untermenschen is, at best, ignorance of the highest degree and, at worst, malicious slander.

  18. Archonix,

    I agree with your comment in regard to the use of the accusation of “anti-Semitism”.It’s often used, inappropriately, when anyone criticizes the actions of the nation state of Israel.


    How are the Jews in the West “in peril”?

  19. How are the Jews in the West “in peril”?

    Well, Abe Foxman’s Anti Defamation League claims the Tea Party movement is a threat!

    To say that Judaism sees others as untermenschen is, at best, ignorance of the highest degree and, at worst, malicious slander.

    I don’t know about the Jewish religion but every significant Jewish organisation in the West supports Israel’s right to remain a Jewish state through rejecting open borders and a one state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

    Yet every one of those organisations insists the nations of the West have no similar right to remain French, British, American, etc. They must be inclusive to alien outsiders and allow mass immigration or Jewish groups will try to undermine them.

    So saying Jews have a right to a nation and we don’t does smack of bigotry.

  20. Avery Bullard: “I don’t know about the Jewish religion but every significant Jewish organisation in the West supports Israel’s right to remain a Jewish state through rejecting open borders and a one state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. “

    You really don’t know the policies of EVERY SINGLE “significant Jewish organization” to say this. You ought to nuance your statement. Left-wing Jews and organizations that believe in open borders (I mean completely open borders) also believe in multi-cultural Israel. Moreover, to these people Jews are not an ethnicity, it’s a creed. If I had a penny for every time I was called a racist when I identified someone as Jewish-looking or insisted that Jews are a genetically distinct group, I would be a rich person by now. When a left-wing Jew tells me that a black Ethiopian who practices Judaism is a Jew, my question is always: “and who am I then?” I completely empathize with the BNP who ask the same question about Britishness.

    And there are middle-of-the-road Jews, who could be said to support “the Jewish character of Israel.” But if you dig a little deeper, you will realize that they support the “two-state solution,” which is basically suicide, however else you might call it. They are not extreme pro-open border supporters. If they believe in the “deserving minority” paradigm, they believe it for themselves too. These are people who adopt Chinese girls and approve of their children marrying not only non-Jews but non-whites as long as they convert to Judaism. I have read that of all the U.S. population groups, Jews have the highest percentage of intermarriage. So they put their money where their liberal mouth is, as it were.

    And finally don’t forget the righteous right-wing Jews, who are so prominent in the anti-Jihadi movement, way above their overall population percentage.

    At the same time, I believe that Jews who are publicly advocating multiculturalism in the West and openly working against its Christian character should be immediately arrested and deported (to Israel).

  21. Hal —

    I redacted the uncivil portion of your comment.


    Hal said…

    Most of you accuse me of jumping the gun on the accusation of anti-Semitism, as you let fly your thinly veiled cultural Nazism. I said I was trying to awaken Western Jews to their peril, and most of you assumed that a self-described right-wing Jew is an admirer of Abe Foxman. I loathe ADL and have sent them many e-mails to tell them so. The peril I was describing is that posed by the jihadists. The anti-Semitic worms who form the major fan-base of GoV are not an immediate threat.

    Philo-Semites are nearly as bad as anti-Semites. Note: “Jews who are publicly advocating multiculturalism in the West and openly working against its Christian character should be immediately arrested and deported…” What about gentiles doing the same? Incidentally, what would be your legal authority for doing so? Who needs legal authority once you have established fascism?


  22. This article floated away from the main page, but I’ll answer it anyway.

    Hal:”Philo-Semites are nearly as bad as anti-Semites. “

    Hal, I am not a philosemite, I am Jewish (and I am fair, I believe, or, at least, I want to be).

    Hal, I presume you are you writing from North America. If so, you might not be understanding the national principles of Europe. Europe was not founded by immigrants, but by indigenous populations. These are populations that have “birth rights.” It is called nationalism, not multiculturalism, and a lot of Europeans (justly, in my opinion), are resentful when they are told to transform Europe into a multicultural empire. It’s like you would be resentful if you are ordered to adopt cjildren instead of having your own.

    Jews are guests in Europe. They came from somewhere else. There is a territory in the world which they have a right to call their own. But this territory does not lie in Europe. Now, unlike antisemites, I think that Jews, on the whole, have been good guests. They have contributed a lot of good things to their host countries. They have also been guests of a long standing. 2000 years is a very long period of time. I therefore believe that Jews should be granted an exception status in the nationalist paradigm. They should be allowed to stay and practice their religion, if they choose, but on the condition that their minority status is understood and they don’t demand equal representation.

    In a symmetrical fashion, I have the same belief about Israel. I think some number of Gentiles of European heritage should be welcome to live in Israel. But they should live their as a cultural minority and accept Israel as culturally and predominantly demographically Jewish.

  23. “Gates of Vienna’s rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum.” Now “Baron Bodissey” (whatever) has shown the hypocrisy of this blog. Blatantly anti-Semitic Jew-baiting is warmly welcome. Jewish self-defense is not.

    Thanks, guys, for a real eye-opener. Right-wing anti-Semitism really is alive and well. I intend to link this post on Facebook and share it with my fellow right-wing pro-Western Jews. They believe that playing up to crypto-fascists will help us to survive, and are puzzled why most Jews reject the right. I get it now. I also see why Charles Johnson won’t have anything to do with your type.

    The right accuses Jews of being responsible for socialism. The left accuses Jews of being responsible for capitalism. There isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the haters on either side.

    Now, “Baron”, you can excise the material that is critical of yourself and your crypto-fascist followers. I will fight for the best of Western civilization (Locke, Smith, Burke, the Federalists), not the worst (Protocols, Henry Ford).

  24. Do we have to be just crypto-fascists? Oh…wait. That title is reserved for our “followers”.

    Well, as you say so eloquently Hal, “whatever”.

    Gosh, someone is going to put us up on Facebook. Kewl.

    Have a very merry holiday, Hal, from all the crypts and bloods here at GoV.

  25. Judaism is obviously racist, the reason for Christianity was to overcome that birth defect of Judaism.

    That said, they have the right (in a liberal society) to regulate their ceremonies as they wish.

  26. Felicie,

    While you make a lot of sense, and I generally agree with your sentiment, there is something that caught my eye:

    I therefore believe that Jews should be granted an exception status in the nationalist paradigm.

    The problem here is that it’s exactly this exception that was the model example of multiculturalism (Jewish emancipation late 18th century and onwards). So when the rubber band of expanding multiculturalism bounces back, should we really expect this exception to be kept? I believe it will be very hard to claim, once the lid has been lifted off for real and the wind has changed, that PC and MC should be torn down, but that we should keep some special exceptions to it (especially not the one being the origin of MC).

    I think some number of Gentiles of European heritage should be welcome to live in Israel.

    And in a symmetrical fashion, even after the rubber band has bounced back, some number of Jews will surely be welcome to live in European countries.

    But quite as Israel would never give group membership to e.g. Russians or Italians, I expect Europe, by the end of this century, to no longer provide group membership for Jews. Historically when Muslims have been expelled, Jews have been so too. The Jews that remain, and will be accepted, would not do so based on group merit, but on other merits. And I expect that Jewishness, as a culture within the culture, will no longer be celebrated, or even visible.

    Logically speaking, this is how things would happen. But, I expect, after our lifetime.

    I now expect that someone in this thread will curse this planet and its future and call it antisemitic.

    Even the Jews that speak honestly and intelligently, with a fair amount of reciprocity, about the relation between Jews and Gentiles are quick to throw the spell of antisemitism (the grandfather of all PC spells) at people for the smallest things, such as you Felicie, and Lawrence Auster and Takuan Seiyo (I discussed it with Takuan on one occasion though and he took it back when shown how unfounded it was).

    As if you were not aware of how hostile this curse is. As guests this is not a smart strategy vis-a-vis your host. It might be smart right now, but surely not for the future. This knee-jerk haughty hostility against members of your host civilization, for making negative generalizations about your people, is not a good way to win points for a future exception for special group membership. And if even the very best ones among you act like that, one can expect it to be a general M.O. of the group.

  27. the reason for Christianity was to overcome that birth defect of Judaism.

    Read a book. Christianity got started when an itinerant apocalyptic preacher (who, for christian like me, just happened to be the son of God) started a reform movement to try and break some of the cruft and corruption out of the temple and religious establishment and ended up being executed for his trouble. The message was only taken to the rest of the world after he was rejected by the temple, but it was never meant to be taken as an end to Jewish “racism”, and it’s unfortunate that the universalist component has become the dominant factor amongst certain Christian groups.

  28. Felicie,

    “Europe was not founded by immigrants,but by indigenous populations”.Where did you get that idea? Actually,European history is a record of migrations and invasions,the Hungarians arrived about a thousand years ago,as did the Roma.Slavs and Germanic tribes migrated from further east during late antiquity and replaced or absorbed earlier immigrants. Who are the indigenous people of Europe,the Neanderthals?
    Europe is no different from more recent settler societies.Jews are no more or less “guests”in Europe than any other group. You seem to be attempting a rationale for the creation of Israel,it’s a totally specious argument. The notion that because of anti-semitism,Jews have a ‘right’ to Palestine is chauvinistic nonsense.(I’m a citizen of a settler country, so I’m certainly not taking a superior moral position just stating the facts).

  29. Mace,

    The notion that because of anti-semitism,Jews have a ‘right’ to Palestine is chauvinistic nonsense.

    So who’s got the right to “Palestine” according to you? The Turks? The Arabs? The Brits?

    Well, it’s clear from the whole of your comment that any claim by any people to any land is “chauvinistic nonsense” — just because there has been migrations.

    So if you move to another house, then any person you invite there is not a guest, but as much of a rightful occupant of your house as yourself, in a truly communist/anarchist fashion, I guess? Just because you “migrated”.

    It’s true that the homeland market is not as nicely regulated (within the frames of a legal system) as the real estate market, but follows the international law, i.e. the law of the jungle. But it’s entirely your choice to make that into a pretext for anarchy and liberal nihilism.

    But even if you want to turn it all over, by merit of peace treatises, Hungary belong to the Hungarians, and Israel to the Jews. And if the Jews would successfully invade and take over Hungary, eventually that would belong to the Jews too.

    And any minority group living on the land of another people are guests in that land. You might want to revolutionize our planet like a Karl Marx or George Soros and tear down all national borders. But until you’ve done that, what I say is true. And even after you’d done that, what I say ought to be true.

  30. Conservative Swede,

    The Palestinians had the right to all Palestine,and most of their land has been taken from them through a colonial enterprise called “Zionism”.Israel is probably the last settler society and like other settler nations it’s a fact.Unlike the Americas, Australia and NZ which were colonised when people didn’t know any better, Israel was created in the mid 20th century,appalling.

    You’re creating a straw man,of course land claims are legitimate,however colonisation and disposession has to end,it should have ended in the 19th century. You deplore nihilism and anarchy and justify ‘might is right’ at the same time,somewhat illogical.
    “…any minority group living in the land of another people are guests in that land”, whaaat? So Catholics are guests in a predominately Protestant nation and Jews were guests in Palestine in the 1940s and 50s,now there’s an intriguing notion–the Palestinians asked them to leave didn’t they?

    To refute another one of your straw man arguments,I certainly don’t want to tear down all international borders,to the contrary,for example I think that the immigration levels in my country are far too high for environmental reasons and for the maintenance of social cohesion.I definitely don’t want to demolish the nation-state since it’s a foundation of Western civilization.Perhaps one day,when all the world is a democracy,it can disappear,certainly not yet,even the EU project is essentially the creation of a super nation state.
    You’ll have to find a real socialist internationalist to argue with,that’s not me.

  31. A prerequisite for all my reasoning here is that the Jews are an ethnic group like any other; nothing special about them either way, in terms of being an ethnic group.

    However, first regarding my first comment above. I’d like to qualify that. Surely the Jews are the ethnic group that objectively have the best prerequisites to blend in well into Europe. And that’s also exactly why they became the pilot case for multiculturalism; the blacks e.g. could never have been first. This is btw always how progressivism operates. As a wise man once said, tear a rip in a traditional concept, and even if the first little exception will look benevolent the dynamics of progressivism will continue to tear it up all the way. The example given was how the traditional institution of marriage was torn a rip by homosexual marriage. But this is bound to lead to advocacy of polygamy; which is also what is advocated from the most progressive ones today.

    Anyway, the Jews have the best objective prerequisites to blend in in Europe (even if Christianity would be abandoned). But borrowing from Fjordman the analogy of tension being built up in tectonic plates, this is not what I see coming. We should remember that Westerners are held back from dealing with Islam exactly because of the fear instilled in them from the narrative of WWII. So that fear, by definition, will be gone the moment the West turns around. It’s in this context I here discuss how I think Europe will react regarding the issue of the Jews. The way things are going Westerners will act in panic at that point. That’s one reason why I think the Jews will not be granted any special exception. And the WWII narrative, which is today omnipotent, will, by definition, not be there to stop them then. Another reason is the poison bites of antisemitism curses that virtually all Jews so glibly throw in the direction of their hosts.

    A dimension of this issue, which I have not discussed here, is regarding a redefinition of citizenship. But I have discussed it before here and here. I believe in the coming context that the Jews will stay a better chance to remain in high numbers in Europe, if they no longer hold citizenship. And either way, even if the rubber band bounces back all the way, there will be more Jews in Europe than Gentiles in Israel.

    Finally to Mace:

    So to you any claim of land is still “chauvinistic nonsense”, but while the Brits and other Northern Europeans, who already had homelands, have the right to America, Australia etc., the Jews, without any other homeland, have no right to Israel. To motivate this you seem to refer to some magic event by the end of the 19th century. What was that? The second coming of Jesus? So you don’t want to tear down all nation states then, only Israel, right? And who the f**k are the “Palestinians”?

Comments are closed.