Friday, May 18, 2018

The zombification of Western Civilization:

I.  Sighted on Twitter:

John Legend:
Even human beings who commit heinous acts are the same species as us, not "animals". I'm in the hospital with our new son. Any of these babies here could end up committing terrible crimes in the future. It's easy, once they've done so, to distance ourselves from their humanity.

Ben Shapiro:
My great-great-grandparents weren’t members of a violent and brutal gang responsible for widespread drug trafficking. Were yours?

Jonathan Weisman:
Ever heard of Meyer Lansky?

II. Do you notice what's happening here?

Trump referred to rapists, gangsters, murderers, drug traffickers and traders in human flesh "animals". When the attempt to smear him as having dehumanized all illegal immigrants failed, they immediately moved to Plan B: it is wrong to de-humanize hardened criminals.
And always there is some Jew's pathological need to point out how Jews are just as bad as those MS-13 gangsters.

III. So I have these points to make:

1. In Fargo Season 1, Lou, a former state trooper in conversation with the human demon Lorne Malvo in which he recounts a past experience of utter carnage and evil, says:

"I'd call it animal, but animals only kill for food."

2. When Chuck Schumer tweeted:
"When all of our great-great-grandparents came to America they weren’t “animals,” and these people aren’t either."
did he know he was creating an equivalency between Jews escaping pogroms, and grinding poverty in Europe and MS-13 gangsters who deal in human trafficking, drugs, violence, rape, murder? 

3. When this uber-chuchem above berated Ben Shapiro for forgetting Mayer Lanski was a gangster (as if it is somehow relevant but never mind that now), little did he know that in 1970, Lansky fled to Israel. Although the Israeli Law of Return allows any Jew to settle in the State of Israel, the law allows the government to use discretion to exclude those with a criminal past. Two years after Lansky fled to Israel, Israeli authorities deported him back to the US.

So, in his example he was inadvertently reinforcing Trump's point.

4. When people in a certain culture normalize heinous criminals, claim that Farrakhan is justice hero, that Hamas terrorists are innocent protesters, that Iran is a "thriving democracy", that immigration laws are racist projects, that Assad is a "reformer", that using He or She to designate gender is bigotry, that Zionism is the only and worst form of anti-Semitism, that Jews should say Kadish ( a Jewish prayer for the dead)  for Palestinian terrorists, that Canadian PM is wise to welcome back an ISIS graduate with open arms, what does it mean about that culture? Where is that culture going?

Who was it said that empires are never defeated by outside forces but crumble from the inside. These are just warning signs of the great sickness at the heart of the great American experiment. We know it because all of these new principles I itemized are now being taught - indoctrinated - into the minds of young students who will be tomorrow's leaders. And what kind of worldviews are we producing in our universities? 

Here is one possibility:

"Winston, sitting in a blissful dream, paid no attention as his glass was filled up. He was not running or cheering any longer. He was back in the Ministry of Love, with everything forgiven, his soul white as snow. He was in the public dock, confessing everything, implicating everybody. He was walking down the white-tiled corridor, with the feeling of walking in sunlight, and an armed guard at his back. The longhoped-for bullet was entering his brain.
He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother. "

No wonder so many films today are about zombies.

Wednesday, May 16, 2018


A note on Arab antisemitism
Yehoshafat Harkabi  (1970)   

The argument that the Arabs, being themselves Semites, cannot be antisemitic is only a quibble, for antisemitism means hatred of the Jews and not of the Semites. 

The fact that Arabs could see the moral havoc antisemitism has wrought
in Germany, and still not be inhibited, indicates the vehemence of their antisemitism. True, the Germans destroyed millions of Jews, but after reading what Arabs write about Israel I cannot escape the impression that many Arabs also harbour such a dream. It may be that such desires are more prevalent and central in Arab society than they were in the German society. 

Arabs have gone far in their vilification of Israel and the Jews, and the way back is not short.

There is now a tendency in some Arab quarters to give an Islamic form to Arab antisemitism. Many examples are found in the monthly magazine of Al-Azhar, the oldest and principal Islamic university in Cairo. In its October 1968 issue,
a religious dignitary evokes a tradition (hadith) according to which Muhammed declared that a Muslim slaughter of the Jews will precede the day of resurrection. The learned sheik asserts the authenticity of this tradition and its importance
as a gospel. He explains that killing Jewish minorities, whose position in the Arab countries was low, was unbecoming. (This illustrates the basic attitude toward the Jews. The Koran decreed(KK, 58; III, 108) that they should be in a low and miserable position.) Thus, God ordained that the Jews would get an aggressive
state and attain power, so that henceforth the hadith may be realized. The hidden meaning of this tradition, he argues, will thus unfold. Theological justification is given to politicide genocide and a comforting explanation to Arab defeats. Had there been a similar article in Christian publication, there would have a been an uproar of protest.

Professor R. I. Al-Fruki has given a series of lectures in the Arab League Institute of High Arab Studies on "The Origins of Zionism are in the Jewish Religion", in which he analyzes Judaism disparagingly. 

Arab efforts to differentiate between Judaism and Zionism usually founder. Both are too frequently described in Arab writings as identical (sinwaan), or else Zionism is said to be only "the executive mechanism" of Judaism. "World Zionism" and "world Jewry" are treated as identical. 

Thus it is no wonder that anti-Zionist Jews are stigmatized as hypocritical and fraudulent.

I do not argue that Arab antisemitism has social or religious roots; its origins are mainly political. Nevertheless, it is not an accidental growth in the Arab stand against Israel. The need to substantiate the evil of Israel, as. a state that deserves a death verdict, produced an inclination to present its evil as profound.

Sunday, April 08, 2018

What do Palestinians long for?

From Nasir al-Din al-Nashashibi's 1962 book, "Return Ticket."

"I shall see the hatred in the eyes of my son and your sons. I shall see how they take revenge. If they do not know how to take revenge, I shall teach them. And, if they agree to a truce or peace, I shall fight against them as I fight against my enemy and theirs. I want them to be callous, to be ruthless, to take revenge. I want them to wash away the disaster of 1948 with the blood of those who prevent them from entering their land. Their homeland is dear to them. But revenge is dearer. We'll enter their lairs in Tel Aviv. We'll smash Tel Aviv with axes, guns, hands, fingernails and teeth, while singing the songs of Kibya Dir Yassin and Nasir ad-Din. We shall sing the hymns of the triumphant avenging return." (P. 6-7)

And today?

Hamas declaration on April 2018:

What's the difference between Far-Right antisemitism
and Far-Left anti-Semitism?

Far-Right antisemitism is hatred and fear of Jews qua Jews, all Jews.

Far-Left antisemitism is hatred of what they call Zionists, those 98% of world Jews who either live in Israel or support Israel, or have no problem with the idea and  existence of a Jewish state. 

What makes it possible for Far Left Antisemitism to claim they are not antisemitic is the (possibly) 2%* of Jews who don't support the Jewish state. 

If there are 13M Jews in the world,
Far Right antisemites hate all 13M of them.
Far Left antisemites hate "only" 12,740,000 of them.

So what is the difference between Far-Right antisemitism and Far-Left antisemitism?

Far Left antisemites believe they have a really good reason to hate most of the Jews, unlike Far Right antisemites who are much less bothered to look for good reasons to hate Jews.

 * It's quite possible that I've exaggerated on the side of caution the percentage of Jews who don't favour Israel.

Saturday, December 09, 2017

Jean-Paul Sartre on defeating anti-Semitism:

“The cause of the Jews would be half won if only their friends brought to their defense a little of the passion and the perseverance their enemies use to bring them down.In order to waken this passion, what is needed id not to appeal to the generosity of the Aryans- with even the best of them, that virtue is in eclipse. What must be done is to point out to each one that the fate of the Jews is his fate. Not one Frenchman will be free so long as the Jews do not enjoy the fullness of their rights. Not one Frenchman will be secure so long as a single Jew – in France or in the world at large – can fear for his life”

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

 Never attribute to ignorance what can more easily 
be explained as malevolence

Comments follow up:

On Chicago Dyke March Official Statement on 2017 March and Solidarity with Palestine

I left the following comment (27 June 2017 ~ 6:40 pm). Awaiting moderation.

"That may be what the flag means to you, but other people find it offensive.”

In the Middle Ages, Easter times were hazardous for Jews in Christendom. The Christians for whom Easter was a time of mourning for Jesus’ death thought that the Jewish Passover which is more or less at the same time as Easter, was a celebration of the death of Jesus. One may wonder where they got that idea? Their priests encouraged them to interpret Jewish preparations for Passover in this light. With the result that Easter time was often a good time to stage pogroms, expulsions and other such Jewish delights.

When Jews tried to explain that there was nothing true in this perception, they were told:

That may be what the holiday means to you, but other people find it offensive.”

What’s the difference between Far-Right antisemitism and Far-Left antisemitism?

Far-Right antisemitism is hatred and fear of Jews qua Jews, all Jews.

Far-Left antisemitism is hatred of what they call Zionists, those 98% of world Jews who either live in Israel or support Israel, or have no problem with the idea and existence of a Jewish state.

What makes it possible for Far Left Antisemitism to claim they are not antisemitic is the (possibly) 2%* of Jews who don’t support the Jewish state.

If there are 13M Jews in the world, Far Right antisemites hate all 13M of them.

Far Left antisemites hate “only” 12,740,000 of them.

So what is the difference between Far-Right antisemitism and Far-Left antisemitism?

Far Left antisemites believe they have a really good reason to hate most of the Jews, unlike Far Right antisemites who are much less bothered to look for good reasons to hate Jews.

Monday, May 29, 2017

Beinart's favourite posturing

From Beinart's feverish pen comes this latest gem:

Why Israel Should Embrace This ‘Palestinian Gandhi’ — Not Jail Him

"Unfortunately, the Israeli government does not yearn for Palestinian Gandhis." he laments later in the article.

No, no Israeli or Jew should yearn for any Gandhi.  As a Jew who likes to adorn himself with his pristine Jewishness, Beinart should know his people's history, as it actually unfolded, not as he arranges it in his imagination.

In what role can Gandhi, possibly, serve as a moral model for Jews, or anybody?

Never mind that Gandhi implacably stated:

"The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me."

Never mind that he openly admitted knowing that

 "the German persecution of the Jews seems to have no parallel in history."

What was his humanistic solution? Denial of national home on the one hand and German genocidal threats fully perceived as real on the other, what were the Jews to do?

But never fear. He had a solution. The saintly Mahatma calmly proposed in 1938:

" If I were a Jew and were born in Germany.. as the tallest gentile German may, and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the dungeon; I would refuse to be expelled or to submit to discriminating treatment. And for doing this, I should not wait for the fellow Jews to join me in civil resistance but would have confidence that in the end the rest are bound to follow my example. If one Jew or all the Jews were to accept the prescription here offered, he or they cannot be worse off than now. And suffering voluntarily undergone will bring them an inner strength and joy which no number of resolutions of sympathy passed in the world outside Germany can... But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy that Jehovah had wrought deliverance of the race even at the hands of the tyrant. For to the godfearing, death has no terror. It is a joyful sleep to be followed by a waking that would be all the more refreshing for the long sleep."

When asked by his biographer Louis Fischer,

“You mean that the Jews should have committed collective suicide?” 

Gandhi answered

“Yes, that would have been heroism.”

In 1946, he said

“Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. As it is, they succumbed anyway in their millions.” 

Gandhi was severely disappointed in the Jews for the Holocaust.

There is no winning with this guy, no survival, no life, no future for the Jews. This is the moral model that Beinart raises his gaze to, in utter cringe.

Friday, April 28, 2017


 aligned herself sentimentally and seamlessly with suffering Palestinians, reserving for them her absolute anger and attendant pity to the extent that suffering Israelis merited nothing but a sneering hatred from her. Corrie’s idealism did not proceed from love but from ideologically induced hatred. She was a de-facto apologist for Palestinian terrorism, and she died trying to prevent the work of an Israeli bulldozer, which was searching for munitions buried in the ground . Contrary to Palestinian reports and what is generally claimed, the bulldozer was not there to demolish a house, (though houses used as cover for weapon-smuggling tunnels were demolished by the IDF, but not on that particular day). Any which way you slice it, those munitions were there to be utilized in attacks against innocent civilians. Corrie died protecting terrorist weapons. She was completely indifferent to the deaths these weapons spelled at a time when suicide bombings were a matter of daily, sometimes hourly, occurrence in Israel.

Btw, when I look at this photo of Corrie what strikes me is less her complete self-abandon to mindless hatred. What I notice is the difference between her semi-crazed demeanor and the baffled and smiling faces of the Palestinian kids, who surround her. What can it mean?