Saturday, 24 August 2013

It is clear that is present demographic trends continue, and no dramatic political rupture with the status quo occurs, European civilisation will expire some time in the next century or two. If we ask why this has happened, why it was allowed to occur, the answer must be that a strain of self-hatred in European elite culture has created the conditions for our demise.

Some people blame the Jews for this; or Marxism. Both have had an influence. But the strain of self-hatred clearly predates the influence either of Marxism or Jewish intellectualism.

In the 18th century, for example, French philosophes loved to contrast Europe unfavourably with the Orient. The work Histoire des deux Indes (History of the East and West Indies), which was a sensational best-seller in the late 18th century, popularised the now wearily familiar tropes of anti-European hate discourse, based on our supposed oppression of non-Europeans, decades before Marx was even born. In 1770, the science fiction novel “L’An 2440” was published. It told the story of a man who, after engaging in a discussion about the injustices of pre-revolutionary France, woke up in the Paris of the year 2440. On his travels around the city, he came across a statue to a proud-looking negro, at whose feet lay twenty broken sceptres representing the kingdoms of Europe. “To the Avenger of the New World,” read the inscription.

We are living with the consequences of this European self-hatred today. You would think that people resisting the damaging consequences that this attitude has brought in its wake – the colonisation of the continent by non-Europeans and, most especially, Muslims – would themselves be free of this moral taint. But actually many of them are not at all. In fact, quite a few of them seem to relish indulging it just as much as the multicultists who created this catastrophe in the first place.

Pamela Geller is a good example of a person who continuously implies or explicitly states that Europeans deserve to have their civilisation destroyed because of what some Europeans did to Jews. And this view is a very common one. I come across it often, usually in the comment sections, when I browse American Counterjihad websites. Geller recently posted an article about an Arab harassing a Jewish woman and her child in Sweden.
There was a gentleman sitting in our reserved seat. An Arab, maybe fifty years old, listening to music. Apologizing for the inconvenience, I asked him politely for our seat. He got up, inspected my son, and then leaned over me, saying: You people always take what you want. You need to learn.

He then walked straight into my son, causing him to fall over, and took the seat behind us.

We sat. Hiding my trembling hands from my son’s sight, I picked up Shabbes for Kids and started to review the week’s Torah portion with him. We hadn’t progressed as far as a page before the man stood up and screamed: Quiet! I don’t want to hear that! You take what you want and never think of others! Shut up!

He stamped his feet, grunting and glaring at my son. Fighting tears of rage, I assured Charlie that the man was just grumpy and tried to turned the episode into a game, one that required us to remain super quiet for as long as possible. I even managed to coax a conspiratorial smile out of him.

But even this failed to appease our tormentor, who spent the rest of the trip repeatedly kicking the back of my son’s seat. At one point I glanced around our compartment: there were four other people there, four adults witnessing a single mother and her five-year-old child being attacked by a grown man. They did nothing. I tried forcing them to meet my gaze; but they just turned away, put on their headphones, stared at their screens, ignored what was happening in front of them.
Source: Mosaic

Pamela Geller introduces this article with the words, “Europe doing what it does best.” What does Europe do best, Pamela? Why are Europeans to blame when an Arab colonist that almost none of them would have wanted in their country harasses people on a train?

Now let’s consider this essay on the website Destroy Zionism, which I found linked to on Kevin Macdonald’s website Occidental Observer. For the record, I’m not against Zionism and have no wish to destroy it. In fact, if Zionism simply means supporting the right of the Jews to live in their ancestral homeland, Israel, then I am a Zionist myself. I don’t understand why some people agitate against Zionism unless it’s just a code word that makes antisemitism seem more respectable. But since some of these people and sites are marginal anyway, I don’t see what they would lose from proclaiming their true feelings openly. If I was an antisemite I would say so openly and set out my reasons for being one. And those reasons would be good reasons. As I see it, however, insofar as there is any problem with Jews, it does not relate to Zionism: Jews living in their own homeland. The problem is with diaspora Jews who, because they live as a minority in other people’s countries, disproportionately promote ideas and support political movements that delegitimise the very idea of a people having a moral entitlement to a homeland of their own, deconstructing and denigrating the healthy patriotism of their host communities. Which neatly brings us back to the contents of the article, which traces the rise of multiculturalism in Sweden.
Lars-Erik Hansen’s dissertation Equality and freedom to choose. A study in the emergence of Swedish Immigration Policy (Stockholm University, Department of History, 2001) lists the actors who were a driving force in the debate to introduce the new multicultural policy. Regarding the actors, the study confirms previous academic research on how multiculturalism arose, such as Henry Román’s study En invandrarpolitisk oppositionell : debattören David Schwarz syn på svensk invandrarpolitik åren 1964-1993 [An immigration policy opponent: commentator David Schwarz's view of Swedish immigration policy 1964-1993] who attributes Schwarz “a crucial role” in the game behind the introduction of the new policy.

Thus, the ideological change started in 1964 when David Schwarz, a Polish born Jew and “Holocaust” survivor who immigrated to Sweden in the early 1950s, wrote the article “The Immigration problem in Sweden” in Sweden’s largest and most important morning newspaper – the Jewish-owned Dagens Nyheter (“Daily News”). It started a rancorous debate that mostly took place in Dagens Nyheter, but which subsequently continued even in other newspapers, on editorial pages and in books. Hansen (2001) writes in his thesis (p. 115):

The leading debaters who were the first to claim minority rights and conditions were especially David Schwarz, Inga Gottfarb, Amadeo Cottio, Voldemer Kiviaed, Géza Thinsz and Lukasz Winiarki – all of which had an immigrant background.

Besides Schwarz, Gottfarb had Jewish descent. Kiviaed was Estonian, Géza Thinsz immigrated from Hungary in 1956 (the same year as the massive persecution of Jews started which would have the effect that within a few decades half of Hungary’s Jews had fled the country) and Lukasz Winiarki immigrated from Poland. Schwarz was by far the most active opinion-former and accounted for 37 of a total of 118 contributions to the debate on the immigration issue in the years 1964-1968. Schwarz and his co-thinkers were so dominant and aggressive that debaters with an alternative view were driven on the defensive and felt their views suppressed. For example, Schwarz played the anti-Semitism card efficiently in order to discredit his opponents. Hansen writes (pp. 114, 126-128, 217):

An increasing number of commentators and publishers made similar criticisms against what they saw as the majority’s lack of understanding of minorities’ conditions, particularly in the non-clearly stated, yet what many saw as a real policy of assimilation, which they feared would lead to an erasure of the different minority cultures and life patterns to amount to the rectifying or conformist national majority’s established pattern. Strongest in this criticism was David Schwarz and Voldemar Kiviaed – they claimed that the assimilation zealots appeared in the spirit of the Russians in the Baltic states and that their approach could also be compared with Eichmann’s ‘final solution’, although in more humane shape. Increased government action was required to avoid assimilation, partly by direct financial support to minorities, partly by an official policy for a pluralistic society. [...]

The policy toward Jewish immigration to Sweden, especially during World War II, was put forward as a blot in the Swedish political history. Bruno Kaplan, head of the teaching of the Jewish community in Stockholm and represented in the World Jewish Congress, lined up a number of examples of this regulatory policy (exclusion model), partly student protest against importation of some Jewish doctors in 1938, partly a number of leading newspapers which warned of this immigration. Leif Zern [who, like Kaplan, is Jewish, blogger's note] emphasized Kaplan’s view that it was clear from the then existing policy that there was anti-Semitism, and stressed: “Of course there are no statistics on how many Jews the feature (the regulation of Jewish immigration) led to the gas chambers.” [...]

Bruno Kaplan was convinced that the survival of a small Jewish minority depended on how the state and municipalities acted – a policy that advocated tolerance and respect for minority distinctiveness was necessary. In this spirit should the Jewish minority, in their efforts to preserve their identity, get the full support from Swedish society. [...]

David Schwarz was the most active debater in the immigrant issue, his views and values had a major impact. David Schwarz became the first and foremost spokesman of the pluralistic state intervention model [...]

In the official immigrant debate, some players played a big role in the policy process, especially adherents of multiculturalism. [...] They encouraged the political parties to address the issue of ethnic equality on the agenda. Then, a veritable race began to see who was the biggest and best in the immigrant issue.

The debate gave rise to government investigations such as Invandrarutredningen (The Immigrant Investigation) 1968 which formed the basis for the government’s bill (1975:26) on guidelines for immigrant and minority policy which was adopted by a totally unanimous Swedish Parliament in 1975. David Schwarz got what he wanted, which was to be a fateful decision whose consequences we see the results of today. The starting point was thus a cultural pluralist perspective, which meant that immigrants with massive government intervention and financial support would be encouraged to preserve their culture (and thus send out signals to the world that Sweden is a tolerant country where everyone is welcome). The meeting between the Swedish culture and minority cultures would be enriching to the whole community and the majority population would begin to adapt to the minorities. The integration goal would be a reciprocal process in which both parties meet on the road (which in practice means increasing rootlessness). Moreover, increased internationalization of Swedish society was seen as an overall objective in the whole community planning.
Source: DestroyZionism

Now I don’t have any significant knowledge of Swedish history. I’ve been learning Swedish and perhaps, in time, will acquire enough knowledge to be able to independently evaluate the claims made in this article. For now, I will say that the presentation seems fairly cogent and convincing to me. If there are Swedes (or non-Swedes) out there who want to challenge this account, I’d love to hear from them in the comments section.

But let’s assume it’s true. What do we have then? Swedes didn’t want their country to be colonised by aliens but were stigmatised as Nazis by Jews and thus intellectually intimidated into agreeing to it. The colonisation takes place, mostly by Muslims, who then persecute the Jews living in Sweden. The Swedes are then stigmatised as Nazis by Jews for having let the Muslims in. What’s wrong with this picture?

When are we going to see some assumption of moral responsibility from the many Jews active in the Counterjihad movement? Europeans have been apologising for the Holocaust for more than half a century, including Europeans whose ancestors had nothing to do with it and even fought against its perpetrators. Jews have been disproportionately involved in promoting Communism and multiculturalism, ideologies that have already blighted and ruined large parts of Europe and may well end up destroying European civilisation completely. When are we going to see some expressions of regret and apology, and acknowledgement of fault, by Jews for their overwhelmingly disproportionate involvement in these catastrophic political movements, which, as we see, have ended up harming Jews as well as native Europeans? I suspect the answer is never. Every time any Europeans stood up to issue warnings about the consequences of third-world immigration they were branded Nazis, often but not exclusively by Jews. And when the last Jew has been driven out of Europe by its Muslim invaders, the whole historical process will simply be folded into the "Nazi European" narrative.

Saying that Europeans deserve to have their civilisation wiped out because some Europeans treated Jews badly in the past is the moral equivalent of saying that Jews deserved to suffer the Holocaust because some Jews played a leading role in Communist movements. Yet one remark is so common as to be banal, and provokes almost no reaction, even from cowed Europeans themselves; while the other would provoke immediate and almost universal outrage.

Europeans involved in the Counterjihad movement are accustomed to accept these insane anti-European tirades on the American websites they visit without a murmur of demur. Perhaps they are afraid of being branded Nazis. Perhaps they have internalised the anti-European hatred. The problem is that this meek acceptance of anti-European hate discourse, this state of moral intimidation, is exactly the mindset that led to the problem we now face: the islamisation of our continent. There is no way out for Europeans unless they learn to recover a natural pride in their culture and history and a healthy and ruthless willingness to pursue their own self-interest and bite back against those who attack them, including intellectually. That means, at some level, ceasing to care what other people think of us. It means, among other things, no longer allowing Americans or Jews to define us according to their own narrow self-perceptions and interests.

I started this website in part because I saw that there was no serious English-language voice for Europe within the anti-Islam movement. All of the major English-language websites are non-European. At best, they fail to take the distinctive circumstances of Europe into account; at worst, they relay the same kind of anti-European hate discourse (Oh, Nazis!) that created the problem in the first place. Almost all activists in the European Counterjihad movement continue to be intellectually dominated by these foreign websites. They must learn to free their minds and think as Europeans if our civilisation is to survive.



19 comments:

Anonymous said...

The problem is that the only voices that Americans hear from Europe are extreme leftists, who are usually very anti-American and disgusting Communists with really terrible resumes (like Fischer and Cohn-Bendit).

I used to be one of the American anti-Europeans, largely because I didn't know that people like you existed. Now that I understand the European nationalist point of view much better, I've become more critical of my own country and more favorable toward the European nationalists. The dividing point is Marxism/Communism; we never understood why you Western Europeans seemed to like it so much, when you had the example of the disastrous Soviet and Eastern European "experiments" so close at hand.

Anonymous said...

European peoples do not hate themselves; their educational systems have sought to denigrate, deny or distort a large part of their own national histories. It therefore becomes easier to insert insidious concepts which ultimately destroy national identity, patriotism and the religious foundation (amongst them: multiculturalism, multiracialism/miscegenation, 'diversity', automatic 'respect' without reflection, misdirected charity towards foreigners at the expense of one's own people, open borders...). After such an onslaught, Islam easily fills the void.
---------

Earlier this year the chap who runs Gates of Vienna said, with seeming approval, that at least 50% of the "counter-jihad movement" was Jewish-dominated. This is the crux of the problem, of why so few concrete steps are taken to oppose, diminish and remove Islamic influence and literal presence in Western countries; but to admit why this is so involves looking into both 'faiths', Judaism and Islam. As with Jesus Christ, so, too, with Mohamed: amongst his first followers were Jews, especially rabbis and this fact means they brought with them Talmudic Judaism (Mohamed 570-632 AD; 600 years after Christ referred to the Pharisees as the 'synagogue of Satan', not true Jews, a lost sheep, etc). Talking about this subject, of the Jewish influence on the West, without touching on the religious basis, is like discussing the problems of Islam without ever mentioning the Koran, Hadiths or Mohamed. The Talmudic view of the non-Israelite (codified long before Christianity, and therefore a view of the rest of humanity, the Gentiles, not only relating to Christians), its view of apostasy, its laws, paedophilia, usury (wrong if applied to another Israelite, acceptable in dealing with non-Israelites), all of this is where the problem starts and needs to be admitted and addressed. As for 'guilt', that is not a Christian concept, it comes from Judaism (sins of the fathers be upon the sons unto seven generations); Christianity is about repentance, acknowledgement of sin and willingness to make amends and redemption and salvation.

Re the Swedish issue, when the Nazis marched into Denmark the Danes managed to safely remove their Jewish Danes to Sweden, thanks to the Swedes who took the refugees in, at great peril to themselves. Any Jew disparaging Swedes needs to be confronted with the facts. The Swedes have many centuries' tradition and history of communal solidarity and good governance (and a fighting spirit); they had a deep effect and links with Eastern Europe including Russia and the American Mid-West was significantly populated by them as genuine immigrants in the 19th century.

I, too, find the anti-European tone of many American sites offensive and rather immature but, again, its down largely to deliberate mis-education (for which East European Jewish influence in academia should not be underestimated). It's unreasonable, too, given that the majority of Americans are of English/Scots/Irish/Welsh/Germanic/Scandinavian ancestry (until the last half-century's deliberate Third World immigration, also engineered in part through Jewish influence in the legislative process).

In America, the Jewish influence has been through academia and the media predominantly and in the damaging 'immigration' process; in Europe, especially in Britain, the influence is on stifling, restricting or criminalising free speech (Jewish influence in drafting 'hate speech' laws, Jewish Home Secretaries, other Ministers of State, Prime Ministers, and the impact of the press supporting such legislation).

Anonymous said...

As European Ashkenazi Jew, I would like to note - this and similar topics are completely made up.

In Europe,
the persecution of Jews by Europeans - historical facts, whereas
persecution of Europeans by Jews - complete fantasy.
The contribution of Jews to European civilization also factually undeniable. Just compare with islamic "achievements".

For centuries, Jews in Europe were not allowed to bear weapons, had no land property rights, no freedom of settlement. Is it surprising that in times of Russian revolution, they became politically active to get at least some part of the pie named justice.

Judaism itself and its religious festivals (Sukkot, Hanuka, Passover) mostly represent a mythology of the persecuted tribe.

There are many historical divisions in counter-jihad, - for God's sake, Germans on one side and French and British on the other killed each other in hundreds of thousands in 2 WW wars. There is no match with number of people actually killed by organized Jewish armed force in Europe, that was probably only a militia in Warsaw getto, which had existed merely several months.

There are all reasons for Jews and Europeans to form alliance to confront common enemy - Islam and third world pre-biblical savagery imported to the free world by brainless idiots who betrayed joint cultural traditions of Europe. Which are inseparable, - Greek, Hebrew, Christian and Modern Humanistic.

Oh and BTW my ancestors have arrived to Europe the same time if not earlier than Hunns to Hungary, Vikings to Normandy or Anglo-Saxons to Britain.

In every European city I visit, the Cathedral is the first place I go - and always leave donation. And the next is art museum.

The last thing I want to see is a dilution of European identites. Because they are my identity, too.

mony said...

Cheradenine
i don't want to respond to the things y wrote above. clearly u have an issue with the jews and we have argued about it in previous posts of yours.
i do not agree to your point of view.
what i would like to stress is that lately i see the issue of islam from the macro and not the micro.
this is the story: islamic expansion of 1400 years.
culminating lately in another wave of christian ethnic cleansing in the middle east and parts of africa. islamic invasion to europe and america.
israel is a westran non muslim country in an area used to be multi religious. europeans trying to weaken us so the arab will calm a bit. it will not help. if israel falls , islam will score another goal and europe is next. i hope europeans will start seeing this issue in the same way .

Reality Check said...

I think a lot of American counterjihadists are so frustrated with Europe's citizens for allowing the elites to enslave them and using hate speech laws, to cower them. I visit your site frequently and it is so refreshing to hear this. In America, we are currently debating an amnesty bill/immigration tripling bill. It is utter insanity, and of course all the Jews in elite positions (govt, corp, activist, etc) are all in. Pisses me off.

I still don't understand why Sweden is so far down the road of islamization with very little pushback although this article certainly shows its genesis. It is civilizational suicide in overdrive. I hate it. I hate what is happening to Europe and want Europeans to fight back. Screw the US. Do what is best for Europe.

Anonymous said...

One of the reasons why Western countries appear almost suicidal and unwilling to take actions to redress the Islamic presence and ideology is because Westerners are constantly confronted with their assumed history of bigotry and injustice towards another minority, the Jews. This is akin to the tale of the Emperor's New Clothes: it was the child's honest statement (the Emperor had no new clothes, he was naked and his people feared his wrath if they stated the truth) which brought that world of fear and illusions down. We need to correct the distorted image of the West and its Christian peoples in this regard: firstly, because the Truth should be known and acknowledged and, secondly, it is this false image of Jewish/Christian history and relationships (and all its additional 'baggage' of restrictive free speech/beliefs and duplicitous media) which is neutering us and leaving us open to conquest and domination. The epithet of 'anti-semitism' was devised in the late 1870s by a Left activist, Wilhelm Marr whose political activities were financed by his wealthy Jewish wife and this term was linked with that of 'racism' (which was first used in the same time period) to deflect attention from the ideology which presented, through its own tenets, many of the roots of hostility between Jews and Christians in the West. We should cease using that term and regard it in the same manner as 'xenophobia,' 'far-right', 'islamophobia' etc, a slur against reasoned and hopefully factual debate on issues absolutely essential to our freedoms and our futures as individuals and to our own countries and civilisation.

mony said...

Anonymous
first- i am an israeli. never heard that israelies
blame the "west" for the Holocaust. where did u get that from...?

Jake-a-runi said...

So, if I scratch a gentile I reveal an anti-semite?

Jews have been disproportionately involved in promoting Communism and multiculturalism, ideologies that have already blighted and ruined large parts of Europe and may well end up destroying European civilisation completely.

Yeah, sometimes. Regardless of how absurd the statements may be, the standards of veracity the Jew baiters employ are purely ex cathedra (that is, no veracity whatever).

The simple fact is no one protected a woman with a child. I would have broken his nose, and I'm sixty-seven.



Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

It is beyond serious dispute that Jews were disproportionately involved in Communism and in promoting multiculturalism and immigration. If you doubt that, I suggest you read Kevin Macdonald's book A Culture of Critique where he has assembled a mountain of evidence.

Orientals tend to conduct their disputes by disregarding facts, however, preferring to deal in accusations of wickedness. Perhaps you have an oriental cast of mind and are therefore not interested in the facts.

Anonymous said...

"Why are Europeans to blame when an Arab colonist that almost none of them would have wanted in their country harasses people on a train?" Europeans elected politicians to represent them and they in turn allowed massive muslim immigration. Are they doing anything about it? Do they stand up to intimidation? Why did no one come to the aid of that woman and her young son? I myself have stood up to bullies before. I assume they were on a train. Where was the conductor? This man should have been thrown off the train.

Anonymous said...

I am a great admirer of Jewish accomplishments in the hard sciences, but when it comes to the social sciences they've come up with some of the world's most destructive ideologies. Ideologies which now threaten to destroy the entire West- Christian,Jew and atheist alike.
Why is this? My theory is that their judgment is skewed by the central tenet of their religion - that Jews are "the chosen people," chosen by God to lead all the other peoples. How then can they acknowledge the world-leading wisdom of non-Jews - of the Enlightenment, for instance, or of Thomas Jefferson, or of Adam Smith? The Frankfurt Group, creators of cultural marxism, critical theory and the like, were Jewish. The Frankfurt Group declared its intent to abolish the "false consciousness" of the free West and to replace it with a world ruled by the thinking of Marx and Freud. ( both of Jewish descent)
Indeed, there is something almost religious and fanatical about the Left's defense of Marxism even in the face of Marxism's spectacular failure. Leading Leftist commentators and educators continued to defend (and in some cases spy for) Communism even long after its totalitarian nature, mass murders and gulags had been exposed. Why? Was Karl Marx seen perhaps as a sort of Messiah?
These questions are extremely delicate, of course. Let's face it, you risk being accused of anti-Semitism if you so much as mention that the Frankfurt group was Jewish. But there's nothing anti-semitic about preventing your Jewish friends from committing suicide, and suicide is what cultural marxism is bringing to the West. - - It's time we look for tribal bias within some of these inane left-wing theories. It's time to say, "Cultural Marxist, deconstruct thyself!"

Anonymous said...

still not all accusations of Jews hold water.

first, the "chosen people" canard. Every nationalist or religious ideology is based on that, to a degree. Modern Judaism is more inclined to "tikun ulam" concept, which means "fixing the world". It was also often understood as Jews "chosen" to be good - moral, knowledgeable - rather than poweful. Again, as Jews were repressed, position of power wasn't an easy option.

then, accusations of Frankfurt Marxism and bla-bla. If that was so horrible an ideology, then why non-Jews in Europe and Americas followed it, and still do, en masse? Are they really brainless cattle?
The answer is that Marxist ideology is not everywhere wrong. It is the odd synthesis of German atheism, French libertarianism and universalist Christianity - note, not isolationist classic Judaism.
After Voltaire, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, this synthesis was intellectually attractive.
It was also easy to distort at revolutionary phase.

Yes Jews did lot of thinking for Marxism but not much of actual killing. There were many odious single Jewish figures in Soviet GULAG leadership. But there were no Yiddish Zondercommandos systematically exterminating gentiles. There were no Hebrew manifestos declaring the right of "chosen" super-race to reign over other peoples, making reference to Tora and so on. Except "Protocols", which not a single Jew recognizes as genuine.

Overall maybe it is time to calm down.
With all their mistakes, drawbacks and crimes committed in the past - at present Jews definitely aren't threat to Europe bigger than Islam.

Anonymous said...

'tikkun olam', a phrase used by some commenters at other 'counter-jihad' sites also means 'repairing the world' which is meant to imply an altruistic intent but, coming via the Talmud, it essentially means changing a 'society' or 'world' in ways most amenable to Jewish law and advantage.

Anonymous said...

Jake-a-runi: "ex cathedra" means 'with authority' (originally from the Latin 'from the chair').

The Arab man's behaviour was certainly anti-social but the lack of reaction on the part of the other persons in the train is symptomatic of what happens when masculine (and Western civilisational) virtues are demeaned in favour of 'neutrality', 'diversity', 'respect' and fear of the long, intolerant arm of 'hate speech' laws. Western peoples are being conditioned to regard these four qualities as virtues and Jews have been instrumental (by using a distorted picture of Christian-Jewish history) in this.

Anonymous said...

When CZ originally posted material from Prof Macdonald's book, I read it and then looked at his site, Occidental Observer. One of the articles there interested me particularly; it took the upcoming 800th anniversary celebration of Magna Carta (1215 AD) (which is one of the foundational documents of limited government and Western constitutional freedoms, due process of law, habeus corpus etc, part of English/British/American law) to discuss the history behind one of MC's clauses: the restrictions on Jewish debts and the history of Jews in England until their eviction in 1290 AD.

The Jews, far from being a persecuted minority, enjoyed enormous financial, political and social advantage, partly through helping to finance the monarch and through their practice of usury (from the Torah and Talmud; forbidden to Christians) which seriously disadvantaged and created hardships for the nobility and the general populace and led to the frictions resulting in Magna Carta. BTW, Christians are not exonerated from their own part in all this, but this article presented a more balanced and informative picture than I'd ever read before. Monarchs after King John sought to involve Jews more into the English community (forbidding usury, but granting them licences in farming, as craftsmen, in the military etc). Only when it was discovered that Jews were still practising usury and devaluing currency, were they then deported. The article also underlined an historical fact of the 'parallel' systems under which Jews lived and thrived (their own courts, exchequer, laws, social practices, self-imposed ghettos, kosher goods etc) and this is repeated throughout European history. This was certainly one of the reasons for tensions between them and the Christian peoples and we see this same 'parallel' system at work now with Moslems (their sharia courts, sharia-compliant finance, laws, enclaves, halal produce etc) and we recognise that no society or country can survive this for long.

Anonymous said...

yeah yeah, old song, usury, what a horrible sin.

do you realize - these were times of SERFDOM. people were bought and sold.
SLAVERY wasn't abolished in CHRISTIAN world till 19 century.

not absolving SOME Jews of usury, manipulations and social parasitism, - still isn't it good to keep that in proportion.
ALL European aristocracy and rich classes were also shamelessly parasitic.

There is undeniable facts of persecution and PHYSICAL violence against Jews. One can remember Cologne pogrom of 1349, and continue that till Holocaust.
Ukraininan leader Bogdan Khmelnitzky even was denominated by Jewish historians as "Hitler of 17 century" for his systematic mass murder of Jews.

And on the other side we have horrible crime of being somebody's creditor and "devaluing currency". Come on.
...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, 13:25: According to both the Torah and the Talmud, it is a sin for an 'israelite' to engage in usury against another 'israelite' ('brother,' 'neighbour') but he may do so against a non-israelite. That's a very skewered moral system, not based on equality of all before the law, but on inequality (as with the Islamic Sharia which comes in part from Talmudic Judaism). In the England of King John's reign (which led to Magna Carta) Jews were charging up to 86.6% interest per year on a loan and those loans were secured by property so, if someone couldn't pay back the loan (with the interest also increasing with each non-payment), the land was forfeited. This is highly destructive and very destabilising to a country. As for slavery, Jews were prominent in all aspects of the slave trade in the Ancient world as well as the modern (that includes Europeans enslaved as well), and were especially so in the African slave trade (both to the Middle East where they worked with the Moslems, and into the Americas --- North, Latin and South America). As for persecution, that works both ways, Jews slaughtering Christians especially in the early centuries of the Christian faith. There's plenty of blame to go around to all parties, but only Jews and Moslems pretend to having no part in all these human tragedies and cruelties. There is one other point: regarding the central texts of Judaism (Talmud and Torah), Islam (Koran, Hadiths) and Christianity (The New Testament), only the first two contain outright calls for violence against non-adherents or non-believers, coupled with, to modern sensibilities, offensive and intolerant contempt for those outside their own ideologies.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 16:17

What "equality of all before the law" in Christian world are you talking about?
Between aristocrats and serfs?
Between Catholics and Protestants?
Between American slave-owners and slaves?
Get real, it has never practiced.

"only Jews and Moslems pretend to having no part in all these human tragedies and cruelties" - again excuse me but there is no historical evidence of "Jews slaughtering Christians" (or Muslims) at the scale comparable with slaughter of Jews.

Yes many parts of Tora/Talmud are inhumane and intolerant - because they reflect cruel reality of tribal self-preservation in post-neolithic times. They were written long ago, and became obsolete long ago.

Commandments were useful, - and survived. Universality of Commandments was claimed by Christianity - that was another step forward. The idea of Rationality was inherited from Greeks, - another pillar of civilization.

There was no clean way from cannibals to modern humans, every single tribe had its own way, not a one of them decorated by fruits of virtue and humanity. So, singling out Jews as inventors of evil is quite ridiculous.

However, maybe it isn't ever strange that you are so persistent - basically, by denigrating "Jews and Muslims" you try to reserve status of "chosen" people this time to Christians, aren't you? At least it rasies a suspicion.

Anyway, - my ethnicity is Jewish, I am an atheist, my moral is Humanistic, which means Judeo-Christian. I judge people by merit and don't accept when any "master race" tries telling me that I am somehow deficient because of who I am.
If you see some flaw in that position, please elaborate.
...

Anonymous said...

You need to distinguish between religion as a body of doctrine and organized religion as a highly corruptible earthly power structure. Jesus uttered not a single world which would have justified any of the crimes done in the name of Christianity.
In my opinion, here are some of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the three mono-theistic religions:

Christianity - has the virtue of being based on only a few broad principles. Jesus' words and deeds were few and very general, and thus can be reinterpreted as our moral understanding becomes more refined over the centuries. Much like our short and sweet US Constitution, which used to serve the same sort of function. - But Christianity has the weakness of such verses as "turn the other cheek" and "judge not." These verses may serve well as metaphors to help an individual overcome his own hostile or vengeful impulses, but are suicidal if taken as literal guidelines for national (or trans-national) government. Indeed, until recently, no one ever dreamed of taking such verses literally. Unfortunately, Cultural Marxism is now exploiting just these weaknesses within Christianity.

Judaism - from my goy perspective, a long tradition of respect for learning is one of Judaism's advantages. And surviving centuries of persecution may actually have certain genetic benefits for the descendants. (not to justify the persecution, obviously)- - But I do think that an identity as "the people chosen by God to lead the other peoples" can be corrupting and almost certainly damages objectivity. (Just look at the Princeton students who protested that Princeton Jews were suffering discrimination because they constituted less than 20% of the student body, 20% being the norm at other Ivy League colleges. 20% is an over-representation of approximately 1000%. Is that right? Is it justified? In the bad old days when whites were 90% of the population, whites were "evil" for being over-represented in college by only 11%. I believe that over-representation should be allowed only to the extent it reflects test scores. I am appalled that American Jews, who suffer no financial oppression, are given such favoritism in our elite schools - favoritism that comes at the expense of bright white and Asian students who are already being discriminated against in favor of the low-achieving minorities! Isn't this educational persecution a sort of cultural genocide against the WASPs? I also believe that Jewish domination of our Universities, coupled with Saul Alinsky inspired assaults against Western culture, has made it possible to convert the non-Jewish students and faculty to the false religion of Cultural Marxism.)

Islam - advantage - possible slight improvement over some, but far from most, barbaric practices of the 7th century. disadvantage - enshrining those barbaric, but somewhat improved, 7th century practices as the standard of human conduct for all time.

Cultural Marxism - the most evil of all. An attack on truth and reason in the name of "change." What change? Never you mind, your "false consciousness" does not allow you to know what you really want or need. A small( perhaps chosen?,) elite will make those decisions for you.

Search

Loading...

Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews