Saturday, April 12, 2014

Miliband claims he would be "the first Jewish prime minister"


Ed Miliband has been in Israel, discovering his Jewish roots.

According to the Daily Mail, he said: "I would be the first Jewish prime minister if we win the election." This appears to corroborate an interview he gave to Haaretz: "In a little over a year from now, Ed Miliband could well be the first Jewish prime minister of the United Kingdom," it begins. It is undeniable that he made the claim himself: as well as this journalistic introduction, he has been directly quoted.

This is curious, because the Conservative Party gave the United Kingdom its first Jewish prime minister a while back - in 1868, to be precise; a full century before minority rights and PC quotas became a political obsession. He was called Benjamin Disraeli: an indication of his Semitic ethnicity may be found in the name. But Ed Miliband seems to be unaware of this, which is a little odd, considering his audacious appropriation of Disraeli's 'One Nation' slogan.

So popular was Disraeli with the Conservatives that they kept him as their leader for 13 years, and the people re-elected him to a second term in 1874. You may argue that he was only a practising Jew up to the age of 12, when he converted (or was converted) to the Church of England. But Ed Miliband is not an observant Jew either, and has never been: he was raised in a sceptic-humanist-atheist household, and is himself an avowed atheist. So we are not concerned here with matters of religious orthodoxy or observance, but with ethnicity.

And on that count, Benjamin Disraeli was irrefutably the UK's first Jewish prime minister.

Perhaps Harriet Harman might make a better leader of the Labour Party, at least in terms of a grasp on history. One doubts that even Ed Miliband would hail her as the first woman prime minister.

224 Comments:

Blogger Roy said...

Miliband is supposed to have had a good education. Either he is lacking in intellectual curiosity or his ignorance of Disraeli's background is a sign of the decline in British educational standards.

12 April 2014 at 09:26  
Blogger bluedog said...

'Perhaps Harriet Harman might make a better leader of the Labour Party...' and 'One doubts that even Ed Miliband would hail her as the first woman prime minister.'

Opinions that must be open to doubt, Your Grace. The rival contender was a Tory, and thus by definition, not a feminist. How can a woman who is not a feminist be regarded as a true woman?

12 April 2014 at 09:41  
Blogger David Hussell said...

I find it very unlikely indeed that he is unaware of PM Benjamin Disraeli, an ethnic Jew, who became a devout High Church Anglican. If my mere "Ordinary Level" in History taken in 1967, at the age of 16 years, my last formal history studies, can equip me with those facts, I find it impossible to believe, Your Grace, that you are right and that he really does not know this. But clearly, either he or the Daily Wail journalist is unaware, or both - all possibilities that I find incredible.

How much do we spend on education these days?

12 April 2014 at 09:51  
Blogger Malcolm Redfellow said...

You protest too much.

Benjamin Disraeli converted to Anglicanism at the age of 12.

Are you saying "once a Jew", always a Jew? Does that work with other faiths (and none)?

Or are you of Daniel O'Connell's persuasion? — "He possesses all the necessary requisites of perfidy, selfishness, depravity, want of principle, etc., which would qualify him for the change. His name shows that he is of Jewish origin. I do not use it as a term of reproach; there are many most respectable Jews. But there are, as in every other people, some of the lowest and most disgusting grade of moral turpitude; and of those I look upon Mr. Disraeli as the worst."

12 April 2014 at 10:31  
Blogger Flossie said...

I don't know which I find more frightening - Milliband's poor grasp of history or the thought of him as Prime Minister.


12 April 2014 at 10:54  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

If Milliband is deluded enough to see himself as Britain's next PM, I suppose it is legitimate enough within his delusions to consider himself to have been born 'Jewish' whatever it is he means by that. But seriously, he's is no more Jewish than I am. He's simply another ambitious, grubby little politician looking for home approval by egregiously playing the tatty, dog-eared photo-op politics of the 'I share you pain' game. What an Arsehole.

I don't believe that anyone can be inherently born a particular religious follower. Him trying to identify as an atheist Jew is fatuous. I hold that Jews as a 'race' are no more valid as such than are followers Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, Hindu or whatever: they are of a long line of ideological belief constructs or if you prefer - religions. They come; they go.

Only in Hitler's warped mind were Jews ever defined as a Race.

What constitutes as 'race' these days anyway? We don't simply need such spurious definition tagging of entire populations based on what current mythological antecedence the majority of such groups happen to believe. We are all human with present-day appearances evolved by genetically inherited anatomical variations.

Mumbling a few obscure chants and obligations does not alter a persons DNA now does it?

12 April 2014 at 11:07  
Blogger Jim McLean said...

What is Malcolm Redfello on about? I thought Crnmer's analysis of what constitutes being Jewish - in the context of Milliband's claim - to be perfectly clear....

12 April 2014 at 11:07  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Dreadnaught (11:07)—Recent DNA research suggests that Jews are a distinct race. As far as I’m aware, however, there is as yet no scientific evidence to substantiate their claim to be the Chosen People.

12 April 2014 at 12:03  
Blogger no longer anonymous said...

"So popular was Disraeli with the Conservatives that they kept him as their leader for 13 years, and the people re-elected him to a second term in 1874"

I'm pretty sure he wasn't re-elected but actually beat the sitting PM (Gladstone). Plus the majority of the people actually voted Liberal despite the Tory victory in seats.

12 April 2014 at 12:30  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

JR: One has first to establish what exactly is meant by 'race'. I am yet to find a corroborated definition of or indeed any meaningful purpose for such a categorical nomenclature. DNA establishes links to the 'human race' originating in what is now the African Rift region which is of interest only in the anthropological mapping of humanity; a handy starting point of reference perhaps but quite useless otherwise.

12 April 2014 at 12:33  
Blogger Busy Mum said...

Bluedog @ 9.41 asked
"How can a woman who is not a feminist be regarded as a true woman?"

Women who are not feminists are the only true women in existence!

12 April 2014 at 12:43  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Ladies and Gentleman

It appears we have our first online applicant for the 'Chair' vacated by the former anti-semite known as Corrigan.

Malcolm Redfellow

All applicants will please submit their opinions on the subject so we can see if their thoughts are rabid enough for the tasks in hand to fill this illustrious position.

E S Blofeld

12 April 2014 at 12:58  
Blogger Albert said...

Given that Miliband is an atheist, we should not be surprised if he evinces this kind of religio-historical-cultural illiteracy. However such illiteracy is not inevitable in an atheist, and it may be that something more interesting is happening here.

A friend of mine taught at a Christian school with a large (liberal or secularised) Jewish minority. He told me that Jewish boys often found Christianity very attractive. However, because of the holocaust it was very hard for them to convert. It was socially acceptable for them to drift into atheism, but not to become Christians. The point I suspect is that by becoming a Christian (or a Muslim or something else), it seems as if a Jew rejects his Jewishness whereas since atheism does not provide a positive religious alternative, it does not seem to imply such a rejection. If this idea is correct and functioning at a sub-conscious level, it may explain Miliband's comment: Disraeli was not a Jew.

12 April 2014 at 13:12  
Blogger Integrity said...

Is Ed a Jew or is he a Jew.
That Disraeli was the first PM to be from the followers of Abraham has always been know to me, so this revelation is astonishing.
Such lack of historical knowledge is lamentable in a politician. We can learn so much from history.

12 April 2014 at 13:22  
Blogger bluedog said...

Busy Mum @ 12.43, agreed! Tongue firmly in cheek.

12 April 2014 at 13:22  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Dreadnaught (12:33)—any meaningful purpose for such a categorical nomenclature

The race of a patient is taken into account when prescribing drugs:

This article reviews the genetic factors that underlie varying responses to medicines observed among different ethnic and racial groups. Pharmacogenetic research in the past few decades has uncovered significant differences among racial and ethnic groups in the metabolism, clinical effectiveness, and side-effect profiles of many clinically important drugs.’

12 April 2014 at 14:06  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Happy Jack cannot believe Milliband is unaware of Disraeli's history.

He may well think an ethnic Jewish atheist, who has never received brit milah, is more authentically Jewish than a Jew who did receive the mark of covenant but converted to Christianity.

Ignorance, confusion - or political one-up-man-ship?

Behind all this is wider the question of constitutes Jewish.

12 April 2014 at 14:12  
Blogger Len said...

What would be nice would be any sort of Prime Minister who had half an idea of what 'Prime Ministering' was all about.

Harriet Harman... perish the thought!.

12 April 2014 at 14:19  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

So we are not concerned here with matters of religious orthodoxy or observance, but with ethnicity.

The Jewish contributors to this site have made it quite clear that in their eyes a man ceases to be a Jew when he becomes a Christian. Is this consistent? No. Is this rooted in historical animosity between Christians and Jews? Yes. I believe it also proceeds from the fact that Christians essentially claim ownership of Jewish history. Judaism is not orthogonal to Christianity like it is to every other religion. Whether logical or not, we are presented with the following reality. "A Jewish atheist is a Jew while a Jewish Christian is an oxymoron."

So the question turns completely on Disraeli's conversion. Was it a convenient fiction? Was it real? And does its reality in fact matter? Is the outward form all that counts? In the end, ethnicity has nothing to do with it.

carl

12 April 2014 at 15:11  
Blogger Nick said...

Isn't this just another example of the cultural Marxists trying to rewrite history, at least in the minds of the intellectually-challenged? Next thing we'll be hearing is that Labour abolished slavery and invented the wheel. There will be suckers who will believe it too; probably the same numpties who think Churchill's famous phrases include "Ooooh Yes!"

12 April 2014 at 15:28  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

The three main party leaders are all shallow, attention seeking, sensationalists with less depth than a high street puddle. Ed's been to Israel and come back fired with enthusiasm, has once more pictured himself as the next Prime Minister. Of course history isn't a lefties strong point so it doesn't surprise me that he comes out with stuff like this. God Help us if he does get into number 10.

12 April 2014 at 15:33  
Blogger Robin Tilbrook said...

Quite right about Disraeli.
But also what about Rosebery?
Disraeli, as a non practising Jew would trump any claim to priority by Ed Milliband, while Rosebery remains our first practising Jewish prime minister.
Why didn't the Telegraph challenge this rubbish from Milliband? It shows that his interest in British history, and by implication in Britishness itself except where it is useful to his ambitions, is minimal.


Robin Tilbrook
Chairman,
The English Democrats

12 April 2014 at 15:33  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

FYI

Disraeli

Benjamin Disraeli was born Jewish and is therefore sometimes considered Britain's first Jewish Prime Minister. In fact, he was a practicing Anglican.

carl

12 April 2014 at 15:34  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Carl Jacobs @ 15.11

Disraeli's conversion --- "Was it real?"

From memory he used to take Holy Communion, daily, a frequency considered remarkably devout, even by the faithful of that era. Sounds real enough to me.

12 April 2014 at 15:57  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Jesus of Nazareth was Jewish.

12 April 2014 at 16:08  
Blogger Integrity said...

Happy Jack,
Are you sure that you come from the same cradle as DODO. I cant see any resemblance.

12 April 2014 at 16:11  
Blogger Integrity said...

Blowfeld,
I love that poem, Footprints in the sand. It says so much about God's nature and his care for us.
My only concern is, where were Tiddles footprints? Were you carrying her when God was carrying you?

12 April 2014 at 16:16  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Explorer @12 April 2014 15:57

I didn't mean to suggest it wasn't real. I only meant that it might not be germane from the Jewish point of view. If one adopts only the outward form of Christianity, is that any less a betrayal of Judaism in their eyes?

I don't know the answer.

carl

12 April 2014 at 17:04  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

The race of a patient is taken into account when prescribing drugs:

In this context I think that is stretching things if meant to establish this aspect as the validity for racial identities.

An interesting read though JR and far in a way too specialised adding little to justify the validity of racial separation in the political sense, except in the crudest of application. One telling statement sums this up.

These programs should be broad and flexible enough to enable rational choices and individualized treatment for all patients, regardless of race or ethnic origin.

It goes on to identify influences of diet, water quality, climate even altitude, all of which make for differences which some people class as so called ‘racial’ definitions. I would hold that ignorance, arrogance and brute power shaped much of historic racial stereotyping with which we in the UK are still faced with accommodating. To counter this I believe there should be an on-going process of erasure from our individual and national consciousness, the ingrained prejudices of the past that were posited by manipulation and indoctrination. Naturally I think, I include myself still as a work in progress in this aspect of social reformation, having grown up in an age when it was normal to use the words Nigger, Coon, Slant-eyes, Jew or worse, as perjorative expressions; ours to use ‘by right’, as being the superior subjects of Britannic Empire. Thankfully, this trait has not been passed through to my children who have no need to be either ashamed of their skin colour or blue eyes than they have to be of their Country’s history.

Ethnicities however are more definable, being based on social grouping of people who identify with each other based on common ancestral, social, cultural, or national experience. Ethnic groups tend to be associated with shared cultural heritage, ancestry, history, homeland, language (dialect), or ideology, and with symbolic systems such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style etc. All of which are more easily abandoned or modified, and I would say desirably so, especially in the cause of immigrant assimilation with host nations and cultures.

I wonder if Milliband is circumcised? hmmm… The thought had also just crossed my mind, that if God had really selected Jews as his chosen people, I would have thought he would have created them not only in his own image but also ‘ready-trimmed’; as it were: Maybe not.

12 April 2014 at 17:21  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Integrity said...

Blowfeld,
I love that poem, Footprints in the sand. It says so much about God's nature and his care for us. (Indeed...Couldn't get it all in on Blogger but It is the only non biblical poem that Ernst loves and says everything about our physical walk, here.)
My only concern is, where were Tiddles footprints? Were you carrying her when God was carrying you? (Every Christian for themselves in certain situations. She is always nowhere to be seen when trouble strikes *Sniggers*)

Blowers

12 April 2014 at 18:00  
Blogger grumpyoldcl said...

Ignorance seems all pervasive in this sound-bite orientated political elite.

I think Nick Clegg who said that one day we'd have a gay prime minister and nobody would think anything of it.
... quite touching that nobody pointed out that Ted Heath batted for the other side. Although it's possible that, being Dutch, he didn't understand the metaphor.

Robin Tilbury is right that Rosebery has the best claim.

12 April 2014 at 18:07  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

carl’s observation (15:11) that ‘a Jewish Christian is an oxymoron’ reminded me of the late Hugh Montefiore, who converted from Judaism to Christianity and rose to become Oxymoron of Birmingham. In his book, On Being a Jewish Christian, he writes: ‘For a Jew to become a Christian is to go over to the enemy’ because Christianity is ‘a religion whose adherents have for centuries and centuries conceived an implacable hatred or dislike of their race, and for which they have never apologised.’

Always useful to know how others see us.

12 April 2014 at 18:28  
Blogger Albert said...

Johnny

‘a religion whose adherents have for centuries and centuries conceived an implacable hatred or dislike of their race, and for which they have never apologised.’

That was then. More recently, speaking for the Catholic Church, Pope John Paul II said:

"We are deeply saddened by the behaviour of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood."

Of course, whether one can, or should apologise for actions one did not commit and for which one can have no responsibility, is an interesting question.

12 April 2014 at 18:37  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Ed Milliband to my thinking is a British born atheist of Polish/Belgian parents. They can't call themselves Jews because they don't believe in God and don't practice the Jewish lifestyle and culture. He says he's got faith, but in what? The economy? The Unions? It isn't in God.
As populations are mixed up and genes are widely spread out throughout the worlds' populations unless one is inbred to such an extent as to be harmful, it will only be a diluted version anyway.
One can only claim to be descended from Jewish Middle Eastern ancestry if one has had a DNA sample analysed and traced back to prove it.
Has Ed Milliband had this done?

12 April 2014 at 20:14  
Blogger Albert said...

Marie,

Personally, I think it is up to Jews to decide who is a Jew. But if asked, I would point out that unfaithfulness to God is according to the Jewish scriptures themselves hardly the exclusive preserve of gentiles.

12 April 2014 at 20:52  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Albert (18:37)—As victimhood seems to be a vital part of Jewishness, the Pope could apologise till he’s blue in the face to no avail.

@ Marie1797 (20:14)—Miliband is Jewish by virtue of his mother being Jewish.

12 April 2014 at 21:27  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Happy Jack has been musing.

Ed Mutibrand has not been circumcised and is therefore a gentile in the eyes of orthodox Judaism. He's not a Jew in the religious sense. However, he is claiming a common ethnic identity (political) with his Jewish brothers and sisters (future voters).

Is there an election due anytime soon?

12 April 2014 at 21:36  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

If a claim to be the first Jewish prime minister is the worst bullshit to emerge from Ed Miliband, we should probably consider ourselves very lucky.

Amongst my many Jewish school mates, the divide between those who were observant, those who were vaguely observant, and those who did not give a monkeys for religion, was about one third each. Even those who were downright atheists, however, considered themselves to be Jewish. It was an identity which, despite their utter rejection of any religious belief, they wore on their sleeves.

Power to them, I say.

12 April 2014 at 21:39  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Happy Jack,

"However, he is claiming a common ethnic identity (political) with his Jewish brothers and sisters (future voters)."

Jews are not that daft, and never have been. Even if Miliband was trying to court an ethnic block vote, he'd be pissing in the wind; Jewish voters range from radical socialist to downright Tory, and they wouldn't be fooled by the son of one of Britain's most famous Marxists popping on a Yarmulkah.

12 April 2014 at 21:51  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Even so Darter, these children may have been culturally Jewish, if not strong in their faith.

Is Multibrand culturally Jewish?

12 April 2014 at 21:52  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Happy JacK is aware of that. It's now the Jews Jack thinks daft!

12 April 2014 at 21:54  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Typo

.... It's NOT the Jews Jack thinks daft.

12 April 2014 at 21:59  
Blogger Guy Jones said...

Carl @ 15:11

There are Messianic Jews. I do not believe they are regarded well by Jewish religious leaders, but there is certainly some attraction to Jews in general.

12 April 2014 at 22:03  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Happy Jack,


"Is Multibrand culturally Jewish?"

Define "culturally Jewish"'...

Certain Jewish friends of mine would rather have a second and considerably less accurate briss than vote Labour. Whatever being "culturally Jewish" might mean, it doesn't mean voting for a particular political party on the basis of one's Jewishness...

12 April 2014 at 22:07  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Happy Jack is suggesting that the Jewish faith's enduring strength is the organisation of family life and a sense of community around shred events that have both religious and cultural meaning. They develop an identity.

If you're raised in a family and community that follows these practices, even nominally, you will acquire some sense of Jewish (history, beliefs, values) whatever the level of your belief.

12 April 2014 at 22:16  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

^ Jewishness ^

12 April 2014 at 22:19  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Darter
Well his father was an atheist and his mother a member of the hippy lot Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament so I doubt very much that he had a Jewish upbringing. His Wikipedia page has been changed twice today, I'm sure I read there that his mother too was an atheist. So I wouldn't class him as a cultural Jew.

12 April 2014 at 22:27  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

So not a religious Jew and, it seems, not a cultural Jew. We're left with ethnicity.

His mother has an interesting history.

Maria Kozak is a Polish Holocaust survivor who emigrated to the United Kingdom in the 1950s. She credits her survival to nuns in a convent taking her family in and hiding them from the Germans.

According to Wiki, Kozak is a long-standing supporter of left-wing pro-Palestinian organisations and is a signatory of the founding statements of Jews for Justice for Palestinians and a supporter of Independent Jewish Voices.

His mother's views are her own and she is entitled to hold them.

12 April 2014 at 22:46  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Guy Jones

There are Messianic Jews. I do not believe they are regarded well by Jewish religious leaders...

To say the least. Nor by the Jewish population in general for that matter. There is a real personal cost for a Jew to become a Christian.

...but there is certainly some attraction to Jews in general.

The Gospel is for all men and as many as are appointed for eternal life will hear and respond. But I don't see evidence of broad attraction. I don't see large numbers of Jews converting. The hostility comes not just from animosity towards the Christian faith but also from a sense that Messianic Jews are presenting themselves as something they are not. That their appeals are duplicitous and deceptive. I can understand it even if I don't accept it.

This is a divide that cannot be bridged. The Son of Man came not to bring peace but a sword. His claims divide of necessity. If Jews consider a Christian identity to be antithetical to Jewishness then this conflict has no resolution.

carl

12 April 2014 at 22:50  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

JR

As victimhood seems to be a vital part of Jewishness

I am not sure I even know what that means. But let's acknowledge the facts. Two thirds of all the Jews in Europe and one third of all the Jews in the world were killed in a period of five years. That's going to leave a mark.

There are some six million Jews in Israel. If the Israelis ever lose a war, you can add another six million names to the list. So if the commitment to never again be at the wrong end of the sword is "victimhood as a vital part of Jewishness" then let's sustain them in their "victimhood."

carl

12 April 2014 at 23:01  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Carl, now you've widened the discussion and Happy Jack feels he must respond.

Part of the reason the Jews do not respond to the Christian message is history and the way they experience this as persecution and mistreatment at the hands of anti-Semitic Christians.

Of course within Judaism there are considered to be fearful eternal consequences to abandoning the Torah if it leads to following a false religion and worshipping idols. And Christianity is up there with faiths to avoid. There will also be more immediate social and family consequences. In this respect being an uncircumcised atheist is less serious as they will be judged by God as a gentile according to the Noahide laws.

Jack struggles with this sentence: "The Gospel is for all men and as many as are appointed for eternal life will hear and respond."

The Gospel message requires the hearts and minds of its recipients to be prepared. Its delivery has to take their situations into account. Jack doesn't accept its just a matter of preaching the message and whoever have been predestined to believe will suddenly believe.

12 April 2014 at 23:21  
Blogger David Lindsay said...

I am sorry for those of you who think that you are clever, but while becoming an atheist does not cut you off from being Jewish according to the Rabbis, becoming a Christian does, and Disraeli was a Christian.

Even ethnic Jews baptised in infancy, never mind practising Christians as Disraeli was, are denied citizenship of the secular State of Israel as Returned Jews.

Therefore, at least from a Jewish point of view, any Jewish point of view from Rabbinism to old-school Zionism, Ed Miliband is indeed going to be Britain's first Jewish Prime Minister.

12 April 2014 at 23:30  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Jack

It was almost a verbatim lift from Scripture.

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed. Acts 13:48

carl

12 April 2014 at 23:33  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

David L Miliband hasn't been circumcised. In what sense then is he Jewish? Ethnically? Then Disraeli was as much a Jew as him.

12 April 2014 at 23:37  
Blogger Guy Jones said...

Carl

Messianic Judaism does offer an alternative for Jews to worship Jesus without abandoning important aspects of their identity.

Apparently this movement in Israel is small, but growing. It will be interesting to observe how this group develops as Israel itself grows and changes.

12 April 2014 at 23:37  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

David Lindsay

I am sorry for those of you who think that you are clever

Did that opening clause have any purpose other than to implicitly declare your own cleverness relative to other commenters?

carl

12 April 2014 at 23:57  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ carl (23:01)—The sense of victimhood predates the Holocaust by centuries. By living in Europe but refusing to assimilate, Jews set themselves apart. Good luck to them but such behaviour has, for hundreds of years, bred resentment in host populations and a corresponding sense of victimhood in Jews. Professional victim Abe Foxman was at it just recently: ‘Europe is where the Jewish people have paid the highest price for anti-Semitism, and it’s sort of an old-new phenomenon … nationalists, anti-government people, neo-fascists, neo-Nazis of anti-immigration and anti-government coming together with a glue and cement of anti-Semitism. I think it’s a serious threat to Jewish life.’

Muslims operate a blame culture; their ills are always someone else’s fault, and Jews seem much the same. Perhaps it’s a Semitic trait.

13 April 2014 at 00:12  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Carl, Happy Jack accepts the verse speaks of appointment and predestination. However, Jacks understanding of this follows Aquinas: "The disposition of God, by which he prepares, what he will himself perform, according to his infallible foreknowledge."

Jack views are not settled on this and he recalls discussing it with Old Jim a while back. However, Jack believes this foreknowledge of God does not removes man's free will.

The alternate view to predestination being the simple pleasure of God is seeing it as the Divine decree by which God, owing to His infallible prescience of the future, has appointed and ordained from eternity all events occurring in time, especially those which directly proceed from, or at least are influenced by, man’s free will.

Anyway, we mustn't digress from the theme of the thread - Miliband's claim to being the first (potential) Jewish Prime Minister.

13 April 2014 at 00:30  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

JR

By living in Europe but refusing to assimilate, Jews set themselves apart.

Assimilation would have meant destruction. There would have been no Jewish people. Do you criticize them for refusing to acquiesce to their own cultural destruction?

Soon it will be Christians refusing to assimilate into the culture of Secular Europe. What would you say to them? Would you say "Good luck with that. Refusing to assimilate will breed resentment." That would be the consistent message. We have become a religious minority and a despised one at that.

As for Abe Foxman, what did he say that is false? As Muslim power rises in Europe, anti-Semitism will rise with it - if for no other reason, because native Europeans are so afraid of their Muslim population. I would be very concerned if I was a Jew living in Europe. That's not professional victimhood. That's just foresight.

Perhaps it’s a Semitic trait.>

Yeh. Far be it from white western Europeans to blame their troubles on (say) immigrant Muslins.

carl

13 April 2014 at 00:33  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Good Lord.

Ernst has never quite understood where the Jewish mentality had come from that would see Antichrist as setting up a peace treaty and establishing a return to Jewish orthodoxy of the temple rebuilt, sacrifices, etc but from reading a Rabbi's response to who the messiah IS to them, Ernst can now see the deception at the heart of the acceptance of false peace and security that is to come. Truly enlightening for old Ernst!

http://www.lttn.org/R3_Article3_JewishViewOfMessiah.htm
by Rabbi Chaim Richman (Rabbi Chaim Richman is the international director of the Temple Institute in Jerusalem which is dedicated to rebuilding the Holy Temple (Beit HaMikdash).)

"According to the prophets of the Bible, amongst the most basic missions of the messiah are:

to cause all the world to return to G-d and His teachings,
to restore the royal dynasty to the descendants of David,
to oversee the rebuilding of Jerusalem, including the Temple, in the event that it has not yet been rebuilt;
to gather the Jewish people from all over the world and bring them home to the Land of Israel,
and to reestablish the sanhedrin,
restore the sacrificial system,
as well as the Sabbatical year and Jubilee."

and

"We have already written in these pages that we believe that the messiah, sent by G-d Al-mighty, is not G-d, but a human being - but the greatest leader and wisest teacher who ever lived. He will put his extraordinary talents to use to precipitate a worldwide revolution which will bring perfect justice and harmony to humanity. "

and

"For reasons of space, this is not the proper format to enter into a lengthy debate or disputation on every possible Biblical verse - BUT I AM PREPARED TO DO SO (WHICH HE DID/DOES NOT DO)- although at Light to the Nations, we prefer to stress that which we share, and unite around what should be our common goal: Greater knowledge of G-d and hastening the Redemption. Nor is this the proper time for me to put forth every aspect of this discussion.(HE PUT FORWARD???...ZILCH!!!)"

Blofeld

13 April 2014 at 00:41  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

ps

"But for Jews, if the Bible’s description of the messiah has not been fulfilled, then for authentic Jews there can only be one explanation: he has not yet come."

They are waiting the false one, that meets THEIR criteria but NOT God's!!!

Blofeld

13 April 2014 at 00:45  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Blowers, next step an approach to the banks of the Tiber? Is you scooter adapted to crossing water?

*chuckle*

Jack believes Paul taught about all this and said (Jack's simple version) it had to be this way and it will be until the gentile world has been offered Christ's Gospel and all those who are to be converted have been.

13 April 2014 at 01:01  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

HJ

Happy Jack said...

Blowers, next step an approach to the banks of the Tiber? Is you scooter adapted to crossing water?

*chuckle*"

If Ernst's scooter could be adapted by that old adversary, but nice chap, Q, then it would be probably equipped with rocket launchers, stingers, sidewinders etc,...and the temptation to blast those pagan statues of Saints would be too great for old Ernst...He can be trigger happy with scenes depicting idolatry, you know *Sniggers*

Blofeld

13 April 2014 at 01:53  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"Where in the Old Testament is there even the faintest allusion to such a concept, that the messiah does not complete the job, and therefore returns a second time?" Good old Rabbi Chaim Richman, the holy man that keeps giving?


"Where in the Old Testament is there even the faintest allusion to such a concept, that the messiah does not complete the job, and therefore returns a second time?" he says?

"11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
11:8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
11:9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
11:10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
11:12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? "

"In the Torah, Moses foretold of the coming Messiah who would resemble him in many prodigious ways:

The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you,
from your brothers ((Note: This is no small thing Jack, since Muslims claim that Muhammad is the prophet Moses referred to here; which is obviously incorrect, since the Messiah MUST be a Jew - see John 4:24). )- it is to him you shall listen. (Deut. 18:15)

This verse is the only place in the entire Torah where Moses explicitly identifies himself as a prophet of the LORD.

Moreover, this is also the only passage where Moses identifies the coming of the Messiah as "a Prophet like me" (Deut 18:15; John 6:14). "

and "How, then, was Jesus a Prophet "like Moses"?

Well, like Moses, he was a Jew, a Leader, a Prophet, a Lawgiver, a Savior, a Teacher, a Priest, a Healer, an Anointed One, a Mediator between God and man -- speaking the words of God -- and like Moses, He offered himself to die for the sins of the people."

and yet "Both were initially rejected by the Jews (Exod. 32:1; Isa. 53: 3; Matt. 27:21-2; Rom. 11:25)."

For had you believed Moses, you would have believed me:for he wrote of me - John 5:46

13 April 2014 at 02:35  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

As human beings, we often become entrenched in the material world, becoming oblivious to and unable to see the most apparent truths stated by the sources we hold as true until they turn our world upside down, as with Teiresias the blind seer and Oedipus.

When Oedipus is confronted by Teiresias with truth, it is Oedipus' own hubris, which blinds him to the unthinkable truth(as with the Jews and Christ).

He (Teiresias)is trusted and respected by everyone in the city as evidenced by his introduction as "the holy prophet In whom, alone of all men, truth was born."

Yet, when Teiresias speaks, reluctantly but honestly to Oedipus, he is shunned and his credibility and motives are attacked.

Sadly, the citizens represented by the chorus, who once trusted Teiresias, will not side with him because there is no proof that his prophecy is true (See the similarity?). Within one conversation, the lavish praise of Teiresias crumbles into Oedipus' hatred of him (Moses prophecy of the messiah is treated with contempt or just plain ignored!).

Responding to Oedipus' attacks, Teiresias tells him "you with both your eyes you are blind: You can not see the wretchedness of your life, Nor in whose house you live, no, nor with whom. Who are your father and mother? Can you tell me? You don't even know the blind wrongs That you have done them, on earth and in the world below."

Although, Oedipus and the citizens of Thebes do not know the truth, the audience understands that Teiresias represents insight, therefore his wise words should be perceived as prophecies of events to come and morals to learn.

Teiresias though physically blind can see better or has more clarity than Oedipus who has perfect vision and yet still blind to the truth.

In the same dialogue, Teiresias foreshadows " the double lash of your parents curse will whip you. Out of this land someday with only night Upon you precious eyes." Leaving with the last word, Teiresias exits the stage telling Oedipus the truth once more.

Oedipus Rex, a tragic story in which Sophocles leaves the character Oedipus beaten and destroyed by fate. It is not fate that takes the sight of Oedipus, it is by his own will.

The blind man seer, Teiresias, could always "see" because he did not fear the truth, nor did he have reason to. Oedipus blind to the truth, brought darkness on his eyes when the truth is found (Unlike King David!!!).

How ironic it seems, yet still the question lies unanswered, did Oedipus fear the horrible truth so much that he chose not to see it? Or was he really so oblivious, that the truth was revealed to him near the plays end for the first time?

It's simply called BLIND IRONY, detailed throughout the history of mankind!!!

Blowers

13 April 2014 at 02:39  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Definition of 'Hubris'

The characteristic of excessive confidence or arrogance, which leads a person to believe that he or she may do no wrong. The overwhelming pride caused by hubris is often considered a flaw in character. While these hubris feelings are often justified, they often cause irrational and harmful behavior.

Hubris may be developed after a person/people encounter a period of success and this lingers afterwards, as the Jews did after the historic leadership and aftermath of Moses and King David.

In many cases, people overcome by their own hubris will bring about their own downfall.

The Jews rejected Jesus because He failed, in their eyes, to do what they expected their Messiah to do—destroy evil and all their enemies and establish an eternal kingdom with Israel as the preeminent nation in the world.

The prophecies in Isaiah and Psalm 22 describe a suffering Messiah who would be persecuted and killed, but the Jews chose to focus instead on those prophecies that discuss His glorious victories, not His crucifixion.

For thousands of years, Israel had been the one nation that looked to God while the Gentile nations generally rejected the light and chose to live in spiritual darkness. Israel and her inspired prophets revealed monotheism—one God who was personally interested in mankind's destiny of heaven or hell, the path to salvation, the written Word with the Ten Commandments.

Yet Israel rejected her prophesied Messiah, and the promises of the kingdom of heaven were postponed.

A veil of spiritual blindness fell upon the eyes of the Jews who previously were the most spiritually discerning of people.

HUBRIS!!!

Blowers

13 April 2014 at 02:52  
Blogger Ivan said...


The secular religion known as the Holocaust functions in the main to deny any significance to Europeans and their history except as a background to the Jewish narrative of victimhood.
Whatever be the facts of the matter, this alone renders further encroachment of the Holocaust into the consciousness of Europeans, fatal to their sense of being, the coherence that is necessary to come together in the face of common enemies, which for now is largely in the form of political Islam.

13 April 2014 at 03:31  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

When I think of Ed Milliband I don't think Jewish. I have too much respect for Jews. Instead words come to mind like snivelling, pointless, innumerate, Marxist, nonentity and despair (at the thought of a system that could possibly deliver such a man as PM).

Would that a man of Ben Disraeli's stature could be our next PM.

Is Lord Sacks busy for the next 5 years?

13 April 2014 at 06:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I reckon my setting up a popcorn concession might be a good idea at this point before Avi and/or the Clampetts arrive.

13 April 2014 at 07:06  
Blogger IanCad said...

Never mind Jewish.

Farage and Cameron will assure his election.

Even if he were Muslim.

We need Davis as CP leader.
Now!!

13 April 2014 at 08:49  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

13 April 2014 at 10:23  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Danjo,

Don't worry about the popcorn stand. I've got better things to do than argue with people here and it is a waste of time doing so, but perhaps Avi might oblige you? As Johnny Rottenborough, helpfully put it :

"Always useful to know how others see us"

13 April 2014 at 10:24  
Blogger Len said...

One point that intrigues me is that H J made the statement' David L Miliband hasn't been circumcised.'
I wonder what his source is for this information?.

Ernst`s scooter equipped with rocket blasters taking on the Vatican would be a sight to behold possibly if made into an epic film would outsell 'Noah 'at the box office.

13 April 2014 at 10:25  
Blogger Len said...

I am beginning to think that 'Danjo' is an automated Gay blogging response whenever anything remotely religious is mentioned?.

13 April 2014 at 10:28  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Len, Happy Jack has his sources.

Do you imagine Mr and Mrs R. Miliband (Snr) took little Ed to their local synagogue at 8 days old to undergo 'brit milah'? Hardly likely given their communism and atheism that they'd hand him over to a 'mohel' and then, the deed done, celebrate the 'seudat mitzvah' meal.

13 April 2014 at 11:08  
Blogger Len said...

H J thanks for your reply.

'Circumcision' is not uniquely Jewish though.

13 April 2014 at 11:29  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Agreed Len.

Your comment did make me wonder about the position of someone converting to Judaism who'd already had a medical circumcision.

Miliband may have had the medical procedure for all Jack knows but not conducted by a 'mohel' with the religious significance this entails..

13 April 2014 at 11:42  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

I've got better things to do than argue with people here and it is a waste of time doing so...

As if anyone gives a toss(er).

13 April 2014 at 11:53  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

13 April 2014 at 12:14  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ carl (00:33)—Do you criticize them for refusing to acquiesce to their own cultural destruction?

I wished them good luck. They chose to maintain their culture through thick and thin (as early as 1290, England had had enough of Jews and expelled them) and eventually featured in one of multiculturalism’s greatest tragedies. Stick around, folks, there’ll be more but with Whitey on the receiving end.

Christians refusing to assimilate into the culture of secular Europe

A secular Europe with strong Christian overtones had been around since God was a lad and Christians got on very well with it. The delicate balance went pear-shaped with the advent of mass immigration and multiculturalism, wholeheartedly supported by the Churches. The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again…

Abe Foxman

Muslims? Muslims? Who mentioned Muslims? Abe certainly didn’t. Abe isn’t going to risk being called a racist so he takes a pop at neo-this, neo-that and neo-the other, all of them code words for Whitey.

white western Europeans

…blame their troubles on the politicians who have betrayed them.

@ David Kavanagh (10:24)—Don’t blame me. Blame the Oxymoron of Birmingham for opening his big fat gob.

13 April 2014 at 12:18  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

13 April 2014 at 12:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "I am beginning to think that 'Danjo' is an automated Gay blogging response whenever anything remotely religious is mentioned?."

You've got a damned cheek Len. You can barely string two thoughts together of your own, and even then they'll have their roots in those weird religious websites of yours.

13 April 2014 at 12:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

David K: "Don't worry about the popcorn stand. I've got better things to do than argue with people here and it is a waste of time doing so, but perhaps Avi might oblige you? As Johnny Rottenborough, helpfully put it : "Always useful to know how others see us""

I honestly doubt that most people have much of an opinion about Jews in the UK unless they live in parts of North London or other significantly Jewish areas, and then I expect it's mostly benign. I'd have thought anti-semitism is mostly confined to supporters of 'far-right' politics and sections of the Muslim population, hence the tone of some of the comments down here. Should there ever be a drift towards a pogrom again, you can expect people like me to stand up and try to prevent it, including with the use of force if necessary.

13 April 2014 at 12:28  
Blogger Albert said...

This whole idea of victimhood bears some consideration. If Jews (or anyone else) like to see themselves as victims, it must be because it does something for them. But this is a very odd thing (if true). For surely under the conditions of evolution, victimhood is not something anyone should want to claim. Under such "natural" conditions to claim victimhood is to acknowledge weakness, which is the one thing that will speak against survival.

Thus it seems to me that victimhood is essentially a theological "virtue". We can see it in the sufferings of the people of Israel in the OT and above all in the sufferings of Christ in the NT. In a biblical culture, victimhood validates and gives a status, it also enables the victim to devalue the aggressor. Speaking personally, I think that is a good thing, and in the light of the comments Carl made earlier, something I am entirely sympathetic with Jews claiming for themselves.

The trouble is, if victimhood gives status because it is a theological category, what happens when that theology dies away? We've already had a couple of rounds of that in recent history. But in those cases, there was still enough Christianity around to motivate suitable resistance. It's hard to see how that continues in our own time, but perhaps the US still retains a sufficiently theological culture to make it possible.

The liberal idea that secularism will bring equality etc. is just wishful thinking, and reflects the liberal's inability to understand (his own) humanity.

13 April 2014 at 12:53  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

David Lindsay,

I think you might be being a little prescriptive. I know Jewish converts, not just to Christianity, who self-identify as Jews based on their family background, even though the Rabbinate and Law of a Return might disagree; their heritage isn't something that can be taken away from them by rulings. Conversion to Christianity didn't save large numbers of ex -Jews from the holocaust - one was a nun, and still got dragged off by the SS.

In any case, it seems a bit harsh that a Jew who converts to Marxist atheism Is still Jewish, whereas a Jew who joins the Jewish messianic sect of Christianity isn't.

13 April 2014 at 13:17  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

victimhood is not something anyone should want to claim.

Your'e way off beam here if I may say so Albert,
it's been the rallying call of propagandists since Dicky Docked.

No prize for guessing whom Hitler blamed for all Germany's ailments; or the Arabs or the Russians or the Mormons or the Hutus or Southern Baptists or the KKK etc etc; all and more besides, promoted the image of 'victimhood' for convenience of cohesion.

The liberal idea that secularism will bring equality etc. is just wishful thinking, and reflects the liberal's inability to understand (his own) humanity.

You reflect the inability to understand the meaning of secular.

13 April 2014 at 13:17  
Blogger Len said...

I think anyone becomes a target for satanically induced persecution as soon as they become part of God`s Plan for redeeming His Creation.
The Jews have been targeted throughout History as indeed have any Christians who have made a stand for Biblical Christianity.

13 April 2014 at 13:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dreadnaught: "promoted the image of 'victimhood' for convenience of cohesion"

Yes. It can be used quite effectively to create and maintain a sense of identity. The people in the Early churches probably did much the same thing.

13 April 2014 at 13:37  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

JR

I wished them good luck.

Yes, but you also said on an earlier thread that you were voting for the BNP and that set my expectation about what you meant by "Good luck."

They chose to maintain their culture through thick and thin ...

How barbaric of them. Why is this a crime?

(as early as 1290, England had had enough of Jews and expelled them)

Because it evidently is a crime seeing as England 'had had enough' and expelled them. What was it about der ewige Jude that justified such a righteous act of national cleansing?

eventually featured in one of multiculturalism’s greatest tragedies.

Do I understand this correctly? Are you saying the Holocaust was the result of Jews failing to assimilate?

other, all of them code words for Whitey.

You do realize that posts like this will not exactly assuage their concerns. You say you will vote BNP and talk about Jews bringing trouble on themselves by refusing to assimilate and then you wonder at Abe Foxman. You are going to vote for a party that claims Capitalists, Leftists and Jews are conspiring to destroy Europe through miscegenation.

blame their troubles on the politicians who have betrayed them.

Betrayed them how? You have many times called for the forcible expulsion of Muslims from Britain. It is obvious to anyone who reads this blog where you locate the source of the problem. You want to remove certain politicians in favor of other politicians so that you can solve the Muslim problem in a manner to your liking. You can't hide behind blaming the politicians.

carl

13 April 2014 at 14:13  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

[Claims of victimhood have] been the rallying call of propagandists since Dicky Docked.

I don't think Albert was suggesting that claims of victimhood would disappear. I think he was wondering whether anyone else would care when someone made a claim of victimhood. In the jungle of secularism, weakness typically means you get eaten. And predators don't have much sympathy for their prey.

carl

13 April 2014 at 14:33  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Albert, Happy Jack considers victimhood a virtue when it springs from accepting suffering as the consequence of following the will of God; or as a consequence of not following His will.

When victimhood is used as a badge to secure secular or political advantage and is turned into accusatory demands for special treatment, doesn't it become something different?

Some minority groups are adept at using victimhood for this purpose and turning it into a weapon for social and political advantage. It lies at the root of revolutionary Marxism - redefine social reality, raise awareness of oppression and direct the outrage generated towards the over throw of the established order. It's aggressive in nature.

13 April 2014 at 14:40  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Jack

or as a consequence of not following His will.

Being disciplined does not make one a victim. By definition a victim suffers without just cause.

carl

13 April 2014 at 14:52  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Carl

True; thank you.

Happy Jack will stick with: " ... when it springs from accepting suffering as the consequence of following the will of God."

13 April 2014 at 15:01  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

I don't think Albert was suggesting that claims of victimhood would disappear. I think he was wondering whether anyone else would care when someone made a claim of victimhood. In the jungle of secularism, weakness typically means you get eaten. And predators don't have much sympathy for their prey.

Quite. Dreadnaught's comment misses some things: firstly, that all the groups he mentioned were/are themselves in positions of power over their victims. They use their sense of victimhood to justify their violence against their victims. It's not just that it gives them cohesion (although it does), it give them cohesion because it legitimises their strength and violence against their weak prey. But that was not the case I was commenting on. I was picking up on those who are genuinely weak before their enemy and genuinely victimized by them. There is no comparison between the sense of victimhood the Nazis claimed against the Jews and the Jews rightly claimed against the Nazis. I would have thought that was obvious.

The difference between the two is that the Nazi style of victimhood brings cohesion against a weaker enemy. The Jewish style brings sympathy from those outside the group. It is that sympathy that is lost as society gets more secular.

Dreadnaught,

You reflect the inability to understand the meaning of secular.

No, your comment reflects the secular inability to understand the degree to which the removal of Judeo-Christian world-view is undermining our control of the will to power. By reducing us to raw animals, it becomes hard to see why we should not behave as such. Tennyson's expression "Nature, red in tooth and claw" speaks of this, contrasting Christianity, with what man becomes without God:

No more? A monster then, a dream,
A discord. Dragons of the prime,
That tare each other in their slime,
Were mellow music match'd with him.

13 April 2014 at 16:01  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

I would have thought that was obvious

Well, it was to me FWIW.

I must register one small observation to an otherwise excellent comment.

your comment reflects the secular inability to understand the degree to which the removal of Judeo-Christian world-view is undermining our control of the will to power.

I think they do understand it. I think that is the whole point of the effort - to dismantle boundaries that restrict human autonomy. Secularism is a distorted form of paganism where instead if each man having his own god, each man becomes his own god. And what is a god without the will to power?

I think they undetstand exactly what they are doing. They just believe they can control it. They gods have faith in the nature of the gods.

carl

13 April 2014 at 16:29  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Albert
the secular inability to understand the degree to which the removal of Judeo-Christian world-view etc etc...


Let me help you understand the meaning of 'secularism' as I read it taken from the bloke who coined the expression.

"Secularism is not an argument against Christianity, it is one independent of it. It does not question the pretensions of Christianity; it advances others. Secularism does not say there is no light or guidance elsewhere, but maintains that there is light and guidance in secular truth, whose conditions and sanctions exist independently, and act forever. Secular knowledge is manifestly that kind of knowledge which is founded in this life, which relates to the conduct of this life, conduces to the welfare of this life, and is capable of being tested by the experience of this life”.
G.J.Holyoake

Bent Catholic clergy are doing more to undermine your religion in the public eye than anything attributable to the concept of secular thought. It sounds like you are already cloaking yourself under the cape of victimhood to excuse your own religion's culpability in the empty pews.


13 April 2014 at 16:55  
Blogger Old Blue Eyes said...

Robin Tilbrook.

Are you sure about Lord Rosebery? The woman he married was certainly a Jew but why did the wedding take place in a Christian church.

13 April 2014 at 17:16  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

First, I wish your silly Milliband fellow had kept his vanished Jewishness to himself. The nitwit plops this one right around Easter time, too. Thanks a lot there, Honourable Shit-for-Brains!

I try to stay away from commenting on theological posts around Easter ...traditionally very bad time for Jews to make their appearance. By custom we hole up in our homes and study halls and lock the ghetto gates. Nevertheless, this isn't a theological post and I can't let Carl bat for my team on his own. So, briefly, because I'm in the midst of scrubbing the house down...

A "sense of victimhood" Johnny Rotenborough? Coming from a chronic whiner that's quite precious.

Then, from the Free Academy of Alternate Histories Ivan pipes in: The secular religion known as the Holocaust functions in the main to deny any significance to Europeans and their history except as a background to the Jewish narrative of victimhood. Deep stuff, dude.

So sorry. Our bad. You know, "the Shoah must go on," hee-hee, forgot to throw that one in? Ok, ok, we'll never mention the "H" or the "S" words again as it might upset you and make you feel down about yourselves. Didn't happen; we're alright...it was just a flesh wound.

...this alone renders further encroachment of the Holocaust into the consciousness of Europeans, fatal to their sense of being, the coherence that is necessary to come together in the face of common enemies, which for now is largely in the form of political Islam.

O dear, look what we've done! This is wordse that we thought! Made your weenie shrink. Why can't we just shut the Hell up? There goes your self-confidence and the Saracen is going to have you for breakfast. How many times do I have to remind you that you're an idiot Ivan?

There you have it, Mr Blofeld, why can't we just listen to you and accept Jesus as our messiah? An astounding novel proposal. You even have the beginnings of a paper or a sermon, I see. I'll have to think about it and get back to you after Passover...now I got bigger headaches; got to sterilize the oven and no one in the house wants to do it.


13 April 2014 at 17:41  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

Well, it was to me FWIW.

Don't worry, I didn't think for a moment that you did not get my point!

I think that is the whole point of the effort - to dismantle boundaries that restrict human autonomy. Secularism is a distorted form of paganism where instead if each man having his own god, each man becomes his own god. And what is a god without the will to power?

I have a slightly different take on that. Perhaps it is useful to group secularists into two types: Nietzschian and Marxist. The Nietzschian destroys morality because of the classic will to power of the autonomous self, the Marxist destroys it because he regards it as oppressive to minorities. There is still enough of Christianity in society for the Nietzschian to look abhorrent to many people, these must be duped by a kind of Marxist critique of society. The Nietzschians understand that they are manipulating the Marxists, but the Marxists do not realise they are being manipulated. Most secularists are actually of the Marxist type, and in undermining Christianity, they do not ultimately liberate the minorities, they pave the way for a more Neitzschian world in which the Christian checks against aggressive selfishness are removed.

13 April 2014 at 17:49  
Blogger Albert said...

Dreadnaught,

Secularism is not an argument against Christianity

These are easy words to say, but in reality the secular claim is likely to be a metaphysical one - a negative point of view with regard to religion. It will seek to rule out religious points of view in political life and society. Ideas such as being made in God's image have no sense in a secular world-view. If that is the case, then it follows that the idea that we should not persecute minorities because they have fundamental human rights owing to the fact that they are made in God's image become, not simply wrong ideas, but unintelligible. Ideas that it is wrong to victimise people because God in Christ took the place of the victim become to the secularist empty since Christ has ceased to be the centre of one's life. All that is left is the will to power. Nietzsche had the honesty or the intelligence to admit what many others will or cannot see.

Bent Catholic clergy are doing more to undermine your religion in the public eye than anything attributable to the concept of secular thought.

The misbehaviour of a minority of Catholic clergy no more falsifies the truth of Catholicism, than the misbehaviour of a much larger proportion of non-Catholics falsifies the truth of non-Catholicism. Thus if "bent Catholic clergy" are undermining Church attendance, it is because it was shaky already. That behaviour becomes an excuse or justification for what people already thought or wanted.

It sounds like you are already cloaking yourself under the cape of victimhood to excuse your own religion's culpability in the empty pews.

That had honestly never occurred to me. The discussion was about the holocaust was it not? Wasn't it about victimhood? How does empty pews come into that? In any case, my problem as I got into the church this morning was not empty pews, but getting through the crowds!

I bet all those people, shocked and appalled as they are by bent clergy, know as well as I do, that outside of the Church things are much worse. Who are the traffickers? the drug pushers? The pornographers? The pimps? Those who believe that each person is made in God's image or those who reject all that as mumbo-jumbo, a restriction on their own autonomy and power to abuse others, those who take their lead from evolution, red in tooth and claw and who have become, to quote the poem again:

A monster then, a dream,
A discord. Dragons of the prime,
That tare each other in their slime,
Were mellow music match'd with him.

13 April 2014 at 18:25  
Blogger Owl said...

Avi,

"I can't let Carl bat for my team on his own."

Actually, I thought he was doing brilliantly. Your help might just push it into overkill.

13 April 2014 at 18:29  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

He's doing a great job Owl...but I can't be a slacker. Overkill is expected of me. Got to keep my rep in the 'hood, ya know....

13 April 2014 at 18:42  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Avi wrote:

He's doing a great job Owl

Comes from clean living and not eating salted fish.

carl

13 April 2014 at 18:46  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ carl (14:13)

● I admire the Jews for maintaining their culture through thick and thin; Whitey could learn a lesson or three from them, preferably before it’s too late.
● In these days of mass immigration and vibrant multiculturalism, we English are always being told we’re the most tolerant people in the world. That being the case, Jews must have really got up our nose in the eleventh century. As to why, I expect money-lending came into it.
● Jews suffered persecution in both pre- and post-unification Germany. Hindsight suggests they might have thought of moving somewhere more congenial or making more of an effort to assimilate. They opted, instead, for having their cake and eating it—staying in Germany and not mixing. It’s noteworthy that, wherever Jews settled in Europe, they got people’s backs up but that must be Whitey’s fault, don’t you agree?
● Since learning yesterday what Jews really think about us, they should be assuaging my concerns, FFS. Why in God’s name is it always about them?
● I am going to vote for a party that speaks up for the indigenous British. If you have a problem with that, tough.

13 April 2014 at 19:02  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Albert

We've strayed off a bit but I was essentially commenting on this statement of yours:

If Jews (or anyone else) like to see themselves as victims, it must be because it does something for them. But this is a very odd thing (if true). For surely under the conditions of evolution, victimhood is not something anyone should want to claim.

I don't get what you are driving at - what has this to do with evolution?

There are genuine victims who have no desire to be victimised and there are those who for political expediency, align themselves with the concept of victim or 'inherited' bond of victimhood for nefarious reasons. Milliband is guilty of the latter.

Its a ploy not exclusive to him of course; only last week I saw on TV two black women demanding reparation for their PTSD condition due to some distant ancestor taken in slavery to the Caribbean hundreds of years ago.

I'm glad your church was full too if nothing less than to dispel the lie that secularists are undermining it to any real degree.

13 April 2014 at 19:18  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

God may be dead, if we're running with this Nietzsche thing, but we still need to carry on. Do we aim to keep god alive and try to persuade others in hope that they'll run with it? Or do we accept the version of Nietzsche that disenfranchised and embittered religionists want to wave around? Or is there another way of looking at it all which isn't quite so damning of not buying into someone else's illusions? Also, when god was very much alive, like in the middle ages when everyone lived and breathed religion, I'm not sure things were that rosy.

13 April 2014 at 19:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Johnny: "In these days of mass immigration and vibrant multiculturalism, we English are always being told we’re the most tolerant people in the world. That being the case, Jews must have really got up our nose in the eleventh century. As to why, I expect money-lending came into it."

The "we" in the first bit is very clearly not the "we" in the second bit. That sense of continuity is the basis of far-right politics but it's just a myth. Also, I can think of a number of reasons why Jews in England were victimised in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.

13 April 2014 at 19:30  
Blogger Albert said...

Dreadnaught,

I don't get what you are driving at - what has this to do with evolution?

Take away religion and all you have (for most people anyway) is physics. In terms of biology, what that gives you is evolution by natural selection - survival of the fittest. Perhaps the most logical move for a secularist therefore, is to become a social-Darwinist. On that model, as in nature, the strongest (or at least, the best fitted, but in this context, it amounts to the same thing) survive. Thus for the Jews to hold up a banner saying "we are victims" amounts to saying "we are weak". On the social-Darwinist model this should reinforce the persecution. But it has the opposite effect for the most part, because people currently work within a theological context in which weakness and victimhood inspires sympathy. But the theological underpinnings of this have been removed, so the future looks perilous for any minority.

There are genuine victims who have no desire to be victimised and there are those who for political expediency, align themselves with the concept of victim or 'inherited' bond of victimhood for nefarious reasons.

That was my point really. The fact that Hitler or whoever uses the idea of victimhood to justify violence and persecution does not mean there are no true victims. My question is whether there is any value to claiming true victimhood in a non-theological context.

13 April 2014 at 19:38  
Blogger Albert said...

Dreadnaught,

In terms of your comment about secularism, it's worth considering this comment from Dan:

do we accept the version of Nietzsche that disenfranchised and embittered religionists want to wave around?

It slips out sometimes, and we can see it clearly here: religious people are believed by this secularist to be disenfranchised. But I have the same vote as everyone else. So in what sense have I been disenfranchised? Surely the answer has to be in terms of political discourse, in which my religious opinions do not count for as much as non-religious opinions.

13 April 2014 at 19:42  
Blogger Albert said...

Dan,

Also, when god was very much alive, like in the middle ages when everyone lived and breathed religion, I'm not sure things were that rosy.

I think that blaming the past for not having the political and social knowledge that we have is like blaming them for not having our advanced medicine. In the meantime, why don't you address the key question of how equality, human rights etc. can be defended as truths within a secular metaphysic.

13 April 2014 at 19:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Albert: "But I have the same vote as everyone else. So in what sense have I been disenfranchised."

I simply mean that you're not calling the shots anymore. You have a vote but you're a scattered minority.

" In the meantime, why don't you address the key question of how equality, human rights etc. can be defended as truths within a secular metaphysic."

Because it's the comments section of a blog, not a bloody philosophy forum.

"Take away religion and all you have (for most people anyway) is physics. In terms of biology, what that gives you is evolution by natural selection - survival of the fittest. Perhaps the most logical move for a secularist therefore, is to become a social-Darwinist."

I'd call that a sleight of hand but it's so clumsy that you couldn't hope to deceive with that pile of cack.

13 April 2014 at 19:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lordy, I've broken my own rule now and I'll probably be here until next week fighting you off with a shitty stick.

13 April 2014 at 19:58  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

"..because it's the comments section of a blog, not a bloody philosophy forum".

..as Adeimantus said to Socrates.

Actually, there's no reason at all why it may not be both, so let us strive for rational, reasoned and polite discourse, please.

13 April 2014 at 20:02  
Blogger Albert said...

Danjo,

I'll probably be here until next week fighting you off with a shitty stick

No need. I suspect most readers of your comment at 1955 will think you have already demonstrated my point.

13 April 2014 at 20:15  
Blogger Albert said...

Thank you Dr C. I was slightly surprised by the rejection of philosophical discourse on this thread, too.

13 April 2014 at 20:16  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Now look what you've done DanJo/Albert - you've woken up the boss.
I'm off!

13 April 2014 at 20:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Cranmer: "Actually, there's no reason at all why it may not be both, so let us strive for rational, reasoned and polite discourse, please."

The format lends itself to discourse in small chunks, or on specific points. I am an Adeimantus now on certain well-trod topics. If I was forced to spend a week or more jumping through hoops for this particular Socrates then I'd rather drink hemlock.

13 April 2014 at 20:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Albert: "Thank you Dr C. I was slightly surprised by the rejection of philosophical discourse on this thread, too."

You bloody pompous arse.

That's me done with this thread. I'll wait and see if there are wider consequences.

13 April 2014 at 20:31  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

....and Danjo gets rapped :D

And it's back to scrubbing for me...

13 April 2014 at 20:42  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

*chuckle*

13 April 2014 at 21:27  
Blogger Albert said...

Danjo,

You bloody pompous arse.

There's nothing particularly pompous about agreeing with Dr C that you were being evasive and abusive (as usual).

The truth is, we all know that what I am asking you to do cannot be done. We also all know you well enough to know that if you could do it, you would.

13 April 2014 at 22:09  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Here's what Pope Benedict said about the Shoah during a visit to Auschwitz:

"The rulers of the Third Reich wanted to crush the entire Jewish people, to cancel it from the register of the peoples of the earth ...

"Deep down, those vicious criminals, by wiping out this people, wanted to kill the God who called Abraham, who spoke on Sinai and laid down principles to serve as a guide for mankind, principles that are eternally valid.

"If this people, by its very existence, was a witness to the God who spoke to humanity and took us to himself, then that God finally had to die and power had to belong to man alone – to those men, who thought that by force they had made themselves masters of the world.

"By destroying Israel, by the Shoah, they ultimately wanted to tear up the taproot of the Christian faith and to replace it with a faith of their own invention: faith in the rule of man, the rule of the powerful."

13 April 2014 at 22:41  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

JR

I admire the Jews for maintaining their culture through thick and thin

That isn't saying much. I can admire the technical skill of a propagandist without admiring him as a person.

[We] English are always being told we’re the most tolerant people in the world.

Evidently the set of "we English" doesn't include Jews...

That being the case, Jews must have really got up our nose in the eleventh century.

... seeing as the Jews got up "our nose" and all. There are Jews and then there are the English. The English evidently have noses the Jews like to get up. Which is something non-English minorities had better not do on penalty of expulsion.

As to why, I expect money-lending came into it.

Hey, I think there was a famous movie made on that plot line. It was called 'Jew Suess.'

Hindsight suggests they might have thought of moving somewhere more congenial or making more of an effort to assimilate.

Good gracious. Many tried. The Germans turned Jewish emigration into organized theft. Jews couldn't just get on a train and leave. It took money. Many others stayed because the German Jews were among the most assimilated in Europe.

They opted, instead, for having their cake and eating it—staying in Germany and not mixing.

So, what then? Are you saying they assumed the risk?

It’s noteworthy that, wherever Jews settled in Europe, they got people’s backs up but that must be Whitey’s fault, don’t you agree?

I would attribute it to some intrinsic Jewish racial defect that impels Jews to get up people's noses.

Since learning yesterday what Jews really think about us...

Ummm... What did we learn? That Jews don't believe Jews can be Christian? Are you kidding? That is not a new revelation.

... they should be assuaging my concerns Why in God’s name is it always about them?

Concerns about what? Half-Jewish babies? The inviolability of British noses? What threat does the Jewish community present?

I am going to vote for a party that speaks up for the indigenous British.

Where 'indigenous' is defined as 'white and non-Jewish' evidently. Does that mean the Jews end up on the same list as the Muslims?

If you have a problem with that, tough.

I don't think 'problem' is the right word.

carl

13 April 2014 at 23:54  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Now look what you've done, Carl, Me, I'd be steering the conversation away from noses, anything but noses, but now he's onto us. Noses and getting up others' noses is our Achilles' heel and mine right now is running...figuratively speaking, of course... from all these blasted household cleaners. Hours to go still before house is ready for Pesach. What was that you were saying about Calvinism? Tell me you don't do Passover cleaning...but wait, herring is an anathema with you, a mortal sin, so never mind.

14 April 2014 at 01:19  
Blogger Ivan said...


JR, hang in there buddy. Carl is missing one Corrigan O'Emmaaugh Goldstein. He seems to be sizing you up as a replacement.

14 April 2014 at 01:23  
Blogger non mouse said...

Goodness, Your Grace. Could this hideous apparition (methinks so like Dracula) content himself with being the first Polish/belgian/Jewish minister to Britain? Now there's multiculti for him! Why, he'd fits right in with all the other foreigners who infest Westminster (I wonder when they'll change its name?)

Admittedly Disraeli's euro roots were Italian, but at least his forebears had spent a couple of generations in Britain. Further, Lord B. himself made every effort to understand us - as his novels bear witness. He didn't try to force alien ways on us, either; rather he protected us from them. That kind of Jew I can admire and appreciate: even beyond those others who have given so much to the world.

14 April 2014 at 01:28  
Blogger non mouse said...

Och ..."fit" right in ...

14 April 2014 at 01:35  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

14 April 2014 at 01:49  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Ivan

Carl is missing one Corrigan...

Corrigan and I clashed over Israel, but his animosity towards me was rooted in a rather pointed argument regarding Ireland's less than noble war record in WWII. Recently he wrote me off as a crank Creationist and simply dismissed me. I can't miss him. He barely acknowledged me.

He seems to be sizing you up as a replacement.

No, there are just some perspectives that need to be put outside the camp and must be seen being put outside the camp. This is the equivalent of Whittaker Chambers reading Ayn Rand out of the conservative ranks. It needs to be done.

carl
Whose hero is Whittaker Chambers

14 April 2014 at 01:51  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Avi

All this cleaning. Don't you have a wife for that? Maybe a daughter? Shouldn't Avi and son be sitting in the living in room examining the difficult relationship between TV remote, recliner, and the law?

carl

14 April 2014 at 02:03  
Blogger Ivan said...


Carl, Whittaker Chambers is much more notorious for having read Communists (at least for a time) out of US ranks. But I see that the apologists for totalitarian tendencies are back again. One of the instruments they wield is this whole Holocaust narrative, that they handle as an all purpose Swiss-Army knife, here slandering the Poles as a nation of anti$semites, there accusing the Swiss of stealing gold, and lately elevating Putin as the Hitler of the hour. The examples are legion. The tactics are clearly in line to advance their positions: paralyze the enemy by guilt-mongering, dazzle him by the audacity of the accusations coming from accusers, who were no mean apologists for murderers themselves . Mr Chambers and his close friend Mr Arthur Koestler would have been among the first to call out these tactics. This is in the main what almost all fellows like myself (and I expect JR) are reacting against.

14 April 2014 at 02:33  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ah, Carl, wife's a prof and she is too busy marking papers for tomorrow as she's only going in the morning (translated.: she is too good for scrubbing),only the youngest is in town and she is OCDing over humetz in her closet and she doesnt scrub because she is is preteen. Didn't know that was a problem, but there you have it. Usually we get cleaners, but this year were on a Spartan budget.

14 April 2014 at 02:34  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

14 April 2014 at 03:30  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Ivan

Who are these 'apologists for totalitarian tendencies?' What is this 'whole Holocaust narrative?' What positions are they advancing? None of this makes any sense to me.

JR is intentionally making arguments that draw a sharp distinction between the British and the Jews. He is intentionally making arguments that blame minorities for their bad treatment by the majority. He is doing it to justify his desires vis a vis the Muslims. You should fear what he is saying. I don't care what the BNP may claim. Expulsion is a logistical impossibility. You might as well try to move them to the moon. The road he is travelling on has only one destination and he is unknowingly following it straight to the end.

The Germans didn't start out planning to kill the Jews. They arrived at that conclusion organically. The German Jews who left Germany in the 30s mostly emigrated to other European countries. They quickly came right back under German control. Now where could the Germans export them? And what of the rest? Where for example could they send 3.3 million Polish Jews? The problem was intractable. Then someone got a bright idea.

That's how this happens. People don't plan to end up there. They discover by experience that it's the only available solution.

carl

14 April 2014 at 03:45  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Well, yes, Carl, Ivan should fear the RJs out there. Being a gentleman of leisure, living in Singapore and of presumably noticeable Indian descend, if I recall correctly, his ability to sound-off like a trailer park philosopher and parrot lines from Stormfront and Pravda.ru won't save him from getting tenderized by RJ's red-laced Doc Martens if he ever wanders onto BNP turf after dark.

14 April 2014 at 04:06  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Avi

So your wife is a professor. What is her discipline and does it have anything to do with her... curious... taste in theater?

I married a woman who likes Wagner. She made me watch the Ring Cycle once. All sixteen hours. I still wake up at night - screaming.

carl

14 April 2014 at 04:51  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

carl jacobs said...

"Avi

I married a woman who likes Wagner. She made me watch the Ring Cycle once. All sixteen hours. I still wake up at night - screaming."

Dear Carl

Ernst knows exactly how you feel re Wagner.

There are the odd songs that last a few minutes and are charming but it's the odd hour talking in between that addles the old noggin.

Why could he not have been more like Verdi, with a tune followed by another tune until we get to the death scene, rather than wishing someone would kill the listener before Act 1 concluded?

Must be the philosopher in their Germanic DNA and the desire to win the argument by musically goring you to death, so you slink away, shattered by the experience? So that any song from the pop charts seems like a deep searching and expressing of love from the human soul. *Giggles*

Ho jo to ho! Heiaha!(Die Walkure Battlecry!!!)

Blowers

14 April 2014 at 08:23  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Academic English writing for the natural sciences and medicine. She did her undergrad in French Lit, go figure. A frightful combination, though; razor-edge precision along with flowery Frogular mushiness. Which is how I'm only now, just after three in the morning, finishing with my scullery maid's work in the last depository of hidden leavening, the family room, whilst mother and daughter sleep the sleep of the privileged. I had no chance, resistance was futile, complaints brought no mercy or relief, only laughter and mockery.

By the way, since you brought up Jud Suess, I found it on YouTube...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjmfMAPtj2c. Joe Goebbel's favoured antisemitic hobbyhorse was quite an impressive production; the most expensive one in Nazi Germany, I think, and with top actors and top-notch 18th c costumes, props and court scenes. Almost as bombastic and Teutonic as Wagner...but only an hour and a half long. This version is with crappy-quality English subtitles which in my labours of bitter bondage I couldn't read, so I missed parts of it, as my German isn't up to the bad sound track and all the hollering that goes on in it. Put it on the laptop as I scrubbed and cleaned to remind myself that things could always be worse.

14 April 2014 at 08:38  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ah, Mr Blofeld, still up? Or, rather just getting up for work? Congrats on your new job in Her Majesty's service. A Miss Moneypenny to bring your tea and keys to a Bentley, while the rest of us have to do a drive-through Tim Horton's for our bitter coffee in the family jalopy.

14 April 2014 at 08:45  
Blogger bradypus said...

Ed Miliband may well be the first Jewish Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, after all Benjamin Disraeli was Prime Minister of Great Britain

14 April 2014 at 08:52  
Blogger Esther Shabo said...

Well whatever the Jewish legal bit, which would say Disraeli was an apostate Jewish convert to Christianity, I think given the culture of the time (and this has etched into people's perception) was that Disraeli, regardless of his conversion, was still a Jew. I guess most people today would probably see he him as being more Jewish than Miliband; if he is not circumcised then he'd have to be, to be a full part of the covenant community (there wouldn't be a convincing reason in 1960s Britain as to why this couldn't be done).

But back to Disraeli, who was also a Sephardi Jew, so he wouldn't have exactly been nibbling at the bagels; he was also very eccentric, dandyish, his favourite colour was yellow & he was a fantastic writer and poet.

I cannot help but speculate that had he been born today he would have remained a Jew or at least a nominally observant Jew. I think there was pressure to assimilate (pace Johnny above) & you couldn't enter university or Parliament unless you were Anglican in the days in which Disraeli started into politics.

Oh and Disraeli's reply to O'Connell was thus :

"Yes, I am a Jew and when the ancestors of the right honourable gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon!"

14 April 2014 at 09:11  
Blogger Esther Shabo said...

Darter,

I agree it is harsh to say you cannot be a Jew and a Christian at the same time. I was being ecumenical the other day and met a group 'Christians for Islam', a group which follows the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed, but also maintains their distinctive Christian style of worship and culture.... a bit like Messianic Jews or Jews for Jesus....

14 April 2014 at 09:21  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Avi Barzel said...

Ah, Mr Blofeld, still up? Or, rather just getting up for work? (Awaiting the completion of checks))Congrats on your new job in Her Majesty's service (Bless you, my fine fella. Ernsty is getting all excited as to what the future holds). A Miss Moneypenny to bring your tea and keys to a Bentley (Drive through Costa (thin latte) on me scooter, more like *chuckles*), while the rest of us have to do a drive-through Tim Horton's for our bitter coffee in the family jalopy.

Hope the start of Passover goes peacefully at the Barzel household. Shalom.

Blowers

14 April 2014 at 09:42  
Blogger bluedog said...

Johnny Rottenborough @ 21.27 and 01.22,, this communicant comes late to the thread.

If your attacks on the Jews through the propaganda technique of stigmatizing differences represents official BNP policy, one can safely predict continued electoral failure for your party. We may share a common view about the disadvantage of a Muslim population, many Britons do, but to launch a simultaneous attack on the polar opposite of the Muslims, the Jewish community, seems deeply misconceived. Other communicants have commented on your allegations of perpetual victimhood so there seems little to add. But what is truly bizarre is your allegation of non-assimilation. Prudently, for you, you do not attempt to explain this allegation.

Let me help. At the pinnacle of intellectual achievement you will find Jews in politics, Government, Commerce, the Judiciary, the Law, Science, Academia, the Arts, Medicine, Media (we can ignore the late Robert Maxwell), the list is very long and very distinguished indeed.

The names Binswanger, Mond and Samuel probably mean nothing to you, but these Jews founded General Electric, Imperial Chemical Industries and Royal Dutch Shell. Three great 20th century enterprises that employed hundreds of thousands and generated wealth in billions, of which you yourself are apparently an unknowing and ungrateful beneficiary.

One thing you can say about the British Jewish community is that they do not represent a mendicant under-class. Would you feel less inadequate if they did?

14 April 2014 at 13:17  
Blogger John Thomas said...

Johnny R - I came across a book a few years ago (by a Jewish scientist) in which, from his DNA research, he concluded that the Jews did NOT authentically exist as a race; if you know of a study which says the opposite, then it shows DNA reserach (like most kinds) can give differing results ...

14 April 2014 at 14:37  
Blogger Ivan said...


Carl, I am not going to tempt the spirits by expanding on what I wrote. I suggest to you though, who only a few weeks ago was waxing like Dr Strangelove on a hydrogen bomb, on the sheer absolute necessity of taking out millions should it prove necessary, that you apply the same circumspection that you expect of others here, to yourself.

Avi, it is a damned unpleasant characteristic of yours, even after you should have been disabused, to imagine that you are the only fellow here who has read a book.

14 April 2014 at 15:28  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

The Germans didn't start out planning to kill the Jews.

Agreed; but I think you'll agree that its more accurate to use the term Nazi rather than German?

Not forgetting of course the other opportunist anti-Semitic nations such as Latvians, Arabs, Ukrainians etc, without whom the Nazties would have struggled to develop and implement their industrial scale genocide.

14 April 2014 at 16:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Albert: "There's nothing particularly pompous about agreeing with Dr C that you were being evasive and abusive (as usual)."

I've discussed the topic in its various forms here often enough, including with Explorer. It's been done to death, like the abortion one, and the same-sex marriage one. What I actually try to avoid is any dialogue with you, for reasons I've said often enough in the past, but you already know this of course.

In reality, I don't need to engage in dialogue or discussion at all as this is a comments section and I can write as many or as few comments on a topic as I so choose. Despite saying yesterday that I'm done with this thread, I'm minded to write another comment today. This isn't an invitation to a week of overly long and tedious exchanges. In fact, I'm not interested in a conversation at all. The questions are all rhetorical.

"In the meantime, why don't you address the key question of how equality, human rights etc. can be defended as truths within a secular metaphysic."

What obligation do I have to do that? What have I said or implied here other than that I don't see a dichotomy between a society constructed on a shared belief in a god, and a society which ends up in the sort of Nietzschean aggression and despair regularly suggested by religionists? It's almost a weekly experience for me here that I have to be a replacement for someone's caricature, and I grow mightily tired of it.

Why would I want or need to defend human rights, equality etc "as truths within a secular metaphysic"? Truths? I've said here often enough that if the universe was devoid of life then there would be no right or wrong, and no values, as far as I am concerned. I face that head on and embrace it.

It's the same for the notion of rights and principles of equality in society. These things aren't found under stones, or inscribed on stone tablets by deities found in myths and legends. They're human constructs. That's not to say that they're completely ungrounded of course. Have I ever said otherwise? No.

When I first came here, I remember expectations that I set out a single, coherent moral theory as though, to dismiss the Christian construction, I needed to replace it like for like. How many times did I point out the unstated assumption that there is one to find that matches how we think we ought to behave? There's something similar going on here. In all probability, we're pulling ourselves up by our bootlaces when we construct societies. And so what?

My working assumption is actually that our reality follows metaphysical naturalism but that's just a means to carry on based on what we see in front of us. As far as I can tell, our world is functionally equivalent to one where there is no theistic god. One can construct all sorts of explanations and mysteries and quirks and supernatural activities to explain why that is but, well, the simplest explanation may well be the true one.

Since it's nearly Easter, perhaps I can sardonically ask: What is truth? It seems to me that in the absence of compelling evidence of theism of one form or another being true, we still need to carry on regardless. Must we try to deceive people that a theistic god exists simply because the alternative, even if it appears to reflects our reality more accurately, is less attractive for some people who have read some German philosophy? I think not. I'm a practical man, not prone to existential despair or aggression in a civilised society.

"The truth is, we all know that what I am asking you to do cannot be done. We also all know you well enough to know that if you could do it, you would."

Congratulations. You've managed to show that I've failed to do what I've never claimed I could do, or what I apparently need to do for some reason. You're dominant at last! Or something anyway. And I'm at the limit of my tolerance again.

14 April 2014 at 18:35  
Blogger Albert said...

Thank you DanJo,

I think the key point here is that we are agreed! Equality and human rights cannot be defended on your world-view as truths, only as human constructs. I doubt that such a world-view is coherent, but it is evidently vulnerable and open to abuse by those in power.

As for evidence for God, I think that rationally compelling evidence does exist. That is not of course the same thing as compelling evidence. But if our beliefs in equality and human rights are not based on truths and are not truths in themselves, but they are still reasonably held (which I don't think they are), perhaps it is unreasonable to demand a proof for God. And since a theistic metaphysic enables a world-view in which equality and human rights can be seen as truths, it would seem to be the more rational world-view even if evidence for God is felt to be lacking.

14 April 2014 at 20:11  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Ivan

I suggest to you though, who only a few weeks ago was waxing like Dr Strangelove ...

That movie is one of my favorite movies, and I appreciate it in a way that you will never comprehend. But Strangelove is a fictional character in a movie with a distinct point of view. It doesn't have anything to do with the real world. You would know that if you had ever lived in my world. But you haven't. You deploy the name like a weapon and succeed only in showing what you do not know.

...on a hydrogen bomb, on the sheer absolute necessity of taking out millions should it prove necessary...

Yes, and I would do so again without hesitation. I understand the trades and the obligations that drive such decisions. What I won't do is hide unpalatable truths behind willful under statement such that people may hide from the implications. I make them very clear in stark and brutal colors. I force people to confront what they would rather not confront.

...that you apply the same circumspection that you expect of others here, to yourself.

Are you so naive as to think I haven't? Do you think if only I engaged in personal introspection I would reach a different conclusion? I know exactly what I believe on this subject. I know exactly why I believe it. This was not an abstract exercise to me. It was the real world. I didn't sit in a philosophy classroom and debate the rights and wrongs of a subject. I actually picked up the responsibility and carried it. All the while, those who sit in that classroom presume to condemn me even as they enjoy the secure world that I provided.

You think nuclear weapons are terrible. Well, bravo for you. So does everyone else. Are they the worst possible occurrence? Not by a long shot. I hope you are never put in a position where you would have to learn that truth experientially.

carl

14 April 2014 at 20:51  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dreadnaught

I think you'll agree that its more accurate to use the term Nazi rather than German?

Yes you are correct. Sometimes I forget to make that distinction.

carl

14 April 2014 at 22:11  
Blogger bluedog said...

Carl @ 20.51, I'm struggling. In one breath you are accusing me, and others, of being nascent genocides of Muslims, in the next you are justifying your own intended genocide.

You say to Ivan:

‘...on a hydrogen bomb, on the sheer absolute necessity of taking out millions should it prove necessary...’ (Ivan’s post)

Yes, and I would do so again without hesitation. I understand the trades and the obligations that drive such decisions. What I won't do is hide unpalatable truths behind willful under statement such that people may hide from the implications. I make them very clear in stark and brutal colors. I force people to confront what they would rather not confront.’ Carl’s reply.

Here you admit being prepared to kill on a genocidal scale by dropping an H-bomb on the Warsaw Pact (includes Avi Barzel). Why? Because them Reds was an existential threat to western Civilisation, and if they massed and crossed the start line, it was as Ivan infers, time to put Operation Strangelove into practice.

Understandably, you still seem traumatised by the possibility. Hence your repeated self-justification, ‘All the while, those who sit in that classroom presume to condemn me even as they enjoy the secure world that I provided.’

Let’s take a step back and look at the philosophy of Western warfare in three epochs; pre-Clausewitz, post-Clausewitz and post-Hiroshima. Pre-Clausewitz the inhibiting factor to war was essentially theocratic and based on overcoming the injunction ‘thou shalt not kill’. The concept of a Just War had provided the necessary lubricant. Clausewitz wrote around the same time as Karl Marx in the wake of the French Revolutionary wars and their Napoleonic out-workings. Empirically, it was abundantly clear to Clausewitz that war was the continuation of politics by other means. This idea made sense in the context of his times, became broadly accepted and led directly to the disaster of the First World War. This war resulted in the demise of European pre-eminence globally and saw the Russian Empire replaced by the atheist Soviet Empire that reflected the ideas of Clausewitz’ contemporary, Marx. But the peace that followed WW1 was unsatisfactory and encouraged a certain Austrian to try again, on Clausewitzean lines. Despite concerns that they had the technology, the Nazis never came close to developing atomic weapons, although they did perfect the delivery system. Fortunately the West defeated Nazi German in a war of attrition and developed atomic weapons that saved millions of lives, Allied and Japanese, in August 1945.
There is of course a profound difference between a world with a single atomic power and a world with two or more, which is where we have been since the first Soviet a-bomb detonated.

It took some time (25 years?) before the penny dropped, but the day after the first Soviet nuclear test, everything that Clausewitz had written and everything that the defence ministries and general staffs believed about war became irrelevant. If nuclear war leads to the extinction of life on Earth, the proposition that war is the continuation of politics by other means becomes false. Kennedy understood this although the USAF did not, and at the moment of truth in 1961 so did Krushchev, but Kennedy was the better poker player.

Today the global financial markets are tumbling as Russia moves to create a corridor to connect with its newly annexed territory of Crimea. The fear is that a weak man, Obama, will feel obliged to even the score with the overtly Stalinist Putin, leading to a nuclear war.

tbc

14 April 2014 at 23:46  
Blogger bluedog said...

Carl @ 20.51 contd.

Perhaps your own obsession with genocide reflects the realisation outlined in the depicted paragraphs above.

But back to the proposed repatriation of the Muslims. This is explicitly not a genocidal proposal and in the context of the UK’s Muslim population, it is logistically feasible.

As an American you may not be familiar with the A380, the world’s finest intercontinental passenger jetliner. Configured for short-haul flights in coach class (impressed?) the A380 will hold 853 pax, and assuming weight of 80kg each, gives a load of just 68.24 tonnes. Let’s assume the British Airways and Pakistan International Airlines both obtain an A380 for the service and operate one flight per day, London-Karachi. This gives a daily load of 1700 souls, or 620500 per year.

Estimated numbers of Muslims is 3 million or 5% of total UK population. The math is simple, a mere five years and it’s mission accomplished. You have already been given the figures outlining the financial benefits to the UK of such a mendicant removal programme, but did not comment.

Certainly beats dropping an H-bomb on Moscow. After all, the Muslims will still be alive, unlike the Muscovites. Oh yes, a small but important corner of Western Civilisation will have been saved too.

In short, you need to explain why nuking Russians to save the West is good and why repatriating Muslims to achieve the same end is bad.

15 April 2014 at 00:06  
Blogger non mouse said...

Well said, Mr. bluedog. Thank you.

15 April 2014 at 00:32  
Blogger Ivan said...


Carl, read Jonah before Nineveh. We see only darkly. Our puny thoughts mean nothing.

Adding onto what bluedog wrote; frankly the mere existence of a credible deportation regime against radical Muslims would be enough to take the temperature down to normal. Tone Blair had promised this in the aftermath of the 2006 bombings and lo and behold, Christians are deported:

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.sg/2009/07/coptic-christian-family-deported.html

15 April 2014 at 03:45  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Bluedog

As I type I am standing in the Emergency Room of a hospital. My daughter is going to have surgery in the next few hours for appendicitis. As I am sure you can understand, my mind is not in this right now.

Apologies. It will be a long night for me.

carl

15 April 2014 at 04:46  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Bluedog

How do you repatriate a person born and registered in this Country?

15 April 2014 at 09:41  
Blogger bluedog said...

Good question, Mr Dreadnaught, 09.41. In 1923 the Treaty of Lausanne came in to force, marking the end of a Greco-Turkish war that Greece lost. One of the conditions of the settlement agreed between the parties was a population exchange between Greece and Turkey. Greek settlement first occurred on the Ionian and Pontic coasts of what is now Turkey in Antiquity, but people identified as Greek left Turkey and were resettled in Greece. The same occurred to Turkish settlers in Greece, who were returned to Turkey. In short, there is a precedent, it's been done before, and what took place in 1923 is the antithesis of multi-culti where we all get along. Thus the idea of population exchanges is deeply unfashionable and considered heretical, racist, culturally insensitive etc. But if two peoples cannot get along, is it not better to arrange a divorce? The alternative to population exchange, which could include resettlement of Pakistani Christians in the UK, is increasing friction between the British Christian and Muslim populations. My money is on the Christians. In other words the Muslims either go now amicably or they find themselves being forcibly ejected in the future. I believe it will potentially come to that, not just in the UK, but across Europe.

Opinion on Muslim settlement has hardened and become irrevocably opposed; just another trend in the popular mood that the political elite choose to ignore.

15 April 2014 at 11:07  
Blogger bluedog said...

Carl @ 04.46, very sorry to hear of the medical emergency in your family and trust that all has gone well. Do take your time, your daughter is infinitely more important than Cranmer's blog.

best wishes

bluedog

15 April 2014 at 11:18  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ bluedog (13:17 on 14 April)—Until a couple of days ago, I would have agreed without reservation but Hugh Montefiore’s bombshell of Jewish enmity towards Christians cannot but alter my assessment of Jews.

There are two bloggers for whom I have immense respect. Winston Smith posted comments of extraordinary vigour and intelligence about Islam and immigration on the Telegraph and then started his own blog, now defunct. Cheradenine Zakalwe also posted about Islam on the Telegraph before starting the blogs Islam versus Europe and Diversity Macht Frei. Both initially gave little thought to Jews. Then, Smith a few years ago and Zakalwe more recently, they started to learn about Jewish belief, Jewish attitudes to Gentiles and Jewish involvement in the political movements that have inflicted so much misery on the world. I think it safe to say they were horrified at what they learned.

In a blog post of something approaching book length, Zakalwe writes in paragraph 11: ‘It is examination of the facts that has led me to take a critical view of the influence Jews have had on European history through their promotion of anti-nationalist ideas. Not that it matters, but I was emotionally well-disposed towards Jews prior to becoming aware of these facts.’

I have wanted to believe they were wrong about the Jews but I must now admit they are right. I do so with a heavy heart and with no small amount of self-directed anger for allowing myself to accept uncritically the Jewish narrative of innocent victim. Where I was aware of unsavoury episodes, the Jewish collaboration with Muslims during the occupation of Spain, for example, I dismissed them as irrelevant to today.

On the principle of better late than never, I now await delivery of Professor Kevin MacDonald’s trilogy A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, with Diaspora Peoples, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism and The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements. I do not look forward to reading them.

15 April 2014 at 12:21  
Blogger bluedog said...

Interesting reading list, JR. There was certainly a strong Jewish influence in the early stages of both the Russian revolution and the subsequent USSR. 'Cosmopolitanism' has always been a veiled criticism of the Jews, and may have been relevant before the foundation of Israel. My own view is that Israel has changed everything, and given the Jews the same problems and opportunities that face every other demos with their own nation state. In particular, the Jews in Israel are at the pointy end of the struggle of Western Civilisation against militant Islam. For that alone they deserve our unflinching support, wherever they may be. Put me in the Zionist camp, believing that a bigger and stronger Israel is good for the West.

15 April 2014 at 12:45  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

bluedog

Good question, Mr Dreadnaught, 09.4

But not one deserving a straight answer apparently.

I can feel your frustration but you and Mr R seem to be living a fantasy world Mr B. Ok this is nothing more than anonymous blog, but I think we should at least try to be a little realistic in what we write.

The you cite as 'precident' for mass expulsion or exchange of populations, if that is genuinely your preferred option, isn't remotely applicable, or comparable to today's experience. Your stated scenario/remedy is hopelessly unrealistic or remotely achievable, if not only the for glaring, distasteful parallels of events in recent history.

However, I'll try another one for you and/or JR though:
Q.What do you think we can legally do if 3 million British citizens simply refuse to comply with expulsion notices?

15 April 2014 at 14:59  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Bluedog

Thanks for the thought. My daughter got through surgery OK. She is in recovery. I'm vegetating. Long night with no sleep. And I can't sleep now.

carl

15 April 2014 at 15:26  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Since I can't sleep...

Bluedog

You forgot about the Army. "What army?" you might ask. The army you would need to conquer Pakistan because that's the only way you will get them to accept 1700 souls every day for five years. What are these people going to do when they walk off the plane? Where are they going to live? Where will they work? How will they get around? You are presuming the existence of a massive logistical infrastructure that does not exist. Can you imagine walking off the plane as the one millionth returnee to no house, no job, one year's salary, and a million other people already in front of you competing for scarce resources? Oh and don't forget the resulting inflation that will quickly eat up that one year stipend you received. What your plan would create are massive refugee camps and Pakistan knows this. They won't let it happen. You can do the math on paper. You can't realize it in the actual world.

You also forgot about the internment camps. "What internment camps?" you might ask. Those would be the camps to hold the returnees so you can make sure they get on the plane. These people are not going to blithely wait around for a ticket into Hell allegedly greased by a cheap bribe. They will know what awaits them and they will resist. So you are going to have to compel them. You are going to have to forcibly remove them to camps. That means taking them from their homes against their will, moving them to an assembly point, and transporting them to the camp in the most expeditious manner possible. Is this starting to sound familiar to you?

Then you are going to have to find people hard enough to do this to 3 million people. Where is your reservoir of people willing to herd old men and old women and children onto trucks or (dare I say it) cable cars for transport? At Bayonet point. With a willingness to apply a judicious amount of corporal punishment to control the masses who know what they are being lead to. You can't just take people off the street for job like that. They won't be able to handle it. You need to prepare these people for the task. But without them this whole plan is stillborn. This is a very labor intensive task.

Tbc

15 April 2014 at 16:17  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

These people whom you would forcibly returnee not going to act as if they were going on vacation. They will likely fight. You will provoke the very things you fear - terrorism and possibly civil war. Do you want to radicalize 3 million people? tell them "Sometime in the next five years we are sending you back to Pakistan." That will do it. But it's all moot anyways because you will never get past the first objection. You have nowhere to send these people and no way force the supposed receiving nation to accept them.

So then what? You have traversed the country saying "These people are a threat! A threat! A THREAT!" And God help you if you convince the country you are right. Because then they will expect something to be done about it, and the failed transport plan will only raise their fear. "The threat is in our midst! What shall we do? We can't send them away!" That's how nations stumble into Final solutions. You can't convince people of the threat to justify a transport plan, and then hope to pull them back when the transport plan falls apart. You are committed at that point to addressing the threat. And there are very limited means by which you may address it.

And you are doing this among a population that believes in essentially nothing but prosperity at a time when future prosperity is greatly in doubt. You get the wrong charismatic leader in the right place and you are set up to repeat Hitler's Germany with a resurgence of neo-Paganism. There is no significant Christian resistance to fight this anymore. Poverty makes people angry and secularism leads them wide open to any clever spiritual appeal - no matter how malignant. All it would take is a massive financial shock to a population that has no foundation in life other than money.

I can't believe you don't see how dangerous this is.

carl

15 April 2014 at 16:17  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

15 April 2014 at 16:53  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

I'm glad to hear things went well with your daughter - she's been in my prayers today.

15 April 2014 at 16:57  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Bluedog

In short, you need to explain why nuking Russians to save the West is good and why repatriating Muslims to achieve the same end is bad

Because a nation has obligations to those people under its authority whereas if has almost no obligation to those outside its authority. These Muslims who you would expel are legal residents or citizens of the UK. The gov't has an obligation to protect them. It can't just arbitrarily declare them a threat by membership in a group. It is required to prove individual guilt. When the Germans occupied foreign countries by conquest they likewise assumed obligations towards the people they conquered. We see how those obligations were fulfilled. That's why we condemned the.

In war, a gov't has very limited obligations toward the enemy population. It has massive obligations towards its own people however. Especially in a war of survival like WWII. I asked the question previously and I will ask it again. How many British lives would you sacrifice in order to reduce the death toll of the enemy? What is the life of a German worth relative to the life of a British subject? The minister would say "There is no difference for both are created in the image if God ." The Prime Minister is obligated to give a very different answer.

I understand that six-month old infants were blown to pieces in Germany by bombing. I can regret the death of that infant but I cannot feel guilt over it. Ultimately the impact of the bomb on the target is more important than the infant's life. Why? Because the bomb will help end the war. Because I have a greater responsibility to the infants in Coventry, and London, and Birmingham than I do to the infant in Berlin. I have greater responsibility to the soldiers whom I have sent into the field, and to their wives and sons and daughters. Someone must be chosen to die, and I will choose them.

Now, when Berlin is conquered then I assume responsibility for that infant as well. But not before. Until that moment, my goal is to win the war. And I will do so even if it means the life of the infant. Because that is my obligation to the people whose lives I have been sworn to protect.

carl

15 April 2014 at 16:57  
Blogger Albert said...

Bluedog,

Are you seriously proposing the forced repatriation of Muslims? How does that fit with the Bible?

15 April 2014 at 17:00  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

I have a greater responsibility to the infants in Coventry, and London, and Birmingham than I do to the infant in Berlin.

I agree. But, if what is proposed is the direct targeting of innocent civilians, I don't think this is a straight forward question of who I have most responsibility for.

15 April 2014 at 17:02  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Thank you Albert. There is still some uncertainty about her condition. She will be in the hospital for a few days.

carl

15 April 2014 at 17:03  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

The civilians aren't the target. They simply happen to be in the target area.

carl

15 April 2014 at 17:05  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

I trust things continue to improve with your daughter.

The civilians aren't the target. They simply happen to be in the target area.

I'm not sure that is the WWII scenario, not least because of the (not wholly accurate) advice Churchill was receiving from Lord Cherwell.

15 April 2014 at 17:18  
Blogger bluedog said...

Dreadnaught @ 14.59 says, But not one deserving a straight answer apparently.'

Absolutely straight. You asked, 'How do you repatriate a person born and registered in this Country?'

My answer is by way of exchange.

15 April 2014 at 22:02  
Blogger bluedog said...

Carl

Glad to hear your daughter came through her emergency operation okay. Normal life becomes impossible when a child is in hospital and you are completely dependent on the competence of others.

15 April 2014 at 22:08  
Blogger bluedog said...

Carl and Albert, Dreadnaught will undoubtedly accuse me of being evasive in making these comments.

In my view there is a rapid deterioration between in relations between Muslims and Christians in a number of jurisdictions. It is true of jurisdictions where Muslims are in the majority and also in the minority. In majority countries such as Pakistan we see Christian churches blown up, in Syria and Iraq Christians are massacred and become refugees, in Palestinian held areas of the West Bank, Christians are driven out of their homes. In Turkey the remaining Greek Orthodox and Armenians are leaving. Where once there were large Christian populations, the Muslims are driving the Christians out. It's the same in Europe where the Kosovo Serbs were driven out in a campaign financed by Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

And we do nothing? Do we just let the Muslim population in Europe expand and demand ever greater privilege under sharia? Is our blindness to these outrages such that we continue to sit idly by and devise eloquent arguments for inaction? How very EU.

I'm frankly amazed by the response that what I have proposed is deemed to be morally reprehensible. What is our moral obligation to the British working class that have been driven out of their homes in fear as streets become colonised by Muslims? Do we share absolutely no sense of concern about the Syrian Christians forced into camps by Al-Qaeda proxies? We seem paralysed by moral inhibitions.

tbc

15 April 2014 at 22:56  
Blogger bluedog said...

Carl & Albert contd

What is the objection to a population exchange that resettles oppressed Christians in Europe and resettles Muslims in the Muslim world?

A British minister has declared that Britain is a Christian country and the British PM has come out as a Christian. Let them practice what they preach by giving life to Christians being killed because of their religion.

With respect you seem totally brainwashed by the ethos of cultural relativism and quite unable to act in defence of Christians who are oppressed. There is no doubt either that the Muslim populations in Europe will continue to expand if left unchecked until Kosovo is the norm rather than the exception.

What will you say as the Muslims become the majority and impose sharia? Let me tell you now, more multi-culti isn’t the answer, it's the problem. And democracy won't fix it either, because the Muslims will have the numbers. In short, the foundations of the current Western social compact are being used to destroy the West.

The former Yugoslavia is an excellent example of where the West seems to be heading. As the fulcrum of the Hapsburg Military Frontier it enjoyed three religions and a patchwork of ethnicities. Controlled by a Communist strongman, Yugoslavia prospered but offered few civil liberties. Absent that central control it rapidly descended into civil war with various outside parties backing their favourites. Sad to say, there was never any chance that democracy could unite the warring parties. In fact, democracy was the solvent that dissolved the Yugoslav state.

So when you say, 'These people whom you would forcibly returnee not going to act as if they were going on vacation. They will likely fight. You will provoke the very things you fear - terrorism and possibly civil war. Do you want to radicalize 3 million people? tell them "Sometime in the next five years we are sending you back to Pakistan." That will do it.’

I say, it’s better to act when you still can, whatever the cost, before being overwhelmed.

But once again you offer no practical alternative. Please do so.

15 April 2014 at 22:59  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

bluedog

Dreadnaught will undoubtedly accuse me of being evasive in making these comments.

That would be a compliment - more like terminally puddled I'd say.

15 April 2014 at 23:59  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

For goodness sake bluedog, you can't declare war on 3 million people! Have some sense.

Johnny R, what you and that Cheradenine Zakalwe person overlook is that nations have never been 'homogenous' wholes. There's always been division and difference.

Zakalwe's writing from a sociological perspective and ignoring all the divisions nation states have. 'In' groups and 'out' groups serve functions; an 'out' group gives an artificial sense of being an 'in' group to others. He also overlooks the fact, (he likes 'facts') that the policy of Christian states for centuries towards the Jews was to have no dealings with them, make them live in separate areas and make sure they were identifiable. Add to this that Christians were an 'out' group in the early days, and scapegoated by the Romans for being counter cultural, it is clear something other than can be explained by sociology is going on.

Answer this, what is being 'British' in 2014?

16 April 2014 at 03:01  
Blogger bluedog said...

Dreadnaught @ 23.59 says, 'That would be a compliment - more like terminally puddled I'd say.'

It would easier to understand plain English, but at a guess it's not a complimentary statement.

As one who regularly sounds off about Islam and Muslims, are you able to put forward a constructive alternative proposal to a population exchange?

Or will you be joining the ranks of the futile - those who are negative without ever daring to offer a positive suggestion?

16 April 2014 at 09:37  
Blogger bluedog said...

Hello Dodo @ 03.01. Time for a Horlicks, eh?

Let's start with, '...you can't declare war on 3 million people!'

Well, if that was the suggestion, and it isn't, odds of 19 to 1 on are generally considered unbeatable.

So let's keep it that way!

Same old questions.

As one who regularly sounds off about Islam and Muslims, are you able to put forward a constructive alternative proposal to a population exchange?

Or will you be joining the ranks of the futile - those who are negative without ever daring to offer a positive suggestion?

16 April 2014 at 09:45  
Blogger Albert said...

Bluedog,

With respect you seem totally brainwashed by the ethos of cultural relativism and quite unable to act in defence of Christians who are oppressed.

I wonder if that's the first time Carl has been accused of having been brainwashed by the ethos of cultural relativism. It's certainly the first time I have been. My answer to you, Bluedog, shows just how wrong you are. What you are proposing is wrong because it is unjust. You cannot forcibly exile (repatriation isn't the word to deal with people born here) innocent people. Can't you see how wrong that is from the scriptures? And if you mistreat innocent foreigners (as you have to regard them) where does scripture leave you then?

Sure, let us give asylum to Christians from Muslim territories, but your demand to remove Muslims is an unjust demand based on expediency (actually it isn't even expedient, but your claim is that it would be). It is therefore you that is guilty of being brainwashed by the ethos of cultural relativism.

Fiat justitia ruat caelum.

16 April 2014 at 09:52  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

bluedog

...will you be joining the ranks of the futile - those who are negative without ever daring to offer a positive suggestion?

You have made statements worthy of the architects WW2 Holocaust or even a lost script from the Goon Show, yet profess to be Christian and worldly. Leaving aside your peculiar moral position and to putting it mildly, I'd say you haven't really thought it all through have you?

There are so many flaws in your prescription for saving Western civilisation it simply leaves me rocking with laughter, followed by feelings of disgust and incredulity, that someone supposedly a product of the 'civilised' culture he wishes to defend, could dream up such abject nonsense, let alone be expect to be taken seriously.

The mere fact that you think I or anyone could within the confines of a theo-political blog, create a global political discourse on half a page of A4 that would stop the spread of Islam in the world, is darkly beyond comedy.

16 April 2014 at 10:18  
Blogger bluedog said...

Good morning, Albert. Yes, there's a first time for everything.

You say, 'You cannot forcibly exile (repatriation isn't the word to deal with people born here) innocent people.' But what if these people join or become affiliated with an organisation or group that calls for the subversion of the British state and it's replacement with a different society under a different set of laws that promotes completely different values to those extant? Is that an innocent act? Or freedom of speech? Or freedom of conscience and freedom of religion?

As we know, the Bible was written well before the Koran and Islam came into being. If, with your great knowledge of theology, you can point to what you regard as the relevant passage of the Bible I would be most interested to read it.

In the context of fiat justitia ruat caelum, what do you think should be done about British Mujahideen currently active in say, Syria, where they may have been killing Christians?

Should they be allowed to return to the UK and be presumed innocent until proven guilty?

Or should they be stripped of their British nationality?

16 April 2014 at 10:26  
Blogger bluedog said...

Dreadnaught @ 10.18 says, 'The mere fact that you think I or anyone could within the confines of a theo-political blog, create a global political discourse on half a page of A4 that would stop the spread of Islam in the world, is darkly beyond comedy.'

Clearly overwhelmed by the topic and not even going to try.

16 April 2014 at 10:29  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

bluedog, Happy Jack says hello and points out he cannot drink Horlicks - yuk!

Now attempting to control 3 million who you declare persona non gratis would be difficult. Have you not heard of guerrilla tactics and warfare? All these people, those integrated and those not, would have to be corralled until their flight was arranged. And Jack doubts the majority of the "British" population would support such a move.

As Carl pointed out, you are heading down the route of dictatorship. The population would have to be prepared to see this group as a threat - as 'other'. Then a *solution* would have to be sold to them. Even Hitler and the Nazi regime did their best to keep his final solution away from the world and the German people. Why? And do you suppose other Muslim nations would stand quietly by whilst we locked up fellow Muslims because they were Muslim? And the world?

What would Jack do? Attempt to build bridges with the Muslim people; allow them to live, subject to our laws and our customs; permit freedom of speech, including challenging their extremists through the law. You know, all the things a democratic state that values religious freedom and prizes tolerance and the rule of law, would do.

16 April 2014 at 11:36  
Blogger Albert said...

Bluedog,

Good morning to you.

But what if these people join or become affiliated with an organisation or group that calls for the subversion of the British state and it's replacement with a different society under a different set of laws that promotes completely different values to those extant? Is that an innocent act? Or freedom of speech? Or freedom of conscience and freedom of religion?

Then they should be individually tried and, if guilty, punished under law.

If, with your great knowledge of theology, you can point to what you regard as the relevant passage of the Bible I would be most interested to read it.

Passages which speak about exile, or the treatment of foreigners are too many to number. As for the idea of individual responsibility and punishment, I would appeal to Ezekiel:

"Yet you say, `Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?' When the son has done what is lawful and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. "But if a wicked man turns away from all his sins which he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.

You continue:

what do you think should be done about British Mujahideen currently active in say, Syria, where they may have been killing Christians?

I say that they should be tried under law, and if found guilty, punished. If there is no relevant law, we should create one.

16 April 2014 at 11:37  
Blogger bluedog said...

Good morning, Dodo.

You say, 'As Carl pointed out, you are heading down the route of dictatorship.' Arguably a democracy and multi-culturalism are incompatible, see my post @ 22.59 'The former Yugoslavia...'
see also the response to Mary Ridell's article in todays DT, very much on the same topic.

You say, 'Even Hitler and the Nazi regime did their best to keep his final solution away from the world and the German people.'

A clear misrepresentation of the proposal for a population exchange, itself validated by the Treaty of Lausanne 1923. There is no suggestion of a final solution per the Third Reich, despite Carl's somewhat over-excitable references to this being the inevitable destination of the project. Furthermore, a population exchange could only be carried out with the consent of the electorate. So there is no suggestion of 'keeping it away' from the people.

You say, 'And do you suppose other Muslim nations would stand quietly by whilst we locked up fellow Muslims because they were Muslim?'

An excellent point, and bearing in mind that Pakistan is a nuclear weapons power, it follows that repatriation of former Pakistanis or those of Pakistani ethnicity could only be done with the co-operation and consent of the Pakistanis. But then the Pakistani elite are most biddable people...

Thank you for your closing paragraph, constructive and much appreciated. Sadly your proscription is more of the same, and it's not working; look at the situation in the Birmingham schools. The Muslims simply seek to subvert the existing state and replace it with their own.

Hence my decision to widen the debate.

16 April 2014 at 11:57  
Blogger Albert said...

Bluedog,

So your proposal requires the consent of the electorate and the co-operation of Muslims nations. Doesn't that now put it in the category of something that will not work?

16 April 2014 at 12:26  
Blogger bluedog said...

Thank you, Albert for your reply of 11.57.

As we know, an important principle in our own society and its law is that of individual rather than collective guilt. However if a religion takes on a treasonous nature, how do we cope? The government tries to curb Muslim clerics who overtly deal in hate speech, but isn't Islam itself essentially an injunction to terrorist activity? We don't seem to have an adequate institutional response to that. The UK Terrorism Acts are heavily orientated to the situation in Northern Ireland but do provide for the declaration of Proscribed Organisations. Thus does collective guilt become legally feasible. But Islam does not exist as a discrete corporate entity (neither does the RCC) and the entire religion could not at present be proscribed. Individual entities within Islam can and are proscribed, and thus enjoy pre-emptive collective guilt.

The passage from Ezekiel is certainly food for thought and I must try not to think in terms of Exodus 20:5 or Deuteronomy 5:9. Thanks to carm.org.

As for British Mujahideen, there is a clause in the Terrorism Act 2000 which relates to an individual being "concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism". An individual suspected of such acts can be arrested. This would appear to cover returning mujahideen. But are the border controls adequate, meaning can the movements of jihadis be verified and what are their rights of appeal? We have already seen instances where it takes a decade to remove a more than usually toxic imman.

Wouldn't it be so much easier if the problem did not exist?

16 April 2014 at 12:41  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

bluedog

Clearly overwhelmed by the topic and not even going to try.

Very far from it. You know absolutely nothing about me or what I am doing, other than on this occasion, holding a mirror to you.

Way back I asked you a straight question - what to do if 3 million British citizens say no. Now this was in response to your proposals not mine.

What would you expect to be done?



16 April 2014 at 12:41  
Blogger bluedog said...

Albert @ 12.26, the Treaty of Lausanne had as co-signatories the parties involved in the population exchange between Greece and Turkey. It would not have been possible without their joint consent. The Greeks signed with a heavy heart, a civilisation which had survived 3000 years and which had endured the fall of Constantinople in 1453 was finally extinguished in Asia Minor.

If the terms are right I cannot see why Pakistan would not sign, it would be a question of money. Gulf States with large Filipino work forces might be tempted to replace these Christian workers with well-educated Muslims. There is already a very large Pakistani community in the Gulf, as I am sure you are aware.

In my view the indigenous (white) British electorate would leap at the chance to vote for repatriation of the Muslims. Other Asian groups such as Sikhs and Hindus would vote against.

16 April 2014 at 12:53  
Blogger bluedog said...

Dreadnaught @ 12.41 asks, 'what to do if 3 million British citizens say no.'

They wouldn't all say no. Some would accept a bribe to return to the Muslim world. Certainly there would be some that could not be returned by virtue of old age or infirmity. Even if all three million do not go, at least the numbers are reduced.

Ideally they could all be persuaded to leave.

16 April 2014 at 13:01  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Bluedog

Well, to be fair, you haven't offered a practical solution yet. You have offered us this Wagnerian fantasy. You ask...

What is the objection to a population exchange that resettles oppressed Christians in Europe and resettles Muslims in the Muslim world?

1. The Muslim nations won't participate. There are handfuls of thousands of Christians in the Middle East and you would move them into an Economy the size if Europe. There are millions of Muslims in Europe and you would move them back to the third world economies of the Middle East. Do you see the disparity?

2. The primary motivation for population transfer is typically fear. India/Pakistan. Serbia/Croatia. Greece/Turkey. The motivation for large motion was "We will be killed if we stay here." So who is going to provide the push of threat on Muslims in Europe?

3. And I will say it again. You haven't got the logistics in place to effect a mass movement of people back to the Middle East. In the migrations I mentioned above, the populations separated across land boundaries. England is an Island. The imposition of fear can't result in impulseive movement.

carl

16 April 2014 at 13:06  
Blogger Albert said...

Bluedog,

isn't Islam itself essentially an injunction to terrorist activity?

No. But even if it is, you need to judge each person on their own crimes.

Thus does collective guilt become legally feasible.

Let us suppose that you make Islam prohibited. All Muslims need to do is keep their heads down. It all sounds a bit like Inquisition Spain (sorry to bring that up again).

But Islam does not exist as a discrete corporate entity (neither does the RCC) and the entire religion could not at present be proscribed. Individual entities within Islam can and are proscribed, and thus enjoy pre-emptive collective guilt.

And there's the rub. You just can't really do it legally. And that's why you say this:

if a religion takes on a treasonous nature, how do we cope?

It may just be that there cannot be a just and legal solution.

Wouldn't it be so much easier if the problem did not exist?

But it does exist. If you want to, blame the people responsible: those who have allowed irresponsible levels of immigration, if that's your point. Don't blame the innocent people who have come here because they are following their God-given duty to do the best they can for their families.

I don't think that the comparison with the Treaty of Lausanne works. That treaty occurred after centuries of violence, WWI and then a serious war between Greece and Turkey. People on both sides were desperate for a solution. I cannot that that is our situation. Besides, do you really want to make that kind of ethnic hate your model?

I must try not to think in terms of Exodus 20:5 or Deuteronomy 5:9.

Certainly, there is an apparent contradiction. But the contradiction perhaps disappears when one considers that the family of that era would have likely constituted several generations acting together, so collective guilt and individual guilt overlap.

In my view the indigenous (white) British electorate would leap at the chance to vote for repatriation of the Muslims.

Really? Most people may think "Yeah, let's get rid of the Muslims" and then they will realise that they are talking about their next door neighbour, their work colleague, their doctor or school teacher. Then they may think "all the Muslims except..." and then it will become clear that the whole thing makes no sense, is unjust and totally unworkable.

Obviously, there are things in Islam I disagree with. But when I think of Muslims I have known, I cannot think of one good reason to exile any of them - on the contrary. The threat to the UK is not from Islam, but from secularism. It is not Muslims who are undermining my religious freedom and watering down the woollier members of my faith.

16 April 2014 at 13:12  
Blogger bluedog said...

Thank you, Albert @ 13.12. We will have to disagree on the nature of the threat to a Christian Britain. Nowhere in the world do Christianity and Islam peacefully co-exist, it's just a matter of time. The electorate will wake up before the elites.

The atheists and secularists offer nothing and never have, they will run their race and expire.

16 April 2014 at 13:25  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Carl'a practical solution.

1. Enforce the law. I don't care how, so long as it is done legally. I don't care if it takes martial law. But smash these 'NoGo' zones where police are afraid to tread.

2. Make people fear the imposition of the law. There is too much in Western culture of punishment a confinement. Punishment is the infliction of suffering and deprivation.

3. Correctly identify the problem. Quit blaming Muslims for the decadence and inherent weaknesses of the West. If you are so afraid of a minority having children, then maybe the problem is your own attitude towards children. There is after all no divine law that says "The island of England is the permanent possession of the Anglo Saxon race." If you aren't fertile enough to keep it, then you have no right to it.

The solution is found in rebuilding your own culture so that it is strong enough to assimilate Islam. But that is hard. And impractical. And unpopular. The West is heavily invested in its autonomy and freedom from obligation. We want what we have but we don't want to work for it. So it's easier to just remove the people who threaten our primacy instead of accepting the responsibilities that would have established primacy in the first place.

carl

16 April 2014 at 13:29  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

bluedog
"Arguably a democracy and multi-culturalism are incompatible."

That depends on many unknowns. Our own nation is already a mix of various ethnic groupings - Irish, Welsh, Scottish and English (Celts, Saxons, Normans, Vikings) - and within them other divisions exist. It always has been. There have been times in our own democracy's not too distant past when certain religious and ethnic groups were considered a threat and attempts were made to repress and exclude them from mainstream society. That's the ongoing challenge of any nation - attempting to integrate its citizens around common values, shared interests and core and ways of behaving.

Building and rebuilding a nation state takes time, effort and work both politically and socially.
Certainly, fundamental Islam at it is core is anti-Western and anti-Christian and, come to think about it, anti all things non-Muslim. It has to be dealt with but Jack can't see your 'solution' having legs. It will, if anything, make matters considerably worse.

Jack agrees the government's approach is currently not competent and 'multiculturalism', 'equality laws' and 'diversity', as ideologies, will not succeed against an ideology like Islam because these legitimise, defend and reinforce difference rather than attempting to build a nation around those things we have in common.

16 April 2014 at 13:39  
Blogger bluedog said...

Great Scott, Carl @ 13.06, you've moved on to Wagner from the Horst Wessel Lied! Whatever next?

You say, 'The Muslim nations won't participate.' How do you know? When were you last in a Muslim nation? Do you understand the problems they face with labour in the Gulf, for example? Until somebody asks them there is no way of knowing how the Muslim nations will react. One can howver say that the Shia will not accept settlement of a large Sunni cohort. Something that the Saudis might even welcome in their eastern provinces.

You ask, 'Do you see the disparity?' Yes I do, and if you had read what I have written you would see that I focus on 3 million Muslims in Britain, not 25 million in Europe. Do you see the disparity?

You say, 'The motivation for large motion was "We will be killed if we stay here."' A bit florid, even by your standards. The Anglo-Indians almost all left India because they realised they were no longer welcome. There are other motivations besides mortal fear, such as cash. Doesn't suit your narrative, though.

You say, 'In the migrations I mentioned above, the populations separated across land boundaries.'
Not on my reading of the map. Turkey and Greece, to which I specifically refer, are still largely separated by the Ionian sea. The Thracian border is very short and the Greek Pontic settlements faced the Black Sea. No part of mainland Greece does.

You say, 'England is an Island.' Admirably perceptive and no disadvantage in the circumstances. It should be possible to control the borders, given modest competence.

16 April 2014 at 13:56  
Blogger bluedog said...

Carl @ 13.29, that's more like it.

16 April 2014 at 13:59  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older