← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · friedrich braun

More on Jews: Jews cannot do without German Help!

Thread ID: 17824 | Posts: 2 | Started: 2005-04-17

Wayback Archive

friedrich braun [OP]

2005-04-17 12:31 | User Profile

----- Original Message ----- From: kurt willrich Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 8:56 PM Subject: Perspective

I wrote:

I hate anti-Semitism so much that I cannot resist pointing out some of the hundreds of small reasons contributing to the persistence of anti-Semitism - which after all has been refusing to go away for approx. 4000 years (not two thousand as Lapkin says) - and there seems to be no light at the end of the Jewish tunnel. Why not? Because hyper-ethnocentric and fact twisting dudes like Lapkin make sure that anti-Semitism gains ground. The following (rubbish - sorry, got no better word for it) was aired on Radio National. So, is it a wonder that people call the ABC (Australian Broad Casting) "JBC"? I put my two bobs worth in (coloured like this) between the lines of the following text.

ABC-Radio National Perspective 11 April 2005 - Ted Lapkin

There is a Middle East country that legally defines itself as an ethnic state. The constitution of this same nation declares that a particular religious code constitutes its “principle source of legislation.”

The name of that country is Egypt; the ethnicity to which it declares its allegiance is Arab; the religious code in question is Islamic Sharia law. And the Egyptians are hardly alone. From the Palestinian Authority to Tunisia, the Middle East is dominated by nations that formally declare themselves to be Arab/Islamic states.

Yet whenever the subject of sectarian nationalism surfaces in public discourse on the Middle East, it invariably appears as a polemical weapon of abuse against Israel. In fact, the ethnic identity of the Jewish state serves as ‘Exhibit A’ in the anti-Zionist case against Israel’s moral legitimacy as a sovereign nation.

If Israel’s enemies were truly motivated by a principled opposition to ethnic sectarianism, then it seems reasonable to expect that they would fight other examples of this phenomenon with equal vigour. But leftist pundits and politicians maintain a deafening silence on the Arab/Islamic equivalents to Zionism that exist throughout the Levant. These salon revolutionaries castigate the Middle East’s oldest democracy for all manner of sins, while remaining largely silent about the region’s worst despots and tyrants

There are no raucous street demonstrations demanding non-sectarian statehood outside the embassies of Morocco or Algeria. There are no petitions circulating through university campuses calling for divestment from Jordan. And the blatantly ethnic and religious character of Palestine’s draft constitution has not dimmed affection for that cause within the ranks of the Western Left.

Selective criticism is also applied to Israel’s preferential immigration policy that affords immediate citizenship and benefits to Jewish migrants. Zionists maintain that Israel’s ‘Law of Return’ is an essential means of fulfilling its national mission as a Jewish homeland. And one of the most notable instances of Israel’s ingathering project involved the sole instance in history when Black Africans were transported en mass to freedom rather than slavery. From 1985 to 1991, the Israeli Air Force flew 36,000 Ethiopian Jews from persecution and degradation to a new life in the Jewish state. Yet to Israel’s detractors, Zionist immigration policy constitutes conclusive evidence that the Jewish state is irredeemably racist.

(Fact is: Here is some deliberate confusion happening. The word "racism" leads to the association of race and is usually used to silence Whiteys who want to stop mass migration of non-assimilable people into their country. That is why we are confronted with Lapkin's mentioning of Black African immigration to Israel. Lapkin shows how non racist Israel is. The real question should be: Well then , how many non-Jewish Black Africans have you led from slavery into freedom and how many non-Jewish (white, yellow, Arabs who were born in Israel, boat people, refugees etc.) have you let into Israel? Are Jewish Black African more desirable than non-Jewish Blacks? Of course they are. And that is in my opinion okay. Why would you take Congolese or Sudanese refugees? You would not take 25 non-Jewish Nigerian refugees (and wine and dine and house) them in a zillion years. That is okay. What is not okay is that at the same time every other country MUST TAKE IMMIGRANTS even if 95% of the population say NO. If Australia - or Germany or Austria - says "hey, we've got enough of people who won't assimilate" all hell breaks loose and Jews all over the world start talking about human responsibilities and tolerance and warn of racism and fascism (the political death of Pauline Hanson and One Nation in Australia was a sure thing and as in Austria's case: a Europe wide ban and scare mongering tactics by the media who immediately spread the myth that the Nazis are back again). Now, what is a country like Germany to do about immigration of non Christian and non-Germans? Let them in , of course, in order to not be called racist. While Israel does not let non-Jews into Israel, non-Christian-immigrants are made a "must" for those liberal western countries. Jewish media and lawyers make sure of that (remember the month long media exploitation of the "Children over board" affair? remember the drama with the "dirty shower curtains" in Australia's inhuman refugee camps?). Yet, those Black Africans being allowed into Israel (which are so proudly thrown into the discussion) were Jewish Black Africans and that is what counts - their Jewishness - nothing else counts. And it is this hypocrisy that pisses people off. While Israel is building walls to exclude non-Jews, Jewish sociologists and human rights activists (they hardly are interested in Israel) are suggesting to liberal western countries to brake down the barriers of "racism and hate of foreigners" and let everyone in who wants to. Besides: it took several years of legal battle and some pressure from the USA to actually let them into Israel - and there was no transport from slavery to freedom - as a matter of fact, studying the treatment of its Black citizens, Israel behaves no better than other countries with a Black minority - no better at all , protest marches of Black African Jews and their supporters through Jerusalem and Haifa could wake up memories of the USA in the sixties)

But the Federal Republic of Germany has long maintained its “aussiedler” (resettler) system of preferential ethnic immigration without attracting similar condemnation. Article 116(1) of Germany’s constitution confers automatic citizenship upon persons “of German origins,” as well as a generous social welfare package to soften their absorption into society.

(Fact is: 2 Million immigrants entered Germany since 2000 - few were "ethnic Germans". Ethnic Germans are told to stay where they are and assimilate (most ethnic Germans from Belo-Russia, Russia and the Ukraine don't speak German anymore since it was "verboten" to do so after the war). The German government pays for their resettlements as to encourage them to stay out of Germany.

The German government undertakes many unusual steps to rid itself from the stigma of Hitler's racist policies to the extent of being anti-German - and that despite Article 116 (1). Besides Germany pays its countless Jewish immigrants a very handsome amount of money as well (interest free loans etc. - all because "we owe you big time and you make sure we don't forget...") - don't you worry about that. As usually, things are exactly 180 degrees different from what they are made out to be by some ethnocentric opinion shapers.)

Thus both Germany and Israel maintain affirmative action-style policies that facilitate preferential immigration on the basis of overtly ethnic criteria. Yet while Israel’s Law of Return serves as moral justification for those who demand the dissolution of the Jewish state, the aussiedler program generates no attacks against German national legitimacy.

(It's the actions that make the diff)

And the same imbalance is brought to bear on the question of Israel and Palestinian refugees. The Arabs insist on a ‘right of return’ that would permit millions of Palestinians to settle in Tel Aviv, Haifa and other parts of Israel’s heartland. Thus this demand is simply euphemistic shorthand for the ethnic eradication of the Jewish state. The cause of Palestinian return has been enthusiastically adopted by the Left. But one must wonder why there are no similar advocacy campaigns for the return of 16 million Muslims and Hindus displaced during the upheavals that accompanied the independence of India. One must also ask why the European Union opposes the compensation claims made by 10 million ethnic Germans who were expelled from eastern Europe in the aftermath of WWII. And one must marvel at the global amnesia that is applied to the 800,000 Jews who were expelled from the Arab world during the years following Israel’s creation.

(Who claimed what? 10 Million Germans claimed what? If this was true it would be all over the world news, proving clearly how nasty those Germans have become again. This reminds me of the film "Marathon Man" with Dustin Hoffman, the good Jewish guy who does not care a bit about money, diamonds etc, and his psychotic, murdering Germanic opponent who is so obsessed by wealth that he died in the process of accumulating - the horrible and deserved death of a greedy bastard. Typical, isn't it? Money hungry Germans, idealistic Jews. That is why Germans in the whole world are hated and forced to complain constantly about growing Anti-Germanism. ) It appears that what is good for the non-Jewish goose is not good for the Jewish gander. Jewish self-determination is deemed to be morally insufferable, but similar manifestations of nationalism pass without pejorative mention.

(What can one say: It appears that what is allowed for the Jewish goose is not allowed for the non-Jewish gander? Isn't exactly that the reason for this world-wide growing anti-Semitism that Jews are warning us about? While talking about birds: Which was first? The chicken or the egg? Ever wondered why the first non-Jew woke up one morning and decided to become anti-Semitic? No? I thought so.)

But don’t pejorative attitudes that are selectively applied to a given ethnic group constitute the essence of bigotry? And if negative treatment is applied to Jews; but not to others, isn’t that the textbook definition of anti-Semitism?

(It is the textbook of ethnocentrism. And as it happens: whoever applies the negative treatment to others ends up being disliked by those others - that is where anti-Zionism (which can lead to anti-Semitism just like anti-Nazism led to anti-Germanism) comes from. It does not come from no-where and out of nothing. - 4000 of it years and you still wonder why? Or are you just talking deceiving nonsense?)

Of course tempered criticism of a particular Israeli policy does not necessarily equal a call for the abolition of the Jewish state. But the selective outrage of Israel’s mortal foes does call into question their moral integrity. And if the anti-Zionist campaign to de-Judaise Israel is not motivated by sublimely universal principles, one must seek another source for its unyielding ferocity. The explanation for this is simple: modern anti-Zionism is simply the newest face of the oldest hatred; a modern repackaging of ancient anti-Semitic doctrines that have marred human history for the past two millennia.

(There is no modern anti-Zionism, unless there is modern Zionism)

Guests on this program: Ted Lapkin, Asssociate editor, The Review, Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council

[url]http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/perspective/stories/s1342920.htm[/url]

neoclassical

2005-04-17 22:50 | User Profile

I think we should support Zionism. It establishes the right of every race to live free of all others........