“Antisemitism from the left is hard for young people to see, because young people a lot of time align with the left,” a Jewish woman who recently graduated from the University of Pennsylvania told me. - Being progressive is cool until you find yourself at the sharp end of the knife of intersectionality. I recognize there are bigots on b…
“Antisemitism from the left is hard for young people to see, because young people a lot of time align with the left,” a Jewish woman who recently graduated from the University of Pennsylvania told me. - Being progressive is cool until you find yourself at the sharp end of the knife of intersectionality. I recognize there are bigots on both ends of the right and left. I grew up in a Christian home where Israel and the Jewish faith were respected and admired for their devotion and authenticity.
Intersectionality is a malign racket with a tilted playing field. It bites all sorts of people you might naively think fit snugly into some niche of oppression.
Same. It wasn't until I started reading more of these experiences from Bari Weiss, et al. that I began to see the depth of antisemitism in the US. In my religious upbringing, my parents and religious community always taught us to respect the Jewish people because of their devotion and that they were the evidence that God keeps his covenants with his people.
In recent years I started to realize just how subtle anti-semitism has become, especially on the left. :(
Jeffrey - Agreed. I think most people's actual beliefs are some blend of left and right. But when it comes to voting we're stuck with the binary, and with govt taking over so much of our lives it's hard to get past the partisanship
That's precisely the kind of family in which I was raised. My Italian Catholic father had a very close friend that happened to be a Jewish dentist; it was the 70s. The obvious respect and affection those two men had for each other was a wonderful thing. Now in my later years, I understand what a lesson that was for me and I am grateful.
It's not just hard for young people to see. Older jews don't see it either. My SIL is Jewish and during the Trayvon Martin incident, she posted incessantly on FB repeating the left media's narratives. Zimmerman absolutely deserves no sympathy but the media wasn't exactly unbiased or honest either. She had no clue expressed so much indignation about the whole thing. Then came BLM and the same thing. Endless open-hearted support and posts condemning what happened. All of which is fine as she is a person sympathetic to victims of racism, and I can chuck up her parroting liberal media narratives as simply being a liberal unaware of what's happening. But I never see her post anything about the current rise of antisemitism. Not a single word. And it's not just her either. Everyone Jewish I know are more concerned about other oppressed groups according to the Wokes than themselves. I really don't get it.
Bari has always made it clear when she stands on this issue. But I really wish she would address the issue of Jewish apathy. And no, I'm not talking about young Jewish college students in fear of being ostracized and losing their future. I'm talking about the majority of Jewish adults who continue to be faithful Democratic voters and supporters of all the Woke shit but are so apathetic when it comes to antisemitism in America. What gives?
I "liked" Your comment. But I did wanna inform You that Zimmerman was framed. He was innocent from beginning to end, which is why the police didn't initially arrest him in the first place.
And that's why the jury acquitted him. They *had* to.
I attended a talk from a lawyer on A2 rights several years ago. He highlighted the Zimmerman case as what happens when a case becomes politicized. According to him, Zimmerman's problems came from following the directions of the 911 operator, who told him to get out of the car and follow Trayvon Martin. On the tape of the 911 call, you can hear Zimmerman opening the car door after the 911 operator tells him to. That's why Zimmerman was found innocent. There was recorded proof that he was acting in accordance with directions. And the moral is, you are not obligated to follow directions from a 911 operator.
That he was following directions meant exactly nothing. Let’s say the operator told him to hide in a bush and shoot Martin. He could not rely on those instructions as a defense.
He was found not guilty because Martin was slamming Zimmerman’s skull into the pavement and a reasonable person would fear for their life justifying deadly force in response to deadly force.
Following instructions is not an element of self-defense. Here it is incidental. He used deadly force in response to deadly force. Had no instructions been given he’d still have a valid self-defense claim. Therefore, instructions are irrelevant.
I believe you. I didn't follow the Martin/Zimmerman case closely. But after Covington and Kyle Rittenhouse, it doesn't surprise me at all if Zimmerman was framed. And I was aware of the media manipulation to cast Martin in the most innocent light. It was a joke as a choir boy he was not. To this day so many people still think Martin was a little innocent 12 year old instead of a druggie and possibly a thug. Just like George Floyd is made into a martyr victim when he's in fact an asshole domestic abuser. Doesn't mean he should've been killed by police brutality, but he was still a violent ass.
On a gut level though I still have an uneasy feeling about Zimmerman which I don't have at all for Nick Sandman and Rittenhouse. (ETA his conduct subsequent to the trial was disturbing and doesn't make me feel sympathetic either.)
Zimmerman was a half-Hispanic Democrat who had twice voted for Obama and mentored two Black youth, and gone to bat for a Black kid killed by a Deputy's son. The evidence is that Martin (who was 4" taller and often in trouble for fighting) jumped him. The only direct witness described a person matching Martin on top of a prone person (Zimmerman) beating on him. Zimmerman said that his head was being pounded into the pavement and he feared losing consciousness, when he remembered that he had a weapon (sheathed until then), whereupon he drew and fired once. When the police arrived he had injuries to the back of his head. In the subsequent autopsy for Martin, the bullet path was upward as described by Zimmerman. The jury easily found him innocent. The police had, for good reason, not charged him until lawyer Benjamin Crump made it a racial justice issue and got an ambitious prosecutor involved. There were some travesties of justice involved.
Zimmerman lost his balance after this (with his life ruined even tho he did not go to prison), but before that he was a loyal Democrat and friend of Black folks. Can you imagine trying to go back to your job and life as a Democrat after that? Where everybody on your political side considers you the embodiment of evil, and acts accordingly, ignoring the jury and attributing your acquittal to white privilege and a crooked system letting a racist murderer go scot free? The only folks who wanted to hang with him were, um, of a different mindset and that distorted him. I don't like his subsequent behavior either, but I haven't been placed in that position. I can't imagine how terrible it would be to go through life as George Zimmerman.
Benjamin Crump was also involved in grossly distorting the Michael Brown case in Ferguson Mo, and represented the family of George Floyd when they got their multimillion dollar settlement (before the conviction). He is a rich man from his efforts to create "justice".
So I agree that you may need to re-evaluate your intuitive assessment of Zimmerman. I do not hold him out as any hero, but I believe he was innocent.
Here's the thing about Your uneasy feeling. Sometimes gut instincts are just plain wrong.
Like Celia pointed out, I think it's pretty clearly the case of what Zimmerman himself said. (To the effect:) "If my name had been Jorge instead-a George, none-a this would-a happened.
You mebbe wanna consider how You would-a reacted. An innocent man framed? To become one-a the most hated people in America. Starting from Obama on down?
It wasn't until I heard the trial testimony that I realized how unfairly Zimmerman had been portrayed by the media. I should have suspected that after they called him a "white Hispanic." But the evidence clearly showed that Martin had jumped him and was attempting to murder him when Zimmerman fired his gun.
I find it interesting that almost every day now I see news stories about black people randomly attacking white and Asian people. It is clear that a social message has been spread far and wide that such behavior is tacitly approved of by those in power. In large Blue cities, the culprits are set free without bail.
The media sure tried. From using a terribly unrepresentative photo of Martin to pearl clutching commentary about how Zimmerman hunted this poor little innocent boy (who was trying to paint the sidewalk with Zimmerman’s brains).
IMHO Liberal Jewish women have gone off the rails in the past decade. I walked with a Jewish woman, a self proclaimed Socialist for about 12 years every morning (we also attended Pilates classes twice weekly). She knew I was a Republican. We could not and did not discuss politics. However, there was so much else to cover - the kids, art (she is an art dealer and I collect), food, travel, etc, etc, The day after Trump won, she literally had a meltdown. I told her "everything would be okay" as I hugged her, in turn, she pushed me away and spitted back, "No it won't". She has not spoken to me since (and she dropped out of Pilates classes). However, she's not the only one; Most of my liberal female friends have literally lost their minds. But Jewish women take the cake for intense neuroticism. So going forward, I swore I would be polite but never embrace one again as a 'friend' - too much drama, too much unreasonableness, too much craziness. At this point, I feel as if they have done me a favor. (Oh BTW - my husband is Jewish, I raised my girls to be Jewish - and I have told them all my sentiments. I have also been telling my husband about the Left's anti-Semitism over the past dozen years - but he seemingly turns a deaf ear to it. To get him to listen, I have even tossed out the 'walking into the ovens' phrase, to get his goat, but still no reaction...they just don't believe it can happen to them again).
Raise Democrat...will never go back. When I “ woke up” to them and their racism, hatred, manipulation, all of it, I was not shy about speaking out. My liberal Jewish relatives have become more outspoken about support of BDS Israel, free P, and support of Roger Waters. Wow! I have lost friends but gained some and some Jewish relatives have come on my journey. The abortion issue, US border, lies about blacks not having ID’s! All of it. Someone mentioned Jewish apathy. You are correct BTW, not just Jewish women but many upper crust women fighting for others “ oppression” in America. Travel ladies, please. See real oppression. Signed, W.S. Jersusalem, Israel 🇮🇱
As a Jewish woman, I must take exception to your comments. It’s an equal opportunity neurosis: the men are as bad as the women.
I’m a political moderate in a family full of progressives. I love my family dearly, but we can’t have a rational discussion about politics, and these last several years have been particularly crazy. On the topic of this article, they refuse even to acknowledge that there is a problem with antisemitism from the left. They all are highly intelligent, seemingly rational people. Their desperate clinging to progressive ideals and refusal to consider obvious facts both baffle and frustrate me.
Progressivism should be an acknowledged mental illness in the DSM.
Your comment comforts me. You're describing my life now, and I thought I was out there swinging in the wind all by myself. The part about your relatives refusing to acknowledge any flaws whatsoever on the left is especially familiar to me. But I don't believe they "refuse" to acknowledge any flaws on the left that they may come into contact with. What they "refuse" to do is consume anything other than carefully-curated, Woke-certified media. This ensures that they will never come into contact with those flaws and hence they will never experience the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.
Now and then I will send them an article from Bari's Substack (they know she's Jewish, so they give her a pass). But they never comment on or thank me for those articles. How much they absorb is impossible to know.
Have you ever introduced a concept that is not Woke-Certified and been met with the dead-eyed stares of people attempting to process an idea they haven't heard before? For instance, one day I explained the difference between "equity" and "equality" to my relatives who insisted that affirmative action was the only way to overcome racism. That was interesting.
I was staying with friends in the Hudson Valley the night of the election. The atmosphere for the rest of my visit was incredible, everywhere from the local shop, the Metro North train, the Guggenheim, people were stunned, angry, close to spitting.
I was happy to return to Atlanta, where our Southern manners mostly helped hide our feelings, pro or con, regarding the election.
Reminds of a great line from Casablanca, “Louis, are you pro Vichy or Free French?”
To which Louis responds, “ Serves me right for asking a direct question. The subject is closed.”
I’m very pro 1A. But I am also very pro being polite and minding one’s manners. This would include avoiding provocative conversation.
Places like this comment section exist for us to scratch that itch. Friendly conversation should not. I’d much prefer to talk about fishing. So don’t ask me about my business and I won’t say to you “good bye.”
Yes - at the time I was in NYC - for over 35 years! Covid pushed us into the country which I am loving it…normal calm people for the most part, just trying to get on with life. I don’t miss New Yorkers at all and for all the time I spent there never considered myself one.
The new definition of the term “white supremacy” is evidence the pernicious obsession the woke ideology has with language. Not so long ago, “white supremacy” was understood as a racist and separatist worldview with a strong antisemitic core whilst “white supremacy” is now understood as something Jewish individuals are adjacent to and/or beneficiaries of. I can tolerate an open minded conversation about systemic/institutional racism and the degree to which it continues to exist and influence our society. I draw the line—however—with the term “white supremacy” being redefined as no longer antisemitic. The way I see it, true separatists and antisemitic white supremacists are the only beneficiaries with this new definition.
True. Jewish Zionists should be labeled “Jewish Supremacists.” White Supremacy should retain connotation of anti-semitism , just as it should retain the connotation of racism toward every other non “white” racial grouping. The Wokeian notion that only white people are racist and therefore all racist people are white supremacists is supremely stupid.
Black people can be racist. Asians, Arabs, Latinos, Eskimos, Jews -- a person of any conceived race can be racist. And a person who thinks a particular race should rule any territory is a racial supremacist. If the person is black, they are a black supremacist. If they are jewish, they are a Jewish Supremacist. Thus, Zionists are Jewish Supremacists. Bari is a Jewish Supremacist. Blake is a Jewish Supremacist. Farrakhan is a Black Supremacist. Jared Taylor is a White Supremacist. Anyone who defends the territorial racial supremacy of any race is generically a Racial Supremacist.
Most the commentators here are, for example, Racial Supremacists.
Its reason. But what you write is braindead slander. Rather than defending the ideology of Zionism rationally, I've noticed that Zionists resort to slandering all critics with accusations of racism. It resembles the behavior of the Wokeians.
I'm an Jew, an Israeli American, and a proud Zionist, and your comments are bitter to the core antisemitism cloaked as psuedo-intellectual babble. You utilize the same millennia-old tropes which have led to the murder of millions of Jews, and illustrate why we have our own country today. And you can call us whatever you want.
More gibberish pretending to be intellectual analysis. You have totally ignored the jihad against Jews or how you think you would protect your children from clear and constant threats.
Im not sure why Israel requires the Nation State Law to protect Jews from jihad. Could you explain? Because up until 10 years ago it didn't exist. Were Jews less safe before Israel told all its citizens who weren't jews that they had no "right to national self-determination"?
Actually, I'd argue that may have made their Jewish citizens less safe.
It is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy. The Queen is the Head of State and the supreme authority of the national church. Since the country has a national Church, and the head of state is also the leader of the Church, I think it can qualify as a theocracy. Albeit, its mostly larping.
Its embarrassing that Denmark still has a monarchy and a national church.
The psuedo-intellectual babble has left the building and now it's just an unhinged and wildly ignorant antisemitic rant. Kindly remember that the Internet is forever and this is not a good look for you.
If you want to argue your point, you need data, and I'm just not impressed with the strident crazypants venom. The world is a big place, and you don't seem to have any intellect or maturity to see beyond race or blind hatred, because Jews are not a race. And we are a persecuted minority. Too bad if you don't like it, you'll have to get past our army and our nukes first.
For anyone else reading this:
Multiple European states have similar laws and state religions in their constitution. Singling out Israel is wrong. The Nation State law is a symbolic law, and the country is divided over it; but it's a response to the millions of people who would like to destroy Israel, a Jewish state and a democratic nation, with equal voting rights for 21% of its citizens who are not Jewish. There anti-Zionist Arab parties in the Knesset, and an Islamist party holding the whole thing together. Arab Israelis are on the Supreme Court, serve as diplomats, and become officers in the IDF. They head the Israeli national bank, and are educated in Israeli universities - Arab Christians have more degrees than any other group. They participate in every economic sector - especially medicine and healthcare.
I'm really not impressed with the Farrakhan impersonation.
Denmark is not a theocracy and neither is Israel, but at least you made me laugh.
As for:
"Please, for anyone reading this, provide examples of the European states that have a law similar to the Nation State Law *and* has a policy that gives immigration privileges to anyone who is a biological descendant of someone of their preferred group of people regardless of whether they once lived in that state and regardless of the person's own faithfulness to the preferred group of peoples' religion or culture. If you do, I'll disparage those European states as Racial Supremacist states as well. Im not aware of any."
Errrr, Ireland, Germany, Portugal, Spain, Finland, Hungary, Greece, Italy, Croatia... It's called Leges Sanguinis.
You know who else liked to falsely racialize Jews according to their own cravenness and depravity? Nazis.
"Denmark is not a theocracy and neither is Israel, but at least you made me laugh."
Odd you deleted your other reference to me saying Denmark is a theocracy. But Ill repeat myself here. It is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy. The Queen is the Head of State and the supreme authority of the national church. Since the country has a national Church, and the head of state is also the leader of the Church, I think it can qualify as a theocracy. Albeit, its mostly larping.
Israel, since it only bestows the "right to national self-determination" to people who belong to the Jewish religion, and it privileges immigration to Jews, and that right is "religious", I think its sufficient to call it a theocracy. Perhaps a Theocratic Republic would be a good term. Although, given that the person who originally *coined the term* "Theocracy" was the *Jewish historian* Josephus when describing the type of government of Israel as established by Moses, that should probably be enough:
"Now there are innumerable differences in the particular customs and laws that are among all mankind, which a man may briefly reduce under the following heads: Some legislators have permitted their governments to be under monarchies, others put them under oligarchies, and others under a republican form; but our legislator had no regard to any of these forms, but he ordained our government to be what, by a strained expression, may be termed a Theocracy, by ascribing the authority and the power to God, and by persuading all the people to have a regard to him, as the author of all the good things that were enjoyed either in common by all mankind, or by each one in particular, and of all that they themselves obtained by praying to him in their greatest difficulties." - Against Apion Book 2
Do you dislike the government established by Moses?
“Errrr, Ireland, Germany, Portugal, Spain, Finland, Hungary, Greece, Italy, Croatia... It's called Leges Sanguinis. “
Do you mean jus sanguines? That applies to children born of citizens of a country. For example, in the US, if a child is born abroad to a citizen of the US, the child is granted citizenship. That is quite different than the notion of granting citizenship to people born to parents, or grandparents who were never citizens.
A child born in the US today who believed they were German and wanted German citizenship would need to prove that their ancestors at some point were German citizens. For the right of return In Israel today, it is irrelevant whether a modern Jew had ancestors that were once citizens of Israel -- the state. It’s determined by whether a grandparent is/was Jewish. Given that Judaism is a religion and not a race, it is plausible that any given Jew, despite having Jewish grandparents, have absolutely no ancestor who was ever a citizen of any rendition of Israel, even thousands of years ago.
Italy doesn’t have a distinction between Italian citizens and a group of people, say Catholics, who are given a right of immigration and the right of national self determination. A person can be an Israelite and not a Jew. But it is a Jew who is given right of return and national self determination. If I get Italian citizenship, there is no other group of people with birthright citizenship with codified rights that I would not have. For that matter, Denmark doesn't either, even though it has a state church.
“You know who else liked to falsely racialize Jews according to their own cravenness and depravity? Nazis.”
Well given that I don’t think Jews are a race, I’m not sure why you are bringing up Nazis. I actually think there should be a conscious distinction between Jews and people with hebrew / semetic ancestry. A Jew can reject Judaism and no longer be a Jew, regardless of their genetic ancestry. Guess who didn’t think that was possible? Nazis. And ironically, many Jews these days.
Do you believe someone can be an ex-Jew? If you don’t, you are like the Nazis.
When you slander me as being anti semitic when I say anything negative about Judaism or Israel, you are the one who is racializing Jews. And that is probably because Judaism has racialized Jews since the myth of Abraham was invented. For one thing, if a Jew doesn't want people to think they conceive Jews as a race, they shouldn't accuse everyone who has anything negative to say about Judaism or Israel as "anti-semitic." Especially people who explicitly say, such as myself, that Jews are not a race -- or ethnicity. They are members of a religion, just like Catholics, Muslims, or Mormons. The religion they are members of has had a history of conceptualizing its community in a racialized way, obsessed with the seed of its mythical creator. But it is erroneous.
I'm a bit disappointed that you have avoided answering so many of my questions. Especially the one about Moses. Do you think Moses, as depicted by the Torah, was virtuous? And do you think he was more virtuous than you? Do you think it was righteous for Moses to command the murder of all males and pregnant women and the enslavement of all female virgins in the lands he conquered? Do you think the god who you worship gave him that command, as is alleged by the Torah? Are you proud of it? It should be revolting to anyone with a thimble of compassion. Admittedly, for a Jew, it may require a mountain of courage to see it for what it is. Evil.
Well google has no idea what "Leges Sanguinis" is poop-face. Maybe some day you will learn how to argue rationally rather than calling people you don't like anti-semites.
“ a person who thinks a particular race should rule any territory is a racial supremacist.”
Any person therefore that thinks a particular race deserves to rule a particular territory would be a Racial Supremacist of a particular race--ie if a person thinks white people should rule a territory, and they are white, they are a “White Supremacist”.
If the person isn’t white but is sympathetic to the idea that white people should rule a territory, they are Racial Supremacists who sympathize with the racial supremacist aspirations of White Supremacists.
Being a Racial Supremacist has been common throughout human history. You have plenty of company.
“Just wanted to quote you for posterity. “
Well, if posterity isn’t filled with Racial Supremacists, such as yourself, they will likely appreciate it.
Personally, I am a Cultural Supremacist. People of particular culture should rule territory, and the particular culture I think should rule does not include racial supremacy as an aspiration.
I'm not that sympathetic with people deciding they have the authority to redefine what words mean to suit their political stance. I've seen too much of that recently.
A typical dictionary definition of a white supremacist:
"a person who believes that white people constitute a superior race and should therefore dominate society"
If you want to invent an idiosyncratic term tied primarily to territory, please use a different word or phrase, rather than contributing the semantic games we've been inundated with.
To suggest that I am redefining words to suit my political stance is not accurate. I am logically extending the meaning of words that already exist.
Even in the definition you provide, what do you think "society" is? Is Israel not a "society" in your mind? Are countries not societies? And what is dominating a society? Can people be said to dominate a society but not rule it? For you to reject my definition because you don't like the word territory is asinine. I use the word territory because it is even more concrete than a word like society. From my knowledge, there has never been a white supremacist who wished white people to dominate a society, but not rule over a territory. Dominating a Society = Ruling over Territory.
In Merriam Webster's dictionary there is no reference to society at all. And the second definition it provides is:
"the social, economic, and political systems that collectively enable white people to maintain power over people of other races"
Hence "Racial Supremacy" would therefore be "the social, economic, and political systems that enable a race of people to maintain power over people of other races."
Hence, "Jewish Supremacy", would therefore be "the social, economic, and political systems that enable jewish people to maintain power over people of other races."
And Israel has a political system that maintains power over people who are not jewish. It is directly in their Nation State Law:
"1 — Basic Principles
A. The land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people, in which the State of Israel was established.
B. The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people, in which it fulfills its natural, cultural, religious, and historical right to self-determination.
C. The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people."
Just replace the word "Jewish" with "White" and it should be clear that the laws are Racial Supremacy laws.
And Id just like to point out that you probably shouldn't put too much stock in dictionaries and their definitions. The people who write dictionaries are not magically exempt from possible political bias, nor are definitions of dictionaries the word of God; they are just the word of some people who decided they had the authority to define what words meant; and some people just bow down to them for some peculiar reason. I do not; no dictionary reveals all the meaning in our words. Although they can be unquestionably valuable.
You make some good points. When you take the time to explain I can follow your reasoning.
Nevertheless, your choice of terminology will saddle you with the unnecessary baggage of fostering misunderstanding. Of course that's your right, but many will not engage with you as I have, and just be disgusted at what appears to be yet another redefinition. You probably don't want to re-explain how your definition is more a rewording than a reconceptualization every time someone misunderstands.
And that's just my advice.
I don't take dictionaries as unquestionable. In fact, I typically consult several and look for the common thread to get a gist of how the term is used. And I keep pre-woke dictionaries (paper) around to consult as well, if I think I detect bias. Why I find dictionaries helpful is that they provide a shared framework through which to communicate ideas. If everybody defines words in their own way, we either get lots of cross communication, or constant need to discover the current custom definitions, or both. Reading some of the output of the academic left is a painful labor if one wishes to accurately understand them (so as to agree or more often disagree meaningfully).
"Of course that's your right, but many will not engage with you as I have, and just be disgusted at what appears to be yet another redefinition. You probably don't want to re-explain how your definition is more a rewording than a reconceptualization every time someone misunderstands."
Fair enough. When time is a consideration, It might be better to avoid language I think might be better and just use conventional language that more people would be less likely to reject reflexively.
I agree that people of all backgrounds have to potential to the racist, but that is the extent to which we agree. As to who should rule, hopefully—in a democracy—a well intended, clever and transparent individual elected by the people. I do not care if by “the people” we are talking about a multicultural society, or could care less about the color of the skin of elected officials.
“Democracy” is a cultural value. Within a democracy, autocracy is scorned. If you favor Democracy over Autocracy, you essentially view Democracy as a superior cultural value over autocracy. And I assume you want people committed to democracy and not autocracy leading the government. I’m sure there are well intended, clever, and transparent autocrats.
And you seem to have a very optimistic view of “the people”!
Remember, “the people” in Venezuela recently voted in their own destruction. A dominant culture that glorifies “democracy” too much has the tendency to self destruct. That is one reason why John Adams strongly encouraged a constitutional republic. And also is one reason no one should trust a party that labels itself the “Democratic Party” that was formed by slavers. Hopefully the Democratic Party implodes before the country.
When is the last time you think a transparent individual was elected to Congress by the people?
My point is, the color of a person (ruler) skin is irrelevant so long as they are effective leaders. I do not know what kind of Supremacist that makes me.
Given that 75% of American Jews are on the left, it clearly must be painful for them to be demonized by their Progressive compatriots. It’s unfortunate that they don’t seek solace on the right side of the political spectrum where Jews are respected and welcomed as religious ‘kin’. Judeo-Christian values are the foundation of the American Project. Myopia can be cured without leaving the country.
What is problematic, the right is crazy and getting crazier. If the Republican party was filled with sane people like Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski, there'd be an enormous shift of Jewish voters to it. But it is largely a cult of Trump, which isn't healthy and doesn't offer Jewish voters much. After all, Jews pretty much know that cults are not their friends. Whether progressive or Trump.
Zeke, I agree with CC. More specifically- the current democrat party has been taken over by the neo-Marxist cult of social Justice, and as this article points out — they are the crazy ones, 80+% of the wealthiest US zip codes are their supporters.
Trump’s actual policies were for the most part sensible and overdue but his rhetoric and behavior was often just nuts. He in my view is and was unfit for the office and I wish he would step back and support the party instead of trying to bend it to his will.
The fact that he is so popular should tell you that normal people — those who have not been seduced or forcibly indoctrinated by the media, Hollywood, or our formerly elite institutions, and are afraid of what they see: an obvious fascistic, hard-left political machine ready to end free speech, to teach their children or grand children that if they are white then they are intrinsically racist, and/or can literally be the opposite sex WHEN THEY ARE In ELEMENTARY SCHOOL — these republicans are grasping desperately for anyone who they think will fight for a return to sanity.
The post-modern wing of the democrat left is weaponizing language and erasing boundaries with propaganda about gender affirming care, white supremacy, systemic racism, and claims of fascist republican insurrectionists, open borders, while their intellectual leaders, Ibram Kendi, Robin DiAngelo… openly call for an identity politics driven social justice revolution.
The New York Times funds a 1619 US history project whose authors admit that it is a political narrative selling oppression which does not accurately reflect history, yet the democrat non-profits and Biden himself supports its premises and are successfully pushing it into 100s if not thousands of schools. And the republicans are the crazy ones?
Go listen to the conservative thought leaders recently interviewed on the Uncommon Knowledge podcast and judge them and see if you think they are crazy.
> "whose authors admit that it is a political narrative selling oppression which does not accurately reflect history"
I'm aware of the liberties they took with some history, and the slanted interpretations it promoted. But I haven't seen NHJ or other authors themselves admit that. Do you remember where that was?
"Oh, it's just about teaching accurate history, why are you against that? You want to pretend that slavery never existed, there's no other reason to oppose accurate history."
then when challenged:
"It's not history, it's a narrative, an attempt to redirect the national memory (so being historically accurate is not important, the narrative is). And people's attempt to discredit it by using historical facts just shows how racist they are."
Re: Trump’s behavior - yes it is out of the norm today but when one glances back in history his behavior mirrors other ‘outliers’ such as Teddy Roosevelt & Andrew Jackson for just two. Personally, I found Trump to be somewhat of a fresh breeze that was able to penetrate the mind numbing & ineffective political-speech of Foggy Bottom.
Your perspective about the Republican Party is skewed by the Main Stream Media (MSM). I would suggest reading and listening more broadly. I am guessing you might not even know any Republicans...
Do you think it’s as high as 75% or is it the media and social media that frames the narrative? I would really like to know the true number of Jews who support Israel and are Zionists as opposed to all the pole numbers we are
The 75-80% figure is the amount of Jews that vote Democrat. How that is divvied up in the various Democrat factions, I don't know but I am sure the figures are out there with some goggling/research.
I think it is getting lower and that our Jewish brethren are shifting away from the hard Left. But I am only basing that on my personal experiences with my significant other's family who are right leaning moderates. ( To the extent that a couple are Trump supporters.)
Nothing at all!! If it came out that there was something wrong with that, my apologies. I supported DJT and will continue to support him. Irrespective of what others think, I know he loves this country, and that's enough for me after the Obama years.
The rise of antisemitism in Europe and the US is appalling. You expect antisemitism on the far right but the left is supposed to be all accepting of differing beliefs. They are blatant hypocrites. They always have been. That a Jew can be a Democrat is a head scratcher. (Head scratcher = a puzzler)
These morons on the left glorify Islam a religion that supports misogyny and the violent takeover of the non-Islamic world. I have said this before. When is the last time you saw a Jew in a suicide vest?
Israel is an island of sanity surrounded by the insane.
Agree with lonesome’s fundamental points here. Yet, let me complain about the supposed “right / left” narrative the far left uses, eg. Antifa, as propaganda about the right.
I spent several days researching where Hitler sat on the political spectrum. I concluded Hitler was not “right-wing.” He claimed Fascism was the middle path between capitalism -- his version of fascist ideology was centralized government authority that allowed “private” property and business as long as it is subservient to the will of said government -- and Stalin’s communism of which he admired for its central planning, control, and its “innovation” of what we now know as concentration camps.
His murderous party provided scapegoats along with free health care and “education” (actually indoctrination and programming, enslaving minds not freeing them). He did not seek to conserve anything of Germany’s past beyond its cultural dominance and that he utterly perverted. The idea that Hitler was “far right” appears to be a fiction designed by the far left to paint the actual conservative right as evil. The “pre-eminent scholar” who paints Hilter as on the right was a Columbia University political science professor who I would not trust to walk my dog much less teach my kids. Hitler was perhaps to the right of Stalin but in no way reflects any historical conservatism of Lincoln’s Republican Party.
This is not to say that nazi skin heads didn’t/don’t exist, they do, but Hitler was not a conservative, nor was he “right wing” his party had socialist in its name but he had his own evil, nihilistic ideology and rejected Marx.
I agree. I have read Shirer's Berlin Diary and am reading his "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich". He goes into great detail about Hitler's upbringing and what made him tick.
It is interesting that you (appropriately) chose the word, “allowed” capitalism.
The biggest clue might be the name of the party… national SOCIALISTS.
The left has always embraced authoritarianism. Your focus on central planning, which is so very spot-on, is impossible without that enforcement mechanism.
No question. How the Islamists have managed to take over our universities, normalizing hate speech against Israel and Jews, is beyond me. I guess it’s the hijacking of the liberal mindset (we must be tolerant of all viewpoints/we can’t discriminate against Muslims), but when they disrupt speakers by screaming, when they get speakers disinvited because they’re conservative, “pro-Israel” or just reasonable) takes it to a whole other level. The university administrators and professors have been co-opted by the left, and this is the result. And it’s not just about Israel. See the Oberlin College disaster with Gibson’s bakery. Disgusting.
Oberlin also employs Mohammad Jafar Mahallati who is the Nancy Schrom Dye Chair in Middle East and North African Studies. He was also Iran's ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations from 1987 to 1989 where he denied the mass executions of political prisoners.
Perhaps most pertinent to recent news, this man has publicly supported the fatwa on Salman Rushdie.
Yeah Oberlin! Falsely accuses a baker and family of racism but employs a man who supports the assassination of people with whom he disagrees.
The anit-western element of the woke ideology can be traced back to Edward Said, his book Orientalism, and its influence on the super woke field of Post-Colonial Studies.
“Antisemitism from the left is hard for young people to see, because young people a lot of time align with the left,” a Jewish woman who recently graduated from the University of Pennsylvania told me. - Being progressive is cool until you find yourself at the sharp end of the knife of intersectionality. I recognize there are bigots on both ends of the right and left. I grew up in a Christian home where Israel and the Jewish faith were respected and admired for their devotion and authenticity.
Intersectionality is a malign racket with a tilted playing field. It bites all sorts of people you might naively think fit snugly into some niche of oppression.
Same. It wasn't until I started reading more of these experiences from Bari Weiss, et al. that I began to see the depth of antisemitism in the US. In my religious upbringing, my parents and religious community always taught us to respect the Jewish people because of their devotion and that they were the evidence that God keeps his covenants with his people.
In recent years I started to realize just how subtle anti-semitism has become, especially on the left. :(
I think people should try not to restrict their political imaginations and identity to a binary of left and right.
I agree completely. Why be restrained by narratives on either side if we actually want creative solutions?
Jeffrey - Agreed. I think most people's actual beliefs are some blend of left and right. But when it comes to voting we're stuck with the binary, and with govt taking over so much of our lives it's hard to get past the partisanship
That's precisely the kind of family in which I was raised. My Italian Catholic father had a very close friend that happened to be a Jewish dentist; it was the 70s. The obvious respect and affection those two men had for each other was a wonderful thing. Now in my later years, I understand what a lesson that was for me and I am grateful.
It's not just hard for young people to see. Older jews don't see it either. My SIL is Jewish and during the Trayvon Martin incident, she posted incessantly on FB repeating the left media's narratives. Zimmerman absolutely deserves no sympathy but the media wasn't exactly unbiased or honest either. She had no clue expressed so much indignation about the whole thing. Then came BLM and the same thing. Endless open-hearted support and posts condemning what happened. All of which is fine as she is a person sympathetic to victims of racism, and I can chuck up her parroting liberal media narratives as simply being a liberal unaware of what's happening. But I never see her post anything about the current rise of antisemitism. Not a single word. And it's not just her either. Everyone Jewish I know are more concerned about other oppressed groups according to the Wokes than themselves. I really don't get it.
Bari has always made it clear when she stands on this issue. But I really wish she would address the issue of Jewish apathy. And no, I'm not talking about young Jewish college students in fear of being ostracized and losing their future. I'm talking about the majority of Jewish adults who continue to be faithful Democratic voters and supporters of all the Woke shit but are so apathetic when it comes to antisemitism in America. What gives?
Yes!
I "liked" Your comment. But I did wanna inform You that Zimmerman was framed. He was innocent from beginning to end, which is why the police didn't initially arrest him in the first place.
And that's why the jury acquitted him. They *had* to.
I attended a talk from a lawyer on A2 rights several years ago. He highlighted the Zimmerman case as what happens when a case becomes politicized. According to him, Zimmerman's problems came from following the directions of the 911 operator, who told him to get out of the car and follow Trayvon Martin. On the tape of the 911 call, you can hear Zimmerman opening the car door after the 911 operator tells him to. That's why Zimmerman was found innocent. There was recorded proof that he was acting in accordance with directions. And the moral is, you are not obligated to follow directions from a 911 operator.
That he was following directions meant exactly nothing. Let’s say the operator told him to hide in a bush and shoot Martin. He could not rely on those instructions as a defense.
He was found not guilty because Martin was slamming Zimmerman’s skull into the pavement and a reasonable person would fear for their life justifying deadly force in response to deadly force.
Following directions means he did not initiate the confrontation.
Following instructions is not an element of self-defense. Here it is incidental. He used deadly force in response to deadly force. Had no instructions been given he’d still have a valid self-defense claim. Therefore, instructions are irrelevant.
I believe you. I didn't follow the Martin/Zimmerman case closely. But after Covington and Kyle Rittenhouse, it doesn't surprise me at all if Zimmerman was framed. And I was aware of the media manipulation to cast Martin in the most innocent light. It was a joke as a choir boy he was not. To this day so many people still think Martin was a little innocent 12 year old instead of a druggie and possibly a thug. Just like George Floyd is made into a martyr victim when he's in fact an asshole domestic abuser. Doesn't mean he should've been killed by police brutality, but he was still a violent ass.
On a gut level though I still have an uneasy feeling about Zimmerman which I don't have at all for Nick Sandman and Rittenhouse. (ETA his conduct subsequent to the trial was disturbing and doesn't make me feel sympathetic either.)
Zimmerman was a half-Hispanic Democrat who had twice voted for Obama and mentored two Black youth, and gone to bat for a Black kid killed by a Deputy's son. The evidence is that Martin (who was 4" taller and often in trouble for fighting) jumped him. The only direct witness described a person matching Martin on top of a prone person (Zimmerman) beating on him. Zimmerman said that his head was being pounded into the pavement and he feared losing consciousness, when he remembered that he had a weapon (sheathed until then), whereupon he drew and fired once. When the police arrived he had injuries to the back of his head. In the subsequent autopsy for Martin, the bullet path was upward as described by Zimmerman. The jury easily found him innocent. The police had, for good reason, not charged him until lawyer Benjamin Crump made it a racial justice issue and got an ambitious prosecutor involved. There were some travesties of justice involved.
Zimmerman lost his balance after this (with his life ruined even tho he did not go to prison), but before that he was a loyal Democrat and friend of Black folks. Can you imagine trying to go back to your job and life as a Democrat after that? Where everybody on your political side considers you the embodiment of evil, and acts accordingly, ignoring the jury and attributing your acquittal to white privilege and a crooked system letting a racist murderer go scot free? The only folks who wanted to hang with him were, um, of a different mindset and that distorted him. I don't like his subsequent behavior either, but I haven't been placed in that position. I can't imagine how terrible it would be to go through life as George Zimmerman.
Benjamin Crump was also involved in grossly distorting the Michael Brown case in Ferguson Mo, and represented the family of George Floyd when they got their multimillion dollar settlement (before the conviction). He is a rich man from his efforts to create "justice".
So I agree that you may need to re-evaluate your intuitive assessment of Zimmerman. I do not hold him out as any hero, but I believe he was innocent.
Here's the thing about Your uneasy feeling. Sometimes gut instincts are just plain wrong.
Like Celia pointed out, I think it's pretty clearly the case of what Zimmerman himself said. (To the effect:) "If my name had been Jorge instead-a George, none-a this would-a happened.
You mebbe wanna consider how You would-a reacted. An innocent man framed? To become one-a the most hated people in America. Starting from Obama on down?
Yeah, he lost it bigtime. I probably would-a too.
It wasn't until I heard the trial testimony that I realized how unfairly Zimmerman had been portrayed by the media. I should have suspected that after they called him a "white Hispanic." But the evidence clearly showed that Martin had jumped him and was attempting to murder him when Zimmerman fired his gun.
I find it interesting that almost every day now I see news stories about black people randomly attacking white and Asian people. It is clear that a social message has been spread far and wide that such behavior is tacitly approved of by those in power. In large Blue cities, the culprits are set free without bail.
The media sure tried. From using a terribly unrepresentative photo of Martin to pearl clutching commentary about how Zimmerman hunted this poor little innocent boy (who was trying to paint the sidewalk with Zimmerman’s brains).
Yeah, You nailed it. Martin was about 12 in the pic? Funny how few know of these *facts,* even to this very day.
Mebbe Obama was telling the truth when he said that Trayvon could be his son. Dunno.
IMHO Liberal Jewish women have gone off the rails in the past decade. I walked with a Jewish woman, a self proclaimed Socialist for about 12 years every morning (we also attended Pilates classes twice weekly). She knew I was a Republican. We could not and did not discuss politics. However, there was so much else to cover - the kids, art (she is an art dealer and I collect), food, travel, etc, etc, The day after Trump won, she literally had a meltdown. I told her "everything would be okay" as I hugged her, in turn, she pushed me away and spitted back, "No it won't". She has not spoken to me since (and she dropped out of Pilates classes). However, she's not the only one; Most of my liberal female friends have literally lost their minds. But Jewish women take the cake for intense neuroticism. So going forward, I swore I would be polite but never embrace one again as a 'friend' - too much drama, too much unreasonableness, too much craziness. At this point, I feel as if they have done me a favor. (Oh BTW - my husband is Jewish, I raised my girls to be Jewish - and I have told them all my sentiments. I have also been telling my husband about the Left's anti-Semitism over the past dozen years - but he seemingly turns a deaf ear to it. To get him to listen, I have even tossed out the 'walking into the ovens' phrase, to get his goat, but still no reaction...they just don't believe it can happen to them again).
Raise Democrat...will never go back. When I “ woke up” to them and their racism, hatred, manipulation, all of it, I was not shy about speaking out. My liberal Jewish relatives have become more outspoken about support of BDS Israel, free P, and support of Roger Waters. Wow! I have lost friends but gained some and some Jewish relatives have come on my journey. The abortion issue, US border, lies about blacks not having ID’s! All of it. Someone mentioned Jewish apathy. You are correct BTW, not just Jewish women but many upper crust women fighting for others “ oppression” in America. Travel ladies, please. See real oppression. Signed, W.S. Jersusalem, Israel 🇮🇱
As a Jewish woman, I must take exception to your comments. It’s an equal opportunity neurosis: the men are as bad as the women.
I’m a political moderate in a family full of progressives. I love my family dearly, but we can’t have a rational discussion about politics, and these last several years have been particularly crazy. On the topic of this article, they refuse even to acknowledge that there is a problem with antisemitism from the left. They all are highly intelligent, seemingly rational people. Their desperate clinging to progressive ideals and refusal to consider obvious facts both baffle and frustrate me.
Progressivism should be an acknowledged mental illness in the DSM.
Your comment comforts me. You're describing my life now, and I thought I was out there swinging in the wind all by myself. The part about your relatives refusing to acknowledge any flaws whatsoever on the left is especially familiar to me. But I don't believe they "refuse" to acknowledge any flaws on the left that they may come into contact with. What they "refuse" to do is consume anything other than carefully-curated, Woke-certified media. This ensures that they will never come into contact with those flaws and hence they will never experience the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.
Now and then I will send them an article from Bari's Substack (they know she's Jewish, so they give her a pass). But they never comment on or thank me for those articles. How much they absorb is impossible to know.
Have you ever introduced a concept that is not Woke-Certified and been met with the dead-eyed stares of people attempting to process an idea they haven't heard before? For instance, one day I explained the difference between "equity" and "equality" to my relatives who insisted that affirmative action was the only way to overcome racism. That was interesting.
Could it be that you live in the Northeast?
I was staying with friends in the Hudson Valley the night of the election. The atmosphere for the rest of my visit was incredible, everywhere from the local shop, the Metro North train, the Guggenheim, people were stunned, angry, close to spitting.
I was happy to return to Atlanta, where our Southern manners mostly helped hide our feelings, pro or con, regarding the election.
Thank you.
Reminds of a great line from Casablanca, “Louis, are you pro Vichy or Free French?”
To which Louis responds, “ Serves me right for asking a direct question. The subject is closed.”
I’m very pro 1A. But I am also very pro being polite and minding one’s manners. This would include avoiding provocative conversation.
Places like this comment section exist for us to scratch that itch. Friendly conversation should not. I’d much prefer to talk about fishing. So don’t ask me about my business and I won’t say to you “good bye.”
Yes - at the time I was in NYC - for over 35 years! Covid pushed us into the country which I am loving it…normal calm people for the most part, just trying to get on with life. I don’t miss New Yorkers at all and for all the time I spent there never considered myself one.
“… I can chuck up her parroting liberal media narratives as simply being a liberal unaware of what's happening.”
You pretty much described the woke left to a T.
The new definition of the term “white supremacy” is evidence the pernicious obsession the woke ideology has with language. Not so long ago, “white supremacy” was understood as a racist and separatist worldview with a strong antisemitic core whilst “white supremacy” is now understood as something Jewish individuals are adjacent to and/or beneficiaries of. I can tolerate an open minded conversation about systemic/institutional racism and the degree to which it continues to exist and influence our society. I draw the line—however—with the term “white supremacy” being redefined as no longer antisemitic. The way I see it, true separatists and antisemitic white supremacists are the only beneficiaries with this new definition.
True. Jewish Zionists should be labeled “Jewish Supremacists.” White Supremacy should retain connotation of anti-semitism , just as it should retain the connotation of racism toward every other non “white” racial grouping. The Wokeian notion that only white people are racist and therefore all racist people are white supremacists is supremely stupid.
Black people can be racist. Asians, Arabs, Latinos, Eskimos, Jews -- a person of any conceived race can be racist. And a person who thinks a particular race should rule any territory is a racial supremacist. If the person is black, they are a black supremacist. If they are jewish, they are a Jewish Supremacist. Thus, Zionists are Jewish Supremacists. Bari is a Jewish Supremacist. Blake is a Jewish Supremacist. Farrakhan is a Black Supremacist. Jared Taylor is a White Supremacist. Anyone who defends the territorial racial supremacy of any race is generically a Racial Supremacist.
Most the commentators here are, for example, Racial Supremacists.
What gibberish. They used to call it sophistry.
It's not sophistry. It's braindead antisemitic drivel.
Its reason. But what you write is braindead slander. Rather than defending the ideology of Zionism rationally, I've noticed that Zionists resort to slandering all critics with accusations of racism. It resembles the behavior of the Wokeians.
We actually accuse antisemites of antisemitism.
I hope you get help.
I hope you get help with that brain illness that you have where you see all people who dislike the religion you pretend to adhere to as anti-semites.
It would help if you actually knew something about my religion before you disliked and distorted it, my antisemitic friend.
I keep asking you about it, but you don't answer my questions.
Tell me something about your religion!
Do you think Moses was righteous when he ordered his people to kill pregnant women?
and Im honored you take me as a friend.
I'm an Jew, an Israeli American, and a proud Zionist, and your comments are bitter to the core antisemitism cloaked as psuedo-intellectual babble. You utilize the same millennia-old tropes which have led to the murder of millions of Jews, and illustrate why we have our own country today. And you can call us whatever you want.
More gibberish pretending to be intellectual analysis. You have totally ignored the jihad against Jews or how you think you would protect your children from clear and constant threats.
Im not sure why Israel requires the Nation State Law to protect Jews from jihad. Could you explain? Because up until 10 years ago it didn't exist. Were Jews less safe before Israel told all its citizens who weren't jews that they had no "right to national self-determination"?
Actually, I'd argue that may have made their Jewish citizens less safe.
Denmark is actually quite fascinating.
It is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy. The Queen is the Head of State and the supreme authority of the national church. Since the country has a national Church, and the head of state is also the leader of the Church, I think it can qualify as a theocracy. Albeit, its mostly larping.
Its embarrassing that Denmark still has a monarchy and a national church.
The psuedo-intellectual babble has left the building and now it's just an unhinged and wildly ignorant antisemitic rant. Kindly remember that the Internet is forever and this is not a good look for you.
If you want to argue your point, you need data, and I'm just not impressed with the strident crazypants venom. The world is a big place, and you don't seem to have any intellect or maturity to see beyond race or blind hatred, because Jews are not a race. And we are a persecuted minority. Too bad if you don't like it, you'll have to get past our army and our nukes first.
For anyone else reading this:
Multiple European states have similar laws and state religions in their constitution. Singling out Israel is wrong. The Nation State law is a symbolic law, and the country is divided over it; but it's a response to the millions of people who would like to destroy Israel, a Jewish state and a democratic nation, with equal voting rights for 21% of its citizens who are not Jewish. There anti-Zionist Arab parties in the Knesset, and an Islamist party holding the whole thing together. Arab Israelis are on the Supreme Court, serve as diplomats, and become officers in the IDF. They head the Israeli national bank, and are educated in Israeli universities - Arab Christians have more degrees than any other group. They participate in every economic sector - especially medicine and healthcare.
I'm really not impressed with the Farrakhan impersonation.
Denmark is not a theocracy and neither is Israel, but at least you made me laugh.
As for:
"Please, for anyone reading this, provide examples of the European states that have a law similar to the Nation State Law *and* has a policy that gives immigration privileges to anyone who is a biological descendant of someone of their preferred group of people regardless of whether they once lived in that state and regardless of the person's own faithfulness to the preferred group of peoples' religion or culture. If you do, I'll disparage those European states as Racial Supremacist states as well. Im not aware of any."
Errrr, Ireland, Germany, Portugal, Spain, Finland, Hungary, Greece, Italy, Croatia... It's called Leges Sanguinis.
You know who else liked to falsely racialize Jews according to their own cravenness and depravity? Nazis.
"Denmark is not a theocracy and neither is Israel, but at least you made me laugh."
Odd you deleted your other reference to me saying Denmark is a theocracy. But Ill repeat myself here. It is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy. The Queen is the Head of State and the supreme authority of the national church. Since the country has a national Church, and the head of state is also the leader of the Church, I think it can qualify as a theocracy. Albeit, its mostly larping.
Israel, since it only bestows the "right to national self-determination" to people who belong to the Jewish religion, and it privileges immigration to Jews, and that right is "religious", I think its sufficient to call it a theocracy. Perhaps a Theocratic Republic would be a good term. Although, given that the person who originally *coined the term* "Theocracy" was the *Jewish historian* Josephus when describing the type of government of Israel as established by Moses, that should probably be enough:
"Now there are innumerable differences in the particular customs and laws that are among all mankind, which a man may briefly reduce under the following heads: Some legislators have permitted their governments to be under monarchies, others put them under oligarchies, and others under a republican form; but our legislator had no regard to any of these forms, but he ordained our government to be what, by a strained expression, may be termed a Theocracy, by ascribing the authority and the power to God, and by persuading all the people to have a regard to him, as the author of all the good things that were enjoyed either in common by all mankind, or by each one in particular, and of all that they themselves obtained by praying to him in their greatest difficulties." - Against Apion Book 2
Do you dislike the government established by Moses?
“Errrr, Ireland, Germany, Portugal, Spain, Finland, Hungary, Greece, Italy, Croatia... It's called Leges Sanguinis. “
Do you mean jus sanguines? That applies to children born of citizens of a country. For example, in the US, if a child is born abroad to a citizen of the US, the child is granted citizenship. That is quite different than the notion of granting citizenship to people born to parents, or grandparents who were never citizens.
A child born in the US today who believed they were German and wanted German citizenship would need to prove that their ancestors at some point were German citizens. For the right of return In Israel today, it is irrelevant whether a modern Jew had ancestors that were once citizens of Israel -- the state. It’s determined by whether a grandparent is/was Jewish. Given that Judaism is a religion and not a race, it is plausible that any given Jew, despite having Jewish grandparents, have absolutely no ancestor who was ever a citizen of any rendition of Israel, even thousands of years ago.
Italy doesn’t have a distinction between Italian citizens and a group of people, say Catholics, who are given a right of immigration and the right of national self determination. A person can be an Israelite and not a Jew. But it is a Jew who is given right of return and national self determination. If I get Italian citizenship, there is no other group of people with birthright citizenship with codified rights that I would not have. For that matter, Denmark doesn't either, even though it has a state church.
“You know who else liked to falsely racialize Jews according to their own cravenness and depravity? Nazis.”
Well given that I don’t think Jews are a race, I’m not sure why you are bringing up Nazis. I actually think there should be a conscious distinction between Jews and people with hebrew / semetic ancestry. A Jew can reject Judaism and no longer be a Jew, regardless of their genetic ancestry. Guess who didn’t think that was possible? Nazis. And ironically, many Jews these days.
Do you believe someone can be an ex-Jew? If you don’t, you are like the Nazis.
When you slander me as being anti semitic when I say anything negative about Judaism or Israel, you are the one who is racializing Jews. And that is probably because Judaism has racialized Jews since the myth of Abraham was invented. For one thing, if a Jew doesn't want people to think they conceive Jews as a race, they shouldn't accuse everyone who has anything negative to say about Judaism or Israel as "anti-semitic." Especially people who explicitly say, such as myself, that Jews are not a race -- or ethnicity. They are members of a religion, just like Catholics, Muslims, or Mormons. The religion they are members of has had a history of conceptualizing its community in a racialized way, obsessed with the seed of its mythical creator. But it is erroneous.
I'm a bit disappointed that you have avoided answering so many of my questions. Especially the one about Moses. Do you think Moses, as depicted by the Torah, was virtuous? And do you think he was more virtuous than you? Do you think it was righteous for Moses to command the murder of all males and pregnant women and the enslavement of all female virgins in the lands he conquered? Do you think the god who you worship gave him that command, as is alleged by the Torah? Are you proud of it? It should be revolting to anyone with a thimble of compassion. Admittedly, for a Jew, it may require a mountain of courage to see it for what it is. Evil.
No, I mean Leges Sanguinis, antisemite. You're deranged.
Well google has no idea what "Leges Sanguinis" is poop-face. Maybe some day you will learn how to argue rationally rather than calling people you don't like anti-semites.
I defined my terms.
“ a person who thinks a particular race should rule any territory is a racial supremacist.”
Any person therefore that thinks a particular race deserves to rule a particular territory would be a Racial Supremacist of a particular race--ie if a person thinks white people should rule a territory, and they are white, they are a “White Supremacist”.
If the person isn’t white but is sympathetic to the idea that white people should rule a territory, they are Racial Supremacists who sympathize with the racial supremacist aspirations of White Supremacists.
Being a Racial Supremacist has been common throughout human history. You have plenty of company.
“Just wanted to quote you for posterity. “
Well, if posterity isn’t filled with Racial Supremacists, such as yourself, they will likely appreciate it.
Personally, I am a Cultural Supremacist. People of particular culture should rule territory, and the particular culture I think should rule does not include racial supremacy as an aspiration.
I'm not that sympathetic with people deciding they have the authority to redefine what words mean to suit their political stance. I've seen too much of that recently.
A typical dictionary definition of a white supremacist:
"a person who believes that white people constitute a superior race and should therefore dominate society"
If you want to invent an idiosyncratic term tied primarily to territory, please use a different word or phrase, rather than contributing the semantic games we've been inundated with.
To suggest that I am redefining words to suit my political stance is not accurate. I am logically extending the meaning of words that already exist.
Even in the definition you provide, what do you think "society" is? Is Israel not a "society" in your mind? Are countries not societies? And what is dominating a society? Can people be said to dominate a society but not rule it? For you to reject my definition because you don't like the word territory is asinine. I use the word territory because it is even more concrete than a word like society. From my knowledge, there has never been a white supremacist who wished white people to dominate a society, but not rule over a territory. Dominating a Society = Ruling over Territory.
In Merriam Webster's dictionary there is no reference to society at all. And the second definition it provides is:
"the social, economic, and political systems that collectively enable white people to maintain power over people of other races"
Hence "Racial Supremacy" would therefore be "the social, economic, and political systems that enable a race of people to maintain power over people of other races."
Hence, "Jewish Supremacy", would therefore be "the social, economic, and political systems that enable jewish people to maintain power over people of other races."
And Israel has a political system that maintains power over people who are not jewish. It is directly in their Nation State Law:
"1 — Basic Principles
A. The land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people, in which the State of Israel was established.
B. The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people, in which it fulfills its natural, cultural, religious, and historical right to self-determination.
C. The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people."
Just replace the word "Jewish" with "White" and it should be clear that the laws are Racial Supremacy laws.
And Id just like to point out that you probably shouldn't put too much stock in dictionaries and their definitions. The people who write dictionaries are not magically exempt from possible political bias, nor are definitions of dictionaries the word of God; they are just the word of some people who decided they had the authority to define what words meant; and some people just bow down to them for some peculiar reason. I do not; no dictionary reveals all the meaning in our words. Although they can be unquestionably valuable.
You make some good points. When you take the time to explain I can follow your reasoning.
Nevertheless, your choice of terminology will saddle you with the unnecessary baggage of fostering misunderstanding. Of course that's your right, but many will not engage with you as I have, and just be disgusted at what appears to be yet another redefinition. You probably don't want to re-explain how your definition is more a rewording than a reconceptualization every time someone misunderstands.
And that's just my advice.
I don't take dictionaries as unquestionable. In fact, I typically consult several and look for the common thread to get a gist of how the term is used. And I keep pre-woke dictionaries (paper) around to consult as well, if I think I detect bias. Why I find dictionaries helpful is that they provide a shared framework through which to communicate ideas. If everybody defines words in their own way, we either get lots of cross communication, or constant need to discover the current custom definitions, or both. Reading some of the output of the academic left is a painful labor if one wishes to accurately understand them (so as to agree or more often disagree meaningfully).
"Of course that's your right, but many will not engage with you as I have, and just be disgusted at what appears to be yet another redefinition. You probably don't want to re-explain how your definition is more a rewording than a reconceptualization every time someone misunderstands."
Fair enough. When time is a consideration, It might be better to avoid language I think might be better and just use conventional language that more people would be less likely to reject reflexively.
I agree that people of all backgrounds have to potential to the racist, but that is the extent to which we agree. As to who should rule, hopefully—in a democracy—a well intended, clever and transparent individual elected by the people. I do not care if by “the people” we are talking about a multicultural society, or could care less about the color of the skin of elected officials.
“Democracy” is a cultural value. Within a democracy, autocracy is scorned. If you favor Democracy over Autocracy, you essentially view Democracy as a superior cultural value over autocracy. And I assume you want people committed to democracy and not autocracy leading the government. I’m sure there are well intended, clever, and transparent autocrats.
And you seem to have a very optimistic view of “the people”!
Remember, “the people” in Venezuela recently voted in their own destruction. A dominant culture that glorifies “democracy” too much has the tendency to self destruct. That is one reason why John Adams strongly encouraged a constitutional republic. And also is one reason no one should trust a party that labels itself the “Democratic Party” that was formed by slavers. Hopefully the Democratic Party implodes before the country.
When is the last time you think a transparent individual was elected to Congress by the people?
My point is, the color of a person (ruler) skin is irrelevant so long as they are effective leaders. I do not know what kind of Supremacist that makes me.
Dunno, but it means you aren't a racial supremacist. Which is good, imho.
Given that 75% of American Jews are on the left, it clearly must be painful for them to be demonized by their Progressive compatriots. It’s unfortunate that they don’t seek solace on the right side of the political spectrum where Jews are respected and welcomed as religious ‘kin’. Judeo-Christian values are the foundation of the American Project. Myopia can be cured without leaving the country.
It is painful.
What is problematic, the right is crazy and getting crazier. If the Republican party was filled with sane people like Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski, there'd be an enormous shift of Jewish voters to it. But it is largely a cult of Trump, which isn't healthy and doesn't offer Jewish voters much. After all, Jews pretty much know that cults are not their friends. Whether progressive or Trump.
Zeke, I agree with CC. More specifically- the current democrat party has been taken over by the neo-Marxist cult of social Justice, and as this article points out — they are the crazy ones, 80+% of the wealthiest US zip codes are their supporters.
Trump’s actual policies were for the most part sensible and overdue but his rhetoric and behavior was often just nuts. He in my view is and was unfit for the office and I wish he would step back and support the party instead of trying to bend it to his will.
The fact that he is so popular should tell you that normal people — those who have not been seduced or forcibly indoctrinated by the media, Hollywood, or our formerly elite institutions, and are afraid of what they see: an obvious fascistic, hard-left political machine ready to end free speech, to teach their children or grand children that if they are white then they are intrinsically racist, and/or can literally be the opposite sex WHEN THEY ARE In ELEMENTARY SCHOOL — these republicans are grasping desperately for anyone who they think will fight for a return to sanity.
The post-modern wing of the democrat left is weaponizing language and erasing boundaries with propaganda about gender affirming care, white supremacy, systemic racism, and claims of fascist republican insurrectionists, open borders, while their intellectual leaders, Ibram Kendi, Robin DiAngelo… openly call for an identity politics driven social justice revolution.
The New York Times funds a 1619 US history project whose authors admit that it is a political narrative selling oppression which does not accurately reflect history, yet the democrat non-profits and Biden himself supports its premises and are successfully pushing it into 100s if not thousands of schools. And the republicans are the crazy ones?
Go listen to the conservative thought leaders recently interviewed on the Uncommon Knowledge podcast and judge them and see if you think they are crazy.
> "whose authors admit that it is a political narrative selling oppression which does not accurately reflect history"
I'm aware of the liberties they took with some history, and the slanted interpretations it promoted. But I haven't seen NHJ or other authors themselves admit that. Do you remember where that was?
here you go: https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/07/1619-project-creator-admits-it-is-not-a-history-but-a-fight-to-control-the-national-narrative/
Thanks. Somewhat of a mott and bailey project.
"Oh, it's just about teaching accurate history, why are you against that? You want to pretend that slavery never existed, there's no other reason to oppose accurate history."
then when challenged:
"It's not history, it's a narrative, an attempt to redirect the national memory (so being historically accurate is not important, the narrative is). And people's attempt to discredit it by using historical facts just shows how racist they are."
Yeah, I learned about that from “counter wokecraft” but didn’t recognize it here… I’ll look at this again
Re: Trump’s behavior - yes it is out of the norm today but when one glances back in history his behavior mirrors other ‘outliers’ such as Teddy Roosevelt & Andrew Jackson for just two. Personally, I found Trump to be somewhat of a fresh breeze that was able to penetrate the mind numbing & ineffective political-speech of Foggy Bottom.
Your perspective about the Republican Party is skewed by the Main Stream Media (MSM). I would suggest reading and listening more broadly. I am guessing you might not even know any Republicans...
Do you think it’s as high as 75% or is it the media and social media that frames the narrative? I would really like to know the true number of Jews who support Israel and are Zionists as opposed to all the pole numbers we are
The 75-80% figure is the amount of Jews that vote Democrat. How that is divvied up in the various Democrat factions, I don't know but I am sure the figures are out there with some goggling/research.
I think it is getting lower and that our Jewish brethren are shifting away from the hard Left. But I am only basing that on my personal experiences with my significant other's family who are right leaning moderates. ( To the extent that a couple are Trump supporters.)
Seriously what is wrong with a Trump supporter?
Nothing at all!! If it came out that there was something wrong with that, my apologies. I supported DJT and will continue to support him. Irrespective of what others think, I know he loves this country, and that's enough for me after the Obama years.
There is nothing progressive about the left.
The rise of antisemitism in Europe and the US is appalling. You expect antisemitism on the far right but the left is supposed to be all accepting of differing beliefs. They are blatant hypocrites. They always have been. That a Jew can be a Democrat is a head scratcher. (Head scratcher = a puzzler)
These morons on the left glorify Islam a religion that supports misogyny and the violent takeover of the non-Islamic world. I have said this before. When is the last time you saw a Jew in a suicide vest?
Israel is an island of sanity surrounded by the insane.
There is no reason to "expect anti-semitism on the Right" other than that the Left tells you to.
Are you saying there is no antisemitism on the right?
Agree with lonesome’s fundamental points here. Yet, let me complain about the supposed “right / left” narrative the far left uses, eg. Antifa, as propaganda about the right.
I spent several days researching where Hitler sat on the political spectrum. I concluded Hitler was not “right-wing.” He claimed Fascism was the middle path between capitalism -- his version of fascist ideology was centralized government authority that allowed “private” property and business as long as it is subservient to the will of said government -- and Stalin’s communism of which he admired for its central planning, control, and its “innovation” of what we now know as concentration camps.
His murderous party provided scapegoats along with free health care and “education” (actually indoctrination and programming, enslaving minds not freeing them). He did not seek to conserve anything of Germany’s past beyond its cultural dominance and that he utterly perverted. The idea that Hitler was “far right” appears to be a fiction designed by the far left to paint the actual conservative right as evil. The “pre-eminent scholar” who paints Hilter as on the right was a Columbia University political science professor who I would not trust to walk my dog much less teach my kids. Hitler was perhaps to the right of Stalin but in no way reflects any historical conservatism of Lincoln’s Republican Party.
This is not to say that nazi skin heads didn’t/don’t exist, they do, but Hitler was not a conservative, nor was he “right wing” his party had socialist in its name but he had his own evil, nihilistic ideology and rejected Marx.
If I’m wrong someone please show me.
I agree. I have read Shirer's Berlin Diary and am reading his "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich". He goes into great detail about Hitler's upbringing and what made him tick.
It is interesting that you (appropriately) chose the word, “allowed” capitalism.
The biggest clue might be the name of the party… national SOCIALISTS.
The left has always embraced authoritarianism. Your focus on central planning, which is so very spot-on, is impossible without that enforcement mechanism.
Well said!
The rise of anti-Semitism on the Left is also coincident with the increase of Muslim immigration to Europe and the u s.
No question. How the Islamists have managed to take over our universities, normalizing hate speech against Israel and Jews, is beyond me. I guess it’s the hijacking of the liberal mindset (we must be tolerant of all viewpoints/we can’t discriminate against Muslims), but when they disrupt speakers by screaming, when they get speakers disinvited because they’re conservative, “pro-Israel” or just reasonable) takes it to a whole other level. The university administrators and professors have been co-opted by the left, and this is the result. And it’s not just about Israel. See the Oberlin College disaster with Gibson’s bakery. Disgusting.
Oberlin also employs Mohammad Jafar Mahallati who is the Nancy Schrom Dye Chair in Middle East and North African Studies. He was also Iran's ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations from 1987 to 1989 where he denied the mass executions of political prisoners.
Perhaps most pertinent to recent news, this man has publicly supported the fatwa on Salman Rushdie.
Yeah Oberlin! Falsely accuses a baker and family of racism but employs a man who supports the assassination of people with whom he disagrees.
Unreal. Can you imagine what lies he’s teaching his students? Shame on them.
The anit-western element of the woke ideology can be traced back to Edward Said, his book Orientalism, and its influence on the super woke field of Post-Colonial Studies.
Don’t forget Sayyid Qutb (father of global islamo-fascist-terrorism) who wrote “Social Justice” went to college in Colorado.
American Orthodox Jews tend to lean right...at least the Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn.
Best sentence I've read in awhile: Being progressive is cool until you find yourself at the sharp end of the knife of intersectionality.
Thank you for your response; I am not Jewish but my significant other is. This is a huge issue that is growing and it's sickening.