My opinion of the Jews as a group (and individuals adopt the group features to varying degrees) has been falling all the time. Ironically, I started on this path after noticing Jewish “pack hunting” of some people for “anti-Semitism” — and the punishment seemed to be far in excess of the crime. This must have been the case of many others too.

Ideally, the wise Jews representing Jewish bodies would come together with the more reasonable of the anti-Semites and talk about these things – a sort of inter-religious dialogue. But the diaspora Jews are as unlikely to do this as the Israeli Jews are to come to peace with their Arab neighbors, likely for the above mentioned reason. The Jews who are willing to talk about the negative aspects of the Jewish behavior are talking for themselves, as individuals, and are not likely to influence the general Jewish behavior.

Still, to not go crazy by fixating on one problem, let us remind ourselves of the positive aspects of the Jewish behavior too. E.g., they are always in the front of the line in opposing tyranny. They take “opposing tyranny” as a religious obligation — and sometimes what they are opposing is real tyranny! If you were liking in USSR, wouldn’t you be happy to have the dissident Jews on your side? (That sometimes other Jews are leading the tyranny is here irrelevant.)

I believe most Jews would like to see the society dehomogenized because it would make them feel safer (because of their weird narcissist interpretation of history). But there is another angle to the issue.

And haven’t we been here before? And yet Jews are pleased as punch with their behavior. The head of AirBnB recounts his efforts to collect frequent flier miles to bring more deserving Africans to the US. […]

Alrenous has a nice theory about this: https://alrenous.blogspot.com/2023/06/fitness-and-eugenics-of-insufferability.html From the article:

Ashkenazi are selected for being obnoxious, because that induces persecution, which in turn induces high IQ. Their genes are tuned to ensure they are never left alone, by not leaving you alone: they are indeed antagonizing you on purpose.

For the Jews, hard times is every times, because nobody likes them, not even other Jews. Thus, they never become soft.

“Hundereds of thousands” seems to be a reasonable number according to this account: https://gregladen.com/blog/2017/10/08/how-many-people-were-killed-as-witches-in-europe-from-1200-to-the-present/ From the article:

In Geneva alone five hundred persons were burned in the years 1515 and 1516, under the title of Protestant witches. It would appear that their chief crime was heresy, and their witchcraft merely an aggravation. Bartolomeo de Spina has a list still more fearful. He informs us that, in the year 1524, no less than a thousand persons suffered death for witchcraft in the district of Como, and that for several years afterwards the average number of victims exceeded a hundred annually. One inquisitor, Remigius, took great credit to himself for having, during fifteen years, convicted and burned nine hundred.

In France, about the year 1520, fires for the execution of witches blazed in almost every town. Danaeus, in his “Dialogues of Witches,” says they were so numerous that it would be next to impossible to tell the number of them. [quoted from a book by Charles Mackay]

Anyway, my point was that such things made sense in the religious environment of the middle ages. In the 16th century, the exact same people who now agree with noble-Ukraine-evil-Russia narrative would have agreed that there are witches and they need to burned.

I personally didn’t learn about it in College, but I agree with you that modern colleges are a crazy place.

I agree with you on this.

The Jews probably assume that the general public is not mature enough to _not_ go from “some Christian children were mudered for a ritual which made sense in the religious environment of the middle ages” to “Jews routinely killed Christian children”. And in this they are probably right too. But by trying to shut down all discussion, they push away the thinking people. I believe it is a net negative for the Jews.

So, perhaps hundreds (or thousands) of children of Christians were killed by the Jews. It is horrible, and makes the author foam at the mouth.

But in the same period, by the same Christians, perhaps upto 1 million Christian women were tortured and burned alive for being witches.

“Christianity is not capable of blessing and solemnizing this type of putrid and contumely behavior.”

Christians didn’t need to hide their crazy behaviour because they were proudly “in the right”. What is burning of a few women here and there for practicing herbal medicine, specially when done by a feasty people!

By “foot-soldiers”, I meant the “small-fry”. These are generally “losers” who have adopted a cause.

But ask yourself why Christian petty-criminals don’t use quotes from their religion to commit crimes. Obviously, they won’t stick. At best, one can say that Islam has to travel the same path Christianity has traveled. Until then, forgive others if they remain apprehensive of Islam!

Also, the top leaders of these organizations are often highly-educated people, and quite often religious scholars.

“Surely, if al-Azhar is incubating da’eshis by the dozen, we’ve had heard about it by now. Anything to share about that?”
I am no expert on this issue, but you can check others’ comments online. E.g.,
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/08/is_alazhar_university_a_global_security_threat.html

A choice quote:

According to the report, one of the books called, _al-Iqn’a fi Hal Alfaz ibn Abi Shoga’a_, taught to al-Azhar’s high school students states, “Any Muslim, can kill an apostate and eat him, as well kill infidel warriors even if they are young or female and they can also be eaten, because they are not granted any protection.” On the treatment of non-Muslims, the report quotes the same book as saying, “to preserve one’s self from the evil of an infidel, any Muslim can gouge their eyes out, or mutilate their hands and legs, or sever one arm and one leg.”

Even Muslims aren’t safe from al-Azhar’s teachings. According to the same the report, another book states, “Any Muslim is allowed to kill a fornicator, a warrior, or a [Muslim] who misses prayer, even without permission of the [ruling] Imam.”

“Where is the hard data telling us how many students or graduates of al-Azhar have become members of ISIS? ”
I haven’t checked, but the relation is not that simple. As I said, when the small-fry look at prestigious bodies encouraging or allowing violence in the name of a higher-cause (religion), it must increase their courage considerably!

“the vast majority of “the (Muslim) masses” stand firmly opposed.”
My point wasn’t that the Muslim masses support them, but that, _when necessary_, given the solid body of arguments these extremists sprout, it is not difficult to _accede_ to them. (ISIS overran parts of Iraq almost overnight, and could easily rule it.)

“As such, when you express admiration for Islam, it doesn’t look sincere in the least.”
I don’t admire Islam as a whole, but only parts of it.

“You don’t present “things as they are” because you peddle in innuendo and your terminology hasn’t even begun to make sense.”
Intolerance, due to whatever cause, is a problem in Islam. Check out Pakistan, where they have by now cut away all old “Hindu trees” (trees respected in Hinduism). Or the reaction of Islamic countries to the blowing of the Bamiyan Buddha. (Did you feel happy about it too?)

You are welcome to believe whatever you wish to believe in.

Nietzsche’s idea of ‘eternal recurrence’:

If the world had a goal, it must have been reached. If there were for it some unintended final state, this also must have been reached. If it were in any way capable of a pausing and becoming fixed, of “being,” then all becoming would long since have come to an end, along with all thinking, all “spirit.” The fact of “spirit” as a form of becoming proves that the world has no goal, no final state, and is incapable of being.

The old habit, however, of associating a goal with every event and a guiding, creative God with the world, is so powerful that it requires an effort for a thinker not to fall into thinking of the very aimlessness of the world as intended. This notion–that the world intentionally avoids a goal and even knows artifices for keeping itself from entering into a circular course–must occur to all those who would like to force on the world the ability for eternal novelty, i.e., on a finite, definite, unchangeable force of constant size, such as the world is, the miraculous power of infinite novelty in its forms and states. The world, even if it is no longer a god, is still supposed to be capable of the divine power of creation, the power of infinite transformations; it is supposed to consciously prevent itself from returning to any of its old forms; it is supposed to possess not only the intention but the means of every one of its movements at every moment so as to escape goals, final states, repetitions–and whatever else may follow from such an unforgivably insane way of thinking and desiring. It is still the old religious way of thinking and desiring, a kind of longing to believe that in some way the world is after all like the old beloved, infinite, boundlessly creative God–that in some way “the old God still lives”–that longing of Spinoza which was expressed in the words “deus sive natura” [God or nature.] (he even felt “natura sive deus”). […] Thus–the world also lacks the capacity for eternal novelty.

(excerpts from an “unpublished fragment”, collected in _the Will to Power_)

“I also disagree with you that we humans have – and should have- a “goal”.”

Actually, I don’t think we have or should have a goal. (Unless it is the Übermensch, perhaps!)

I would like to see new movies though. (As in, “we have seen this movie before.”) (This is one of the reasons I am looking forward to a strong, secure, Jewish state, as I said earlier. Hopefully, we would see something new then.)

@ mouse

Who gives a shit how YOU identify yourself when every single statement out of your assy mouth is pickled in repugnant, supremacist zionism?! Really now, you fool nobody but yourself. Your sanctimonious, holier than thou, know-it-all, horrid passive-aggressive bullshit belongs in the sewers of criminality, not in civilized discourse. on justice. Hard as you try to hide your islamophobia by saying a nice thing here and a nice thing there about islam, you still can’t help your deep hatred for islam and for muslims – and it really-very-really shows – all the fucking time! You can read all the books in the wold on islam, but evidently you’ve never been to a muslim country, and I doubt that you’ve even broken bread with a single muslim. You don’t know shit about the muslim message – which, btw, is at least non genocidal like the evil talmud whose cock you are addicted to sucking on.

Take you pompous, jewish supremacy and eat it! And I hope you choke on it till kingdom come.

Israel is in its final death throws and yet… lol… you continue to put lipstick on that pig.

“By the way, I don’t mind much the Islamic “excess of zeal” because it probably helps the rest of us in many ways too. If we (humans) are to go far, we need all sort of “madnesses” too.”

I’d add a few more words.

There are “madnesses” which result from people “letting go” of themselves. Let’s call these “pigly madnesses”. There is another where there is order in madness — madness towards a goal. It is these latter which are probably welcome in the larger scheme of things.

With a special leave from Fran, I’d share my theory on why we like seeing earrings on women! I think it is the very “stupidity” of the business which makes it welcome. It reminds us that “mad” things have a place, an important place, and this lightens us. That we shouldn’t be taking ourselves and our business so seriously.

Facing “excess” forces us take stock of the world around us. It keeps us awake!

The leftist utopia, where everyone is “utterly sane” (including our giving up “unjustified preferences” for our own race, or the opposite sex, or our ancestors’ beliefs, and the rest) would be very boring. As I said earlier, I, at least, would rather that individuals and groups retain their idiosyncrasies, and we find ways to live together.

And finally, as I said before, the existence of these “madnesses” allow us hope for the future. “There are so many new dawns yet to shine!” (Apparently, the Rigveda.) In a “sane world”, we’d give up this hope.

–
And a special word for AnonStarter: It is one thing to declare “Islam is the best” and quite another to declare, “We are (already) perfect”. The former is ok, the latter is a recipe for decay. The rest of the world has much to offer.

“This insight serves as the basis of Taoist “no preference”, and is the opposite of dualism.”

And even if full of doubt, our actions must not be half-hearted, or worse, half-and-half. “The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.” (–Blake.)

By the way, I don’t mind much the Islamic “excess of zeal” because it probably helps the rest of us in many ways too. If we (humans) are to go far, we need all sort of “madnesses” too. “One must have chaos in one, to give birth to a dancing star.” Thankfully, the Muslims are far from Nietzsche’s Last Man state.

When I become the world emperor, I’d let many different madnesses flourish!

Actually, the Guardian’s (and AnonStarter’s) contention is a part of truth. The foot-soldiers are often petty criminals, and they probably would have remained vanilla criminals if they had not adopted the religious narrative for their own hunger for blood.

But there is the other part of the truth, that they swim in the currents generated by an extremist strain in Islam, which has always been present. This extremist strain is nurtured by many scholars (respected by the masses) too. In the ‘golden ages’ of Islam, this strain is not the orthodoxy (far from it), but in most of the other times, it _is_ the orthodoxy or very near to it.

It is these currents which allows these “extremist interpretations” to become a major problem for the non-extremists (and a fortiori, the non-Muslims). As I had said earlier, thanks to the vast body of scholarly work supporting the extremist interpretations, the extremists don’t find it very hard to convince the masses to accede to their version of the religious interpretation.

, “You talk out of both sides of your mouth”:
I am doing you a favor by present things as they are. You’d no doubt like to hide your head in sand about it.

Argue about the facts. Did Al-Azhar call ISIS un-Islamic or did it not? Was that wanted from it at that time or not? (Given that they are eager to issue such ‘fatwas’ for all sorts of issues?) The absence of a fatwa at this critical time spoke volumes.

A bit more information about the above episode:

Al-Azhar rejected the Nigerian Mufti Sheikh Ibrahim Salah El-Hosseini’s fatwa that members of ISIS are apostates rather than Muslims a week after its issue in December 2014. In an official statement, Al-Azhar claimed that members of ISIS are indeed Muslims, although their actions do not represent Islamic values.Yet Al-Azhar has a long history of denouncing liberal Muslim thinkers as infidels. For instance, last June the former Grand Mufti, Azhari Sheikh Ali Gomaa, issued a fatwa declaring female Muslim writer Sherif El-Shobashy ‘an infidel’ for urging others to respect a woman’s choice on whether or not to wear the veil. This willingness to denounce others belies the claim that has recently been put forward that Al-Azhar is simply refraining from classifying any Muslim as an infidel. [There are many other fatwas from al-Azhar about this or that person or behavior being ‘un-Islamic’, which has resulted in assassinations, as the Raymond Ibrahim site says.]

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/ideological-extremism-al-azhar

For the non-Muslims here:
Al-Azhar: Al-Azhar university is the most prestigious centre of Islamic learning in the world. Its fatwas are quoted in newspapers in far away Pakistan and Malaysia too.

A fatwa: It is a religious ruling that though officially not binding (you can ask for a second opinion from another), is essentially treated as binding by the faithful. It is generally issued in response to a question from the faithful. I have read of cases where the person who asked was sorry that he ever asked, because the response (the fatwa) unexpectedly went against his position, and now he’d have to do what it says.

–

AnonStarter, “Al-Azhar is not hostile toward religious minorities … Most Muslim countries, including Egypt, do not punish [apostasy] as capital offenses”:

In 2012, Al-Azhar sent a note of objection to the Ministry of Education demanding the removal of a sentence in the Civil Education Curriculum for senior high school students that promoted religious tolerance. The book stated, “Respect whoever changes his religion, because the freedom to choose one’s religion is the foundation of belief, there is no enforcement in belief.” Al-Azhar insisted that this sentence was antithetical to the hadith of Prophet Muhammad: “kill whoever changes his religion.” [A pretty straight-forward reading of the religious text, from the academic centre of the Muslim world, I’d say!]

They maintain their theoretical ‘right’ to kill apostates, they only pull back from the actual practice. Similarly for the other extremist interpretations. ISIS went ahead and put the ‘right’ into practice.

–

AnonStarter: “Has Israel’s chief rabbi condemned what Israel is doing in Shaikh Jarrah? At al-Aqsa? In Gaza and the West Bank?”

Here is AnonStarter, the “tolerant Muslim”, who thinks that the Israeli actions above and ISIS actions are comparable.

By the way, Rabbis (unlike Imams) don’t issue essentially-binding religious rulings.

Well, since AnonStarter has asked for it:

Last September, while discussing how the Islamic State burns some of its victims alive .. Egyptian journalist Yusuf al-Husayni remarked … “The Islamic State is only doing what Al Azhar teaches… and the simplest example is Ibn Kathir’s _Beginning and End_.”

Ibn Kathir is one of Sunni Islam’s most renowned scholars; his Beginning and End is a magisterial history of Islam and a staple at Al Azhar. It is also full of Muslims, beginning with Muhammad, committing the sorts of atrocities that the Islamic State and other Islamic organizations and persons commit.

In February, Egyptian political writer Dr. Khalid al-Montaser revealed that Al Azhar was encouraging enmity for non-Muslims, specifically Coptic Christians, and even inciting for their murder. Marveled Montaser:

Is it possible at this sensitive time — when murderous terrorists rest on texts and understandings of takfir [accusing Muslims of apostasy], murder, slaughter, and beheading — that Al Azhar magazine is offering free of charge a book whose latter half and every page — indeed every few lines — ends with “whoever disbelieves [non-Muslims] strike off his head”?

I am open to the charge that “six million” is not the correct number. And obviously, all the Jewish death were not due to “systematic killings”. Finally, many others died in the war too, for myriad reasons. But for the rest, sorry, don’t bother me.

” How can going from the preeminent financial powerhouse of the planet to an even richer behemoth be construed as ‘rising from the ashes’ ?”
If the holocaust did happen (ha!), the trauma of the survivors (close and distant relatives), must have been immense. The Jews have largely overcome it (except, probably, for the over-reaction to criticism), and become productive (and for that matter, prominent) members of the society. This is the ‘rising from the ashes’.

The Blacks in the US are still sulking about slavery, in which excesses were rare, after a few centuries.

“Head of Egypt’s al-Azhar condemns ISIS ‘barbarity’”
Everybody and his dog “condemns ISIS barbarity”. That is worth nothing.

https://www.raymondibrahim.com/2015/11/18/al-azhar-and-isis-cause-and-effect/

Al Azhar says there must be a caliphate and that it is an obligation for the Muslim world [to establish it]. Al Azhar teaches the law of apostasy and killing the apostate. Al Azhar is hostile towards religious minorities, and teaches things like not building churches, etc. Al Azhar upholds the institution of jizya [extracting tribute from religious minorities]. Al Azhar teaches stoning people. So can Al Azhar denounce itself as un-Islamic? (–Sheikh Nasr)

…
In short, the phenomenon known as “ISIS” is not a temporal aberration within Islam but rather a byproduct of what is considered normative thinking for Al Azhar—the Islamic world’s most authoritative university.

Apparently, you have not been following the news. As I said, the failure of al-Azhar to issue the fatawa was a big news at the time.

“I, at least, would find no difficulty in reconciling my treating the impoverished migrants who are open about assimilating with dignity and respect …”

It should read:
I, at least, would find no difficulty in reconciling my treating the impoverished migrants, when limited in number, and specially those who are open about assimilating, with dignity and respect …

Open about assimilating: People who are open to the world around them. I wouldn’t want them to adopt my beliefs or habits, at all. But I would like them to look at the world around (their new home) with an open mind.

Concerning “unpredictable effects”, I remembered a great quote, which is a little relevant here:

When I remember how many of my private schemes have miscarried; how speculations have failed, agents proved dishonest, marriage been a disappointment; how I did but pauperize the relative I sought to help; how my carefully governed son has turned out worse than most children; how the thing I desperately strove against as a misfortune did me immense good; how while the objects I ardently pursued brought me little happiness when gained, [while] most of my pleasures have come from unexpected sources; when I recall these and hosts of like facts, I am struck with the incompetence of my intellect to prescribe for society. — Herbert Spencer

Also,
” If Israel is secure, maybe it too would disintegrate, like many other nations.”
‘Like many other nations’: Actually, on considering it, I recalled no example for this specific point! But this seems common sensical enough. “Peace has defeated you, victory has cost you your strength”. (Plato, if I recall correctly) We probably need a fair degree of “chaos” to stay “alive” (and not ride into the sunset).

And this much is certain, to do _better_, you need a fair degree of chaos.

Concerning “unpredictable effects”, I remembered a great quote, which is a little relevant here:

When I remember how many of my private schemes have miscarried; how speculations have failed, agents proved dishonest, marriage been a disappointment; how I did but pauperize the relative I sought to help; how my carefully governed son has turned out worse than most children; how the thing I desperately strove against as a misfortune did me immense good; how while the objects I ardently pursued brought me little happiness when gained, [while] most of my pleasures have come from unexpected sources; when I recall these and hosts of like facts, I am struck with the incompetence of my intellect to prescribe for society. — Herbert Spencer

Also,
” If Israel is secure, maybe it too would disintegrate, like many other nations.”
‘Like many other nations’: Actually, on considering it, I recalled no example for this specific point! But this seems common sensical enough. “Peace has defeated you, victory has cost you your strength”. (Plato, if I recall correctly) We probably need a fair degree of “chaos” to stay “alive” (and not ride into the sunset).

” The leftist approach unfortunately combines critical laxity of Islam practice and belief with unrelenting anti-white criticism, with predictable effects on the host societies, which find themselves subjected to hostility and ridicule by both muslims and alleged ex-muslims alike.”

To expand on my point above, it is not necessarily a bad thing. (I personally think it is a good thing.) “That which does not destroy us makes us stronger.”

By the way, the Jews (which is not the same as the Leftists, of course) bring a great degree of criticism upon the West because this continuous churning is in their culture. (The anti-Semites hold that they are a ‘revolutionary’ people or a ‘subversive’ people). Note that many of the anti-Jewish and anti-Israel voices, and specially the best articulated ones, are Jewish. (Note the people on this site too! The Jewish wise-men probably look at Mevashir and nod their head in approval, “yeah, we know this type”. The professional anti-Semites don’t mind using the work — or platform! — of anti-Israeli Jews because they know that without these Jews, they would become voiceless.) This has been going on. “Two Jews, three opinions.” It hasn’t hurt the Jews. It probably won’t hurt the West either.

Even when the critics are stupid, they normally do you a favor in exposing your weak points, which you’d like to forget. The leftist criticism of the West (‘colonialism’, etc), though stupid, is exposing the point that modern West’s ultra-humanism (bringing Christianity to its logical conclusions), is not consistent with common sense, and not sustainable.

If I were the king, I would have encouraged all criticism (smart or stupid) and clamped down (soft or hard, depending on the case) on actions contrary to my wishes! As Frederick the Great said (paraphrased?), “I and my people have come to an understanding: they can say what they wish, and I can do what I wish.” I, at least, would find no difficulty in reconciling my treating the impoverished migrants who are open about assimilating with dignity and respect, and sinking the migrant boats when they come in great numbers.

I was thinking more on the lines of the good and bad _effects of developments_ hanging together. Thanks to this, not only can you not say how the present development affects things “in the long run”, but that as your time-frame (of what is the ‘long run’) changes, the good and the bad probably interchange! (The Yin-Yang idea.)

So, to take an example from the topic at hand, I cannot be absolutely sure that a strong Israel is good for the Jewish people. Is it not true that the feeling of ‘being at war’ is great at binding a people together? If Israel is secure, maybe it too would disintegrate, like many other nations.

So, I think one should avoid getting agitated about most things! As a rule, “(try to) keep calm, and carry on (with your business)”. (But then again, the Jewish people are pretty good at this! Their rising back from the WWII holocaust is something to write home about!) Best wishes!

And I would say, if you’re familiar with those Chuang Tzu and Nietzsche quotes, that the quality of harmonious balance in your writing, and the avoidance of demonizing extremes, is also not so mysterious anymore 🙂

But one must realize, that Unz is the headquarters of Manicheanism, the philosophy that splits the world into good and bad, utterly seperate and irreconcilable. Knowing this helps understand the extreme demonization that is commonplace on this site.

This is a perennial human thinking style, and one must admit, immature. But it probably won’t ever vanish from the world, and rests on certain ineradicable cognitive limitations that one attracted to this way of thinking cannot overcome.

” I would have described myself as ‘mildly anti-Semitic’ ”

This is only half the story. If it makes sense to anyone else, if forced to adopt labels, I would have simultaneously called myself ‘mildly anti-Semitic’ and ‘mildly philo-Semitic’.

I generally avoid labels. ‘Anti-semitism’ suggests that I oppose the Jews, or at least wish them ill. But I don’t. I just want that statistically “they” shift a little away from progressivism. (Classical liberalism is great. Wokeism is not.)

“A week here, and I am back to my normal ‘mean’.”

There are good and bad things to be said about everyone, and all groups. (E.g., I can list both about myself too.) I try to judge everyone, and groups, at their best. Every once in a while, I get overwhelmed by the bad qualities, but presently I get back to the my normal state. If judged by their merits alone, the Jewish people have done very well.

(Similarly, I am generally positive about Islam, though historically, Muslims have done a great deal of destruction in my nation.)

” It galls me to think that at precisely the time Islamists are growing more assertive (eg Erdogan), the faggot-brained left is desperately trying to convince me there are no such lessons.”
And, Commentator Mike:
“Anyway the good news is that the ones who aided and abetted this unconventional invasion will be the first to get it if the Muslims do take over.”

The leftists are probably welcoming the great degree of contact between Islam and the West in the belief that Islam would be the worse off for it. The Muslims exposed to the West are more likely to adopt “Western values”, including atheism.

Excerpts from a book by Hasan Suroor: https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/why-are-young-muslims-leaving-islam/cid/1704203

The exact figure of former Muslims may never be known as most remain in the shadows to avoid detection. Those who have ‘outed’ themselves say they live in permanent fear for their own lives and safety of their families. In Pakistan, preachers have called for the houses of apostates to be burned down. They communicate through anonymous online forums claiming tens of thousands of followers … The ranks of ex-Muslims is reported to be swelling. ‘As the number of American Muslims has increased by almost 50 per cent in the past decade, so too has the number of ex-Muslims,’ The Economist report said, citing a Pew Research Centre survey according to which 23 per cent of Americans raised as Muslims no longer identify with the faith.

It is claimed that the atheist-scientist Richard Dawkin’s _The God Delusion_ is the most downloaded book in the Middle East, particularly in Saudi Arabia. … The trend is catching on despite the fact that in many Islamic countries, apostasy is punishable by death. Most Islamic countries oppose the universal declaration of human rights and have refused to sign it because it provides for the ‘freedom to change religion or belief.’

“For the vast majority of Arab atheists, the road to disbelief begins…with personal doubts. They start to question the illogicalities found in the holy texts. Why are non-Muslims destined to hell, even though many of them are nice, decent people? Since God knows the future and controls everything, why would he put some people on the wrong path, then punish them as if he had nothing to do with their choices? Why is wine forbidden, yet virtuous Muslims are promised rivers of it in heaven?”

The trend has been described as a ‘ticking bomb’ with a new generation of educated Muslims starting to question the fundamentals of their faith.

Interesting. Thanks.

“Today my orientation is Buddhist/Taoist, with an emphasis on Taoism.”
This must be why you can stay so calm.

“He who wants to have right without wrong, order without disorder, does not understand the principles of heaven and earth. He does not know how things hang together.” (Chuang Tzu)

Or to those who would only take a Western quotation:

So learn, I pray you, my wisdom, ye higher men: even the worst thing hath two good reverse sides,–

–Even the worst thing hath good dancing-legs: so learn, I pray you, ye higher men, to put yourselves on your proper legs!
(Nietzsche, _Thus Spake Zarathustra_)

“The dilemma is if you have to waste your time taking their precious sensibilities into account, you’ll never get anything said”

You are probably being too hard on the Jews, and the Muslims.

I was where you are now: speak straight and speak short (without context). But I noticed that it antagonizes everyone. So, while I still do that often, I often contextualize my criticism too now. (E.g., when criticizing Islam, I try to show that I don’t hate it.) People are more willing to listen to your criticism when they think you are being _otherwise_ reasonable.

Note that nobody accedes to your point at once. The first reaction of everyone to criticism is rejection. They listen, they go home, they think about it for a month or two, and then come to the conclusion that maybe you had a point after all. So, it is all right if your criticism “made no effect”.

In case you didn’t come across President al-Sisi’s speech to Al-Azhar:
https://www.raymondibrahim.com/2015/01/01/egypts-sisi-islamic-thinking-is-antagonizing-the-entire-world/

That thinking—I am not saying “religion” but “thinking”—that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. …

All this that I am telling you, you cannot feel it if you remain trapped within this mindset. You need to step outside of yourselves to be able to observe it and reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective.

I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move… because this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.

And in case it isn’t clear to you (AnonStarter), overall, I like Islam. I can read the Arabic script (though I don’t understand the language). How many non-Muslims here can say that?

“No great universities, economic development, entrepreneurship, tourism exist in Arabia today. It is stagnant and the populace is frustrated and angry at the Jihadist for pursing goals that benefit no-one but Jihadist fantasies of what success looks like.”

There have been ‘golden ages’ in Islam. (By the way, the scholars under the Abbasid Caliphate did a lot of work in preserving the ancient Greco-Roman heritage.) But that was all a long time ago. Muslims are now stagnating, all over the world.

To be fair, all traditional cultures are now staring at the coming deluge. I am sure nobody can predict how things would stand just a hundred years from now.

The Jewish people are not doing too well either. ‘Silviosilver’ assures us that the ultra-orthodox Jews are nuts. And as I said above, the liberal Jews are crazy in their own ways. Still, the Jews, with millennia long experiences of adapting to new conditions (willed or forced!), may be best suited to face the coming storm! There must be lot other cultures can learn from them.

“The only way forward for Arabia, the Muslims, Israel, and the world is the total defeat of the Jihadist and the Axis of Resistance.”
Actually, I am with you about the Jihadists, but not for the Axis of Resistance. These latter are not real nuts, like the former. These latter have their reasons and excuses, which can perhaps be accommodated. (Iran became fixated on Israel after the Revolution probably because it wanted to show its Islamic — though Shia — bonafide to the Islamic world. But I am not sure about this.) By the way, Iran is facing pretty serious non-wholly-political problems of its own. Apparently, its water is running out fast, and regions which were agricultural till recently are now deserts.

:
“Jews really should be grateful to whites/Europeans and do everything they can to help preserve their nations and cultures”

I agree with this. The constant harking about the ‘Holocaust’, and the progressive Jews’ words and actions which often amount to ‘xenophilia’, is something, which as someone above says, drives people into anti-Semitism.

, 956:
“Nothing is as good as Unz in generating sympathy for Israel and Jews. … This may surprise you, but when I first started commenting on Unz I was fairly anti-Israel and critical of Jews. Unz played a huge role in pushing me back into the Jewish camp.”

It doesn’t surprise me, because I am in the same camp! The progressivism of the Jews drove me nuts (specially on seeing them everywhere in BLM). Just a week or two ago, when I came to reading UNZ articles and comments after a few months, I would have described myself as ‘mildly anti-Semitic’ (though not anti-Israel). A week here, and I am back to my normal ‘mean’.

Once you are forced to face the fact that the real anti-Semites really exist (the professionals!), you find excuses for the ‘progressive’ Jewish behavior. (That doesn’t make it right, but others become willing to overlook it. A great relevant quote I read from “an Egyptian educator”, quoted in a book by Timothy Garton Ash — whom I don’t think I like — “Our education system needs a reform, though America tells us so”.)

, 963:
“I’ll take a Jew who doesn’t serve Israel over a gentile who does any day. In fact, ethnic loyalty gives a Jew some reason to support Israel — I don’t exactly sympathize, but I see the motivation. What’s your excuse?”

I could turn the question around and ask you, “What is your excuse for hating Israel?”. You have your “reasons”, and I have my “reasons”.

, 983:

Mr Wright has Reasons, others have Excuses. These excuses may be ethnic (which he approves of), or subterranean (which he obviously hates), or stupid (which he obviously despises). That’s it! Everything covered.

And further:
“I checked. Not really. … So not really ‘anti-Israel’.”

Since Mr Wright has all his opinions down pat (and all of them simple, to boot!), he finds it suspicious when others don’t.

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wise people so full of doubts.” – Bertrand Russell.
Also, Yeats’ poem that I quoted from earlier: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43290/the-second-coming

The more I learn about the conflict, and the attitudes of the various people involved, the more I come to your conclusion above.

Israel can easily solve the Hamas problem, and I am sure that many in the Arab world (the non-Islamists) are looking up to Israel to solve the real problems they face (first of all, the difficulty in reconciling their highly-religious culture to modernity). No doubt, Israel would do fine with them. Recall, by the way, that the Islamists predicted that the Arab street would “blow up in anger” at the US recognizing Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, and nothing happened!

The anti-Semitism in the Western world is a tougher nut to crack. But even so, you can continue to live and prosper as the Jews have always done! Also, seeing the nutters makes others more protective of the Jews, so overall, it is something you can live with.

I probably would take a break from UNZ after this thread is archived. All the best to everyone!

“A world full of many cultures, even incompatible cultures (as long as they are not always fighting!), is good! Recall how magical kids find to learn about strange places, strange dresses, strange languages, etc. … I would rather that the cultures/nations think and act however they please (largely), but find a modus vivendi with others.”

I thought about this, and actually, I don’t know!

The “strange language, strange dresses, strange places” would necessarily get lost. Languages and ‘peoples’ are getting lost right in the front of our eyes, even though the human population increases. Even a hundred years ago, people were complaining that the hotel rooms everywhere are starting to look the same. At this point, even the houses look the same. This, most likely, is a lost battle now.

As for different people thinking as they please, I wonder if even that is sustainable. Others’ ways of thinking are “madness” for us, as they always have been. But in our “global village”, where the repercussions of any action are felt everywhere, the more powerful would not allow the less powerful their own “madnesses”.

Referencing Fran’s comment 942, the Islamists demanding that “Islamic lands be returned to them” looks like a curious, interesting, idea, and a couple of centuries ago, most third-parties wouldn’t have cared. The Islamists’ delusions wouldn’t have bothered anyone either. Now, all this matters to everyone on the globe.

By the way, I am yet to see a good reason for _why_ Palestinians need a state of their own.

If Kurds ask for a state, I look at it with sympathy. They are a ‘people’ — own culture, own history. So, they may wish to go their own way (following own destiny).

The Palestinians are not even a people, but a left-over people of the states around it. They don’t want to go their own way (and they don’t even want to go anywhere, for that matter). Why this insistence for a state?

I have a couple of points to make about it.

(i) Even if you generally liked Islamic aesthetics (like I do), there are good grounds for not welcoming mass-immigration of the Muslims. (For one, if you are happy with the Western culture, and not want to see it diluted to accommodate these demanding immigrants. For another, because you are apprehensive that these would bring new problems with them, which you don’t want to deal with. And other reasons.)

(ii) Whether you like or dislike the aesthetics and culture of some other people, there are good grounds for wishing (and supporting) their existence! A world full of many cultures, even incompatible cultures (as long as they are not always fighting!), is good! Recall how magical kids find to learn about strange places, strange dresses, strange languages, etc. A world full of many cultures is a far richer world.

(iii) “If it wasn’t for any of this, if a “Muslim” was distinguished solely by what he thought about God, solely by that and by nothing else, I wouldn’t waste any time worrying about it.”
This sounds very similar to the leftist dream of a world monoculture. They allow various dresses, they allow various gods, but otherwise, you must think like them. This is tyrannical! I would rather that the cultures/nations think and act however they please (largely), but find a modus vivendi with others. (So, by the way, you did right in staying put at “you don’t find Mohammad admirable”. You are doing your part!)

You travel in circles. There has been no diversion, just facts. Let’s move on is the solution to the conflict. Just cut to the chase seen and give it to us. Enough grievances about adversaries disagreeing with you does not make us not worth or purely diversionary. You seem to think that people who disagree with you are dishonest. You complain about interacting and then ignoring. Spending more time on complaints about us is diversionary.

An example:

IMuslims and Palestinians have a legal right to armed resistance against the occupation of their land.

Retort:

Israelis have a right to defend themselves against armed aggression and to not consider themselves occupiers after having survived wars of extermination by militant Muslims sworn to their destruction.

Okay where is the diversion in these two ideas. Correct me if I have misstated anything. What is your solution. Or do you just want to take your ball and go home?

“hence the introduction of myriad falsehoods: chimeric fatawa from al-Azhar, libel against ‘Umar, the cartoonish depiction of Muslims as furrowed brow, bloodthirsty terrorists, etc., etc., etc.”

The history of Islam, compared to that of other religions, is excessively bloody. This is well-established. I don’t need to offer arguments for this.
“Chimeric fatawa from al-Azhar”: If you didn’t get it, I was saying that al-Azhar _failed_ to issue a fatawa calling ISIS un-Islamic (when many Muslims wanted it to do so). That was a big piece of news at the time.
“libel against ‘Umar”: I am not the only one saying it. I don’t know how well-established the quotation I provided was, but you can try reading a non-Islamic (i.e., standard) history of the Islamic conquest of Persia.
“depiction of Muslims as furrowed brow, bloodthirsty terrorists”: I never said that, and I don’t believe it. I am generally positive about Islam.

“Quite simply, s/he’s trying to shift further blame for the current conflict toward the Palestinians….”
This is a good point. But, you (and Palestinians) need to come to terms with the idea that Israel is not going to vanish. As I said earlier (to you or Colin Wright), you people need to stop the moralizing and get to the above fact. At some point, even the “heroic resisters” (which the Hamas is decidedly not), become a nuisance who needs to be suppressed. (Hmm, are the Saxons still fighting against the Norman invaders?)

And apropos “heroic resisters”, that image for Hamas is ridiculous! They gobble up hundreds of millions of dollars of aid money per year, when the man on the street still lives in “a happy bonded family” in a tin shack (as Taxi approvingly said above). They “heroically” shoot rockets and then parade with dead Palestinian children. They riot every Friday, and then tell others that the mean, mean, Jews have hit them again! Not exactly the stuff “heroic warriors” stuff.

“That’s generous of you. You’ve invaded them twice, occupied part of the country for nearly twenty years, bombed them repeatedly, massacred civilians by the thousand, tried to set up a puppet government — but if they’re hostile, you can understand.”

Such has been the history of the region. It is hardly necessary to use an incidental factor (participation of Israel at some point — no doubt for some good reason) to bring a truckload of blame on Israel. (Unless, of course, it is Jews behind all of it too! Oh, I remember, it is the Jews/Israel behind ISIS! Saddam Hussein’s brutal persecution of the Shia citizens? Jews! Of Kurds? Jews! Responsibility for using chemical weapons against the Iranians? Jews! “Jews! Jews! Jews!”, and more “Jews! Jews! Jews!”. Does it never get tiring?)

And particularly, what exactly do you know about Lebanon and Hezbollah? Do you know that there was a long civil war in which Hezbollah (and its predecessors) were an armed combatant? Do you know that by the end all the groups gave up arms, except for Hezbollah? Do you know that the Christians were driven out of Lebanon by your friends?

Finally, it _is_ generous of me, when I don’t consider them plain terrorists (like the ISIS) who have to be snuffed out. No doubt there are good points about ISIS too, but I am not willing to consider them.

(And if you didn’t get it, I am not Jewish.)

“It might look that way from Lebanon. If you were trapped in the Warsaw Ghetto, would you be inclined to see Nazism’s good points?”

Yes, that is a good point. So I am willing to cut them some slack.

But there is this other important point too, as Fran pointed out. They are “trapped” because of their own doing. They are trapped because they wish to be the noble defendants of Arabs/Islam (and they probably need the urge to prove it even more strongly because they are Shias, which is a non-Orthodox version of Islam). This “noble defender” business would look more convincing if they were otherwise doing well (a prosperous state, flourishing high culture, etc). They have made their top priority the liberation of “the occupied Palestine”. _And then what?_ Why should other sympathize with their being “trapped” then?

The Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto were really, physically, trapped.

“This doesn’t mean it isn’t there. It’s always been there, experiencing episodic revival in one setting or another for over thirteen centuries.”

Islam does has to explain its problem with violence and intolerance.

Why can so many groups so readily find justification for violence in Islam, and why can they so readily convince the masses to support their interpretations?

I remember that Al-Azhar (the academic centre of Islam in the Arab world) could not bring itself to call ISIS non-Islamic/anti-Islamic (I have forgotten which of the two).

Why is the history of Islam so bloody? And why so intolerant? Did Islamic conquerors not burn libraries everywhere they go? Caliph Umar, a contemporary of Prophet Muhammed, on conquering Persia ordered the destruction of all books, with the argument, “What is good is already present in the Quran, what is not present in the Quran is not good.” It is the same story over and over with Islamic conquerors.

People of all religions (except for Buddhism!) can use religious arguments (hadiths!) to support violence, and intolerance, for their causes. The history of Islam, nevertheless, still stands out in this. This has to be explained (or reformed).

:
“Islam has enough good things in it to form the nucleus of an improved version, and what has been emphasized historically up till now, is not necessarily what will be emphasized in the future. I have always expressed optimism about the future development of Islam.”

This has been my view too. Certainly, there are many admirable things about it. (E.g., the manliness of its men.)

In the end, Israel will emerge as a regional leader together with the modern, moderate Arab states, in a period of relative stability and prosperity. The Muslim world is splitting into a mature section and a primitive section. This is the Middle East, not Europe, so there will always be crazy extremists and failed Islamist states, but they will be relatively contained.

As the Christians say, Amen!

Thanks for asking.

Surely, those who keep faith, and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans — whoever keeps faith with God and the Last Day and does right — surely their reward is with their Lord, and no fear shall come upon them nor shall they grieve. [2: 62]

They are not all alike. Of the People of the Book, there is a staunch community who read the Signs of God during the night, falling prostrate. They keep faith with God and the Last Day, and enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency, and compete with another in good works. These are of the righteous. [3: 113-14]

And surely, of the People of the Book, there are some who keep faith with God and that which is sent down to you and that which was sent down to them, humbling themselves before God. They do not sell the Signs of God for a small price. Indeed, their reward is with their Lord. Indeed, God is swift to take account. [3: 199]

We don’t use the term “heaven” save to describe the sky above. Rather, paradise is “the garden,” as in “gardens beneath which rivers flow.”

I’m sure I don’t have to explain to you how the priests among those claiming heritage in Abraham have made a straitjacket of our respective religions, and I’m not really interested in exegesis betraying this phenomenon, nor any debate upon the subject.

God creates us and knows us better than we know ourselves, so He’s better poised to judge us.

I owe an apology to ‘Commentator Mike’ too. Sorry!

His argument was wrong, but I made exactly the same mistake that I had denounced earlier (comments 447/455). Just because I judge his comments on a Jewish person to be wrong doesn’t mean that he is an anti-Semitic nutter.

And that shows how difficult it must be for Jews to be fair online (where lots of strange anti-Semitic stuff goes around)! I have forgiven the person in the episode mentioned in 447/455 now!

Don’t say that I did’t warn you.. You really do not get how mentally ill people work. They are demanding and narcissistic, pretending to be friends with you and opening up emotionally. They are incapable of seeing the needs in others. It is all about them. He has managed make this thread all about him, and as soon as you start backing away he is going to get really nasty. You should read the letters he wrote to the professors of University of Colorado. He is a classic Schizophrenic. If you let him he will drive you stark raving mad. There is no third gear. It is full on all the time. Even if you say please stop. He will not. How many times has he said that this is his last post. As soon as you ignore him Kaboom. I am surprised that Ron has let this therapy session go on so long. It is not a good thing.

“Jews need to be more ready for criticism, but seeing a lot of stupid criticism must fray the nerves.”

It is probably like what always been hit on is said to do to pretty women. They keep their radar always on out of habit and perhaps necessity, and get many false positives. This, of course, is harmful for them. (“Being made beautiful overmuch … / Lose natural kindness, and maybe / The heart-revealing intimacy / That chooses right, and never find a friend.” –Yeats, _A Prayer for My Daughter_.)

But ignoring criticism is not a good solution to the problem. Critics can identify a lot of problems you yourself cannot identify because of their nearness.

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/poems/14635/a-prayer-for-my-daughter

“I propose a federation between Jordan, Egypt, and Israel. The two state is dead. It will be one Jewish state with many options for Palestinians that do not want to live under Jewish rule.”

There has been no peace in the Middle East in the last 1400 years. And all the existing states are unstable.

If Israel can create some peace in the region under its control, hopefully followed by prosperity, for both the Jews and Arabs, I suppose all neutral people would welcome it. I certainly would.

“It is time for new ideas.”

The current setup does not present Israel in a good light. (“Fighting bums, and crowing at getting to a draw”, etc.) Israel needs to solve the problem with a firm hand. Note that 20 years later, nobody is complaining about Chechnya, and even the Arabs are happy.

By the way Fran, I was a bit too harsh about you earlier. Jews need to be more ready for criticism, but seeing a lot of stupid criticism must fray the nerves. (So, I was demanding superhuman tolerance.)

“I know some of us weren’t anti-semitic at all until we were led to it by revulsion at Israel’s crimes. Others have become embittered by the prominent role Jews play in promoting unrestricted immigration, black criminality, the celebration of sexual deviancy, and whatever. … ”

Normally, one comes to an issue, learns a few opinions about it and forms one’s own opinions (we shouldn’t so readily form own opinions, but we do), and then moves on, in part because there are many other important issues out there.

The problem with anti-Semitism is that people get stuck here, as it is too convenient. Early on (in the beginnings), the dislike or hatred of the Jews must have been “regular” (dislike for their aloofness, their not accepting Christ, their success, their idiosyncrasies, etc — the regular dislike of foreignness.) Later, it acquired a life of its own, and became an extraordinary phenomena.

The modern anti-Semitism is the continuation of the “extraordinary phenomena” above. “Israel’s crimes” generate revulsion — fine. So, do “Turkey’s crimes” and “China’s crimes” and “American crimes” (e.g., in Iraq). You aren’t stuck into anti-Turkism, anti-Chinism or anti-Americanism, are you? You are stuck in anti-Semitism.

Similarly for “the role of the Jews in destruction of America we knew”. If anything, the role of the Jews is just one of the factors, and a minor one at that. (Much more important are the historical processes; see Nietzsche’s “the Parable of the Madman”.) “The centre cannot hold/things fall apart/mere anarchy is loosed upon the world” – and that was a hundred years ago! “Oh, it was the Jews then too!”

It is always the Jews. For those who like Christianity, Jews have impaccable hatred for Christianity, and they are destroying it. For those who hate Christianity (pagans, e.g.), Jews birthed and uphold Christianity. They savegely argue with each other – but go home agreeing that “it is the Jews”. (I have seen such discussions online!). Those who support civilization hold it is the Jews sucking blood out of civilization. Those who hate civilization (e.g., the twitter personality Varg Vikernes) hold it is the Jews who brought civilization to the world, and it is they who uphold it. But both agree that “the Jews are guilty”. Similarly, for capitalism vs socialism. (‘Jews behind capitalism’ if you hate capitalism, and ‘Jews behind socialism’ if you hate socialism.) I can multiply examples out of my own observations.

Doesn’t all this seem a bit uncanny?

The Jews are idiosyncratic (in their super-progressivism, e.g.). Some of them are admirable (e.g., their intellectualism), and some not so (e.g., their super-progressivism). The criticism about these aspects is legitimate. But to declare that the Synagogue of Devil (as Taxi charmingly calls it) is the source, the path, and even the supplier of the foot-soldiers for all ills is a bit extraordinary, no?

–

(About ‘Commentator Mike’, I don’t know. I read just a few of his comments and concluded somewhat hastily that he is one of the above stupid ones.)

As I was saying, for the more stupider sort of anti-Semites, a Jew would remain a (hated) Jew, whatever ideas he espouses.

The observe of this is, as AaronB said, that these stupid people are a menace to any side.

Hi Mevashir,

My suggestions to you (though you likely have come to the same conclusions yourself):
– Don’t reveal personal information about others online (revealing information about yourself is ok).
– Try to become calmer.
– Try to reconcile with your close family members (even if it means compromising on your principles to a degree).
– Don’t bash Judaism and Israel so much. (Your bashing, even when it seems right to you, _when put together with_ the ridiculous, historical, anti-Semitism in some others, most likely has a “maddening effect” on the psyche.)
– Reconcile yourself to complexity (contra Christianity).
Thanks.

“Odious perhaps, but necessary if Israel is to survive. If one’s cause cannot survive examination, then that examination must be prevented.”

Survive examination by whom? It survived examination by ‘silviosilver’ and me.

Anyway, I don’t think such behavior is part of some great conspiracy. It is probably an over-reaction to the traumatic events of the last century.

“I regret getting drawn in to this discussion thread at all.”

Just a few hours ago, you were happy about your participation! Perhaps you can try becoming calmer. (Yoga may help.)

Also, I wanted to say it earlier and forgot, but your penchant for riling others is probably doing you no favors. Eg., you gratuitously used ‘Mein Kampf’ in the following sentence, even when it diluted the seriousness of your statement!

“Could we agree that discerning between proper and improper desires of the heart is the key human struggle [Mein Kampf] in this world?”

I at least found your posts very useful, and thank you for them.

“I notice you have no problem with a straightforward reading of a portion that you approve of. Why is it all of a sudden “too complex”, “deliberately contradictory,” “can’t be read linearly” and so on when it’s a portion likely to provoke gentile irritation?”

There are a couple of points to make.

First, this straightforward reading did provoke great gentile irritation in another. My point was that even a straightforward reading isn’t so bad, or is even good.

Second, while the Torah has a wrathful God and straightforward messages, the Talmud is (said to be) a meandering collection of many things. Some of them are likely to provoke irritation in others, specially when they can’t assign the appropriate weight to them (first of all, by taking things out of context).

Finally, and this probably would come as too arrogant, but _I_, given my somewhat wide reading and great empathy, may permit myself a cautious straightforward reading, while I deny this right to many others, specially those who go to it with pre-existing Jew hatred.

“A lot of people manifest negative attitudes to Jews but then they invite us to support the state of Israel for whatever reason X y or z.”

Such an attitude ties with your respect for passion: When one is passionate — i.e., one takes a simplistic view of the situation — one is genuine; otherwise not. This is probably what the Abrahmic religions hold too (e.g., in declaring martyrs per se to be great men). However, passion may as well mean an enfeebled mind.

Moreover, on the one hand you say that Jews should be more accepting of criticism (which I agree with), and on the other, you find strange that anyone who doesn’t like them much can support (and not hate?) Israel. These both faults stem from the same source, namely, having a highly simple picture of the issue/the world.

He who criticizes may be the best of friends! And self-criticism need not be neurotic.

“I find that courage is shown in doing what your heart says and not what you abstractly reason as “right”. This is because it takes uncommon courage to see and acknowledge what your heart truly says.”

We agree.

The ‘abstractly reasoned right’, shaped by externally imposed duties, etc is probably stupid:

“A virtue must be _our_ invention; it must spring out of _our_ personal need and defence. In every other case it is a source of danger. … [The demands of] the most profound laws of self-preservation and of growth: to wit, that every man find his _own_ virtue, his _own_ categorical imperative. [contra Kant] A nation goes to pieces when it confounds _its_ duty with the general concept of duty. Nothing works a more complete and penetrating disaster than every “impersonal” duty, every sacrifice before the Moloch of abstraction. … What destroys a man more quickly than to work, think and feel without inner necessity, without any deep personal desire, without pleasure–as a mere automaton of duty? That is the recipe for _decadence_, and no less for idiocy.” (–Nietzsche, _The Antichrist_, 11)

Of course, ‘pleasure’ has to be rightly defined! Mevashir says, “Could we agree that discerning between proper and improper desires of the heart is the key human struggle in this world?” I would rather say that discerning between proper and improper pleasure/real and chimeral pleasure is the key to the human struggle.

“supremacist cult”:

It is probably ‘supremacist’ in that it thinks itself to be the best group in the world. But all groups think so.

As you say, it becomes of interest to others only when they set out to “bring their light” to others by force. They are obviously not doing that, or wish to do that (unlike the Muslims, who keep dreaming of that).

“After all, if it doesn’t merit much _moral_ attention, why bother spending so much time here?”

Of course it merits attention, just not moral attention.

“There is no foreign country which has controlled American policy both domestic and foreign to the extent that Israel has. Not one. … ”

I largely agree with your charge here, though you present your case too strongly. (E.g., in the above, ‘influenced’,
not ‘controlled’.) It does engender hostility to Israel.

And I agree with you that the Jews respond too harshly (somewhat psychotically) to criticism. E.g., Some Jewish group offering money to anyone informing who wrote an Onion satire (on the IDF) was odious. ‘Hate speech’ laws are still more odious. The Jews need a course correction on this. (I remember reading that the anti-Semitic tabloid press in Vienna in the 1930s was controlled by Jews, under the principle, “if it sells, we sell it”. It didn’t work out so well for them, did it? Perhaps after the war, they have moved to the other extreme.)

If the Jews in Europe were more permissive and did not feel themselves to be “a chosen/special people”, their culture would probably have disappeared. _Would_ it have disappeared? I don’t know! But I willing to cut them some slack.

One could argue that this disturbed the gentile communities around them. That could be true, but the argument generates little sympathy with me, as I have always felt like a “minority” where ever I am! The herd dislikes anyone outside the herd.

Yes, the attitudes and behaviors of the adherents is the “living” link.

You may be right. I don’t know much about the Jewish orthodoxy. By the way, I recall reading somewhere that the Haredi sect developed as a result of killing (pogroms) of the most influential Lithuanian rabbis. With the leaders gone, the masses started afresh, and went in an anti-intellectual direction. (I may have got some details wrong, but this was certainly the thrust. It was in some scholarly source.) This actually illustrates my point! If the above is true, the “living link” was corrupted in the absence of good leaders! It is not necessary to blame the Talmud for it.

‘ “Mouse” offers the age-old “it’s complicated” mantra ‘

My point isn’t so much “it is complicated” (everything is complicated!), as that the issue does not merit as much moral attention from others as the pro-Palestine/anti-Jewish people think it does. So, I don’t even care to enter into the intricate details of the issues. To raise _others’_ moral ire, there should be some gross injustice — and “expulsions in a troubled period” is not one of it. One could credibly argue that the Turkish expulsion of Armenians (in the middle of winter, etc), with no provocation, was a far worse crime.

“The rabbis have a saying that when a girl marries her family gains a son but when a son marries his family loses him.”
A nice quote.

Perhaps in Aleichem’s time the idea of “Judaism as a race” was stronger than “Judaism as a religion”?

“I feel Mevashir would enjoy understanding his daughter, and his relationship to her, in a deeper way than this.”

Yes, certainly.

“It almost fits, but everyone is “blessed”, they just can’t see it yet. … You’d often confuse how simple it would be for them to reach self-realisation, with it being easy. What do you think?”

I don’t think it is so easy. It _ought to be_ easy, but it isn’t! For one, to do what you think is right/what you think you ought to do requires a great degree of courage. Most people fail in this, and then become miserable. ‘Blessed’ in the long run would be he/she who has an idea of what he/she wants to do, and the courage to do so.

So, I think you can cut Mevashir some slack! Even if his struggles are due to “chemical imbalances”, he is doing what he think is right, “costs be damned”. That earns him some respect from me.

Prophet vs Cassandra: What I wanted to say was that prophets are not straight-forward/simple people. I would imagine that the prophet-type is a compulsive rebel, conscientious, intelligent, and somewhat mad!
For a rich society, we need all sorts of people. Particularly, we need people like Fran to do the actual work, and people like Mevashir to keep the former on their toes!

The interpretation of the religious texts matter more than the actual words, as “the devil may quote scripture”. That is to say, the leaders and precedents matter. I wouldn’t condemn a religion on the basis of its texts. And for the same reason, the religious people are not necessarily prevaricating when they say that “you must go to a guide to understand it correctly”.

I read parts of the Talmud a while back. I specifically chose the sections suggested by anti-Semitic compilers. I didn’t find anything very objectionable, and I some of it I even liked! E.g., I am forgetting the exact details, but some Christian anti-Semite found very objectionable an episode in the Babylonian Talmud where two rabbis are having some discussion about some law, God speaks up supporting one of them, but then the other rabbi quotes some precedent showing that God may not interfere (if I remember correctly), and God happily says, “this rabbi has proven me wrong!” and disappears! I loved it as it illustrates Jewish love for intellectual pursuits!

Very few people can make sense of their lives. The ones who can are what religious people would called ‘blessed’.

By the way, Mevashir’s story about his daughter reminded me a very nice story from Shalom Aleichem, the Yiddish writer. I have forgotten the title, but I read it in the collection _Tevye, the Dairyman_. There a Rabbi and a Christian priest are on friendly terms, though their banter on religion goes on. The Rabbi’s beloved daughter (who adores the Rabbi) runs away with the priest’s son, and marries in secret. The Rabbi completely disowns her. The author describes the separation in few sentences, but I remember I found it heart-rending when I read it. I remember thinking, “what needless suffering!”, and yet as I mature, I have hardened somewhat too! If this is what it takes to preserve the culture (being, as the Hebrews were, in a sea of Christians), then either the men should be hard, or they can just shut shop.

“A Cassandra, not a prophet, struggles against himself, rather than paddling in the direction in which he naturally flows.” I wonder. May I recommend an opera by Mendelssohn, Elijah/Elias? Here is Elijah asking God to kill him (“It is enough!”): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr8BA6Z4gsA.

“I assume your Unz persona is just a LARP but, if it is authentic …”

I bet Triteleia Laxa is feeling foolish about his disclaimer in that post. That shows you the necessity of always being polite. Impoliteness comes back to haunt you in various ways!

“I am extremely talented at understanding the depths of other people.”

Hah! You earlier said about Mevashir, “I assume your Unz persona is just a LARP but, if it is authentic …”. I don’t know anything about him other than his comment on this page, but it is patently obvious that it is a genuine “persona”! You know, I could bet anything about this!

Also, this persona is not that strange. It is the stuff prophets are made of!

–

(Triteleia Laxa, I generally liked, and agree, with your posts.)

“Please let me know what you think of Barclay.”

I listened to parts of the videos you linked. He seems to be the archetype scholarly, kind, religious person of the kind religions hope to produce. One of his ideas, that people who commit suicide take themselves too seriously, was new and interesting.

To me personally, though, the religious outlook is not very appealing. I am not happy with “bare materialism”, of course (nobody is), but the religious outlook still feels very cramped. (Ready answers, don’t-look-behind-s, reverence for authority, etc.) I respect religious people, though, so carry on in your journey!

His commentary on the Bible that you linked to (at dannychesnut.com) look far more interesting to me! I read parts of it, and would read more of it later!

“Is there a brain left in the Jewy world – if the Jews where to transfer the Palestinians today – every Jew would be seen as a pariah for the next thousand years.”

I once read a discussion between two Russian experts (both highly respected), where one suggested that Russia shouldn’t worry so much about a pre-emptive devastating nuclear attack from the US “because it would be devastating for US’s standing in the world”. The other expert laughed at him for having such childishly naive views.

I hope that the Jews and Arabs will learn to live together (as in Herzl’s vision), but if the above forcible expulsion happens, it would become the 100,000th entry in “the list of historical outrages to be righted”. Right now, millions of Turkic Muslims are getting “reeducated” in China, but even the Muslim nations have nothing to say about it. And I bet you don’t care either. So, you don’t have a highly sensitive Justice Meter. You just have an anti-Jew axe to grind. Don’t expect others to share it too.

Outside the leftard West (at least in Asia and Russia), the Palestinians shooting rockets and then complaining when punished looks ridiculous. What were they expecting? And the decades long Palestinian whining has gotten on everyone’s nerves.

“That is just the worst photoshoped cracker I’ve ever seen in my whole life.”

Most of the images that we see of the Palestinian side are like this! If this is demoralizing Israeli propaganda, the whole of Palestine (everything! — culture, aesthetics, politics!) is demoralizing Israeli propaganda! And the most wily and subversive bit of it is where they successfully impel Hezbollah and friends to repeat, “We want death more than you want life.”

Right. One doesn’t call oneself a ‘saint’. One calls oneself a ‘sinner’, and let others call one a saint (and still refuse the moniker!). On the other hand, if I really thought I was cowardly, I wouldn’t call myself a mouse, as it would be negative reinforcement! I can call myself a ‘mouse’ because I know (believe) it is a lie!

I’d check out the videos you provided.

The moderator(s) who blocked your post (still blocked?) may have been trying to keep the discussion to issues directly related to the Unz post, specially as the comments thread has gotten pretty long.

Politeness: Yeah, people tune out from reading impolite posts. That’s because as a rule those who are “hot” rarely present good arguments. Apparently, others are supposed to get the arguments by telepathy, while they take care of the “more important business”, namely, express their anger! For what is worth, I forgive you! :->

“Some questions for the ostensibly Gentile partisans of Israel:”

That formulation is a simplification, and probably a gross one, if a larger picture of the history of the region is considered. Also, fundamentally, there is no reason why Jews and Arabs cannot coexist in the region. If it becomes an either-or question, then of course the stronger party would win. The Arabs lose wars after war to Israel, but do no course correction.

But even granting all your points, there is a difference between public morality and private morality. There are things allowed in statecraft not allowed in private life. A “good man” in private life, when he brings his “goodness” to statecraft, can create a disaster for his side, whose ill-effects would be felt for generations.

So, granting all your points, as a private citizen, the injustice of expulsion, etc would pain me, but as the leader I would do it myself!

–
Count *Stolypin in the above post.

Hi Taxi

In all disputes, both the parties compile a litany of grievances. Usually, to others, they both seem to have merit. Why should I, a non-Jew and non-Arab (and non-Muslim) take a side on the basis of a careful weighing of “the moral aspects of the problem”? There is nothing grossly unjust in any case, as far as I know (as the WWII Holocaust was, e.g.).

Israeli success: To be honest, Israel has fallen short of what others could have hoped from it. (No great work of art, no music, etc. No good novels either, as far as I know. Italians are doing far better!) Yet, certainly, they are doing better than their neighbors which want Israel gone? I have not visited the Middle-East, but I expect Jordan, Syria and even Lebanon to be dull and drab places. People without hope for the future, an expectation of a better future for their children, or a desire to _build things_. And Palestinians, specifically, seem to have only one hope, namely, the disappearance of Israel. At least Israel is doing ok in this.

I sympathize with the Gazans, because I can see things from their point of view. They probably think (if they are smart), “give us a nation of our own, free of the Zionist contamination, in peace, and a hundred years or two, and we would do great things!”. Guess what, history does not have such patience! (Count Stoypin pleaded for just “twenty years of peace” to do great things, and even that was not granted to him!) In the meantime, the ones they want gone are doing ok. Tell me why I should support the former?

Hi Mevashir,

Thanks for your interesting thoughts on ‘mouse’. I’d consider them!

I am actually a male, and I am quite courageous, I think. The name is influenced from the Eastern thoughts, e.g., the Tao saying:

“In order to contract a thing, one should surely expand it first.
In order to weaken, one will surely strengthen first.
In order to overthrow, one will surely exalt first.
In order to take, one will surely give first.
This is called subtle wisdom.” (Lao Tzu)

I don’t really like the Hebrew culture as much as I like the ancient Greek culture, say! I do admire the Hebrew intellectualism, their pro-life outlook (tenacity not just for surviving but for enjoying life), and their strong families.

I am impressed by Jewish (and now, Israeli) successes despite the great odds. One could argue for both that the opposition was deserved or at least “understandable”, and yet, the successes count for a lot by itself!

The “Israeli project” is itself something which inspires awe! “If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its craft”. The people who pile on against Israel for this or that bread-and-butter historical “outrage” have no soul!

“It is … protected militarily by the US government.” One could argue this. One could argue something complete different too, namely, that if US wouldn’t protect it militarily, Israel may have to, and would, solve the problem by itself, and the solution would not be pretty. And I would still be pro-Israel!

On the Israeli-Palestinian issue, the case seems an open-and-shut issue to me. On the one hand are a historical and fateful people trying to run a nation, and on the other are people who riot, speak a lot, and move around with a bowl in hand. The issue is fit for the dustbin of history.

“I don’t think Jews have contributed very much to world history at all.”

You know, if you read any anti-Semitic literature, you’d learn that everything in history revolves around the Jews!

Anyway, the Jews have been a highly fateful people. One could argue that the cultural effects of this are largely negative (though I strongly disagree), and yet, I am reminded of what Mr Marlow tells about Commander Kurtz in Conrad’s _Heart of Darkness_: “He had something to say. He said it.”.

When aliens write the history of Earth, Jews would figure prominently. Isn’t that something remarkable for such a tiny fraction of the world’s population? Wouldn’t you like to give them a nation of their own to see what else they’d come up with?

To be honest, I presented my opinions a bit too forcefully. (I was reminded of some unpleasant interaction, and it pushed me to be too hard.)

Also I don’t “get along” with any group of people, including my own racial group, of course. So, my not getting along with the Jews is not “news-worthy”.

What remains, though, is that I wish success for the Israeli project (a strong, stable, prosperous nation), and I’d like the diaspora Jews to become less “progressive”.

I would like the Islamic nations to prosper too. (Prosperous, peaceful, religious, Muslim countries can counterbalance Western race-to-the-future.)

I support Israel because Israel is a source of civilization (and hopefully in the future, culture) for the rest of the world, whereas an Arab occupation of that little part of the desert would bring nothing new. I think of it this way: Israel has something positive to add to the world, whereas a non-Israeli Palestine would be just a piece of desert. Ideally, of course, the Arab neighbors of Israel would learn to live in peace with it — I loved Herzl’s novel _Old New Land_ –, but as long as it is Israel vs its neighbors, I am with Israel (for what it is worth!).

I largely support the Jews because of Jewish contributions to world history. Their role has been largely positive in culture (and, of course, in science).

I largely don’t wish to talk with American Jews because talking with them is tiresome and somewhat dangerous. They have a weird mix of universal-love, paranoia, aggressiveness — and intelligence! In the unpleasant episode I mentioned above, I was not wholly in the right, but this person didn’t even give me a chance to respond! And then I was grateful to the person for not doxxing me, and then I concluded that it is not worthwhile to argue with our progressive masters of the day. (And where you cannot argue, you cannot talk.)