RSS
The following graph shows the percentages of Jewish Americans and of all Americans who perceive there to be “a lot” of discrimination against various groups:
Michael Savage and his friends are about the only Jews who think evangelicals are seriously put upon. Evangelicals are the strongest supporters of Israel in the country–stronger supporters of Israel than Jewish Americans are, as we’ll take a detailed look at in a subsequent post. The solidarity evangelicals have with Israel is not reciprocated by Jewish Americans.
Actually, reciprocity probably isn’t the correct way to view it. While 72% of American Jews say “leading an ethical and moral life” is an essential part of being Jewish, only 45% of American Jews say “caring about Israel” is. To the majority of American Jews, especially irreligious ones, Israel isn’t central to their identity.
Muslims have supplanted blacks at the top of the oppression tower. The discrimination perception gap between Jews and the total US population is widest when the putative victims in question are Jewish and narrowest when they are gay.
The Pew survey does not break down discrimination perceptions by race, but it’s plausible that a majority of non-whites do not perceive Jews as being more discriminated against than evangelicals are. To many people of color, Jews aren’t victims–they’re especially privileged white people.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
– from the autobiography of Unz commenator “Mevashir” (Menachem Korn), p13
If you are living in your little Ukrainian hamlet, sure. Once you are making it big and/or are at the levers of power, it’s … complicated. A universal phenomenon, really.
The future will be despiriting.
State institutions openly boast of discriminating against “white people”, so it would make sense to include them on the graph and for them to be the highest bar.
“Gays and Lesbians” could also be high, because they suffer even in their own family.
I’m not sure “evangelical Christians”, as a multi-racial group, should be high. Black and Hispanic evangelical Christians aren’t treated the same.
Discrimination has also come to mean “discrimination by the whiter looking person in the interaction”. We live in puerile times.
But I suppose to your other point, honest question: is there an example of a black or Hispanic equivalent to Eich or Masterpiece Cakeshop that has received differential treatment? I don't know that there is. I imagine the differential treatment comes down to things like blacks being cut slack if they refuse to chant Woke corporate mantras and shibboleths. And I also imagine that the sort of co-workers who say they feel unsafe at the mere presence of an Evangelical co-worker wouldn't say that if the person in question was black.
But I'd also say a fair amount of anti-Christian discrimination is targeting institutions rather than individuals, and thus it technically applies to Evangelicals (and other conservative Christians) of all races. For example, if the Democrats are successful in their plan to eliminate the tax-exempt status of churches that refuse to submit before the Rainbow Flag, then both blacks and whites will be affected if that forces churches to close down or to scale back their programming.Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @V. K. Ovelund, @Charlotte
Is there such a thing as a Jewish-American? Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, the most prominent American Jewish leader of the 1930s and 1940s, advisor to FDR and president of the American Jewish Congress and the World Jewish Congress, seems to have admitted otherwise.
At an anti-German hate rally in Cleveland in June, 1938, he proclaimed, “I was a Jew before I was an American. I have been an American all of my life, 64 years. But I have been a Jew for 4.000 years.”
In another demonstration against Germany, held in New York city in July, 1938, he reiterated, “I am not an American citizen of the Jewish faith, I am a Jew… Hitler was right in one thing. He calls the Jewish people a race and we are a race.”
Perhaps Wise was an early specimen of one of those once rare birds, a self-hating Jew. His words render him liable for prosecution in this century under the new federal anti-“hate speech” guidelines, for “spreading malicious stereotypes” about Jews.
How could Jews be any single race or even ethnicity?
Ashkenazi Jews can easily pass as non-Jewish whites. Have you seen how dark Sefardi and, especially Mizrahi, such as Yemeni, Jews can be? To say nothing of converts, who can be accepted from any racial background.
Nor is there any single culture or personality type that is common to all Jews. Even between subsets of Ashkenazim (for example), the differences in such areas as language, cuisine, fashion, style, approach and many customs in worship and other religious observance, tendency toward particular personality and temperament types, etc., can all be quite pronounced, even profound. All the more so between Ashkenazim, Sefardim, Mizrahim, etc.
No, the only characteristic common to all Jews is the religion, Judaism. It defines a Jew as one born to a Jewish mother, or one who sincerely converts according to the stipulated requirements.[1]
Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro, in the recordings linked-to in my previous comment, explains this and how Zionism set-out to redefine the Jew in a way that divorced him from Judaism.
II
Stephen S. Wise was a Reform rabbi. "Reform Judaism" explicitly denies many of the most basic tenets of Judaism, such as the divine origin and authority of not only the rabbinic tradition but even the Pentateuch. Heresy.
III I note that you provide no source for the statements that you attribute to Wise. Searching for returned no results from primary sources, quite possibly not even to secondary sources. But plenty of instances, with no citations given, at the very type of web sites that one would expect the typical Unzian to frequent and, in service to his malignant obsessions, use material from without bothering to check its authenticity. I am not claiming that the quotes are not legitimate, only that I was unable to verify them. Regardless, it is inconsequential. Stephen S. Wise is no authority on (authentic; Orthodox) Judaism. And the assertion that Jews are a race is, as I demonstrated above, manifestly false.
IV Now, to the first quote that you attributed to Wise,
“I was a Jew before I was an American. I have been an American all of my life, 64 years. But I have been a Jew for 4.000 years.”
What is the problem with this one? How serious would any purported Christian or Muslim be if his primary identity and loyal were not to his respective religion before anything else? Why would or should this be different for a Jew?
Jews are obligated to be loyal and law-abiding citizens of our host countries.[2]
NOTES
[1]One who is born into the faith but becomes a heretic or apostate, remains liable and accountable but is largely expelled from the religious community. At least de jure; by strict law. In practice; de facto, the matter can be rather complicated, and the actual status of any given individual will vary , depending upon numerous factors. The critical point is that even when the Jew rejects the religion, it is still the religion that, by offering the only single characteristic that can be common to all, defines the Jew.
[2]The general rule is that we must obey the Law of the Land wherever we live unless doing so would violate our religious duty. Thankfully, in most places where sizable populations of Jews reside, it has for some time already been no more than rarely that such conflicts have presented themselves. In this vein, let me take the opportunity to once again reiterate that I feel a debt of gratitude to a mostly white, mostly Christian United States of America for the extraordinary tolerance, acceptance and kindness that, as Jews, it has shown myself, my family, and my people.
Related:
https://www.unz.com/isteve/new-york-times-too-many-white-students/#comment-3650829Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
Most Jews think Christian missionairy actvity towards them is only slightly worse than actual murder. Evangelicals (as in the name) are perceived as the most aggressive, hence the hatred.
Post-Vatican II, asking Jews to convert was forbidden; and recall when Romney was running for President how there was a moral panic over the Mormon “baptisms of the dead”.
Some members of the LDS Church have been baptized for both victims and perpetrators of The Holocaust, including Anne Frank and Adolf Hitler, contrary to modern church policy.
I like the intention and dedication those Mormons show, but I can see how non-Mormon religious people might find this sinister.
I also believe (and Catholics can correct me where I'm wrong) that official Catholic doctrine does not anywhere repeat the Dispensationalist error that Jews can achieve salvation without Christ.Replies: @iffen, @anarchyst, @dfordoom
Post-Vatican II, asking Jews to convert was forbidden; and recall when Romney was running for President how there was a moral panic over the Mormon "baptisms of the dead".Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Wency, @Shango
I forgot they did that. Sounds spooky. The Wikipedia page has some controversial examples:
Some members of the LDS Church have been baptized for both victims and perpetrators of The Holocaust, including Anne Frank and Adolf Hitler, contrary to modern church policy.
I like the intention and dedication those Mormons show, but I can see how non-Mormon religious people might find this sinister.
Post-Vatican II, asking Jews to convert was forbidden; and recall when Romney was running for President how there was a moral panic over the Mormon "baptisms of the dead".Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Wency, @Shango
I think this is only slightly true. It’s more that Evangelicals are perceived as the most fervent, unpredictable, ignorant, Republican branch of Christianity. If the pogroms return, they imagine, they will come from the Evangelicals, but in the meantime the Evangelicals are for everything the Jews are against, except Israel.
Is this true? I thought the Catholic position here was more nuanced, more akin to saying that Israel is not a targeted mission field, and it’s really Francis who pushed it. Vatican II featured an official disavowal of anti-Semitism but I didn’t think it forbade missionary activity.
I also believe (and Catholics can correct me where I’m wrong) that official Catholic doctrine does not anywhere repeat the Dispensationalist error that Jews can achieve salvation without Christ.
Catholics have missionaries?
You are messing with my mind.Replies: @RSDB, @Hibernian, @Wency
Much Catholic ritual and doctrine was discarded or changed, in order to reflect the "age" that we live in, as well as the promotion of the absolution of the Jews for Jesus Christ’s crucifixion and death, despite vitriolic Jewish hatred of Jesus Christ and Christianity which exists to this day. The fact is, the Jews DID get the Romans to crucify Jesus Christ and DID accept full responsibility for his crucifixion and death. As is the case today, they got others (Pontius Pilate) to do their "dirty work" for them...
It was a grave mistake by the Church to de-legitimize pre-Vatican II principles.
Fortunately, there are Catholic organizations that subscribe to pre-Vatican II principles, one being the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX).
When people feel an aversion to a particular group of other people it's a mistake to think that the aversion is something logically thought out. Often it's a purely emotional thing, and sometimes it has a lot to do with how some groups present themselves. Evangelicals come across as very enthusiastic and very zealous. Religious or ideological enthusiasm and zeal does sometimes turn to fanaticism, even violent fanaticism. I'm not suggesting for one minute that Evangelicals are going to suddenly turn into violent fanatics, but I can see how Evangelicals could remind Jews of other religious/ideological groups that have done so.
So I can understand why Evangelicals make Jews uncomfortable. It's the style of Evangelicals. They give the impression of being very emotional and people who are very emotional tend to be unpredictable. I can understand it because Evangelicals affect me the same way. Excessive enthusiasm and zeal makes me uncomfortable as well. I fear fanaticism, of any kind. That's why I fear the Woke - because I see that potential for fanaticism and there is always the chance that fanaticism will turn violent.
If you've grown up surrounded by Evangelicals you probably don't notice it and it probably doesn't make you uncomfortable. You've met these people socially and you know they're not murderous fanatics. But if you didn't grow up in such an environment Evangelicals do come across as being a bit scary. Given their historical experiences there's nothing strange in the fact that Jews would find them a bit scary.Replies: @Wency
The idea that American Jews perceive more Muslim discrimination than Jewish discrimination seems quite odd to me. Looking at the subgroup of only religious Jews (pg 9) moves the numbers slightly:
60% (vs 62%) for the Muslim line item
48% (vs 43%) for the Jews line item
____
Religious Jews — Antisemitism in the U.S. over the past Five Years has: (pg 19)
80% — INCREASED
15% — About the Same
3% — Decreased
The poll did not go into drivers for why things are getting worse. If Jews are identifying SJW’s as the source, that has a direct political implications DNC/GOP. Hopefully future questions will ask about forces creating Anti-Semitism, such as:
• Hollywood & Main Stream Media
• DNC Leadership (Ilhan Omar, Rashid Tlaib, etc.)
There are details about BDS (pg 47) — 51% Oppose, 7% Support — Which is a potential wedge issue to break religious Jews away from The Squad‘s DNC.
Important note for this survey is the break down of groups (pg 23):
37% — Reform
17% — Conservative
9% — Orthodox
32% — No denomination
There are very few unaffiliated Synagogues. “No Domination” is (79%) an indicator for heritage/ancestry, not religious identification. The survey provides details for Religious / Nonreligious on a number of questions.
____
Also of interest is a breakdown of Religious Jews by Industry: (pg 51)
16% — Education
14% — Healthcare
10% — Arts & Entertainment
10% — Financial Firms
9% — Wholesale & Retail
7% — Construction
6% — Legal
Five categories are tied at 4% each, one of which is Media.
Those accusing “Jews” of Media & Financial manipulation are actually talking about “At most 14% of U.S. Jews”.
PEACE 😇
That's a lot like saying Jews only make up xx% of the legislators. However, when they back every anti-white anti-America first policy that comes down the pipe and are extremely militant about it, it gets noticed. When something like Russia-gate and the Trump impeachment expose all the unelected ones hiding in the woodwork working against whites, that also has an effect on peoples perceptions.
Well, Evangelicals are whiter than the population as a whole. I think the archetypal Evangelical in everyone’s mind is white, so when people are asked about Evangelicals, most people think of a white person, and I would bet this thinking is even more common among Jews than the population as a whole. Thus, I don’t think changing the category to “White Evangelicals” would change the results much.
But I suppose to your other point, honest question: is there an example of a black or Hispanic equivalent to Eich or Masterpiece Cakeshop that has received differential treatment? I don’t know that there is. I imagine the differential treatment comes down to things like blacks being cut slack if they refuse to chant Woke corporate mantras and shibboleths. And I also imagine that the sort of co-workers who say they feel unsafe at the mere presence of an Evangelical co-worker wouldn’t say that if the person in question was black.
But I’d also say a fair amount of anti-Christian discrimination is targeting institutions rather than individuals, and thus it technically applies to Evangelicals (and other conservative Christians) of all races. For example, if the Democrats are successful in their plan to eliminate the tax-exempt status of churches that refuse to submit before the Rainbow Flag, then both blacks and whites will be affected if that forces churches to close down or to scale back their programming.
Your institutional point, though not directly related to the OP, I find most convincing.
Evangelicals, as controllers of alternative institutional power, of Christ, not "progress", will likely stand or fall together. Any value other than marching in lockstep with that emanating from the DNC election committee, makes you suspect - left, right or completely alternative.
"Progress" seems to now be defined as whatever will nudge society into a shape that will elect Democratic Presidents.
But I suppose to your other point, honest question: is there an example of a black or Hispanic equivalent to Eich or Masterpiece Cakeshop that has received differential treatment? I don't know that there is. I imagine the differential treatment comes down to things like blacks being cut slack if they refuse to chant Woke corporate mantras and shibboleths. And I also imagine that the sort of co-workers who say they feel unsafe at the mere presence of an Evangelical co-worker wouldn't say that if the person in question was black.
But I'd also say a fair amount of anti-Christian discrimination is targeting institutions rather than individuals, and thus it technically applies to Evangelicals (and other conservative Christians) of all races. For example, if the Democrats are successful in their plan to eliminate the tax-exempt status of churches that refuse to submit before the Rainbow Flag, then both blacks and whites will be affected if that forces churches to close down or to scale back their programming.Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @V. K. Ovelund, @Charlotte
Reasonable points. I would like to see a comparison of “white people” versus “evangelical Christians” to see how much overlap there is in the perception of poll respondents.
Your institutional point, though not directly related to the OP, I find most convincing.
Evangelicals, as controllers of alternative institutional power, of Christ, not “progress”, will likely stand or fall together. Any value other than marching in lockstep with that emanating from the DNC election committee, makes you suspect – left, right or completely alternative.
“Progress” seems to now be defined as whatever will nudge society into a shape that will elect Democratic Presidents.
Religion is the root of all stupidity and evil. The more impressionable young white people we convert to atheism, the stronger and more dignified our race becomes.
This chart completely explains a lot of TV and movie content.
Idiot Nixon inadvertently summed up the problem:
Every politico knows Jewish betrayal is guaranteed but hires them anyway. It’s Charlie Brown and the fking Lucy football trick. Every single time.
Not everything in this world is an absolute.Replies: @nebulafox, @Sick of Orcs
How do the boneheads in the colleges and the universities teach about the Dreyfus Affair if they ain’t allowed to talk about the Jew Question?
How could you possibly begin to comprehend the history of modern political thought in Europe without understanding the Jew Question?
Do the overpaid wacko professors say the Dreyfus Affair was about the youthful antics of some actor on Martha’s Vineyard during the filming of that Benchley shark movie?
What gives around here?
Two baby boomer dopes with Kraut names wrote a book about the Israel Lobby and it was as dry and academic as you could get. People had to sip ale while reading this Israel Lobby book because it was so plain and dry and non-juicy.
This book says that Jews with loot who put the interests of Israel over and above the interests of the USA have a disproportionate amount of power over foreign policy in the Middle East and West Asia.
It’s true that evangelicals are treasonous boobs who put the interests of the millstone client state of Israel over and above the interests of the USA and you can see scumbag weasels like Teddy Cruz and Josh Hawley and Tom Cotton crying about Israel to get the Israel First evangelical vote. New Hampshire is a crucial presidential primary state that is highly disinterested in screaming and crying and caterwauling about the millstone client state of Israel.
It is clear that Jews have a disproportionate control of the mass media and the advertising agencies and academia and other power centers of thought control and the rancid Republican Party cowards won’t talk honestly about breaking up the mass media to prevent Jews from controlling the political and cultural discourse in the USA.
The cowards in the rancid Republican Party will not talk about the JEW QUESTION and that is because Jew billionaires have bought and paid for the duplicitous treasonous scum in the GOP. I have been convinced that the evangelical vote is important as a reason for GOP politician pandering on Israel but I still think the Jew loot from Jew plutocrats is more important of a factor to explain the GOP’s insistence on putting the interests of Israel over and above the interests of the USA.
The JEW QUESTION explained:
Jews form a nation within a nation everywhere they reside. Can Jews ever be considered to be part of the larger nation in which they reside when they are genetically and culturally predisposed to put the interests of the Jew Nation over and above the interests of the larger nations in which they reside?
I wonder what it would look like if we took non-Jewish whites and tried to match the Jewish composition, according to political affiliation.
Hunter Wallace writes:
If I was a Republican strategist, I wouldn’t be wasting my time appealing to core Democratic voters like racially aggrieved blacks and anti-White liberals who are the supporters of the systematic racism conspiracy theory. Unlike Jared Kushner, I would try to appeal to all the groups who are alienated by Joe Biden’s open racial favoritism toward blacks and who are persuadable.
Note: In retrospect, Ron Unz was right about focusing on the toxic relationship between deranged White liberals and blacks and making that the issue.
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2021/06/02/axios-2022s-war-over-racism/
I say:
Okay, how about the toxic relationship between evangelicals and Israel First Jew plutocrats and GOP politician whores?
I’ll run with the Unz idea and state that the gun issue was interesting when Sailer was saying that Jew politicians Schumer and Emanuel were downplaying gun-grabbing in order to retain White suburban and rural voters and that Schumer and Emanuel couldn’t say that Whites in urban areas wanted to disarm Blacks but they had to frame their gun-grabbing around scary Whites with long guns. Blacks and Jews and White urbanites and White Upper Middle Class Snot Brats is interesting and it should be brought up in the 2022 elections and the 2024 presidential primaries.
Did any of those men do Nixon dirty? I recall Kissinger was still defending Nixon even after the man was dead. But the one generally credited with doing Nixon in was Mark “Deepthroat” Felt, a WASP.
Not everything in this world is an absolute.
Ironically, Nixon is beloved in Israel for sending weapons and materiel during the Yom Kippur war, at the same time he was hated by American Jews.Replies: @Shango
But I suppose to your other point, honest question: is there an example of a black or Hispanic equivalent to Eich or Masterpiece Cakeshop that has received differential treatment? I don't know that there is. I imagine the differential treatment comes down to things like blacks being cut slack if they refuse to chant Woke corporate mantras and shibboleths. And I also imagine that the sort of co-workers who say they feel unsafe at the mere presence of an Evangelical co-worker wouldn't say that if the person in question was black.
But I'd also say a fair amount of anti-Christian discrimination is targeting institutions rather than individuals, and thus it technically applies to Evangelicals (and other conservative Christians) of all races. For example, if the Democrats are successful in their plan to eliminate the tax-exempt status of churches that refuse to submit before the Rainbow Flag, then both blacks and whites will be affected if that forces churches to close down or to scale back their programming.Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @V. K. Ovelund, @Charlotte
The IRS will allow black churches to ignore the law. The law will be enforced against whites.
Any IRS agent that insists on trying to enforce the law against a black church will find himself out of a job on some pretext.
I had that thought, but note that Evangelical churches tend to be a lot more integrated than Mainline Protestant churches. I was looking over some stats a while ago and IIRC a supermajority of black Evangelicals are attending churches that are majority white. Where I live (majority white but not far from the core Black Belt), some of the larger Evangelical churches are very close to being as black as the community as a whole. The all-black churches tend to be things like A.M.E. and thus Mainline.
This is funny. Can’t wait for the promised follow up.
To be a Jew means to be taught from birth that there is this bogey man called “discrimination.”
So, naturally, most Jews will respond accordingly in any survey. Of course there is discrimination! There was in Ancient Egypt when our slave ancestors built the pyramids. There was in Germany when Six Million™ were showered to death, etc.
Discrimination is almost a Jewish trademark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaPBhxXhprgReplies: @Buzz Mohawk
I know this. A LOT of people don’t know the difference between a White man and a rich White man. Could be because so may rich White men are actually Jews?
But I suppose to your other point, honest question: is there an example of a black or Hispanic equivalent to Eich or Masterpiece Cakeshop that has received differential treatment? I don't know that there is. I imagine the differential treatment comes down to things like blacks being cut slack if they refuse to chant Woke corporate mantras and shibboleths. And I also imagine that the sort of co-workers who say they feel unsafe at the mere presence of an Evangelical co-worker wouldn't say that if the person in question was black.
But I'd also say a fair amount of anti-Christian discrimination is targeting institutions rather than individuals, and thus it technically applies to Evangelicals (and other conservative Christians) of all races. For example, if the Democrats are successful in their plan to eliminate the tax-exempt status of churches that refuse to submit before the Rainbow Flag, then both blacks and whites will be affected if that forces churches to close down or to scale back their programming.Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @V. K. Ovelund, @Charlotte
I can’t think of any receiving differential treatment, but I suspect that’s because SJWs prefer not to go after black or Hispanic individuals when whites are available. The only case that comes to mind is the 2015 firing of Kelvin Cochran, a black Atlanta fire chief, for distributing a book he wrote that condemned homosexuality on religious grounds.
Perceptions of Discrimination Among Jewish Americans
I say:
Perceptions of the implications of the anti-White anti-White anti-White rhetoric emanating from that treasonous globalizer geezer boy Joe Biden and whether or not it’s good for the Jews.
I must admit the threshold for proving the efficacy of explicitly using WHITE in rhetoric and specifically the coinage of WHITE CORE AMERICA by some guy on the internet as a replacement or another way of saying European Christian ancestral core of the USA has been met and I have been proven right on the money.
White Normies have been WHITE FLIGHTING like bastards for a hundred years or more and they really ramped it up post-WWII and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and Joe Biden have evinced their WHITE SUPREMACIST and WHITE NATIONALIST leanings and tendencies by moving to and living in mostly White areas and now this asshole corrupt scumbag Joe Biden has lost his frigging mind with this Tulsa Tulsa Tulsa horseshit.
Jews Organized Globally(JOG) must be holding their onions close to their easily transportable diamonds when they see the massive backlash from Whites and Normie Whites with all this anti-White nonsense endlessly repeated by the Jew-controlled corporate propaganda apparatus. It is incontestable that Jews have a disproportionate amount of power in the mass media and I wonder when JOG is gonna tell the corporate propaganda whores to cool their phucking jets with all this anti-White crud.
LIVING ON TULSA TIME ALL THE TIME SET MY WATCH BACK TO IT
WHITEY IS WAKING UP
Someday, this anti-White War is gonna end — and White Core America will end it and dislodge the JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire from power.
Tweet from 2015:
48% (vs 43%) for the Jews line item
____Religious Jews -- Antisemitism in the U.S. over the past Five Years has: (pg 19)80% -- INCREASED
15% -- About the Same
3% -- DecreasedThe poll did not go into drivers for why things are getting worse. If Jews are identifying SJW's as the source, that has a direct political implications DNC/GOP. Hopefully future questions will ask about forces creating Anti-Semitism, such as:
• Hollywood & Main Stream Media
• DNC Leadership (Ilhan Omar, Rashid Tlaib, etc.)There are details about BDS (pg 47) -- 51% Oppose, 7% Support -- Which is a potential wedge issue to break religious Jews away from The Squad's DNC.Important note for this survey is the break down of groups (pg 23):37% -- Reform
17% -- Conservative
9% -- Orthodox
32% -- No denominationThere are very few unaffiliated Synagogues. "No Domination" is (79%) an indicator for heritage/ancestry, not religious identification. The survey provides details for Religious / Nonreligious on a number of questions.
____Also of interest is a breakdown of Religious Jews by Industry: (pg 51)16% -- Education
14% -- Healthcare
10% -- Arts & Entertainment
10% -- Financial Firms
9% -- Wholesale & Retail
7% -- Construction
6% -- LegalFive categories are tied at 4% each, one of which is Media.Those accusing "Jews" of Media & Financial manipulation are actually talking about "At most 14% of U.S. Jews".PEACE 😇Replies: @MarkinLA, @Jay Fink
Those accusing “Jews” of Media & Financial manipulation are actually talking about “At most 14% of U.S. Jews”.
That’s a lot like saying Jews only make up xx% of the legislators. However, when they back every anti-white anti-America first policy that comes down the pipe and are extremely militant about it, it gets noticed. When something like Russia-gate and the Trump impeachment expose all the unelected ones hiding in the woodwork working against whites, that also has an effect on peoples perceptions.
48% (vs 43%) for the Jews line item
____Religious Jews -- Antisemitism in the U.S. over the past Five Years has: (pg 19)80% -- INCREASED
15% -- About the Same
3% -- DecreasedThe poll did not go into drivers for why things are getting worse. If Jews are identifying SJW's as the source, that has a direct political implications DNC/GOP. Hopefully future questions will ask about forces creating Anti-Semitism, such as:
• Hollywood & Main Stream Media
• DNC Leadership (Ilhan Omar, Rashid Tlaib, etc.)There are details about BDS (pg 47) -- 51% Oppose, 7% Support -- Which is a potential wedge issue to break religious Jews away from The Squad's DNC.Important note for this survey is the break down of groups (pg 23):37% -- Reform
17% -- Conservative
9% -- Orthodox
32% -- No denominationThere are very few unaffiliated Synagogues. "No Domination" is (79%) an indicator for heritage/ancestry, not religious identification. The survey provides details for Religious / Nonreligious on a number of questions.
____Also of interest is a breakdown of Religious Jews by Industry: (pg 51)16% -- Education
14% -- Healthcare
10% -- Arts & Entertainment
10% -- Financial Firms
9% -- Wholesale & Retail
7% -- Construction
6% -- LegalFive categories are tied at 4% each, one of which is Media.Those accusing "Jews" of Media & Financial manipulation are actually talking about "At most 14% of U.S. Jews".PEACE 😇Replies: @MarkinLA, @Jay Fink
The most pro-Muslim people I know are American Jews. My relatives were very upset at the idea of Trump’s Muslim ban. I also recall my Aunt and Uncle getting angry when they saw the TSA do an extensive search on a Muslim woman at an airport. Few Christians would have that reaction.
Keep in mind American Jews are liberals first and Jews second. The idea of diversity gives them the warm n fuzzies and seeing a Muslim wearing Islamic garb is the ultimate in diversity.
There is a lot of unrequited love between the religions. . Evangelical Christians love Jews but hate Muslims. American Jews love Muslims but hate Christians. Muslims don’t like either Christians or (especially) Jews.
Badda Bing, Badda Boom
I hear what you say.For the "non-religious" group that no longer practices Judaism ... OK... They are fully secularized. Cringe And Bluepilled, has set in. They are no longer Jews, having converted to the SJW Globalist faith.However, I still can not wrap my head around practicing Reform Branch Jews embracing anti-Semitic "diversity". How?!?!?! How can they believe that? It is suicidal to advocate for an invasion of Apartheid Muslims. If Islam becomes strong enough in the U.S., they will repeat the Ethnic Cleansing performed by TransJordan in 1948.Religious Jews, including Reform Branch practitioners, understand that anti-Semitism is surging in the U.S. It is placing their children at risk. When will they grasp that SJW Globalism (a.k.a. American style DNC Elite Liberialism) is inherently Anti-Semitic?
____The damage that SJW's have done to education is training malleable minds to replace logical thinking with gibberish, such as PC and micro aggressions.• Woke Christians and Woke Jews deploy absolute faith to ignore objective facts that are inconsistent with SJW mythology.
• Woke Green nature huggers can obviously see that bears are hundreds of pounds of potentially dangerous muscle armed with teeth and claws. However, SJW mythology obliterates the logic process for recognition of a serious personal threat. They believe that wild bears are "fuzzy bundles of nature's joy". Then they feed them, take selfies with them, and encourage their *kids* to interact with them.Ignoring reality will eventually have dire consequences for the SJW's.PEACE 😇Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @anon, @Jay Fink
I hope it is clear to everyone that I was engaging in a form of satire/irony in order to make a point. I absolutely do not believe what I altered Mr. Ovelund's text to read. I have no objection to any of the other comments concerning Christianity and related matters that I had quoted. I was merely creating a sort of inverse of what VKO had done to me; demonstrating that the two were like two sides of the same coin; that for someone to seriously make a comment such as the one I was ironically making, would be little, if any, different, fundamentally, than what VKO's had done.
~ ~ ~That's too broad and unqualified of a statement. While it may more-or-less accurately describe many American Jews, it most certainly does not describe all or even necessarily nearly American Jews. 1.) It completely excludes nearly all Orthodox Jews who, while definitely still a minority, are a rapidly-growing and far from insignificant one.2.) Even among the non-Orthodox, and even the completely secular, the matter is not so simple. For, if nothing else, one must consider that many such Jews equate what I shall broadly refer to as liberal, Leftist, and "social justice" values with Jewish and even Judaic ones. More than that, for many, and perhaps even most non-Orthodox forms of (so-called) Judaism and/or Jewish identity the aforementioned values, ideology and activism have actually supplanted any traditional form of Judaism.That's a wildly, recklessly sweeping, blanket, unqualified statement. The assertion that American Jews hate Christians, certainly, is very much at odds with my experience-- both as a secular Jew, as I was raised, as well as an Orthodox one, as I have lived since at least the age of fifteen or so. I must run now. This comment of mine from November 2019 may be of interest to some. In it, I elaborate a little on my views on both Christian-Jewish as well as Muslim-Jewish relations.
To be a Jew means to be taught from birth that there is this bogey man called "discrimination."
So, naturally, most Jews will respond accordingly in any survey. Of course there is discrimination! There was in Ancient Egypt when our slave ancestors built the pyramids. There was in Germany when Six Million™ were showered to death, etc.
Discrimination is almost a Jewish trademark.Replies: @anon, @Jay Fink
This is from a 1970’s movie, but it never gets old. I had a couple of co workers like this a few years ago, triggered by the oddest things.
To be a Jew means to be taught from birth that there is this bogey man called "discrimination."
So, naturally, most Jews will respond accordingly in any survey. Of course there is discrimination! There was in Ancient Egypt when our slave ancestors built the pyramids. There was in Germany when Six Million™ were showered to death, etc.
Discrimination is almost a Jewish trademark.Replies: @anon, @Jay Fink
I was taught that Jews should work for themselves in order to avoid discrimination. While I think they greatly overstated the level of actual discrimination this (not working for the man) helped them become wealthy.
“Help! They’re trying to exterminate us!” said the jewish commissar as he marched the last few european people in California off to the Re-education Camps.
Machiavellianism is often attributed to Jews, but I wonder how much one could simulate the same behaviors – the allying with other groups against the host nation – the “Culture of Critique” – just by increasing the frequency of virtue-signalers. Perhaps, Jews are a group with a high level of virtue signalers.
Maybe, it was selected for in the special environment in which they lived. I don’t know if anyone has ever studied the deep psychology or biochemistry of it, but perhaps the deep roots of the process could also explain other behaviors and predilections, which don’t obviously seem to be virtue-signaling.
The Nuremburg laws (basically the reverse of Talmudic laws) were a pretty good place to start. Even the evil “Nazis” allowed Jews married to German women to retain citizenship after some debate. As for the rest they have their own country to go to now and have certainly extracted enough resources out of our countries that no gentile should feel any obligation to assist in their departure.
Hell, if a Jew wakes up and finds that clouds have obscured the sunrise, he will cry persecution.
Not everything in this world is an absolute.Replies: @nebulafox, @Sick of Orcs
Nixon’s anti-Semitism honestly reminded me a bit of Stalin’s, insofar as it was rooted in similar complexes about snobbish, untrustworthy intellectuals that were exacerbated by their political experiences. Obviously, it wasn’t the Hitlerian kind of genocidal hatred that would have prevented them from working with or developing relationships with Jews on an individual level.
As far as Kissinger specifically goes, Nixon and Kissinger were in no way friends, but their reputations were too intertwined after the 1970s for either to outright badmouth the other. They had an odd relationship, to say the least. They didn’t like each other, but they also felt a strange bond with each other, probably partially rooted in the fact that they were both entirely self-made men in an era where the “Eastern Establishment” was still a very real thing.
(One has to be *very* careful with what Dick and Henry said about each other throughout the post-administration decades. Neither man was above passive-aggressively boosting their own reputation at the other’s expense or subtly taking credit for things/ideas the other man actually did/created.)
>But the one generally credited with doing Nixon in was Mark “Deepthroat” Felt, a WASP.
Watergate blew up due to a number of events coinciding with each other. Felt’s leaks to Woodstein were a secondary factor, if that. Not least because some of the stuff he told them turned out to be completely false, like the Canuck Letter.
What was crucial was Hoover dying and the struggle over his succession, because the Grey hearings wouldn’t have happened in February ’73.
I also believe (and Catholics can correct me where I'm wrong) that official Catholic doctrine does not anywhere repeat the Dispensationalist error that Jews can achieve salvation without Christ.Replies: @iffen, @anarchyst, @dfordoom
the Catholic position here was more nuanced, more akin to saying that Israel is not a targeted mission field
Catholics have missionaries?
You are messing with my mind.
There is a lot of unrequited love between the religions. . Evangelical Christians love Jews but hate Muslims. American Jews love Muslims but hate Christians. Muslims don’t like either Christians or (especially) Jews.
Badda Bing, Badda Boom
There are also many Orthodox religious Jews who consider Zionism to be in contradiction to and in violation of Judaism. An historical fact that is largely forgotten today is that Zionism, from its inception and in all of its forms, was unequivocally condemned by an overwhelming consensus of the foremost rabbis.
Of interest, from July 2020:
Three Perspectives on Anti-Zionism: Miko Peled, Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro, and Professor Norton Mezvinsky
– You Tube video
– MP3 Audio (hosted at Podbean)
Brief excerpts from Miko Peled’s introductory monologue (edited from the auto-generated YouTube transcript):
Links to additional conversations between Miko Peled and Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro, as well as lectures delivered by Rabbi Shapiro, below break.
Part One, April 2020: MP3 audio | YouTube video
Part Two, May 2020: <a title=”"https://mcdn.podbean.com/mf/web/tu4vbe/EPISODE_08_-_The_Miko_Peled_Podcast_-_Rabbi_Yaakob_Shapiro_Part_Two_6can1.mp3"MP3″ href="https://mcdn.podbean.com/mf/web/tu4vbe/EPISODE_08_-_The_Miko_Peled_Podcast_-_Rabbi_Yaakob_Shapiro_Part_Two_6can1.mp3"MP3 audio | YouTube video
Lectures by Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro
Is Judaism a Nationality?
September 2019 at the International Council for Middle East Studies’ (ICMES) Faith, Community and Culture conference held in British Colombia.
Has Zionism Hijacked Judaism?
February 2017, Washington, DC
I have heard some say that, in Europe, Muslims are put on a higher pedestal than blacks, but it seems hard to believe.
I see the numbers in the polls.
I hear what you say.
For the “non-religious” group that no longer practices Judaism … OK… They are fully secularized. Cringe And Bluepilled, has set in. They are no longer Jews, having converted to the SJW Globalist faith.
However, I still can not wrap my head around practicing Reform Branch Jews embracing anti-Semitic “diversity”. How?!?!?! How can they believe that? It is suicidal to advocate for an invasion of Apartheid Muslims. If Islam becomes strong enough in the U.S., they will repeat the Ethnic Cleansing performed by TransJordan in 1948.
Religious Jews, including Reform Branch practitioners, understand that anti-Semitism is surging in the U.S. It is placing their children at risk. When will they grasp that SJW Globalism (a.k.a. American style DNC Elite Liberialism) is inherently Anti-Semitic?
____
The damage that SJW’s have done to education is training malleable minds to replace logical thinking with gibberish, such as PC and micro aggressions.
• Woke Christians and Woke Jews deploy absolute faith to ignore objective facts that are inconsistent with SJW mythology.
• Woke Green nature huggers can obviously see that bears are hundreds of pounds of potentially dangerous muscle armed with teeth and claws. However, SJW mythology obliterates the logic process for recognition of a serious personal threat. They believe that wild bears are “fuzzy bundles of nature’s joy“. Then they feed them, take selfies with them, and encourage their *kids* to interact with them.
Ignoring reality will eventually have dire consequences for the SJW’s.
PEACE 😇
I hear what you say.For the "non-religious" group that no longer practices Judaism ... OK... They are fully secularized. Cringe And Bluepilled, has set in. They are no longer Jews, having converted to the SJW Globalist faith.However, I still can not wrap my head around practicing Reform Branch Jews embracing anti-Semitic "diversity". How?!?!?! How can they believe that? It is suicidal to advocate for an invasion of Apartheid Muslims. If Islam becomes strong enough in the U.S., they will repeat the Ethnic Cleansing performed by TransJordan in 1948.Religious Jews, including Reform Branch practitioners, understand that anti-Semitism is surging in the U.S. It is placing their children at risk. When will they grasp that SJW Globalism (a.k.a. American style DNC Elite Liberialism) is inherently Anti-Semitic?
____The damage that SJW's have done to education is training malleable minds to replace logical thinking with gibberish, such as PC and micro aggressions.• Woke Christians and Woke Jews deploy absolute faith to ignore objective facts that are inconsistent with SJW mythology.
• Woke Green nature huggers can obviously see that bears are hundreds of pounds of potentially dangerous muscle armed with teeth and claws. However, SJW mythology obliterates the logic process for recognition of a serious personal threat. They believe that wild bears are "fuzzy bundles of nature's joy". Then they feed them, take selfies with them, and encourage their *kids* to interact with them.Ignoring reality will eventually have dire consequences for the SJW's.PEACE 😇Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @anon, @Jay Fink
Unfortunately for this interpretation, Jews seem to disagree.
Sometimes it can work the other way around. My cousin's wife is a convert. She is totally into the religion and practices it to the fullest extent. She is more Jewish in the religious sense than 90% of Jews yet has 0% Jewish DNA.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
Yes, even an atheistic, “out” homosexual is still considered “Jewish” and can be welcomed at such events as Festival of Booths, etc. I have seen this with my own eyes in a college town. It’s hardly a secret.
DNA matters in more ways than one.
It’s a little confusing because Judiasm is both a religion and an ethnicity. A lot of Jews are exclusively the ethnicity yet they still think of it as their religion even if they have no religion.
Sometimes it can work the other way around. My cousin’s wife is a convert. She is totally into the religion and practices it to the fullest extent. She is more Jewish in the religious sense than 90% of Jews yet has 0% Jewish DNA.
I hear what you say.For the "non-religious" group that no longer practices Judaism ... OK... They are fully secularized. Cringe And Bluepilled, has set in. They are no longer Jews, having converted to the SJW Globalist faith.However, I still can not wrap my head around practicing Reform Branch Jews embracing anti-Semitic "diversity". How?!?!?! How can they believe that? It is suicidal to advocate for an invasion of Apartheid Muslims. If Islam becomes strong enough in the U.S., they will repeat the Ethnic Cleansing performed by TransJordan in 1948.Religious Jews, including Reform Branch practitioners, understand that anti-Semitism is surging in the U.S. It is placing their children at risk. When will they grasp that SJW Globalism (a.k.a. American style DNC Elite Liberialism) is inherently Anti-Semitic?
____The damage that SJW's have done to education is training malleable minds to replace logical thinking with gibberish, such as PC and micro aggressions.• Woke Christians and Woke Jews deploy absolute faith to ignore objective facts that are inconsistent with SJW mythology.
• Woke Green nature huggers can obviously see that bears are hundreds of pounds of potentially dangerous muscle armed with teeth and claws. However, SJW mythology obliterates the logic process for recognition of a serious personal threat. They believe that wild bears are "fuzzy bundles of nature's joy". Then they feed them, take selfies with them, and encourage their *kids* to interact with them.Ignoring reality will eventually have dire consequences for the SJW's.PEACE 😇Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @anon, @Jay Fink
Religious Jews, including Reform Branch practitioners, understand that anti-Semitism is surging in the U.S.
Well, if that is true, I’m sure it is partly caused by the lack of Holocaust museums. More work for you, eh?
Sometimes it can work the other way around. My cousin's wife is a convert. She is totally into the religion and practices it to the fullest extent. She is more Jewish in the religious sense than 90% of Jews yet has 0% Jewish DNA.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
I see.
Besides being credible, you know more about the topic than I do, of course. Let me defer to your explanation, which is logical and seems quite plausible in any case.
I stand corrected.
www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/goldstein-terms1.htm
(As for me, I am certainly not going to venture a definition here.)
• Those practicing the religion of Judaism.
• Non-practicing individuals that have ancestral ties.
Someone who is Jewish may know more details on how the English language wound up with this ambiguity. My suspicion is that maternal ancestry links to "tribe" in Hebrew. Thus, the usual English language conventions (e.g. "non-Jews", " Former Jews") are not viable for doctrinal and dogmatic reasons. A parallel in U.S. culture would be the prohibited term "ex-Marine" for those no longer active duty in the Corps.
PEACE 😇
__________
NSFW below [MORE]
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5f/51/de/5f51de34760d9274b0edd73b20edd57c.jpg
Not everything in this world is an absolute.Replies: @nebulafox, @Sick of Orcs
(((Daniel Ellsberg))) released The Pentagon Papers. He was from an Ashkenazi Jewish family turned “Christian Scientist.”
Ironically, Nixon is beloved in Israel for sending weapons and materiel during the Yom Kippur war, at the same time he was hated by American Jews.
Catholics have missionaries?
You are messing with my mind.Replies: @RSDB, @Hibernian, @Wency
There is a story about a group of Catholic missionaries written in the “nonfiction novel” style pioneered by Truman Capote; it has a moderately long title and is often called Acts for short.
Trolling so soon?
smh
Catholic convert David Goldstein wrote on the question of what exactly it means to be a Jew:
http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/goldstein-terms1.htm
(As for me, I am certainly not going to venture a definition here.)
I also believe (and Catholics can correct me where I'm wrong) that official Catholic doctrine does not anywhere repeat the Dispensationalist error that Jews can achieve salvation without Christ.Replies: @iffen, @anarchyst, @dfordoom
The beginning of the end of traditional Catholicism was sealed with the infiltration of the Catholic Church Vatican II Ecumenical Council of the 1960s by Jews and Protestants who were involved in the “modernization” of the Catholic Church. Vatican II actually Protestantized and Judaized the Roman Catholic Church.
Much Catholic ritual and doctrine was discarded or changed, in order to reflect the “age” that we live in, as well as the promotion of the absolution of the Jews for Jesus Christ’s crucifixion and death, despite vitriolic Jewish hatred of Jesus Christ and Christianity which exists to this day. The fact is, the Jews DID get the Romans to crucify Jesus Christ and DID accept full responsibility for his crucifixion and death. As is the case today, they got others (Pontius Pilate) to do their “dirty work” for them…
It was a grave mistake by the Church to de-legitimize pre-Vatican II principles.
Fortunately, there are Catholic organizations that subscribe to pre-Vatican II principles, one being the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX).
No worries. I wish there was explicitly different terminology for:
• Those practicing the religion of Judaism.
• Non-practicing individuals that have ancestral ties.
Someone who is Jewish may know more details on how the English language wound up with this ambiguity. My suspicion is that maternal ancestry links to “tribe” in Hebrew. Thus, the usual English language conventions (e.g. “non-Jews”, ” Former Jews”) are not viable for doctrinal and dogmatic reasons. A parallel in U.S. culture would be the prohibited term “ex-Marine” for those no longer active duty in the Corps.
PEACE 😇
__________
NSFW below [MORE]
Sigh.
Trolling so soon?
smh
‘…To many people of color, Jews aren’t victims–they’re especially privileged white people.’
Let’s fix that.
To many people of color,‘Jews aren’t victims–they’re especially privileged white people.’There you go.
Post-Vatican II, asking Jews to convert was forbidden; and recall when Romney was running for President how there was a moral panic over the Mormon "baptisms of the dead".Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Wency, @Shango
Post Vatican 2?
Ironically, Nixon is beloved in Israel for sending weapons and materiel during the Yom Kippur war, at the same time he was hated by American Jews.Replies: @Shango
American jews are leftists
Catholics have missionaries?
You are messing with my mind.Replies: @RSDB, @Hibernian, @Wency
Have you heard of the missions in California? And the Jesuit mission to the Iroquois?
I hear what you say.For the "non-religious" group that no longer practices Judaism ... OK... They are fully secularized. Cringe And Bluepilled, has set in. They are no longer Jews, having converted to the SJW Globalist faith.However, I still can not wrap my head around practicing Reform Branch Jews embracing anti-Semitic "diversity". How?!?!?! How can they believe that? It is suicidal to advocate for an invasion of Apartheid Muslims. If Islam becomes strong enough in the U.S., they will repeat the Ethnic Cleansing performed by TransJordan in 1948.Religious Jews, including Reform Branch practitioners, understand that anti-Semitism is surging in the U.S. It is placing their children at risk. When will they grasp that SJW Globalism (a.k.a. American style DNC Elite Liberialism) is inherently Anti-Semitic?
____The damage that SJW's have done to education is training malleable minds to replace logical thinking with gibberish, such as PC and micro aggressions.• Woke Christians and Woke Jews deploy absolute faith to ignore objective facts that are inconsistent with SJW mythology.
• Woke Green nature huggers can obviously see that bears are hundreds of pounds of potentially dangerous muscle armed with teeth and claws. However, SJW mythology obliterates the logic process for recognition of a serious personal threat. They believe that wild bears are "fuzzy bundles of nature's joy". Then they feed them, take selfies with them, and encourage their *kids* to interact with them.Ignoring reality will eventually have dire consequences for the SJW's.PEACE 😇Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @anon, @Jay Fink
For a group with a high IQ, especially on skills like reasoning, it is surprising they can’t figure this out.
It’s worth noting that American Evangelicals aren’t really that concerned with Jews for their own sake. It’s just considered necessary for Israel to exist so that Jesus can come back.
Strange as it is to consider, I would suspect that the importance of Israel would probably rank higher for Evangelicals than Jewish Americans.
It sure has worked out well so far! We’re certainly ascending on the glorious trajectory as we speak!
Absolutely. Working for yourself, or at least working among those who share your values and concerns, is one of the smartest things you can do. Very good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaPBhxXhprgReplies: @Buzz Mohawk
I remember that scene. It is hilarious. Thank you.
The humorous answer is:
“Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.” ― George Orwell
Being more serious, high IQ makes it easier to teach skills like reasoning and logic. However, that instruction is not taking place. SJW is indoctrinated as infallible & unquestionable. Anyone attempting to question is Cancelled. Anything not conforming is a Deplorable fabrication.
It is a Garbage In, Garbage Out [GIGO] trap. High IQ makes this problem worse. With sufficient creativity, they can justify the “good fact” fiction to themselves. Anything contravening “good fact” is doubleplusungood Thoughtcrime.
“Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime IS death.”— George Orwell, 1984
PEACE 😇
At an anti-German hate rally in Cleveland in June, 1938, he proclaimed, “I was a Jew before I was an American. I have been an American all of my life, 64 years. But I have been a Jew for 4.000 years.”
In another demonstration against Germany, held in New York city in July, 1938, he reiterated, “I am not an American citizen of the Jewish faith, I am a Jew... Hitler was right in one thing. He calls the Jewish people a race and we are a race."
Perhaps Wise was an early specimen of one of those once rare birds, a self-hating Jew. His words render him liable for prosecution in this century under the new federal anti-“hate speech” guidelines, for “spreading malicious stereotypes” about Jews.Replies: @Dissident
I
How could Jews be any single race or even ethnicity?
Ashkenazi Jews can easily pass as non-Jewish whites. Have you seen how dark Sefardi and, especially Mizrahi, such as Yemeni, Jews can be? To say nothing of converts, who can be accepted from any racial background.
Nor is there any single culture or personality type that is common to all Jews. Even between subsets of Ashkenazim (for example), the differences in such areas as language, cuisine, fashion, style, approach and many customs in worship and other religious observance, tendency toward particular personality and temperament types, etc., can all be quite pronounced, even profound. All the more so between Ashkenazim, Sefardim, Mizrahim, etc.
No, the only characteristic common to all Jews is the religion, Judaism. It defines a Jew as one born to a Jewish mother, or one who sincerely converts according to the stipulated requirements.[1]
Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro, in the recordings linked-to in my previous comment, explains this and how Zionism set-out to redefine the Jew in a way that divorced him from Judaism.
II
Stephen S. Wise was a Reform rabbi. “Reform Judaism” explicitly denies many of the most basic tenets of Judaism, such as the divine origin and authority of not only the rabbinic tradition but even the Pentateuch. Heresy.
III I note that you provide no source for the statements that you attribute to Wise. Searching for returned no results from primary sources, quite possibly not even to secondary sources. But plenty of instances, with no citations given, at the very type of web sites that one would expect the typical Unzian to frequent and, in service to his malignant obsessions, use material from without bothering to check its authenticity. I am not claiming that the quotes are not legitimate, only that I was unable to verify them. Regardless, it is inconsequential. Stephen S. Wise is no authority on (authentic; Orthodox) Judaism. And the assertion that Jews are a race is, as I demonstrated above, manifestly false.
IV Now, to the first quote that you attributed to Wise,
“I was a Jew before I was an American. I have been an American all of my life, 64 years. But I have been a Jew for 4.000 years.”
What is the problem with this one? How serious would any purported Christian or Muslim be if his primary identity and loyal were not to his respective religion before anything else? Why would or should this be different for a Jew?
Jews are obligated to be loyal and law-abiding citizens of our host countries.[2]
NOTES
[1]One who is born into the faith but becomes a heretic or apostate, remains liable and accountable but is largely expelled from the religious community. At least de jure; by strict law. In practice; de facto, the matter can be rather complicated, and the actual status of any given individual will vary , depending upon numerous factors. The critical point is that even when the Jew rejects the religion, it is still the religion that, by offering the only single characteristic that can be common to all, defines the Jew.
[2]The general rule is that we must obey the Law of the Land wherever we live unless doing so would violate our religious duty. Thankfully, in most places where sizable populations of Jews reside, it has for some time already been no more than rarely that such conflicts have presented themselves. In this vein, let me take the opportunity to once again reiterate that I feel a debt of gratitude to a mostly white, mostly Christian United States of America for the extraordinary tolerance, acceptance and kindness that, as Jews, it has shown myself, my family, and my people.
Related:
https://www.unz.com/isteve/new-york-times-too-many-white-students/#comment-3650829
Dr. Doom wrote:
No anomaly either…
I write polite comments from a Jewish perspective, and AE puts me into 8 hour moderation typically, while Doom and other Hitler-level anti-Semites get freely published by Audacious Epigone.
Don't buy into the "genteel anti-Semitism" of this blog. That's just a front lol.Replies: @Wency, @anon, @A123, @Audacious Epigone
‘Leading an ethical and moral life..’ among themselves. Interactions with the goyim are another thing altogether.
Dear me-it sure looks like the SJWs have learned a lot from the Zionazis, and their stooges. Justice.
Well, you’re deranged. No group possesses identical moral features across their numbers. Jews, like everyone, can be good, bad or indifferent, and can change. Evil Jews, like Evil Swedenborgians, are nassty indeed. Of course, Judaic religion, culture and history does make Jewish Evil or Jewish Good particular in various ways, in most cases. We are all hostage to our pasts.
Jonathan Pollard is an American-born Israeli spy who fed Israel intel during the cold war of his era for money.
When released, he went to Israel and was given a hero’s welcome.
Right wing/left wing is a false dichotomy for Chosenites, it’s Jews First. This would be more forgivable if they accepted other races’ natural desire to put their own people first.
Lol, it gets worse.
I write polite comments from a Jewish perspective, and AE puts me into 8 hour moderation typically, while Doom and other Hitler-level anti-Semites get freely published by Audacious Epigone.
Don’t buy into the “genteel anti-Semitism” of this blog. That’s just a front lol.
But also I don't think you need to read malice into AE's actions here. It took me a while to get on the "auto-post" rotation. And he did let you post this criticism of him, even though it apparently went to moderation first. Pretty sure AE has both a full-time job other than blogging and a young family, unlike most of the main figures on Unz.com. So I'd cut him some slack on the moderation front.Replies: @AaronB
Hopefully they are merely low-IQ TROLLS. It would be very sad if they actually believe the deraged & unhinged rants they post.
___
AE does not pend my comments to moderation, and I suspect that he would put the hammer down on me before you. There may be some sort of glitch with your site registration that is systematically routing comments to moderation. A few months ago, everything I posted went to the queue when I accidentally typed a comma instead of a period in my e-mail domain.
I would suggest trying a different browser, entering your screen name and e-mail from scratch. If that does not work, you can request assistance via the site bug thread:
https://www.unz.com/announcement/bugs-suggestions-2/
As a side note, occasionally your posts show up with a white background and are never highlighted "Blue for
NueNEW".PEACE 😇Replies: @AaronB
How could Jews be any single race or even ethnicity?
Ashkenazi Jews can easily pass as non-Jewish whites. Have you seen how dark Sefardi and, especially Mizrahi, such as Yemeni, Jews can be? To say nothing of converts, who can be accepted from any racial background.
Nor is there any single culture or personality type that is common to all Jews. Even between subsets of Ashkenazim (for example), the differences in such areas as language, cuisine, fashion, style, approach and many customs in worship and other religious observance, tendency toward particular personality and temperament types, etc., can all be quite pronounced, even profound. All the more so between Ashkenazim, Sefardim, Mizrahim, etc.
No, the only characteristic common to all Jews is the religion, Judaism. It defines a Jew as one born to a Jewish mother, or one who sincerely converts according to the stipulated requirements.[1]
Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro, in the recordings linked-to in my previous comment, explains this and how Zionism set-out to redefine the Jew in a way that divorced him from Judaism.
II
Stephen S. Wise was a Reform rabbi. "Reform Judaism" explicitly denies many of the most basic tenets of Judaism, such as the divine origin and authority of not only the rabbinic tradition but even the Pentateuch. Heresy.
III I note that you provide no source for the statements that you attribute to Wise. Searching for returned no results from primary sources, quite possibly not even to secondary sources. But plenty of instances, with no citations given, at the very type of web sites that one would expect the typical Unzian to frequent and, in service to his malignant obsessions, use material from without bothering to check its authenticity. I am not claiming that the quotes are not legitimate, only that I was unable to verify them. Regardless, it is inconsequential. Stephen S. Wise is no authority on (authentic; Orthodox) Judaism. And the assertion that Jews are a race is, as I demonstrated above, manifestly false.
IV Now, to the first quote that you attributed to Wise,
“I was a Jew before I was an American. I have been an American all of my life, 64 years. But I have been a Jew for 4.000 years.”
What is the problem with this one? How serious would any purported Christian or Muslim be if his primary identity and loyal were not to his respective religion before anything else? Why would or should this be different for a Jew?
Jews are obligated to be loyal and law-abiding citizens of our host countries.[2]
NOTES
[1]One who is born into the faith but becomes a heretic or apostate, remains liable and accountable but is largely expelled from the religious community. At least de jure; by strict law. In practice; de facto, the matter can be rather complicated, and the actual status of any given individual will vary , depending upon numerous factors. The critical point is that even when the Jew rejects the religion, it is still the religion that, by offering the only single characteristic that can be common to all, defines the Jew.
[2]The general rule is that we must obey the Law of the Land wherever we live unless doing so would violate our religious duty. Thankfully, in most places where sizable populations of Jews reside, it has for some time already been no more than rarely that such conflicts have presented themselves. In this vein, let me take the opportunity to once again reiterate that I feel a debt of gratitude to a mostly white, mostly Christian United States of America for the extraordinary tolerance, acceptance and kindness that, as Jews, it has shown myself, my family, and my people.
Related:
https://www.unz.com/isteve/new-york-times-too-many-white-students/#comment-3650829Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
Because they ask Kabbalic questions like this one.
Jews are what they are. It is not up to me to define them. Jews are eminently able to define themselves without my help. However, for Jews to divert attention from Jewish misdeeds by tying gentiles up in fruitless debates over who is and who is not a Jew is a tired old trick. Jews know who is Jewish: they only want us gentiles to be confused about the question.
Practically the only ambiguities one actually encounters in the United States as to who is Jewish and who is not regards [i] Jews’ converted gentile wives (and it is obvious that more than a few Jews are grumpy about those) and [ii] half-Jews whose gentile mothers never converted.
So you can call it a single ethnicity or multiple ethnicities as you like. You can even insist that every individual Jew is an ethny unto himself if you wish. I refuse to be distracted.
Point of order. (and logic)
If you are going to be a proper anti-Semite, you absolutely must define what you mean when you use the term "Jew".Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
(*And even that much is assuming one takes me at my word on the matter. My point simply being that as individuals posting at least pseudo-anonymously to a forum such as this, most of us have no way of actually knowing whether nearly any of us here actually is who he claims to be.)Coming from someone who swarmed down upon a reply I had made to a different individual, merely in order to launch into an utterly gratuitous, unprovoked dual attack upon a complete stranger and "Jews" collectively, that's rather rich. But that's not even the best. For you then went on to write, in your reply to iffen,
"This isn’t about me."Priceless. Aren't we told, by types just like yourself in the regard in question, that lack of self-awareness is endemic to Jews?Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
Catholics have missionaries?
You are messing with my mind.Replies: @RSDB, @Hibernian, @Wency
I believe there are 100+ million Catholics in Africa and that’s not all the result of pre-independence missionary activity. But I’ll admit I sympathize with your point because while I have a feeling in the abstract that Catholic missionary activity is happening, I have no idea what it looks like. I’ve never heard a Catholic talk about missions or have anything to do with missions while I personally know a fair number of Protestants who’ve been on multi-year mission trips (the short-term mission trips are more of a tourism thing with a religious gloss IMO).
Mormons are not Protestants.
They're not even Christians.Replies: @Dissident, @anon
Strange as it is to consider, I would suspect that the importance of Israel would probably rank higher for Evangelicals than Jewish Americans.Replies: @Barbarossa
Oops. I meant this comment to go in AE’s post “Israel, They Just Aren’t That Into You”. If you want to move it AE, feel free (not sure if that is possible), otherwise I’ll just re-post it.
That’s clever. Though I think every branch of Christianity would argue that it is more authentic to the Apostles than the others. Except for the sort of liberal Christians who would argue that the Apostles and especially Paul ruined the whole thing.
As I mentioned David Goldstein earlier, and as I don't really want to engage in an ecclesiological argument here, if you are looking for such an argument, you might find his efforts in that direction interesting, though not the rather awful design of whoever has put up the website below:
www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/goldstein-letters.htm
www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/goldstein77.htm
*And are, as far as Catholics are concerned, that is.Replies: @Wency
Well, it’s not really a question so much of being authentic to the apostles, as being or not a part of the society of which they were* members.
As I mentioned David Goldstein earlier, and as I don’t really want to engage in an ecclesiological argument here, if you are looking for such an argument, you might find his efforts in that direction interesting, though not the rather awful design of whoever has put up the website below:
http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/goldstein-letters.htm
http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/goldstein77.htm
*And are, as far as Catholics are concerned, that is.
I've long thought that the Catholic Church has a pretty good case for itself, in theory. I was exposed to Catholicism a lot growing up. It's not so much the theory that keeps me a Protestant -- it's practice that's the trouble. As they say: in theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, they ain't.Replies: @RSDB
In this particular case, it might be a distinction worth drawing, as the survey in question distinguished between “Jews by religion” and “Jews of no religion” and in some cases (example) there were some differences in answers.
As I mentioned David Goldstein earlier, and as I don't really want to engage in an ecclesiological argument here, if you are looking for such an argument, you might find his efforts in that direction interesting, though not the rather awful design of whoever has put up the website below:
www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/goldstein-letters.htm
www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/goldstein77.htm
*And are, as far as Catholics are concerned, that is.Replies: @Wency
No, I wasn’t really trying to argue that point out for Protestantism. But thanks, I’ll still take a look at that material when I have time.
I’ve long thought that the Catholic Church has a pretty good case for itself, in theory. I was exposed to Catholicism a lot growing up. It’s not so much the theory that keeps me a Protestant — it’s practice that’s the trouble. As they say: in theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, they ain’t.
I was very intrigued by your statement in a previous thread, which was cut off, that you chose your particular denomination because it seemed to be the best model; that is, the most likely successful model. Supposing we stipulate this for the present (I think it probably is a successful model, according to the calculations of men-- it is, as I mentioned at the time, the Muslim model, and there are over a billion Muslims), and stipulate likewise that the Church is a mass of weakness and folly, still the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men, though it be a stumbling-block to the Jews, and foolishness to the Gentiles.
It will seem like I am making a controversial argument here, which is why I am reluctant to post this sort of thing (besides that I am not good at framing these things and that I sound ridiculously smarmy); but I am not.You will probably find it less interesting in proportion to your not looking for such arguments.
If you are really in the market for apologetic I think you might find Msgr. Benson's Christ in the Church or Paradoxes of Catholicism more interesting along the lines you are discussing, and of course Chesterton is always worth reading though you likely already have.Replies: @Wency
It was also reported that the information Pollard gave Mossad was given to the USSR in order to get Jews out. The information included names of CIA assets who were liquidated. Israel claimed that it was a “mistake”. Such an ally.
The way it appears now is Z'rael is an OnlyFans e-thot we Simpmericans shower with gifts in exchange for nothing, not even a shout-out.
I admit I haven’t done a “deep dive” to learn how “our most important ally” benefits the USA.
The way it appears now is Z’rael is an OnlyFans e-thot we Simpmericans shower with gifts in exchange for nothing, not even a shout-out.
I write polite comments from a Jewish perspective, and AE puts me into 8 hour moderation typically, while Doom and other Hitler-level anti-Semites get freely published by Audacious Epigone.
Don't buy into the "genteel anti-Semitism" of this blog. That's just a front lol.Replies: @Wency, @anon, @A123, @Audacious Epigone
Honestly, if this were my show, I wouldn’t allow any posts like that one from Dr. Doom. That’s just verbal excrement.
But also I don’t think you need to read malice into AE’s actions here. It took me a while to get on the “auto-post” rotation. And he did let you post this criticism of him, even though it apparently went to moderation first. Pretty sure AE has both a full-time job other than blogging and a young family, unlike most of the main figures on Unz.com. So I’d cut him some slack on the moderation front.
I think that's a pretty clear indication of AEs sympathies. And he let this "criticism" through because he knows what I'm saying is correct and has no problem with it.
Nor should he have any problem with it. It's not really a criticism. Just a statement of fact and a caution to dissident to not waste his time here because he's deceived by the fake "genteel" tone of the conversation.
As long as everyone knows where one stands, it's all good. People have a right to hate Jews, but we all have a right to know where everyone stands before commiting energy to a discussion or to a blog.Replies: @iffen, @Dissident
Have you heard of the current year?
I write polite comments from a Jewish perspective, and AE puts me into 8 hour moderation typically, while Doom and other Hitler-level anti-Semites get freely published by Audacious Epigone.
Don't buy into the "genteel anti-Semitism" of this blog. That's just a front lol.Replies: @Wency, @anon, @A123, @Audacious Epigone
Lol, it gets worse.
Dude, it’s just comments. On a low-traffic blog. Run by a part-time blogger. Don’t take it so personally.
If it was my blog, DrDoom would have been bancanned a couple of years back. But…not my rodeo, so he’s not my monkey to worry about.
Anyway, it’s just comments.
It is not up to me to define them.
Point of order. (and logic)
If you are going to be a proper anti-Semite, you absolutely must define what you mean when you use the term “Jew”.
I personally know a fair number of Protestants who’ve been on multi-year mission trips
Mormons are not Protestants.
They’re not even Christians.
Wency:iffen:Etc, etc., etc.Replies: @iffen
Point of order. (and logic)
If you are going to be a proper anti-Semite, you absolutely must define what you mean when you use the term "Jew".Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
Plato would dispute your rule, but I shall be pleased to be an improper anti-Semite, if that helps.
This isn’t about me.
I have conceded the loathsomeness of SJW Elites sitting in Hollywood & NYC C-Suites. Clearly Woke U.S. Reform Branch Jews (and Woke Christians) are engaging in behaviour that should be criticized. Crafting better packaging for your beliefs could help move people to your side.
PEACE 😇Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
I write polite comments from a Jewish perspective, and AE puts me into 8 hour moderation typically, while Doom and other Hitler-level anti-Semites get freely published by Audacious Epigone.
Don't buy into the "genteel anti-Semitism" of this blog. That's just a front lol.Replies: @Wency, @anon, @A123, @Audacious Epigone
The “Commenters to Ignore” feature is valuable for cases like Dr. Doom. and Mulga NoBrain. Readers here are more likely to receive civil & intelligent discourse from Pet Rocks & Singing Potatoes.
Hopefully they are merely low-IQ TROLLS. It would be very sad if they actually believe the deraged & unhinged rants they post.
___
AE does not pend my comments to moderation, and I suspect that he would put the hammer down on me before you. There may be some sort of glitch with your site registration that is systematically routing comments to moderation. A few months ago, everything I posted went to the queue when I accidentally typed a comma instead of a period in my e-mail domain.
I would suggest trying a different browser, entering your screen name and e-mail from scratch. If that does not work, you can request assistance via the site bug thread:
https://www.unz.com/announcement/bugs-suggestions-2/
As a side note, occasionally your posts show up with a white background and are never highlighted “Blue for
NueNEW”.PEACE 😇
Look, I've always understood that as an unashamed Jew on this site I will have to fight with one hand tied behind my back. It is what it is. It's fully expected.
One does not expect fair play or nobility of spirit from anti-Semites. But, it is best if everyone understands where one stands, without pretense or prevarication.
AE's blog is obviously not for me - or any open unashamed Jew - and I was merely cluing dissident in to the fact that he shouldn't bother defending Jews here. Of course he can make his own choices and do so if he wishes.
Anyway, I intend for this to be my last comment on this blog and and there is little point continuing this discussion.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @A123, @anon
I realize this is the Pot calling the Kettle Black, but… One characteristic of effective communication is making a case within the audience’s Frame of Reference. Call it a hunch, you may have noticed my struggles with this concept.
I have conceded the loathsomeness of SJW Elites sitting in Hollywood & NYC C-Suites. Clearly Woke U.S. Reform Branch Jews (and Woke Christians) are engaging in behaviour that should be criticized. Crafting better packaging for your beliefs could help move people to your side.
PEACE 😇
I don’t blame him.
Blaming the Victim while Playing the Victim has always been their in-group strategy for acquiring power in a culture they didn’t create and don’t value, but insisted on attaching themselves to. Which is odd. Since if they’re so superior why didn’t they create their own civilization?
Of course, the implication in the above quote is that they’re not trusted because they’re not trustworthy. The truth is they’re not trusted because they might be more moral and see through the immorality of the other. That’s why the rabbi doesn’t trust them, and not just them.
But this just goes to show how paranoid he is. Because evangelicals aren’t necessarily more moral. What they are is incredibly gullible to the point of being totally clueless. So there’s no reason for the rabbis paranoia, at least not in this case. But, I guess he just can’t help himself.
In any event, the real point is that the rabbi and his in-group paranoia and lust for power is the reason for the culture of anti-white hatred we’re living in now. Whites have always been the obstacle to Jewish Supremacy Inc.
After all, who do you think has tattooed Shoot Me! on the back of white America? And that includes white children. It wasn’t BLM. They’re just proxies.
I also believe (and Catholics can correct me where I'm wrong) that official Catholic doctrine does not anywhere repeat the Dispensationalist error that Jews can achieve salvation without Christ.Replies: @iffen, @anarchyst, @dfordoom
I think you’re correct.
When people feel an aversion to a particular group of other people it’s a mistake to think that the aversion is something logically thought out. Often it’s a purely emotional thing, and sometimes it has a lot to do with how some groups present themselves. Evangelicals come across as very enthusiastic and very zealous. Religious or ideological enthusiasm and zeal does sometimes turn to fanaticism, even violent fanaticism. I’m not suggesting for one minute that Evangelicals are going to suddenly turn into violent fanatics, but I can see how Evangelicals could remind Jews of other religious/ideological groups that have done so.
So I can understand why Evangelicals make Jews uncomfortable. It’s the style of Evangelicals. They give the impression of being very emotional and people who are very emotional tend to be unpredictable. I can understand it because Evangelicals affect me the same way. Excessive enthusiasm and zeal makes me uncomfortable as well. I fear fanaticism, of any kind. That’s why I fear the Woke – because I see that potential for fanaticism and there is always the chance that fanaticism will turn violent.
If you’ve grown up surrounded by Evangelicals you probably don’t notice it and it probably doesn’t make you uncomfortable. You’ve met these people socially and you know they’re not murderous fanatics. But if you didn’t grow up in such an environment Evangelicals do come across as being a bit scary. Given their historical experiences there’s nothing strange in the fact that Jews would find them a bit scary.
I have conceded the loathsomeness of SJW Elites sitting in Hollywood & NYC C-Suites. Clearly Woke U.S. Reform Branch Jews (and Woke Christians) are engaging in behaviour that should be criticized. Crafting better packaging for your beliefs could help move people to your side.
PEACE 😇Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
Yeah, I’m not very good at that.
Apparently, I have addressed the problem by finding an audience, at The Unz Review, whose Frame of Reference spans the right half of the political spectrum in unusual breadth. In real life, I have addressed the problem largely by keeping my mouth shut outside my home.
I have mentioned The Epoch Times, before. Wow. If you want to see a narrow Frame of Reference among commenters, that is where to find it. And then there is a certain subscription-based Alt-Right forum which I have not mentioned in a while, but where the Frame of Reference is totally broken, even inverted, as in you get in trouble if you’re inadvertently inside the Frame of Reference.
But also I don't think you need to read malice into AE's actions here. It took me a while to get on the "auto-post" rotation. And he did let you post this criticism of him, even though it apparently went to moderation first. Pretty sure AE has both a full-time job other than blogging and a young family, unlike most of the main figures on Unz.com. So I'd cut him some slack on the moderation front.Replies: @AaronB
I used to be on auto-post. I was deliberately taken off. While various extreme anti-Semites were granted auto-post priveleges.
I think that’s a pretty clear indication of AEs sympathies. And he let this “criticism” through because he knows what I’m saying is correct and has no problem with it.
Nor should he have any problem with it. It’s not really a criticism. Just a statement of fact and a caution to dissident to not waste his time here because he’s deceived by the fake “genteel” tone of the conversation.
As long as everyone knows where one stands, it’s all good. People have a right to hate Jews, but we all have a right to know where everyone stands before commiting energy to a discussion or to a blog.
Hopefully they are merely low-IQ TROLLS. It would be very sad if they actually believe the deraged & unhinged rants they post.
___
AE does not pend my comments to moderation, and I suspect that he would put the hammer down on me before you. There may be some sort of glitch with your site registration that is systematically routing comments to moderation. A few months ago, everything I posted went to the queue when I accidentally typed a comma instead of a period in my e-mail domain.
I would suggest trying a different browser, entering your screen name and e-mail from scratch. If that does not work, you can request assistance via the site bug thread:
https://www.unz.com/announcement/bugs-suggestions-2/
As a side note, occasionally your posts show up with a white background and are never highlighted "Blue for
NueNEW".PEACE 😇Replies: @AaronB
Thanks for the advice, but I don’t think that’s it.
This is because on various blogs on Unz I have been taken off auto-post and put on moderation. So several other comments will appear before mine, meaning mine is no longer new. You will often have to scroll up to see my comments. I am also restricted in other ways by Ron to fewer comments per hour and fewer likes per hour.
Look, I’ve always understood that as an unashamed Jew on this site I will have to fight with one hand tied behind my back. It is what it is. It’s fully expected.
One does not expect fair play or nobility of spirit from anti-Semites. But, it is best if everyone understands where one stands, without pretense or prevarication.
AE’s blog is obviously not for me – or any open unashamed Jew – and I was merely cluing dissident in to the fact that he shouldn’t bother defending Jews here. Of course he can make his own choices and do so if he wishes.
Anyway, I intend for this to be my last comment on this blog and and there is little point continuing this discussion.
Reporting it as a possible bug might result in a fix. It is worth trying.
PEACE 😇
Did you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaPBhxXhprg
I think that's a pretty clear indication of AEs sympathies. And he let this "criticism" through because he knows what I'm saying is correct and has no problem with it.
Nor should he have any problem with it. It's not really a criticism. Just a statement of fact and a caution to dissident to not waste his time here because he's deceived by the fake "genteel" tone of the conversation.
As long as everyone knows where one stands, it's all good. People have a right to hate Jews, but we all have a right to know where everyone stands before commiting energy to a discussion or to a blog.Replies: @iffen, @Dissident
but we all have a right to know where everyone stands before commiting energy to a discussion or to a blog.
AB you need to stop sniffing the fumes from that moonbeam jar. You are headed toward another “breakdown.”
The schoolmarm has not taken you off auto approval because of a political issue. If he has not taken me off auto for all the coarse, crude and distasteful stuff that I post from time to time, I doubt anything you might have written would cause him to drop the hammer.
I have a list of all the anti-Semites and he is not on it, so move on with your accusations. Nonsense like this is a factor some cite in their justifications for anti-Semitism.
Look, I've always understood that as an unashamed Jew on this site I will have to fight with one hand tied behind my back. It is what it is. It's fully expected.
One does not expect fair play or nobility of spirit from anti-Semites. But, it is best if everyone understands where one stands, without pretense or prevarication.
AE's blog is obviously not for me - or any open unashamed Jew - and I was merely cluing dissident in to the fact that he shouldn't bother defending Jews here. Of course he can make his own choices and do so if he wishes.
Anyway, I intend for this to be my last comment on this blog and and there is little point continuing this discussion.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @A123, @anon
However, one does expect projection from Semites. Thanks for not disappointing the expectation.
You are lying, though. Fair play is a mere ruse to you, and you believe nobility of spirit to be nonexistent in the goyim, anyway.
Look, I've always understood that as an unashamed Jew on this site I will have to fight with one hand tied behind my back. It is what it is. It's fully expected.
One does not expect fair play or nobility of spirit from anti-Semites. But, it is best if everyone understands where one stands, without pretense or prevarication.
AE's blog is obviously not for me - or any open unashamed Jew - and I was merely cluing dissident in to the fact that he shouldn't bother defending Jews here. Of course he can make his own choices and do so if he wishes.
Anyway, I intend for this to be my last comment on this blog and and there is little point continuing this discussion.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @A123, @anon
There are only 2 or 3 site locations that use non-standard moderation. Thus, a tech issue could persist for some time.
Reporting it as a possible bug might result in a fix. It is worth trying.
PEACE 😇
Would be interested to see breakdown of which races are considered most guilty of discrimination. Eg wouldn’t surprise me if most Jews thought anti Semitism was mainly a white Evangelical Christian phenomenon rather than a Muslim, black or brown phenomenon.
Look, I've always understood that as an unashamed Jew on this site I will have to fight with one hand tied behind my back. It is what it is. It's fully expected.
One does not expect fair play or nobility of spirit from anti-Semites. But, it is best if everyone understands where one stands, without pretense or prevarication.
AE's blog is obviously not for me - or any open unashamed Jew - and I was merely cluing dissident in to the fact that he shouldn't bother defending Jews here. Of course he can make his own choices and do so if he wishes.
Anyway, I intend for this to be my last comment on this blog and and there is little point continuing this discussion.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @A123, @anon
Did you eat yet?
Did you?
When people feel an aversion to a particular group of other people it's a mistake to think that the aversion is something logically thought out. Often it's a purely emotional thing, and sometimes it has a lot to do with how some groups present themselves. Evangelicals come across as very enthusiastic and very zealous. Religious or ideological enthusiasm and zeal does sometimes turn to fanaticism, even violent fanaticism. I'm not suggesting for one minute that Evangelicals are going to suddenly turn into violent fanatics, but I can see how Evangelicals could remind Jews of other religious/ideological groups that have done so.
So I can understand why Evangelicals make Jews uncomfortable. It's the style of Evangelicals. They give the impression of being very emotional and people who are very emotional tend to be unpredictable. I can understand it because Evangelicals affect me the same way. Excessive enthusiasm and zeal makes me uncomfortable as well. I fear fanaticism, of any kind. That's why I fear the Woke - because I see that potential for fanaticism and there is always the chance that fanaticism will turn violent.
If you've grown up surrounded by Evangelicals you probably don't notice it and it probably doesn't make you uncomfortable. You've met these people socially and you know they're not murderous fanatics. But if you didn't grow up in such an environment Evangelicals do come across as being a bit scary. Given their historical experiences there's nothing strange in the fact that Jews would find them a bit scary.Replies: @Wency
To this I’ll add, from the outgroup perspective, I think every Evangelical extreme is mixed together and then imposed on the median, to create a pretty frightening caricature.
Which is to say, from the outgroup perspective, I think the median Evangelical is often simultaneously a “Left Behind” doomsday prophesier and a Paula White Prosperity Gospeler and a Pentecostal experiencing self-induced seizures on the floor every Sunday. When in truth, these groups very often don’t overlap or like each other that much, and as an entirely other sort of Evangelical from any of them, they all make me somewhat uncomfortable as well (though I suppose of that group, I like the doomsday prophesier the best and the Prosperity Gospeler the least; the Pentecostal I can live with so long as I don’t have to attend his services).
I don’t know how you expect to get anywhere by treating people as individuals rather than as mindless members of a group.
Nuance and distinctions are great but they just won’t work in politics.
• Hispanic is a terrible identifier
• First Generation Cuban is much better. The members of the group are identifiable, and reliably anti-socialist.
Also, groups change over time.
PEACE 😇
You see it all the time here on UR. The assumption that all leftists are exactly the same and have the same identical agenda, the assumption that all Jews are exactly the same and have the same identical agenda, the assumption that every single member of the elite thinks exactly the same way and has exactly the same agenda. We all do it. I'm aware that I do it.
It's just the nature of politics. Demonising your opponents is a useful strategy and you can't demonise people if you accept that they're individuals.Replies: @iffen
I've long thought that the Catholic Church has a pretty good case for itself, in theory. I was exposed to Catholicism a lot growing up. It's not so much the theory that keeps me a Protestant -- it's practice that's the trouble. As they say: in theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, they ain't.Replies: @RSDB
Thanks.
I was very intrigued by your statement in a previous thread, which was cut off, that you chose your particular denomination because it seemed to be the best model; that is, the most likely successful model. Supposing we stipulate this for the present (I think it probably is a successful model, according to the calculations of men– it is, as I mentioned at the time, the Muslim model, and there are over a billion Muslims), and stipulate likewise that the Church is a mass of weakness and folly, still the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men, though it be a stumbling-block to the Jews, and foolishness to the Gentiles.
It will seem like I am making a controversial argument here, which is why I am reluctant to post this sort of thing (besides that I am not good at framing these things and that I sound ridiculously smarmy); but I am not.
You will probably find it less interesting in proportion to your not looking for such arguments.
If you are really in the market for apologetic I think you might find Msgr. Benson’s Christ in the Church or Paradoxes of Catholicism more interesting along the lines you are discussing, and of course Chesterton is always worth reading though you likely already have.
Like many things in the real world, it is a compromise. Political groups must be small enough to have consistent beliefs, yet large enough to be reachable. For example:
• Hispanic is a terrible identifier
• First Generation Cuban is much better. The members of the group are identifiable, and reliably anti-socialist.
Also, groups change over time.
PEACE 😇
That’s how people operate. Whatever your own political position might be you’re going to treat groups that you perceive as hostile as monolithic and you’re going to get indignant when your political opponents treat your own group as monolithic.
You see it all the time here on UR. The assumption that all leftists are exactly the same and have the same identical agenda, the assumption that all Jews are exactly the same and have the same identical agenda, the assumption that every single member of the elite thinks exactly the same way and has exactly the same agenda. We all do it. I’m aware that I do it.
It’s just the nature of politics. Demonising your opponents is a useful strategy and you can’t demonise people if you accept that they’re individuals.
I think that's a pretty clear indication of AEs sympathies. And he let this "criticism" through because he knows what I'm saying is correct and has no problem with it.
Nor should he have any problem with it. It's not really a criticism. Just a statement of fact and a caution to dissident to not waste his time here because he's deceived by the fake "genteel" tone of the conversation.
As long as everyone knows where one stands, it's all good. People have a right to hate Jews, but we all have a right to know where everyone stands before commiting energy to a discussion or to a blog.Replies: @iffen, @Dissident
I am not ready to conclude that the host of this blog, Audacious Epigone, is malicious, or even hostile toward Jews.[1] Such a conclusion would be very much at odds with my observations and experience here. (Though it has been a while since I last followed this blog with any regularity). I am, however, at a loss to make sense of this apparent complete tolerance of the blatant, unambiguous violation of one of his own explicit rules for commenting here that he has conspicuously posted at the top of the comment box on each page.
It has now been nearly four days since I posted my previous comment calling-out Dr. Doom‘s repeated flagrant violations of said rules. His comment remains, and we have, as of this writing, seen no response here from our host, AE. If the violation in-question were a first-time offense, we could perhaps still presume that it had somehow slipped past AE’s oversight and that he had yet to have a chance to notice and take action upon it. As I pointed-out in my previous comment, however, any number of similar examples can be found in the offending commenter’s archive.
Note that I am not necessarily even suggesting that such comments should not be allowed in the first place.
I appreciate where you are coming from, and I take your gesture as one of sincerity and goodwill.
I can certainly understand that. Nonetheless, I am sorry to hear it.
My familiarity with your comments is extremely limited, as our paths here have, thus-far at least, crossed only rarely.[3] But thoughtful, reasonable and intelligent dissenting views, expressed responsibly and civilly, can be quite valuable. That is true in general. Points-of-view and perspectives that are favorably or sympathetically inclined toward Jews and Judaism would seem particularly underrepresented here. At the same time, I can certainly appreciate how wearying and even demoralizing it can be to confront and expose oneself to the kind of hostility and venom that has been evidenced in this very thread, in some of the replies that were posted to my comment as well as to yours.
Regardless, I wish you well.
[1] Or at least not that he harbors any particular hostility toward Jews that I would consider beyond the limits of what could possibly plausibly be considered within the realms of reason, rationality and decency. Everything is, of course, relative.
[2]I’m thinking, especially, of one individual-in-particular. Someone who completely unprovoked, viciously, opportunistically and utterly gratuitously chose to parasitically attach himself to the perfectly civil, substantive, topical, measured and sincere reply I had made to a completely different individual’s comment– merely in order to vomit forth some of the putrid excrement and venom that seethe within and consume the interloper.
Dehumanizing language? In part. You bet. (What’s sauce for the goose…) The reasonable and astute reader will surely recognize, however, a fundamental, critical difference between my invective here and that which provoked it. The former (i.e., my response) was based solely and entirely upon the views and behavior exhibited by the individuals at whom said invective was directed; completely irrespective of whatever racial, ethnic, religious or national demographic said individuals may belong to. The latter (i.e., that which provoked my response) was expressly predicated upon the condemnation and, in at least one of the cases-in-question, dehumanizing of an entire, broad demographic– one defined (again, in the expressed view of at least one of the offenders) by the immutable characteristic of one’s ancestry.
[3]I had a quick look at your comment archive and read, with considerable interest, your recent post to Anatoly Karlin’s blog in which you described your background. Although our backgrounds, views, and lifestyles obviously differ greatly from each other, I suspect that we might nonetheless find a fair deal of convergence between our respective areas of interest and concern.
AE's blog has been on the whole a haven of sanity on UR. I hope that doesn't change.Replies: @Wency
I don't remember reading anything particularly objectionable you wrote here, so I am unable to compare your doing so with anything anyone else said.
However, I do recall that your only response to the purpose at issue here on a thread of Mr. Sailer's in which a number of comments involved extremely silly and sometimes bizarre vilification of South Asians, as well as of Jews, was to tacitly agree ("I'm flattered") with a comment that suggested that, though Jews as a class are undesirable, South Asians are at least twice as bad.
It would clearly be ridiculous for me to use this to suggest anything about your attitude towards South Asians, wouldn't you agree?Replies: @Dissident
My impression, and it’s only an impression, is that the atmosphere on Unz Review as a whole has been getting crazier and more vitriolic. I suspect it may be a reaction to Trump’s defeat. I also get the impression that the atmosphere on UR has been getting more and more detached from reality.
AE’s blog has been on the whole a haven of sanity on UR. I hope that doesn’t change.
The UR crowd used to exist in a certain detached place from electoral politics, which is where I'm happiest existing. And then it became (and remains) emotionally involved over Trump -- a man who couldn't have done that much to turn the tide even if he was what his greatest admirers thought he was -- which he most certainly was not.Replies: @dfordoom
You see it all the time here on UR. The assumption that all leftists are exactly the same and have the same identical agenda, the assumption that all Jews are exactly the same and have the same identical agenda, the assumption that every single member of the elite thinks exactly the same way and has exactly the same agenda. We all do it. I'm aware that I do it.
It's just the nature of politics. Demonising your opponents is a useful strategy and you can't demonise people if you accept that they're individuals.Replies: @iffen
Demonising your opponents is a useful strategy and you can’t demonise people if you accept that they’re individuals.
I used to think that choosing up sides based on ideology or political ideals was “superior” to doing so based on race, ethnicity or religion. I’m definitely not sure about that these days.
Graham Greene said that human nature isn't black and white, it's black and grey. I think that could be applied to politics as well.
There isn't a single political faction these days about which I'd feel comfortable saying, "This is my team and I support it 100%."
I hit the target, did I? This is the nicest compliment anyone has paid me in a month.
You forgot to call attention to projection.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
to parasitically attach himself
You forgot to call attention to projection.
You forgot to call attention to projection.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
I didn’t actually forget, but since he was doing so nicely on his own, I thought it better to follow your good example and be brief about it.
Yeah. It’s tempting to divide the world into ideological/political Good Guys and Bad Guys. These days I look at the people that I used to think were the Good Guys and they don’t look so good any more. And I look at the Bad Guys and sometimes they seem to have a point. Even worse, the Good Guys turn out to be disastrously wrong about some things and the Bad Guys turn out to be right about some things.
Graham Greene said that human nature isn’t black and white, it’s black and grey. I think that could be applied to politics as well.
There isn’t a single political faction these days about which I’d feel comfortable saying, “This is my team and I support it 100%.”
I was very intrigued by your statement in a previous thread, which was cut off, that you chose your particular denomination because it seemed to be the best model; that is, the most likely successful model. Supposing we stipulate this for the present (I think it probably is a successful model, according to the calculations of men-- it is, as I mentioned at the time, the Muslim model, and there are over a billion Muslims), and stipulate likewise that the Church is a mass of weakness and folly, still the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men, though it be a stumbling-block to the Jews, and foolishness to the Gentiles.
It will seem like I am making a controversial argument here, which is why I am reluctant to post this sort of thing (besides that I am not good at framing these things and that I sound ridiculously smarmy); but I am not.You will probably find it less interesting in proportion to your not looking for such arguments.
If you are really in the market for apologetic I think you might find Msgr. Benson's Christ in the Church or Paradoxes of Catholicism more interesting along the lines you are discussing, and of course Chesterton is always worth reading though you likely already have.Replies: @Wency
I don’t think I’ve gone much into the reasons I chose my particular church, which are idiosyncratic and probably not very interesting.
I think the argument I was making was more along the lines of defending the US Protestant model, which is easy to attack because it’s obviously a very ugly thing for all its fragmentation and oddball heresies. But counter-intuitively, it has strengths that are difficult to overcome, and within its main thread it also has a certain underlying resilience against heresy (as Calvin and Luther would understand the term, not necessarily as Catholics would).
The notion of a single, central church, a repository of all theological knowledge and wisdom, a unified front for Christianity against all its enemies, sounds much more appealing on the surface than the US Protestant model. And it’s also appealing to understand Scriptural references to “the church” as the Catholics do — referring to, you know, The Church. As opposed to how Protestants understand it, as the amorphous collection of all believers.
If I were living on Pluto and asked which of those models sound better to me, I’d of course say the Catholic model. It’s only because I live on Earth that I decided against it.
But I also don’t think the story is finished: we’ll need to assess the wreckage in a few decades, to see who is still standing and who is prostrating before the Rainbow Flag. If the Roman Catholic Church is practically all that remains, then the RCC will have made its point, and I imagine I’ll be Catholic. If the Rainbow Flag flies over St. Peter’s Basilica and the Pope officiates gay weddings and the only Catholics who remain faithful are SSPX and US TradCath home schoolers and the like, then I think the Reformation will have made its point — because such so-called schismatic “Catholics” would, in practice, be simply another part of the tapestry of US Protestantism (along similar lines, I would argue that Eastern Orthodoxy, as practiced in the US and particularly insofar as it’s populated by converts, is also largely just another flavor of US Protestantism).
The strength of US Protestantism is in its adaptability and experimentation existing alongside a tendency for the Five Solae to remain a sort of gravity well that keeps the main thread from going too far of course (even as various radical heretical experiments can sometimes blast out of its pull). Moreover, certain threads of US Protestantism can continue to persist in relative obscurity as reservoirs of potentially useful memes, until the moment calls for them to burst forth and introduce their memetic strengths to the rest of the ecosystem.
Methodism and Baptism, both of them minority positions in England, came to America and many decades later found fertile soil to become the dominant strains of American Protestantism. Nowadays, Presbyterianism — an essentially 16th century idea and never a dominant strain within US Protestantism — has displayed outsized strength in recent decades and converted much of an Evangelicalism that was in need of a more systematic theological rigor over to Reformed Theology.
Along the same lines, I continue to speculate, when in my optimistic mode, that maybe the Anabaptists still have a role left to play in shaping the future of US Protestantism for good. Perhaps they’ve sat aside as an irrelevant force for 500 years until the unforeseen circumstances of 21st century anti-natalism are causing them to emerge as a significant percentage of the faithful purely by way of natural increase and thereby serve as a model for others trying to remember the forgotten ways and joys of traditional Christian family life.
I’ll recommend one book that I’ve only started to read but has proved very interesting so far and seems to largely align with my thesis: The Democratization of American Christianity by Nathan Hatch. He’s a Reformed Protestant professor who actually taught at Notre Dame for a number of years.
What you said earlier was I’m an Evangelical Protestant because in my experience it’s the least bad model, which fits in with your thoughts here; only, even if we grant this, it is a question of whether one sees oneself in the position of choosing among "models" at all.Insofar as it is populated by converts, they would disagree with you.Thanks; I don't read very much apologetic these days but when and if I do I will keep this recommendation in mind....I have tried to avoid too much ecclesiological sermonizing here; it is always a temptation to jump in a little too hot, as I may have done in the comment I just posted previously.Replies: @Wency
AE's blog has been on the whole a haven of sanity on UR. I hope that doesn't change.Replies: @Wency
Yeah, it’s the combination of Trump’s defeat and the vaccine I think. I’m a heretic in both these measures: I think that Biden would have won in a “totally fair” election, even if some cheating occurred and always occurs, and I’m vaccinated.
The UR crowd used to exist in a certain detached place from electoral politics, which is where I’m happiest existing. And then it became (and remains) emotionally involved over Trump — a man who couldn’t have done that much to turn the tide even if he was what his greatest admirers thought he was — which he most certainly was not.
I think the Right made a huge mistake politicising the virus. And politicising the vaccine issue. And politicising mask-wearing.
Well, you have a point, but where were you on the last Twinkie and Rosie thread?
Evidently the rule you mentioned is applied with a rather light hand; and since, as far as I can tell, you have no particular desire of your own to have the offending comment in this thread removed, your puzzlement seems to be of the kind that could be resolved by changing the words “will not” to “may not” in the moderation-blurb.
This reader will certainly have to be more astute than me, to figure out what you can possibly be referring to in this rather elliptical section.
I don’t remember reading anything particularly objectionable you wrote here, so I am unable to compare your doing so with anything anyone else said.
However, I do recall that your only response to the purpose at issue here on a thread of Mr. Sailer’s in which a number of comments involved extremely silly and sometimes bizarre vilification of South Asians, as well as of Jews, was to tacitly agree (“I’m flattered”) with a comment that suggested that, though Jews as a class are undesirable, South Asians are at least twice as bad.
It would clearly be ridiculous for me to use this to suggest anything about your attitude towards South Asians, wouldn’t you agree?
(Incidentally, thank you, as well, for your endorsement of a recent comment of mine in a different iSteve thread. And for remaining civil, reasonable and responsible throughout this reply that I am presently responding to.)1.) Perhaps you had not noticed but it has been some time already since I last commented at this blog with any frequency or regularity. Why would you assume that I even saw any of the comments to which you refer? For any given thread, if I had not commented in it, how could you know whether or not I had even viewed it?2.) Now it so happens that I do recall seeing at least one thread with a number of rather ugly exchanges between Rosie and Twinkie, at least some of which were at least not far off from the level of egregiousness as the ones you have just quoted were. I winced, and considered chiming-in but don't think I ultimately did. I do recall iffen, at least, express a reaction not terribly dissimilar from my own. There were also at least two other occasions I can distinctly recall when I did comment upon the ugliness of the invective used by a commenter. (Incidentally, as best as I can recall, in neither case was the target of abuse either Jews or Judaism.) 3.) All the above said, I must also say that I reject the very premise to begin with; the implication that the validity or credibility of my present objection would somehow be diminished if I had not voiced similar objections to similar offenses at any past point.
Here's a handy link to my previous comment for reference.I was acknowledging that I did resort to some language that could be considered dehumanizing in the paragraph the above is quoted from. I then immediatedly went on, however, to point-out the critical distinction between my invective, and the comment I was responding-to. (Namely, to reiterate in a nutshell, that mine iwas directed at the particular behavior and views of an individual who had attacked me, and was completely irrespective of his race, ethnicity, religion or national background or identity.)That would certainly be a vast improvement over the present glaring contradiction between de jure and de facto, one that makes a complete mockery out of the former. Note the refreshing transparency and honesty in Steve Sailer's "Comments are moderated at whim" disclosure.Replies: @RSDB
Thanks for the detailed discussion of your motivations and sentiments.
What you said earlier was I’m an Evangelical Protestant because in my experience it’s the least bad model, which fits in with your thoughts here; only, even if we grant this, it is a question of whether one sees oneself in the position of choosing among “models” at all.
Insofar as it is populated by converts, they would disagree with you.
Thanks; I don’t read very much apologetic these days but when and if I do I will keep this recommendation in mind.
…
I have tried to avoid too much ecclesiological sermonizing here; it is always a temptation to jump in a little too hot, as I may have done in the comment I just posted previously.
The UR crowd used to exist in a certain detached place from electoral politics, which is where I'm happiest existing. And then it became (and remains) emotionally involved over Trump -- a man who couldn't have done that much to turn the tide even if he was what his greatest admirers thought he was -- which he most certainly was not.Replies: @dfordoom
It seems to be.
I also think Biden would have won anyway.
The emotional involvement with Trump was definitely excessive. There were so many people who truly believed he was going to drain the swamp. It was quite sad to see the reactions of stunned disbelief when he started stacking his Administration with swamp creatures and neocons. A lot of people just couldn’t process it. Remember all those people insisting that it was just Trump playing 4D chess?
I think the Right made a huge mistake politicising the virus. And politicising the vaccine issue. And politicising mask-wearing.
What you said earlier was I’m an Evangelical Protestant because in my experience it’s the least bad model, which fits in with your thoughts here; only, even if we grant this, it is a question of whether one sees oneself in the position of choosing among "models" at all.Insofar as it is populated by converts, they would disagree with you.Thanks; I don't read very much apologetic these days but when and if I do I will keep this recommendation in mind....I have tried to avoid too much ecclesiological sermonizing here; it is always a temptation to jump in a little too hot, as I may have done in the comment I just posted previously.Replies: @Wency
Yes, perhaps implicit in what I called “choosing a model” is a tacit disavowal of any particular denomination’s claim to offering an exclusive path to salvation through Christ. If I thought any denomination did offer that, then I would be a fool to choose otherwise. So instead, I’m first choosing a system of competing denominations, before then choosing a particular church.
Well, an old friend of mine is a convert to Orthodoxy, and I think he half-agrees with me. Yes, technically Orthodoxy frames itself as something rather different, and there are important differences, but in practice, its energy in the US among converts is largely a Protestant energy, which is entirely unlike its energy in its native environment.
I should be clear — Hatch didn’t really write an apologetic. It’s a history of American Protestantism from around 1776-1830. Probably a sympathetic history in that it views the developments as ultimately more good than bad, but still a serious history, and I would think a useful work for anyone trying to understand how and why Protestantism evolved differently here.
Considering how many billions of people, including archaic types, have lived, just how lucky would one person have to be to stumble upon "The One True Way"?
...
...
...
...
...
As for the rest, I suppose it depends on whether you choose your religion, or it chooses you; or, as to paths, whether the Truth which is the Way can only be from the living Body of Christ, where alone are the words of eternal life, and it seems curious to shop around denominations for a likely successful one, in a religion which is built partly on a sudden and shocking apparent failure. Sorry; I sound, again, like I am arguing or preaching here, but I do not intend to do either on this topic.Sure, I like history; I would probably read more of it if I weren't wasting time on here.
I don't remember reading anything particularly objectionable you wrote here, so I am unable to compare your doing so with anything anyone else said.
However, I do recall that your only response to the purpose at issue here on a thread of Mr. Sailer's in which a number of comments involved extremely silly and sometimes bizarre vilification of South Asians, as well as of Jews, was to tacitly agree ("I'm flattered") with a comment that suggested that, though Jews as a class are undesirable, South Asians are at least twice as bad.
It would clearly be ridiculous for me to use this to suggest anything about your attitude towards South Asians, wouldn't you agree?Replies: @Dissident
I was being entirely facetious there. My mock flattery was at being considered, as a Jew, in the view of Mr. Blank, only half as “bad” as South Asians. No endorsement was intended on my part of any of Mr. Blank’s blanket statements concerning South Asians. I appreciate your providing me with the opportunity to clarify. I wonder how many other readers may have misconstrued my intent in that comment, as you appear to have done.
(Incidentally, thank you, as well, for your endorsement of a recent comment of mine in a different iSteve thread. And for remaining civil, reasonable and responsible throughout this reply that I am presently responding to.)
1.) Perhaps you had not noticed but it has been some time already since I last commented at this blog with any frequency or regularity. Why would you assume that I even saw any of the comments to which you refer? For any given thread, if I had not commented in it, how could you know whether or not I had even viewed it?
2.) Now it so happens that I do recall seeing at least one thread with a number of rather ugly exchanges between Rosie and Twinkie, at least some of which were at least not far off from the level of egregiousness as the ones you have just quoted were. I winced, and considered chiming-in but don’t think I ultimately did. I do recall iffen, at least, express a reaction not terribly dissimilar from my own. There were also at least two other occasions I can distinctly recall when I did comment upon the ugliness of the invective used by a commenter. (Incidentally, as best as I can recall, in neither case was the target of abuse either Jews or Judaism.)
3.) All the above said, I must also say that I reject the very premise to begin with; the implication that the validity or credibility of my present objection would somehow be diminished if I had not voiced similar objections to similar offenses at any past point.
Here’s a handy link to my previous comment for reference.
I was acknowledging that I did resort to some language that could be considered dehumanizing in the paragraph the above is quoted from. I then immediatedly went on, however, to point-out the critical distinction between my invective, and the comment I was responding-to. (Namely, to reiterate in a nutshell, that mine iwas directed at the particular behavior and views of an individual who had attacked me, and was completely irrespective of his race, ethnicity, religion or national background or identity.)
That would certainly be a vast improvement over the present glaring contradiction between de jure and de facto, one that makes a complete mockery out of the former. Note the refreshing transparency and honesty in Steve Sailer’s “Comments are moderated at whim” disclosure.
"Where were you" was not intended as some sort of demand to give an account of yourself. Perhaps I should have phrased it something like: "you should see this other thread"; I only meant to point out the very light touch of the hand of censorship here, and that, as you mention in your own response, it is not only Jews abuse of whom can slip past the censors.OK. I don't think I would object to those phrases; I can imagine a senator or parliamentarian using language at least as strong, but thanks for clarifying.It would, though I suppose our host has memories of "salutary neglect" from history class.
any particular denomination’s claim to offering an exclusive path to salvation through Christ.
Considering how many billions of people, including archaic types, have lived, just how lucky would one person have to be to stumble upon “The One True Way”?
If there is anything “Kabbalic” here, it would be entirely within your fevered imagination.
Observator had posted a comment in which he presented quotes averring that Jews are a race. It was in direct response to that, that I posted the comment that I did, in which I challenged and presented arguments against the assertion that Jews are a race. Perhaps one or more parts of that salient and germane chronology had slipped your notice or memory when you wrote your comment.
You can’t have it both ways, now, can you? If one is going to hold an entire demographic or entity collectively accountable; if one is going to ascribe blame and malicious intent to it; to condemn, criticize, and castigate it,
1.) No one is asking for your “help”.
2.)The reality is that there is no universally agreed upon criteria for defining a Jew– even (and, at times especially) among those who self-identify as Jews. And that the question has real, and often quite profound implications and consequences, for those of us who do consider ourselves Jews.
What are these, but wild assertions? Assertions that a priori and collectively assume bad faith and malicious intent on the part of an entire demographic. Assertions for which you provide no evidence, or even supporting arguments. Assertions that, for any number of reasons, are neither objectively reasonable nor logically parsimonious.
To begin with, the implications and consequences of the question of who is a Jew, even solely for those of us who identify as such, are sufficiently great to provide an entirely adequate motive for us to concern and occupy ourselves greatly with said question.
Converted? By whom? Have you even any idea of how much dispute and controversy there is over what qualifies as a valid conversion in the first place? Conversion for an ulterior motive, such as marriage, is invalid to begin with. At least, that’s the more stringent Orthodox view, according to which all non-Orthodox conversions, and more than a few nominally Orthodox ones as well, are completely invalid.
How much familiarity do you even have with Jews in the US that you are able to make any such a blanket, unqualified statement about them that begins with, “Practically the only ambiguities one actually encounters in the United States”? How many Jews in the US have you ever met or interacted with? From how many different communities, branches, strains, or sects?
I might also add here that I am not “Jews”; I am but one, individual Jew.* To the best of my awareness, we have never met, nor even interacted with each other online to any considerable extent. Even if there were a clear consensus among “Jews” on any given question, it would be neither reasonable nor responsible to simply assume, a priori, that I would necessarily always be in sync with or representative of said consensus.
(*And even that much is assuming one takes me at my word on the matter. My point simply being that as individuals posting at least pseudo-anonymously to a forum such as this, most of us have no way of actually knowing whether nearly any of us here actually is who he claims to be.)
Coming from someone who swarmed down upon a reply I had made to a different individual, merely in order to launch into an utterly gratuitous, unprovoked dual attack upon a complete stranger and “Jews” collectively, that’s rather rich.
But that’s not even the best. For you then went on to write, in your reply to iffen,
“This isn’t about me.”
Priceless.
Aren’t we told, by types just like yourself in the regard in question, that lack of self-awareness is endemic to Jews?
(*And even that much is assuming one takes me at my word on the matter. My point simply being that as individuals posting at least pseudo-anonymously to a forum such as this, most of us have no way of actually knowing whether nearly any of us here actually is who he claims to be.)Coming from someone who swarmed down upon a reply I had made to a different individual, merely in order to launch into an utterly gratuitous, unprovoked dual attack upon a complete stranger and "Jews" collectively, that's rather rich. But that's not even the best. For you then went on to write, in your reply to iffen,
"This isn’t about me."Priceless. Aren't we told, by types just like yourself in the regard in question, that lack of self-awareness is endemic to Jews?Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
Any idea? Yes, but not much. That is mostly an internal problem for the Jews.
Quite many. Probably more than 80 percent of Americans have, as it happens. The number would depend on how well you would want me to know them to count them.
I have been a guest in three Jewish homes, in two of which I was given a meal, with fine hospitality in each instance. Once I had a Jewish family to a meal in my home, and once a single Jewish man. (The Jews I visited were different ones than the ones that visited me.) Not that you or any other reader especially cares with whom I have dined, but the modest numbers might afford you a rough notion of my degree of acquaintance.
Strange to say, but I have rather liked most of the specific Jews I have known, especially my freshman college roommate, a great guy. The second best general-practice physician my wife and I have consulted is Jewish: we were sorry when he retired.
Except one Conservative I did not know particularly well (he was the one who invited me into his home but not for a meal), all were Reform or atheist as far as I am aware. I have no idea about the aforementioned physician. In one city in which I have lived, the Orthodox were around but, for various reasons, I had little cause to interact with them. Other places I have lived had few or no Orthodox that I knew. Does this answer your question?
I have never lived in or near Brooklyn, though. That must be a different experience.
In the interest of accuracy: I forgot one. The hospitality was unremarkable in that instance, but she did feed me along with the rest of the softball team on which her husband and I played, so if you count her then that makes four. Her husband was a gentile.
I didn’t really know her, and rather than a proper home the place was an apartment out of which the couple soon moved, and I never heard what became of the couple after that, so maybe that doesn’t count.
(Incidentally, thank you, as well, for your endorsement of a recent comment of mine in a different iSteve thread. And for remaining civil, reasonable and responsible throughout this reply that I am presently responding to.)1.) Perhaps you had not noticed but it has been some time already since I last commented at this blog with any frequency or regularity. Why would you assume that I even saw any of the comments to which you refer? For any given thread, if I had not commented in it, how could you know whether or not I had even viewed it?2.) Now it so happens that I do recall seeing at least one thread with a number of rather ugly exchanges between Rosie and Twinkie, at least some of which were at least not far off from the level of egregiousness as the ones you have just quoted were. I winced, and considered chiming-in but don't think I ultimately did. I do recall iffen, at least, express a reaction not terribly dissimilar from my own. There were also at least two other occasions I can distinctly recall when I did comment upon the ugliness of the invective used by a commenter. (Incidentally, as best as I can recall, in neither case was the target of abuse either Jews or Judaism.) 3.) All the above said, I must also say that I reject the very premise to begin with; the implication that the validity or credibility of my present objection would somehow be diminished if I had not voiced similar objections to similar offenses at any past point.
Here's a handy link to my previous comment for reference.I was acknowledging that I did resort to some language that could be considered dehumanizing in the paragraph the above is quoted from. I then immediatedly went on, however, to point-out the critical distinction between my invective, and the comment I was responding-to. (Namely, to reiterate in a nutshell, that mine iwas directed at the particular behavior and views of an individual who had attacked me, and was completely irrespective of his race, ethnicity, religion or national background or identity.)That would certainly be a vast improvement over the present glaring contradiction between de jure and de facto, one that makes a complete mockery out of the former. Note the refreshing transparency and honesty in Steve Sailer's "Comments are moderated at whim" disclosure.Replies: @RSDB
I enjoy reading your comments for the most part. I didn’t think your comment “I’m flattered” was egregious (after all, I certainly haven’t denounced anybody over there either), only that it could be interpreted that way; I was trying to show that such an interpretation could be wrong or at least uncharitable.
“Where were you” was not intended as some sort of demand to give an account of yourself. Perhaps I should have phrased it something like: “you should see this other thread”; I only meant to point out the very light touch of the hand of censorship here, and that, as you mention in your own response, it is not only Jews abuse of whom can slip past the censors.
OK. I don’t think I would object to those phrases; I can imagine a senator or parliamentarian using language at least as strong, but thanks for clarifying.
It would, though I suppose our host has memories of “salutary neglect” from history class.
The question with your Orthodox companions is not so much whether you are alike in the things you consider important, but whether you consider the same things important.
…
…
…
…
…
As for the rest, I suppose it depends on whether you choose your religion, or it chooses you; or, as to paths, whether the Truth which is the Way can only be from the living Body of Christ, where alone are the words of eternal life, and it seems curious to shop around denominations for a likely successful one, in a religion which is built partly on a sudden and shocking apparent failure. Sorry; I sound, again, like I am arguing or preaching here, but I do not intend to do either on this topic.
Sure, I like history; I would probably read more of it if I weren’t wasting time on here.
Mormons are not Protestants.
They're not even Christians.Replies: @Dissident, @anon
(And a number of other comments from several other individuals, some excerpted below[1] the long, modified one immediately below.)
Quote above: Text of V. K. Ovelund’s June 4, 2021 at 12:52 pm GMT comment, with obvious modifications to make a point. Turnabout is fair play.
Et tu, iffen?
[1]
Wency:
iffen:
Etc, etc., etc.
Just a bit of trolling. As anti-Semites go he doesn't seem to be that bad, but I think I can understand you taking a different view.
I will disagree with you when you say that being a Jew is just a religion. It's not the same as just being a Christian.Replies: @Dissident
Wency:iffen:Etc, etc., etc.Replies: @iffen
Et tu, iffen?
Just a bit of trolling. As anti-Semites go he doesn’t seem to be that bad, but I think I can understand you taking a different view.
I will disagree with you when you say that being a Jew is just a religion. It’s not the same as just being a Christian.
NOTE Concerning my previous comment, in which I satirized V.K. Ovelund’s initial reply to me in this thread:
I hope it is clear to everyone that I was engaging in a form of satire/irony in order to make a point. I absolutely do not believe what I altered Mr. Ovelund’s text to read. I have no objection to any of the other comments concerning Christianity and related matters that I had quoted. I was merely creating a sort of inverse of what VKO had done to me; demonstrating that the two were like two sides of the same coin; that for someone to seriously make a comment such as the one I was ironically making, would be little, if any, different, fundamentally, than what VKO’s had done.
~ ~ ~
That’s too broad and unqualified of a statement. While it may more-or-less accurately describe many American Jews, it most certainly does not describe all or even necessarily nearly American Jews.
1.) It completely excludes nearly all Orthodox Jews who, while definitely still a minority, are a rapidly-growing and far from insignificant one.
2.) Even among the non-Orthodox, and even the completely secular, the matter is not so simple. For, if nothing else, one must consider that many such Jews equate what I shall broadly refer to as liberal, Leftist, and “social justice” values with Jewish and even Judaic ones. More than that, for many, and perhaps even most non-Orthodox forms of (so-called) Judaism and/or Jewish identity the aforementioned values, ideology and activism have actually supplanted any traditional form of Judaism.
That’s a wildly, recklessly sweeping, blanket, unqualified statement. The assertion that American Jews hate Christians, certainly, is very much at odds with my experience– both as a secular Jew, as I was raised, as well as an Orthodox one, as I have lived since at least the age of fifteen or so.
I must run now. This comment of mine from November 2019 may be of interest to some. In it, I elaborate a little on my views on both Christian-Jewish as well as Muslim-Jewish relations.
Just a bit of trolling. As anti-Semites go he doesn't seem to be that bad, but I think I can understand you taking a different view.
I will disagree with you when you say that being a Jew is just a religion. It's not the same as just being a Christian.Replies: @Dissident
Thanks. I actually do consider the matter somewhat more complex than I had allowed for in my previous comments. Must run, perhaps will elaborate another time. Take care, peace and blessings.
Mormons are not Protestants.
They're not even Christians.Replies: @Dissident, @anon
These are both factual and accurate statements. Should not be controversial to anyone who is knowledgable regarding any form of Christianity and the LDS church.
How could you possibly begin to comprehend the history of modern political thought in Europe without understanding the Jew Question?
Do the overpaid wacko professors say the Dreyfus Affair was about the youthful antics of some actor on Martha's Vineyard during the filming of that Benchley shark movie?
What gives around here?
Two baby boomer dopes with Kraut names wrote a book about the Israel Lobby and it was as dry and academic as you could get. People had to sip ale while reading this Israel Lobby book because it was so plain and dry and non-juicy.
This book says that Jews with loot who put the interests of Israel over and above the interests of the USA have a disproportionate amount of power over foreign policy in the Middle East and West Asia.
It's true that evangelicals are treasonous boobs who put the interests of the millstone client state of Israel over and above the interests of the USA and you can see scumbag weasels like Teddy Cruz and Josh Hawley and Tom Cotton crying about Israel to get the Israel First evangelical vote. New Hampshire is a crucial presidential primary state that is highly disinterested in screaming and crying and caterwauling about the millstone client state of Israel.
It is clear that Jews have a disproportionate control of the mass media and the advertising agencies and academia and other power centers of thought control and the rancid Republican Party cowards won't talk honestly about breaking up the mass media to prevent Jews from controlling the political and cultural discourse in the USA.
The cowards in the rancid Republican Party will not talk about the JEW QUESTION and that is because Jew billionaires have bought and paid for the duplicitous treasonous scum in the GOP. I have been convinced that the evangelical vote is important as a reason for GOP politician pandering on Israel but I still think the Jew loot from Jew plutocrats is more important of a factor to explain the GOP's insistence on putting the interests of Israel over and above the interests of the USA.
The JEW QUESTION explained:
Jews form a nation within a nation everywhere they reside. Can Jews ever be considered to be part of the larger nation in which they reside when they are genetically and culturally predisposed to put the interests of the Jew Nation over and above the interests of the larger nations in which they reside?Replies: @Audacious Epigone
The only nation Jews marry other Jews in anymore is Israel. Like European Protestants and Catholics in America over enough time–though we may not have that time.
He’s a long time commenter who generally skirts the comment guidelines. This is in clear violation though, and the comment’s gone now. Additional blatant violations and auto-approval will be withdrawn.
I write polite comments from a Jewish perspective, and AE puts me into 8 hour moderation typically, while Doom and other Hitler-level anti-Semites get freely published by Audacious Epigone.
Don't buy into the "genteel anti-Semitism" of this blog. That's just a front lol.Replies: @Wency, @anon, @A123, @Audacious Epigone
Your lack of auto-approval comes from somewhere else on the site the blog doesn’t have access to. You’re in the auto-approval bin here just as Dissident is.
The issue is how far down the list of priorities comment reviews of auto-approved commenters are on the list of things for the blog to do. It’s been duly noted and will be fixed, sorry.
Kowtowing to the complaints of da Jews, are you?
We’ll see where that gets you.
Comments are closed.