← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Walter Yannis

Thread 3609

Thread ID: 3609 | Posts: 14 | Started: 2002-11-20

Walter Yannis [OP]

2002-11-20 12:39 | User Profile

This was published in the [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/20/opinion/20RUSH.html?pagewanted=1&todaysheadlines]New York Times (registration required)[/url] internet edition, 20 November 2002.

The author claims that "the Jewish people are not a race, to be preserved. Its universal tenets should not be surrendered to the seemingly more pressing threat of tribal dissolution . . . Judaism is a set of ideas to be shared."

It seems to me that the author has in mind for Judaism's future as a sort of secularized, universalist, social worker's Christianity akin to that of his Protestant colleagues at NYU. I think he's wrong. As Prof. MacDonald would have it, Judaism is an evolutionary strategy to ensure the survival and propagation of an enclosed gene pool. It's a race that masquerades as a religion.

I'm not sure whether his position is good or bad for us. Of course, if all Jews took the author to heart, the Jewish people would dissolve into their much larger gentile hosts, cease to exist as a separate tribe, and all our problems would be solved. Indeed, all I'd need then is a 16-oz strawberry Slurpy from my local 7-11 for complete happiness. But that won't happen. I suspect this is part and parcel of MacDonald's insight that Judaism's strategy allows for its outer shell to be assimilated and periodically shed, which helps keep the core genetic pool intact and growing.

Here's the article.

Walter

Today, at their annual conference, the United Jewish Communities had planned to release a new $6 million population study. In the past, these studies, issued every 10 years, have warned American Jews that they are ever more imperiled by an aging population, rampant intermarriage, low birth rates and declining synagogue membership.

But last week, citing "missing data," the organization, an umbrella group of Jewish federations and communities, announced that it would hold off releasing its findings indefinitely.

This is very good news.

For too long, the health of Judaism has been defined largely by numbers. Certainly, this is understandable Ã¢â¬â a concern traceable to some very real and recent efforts at eliminating the Jewish population. But must we forever judge the future of American Judaism as if we were evaluating the health of an endangered species?

The problem for Jews today, if there is one, is not waning demographics or cultural assimilation. It is the focus on these factors as the core priorities of the Jewish faith. In fact, it is only by liberating ourselves from these metrics that we become able to understand how Judaism is not on the brink of extinction at all, but poised for renaissance. Such a rebirth would not merely invigorate Jewish culture but serve Americans too, as we try to come to terms with religions and the people who see fit to defend them.

The very notion of a Jewish race was conceived in persecution and galvanized in extermination. The first biblical reference to the Israelite people is made by a slave-driving pharaoh, and the first historical reference to a Jewish race was articulated during the Inquisition as a way of condemning even those Jews who had converted to Catholicism. The Nazis built their horror on scientific proof of Jews' genetic propensity for certain beliefs and behaviors.

As a Jew who cares deeply about his religion, I have come to the conclusion that our great mistake has been to forget that we are the descendants of a loose amalgamation of peoples united around a new idea, and to replace this history with the view, advanced by our enemies, that we are a race. Zionism, perhaps unintentionally, gave this race a nation to defend; Israel's hostile neighbors kept alive real and pressing questions of survival.

It's not surprising, then, that many American Jews have come to understand their Jewishness as an obligation rather than a privilege. By the 1970's, reform Jewish schools and synagogues, like the ones I attended, had begun to emphasize Zionism and the benefits of marrying within the faith over religious education. Every Jewish institution that I encountered as a young man seemed more dedicated to safeguarding the Jewish race than than to teaching Judaism. This has led to a Jewish culture based not on faith or spiritual inquiry but on the mechanics of preservation.

Perhaps that is why the worse things get, or the more dire the circumstances are depicted, the more committed and generous Jews become. With each new crisis in the West Bank, tourism to Israel goes down, but donations to Jewish philanthropies go up. In such an environment, the hard data proving the increase in intermarriage and the reluctance of those couples to raise their children in the Jewish tradition is gold. It is in the short-term financial interest of Jewish philanthropies to paint the darkest demographic picture possible. And they do.

But dark pictures with retrograde notions of race do not help keep young American Jews in the fold. How effective a retention strategy is it, really, to treat Judaism as a tribe to be measured in numbers of surviving members, rather than as an ethical proposition born 3,000 years ago whose success should be gauged by its level of actual acceptance?

As I have come to understand it, Judaism was built around the contention that human beings can make the world a better, more just place. It was a novel idea in its time, and one that most of those who promote Judaism-by-census have failed time and again to emphasize.

For it seems as if the most important aspect of being a Jew today is merely how Jewish one is. And Jewishness itself is seen as a willingness to support and defend the "Jewish people," whatever that may mean. Who would want to sign up for this?

As Judaism focuses on its imminent demise, it grows less attractive to those looking for a living connection to something greater than the self. Many people turn to religion as a way of shifting their inward focus, not amplifying it. It is for this reason, perhaps, that so many people born Jewish have ended up gravitating toward the outward-reaching cause of civil rights, the quest for social justice or even the ego-shattering practice of Buddhism. To me it seems a cruel joke that many of the Jews who follow these pursuits are then, because they lack any synagogue affiliation, counted in studies as "lapsed" and mourned as the religion's failures.

Judaism will dwindle unless its leaders begin to acknowledge that every generation will reinvent Judaism for itself. Instead of lamenting the withering flower that is institutional Judaism, they must learn to rejoice in the dissemination of its seeds. In short, they must reverse their orientation and acknowledge that the ongoing conversation that is Judaism can happen anywhere, between anyone.

The Jewish people are not a race, to be preserved. Judaism is a set of ideas to be shared. Its universal tenets should not be surrendered to the seemingly more pressing threat of tribal dissolution Ã¢â¬â particularly not right now. Judaism is founded in iconoclasm, a principle especially relevant to a world so hypnotized by its many false idols. Judaism finds its expression in radical pluralism, an assertion that there is no name for God Ã¢â¬â at least none that any human being could conceive. And because it puts human needs above anyone's notion of deity, Judaism is ultimately enacted through the very real work of social justice.

As our nation and the world struggle to balance the conflicting priorities of religion, freedom and human rights, Judaism's core strengths are greatly needed. It would be a terrible shame if the religion's biggest concern continued to be itself.

Douglas Rushkoff, a professor of communications at New York University, is author of the forthcoming "Nothing Sacred: The Truth About Judaism."

mwdallas

2002-11-20 17:04 | User Profile

I suspect this is part and parcel of MacDonald's insight that Judaism's strategy allows for its outer shell to be assimilated and periodically shed, which helps keep the core genetic pool intact and growing.

Yes, MacDonald's reference to Elazar's conceptualization was quite compelling.

David Duke has rendered a surprisingly erudite expansion on this theme:

[url=http://groups.google.com/groups?q=macdonald+elazar+core&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=37d875b5.333456283%40netnews.worldnet.att.net&rnum=1]http://groups.google.com/groups?q=macdonal....att.net&rnum=1[/url]

This chapter obviously borrows wholesale from Whither the West, the concluding chapter of MacDonald's Separation and Its Discontents, but it also goes beyond and synthesizes MacDonald's ideas in a way that makes this piece a valuable reference resource in its own right.

Excerpts:

**Will Intermarriage End Jewish Ethnocentrism?

... The Jewish researcher Ellman comments in the journal Jewish Social Studies that the only ethnic or religious community in the United States that continues to attempt to limit and discourage conversions and intermarriage is the organized Jewish community. But Ellman -- along with a number of other authors who are strongly opposed to intermarriage -- also believe that the seemingly high rates of intermarriage are no real threat to the Jewish heritage. He suggests that it strengthens the traditional Jewish culture and genotype by eliminating those Jews who have assimilationist tendencies.

Ellman points out that intermarriage has little effect on the core of Judaism. He points out that intermarriage is far more frequent for second and subsequent marriages in which the couples are unlikely to have children. He also cites the much higher rates of divorce in intermarriage. More than 90 percent of intermarriages results in nonconversion and thus the intermarried do not become part of the Jewish community. Only a small percentage of children of intermarriage are raised as Jews, and more than 90 percent of them do not marry Jews. Ellman also reports that Jews of higher socioeconomic status are more likely to marry other Jews, thus the community will continue to be dominated by a pure Jewish elite core while lower-class Jews, who do not represent the desired traits of ethnic solidarity, are much more likely to marry outside and leave the community.

Barry Kosmin and other Jewish researchers, in Highlights of the CJF 1990 National Jewish Population Survey, found that 91 percent of inter-marriages were made up of nonconversionary couples, that only 28 Percent of the children of such couples were raised as Jews, and that even this small minority's descendants would not be likely to marry Jews.

Not only are intermarried Jews far more prone to leave the Jewish circle, evidence suggests that they often encounter hostility in Jewish society. Jewish authors such as Michael Meyer 920 and C. Waxman cite "tacit rejection" of the mixed couples. All these factors indicate that mixed marriages have little effect on the Jewish gene pool other than affecting the overall number of Jews.

Higher rates of intermarriage will probably have the long-term effect of strengthening traditional Jewish genetic characteristics. Jewish elements prone to assimilation are being removed while at the same time there is a resurgence in Jewish orthodoxy and high birthrate among the most committed of the Jewish elements such as the Hasidim. Additionally, religious Jews in Israel are almost all Orthodox, and there is almost no intermarriage in the world nexus of Jewry --the nation of Israel.

Perhaps the best way to describe the Jewish community is how the distinguished Jewish writer Daniel Elazar does in Community and polity: Organizational Dynamics in American Jewry. He proposes a model of concentric circles. The inner circle is a hard core of about 5 to 8 percent who lead what he calls "fully Jewish lives." Next are 10 to12 percent of Jews whom he calls "participants." They are often employed in "Jewish civil service," working tirelessly for Jewish causes. Third, he identifies 25 to 30 percent of Jews whom he calls "contributors and consumers." These make regular contributions to Jewish causes and make use of the Jewish community for things such as weddings, bar mitzvahs, and funerals. Elazar calls his last group the "peripherals and repudiators." They make no contributions to Jewish causes, but sometimes the inner circles pull them in to participation or they are peeled off, leaving the Jewish core at the center and the whole of Jewry more committed than ever.

Because of copious publicity of high rates of Jewish intermarriage, some Gentiles may come to believe that Jews are becoming less ethnocentric. But in reality the opposite is true. Those Jews left at the core are less disposed to assimilation. At the same time, the out-marrying Jews who are amenable to Gentile values also serve an important role in causing Gentiles to believe the Jewish group is more similar to them than it actually is.

More importantly, some Jewish researchers see a degree of intermarriage as having a functional value in Gentile environments. Mark Zborowski and Elizabeth Herzog say that it serves as a bridge to the Gentile community, but one that does not threaten the Jewish core: "The peripheral area which serves as a bridge to the surrounding cultures fills several functions. It is an avenue to invasion, a buffer and a source of renewed vigor. Each impact that chips at the outer edge may serve simultaneously to strengthen the core."

Lieberman and Weinfeld, in their article "Demographic Trends and Jewish Survival," view relatively high levels of intermarriage as a successful strategy in securing greater support from the Gentile community for their political and social goals such as political support for Israel.

The successful exercise of influence is best achieved in a community with a large subset of members interacting with politicians and opinion leaders. Through intermarried Jews themselves, and certainly through their social networks involving Jewish family and friends who may be closer to the core of the community, Jewish concerns, interests, and sensibilities can be articulated before a wider, more influential audience. In a recent interview, Presidential aide Robert Lipshutz traced the origin of Jimmy Carter's concern for Israel to his close friendship with a first cousin, an Orthodox Jew (Carter's aunt married a Jewish man, and their two children were raised as Jews). Intermarrying Jews, while perhaps diluting the community in one sense, perform compensating strategic functions in another.

Obviously, if intermarried Jews serve as a "bridge to the Gentile community," those who are outside of the Jewish community but are conscious of Jewish blood will often have warm feelings toward that heritage and be well disposed to Jewish interests. They will also express less solidarity with European issues and interests.

Far from solving the Jewish-Gentile conflict, intermarriage only tends to reinforce the core Jewish genotype and nurture more extreme political and cultural solidarity. By sending their allies into our culture and body politic, they are better able to secure Jewish interests. Among Gentiles intermarriage has the opposite effect. Because they are absorbed almost wholly into our society, our own solidarity is weakened while giving the appearance that the Jewish community is less impenetrable and ethnocentric. There is no real threat to the Jewish genotype; if anything it becomes more "Jewish" each generation. **

TexasAnarch

2002-11-20 22:35 | User Profile

The pathos of this OpEd NYTimes piece by Douglas Rushkoff, which I had poured over all morning before being led to Walter's prevenient post, goes beyond assessment in terms of Mac Donald's socio-biological assumptions. Philosophically, Rushkoff represents todays US Jewish Hamlets, trapped by identity politics they helped create, on the one hand; and the blow-back effect of Zionist re-definition of "Israel's" right to exist, on the other.

 This does not negate, but perspectivises the sociobiological facts, whatever they are.  I certainly have no basis for challenging his data (while not necessarily assenting to his assumptions, which would require analytical work to uncover).  But, for my work, it is not about the blood, but America -- whats in the blood.  That moves the discussion to the psychological, or spiritual level.

 Liberal Jews, who established a rich, colorful and vibrant culture in New York in this century, were blind-sided by Zionism.  It takes the  Bible-as-deed in some God&#39;s court -- although one of Rushkoffs astounding new insights (to me, anyway) is"Judaism finds its expression in radical pluralism, an assertion that there is no name for God."  Liberal Jews, most of them atheists, have been blindsided by a God with no name -- the absurdity that there could be one ("Mr. God?" -- Yo, my son...) come home to roost. If suicide bombers, already an acute existential embarassment, not to say wanton destruction of humanity, arrived here, as FBI Chief Mueller vowed was "inevitable", a WMD won&#39;t be needed to set Wotan afoot, I&#39;m afraid.  We don&#39;t want to set Wotan afoot, do we Mr. Rushkoff?  No.  For once you do, they&#39;ll be Judeo stew.  Nobody will be able to stop it. So the onus has been on the liberal Jewish community for some time now, excruciatingly, to strongly resist Likudism, as Americans who see it as putting their country here at risk.  Thats what we need. What we get is Rushkoff, and it isn&#39;t enough, though saying that isn&#39;t easy.

   Here&#39;s the problem.  They haven&#39;t reconciled with themselves, in themselves, what their "idea" is -- now 4,000 years old, but boiled down to "the contention that human beings can make the world a better, more just place." OK.  But --  has anyone ever &#39;contended&#39; the opposite proposition?  Isn&#39;t even the idea of doing so comically absurd?  ("What&#33; Humans can make a better world&#33;  Preposterous&#33;").

 Are "they" a race? or a religion? 
 What "they" is asking to be defined here?
 Philosophy teaches we can use words to mean anything we want, but once used in the subject place, the meaning can&#39;t be changed from predicate to predicate, and preserve truth value (=well-formed statement of fact, true or false). 
"Jew", "Hebrew", "Judaism", used for people of The Book, is taken by those using The Bible to refer to a particular biological strain, passing through the mother: the product of matriarchal lineage through Isaac, Son of Abraham and Sarah, through Laban&#39;s daughter, Rachel.  It is a specific history, and the dominant male genes were certainly  Abrahams, who was likely a Sumerian prince/priest sent from the region of Babylon/Baghdad south on a war mission.  (cf. Z. Sitchin, "The Wars of Gods and Men")  That&#39;s not an "idea", its a lineage.  The notion they were reproducing an "idea" comes into western intellectual life from Greece, specifically, Plato and Aristotle.  It is not just "survival strategy" dictated by gene pool that is shaping the "ongoing conversation that is Judaism" here, wanting to survive.  Metaphysically, it is a question of "What" will survive, and under what name (names are required for reproduction in representation).

 Enter Sigmund Freud, who ought to know them like a book, if anyone does.  Its an illusion with a dim future, he tells them. Now, they can&#39;t even call that illusion "belief in God", if the "G" word lacks reference. ("Radical pluralism").  What is it?  Rushkoff, and all, are stumped for an answer, straight out.  Its a "religion", they insist&#33; --but it can&#39;t just be about preserving itself, for itself, by whoever it&#39;s &#39;elves can get and hold onto.  Rushkoff sees that won&#39;t do.  That ls caretaker, mausoleum maintainance, hardly rising to the level of religion.  It can&#39;t even sustain "the ongoing conversation that is Judaism" for very long.

 So its got to reach out.  Be a Message. It won&#39;t be Jerusalem, the City, but that Jerusalem of the heart and mind&#33;  Add Brooklyn to that.   Its not the streets and neighborhoods.  Its that Brooklyn of the Mind.  Thats what its about.                  and it was so fine

  But WAIT&#33;    THAT SCRIPT ALREADY RUN&#33;  It was Jesus&#39; idea&#33;  Have they no respect for theologicasl copyrights? -- Its exactly the "message" he brought that they rejected. -- and not only that, killed the messenger for bringing,  because he was pointing out to them essentially what they are.  Its what anyone who believes it would call out to the Sharonazis today, so thats where D.M. can start if he wants to get that old time religion.  He can say to them now what was said 2,000 years ago, but rotsa ruck. They&#39;ll hear it like they see the Pope&#39;s fetish, that grotesque man-on-the-cross image (they like their saviors crucified, too).  It won&#39;t get them to "look at what you are." Too unbearable.

 You gotta let the whole thing go, Doug.  Try to find a place to just be American.  If you can.

George

2002-11-20 23:39 | User Profile

The mystery by definition is that. I like to believe the Torah was received via higher radiations penetrating the planet to Moses, rather specific in that context, and whomever prior, and ongoing... what's wrong with that belief? Then as always in subscribing and attempting to be pious in their, or his or her behalf we are always invaded by those who wish to say they are "God", one way or another.

Ragnar

2002-11-21 07:16 | User Profile

Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Nov 20 2002, 12:39 ** The very notion of a Jewish race was conceived in persecution and galvanized in extermination. The first biblical reference to the Israelite people is made by a slave-driving pharaoh, and the first historical reference to a Jewish race was articulated during the Inquisition as a way of condemning even those Jews who had converted to Catholicism. The Nazis built their horror on scientific proof of Jews' genetic propensity for certain beliefs and behaviors.

                This is highly interpretive.  There was no slave-driving pharaoh, the Inquisition was a political event, and "scientific proof of Jews&#39; genetic propensity for certain... behaviors" has been found by Professor MacDonald to be quite, well, scientific.

To be blunt, the business of "jewish persecution" is a myth of itself badly in need of debunking, or at least some serious contextual re-thinking.

Roy Batty

2002-11-21 22:21 | User Profile

Originally posted by Ragnar@Nov 21 2002, 07:16 > Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Nov 20 2002, 12:39 ** The very notion of a Jewish race was conceived in persecution and galvanized in extermination. The first biblical reference to the Israelite people is made by a slave-driving pharaoh, and the first historical reference to a Jewish race was articulated during the Inquisition as a way of condemning even those Jews who had converted to Catholicism. The Nazis built their horror on scientific proof of Jews' genetic propensity for certain beliefs and behaviors.

This is highly interpretive. There was no slave-driving pharaoh, the Inquisition was a political event, and "scientific proof of Jews' genetic propensity for certain... behaviors" has been found by Professor MacDonald to be quite, well, scientific.

To be blunt, the business of "jewish persecution" is a myth of itself badly in need of debunking, or at least some serious contextual re-thinking.**

                The contextual rethinking is what the jews battle hardest against.  It&#39;s always "... we were mistreated ..." etc.  It&#39;s never permitted to ask "WHY?"  And, for the moment, too many whites are still trained to resist the "why?", trained to reject questions that lead to answers that are uncomfortable.  Answers that are uncomfortable because the truth has been deemed off limits, deemed "hate" by the ultimate haters.

George

2002-11-25 02:15 | User Profile

Originally posted by Roy Batty@Nov 21 2002, 22:21 > Originally posted by Ragnar@Nov 21 2002, 07:16 > Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Nov 20 2002, 12:39 ** The very notion of a Jewish race was conceived in persecution and galvanized in extermination. The first biblical reference to the Israelite people is made by a slave-driving pharaoh, and the first historical reference to a Jewish race was articulated during the Inquisition as a way of condemning even those Jews who had converted to Catholicism. The Nazis built their horror on scientific proof of Jews' genetic propensity for certain beliefs and behaviors.

To be blunt, the business of "jewish persecution" is a myth of itself badly in need of debunking, or at least some serious contextual re-thinking.**

The contextual rethinking is what the jews battle hardest against. It's always "... we were mistreated ..." etc. It's never permitted to ask "WHY?" And, for the moment, too many whites are still trained to resist the "why?", trained to reject questions that lead to answers that are uncomfortable. Answers that are uncomfortable because the truth has been deemed off limits, deemed "hate" by the ultimate haters.**

                Roy you know I respect you...and your posting...and your spirit, which is suprelative, most of all... Jews are like this... wow, see that, let&#39;s appropriate if possible, that spirit of his (Roy Batty)... it&#39;s a given, he&#39;d never accept us... But the thing to note is Jews see & accept... even when it&#39;s not Jews per se... though curiously accepting too the given, don&#39;t waste too much time trying, hoping for acceptance conversely; (and over time noticed separation can even, also,  be turned to one&#39;s account)... BUT you don&#39;t seem to understand yet that&#39;s a trait of the DESERT... in other words it&#39;s semitic... very middle eastern... not Jewish per se... you don&#39;t see it yet, no doubt because you come in the more recent evolutionary past from more verdant, climes... I won&#39;t explain it further, since your I.Q. might be as high as mine... you&#39;ll in short notice, &#39;get it&#39;... or instruct me no doubt further... though since we have no working definition yet for what intelligence is, I don&#39;t know if it means much... (under G-d)... I.Q.? I know, you&#39;ve pointed out, it means what it means... it measures what it tests for? It&#39;s like in football, some think it&#39;s for the simple minded only, but although it incorporates the brute... the smartest team over-all usually wins... except of course as in poker, for what&#39;s simply Not observable, and as well as for chance, or luck. Thus prayer: oh dear G-d, if possible, under G-d...give me luck today???&#33;&#33;&#33;?

Roy Batty

2002-11-25 02:36 | User Profile

Originally posted by George@Nov 25 2002, 02:15 > Originally posted by Roy Batty@Nov 21 2002, 22:21 > Originally posted by Ragnar@Nov 21 2002, 07:16 > Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Nov 20 2002, 12:39 ** The very notion of a Jewish race was conceived in persecution and galvanized in extermination. The first biblical reference to the Israelite people is made by a slave-driving pharaoh, and the first historical reference to a Jewish race was articulated during the Inquisition as a way of condemning even those Jews who had converted to Catholicism. The Nazis built their horror on scientific proof of Jews' genetic propensity for certain beliefs and behaviors.

To be blunt, the business of "jewish persecution" is a myth of itself badly in need of debunking, or at least some serious contextual re-thinking.**

Roy you know I respect you...and your posting...and your spirit, which is suprelative, most of all... Jews are like this... wow, see that, let's appropriate if possible, that spirit of his (Roy Batty)... it's a given, he'd never accept us... But the thing to note is Jews see & accept... even when it's not Jews per se... though curiously accepting too the given, don't waste too much time trying, hoping for acceptance conversely; (and over time noticed separation can even, also, be turned to one's account)... BUT you don't seem to understand yet that's a trait of the DESERT... in other words it's semitic... very middle eastern... not Jewish per se... you don't see it yet, no doubt because you come in the more recent evolutionary past from more verdant, climes... I won't explain it further, since your I.Q. might be as high as mine... you'll in short notice, 'get it'... or instruct me no doubt further... though since we have no working definition yet for what intelligence is, I don't know if it means much... (under G-d)... I.Q.? I know, you've pointed out, it means what it means... it measures what it tests for? It's like in football, some think it's for the simple minded only, but although it incorporates the brute... the smartest team over-all usually wins... except of course as in poker, for what's simply Not observable, and as well as for chance, or luck. Thus prayer: oh dear G-d, if possible, under G-d...give me luck today???!!!?**

George ... going into ... IQ is off the beam ... yes, the tests measure .... what they measure ... That said, it's better to stick to the point ... which isn't a jewish ... excuse me, desert trait, eh? Not at all. Going off on another tack ... in attempts to get a dig in ... in roundabout fashion is so ... Mediterranean? No, the jew doesn't accept, he ... works to make himself, his ilk, their being ... the norm, hence the accepted. And then ... he ... uses that new standard of the norm, of the accepted, to deny to the other, deny the cattle ... deny the animal, that which the accepted deem too rewarding for the animal, for ... the other ... hence uncacceptable ... to the animal ... That's the deception. Isn't it, George? Or do developments, from .... drier climes ... evolutionary traits, like self-deception ... keep one from seeing the bigger picture ... tint the glasses, the lens, so to speak?

BTW, the team that plays as a team usually wins ... individual excellence needs support. Something some of the team members on this forum realize ...

George

2002-11-25 03:50 | User Profile

Originally posted by Roy Batty@Nov 25 2002, 02:36 > Originally posted by George@Nov 25 2002, 02:15 > Originally posted by Roy Batty@Nov 21 2002, 22:21 > Originally posted by Ragnar@Nov 21 2002, 07:16 > Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Nov 20 2002, 12:39 ** The very notion of a Jewish race was conceived in persecution and galvanized in extermination. The first biblical reference to the Israelite people is made by a slave-driving pharaoh, and the first historical reference to a Jewish race was articulated during the Inquisition as a way of condemning even those Jews who had converted to Catholicism. The Nazis built their horror on scientific proof of Jews' genetic propensity for certain beliefs and behaviors.

To be blunt, the business of "jewish persecution" is a myth of itself badly in need of debunking, or at least some serious contextual re-thinking.**

BTW, the team that plays as a team usually wins ... individual excellence needs support. Something some of the team members on this forum realize ...**

                Like I&#39;ve always said, I prefer my superior...and if that wasn&#39;t enough...I even predicted in my previous post, you too quoted, you&#39;d instruct me further... I&#39;ll add, you speak as one under the heel... except today, sadly, what you said, regardless, has more veracity, than not... What you legitimately pointed out, is a flaw  (if there&#39;s consolation on any side of it) which ultimately destroys itself... also, it&#39;s not unique to Jews. Though in behalf of survival...which I for one...am glad Jews have been able to... they&#39;ve more or less perfected. That&#39;s why now it FEELS awful, which it is. It&#39;s too sophisticated... whereas when this was done in the past, as all people, disgustingly practice it, it was more crude, and so more apparent. But don&#39;t be a FOOL, for what you&#39;ve legitimately uncovered, there are people more powerful... (fewer) but nonetheless, ________________, well fill in the blank...because they have more recent history, in context, and sway. That could be good for you... but so far, it&#39;s bad. That&#39;s not the Jews&#39;fault, they too only do the bidding... like we all do.

"Asia's crowded, Europe's too old, Africa's far too hot, and Canada's too cold...they don't respect us (and our easy credit and fast food eating ways, and our trillionaire overlords) so let's surprise'em... we'll drop the big one, and pulverize'Em????" -Randy Newman. 'Wait...let's save Australia...don't want to hurt no kangaroo...we'll build for our overlords a big amusement Park there, they got surfin'Too!!! BOOM goes, Berlin, BOOM Parie... more sht for our overlords... more sht for me...' ? I think Jews should say NO to them... and if on their side (wrongly) say NO to themselves... Otherwise they'll piss me off... and they don't want to do that... do they-?-

Ragnar

2002-11-25 05:24 | User Profile

Originally posted by George@Nov 25 2002, 03:50 ** Like I've always said, I prefer my superior...**

                *If this is true...* and I say if in all seriousness, which is why *I alone* trimmed the quote box... if you really prefer superiority go to the link below.  It is a new article by **YOUR SUPERIOR** and his name is Israel Shamir.  In the article, he explains that the Protocols, however spurious, are accurate about *some* of what we know about J&#39;s working as a team, as Batty sagely puts it.

[url=http://www.rense.com/general32/elders.htm]http://www.rense.com/general32/elders.htm[/url]

Roy Batty

2002-11-25 19:28 | User Profile

Originally posted by George@Nov 25 2002, 03:50 **But don't be a FOOL, for what you've legitimately uncovered, there are people more powerful... (fewer) but nonetheless, ____, well fill in the blank...because they have more recent history, in context, and sway. That could be good for you... but so far, it's bad. That's not the Jews'fault, they too only do the bidding... like we all do.

                Instruct?  I don&#39;t instruct anyone.  Just fire off my opinion like most of the other guys here.  Maybe you are trying to instruct, by pointing out the errors of our ways.  Or so you think.

Yes, other peoples have practiced similar "tactics" - AFTER being pushed to the brink by those that feel they have sole claim to power, to life, to everything. Once again, we have the team concept. Smartest team? I don't know, as those you think of being the smartest team, ruin themselves in the end. Everytime. As you seem to know. No, it's not a flaw in tactics. It's a flaw in thinking. A genetic trait, I'd be willing to bet. History seems to bear this out. Working as team perfected in some aspects. "Winner take all" team mentality? Yes, and it's mutation into pure greed gilded with hate on the part of the desert dwellers is the downside. For them. Always the downside. Spoiled petulant children that worship two things, themselves and acquisition. But again, they always put their best starters on the field while everyone else is concerned with ... the crowd and its reaction, keeping them from making a decision and moving forward.

"... they only do the bidding ..." Bidding as to what conditions dictate? Bidding of their own genes? Bidding of their ... superiors? Not quite. They indeed work with those many of us term traitors. But they don't do anyone's bidding without there being something for themselves to ACQUIRE in the end. Whether they acquire materials or the destruction of those they watch with a hateful or jealous eye, it doesn't matter.

To put it simply, they ask only one question, oft repeated on this forum. "Is it good for the jews?"

Whites need to ask WHY? for every move our government makes. And a rude awakening needs to occur before we see that happen. Current events have us racing pell mell toward that bloody poke in the eye.

Walter Yannis

2002-11-28 08:48 | User Profile

The author says:> "Judaism finds its expression in radical pluralism, an assertion that there is no name for God."

Consider for a moment how perfectly delusional that statement is.

As Shahak pointed out, Judaism was always totalitarian in both theory and practice. It was inspired by an admiration of the ways of Sparta. The Jewish ghettoes were always totalitarian theocracies. Shahak points to cruel and arbitrary punishments inflicted by the Rabbis for even slight ideological deviations.

PeeCee - Jewish Marxism's bastard child - is the most intolerant of all political movements ever to find a voice in our society. It's main proponents are Jews.

Shahak points out that part of Marxism's appeal to Jews liberated from the ghettoes by the French Revolution was a return to the security of their totalitarian past. Our own Soviet totalitarianism grew right out of the Pale of Settlement.

Such a statement doesn't even pass the laugh test, yet the author can write such patent absurdities in America's leading newspaper without it even occurring to anyone to offer even a slight snicker in the cause of truth.

Walter

George

2002-12-03 20:20 | User Profile

Hey... ya'll gave me a bit of a working over, over Here... I like that... then all sexily bloodied, I can cry out to my beloved like Rocky: "Adrienne????????" (spelling?) "Hey Adrienne, I never knew how to spell' it, sorry... ok?"

"No problem, Rocky... we're talking about bilogical realities here, who knows why things are the way they are...Rocky... I've got to kick myself...I'd never 'thought' I'd like you."

"Yeah, but Adrienne... oh, never mind..."

Oh Omar Shamir... Oh what a wonderful, wonderful name... Seriously Rag-head... is that guy real... does he really exist or is he sort of like the Gentile version of 'Stone Phillips'?

Here's what I see... can be a cooling off period.

Pim

2002-12-21 20:11 | User Profile

Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Nov 28 2002, 02:48 ** The author says:> "Judaism finds its expression in radical pluralism, an assertion that there is no name for God."

Consider for a moment how perfectly delusional that statement is.

PeeCee - Jewish Marxism's bastard child - is the most intolerant of all political movements ever to find a voice in our society. It's main proponents are Jews.

Walter **

I'm sick of all of this, as well as sick of myself... which is an honest statement. (But it's an [honest] personal one.)

IN addition... in my opinion... there is nothing else, in terms of human social behavior [at best] except in generally speaking (the exceptions, which prove the rule) other than totalitarian theocracies... regardless of the masks they wear, which INCLUDES of course, the U.S. & let's add here, Israel... (who's kidding whom?)

It's the exceptions who are sometimes deluded into thinking it 'can' be otherwise... so I agree with Walter.

Except to add overtly, it's why it's really a heresy to 'believe' at the center, or the "top", under the circumstances, it Can be anything but, what in the mundane would, and should be considered corrupt... This can be said here for the simple reason, so few read it, or some who do... (don't) understand it... which is Fine...