Thursday, June 14, 2007

David Cameron: ‘I am a Zionist and I’m proud of the fact’

The words of HM Leader of the Opposition, the Rt Hon David Cameron MP, at an address to the Conservative Friends of Israel. Out of context, the sentence is uncharacteristically declarative, but even in context, it is forthright, bold, and, in this day and age, rather brave. When asked about the Zionism and Conservatism, Mr Cameron said: ‘If what you mean by Zionist, someone who believes that the Jews have a right to a homeland in Israel and a right to their country then yes I am a Zionist and I’m proud of the fact that Conservative politicians down the ages have played a huge role in helping to bring this about.

Cranmer is reminded of the letter of St Paul to the Romans, in which he expounds that ‘all Israel will be saved’. Calvin writes of this: ‘Many understand this of the Jewish people, as though Paul had said, that religion would again be restored among them as before: but I extend the word Israel to all the people of God, according to this meaning — "When the Gentiles shall come in, the Jews also shall return from their defection to the obedience of faith; and thus shall be completed the salvation of the whole Israel of God, which must be gathered from both…" The same manner of speaking we find in Gal. vi.16. the Israel of God is what he calls the Church, gathered alike from Jews and Gentiles.’

Cranmer does not hold to Calvin’s eschatological or hermeneutical interpretation (indeed, he is decidedly more ‘post-‘ than ‘a-millennial’), not least because to Mr Calvin’s replacement theology may be apportioned a degree of anti-Semitism which would deny Israel a right to exist at all: the ‘Israel of God’ simply becomes the people of God - the Church - and the one supplants the other. Thus Cranmer is therefore pleased to hear Mr Cameron say:

'There is something deep in our Party’s DNA that believes in Israel, the right of Israel to exist, the right of Israel to defend itself and that a deal should only happen if it means that Israel is really allowed to have peace within secure borders and real guarantees about its future… The West has to understand that there isn’t an equivalence between a democratically elected Government of Israel, a state of Israel that is a democracy, that’s a member of the United Nations, that has a totally legitimate right to exist and defend itself – there is no equivalence between that and a group like Hamas. When it comes to Hamas we have to be very clear about the Quartet principles, until they recognise the state of Israel, until they put an end to violence and accept previous agreements, they really have to move toward those principles in a big way before they should get any Western money and Western support.

And Cranmer was particularly pleased to hear him brand members of UCU, the lecturers’ union which recently voted to explore a boycott of Israel, as ‘Trots’, and ‘a bunch of loons’. Equating their action with anti-Semitism, he said:

What’s disturbing about it, is it is something that is happening here in the United Kingdom and it’s something that has absolutely no justification because Israel is a democratic country and these Trots as you put it are treating Israel as some sort of pariah state and that is completely wrong. So I have no hesitation in saying yes it may be a bunch of loons but actually what they are doing is profoundly wrong, profoundly damaging and also I think sometimes attacks on Israel can spill over into anti-Semitism, to be frank about it.

This speech won’t go down very well in Dewsbury, Bradford, or Bethnal Green, but it will play very well indeed in Hendon, Finchley, and Golders Green…

42 Comments:

Anonymous Voyager said...

This speech won’t go down very well in Dewsbury, Bradford, or Bethnal Green,

Oh I don't know...but then again Conservatives don't gain seats in those areas.....but i wonder if Cameron would make the same speech to his friends the Rehmans in B'ham or if he waxes lyrical about Kashmir to them ?

I don't think a British politician should identify himself as Zionist even though he supports Israel openly....simply because the word when associated with Britain makes diplomacy harder in the region.

Britain is a byword for duplicity which in diplomacy is very useful and especially in the Arab world. Nailing your colours to the mast in such an obvious way, makes it more difficult for regional parties to deal with you.

It ranks alongside the crassness of Lord Levy as Middle East envoy with diplomatic passport. I do wonder if our politicians are too focused on US political ideologies and too little on our own.

Lloyd George gave a speech in B'ham attacking The Boer War and was almost lynched; would Cameron proclaim his Zionism before a crowd of Muslims in B'ham ?

and...he should recall that in his party Edward Heath was noted more for a penchant towards the Arab world

14 June 2007 at 07:17  
Anonymous Abandon Ship! said...

Such reports of Master Cameron's sentiments quicken my heart such that he can be assured of my vote at the next election. Methinks Master Brown is Calvinistic in this regard.

14 June 2007 at 09:43  
Blogger Ed said...

Edward Heath was noted more for a penchant towards the Arab world

He was in favour of all sorts of things which were not particularly Conservative...

14 June 2007 at 14:07  
Blogger dizzyfatplonka said...

‘If what you mean by Zionist, someone who believes that the Jews have a right to a homeland in Israel and a right to their country then yes I am a Zionist'

Now that his Zionist credentials are in the open, maybe he could elaborate on his views for the rights of Gentile Britons having a right to a homeland and country.

14 June 2007 at 16:24  
Anonymous CCTV said...

WEll David Cameron is a Zionist - I suppose that is an improvement on John F Kennedy who announced he was a doughnut ("Berliner")

14 June 2007 at 20:23  
Blogger Jeremy Jacobs said...

What's Camern got to say about Melanie's latest article I wonder?

The war against the Jews (6)

A report by Jonathan Spyer for the Gloria Centre puts the wretched boycott into a wider and far more grim perspective:

Today, among those states, organisations and people in the region who reject Israel’s continued existence, there is a perception that the correct strategy for producing the eventual demise of the Jewish state has been found. The new strategy has been likened to the antique far-left doctrine of ‘prolonged popular war’.

According to this view, conventional battlefield confrontation is only one of a variety of means to be employed to achieve the desired end. Ongoing, demoralising guerrilla attacks, which sap will and morale, the constant maintenance of conflict - with the intention of preventing successful societal development, and a parallel political strategy of delegitimisation and isolation - are all key ingredients. The perceived combination of sophistication and indefatigability represented by Hizbullah in Lebanon is a key model and source of inspiration in this.

Victory here is not predicated on a Syrian armored column entering Tel Aviv. The intention is to gradually whittle away at the various components of Israel’s strength. The goal is to make of Israel a ‘failed state’, in which the pursuit of normal life becomes impossible.

This is where the various international delegitimisation initiatives come in. Initiatives such as the UCU boycott are the result of the efforts of a fairly small number of people. The anti-Israel boycott campaign offers a chance for activists of fringe political organisations to ‘punch above their weight’ and for a moment take centre stage. The people behind the latest move in Britain, for example, are members of a small far-left party - the Socialist Workers party. But such figures have been able to emerge from eccentric obscurity precisely because of the current febrile mood regarding Israel and the Middle East conflict among significant parts of educated British opinion.

Thrilled by the militant challenge offered by the popular war strategy and its supporters, the boycotters wish to cast themselves in the mould of the anti-Vietnam war and anti-apartheid campaigners of the past. They will do their bit by cutting the ties of support linking the enemy entity to its western backers through commerce, trade, and cultural and educational links. Israel, in the analogy, is to play the unflattering role of Thieu’s doomed South Vietnamese republic, or the apartheid regime.

14 June 2007 at 23:04  
Anonymous Voyager said...

What's Camern got to say about Melanie's latest article I wonder?

I am afraid this site is far too erudite for David Cameron to comment; I suggest you post your plea over at WebCameron to see if he can offer any answer

15 June 2007 at 07:43  
Blogger saltynick said...

dizzyfatplonka said: Now that his Zionist credentials are in the open, maybe he could elaborate on his views for the rights of Gentile Britons having a right to a homeland and country.

A1 spot-on.

Ethnic-nationalism is OK for Jews but 'racist', 'fascist', and probably 'delusional' for the British peoples and for Europeans generally.

How'd this entrenched and compulsory disregard for the ethnic interests of white gentiles come about? And what will happen when those victimised by it wake-up? I don't think it will be pretty.

15 June 2007 at 10:07  
Blogger Mark said...

This is rather brilliant: Cameron has shot up in my estimations. Particularly because at this moment of resurgent British anti-semitism (largely Islamic these days), it is not only brave but desperately necessary to proclaim such sane and righteous opinions.

15 June 2007 at 12:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No regular media sources have quoted these words by David Cameron. He must have been very careful not to say them in the presence of any reputable journalist. But then, nobody wishes to be heard supporting an apartheid state anyywhere - or at least, not reliably quoted as doing so.

And as others have pointed out, it puts him in an impossible position as regards those who want an "English Homeland". These "Separate development" concepts are doomed to vanish from the pages of history.

15 June 2007 at 16:52  
Anonymous CCTV said...

These "Separate development" concepts are doomed to vanish from the pages of history.

Bye bye Pakistan

15 June 2007 at 17:51  
Anonymous G Eagle Esq said...

His Grace the Archbishop Cranmer

Your Grace

In the interests of historical memory, let us not forget

Immediately after the late & lamentable Hostilities with our German Friends, the now late & much-missed Grandfather Eagle found himself carrying a Pistol in what was then the Palestine Mandate

Warum - because the Zionist Terrorists were goung round murdering unarmed British Sergeants held captive in cellars

Mercifully, Grandfather Eagle never had to use the said pistol

.... and let us not forget how many other British Soldiers were murdered by these Zionist Murderers - was it in excess of 500

... and how many Jews did they murder (eg in blowing up King David's Hotel) ... and how many unarmed Arabs ....

and (I suspect to the Good Lord's dismay) the Killing still goes on ... and on ....

I have the honour to remain, in Christ, your Grace's obedient servant etc

G Eagle

15 June 2007 at 21:12  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Dizzyfatplonka and Saltynick -
I don't understand. Do you not already have a country?

Snuffy

15 June 2007 at 21:39  
Anonymous דָנִיֵּאל said...

G Eagle, whilst I do not support violence in the land I think your putting forward a very one-sided argument that I see all to often these days. Yes there were attacks made by Zionists but let’s not forget those of the Arabs who raped and killed women and children. And these act were over-looked for a long time by the British who themselves participated in the killing of unarmed Jews.
It wasn’t until the establishment of the state that they were legally allowed to defend themselves against attacks.
Although I have no interest in the politics of man-kind I do respect Cameron for what he said and if that makes him a Zionist then that means I’m one as well.

16 June 2007 at 00:20  
Anonymous דָנִיֵּאל said...

G Eagle, whilst I do not support violence in the land I think your putting forward a very one-sided argument that I see all to often these days. Yes there were attacks made by Zionists but let’s not forget those of the Arabs who raped and killed women and children. And these act were over-looked for a long time by the British who themselves participated in the killing of unarmed Jews.
It wasn’t until the establishment of the state that they were legally allowed to defend themselves against attacks.
Although I have no interest in the politics of man-kind I do respect Cameron for what he said and if that makes him a Zionist then that means I’m one as well.

16 June 2007 at 00:20  
Anonymous Voyager said...

I do respect Cameron for what he said

What a world. Now we respect people for what they say - and politicians too - when once we respected people for what they had in fact achieved

We live in an age of revered soundbite

16 June 2007 at 06:23  
Blogger saltynick said...

Snuffleupagus said... Dizzyfatplonka and Saltynick -
I don't understand. Do you not already have a country?


We, that is the English, are for the most part citizens of the UK - a state whose entire political and cultural elite is committed to policies of English dispossession in England.

You know this full well.

When Cameron allows the for the English what he defends for the Jews: a homeland dedicated to my peoples' security and self-rule, then we will we 'have a country'.

As things stand, the English are the ONLY ethnic group whose opinions, feelings, interests, and rights go unconsidered, unsolicited and unheard in all the endless and futile debates about how best to manage OUR national dispossession.

Steadfast magazine are a useful resource on the subject of English nationalism.

16 June 2007 at 15:16  
Blogger dizzyfatplonka said...

It is apperant that the country snuffleupagus believes we have is being taken from us, also that for us to claim as much would be deemed racism. Yet not so when speaking of any other peoples rights to a country. Why so?

16 June 2007 at 17:56  
Anonymous Voyager said...

You have a point - Wycliffe, Tyndale, Locke, Shakespeare, Webster, Donne, Pepys, Cromwell, Hampden, Raleigh, Drake, Hood, Nelson, Grenville, Howard, Chatham, Pitt, Wolfe, etc were all English.........and it was the English that built the Americas and had a Magna Carta when the others were stil wearing woad......

That is forgotten in this potpourri of ignorance celebrated by the Lords of Misrule

16 June 2007 at 18:00  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Dizzy and Salty -
I can assure you that I really don't know as you seem to think I do. I'm sorry for my ignorance. It might even be a significant addition to your argument that your cause does not get much publicity. This is why I am asking.

I took a look at Steadfast. So am I correct in understanding that you do not want to be considered British? You want to be English? And you are upset about pots of money going to others but not to the English? Please don't take this the wrong way. I really am just trying to understand your position. I don't know people with your views and frankly have no idea what drives you.

Is it, as Voyager says, that you believe England, as opposed to Britain, to have had great historical figures and you want these to be celebrated more? Or is it just about having a box to tick on the census card? I mean, I, personally, have no box on that census card, but I don't care. You do? Why?

If you had what you wanted, what would your England look like?

Snuffy

16 June 2007 at 18:26  
Blogger saltynick said...

Snuffleupagus

if you've never previously considered who the English people are, you should never have blogged on the subject.

Those kids you love - who claim England as 'their' country - some of them are sons and daughters of imperialists by any objective use of the word; the exceptions are the English kids.

English is an equivalent term to Zulu or Jew, it is an ethnic designation. So it is not equivalent to resident, or citizen - a place or state-specific term.

Pressures to have us redefine the 'English' as merely the inhabitants of England are designed to deny us an ethnic-identity.

This is made especially obvious when every other ethnic-group is recognised, respected, and honoured; and its representatives consulted as to the future of England's newly multi-ethnic identity, while the ethnic-English go 'forgotten', and their rights as indigenes go ignored.

It's textbook imperialism, and ethnocide.

The UN's Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples phrases it nicely:

Article 7.
Indigenous peoples have the collective and individual right not to be subject to ethnocide and cultural genocide, including the prevention of and redress for:

(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or identities;

(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;

(c) Any form of population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights;

(d) Any form of assimilation or integration by other cultures or ways of life imposed on them by legislative, administrative or other measures;

(e) Any form of propoganda directed against them;

The English will awaken, Snuffleupagus, and they will remember that England belongs to them. Just as did the Asian and African peoples who were once on 'the receiving end'.

What's good for the goose and all...

16 June 2007 at 19:04  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Saltynick-

I have considered who the English are, but I have never considered it from your point of view before. This point of view has always confused me.

You seem to object to my kids claiming England as their country. I would have thought this would be cause to rejoice. What do you mean by 'they are sons and daughters of imperialists'?

I understand what you are saying about the term 'English'. In fact many different ethnic minorities agree with this definition, and would never call themselves English. They call themselves British. This was why I was so surprised when my kids at school defended England. They would never describe themselves as English.

What is someone's 'rights as an indegene'? And does England belonging to you mean that I have to leave? Can black people never see England as their country?

When you talk about the Asian and African peoples once being on the receiving end, does this mean that you equate colonialism in the past with ethnic immigration over the last century?

I fear I am trying to understand a way of thought which in my world is simply incomprehensible. It saddens me Saltynick, that my presence in 'your' country should so offend you, that you should threaten me with 'English people awakening'.

I think most English people are already awake, and thanks to their clarity of mind, they are happy to have me.

17 June 2007 at 00:26  
Blogger saltynick said...

Mark said...This is rather brilliant: Cameron has shot up in my estimations. Particularly because at this moment of resurgent British anti-semitism (largely Islamic these days), it is not only brave but desperately necessary to proclaim such sane and righteous opinions.

Anti-semitism in the West is largely a result of Muslim immigration, correct. But tell me now, what would lead to a rise in anti-gentilism. Nobody is concerned about this, right? Certainly not you... HOW SO?

This issue goes unrecorded because Jews essentially control the dialogue on racial issues in the west.

How else can we explain that ALL potential Prime Ministers in ALL major western countries abjure ethnic-nationalism for their own peoples and homelands, yet support Zionism and Israel for Jews?

Could ANYTHING be more anti-gentile than that? (Not if the groups are reversed, as we all know.)

Muslims came late in the game to insisting that all white peoples adopt ethnic-suicide as state-policy. Jews demanded it first at around the same time they demanded an ethnic-state for themselves.

Don't knock Muslims for following the example of Jews, it's what they and Christians do... if they become racists it's because they follow the most racist racist example possible.

17 June 2007 at 00:33  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Saltynick
No, antisemitism in the West is not a result of Muslim immigration as your own antisemitism ironically demonstrates.

Jews do not 'control' the dialogue on racial issues in the West and Muslims. And Muslims don't require white people to adopt ethnic-suicide.

Your opinions are offensive, antisemitic, islamaphobic, and racist. No doutt, we, the non-English of the world are responsible for making you this way. I notice you have not replied to my comment above, so I can only presume that you do indeed think in this manner.

Your Grace - I humbly request you say something. It isn't right that Saltynick should be allowed to offend me and no doubt others on your blog in this way.

And Saltynick, I can only hope that His Grace might pray for you.

17 June 2007 at 10:18  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Your opinions are offensive, antisemitic, islamaphobic, and racist.

Ms Snuffleupagus,

His Grace is prepared to comment and does so because of your humble supplication.

Firstly, he draws your attention to his 'bottom line' in the right-hand margin of this blog:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse.

Secondly, your own use of language does not necessarily accord with definitions attributed by other scholars and epistemologists on this blog. An 'anti-semite', for example, as Miss Jellybean has elucidated, is one who is against the Semitic, and since the Arabs are Semites, it does not necessarily mean 'anti-Jew', as it evidently means for most. And 'Islamophobia' apparently means an 'irrational fear of Islam or Mohammedans', but is in fact a label tagged to anyone who even dare offer a critique of anything vaguely linked to Islam. What does one term a person with a wholly rational fear of Islam? And as for 'racism', well, this is one of the most over-used and worn-out words in contemporary English usage. But since Muslims are not a race, Saltynick is not guilty of it.

His Grace hopes this helps.

And he prays for all of his communicants.

17 June 2007 at 10:38  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Your Grace,
Saltynick is guilty of racism not because of what he said about Muslims but because of what he said about me and the children I teach.

As for the terms anti-semite and islamaphobia, one can argue about specifics of definition, but they are not relevant here.

I find it interesting that when Miss Jelly Bean was offensive towards the Jews, you were quick to object. Now, it is somehow different.

I am a great believer in Freedom of speech and for that reason, you can see that I tried to understand a point of view which was not my own. I only discovered however, that the person with whom I was having this discussion has thoughts about me and others which are at base, offensive.

I should not have to justify my existence as a human being. Reading Saltynick actually makes me fear for my safety. It saddens me that you do not see that. You clearly can see it from a Jewish perspective. Your writing and your reactions to comments makes that clear. So why you don't see it here, baffles me.

17 June 2007 at 11:33  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Ms Snuffleupagus,

You do not indeed have to justify your existence as a human being. You could simply ignore him.

Please repeat, for the sake of clarity and for the enlightenment of other communicants, the words of Mr Saltynick's which you deem to be 'racist'.

17 June 2007 at 12:53  
Anonymous Observer said...

I seem to recall on a previous thread which His Grace has no doubt buried in the crypt, that you, Ms Snuffleupagus being a character from The Muppet Show, stated that you saw no reason to know anything of English history and it was not important to you.

It seems remarkable then that you seek to take umbrage because Saltynick simply confirms that you and the children you purport share your outlook could consider themselves part of that genus known as English native; that is persons whose antecedents are Anglo-Saxon and whose history is bound up with this island and its Ecclesia Anglicana.

There are heritage and cultural issues which transcend any present day association with token symbolism, and which Saltynick is angry are being denigrated and treated contemptuously by a self-appointed clique in media and politics; many of whom have no historical links to this English nation.

On the three occasions that Scotsmen have ruled England - James VI, Ramsay MacDonald, Tony Blair; the result has been unmitigated disaster followed by disastrous long-term consequences.

The occasions where Scots attempts at ruling England were quashed - Mary Queen of Scots, Cromwell defeat of Scots at Dunbar, the Jacobite Risings of 1715 and 1745 - ensured English prosperity and success.

It is simply that rather as the Chinese attempt to stamp out Tibetan culture, and the Germans set out systematically eradicating Luxemburg culture during the Occupation; so too does a shallow elite of ideologically motivated polemicists try to humiliate and disregard the English as the progenitors and guardians of the nation. The backlash will come.

17 June 2007 at 15:20  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Observer, I understand what you are saying. But I believe what you have said is different Saltynick. To clear up confusion, I did not say that English history was not important. Clarendon Code said that all people (and by that, I took him to mean the world) should know English history. I said I did not know why this should be so. He never presented an argument to persuade me. I am often impressed by your own knowledge of English history (and His Grace and other communicants) and only wish I knew as much as you.

Neither did I say that I was English. In fact, I said just the opposite and said that ethnic minorities support Saltynick's understanding of the word 'English'.

If what you say is indeed representative of Saltynick's views, then I understand them. But you talk of a 'shallow elite of ideologically motivated polemicists'. Saltynick talks of 'Jews controlling dialogue on racial issues' and suggests that they 'control' various Prime Ministers and so I suppose this forces them to give their support to Israel. I'm not sure if he means mind control or witchcraft. It is simply absurd.

He talks of antisemitism in the West being the result of Muslim immigration. I wonder how then he explains the Holocaust. And then he equated colonialism with ethnic immigration to this country. His facts are so off-base that his thoughts can only be the result of a twisted sense of righteousness.

Your words Observer make sense. His do not.

Your Grace - I mention here above some of the words I find racist/antisemitic. But it is more than this. Saltynick did not answer my comment where I asked him if I should be required to leave England. His silence is telling. You are right that I could ignore him. So too could you have ignored Miss Jelly Bean. You chose not to. Surely Your Grace you see a difference between the sentiments behind Observer's remarks and Saltynick's? On the surface, they may seem to be saying the same thing but on closer inspection, their comments reveal sentiments that are vastly different. Observer has taught me something. Saltynick simply scares me.

Oh and Observer, Snuffleupagus featured on Sesame Street.

17 June 2007 at 19:46  
Anonymous Observer said...

He talks of antisemitism in the West being the result of Muslim immigration. I wonder how then he explains the Holocaust.

The Holocaust was a direct consequence of Soviet Communism and had less to do with Judaism than with Marxism-Leninism as the Counter-Religion of Secular Jews.


I always confuse the Muppets and Sesame Street because Jim Henson was behind both productions

17 June 2007 at 21:19  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Observer - Clearly the reasons for the Holocaust are complex. But antisemitism had its part to play. Whether more, or less, I cannot say, but it played an important role. You aren't disputing that, are you?

Your Grace - You know I am your greatest fan. Just so you know, it remains that way.

17 June 2007 at 21:34  
Anonymous Observer said...

Observer - Clearly the reasons for the Holocaust are complex. But antisemitism had its part to play. Whether more, or less, I cannot say, but it played an important role. You aren't disputing that, are you?

I probably am because I think it fails to explain why Jews were so integrated into Germany and so successful. It does not explain how Hermann Tietz could own one of the largest department store groups in Europe; nor how Metallgesellschaft could be one of the largest industrial groups in Europe; nor how Frankfurt's major banks could all be Jewish.

Warburg the Hamburg Bank, Sal. Oppenheim, AEG, all founded by Jews - and the Daimler car was named after Mercedes Jellinek the graddaughter of a Jewish rabbi.

Actually Anti-Semitism would be a very strange way of explaining Jewish business success and social integration in the German Reich. It was so integrated that German Jews left Britain in 1914 to go home to fight for Germany.

I do not know what propaganda is taught in schools nowadays but Anti-Semitism was not the cause of the Holocaust, it was the preponderance of Jews who were Bolsheviks and who had fomented revolution in Germany after 1919 - names like Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg - or names like Trotsky, Sverdlov, Lenin, Radek, Zinoviev, Litvinov, Sokolnikov, Kamenev, Bukharin.......there is a full list if you read the book by The Times correspondent....Robert Wilton


When you understand history you find it clear just what propaganda is taught in schools...and it is clearly used for ideological purposes to produce a compliant ideologically conformist citizenry in modern schooling just as George Orwell predicted


Just a tip for you Ms Snuffleupagus......Noone murders people for an "-ism" that is the fallacy of the propagandists....

17 June 2007 at 21:57  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Observer, While I am indeed impressed that you know so much detail about the Jewish experience in Germany, none of what you say contradicts my claim that antisemitism was rife in Europe. The existence of an 'ism' does not prevent individuals from the 'oppressed' group from succeeding. In fact, I would argue that an 'ism' can even help a group move up the social ladder. For instance, to think of the Jews as a people who are rather slippery, good with money, frugal, and good at 'controlling' others (There's that word again!) - This might make a clever antisemitic businessman all the more likely to employ a Jew.

And as for the Jews returning to fight for for Germany, there are complex studies done on the concept of self-hatred, victimisation, and love for one's 'mother country' to which all minorities or immigrants are susceptible.

I am not saying Antisemitism was the 'cause' of the Holocaust. Neither do I think they teach this at school but I will find out for you. But what happened to the Jews in Germany could not have happened without the aid of Antisemitism. Ordinary people would never have allowed it to happen.

And what propagandists are you talking about? How does teaching people that antisemitism is responsible for the Holocaust (if this were true) produce a compliant conformist citizenry?

17 June 2007 at 22:55  
Blogger saltynick said...

I am sorry to have been absent while so many important points were discussed.

Happily, I can rejoin the debate without interrupting its course by asking (with reference to the last, and previous comments by Snuffleupagus), why he is so concerned about anti-semitism?

Our political and cultural elite is committed to considering Jewish sensitivities and to defending their 'right' to a 'homeland'. Yet they are equally committed to attacking any sense of exclusive, ethnic-Englishness, and any awakening English nationalism.

By any objective measure, anti-semitism is a non-issue while anti-Englishness is an over-riding 'principle' of all our political and cultural elite.

(I would like to see Snuffleupagus attempt an explanation of this unnatural circumstance, and explain why the sons of British colonialists in Africa would not correctly be labelled as 'sons of colonialists'.)

18 June 2007 at 03:09  
Anonymous Voyager said...

none of what you say contradicts my claim that antisemitism was rife in Europe.

I cannot argue with an article of faith. It is not susceptible to reason.


to think of the Jews as a people who are rather slippery, good with money, frugal, and good at 'controlling' others (There's that word again!) - This might make a clever antisemitic businessman all the more likely to employ a Jew.

You seem to have failed to comprehend what I wrote. These were not "employees" - these men were the magnates of German business - the Capitalists.

Hermann Tietz owned large areas of central Berlin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Tietz

The Tietz family invented department stores in Germany and all the major chains were Jewish.

Your comments above I found to be very peculiar, you portray the kind of language one might expect from Arabs or Nazis.

You also seem to have an employee mentality when what I was pointing out was the fact that Jewish businessmen built these corporations - Metallgesellschaft, Hertie, Kaufhof,

Jews have lived in the city ever since the Middle Ages, but Jewish Berlin really began in 1671, when the Prussian emperor, Frederick Wilhelm, allowed Jews expelled from Vienna to settle there. This influx helped to revive Berlin's fortunes after the devastation of the Thirty Years War, and over the next two centuries Jews played a crucial part in Berlin's ascent to the status of a world city. Moses Mendelssohn (the German Socrates), his grandson Felix (the great composer), Marc Chagall, Heinrich Heine, Karl Marx and many others thought of themselves as German as much as Jewish. During the Second Reich, between 1871 and 1914, Berlin became a boom town, and Jewish Berliners prospered. Jews founded Ka De We, Berlin's version of Harrods, and the Berliner Tagesblatt, Berlin's answer to the Times.

Around 100,000 German Jews fought for the fatherland in the First World War; 12,000 died.


http://www.newstatesman.com/200110290022

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salomon_Oppenheim

http://www.mmwarburg.com/en/

You don't often get to be able to fund companies like Audi if you are a persecuted group - but Sal Oppenheim did just that.

You might also look at the men who proclaimed a Republic in Berlin in 1918 and destroyed plans for a Constitutional Monarchy - the SPD. The SPD was founded by August Bebel and was in essence a Jewish Party.........the whole miseries of the Weimar Republic were visited on it because of the way it was born and the fact that those who signed the Versailles Treaty were largely Jewish.

It was thus very easy to portray National interest as being sold out by Cosmpolitan Jewry.........and this is the basis of what happened and was augmented by the Wall Street Crash and banking failures. You might consider that if Britain suffered a 25-30% collapse in GDP (equivalent to the shutting down of the NHS, Pension System, and all local government and education) how this country would look.

18 June 2007 at 08:57  
Anonymous Voyager said...

oh and 22% unemployment also which was Germany's lot after 1929 and a government ruling by Emergency Decree by-passing Parliament

18 June 2007 at 09:51  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Voyager
I only gave the example of the employment issue to demonstrate that racism/antisemitism is far more complicated than you allow it to be. I suppose I could produce any number of articles, websites etc that would contradict your claim that antisemitism was not an important part of the Holocaust, but you would no doubt say that it was all part of the conspiracy of the propagandists.

You are quite right I sounded like a Nazi. I meant to. I was trying to show you how antisemitism is complex. My point was, and still is, that while the information you provide is very interesting, it does not refute the claim that antisemtism played an important part in the Holocaust. I know you think it does. But that's because you don't see beyond the concept of antisemitism being a blunt instrument that stops people from doing the things you list above. It is just more complex than that.

An article of faith...? You are funny Observer! I suppose I am a victim of the propaganda!

18 June 2007 at 22:34  
Anonymous Voyager said...

You can produce Websites until you are blue in the face. The fact is we have been fed propaganda for years from a Socialist angle.

The reason for the Holocaust taking place after 1941 and not in 1915 (when Armenians were being massacred by Muslim Turks) is simply that Central Europe had not experienced the horrors of mass-hunger and economic collapse before with Communists active in Hungary, Poland, Germany and Red Armies at the gates of Warsaw in 1920 hoping to sweep into Berlin as they did in 1945.

It was Bolshevism that created the terror across Europe but it is a policy design to ignore Soviet Communism and its bestiality in our public discourse and education that removes from any mention of Adolf Hitler the policies of Josef Stalin or Leon Trotsky.

Europe lived in fear of Communism especially as they heard of the labour camps and destruction of the kulaks....and that is the reason Germany in 1932 faced the choice of Adolf Hitler or a military coup. The unemployment was 22%, and the Deflation of the Bruening years had destroyed small shopkeepers and families but enriched financiers.

It was fairly obvious that a regime committed to economic nationalism would be opposed to the international capital markets, but it is significant how much Jewish banks in New York loaned the Hitler regime - Kuhn Loeb, Schiff etc.

Anti-Semitism is the liberal Left way of unanchoring historical blame for the mass-murder of - largely Polish Jews - from the fact that it was Bolshevism that made Nazism inevuitable.

The Left has tried to airbrush Stalin and Lenin from the history books and to ignore the fact that Stalin's Show Trials in the 1930s were essentially purges of Jewish cadres from the ranks of the Communist Party and the Central Committee.

Or do you think the murder of Trotsky was "Anti-Semitic" ? The trial of Bukharin, Radek, "Anti-Semitic" ?

If Hitler was so "Anti-Semitic" why did Heydrich survive as No2 at the RSHA; or Robert Ley at the Labour Front, or 150.000 Wehrmacht soldiers ? If Germany was so Anti-Semitic how did sio many Jews survive the war in Berlin ? Read Michael Degen's account of his years in hiding there........

Or do you suggest Anti-Semitism is the reasion The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (uncle of Yassir Arafat) came to Berlin, or why Muslims Bosnians and Kosovans joined the Waffen-SS ?

The over-arching theory to explain events needs an ideology and cannot cope with the pragmatic. You can teach children that Anti-Semitism equates with Auschwitz but Socialism equates with Brotherhood of Man which of course schools do.......but then explain why the 5000 men shot individually in the back of the head at Katyn in 1940 by two NKVD officers wearing leather aprons amid blood-spattered walls, is different from when an SD officer gases someone at Auschwitz where the first victim was a 24 year old ed Army Captain.

Or why the NKVD and SS ran a joint centre in Southern Poland in 1939-40 to train each other in mass-killing techniques and destruction of the Polish intelligentsia....which was to a high degree Jewish....in fact Warsaw had a very high Jewish component of businessmen and bankers and artists.

There was postwar an ongoing propaganda effort to un-anchor the Holocaust from its historical roots and use it like a Disney cartoon as iconic, and as a consequence it has become a mindless slogan and totally isolated from the human circumstances.

It is not a free-floating event any more than Stalin's murder of millions of Ukrainians in contrived famines, or the fact that 10% Soviet population passed through the Gulags.

Read 7000 Days in Siberia by Karlo Stajner and see how the Gulags compared with the KZ. There is not a lot to choose between Hitler and Stalin, but you would not guess that from reading any textbook or hearing discussions here in the "West"

19 June 2007 at 07:28  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Oh my goodness Voyager - You do a damn good job of arguing - I'll give you that! I do agree also with your point about Hitler and Stalin. And you know, I do want to give your comments the attention they deserve. But I can't right now - no time. So in some time, on a future blog post belonging to His Grace, I will get back to you. For now, I have to admit defeat. But I will be back!

Although, I did want to ask, do believe then that there wasn't any racism during the triangular trade time given that there were some successful black people, some who owned slaves etc?

And let me be clear - are you saying that the Holocaust was not CAUSED by antisemitism, or that antisemitism simply did not exist?

19 June 2007 at 20:46  
Anonymous Voyager said...

the Holocaust was not CAUSED by antisemitism

Exactly. Anti-Semitism existed in The Russian Empire by zoning where Jews could live, what trades they could enter, and the frequent organised pogroms to divert from each Russian defeat......that caused mass-emigration to Britain, Germany, France, USA, Poland.

I did want to ask, do believe then that there wasn't any racism during the triangular trade

You mean Slavery between Portugal, Angola and Brazil ? I don't know what "racism" is - it is such a modern phrase.

I think the Portuguese like the Arabs thought these people were primitive, physically strong, and suitable work units to trade. They traded with African chiefs and bought them - in much the same way as Britain bought troops from press-ganged Hessians and any that local princes in the German dukedoms could kidnap and sell to fight Britain's wars in North America.


You probably don't recall that the redcoats fighting George Washington were from Hesse and Hanover and had been sold by their rulers to Britain to fight - as in Scotland too.

When Brazil abolished slavery in 1888 - they had reduced imports when they found it cheaper to breed slaves than freight them - they imported Japanese and Italians to replace the slaves on the coffee plantations.

I do not know if terms like "racism" are helpful, they are slogans, not analytical at all. These slaves were slaves to African tribal chiefs too and tribal wars produced tribal prisoners.

Life is too complex for slogans which are essentially political rather than analytical

20 June 2007 at 06:44  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

at first i was shocked to hear of David Cameron's comments, but after reading it over a number of times, i find myself asking the question "is he really a jew and a zionist at that?" or is he merely stating the fact that he supports jews in their fight of their said land. Would it be right for me to say, yes i am a iranian thinking muslim if i wanted israel to be wiped of the face of this planet. Does that actually make me a iranian thinking muslim or just someone that agrees with the iranian presidents comments (for example).

David Cameron has taken a stance on what he believes in, which may bring in votes from another voting segment perhaps, brave move thouh.

22 July 2007 at 13:14  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would just like to clarify that anti-zionism is not anti-semitism. Anti-zionism is against the ideology of creating a homeland in Israel, not against the Jewish people, because not all Jews are zionists.

It's quite clear that David Cameron doesn't understand the meaning of anti-semitism.

There are several Jewish people who do not agree with zionism because they follow and understand the teachings of their faith; amongst these are several rabbis.

I love those Jews.

5 October 2008 at 18:06  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older