Rabbi Mayer Schiller said in 1999: “The State of Israel poses a problem for Jews living in the diaspora. A Jew living in America, France or England but yet somehow says I am an Israeli or a Zionist, that creates a tremendous amount of tension. Herzl envisioned Zionism as Jews leaving Gentile nations and going to live in Israel, not staying in France and England and saying I am a Zionist. Jews living in America, England, France, etc, have three moral possibilities: They can be loyal citizens, they can be Zionists which means to leave [for Israel] or they can adopt the Neterui Karta position of non-involvement in the affairs of the nations.”
* This is a tough problem. How can Jews single themselves out (as they must for racial purity and ethnic solidarity reasons) while preventing goyim from “singling” them (or even noticing, for that matter)? How can Jews remain “a people apart” from “the nations” as the Torah requires, and not have the nations notice?
They could truly be “a people apart” as the Amish are and have no problems, but where’s the money and power in that? The only real answer, as Ted Herzl and countless other Jews have concluded, is to have their own land and make Aliyah. But again, where’s the money and power in being just one more Jew in an entire country full of regular workaday Jews? How satisfying is it to kvell “my son, the [Israeli Jewish] plumber” or ” my son, the janitor.” It isn’t a problem for the Amish, because no work is beneath them, so Amish separation is not fraught with Amish anxiety or conflict with the larger culture.
So how can Diasporic Jews be both “separated” and “integrated” at the exact same time? They still haven’t figured out how to make it work.
* The Israel Lobby was probably the poli sci publishing event of the century. And yet it was that, though none of its facts were up for dispute, or anything particularly obscure. (I keep up with Stephen Walt’s articles over at Foreign Policy and he has to contradict himself in the same breath to keep his job, mentioning the lobby then acknowledging the “canard of dual-loyalty.”) Plenty of people criticize Israel. The issue is really everything other than Israel, or rather what’s behind Israel, Jewish power in America—specifically the character of people who assassinate reputations with impunity. I want to see a Jew with establishment credentials bluntly state that groups of Jews who monitor critics of Israel, threaten their would-be employers, and alienate their family members too—like they did to Joe Sobran—I want to see a Jew say such Jews are borderline sociopaths who deserve to be disrespected and shunned by every Jew with a conscious. That I have yet to see. Though there is that Bobby Fischer movie coming out.
* I’m 100% with Steve here. As I see it, and correct me if I’m wrong:
1) Steve goes out of his way to emphasize that when Jewish people want to make things be “good for the Jews,” that is a normal human desire and there is nothing wrong with it.
2) He goes out of his way to compliment Israel on doing what a democracy should — namely, looking out for the interests of its own people, before those of the rest of the planet.
3) His gripe isn’t with Jewish people trying to make things “good for the Jews,” as such, but rather with the system of taboos, retribution, etc., that makes it impossible to air reasonable criticism in a measured way, and the resulting harmful distortions of intellectual life.
Now, we all know here that words like “hate” and “racism” have been devalued by the Left to the point of being meaningless. And when someone is accused of “hate” and “racism” in the USA in 2015, most of the time it is total BS.
However… when I go to some of those unfiltered content sections, I find things that to me are truly horrible.
Now, I totally support the Pat Buchanan line on foreign policy, and totally agree with all of Steve’s gripes about Jewish taboos in the media … which of course would be enough to get me called “anti-Semitic” by the MSM… but that doesn’t mean that there’s not genuine hate out there, and genuine anti-Semitism, and I find it revolting. I’m glad Steve keeps it out of here.
My rule of thumb is that whenever dehumanizing metaphors come into play, that’s bad news. Our opponents may (some of them) be awful, duplicitous, malicious, hateful people… but they are still human beings. When commenters start using non-human terms, that’s out of bounds in my view.
* The problem is not that Jews are pursuing their natural, human interests, the problem is that other whites are not making their own pursuit.
After all – everyone else is – blacks, Latinos, Muslims, all.
The only thing that makes the Jews look special, in this regard, is that they are doing this despite being white, which then makes them look like hypocrites if they ever engage in mainstream discourse, which of course you have to do to be well known, so then all Jews look like hypocrites (for thee and not for me.)
But all other groups do the same thing, except, of course, dumb, naive Western Europeans.
We need to learn that hypocrisy is not always the worst option and that life throws up complex moral challenges to which hypocrisy is sometimes the best response.
An officer inspecting a parade of soldiers may not be in as good order as they are, but he still needs to pick up their faults.
NW Euros need to get over ourselves and realise this. Life is not a fairytale and sometimes being a hypocrite is actually the noble choice.
We can believe in fundamental human equality and still favour our own because we believe in many things and sometimes they contradict.
