The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Diversity vs. Freedom of Speech at the U. of California
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the Los Angeles Times:

UC proposal on intolerance says ‘anti-Zionism’ is unacceptable on campus

by Teresa Watanabe

University of California officials are proposing to include “anti-Zionism” as a form of discrimination that is unacceptable on campus, according to a long-awaited draft statement on intolerance released Tuesday.

The inclusion immediately drew sharply divergent reactions, with pro-Israel groups hailing it as a needed step to protect Jewish students from hostility and those supporting Palestinian rights criticizing it as a naked attempt to suppress criticism of the Jewish state.

Scholars were similarly divided over whether a statement meant to express the UC regents’ principles against intolerance should include Zionism — historically an international movement to establish a Jewish homeland and now viewed as the belief in Israel’s right to exist. …

And although the statement provides no sanctions, calling on university leaders to “challenge” bias, [Judith] Butler wondered whether those singled out as criticizing Zionism would be denied faculty research funds, promotions or other benefits.

“To include anti-Zionism as an instance of intolerance and bigotry is actually to suppress a set of political beliefs that we actually need to hear,” she said. “It saddens me and strikes at the heart of the task of the university.”

Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, co-founder and director of the AMCHA Initiative, which has led the drive for a UC statement, said such fears were unfounded. She said the intent was not to punish speech but to raise awareness about hostility toward Jewish students.

The effort to adopt the statement on intolerance was launched after a series of troubling incidents targeting Jewish students on UC campuses. They included the defacing of a Jewish fraternity house with a Nazi swastika at UC Davis last year and the questioning of a student’s eligibility for a UCLA campus judicial panel because she is Jewish.

I wrote about that UCLA student politics incident last year in Taki’s: it was part of a tribal turf war between Jews (especially Israelis) and an anti-Israel coalition dominated by students of color:

I never paid much attention to the growing BDS movement because I’m not into bondage, domination, and submission. But it turns out that BDS is actually a decade-old Palestinian rights movement that targets Israel for boycott, divestment, and sanctions. …

While fairly mainstream in other parts of the world (for example, physicist Stephen Hawking boycotted a conference in Israel to protest occupation of the West Bank), BDS hasn’t yet become respectable in the United States. The main exception has been in the playpen of student government on California college campuses, where the much-celebrated diversity has proven fertile ground for undergraduate demagogues. So far, BDS resolutions have been passed by eight student governments, Loyola of Chicago and seven California schools: private Stanford and a half dozen public University of California campuses, including Berkeley and UCLA, both of which are of symbolic importance. (Tellingly, a BDS resolution was defeated at UC Santa Barbara, which has the whitest UC student body at 36 percent.)

In California, the state with the largest number and greatest diversity of newcomers, immigration is destabilizing the American order in which Jews have thrived.

In recent months, Jewish centrists such as journalists Jonathan Chait and Jamie Kirchick have become increasingly alarmed over whether the Obama Coalition’s identity politics jihad against white privilege, male privilege, straight privilege, and now even cisgender privilege will eventually turn against the privileges of the single richest and most influential ethnic group in America: Jews. …

It’s uncomfortable for liberal Jews to admit that the massive immigration they’ve backed so viscerally is destabilizing the America in which they’ve attained such a central role. They’d rather continue to portray themselves as unprivileged outsiders, a strategy that has worked well with American gentiles. But with about one-third of American billionaires and about one-sixth of global billionaires being Jewish, it’s not a marketing tactic that’s very convincing, perhaps especially to recent immigrants, who typically come from much less pro-Semitic cultures than America. (The ADL recently announced that over a billion foreigners were anti-Semites; but the organization still supports heavy immigration to America from anti-Semitic cultures for reasons of nostalgia, and perhaps to make work for itself in the future.)

There are several ways for American Jews to respond to this trend emerging out of California of the next generation of immigrant politicians viewing Jews as The Privileged:

– Buy off nonwhite politicians.

– Double down on victimism by using Jewish media power to insist that Jews are not privileged; in fact, they’re still the biggest victims of them all.

– Turn the heat down on the Social Justice War launched by the Obama Administration by satirizing SJWs and victimism in general.

I like the last idea, but then I would, wouldn’t I?

 
Hide 118 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Just looked in the cabinet and I’m all out of caring.

  2. from the comments, short & sweet: Liberals love to Balkanize, and it’s coming right back at them.

  3. I’d probably bet on 1. 2. is just too hard a sell nowadays. And 3., well, 3. is just too nice a possibility to happen in real life.

    One of the things that struck me is that there aren’t that many groups with money on the left, for obvious reasons. If you’re one of the few groups that can bring the bling to the party, you can have a lot of influence. This was exactly the argument a fellow made to me back at college when I asked why Jews don’t go Republican given their income (I was trying to do the Jewish-identity thing back then, which went as far as eating at the kosher cafeteria).

    OK, semi-serious question: if I go Christian later in life, anyone recommend a denomination?

    • Replies: @Hubbub
    @SFG

    Which ever Christian denomination you choose, remember you can always change on a whim. Go with the one that gives you the mostest for the leastest involvement.

    Replies: @Lot

    , @Ed
    @SFG

    "OK, semi-serious question: if I go Christian later in life, anyone recommend a denomination?"

    I've not really thought about this from a Jewish perspective, and it really would depend on the reasons for conversions.

    Two Protestant denominations that come to mind are Episcopalians and Baptists. While generally considered to be polar opposites, they are actually the most compatible for anyone whose approach to Christianity is idiosyncratic. Episcopalians hold to the Nicene Creed and the rulings of the first seven Church councils, but not much beyond that, so you are not required to believe in a huge amount of fixtures and trimmings that the church has picked up throughout its history. Anglicanism would be congenial for someone coming from a Reform Jewish background. Baptism is highly decentralized, so there is an advantage that there is always a compatible church and pastor somewhere around. Baptism might be a better fit for someone from a Conservative Jewish background. For someone moving from Orthodox Judaism, I have no idea.

    Catholicism is sort of the McDonald's/ Starbucks/ big Hollywood studio version of Christianity, there are some things they have to do to be able to rope in as many believers as they do, which you may or may not be OK with. I think you may find the other Protestant denominations either too watered down or too bizarre.

    Another group of churches to consider are the Middle Eastern churches that rejected the Council of Chalcedon, they have a different view of the nature of Christ than is standard among Christians, though the difference is very subtle.

    Replies: @Romanian

    , @Anonymous
    @SFG

    Have you considered Catholicism? Hare Krishna?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90Z98ZlvpPU

    , @Pseudonymic Handle
    @SFG

    Anglicans have nice service and they are quite liberal.
    Catholic and orthodox churches have lots of traditions and rituals if you like this kind of stuff. They also have different available paths that can fit your desired level of participation, from monks to purely cultural christians.

    , @SPMoore8
    @SFG

    I think if you are a conservative your best best is the Catholic church. Some of the traditions and beliefs are kind of creaky, but they will never let them go.

    I don't think you'd like the Episcopal Church because it has become too watered down; I can't believe any conservative could tolerate it. My experience with other protestant denominations is that they are either too watered down, too plain, or too much into "Jesus" (ironically, since Jesus is of course important in any Christian denomination, because of the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but tends to be heavily emphasized in some Christian denoms more than elsewhere -- even in the Catholic Church, which is heavy on the Trinity but also has a lot of room for Mary and Saint (pick your favorite) worship.)

    Another possibility would be the various manifestations of the Orthodox Church, either Greek, Russian, or Uniate (last has a relationship with Rome.) That tradition emphasizes meditative techniques, and there's a lot of room, as in Catholicism, for different phases of worship. I suppose the biggest difference is the priests can marry, so I assume sex scandals are less.

    These are needless to say my opinions and observations. I've known several Jews since childhood who converted; usually either Episcopal or Catholic.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Desiderius, @Alec Leamas

    , @Nico
    @SFG


    If you're going to be a Christian, you may as well be Catholic. -Muriel Spark
     
    , @Anonymous
    @SFG

    Become a Swedenborgian.

    The coolest, brightest founder a religion will ever have, plus a human spiritual diversity framework where people of different kind have a different set of places to belong to in the beyond.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanuel_Swedenborg

    , @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @SFG

    I'd recommend fives, tens or twenties for the collection plate. Any higher might seem ostentatious.

    , @OLD JEW
    @SFG

    Unitarian!!!

    Why?

    Howard M., the Unitarian, most friendly to me inmy first month in small town USA in 1973

    , @Anonymous
    @SFG

    I'm biased because it's my own denomination, but I would recommend the Eastern Orthodox Church. But it really depends on your personality, and what you seek in religious faith. The Orthodox Church is transcendant and mystical and ritualistic, and that touches some people to their core, and alienates others. If you are interested in learning more, the American actor Jonathan Jackson converted to Greek Orthodoxy along with his family (although he was already a Christian, not Jewish) and has spoken very eloquently about his conversion and what drew him to that faith.

    Here is one interview, as a podcast and also transcribed:

    http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/emmaus/general_hospital

    As for the subject at hand, I think that anti-Zionism veers into anti-Semitism when Israel is a specific target of boycotts and outcries, with no mention or consideration of similar violations in other countries. I can confirm what Steve says that boycotts and criticism of Israel are far more widespread and uncontroversial in various parts of Europe than in the USA. However it often doesn't reflect well at all on the artists, intellectuals, and student groups who call for it, not when they have a fairly transparent focus only on Israel, and not other countries with similar issues.

    There are many hate speech codes in Europe, so anti-Semitism is definitely sometimes masked as anti-Zionism here, because the latter is legally and culturally sanctioned. With that said, criticisms of Israel can definitely be separate from anti-Semitism, and people must be sick of accusations of anti-Semitism whenever such criticisms are attempted.

    , @Alec Leamas
    @SFG

    As a Catholic I would feel compelled to make the case for the Roman Catholic Church, however I don't think it's the sort of thing that can be forcefully argued.

    I would recommend if you were so inclined and if you are of a more intellectual bent than purely spiritual, to refer to the works of great converts - it is said that G.K. Chesterton, Ronald Knox, and John Henry Newman "wrote their way into" Catholicism from Anglicanism.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    , @Maj. Kong
    @SFG

    From a Machiavellian perspective, I would suggest the LDS.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @SFG


    OK, semi-serious question: if I go Christian later in life, anyone recommend a denomination?
     
    Too bad you're not in my city. Our parish's Men's Club enjoys excellent attendance thanks to two sneaky tricks: a) everyone eligible is automatically a member; and b) free beer at meetings and events. (Someone has an in with a distributor.)

    In fact, the current president joined the Club years before he joined the Church. He was still a practicing Lutheran. I can't decide who tricked whom there.
    , @Aaron Gross
    @SFG


    OK, semi-serious question: if I go Christian later in life, anyone recommend a denomination?
     
    Given your (our) genetically programmed group evolutionary strategy to destroy the Noble White Race, I'd go Anabaptist. Pacifist, inclusive...that way you can join Christendom and undermine it at the same time.
    , @StAugustine
    @SFG

    My preference is to go to them all. I have a soft spot for Moravian churches, but if you are coming from the outside, the differences even between Protestants and Catholics will seem small, compared to the stylistic differences between high, middle and low church, vs Baptist and non-denominational "happy-slappy" or speaking-in-tongues.

    Its worth picking up a book on, or reading up on wikipedia what the different sects of Protestantism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism
    I always forget the Pentacostals... And it's worth keeping in mind that there are many splinters beyond what is discussed. In just American Lutheranism, you have the Missouri Synod, Wisconsin Synod, Evangelical...and some smaller ones as well. It's quite the rabbit hole.

    Check out as well, what the church hierarchy structure is: obviously the Catholics have the Pope in Rome and all the structure of the Church, but if you go for other flavors, there are Episcopalians ("Protestant, yet Catholic" aka American Anglican, they have a "Presiding Bishop" instead of the Pope), all the way to the Congregationalists, of which every church is autonomous.

    It depends on what you're looking for, and what the options are where you live.

    Look for a style or formula that you find suitable. Decide if music is important and of what quality/style. I was a paid chorister once in a tiny (20-30 members?) English Angelican (in the US); they paid me about $75 a week - so for the 8-member choir plus the organist, they were probably shelling out $50K annually just for the musicians. I don't know how they did it, but it was clearly important.

    If you decide to become a member somewhere, make sure to get your hands on the church finances - there can be all kinds of stuff going on. American protestant churches I think are mostly self funded - that means the members of the church pay for everything, including the building expansions and renovations. Of course, there's no obligation to give, other than the doctrinal one, but plenty of back-room dealing goes on anyway. It's money, after all.

    If its important, look at what charities and missionary work are being supported. Check to see what member groups the church supports - youth groups, youth camps, local charity work, bible study groups, focused help groups for young people, men, women, old people.

    Different pastors/priests have different speaking styles. Some follow the church calendar, giving the same spiel each calendar week every year-very formulaic, but not unhelpful. Some guys like to tie everything into current events. Some people like to do in-depth discussions of the Bible, taking months to cover Corinthians in every historical and inter-related detail.

    You may be able to find some Catholic or Anglican churches doing the mass in Latin, if that's of interest.

    Of course, you can always just read the sacred and doctrinal texts, and find your own little chapel or waterfall somewhere.. Unz readers can probably recommend some for you.

    Replies: @International Jew, @iffen

    , @donut
    @SFG

    "if I go Christian later in life" . I assume that you mean to hedge your bets on your deathbed . If that is indeed the case then you should go RC . That way you get the Last Rites which provide you with "absolution for sins by penance, sacramental grace and prayers". The only drawback from your heirs point of view is that the priest will be expecting a tip . Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism after all .

    , @International Jew
    @SFG

    I think the Catholic church was cool back when everybody had to speak Latin, but that's in the past.

    , @Gunnar von Cowtown
    @SFG

    Other commenters have touched on this, but there's a substantial amount of variation within denominations. Since they all worship the same God and the same Jesus, the best advice I can give you is to find a church you like.

    , @Bannon
    @SFG

    Southern Baptist -- its source of theology/doctrine is clear: the Bible, and the Bible only, with every member standing on equal footing to find its meaning (no Church Authority). Its power structure is loose an non-hierarchical -- every neighborhood church is autonomous, and recruits its pastor like a football coach. And it is a large organization that is loving, but not infected with the slightest hint of SJW-style political correctness. Everyone just goes about their business with the traditions they prefer (or think are right, whatever), with a very peaceful consensus on all the issues of the day as it relates to LGBT and gender.

    , @Anonymous
    @SFG

    Have you considered traditional / modern Orthodox Judaism? From previous posts, I've gathered you're a maternal half-Jew and therefore a halachic Jew. The social justice and feminist lunacy that pervades Reform and Conservative Jewish congregations is much more muted among the Orthodox. If you're worried about being drawn into something crazy like Lubavitch or other hasidism/haredism, there are Sephardi Orthodox congregations in some cities. The Sephardi Orthodox tradition didn't give rise to movements as extreme as the Ashkenazi Orthodox tradition.

  4. Sailer is so concerned with what happens to the world that forgets that are happening massive protests in Brazil against ” socialist ” des-government. This could serve as an inspiration to ”white cause”…

  5. @SFG
    I'd probably bet on 1. 2. is just too hard a sell nowadays. And 3., well, 3. is just too nice a possibility to happen in real life.

    One of the things that struck me is that there aren't that many groups with money on the left, for obvious reasons. If you're one of the few groups that can bring the bling to the party, you can have a lot of influence. This was exactly the argument a fellow made to me back at college when I asked why Jews don't go Republican given their income (I was trying to do the Jewish-identity thing back then, which went as far as eating at the kosher cafeteria).

    OK, semi-serious question: if I go Christian later in life, anyone recommend a denomination?

    Replies: @Hubbub, @Ed, @Anonymous, @Pseudonymic Handle, @SPMoore8, @Nico, @Anonymous, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @OLD JEW, @Anonymous, @Alec Leamas, @Maj. Kong, @Reg Cæsar, @Aaron Gross, @StAugustine, @donut, @International Jew, @Gunnar von Cowtown, @Bannon, @Anonymous

    Which ever Christian denomination you choose, remember you can always change on a whim. Go with the one that gives you the mostest for the leastest involvement.

    • Replies: @Lot
    @Hubbub

    I'm half Jew and was raised Lutheran. It keeps most of the nice points of Catholicism while dropping the stupid papal infallibility and clerical celibacy.

    Evangelicals are the ones who most want to convert Jews and would be extra excited and welcoming to have you.

  6. It is rather hard to avoid being anti-Zionist as the term Zionism is in itself ambiguous. Is it also wrong to be antimilleniallist or to deny that Mormonism is the only true Church? Is it wrong to oppose the back-to-Africa element of Rastafarianism?

    Probably just better to stay away from university campuses to avoid the risk of being arrested by the campus religious police for some innocent remark like “Holy Moses” in case you offend secular Jews.

  7. @SFG
    I'd probably bet on 1. 2. is just too hard a sell nowadays. And 3., well, 3. is just too nice a possibility to happen in real life.

    One of the things that struck me is that there aren't that many groups with money on the left, for obvious reasons. If you're one of the few groups that can bring the bling to the party, you can have a lot of influence. This was exactly the argument a fellow made to me back at college when I asked why Jews don't go Republican given their income (I was trying to do the Jewish-identity thing back then, which went as far as eating at the kosher cafeteria).

    OK, semi-serious question: if I go Christian later in life, anyone recommend a denomination?

    Replies: @Hubbub, @Ed, @Anonymous, @Pseudonymic Handle, @SPMoore8, @Nico, @Anonymous, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @OLD JEW, @Anonymous, @Alec Leamas, @Maj. Kong, @Reg Cæsar, @Aaron Gross, @StAugustine, @donut, @International Jew, @Gunnar von Cowtown, @Bannon, @Anonymous

    “OK, semi-serious question: if I go Christian later in life, anyone recommend a denomination?”

    I’ve not really thought about this from a Jewish perspective, and it really would depend on the reasons for conversions.

    Two Protestant denominations that come to mind are Episcopalians and Baptists. While generally considered to be polar opposites, they are actually the most compatible for anyone whose approach to Christianity is idiosyncratic. Episcopalians hold to the Nicene Creed and the rulings of the first seven Church councils, but not much beyond that, so you are not required to believe in a huge amount of fixtures and trimmings that the church has picked up throughout its history. Anglicanism would be congenial for someone coming from a Reform Jewish background. Baptism is highly decentralized, so there is an advantage that there is always a compatible church and pastor somewhere around. Baptism might be a better fit for someone from a Conservative Jewish background. For someone moving from Orthodox Judaism, I have no idea.

    Catholicism is sort of the McDonald’s/ Starbucks/ big Hollywood studio version of Christianity, there are some things they have to do to be able to rope in as many believers as they do, which you may or may not be OK with. I think you may find the other Protestant denominations either too watered down or too bizarre.

    Another group of churches to consider are the Middle Eastern churches that rejected the Council of Chalcedon, they have a different view of the nature of Christ than is standard among Christians, though the difference is very subtle.

    • Replies: @Romanian
    @Ed

    The cafeteria buffet approach to religion, as Hitchens called it, when he also discussed the profusion of targeted Bible translation.

    http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2011/05/hitchens-201105


    Not to over-prize consensus, it does possess certain advantages over randomness and chaos. Since the appearance of the so-called “Good News Bible,” there have been no fewer than 48 English translations published in the United States. And the rate shows no sign of slackening. Indeed, the trend today is toward what the trade calls “niche Bibles.” These include the “Couples Bible,” “One Year New Testament for Busy Moms,” “Extreme Teen Study Bible,” “Policeman’s Bible,” and—somehow unavoidably—the “Celebrate Recovery Bible.” (Give them credit for one thing: the biblical sales force knows how to “be fruitful and multiply.”) In this cut-price spiritual cafeteria, interest groups and even individuals can have their own customized version of God’s word. But there will no longer be a culture of the kind which instantly recognized what Lincoln meant when he spoke of “a house divided.” The gradual eclipse of a single structure has led, not to a new clarity, but to a new Babel.
     
    You forgot Orthodox Churches! ;) Best of all, their organization makes them cater mostly to specific peoples, through autocephalous patriarchates, for those who dislike universalism.
  8. Please,
    Only “intolerance” of Christians and white, heterosexual males, is allowed.

  9. Identity politics Democrats might be tempted to ratchet up the SWJ screeching if they noticed that the largest group in the nation, Protestants, are not represented on the Supreme Court. No evagelicals either.

  10. @SFG
    I'd probably bet on 1. 2. is just too hard a sell nowadays. And 3., well, 3. is just too nice a possibility to happen in real life.

    One of the things that struck me is that there aren't that many groups with money on the left, for obvious reasons. If you're one of the few groups that can bring the bling to the party, you can have a lot of influence. This was exactly the argument a fellow made to me back at college when I asked why Jews don't go Republican given their income (I was trying to do the Jewish-identity thing back then, which went as far as eating at the kosher cafeteria).

    OK, semi-serious question: if I go Christian later in life, anyone recommend a denomination?

    Replies: @Hubbub, @Ed, @Anonymous, @Pseudonymic Handle, @SPMoore8, @Nico, @Anonymous, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @OLD JEW, @Anonymous, @Alec Leamas, @Maj. Kong, @Reg Cæsar, @Aaron Gross, @StAugustine, @donut, @International Jew, @Gunnar von Cowtown, @Bannon, @Anonymous

    Have you considered Catholicism? Hare Krishna?

  11. The American BDS movement is just practice. First they make Jews into whites, or Extra Privileged whites. Hence the ‘Apartheid’ talk. That’s how many POCs see Jews anyway.

    Then when whites are a minority, you make whites into Jews, metaphorically speaking. They will start talking about Apartheid in America. Much of the White Privilege rhetoric sounds like that stuff already.

    BDS Europe has a lot of POC activists, too.

  12. @SFG
    I'd probably bet on 1. 2. is just too hard a sell nowadays. And 3., well, 3. is just too nice a possibility to happen in real life.

    One of the things that struck me is that there aren't that many groups with money on the left, for obvious reasons. If you're one of the few groups that can bring the bling to the party, you can have a lot of influence. This was exactly the argument a fellow made to me back at college when I asked why Jews don't go Republican given their income (I was trying to do the Jewish-identity thing back then, which went as far as eating at the kosher cafeteria).

    OK, semi-serious question: if I go Christian later in life, anyone recommend a denomination?

    Replies: @Hubbub, @Ed, @Anonymous, @Pseudonymic Handle, @SPMoore8, @Nico, @Anonymous, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @OLD JEW, @Anonymous, @Alec Leamas, @Maj. Kong, @Reg Cæsar, @Aaron Gross, @StAugustine, @donut, @International Jew, @Gunnar von Cowtown, @Bannon, @Anonymous

    Anglicans have nice service and they are quite liberal.
    Catholic and orthodox churches have lots of traditions and rituals if you like this kind of stuff. They also have different available paths that can fit your desired level of participation, from monks to purely cultural christians.

  13. OK, semi-serious question: if I go Christian later in life, anyone recommend a denomination?

    SFG, you’d be very welcome to join me and double the population of Real Calvinists!

    Seriously, if you’re looking to learn more about Christianity in a demonination that really focuses on God-centered worship that’s based on sound, systematic theology, look at the Presbyterian Church in America, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, or the Christian Reformed Church. In the Reformed Church in America, the denomination in which I was raised, the individual churches vary from very godly congregations to those desperately wanting to impress the lefties.

    The biggest ‘Calvinist’ denomination is the Presbyterian Church USA, but they’re pretty far gone in their eager conformity to a cultural Marxist worldview, although again there are individual congregations within this denomination that are still faithful.

    Remember that a denomination is not exactly like a brand. There is great variation among individual congregations in most denominations.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    Calvin himself was a lawyer, and many of the early Reformed (such as those on the Mayflower) were self-consciously trying to recreate a New Jerusalem. Very Torah-centered. That tradition lives on in various ways through the various Reformed branches.

    Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist

  14. The issue is that while it is theoretically possible to be anti-Zionist without being antisemiticc, in practice all anti-Zionist activity and rhetoric descends into antisemitism.

    Judith Butler, the Berkeley prof quoted, is the worst of the loony left – a Jewish butch lesbian who marches with Hamas.

    • Replies: @Randal
    @biz


    in practice all anti-Zionist activity and rhetoric descends into antisemitism
     
    No it doesn't. Though there is certainly a tendency for it to happen, for the simple reason that anti-Zionists will encounter hostility and attempted censorship from jewish people, many of who as a matter of simple fact feel loyalty towards Israel, and this tends to generate hostility in the victim.

    (This latter point, by the way, is illegal hate speech in Britain, I have been told - suggesting that jewish people might have dual loyalties is in the CPS guidelines as indicative of antisemitic hate speech, even if you state it as a tendency and a generalisation and not a universal. Another example of the kind of thing that generates hostility towards jewish people - making stating the obvious truth illegal.)

    I have see this happen and experienced it myself.

    But jewish people and their sympathisers also tend to be over-sensitive on the topic of Israel and antisemitism, and much of the anti-Zionism that is called out as anti-Semitism is in fact just opposition to Israel or its policies.

    Replies: @biz, @marwan

    , @SFG
    @biz

    There's an obvious tendency, but the government of Iran, for example, tolerates a local Jewish population while opposing the state of Israel. Of course, the countries are also mortal enemies.

    You can even believe Israel has a right to exist (which is what Zionist originally meant), just that they've gotten away with a little too much recently.

    Replies: @Maj. Kong, @dfordoom

    , @Romanian
    @biz

    Can you be a pro-Zionist anti-semite?

    Replies: @EriK, @Gunnar von Cowtown, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    , @Mr. Anon
    @biz

    "The issue is that while it is theoretically possible to be anti-Zionist without being antisemiticc, in practice all anti-Zionist activity and rhetoric descends into antisemitism. "

    Do you maintain then that anti-semitism should be illegal? A person has no right to be one?

    "Judith Butler, the Berkeley prof quoted, is the worst of the loony left – a Jewish butch lesbian who marches with Hamas."

    She isn't alone as a jewish anti-zionist. There seem to be a lot of them. Isn't your anti-anti-zionistm then really just a a form of anti-semitism?

    Replies: @biz

  15. Totally OT and addressed to my boy Troofie, who took issue with the fact that I said Bill Belichick got rid of Wes Welker not because, as Troofie contended, he was washed up (that year he was second in the NFL in receptions) but because BB refuses to put up with the distractions caused by malcontents and substance abusers.

    Well, Troofie, I guess The Hoodie has added synthetic marijuana to his list of no-nos and has sent another All Pro packing:

    http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2016/03/16/pats/

  16. @Hubbub
    @SFG

    Which ever Christian denomination you choose, remember you can always change on a whim. Go with the one that gives you the mostest for the leastest involvement.

    Replies: @Lot

    I’m half Jew and was raised Lutheran. It keeps most of the nice points of Catholicism while dropping the stupid papal infallibility and clerical celibacy.

    Evangelicals are the ones who most want to convert Jews and would be extra excited and welcoming to have you.

  17. @SFG
    I'd probably bet on 1. 2. is just too hard a sell nowadays. And 3., well, 3. is just too nice a possibility to happen in real life.

    One of the things that struck me is that there aren't that many groups with money on the left, for obvious reasons. If you're one of the few groups that can bring the bling to the party, you can have a lot of influence. This was exactly the argument a fellow made to me back at college when I asked why Jews don't go Republican given their income (I was trying to do the Jewish-identity thing back then, which went as far as eating at the kosher cafeteria).

    OK, semi-serious question: if I go Christian later in life, anyone recommend a denomination?

    Replies: @Hubbub, @Ed, @Anonymous, @Pseudonymic Handle, @SPMoore8, @Nico, @Anonymous, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @OLD JEW, @Anonymous, @Alec Leamas, @Maj. Kong, @Reg Cæsar, @Aaron Gross, @StAugustine, @donut, @International Jew, @Gunnar von Cowtown, @Bannon, @Anonymous

    I think if you are a conservative your best best is the Catholic church. Some of the traditions and beliefs are kind of creaky, but they will never let them go.

    I don’t think you’d like the Episcopal Church because it has become too watered down; I can’t believe any conservative could tolerate it. My experience with other protestant denominations is that they are either too watered down, too plain, or too much into “Jesus” (ironically, since Jesus is of course important in any Christian denomination, because of the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but tends to be heavily emphasized in some Christian denoms more than elsewhere — even in the Catholic Church, which is heavy on the Trinity but also has a lot of room for Mary and Saint (pick your favorite) worship.)

    Another possibility would be the various manifestations of the Orthodox Church, either Greek, Russian, or Uniate (last has a relationship with Rome.) That tradition emphasizes meditative techniques, and there’s a lot of room, as in Catholicism, for different phases of worship. I suppose the biggest difference is the priests can marry, so I assume sex scandals are less.

    These are needless to say my opinions and observations. I’ve known several Jews since childhood who converted; usually either Episcopal or Catholic.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @SPMoore8


    I don’t think you’d like the Episcopal Church because it has become too watered down; I can’t believe any conservative could tolerate it.
     
    You can find Episcopalian/PCUSA congregations where the doctrine is still theologically rigorous and sound, even (or especially) some of the more "liberal," unless of course the theology comes into conflict with Progressive™ orthodoxy, where the latter still must prevail. Often in those congregations though nowadays you'll find them tiptoeing around those issues so they can "get away with" their increasing yearning for traditional theology and forms.

    Sort of like hipsters.

    Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist

    , @Desiderius
    @SPMoore8


    too much into “Jesus”
     
    Conversely some liberal/mainline/corporatish congregations will downplay Jesus/the Cross/ Sin as a sort of culture marker of relatively high class. I remember being struck by Bel Air Presbyterian's omission of the Prayer of Confession and Assurance of pardon in their order of worship.

    Replies: @Santoculto, @SPMoore8

    , @Alec Leamas
    @SPMoore8

    The Orthodox Churches, at least in the U.S., seem to be more cultural affinity groups in practice. (I dated a Greek girl a while ago). Most will have a better understanding of "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" and Spanikopita recipes than the doctrines of the Church. They seem to have their catechesis hampered by not being numerous enough to have established parochial schools of their own (like we Catholics) and wanting to remain segregated to a degree to ensure the perpetuation of the ethnicity and attendant religion and as an antidote to assimilation.

    By doctrine there is supposed to be an autocephalous American Orthodox Church, rather than separate Greek, Russian, etc. but there is immense pressure to keep their governance separate and distinct.

    A convert of another ethnicity - particularly one who is not marrying a Greek (or Russian, etc.) - may not be welcomed or embraced by the congregants, if even by Father Demetrious Papadapoulous.

  18. @The Last Real Calvinist

    OK, semi-serious question: if I go Christian later in life, anyone recommend a denomination?

     

    SFG, you'd be very welcome to join me and double the population of Real Calvinists!

    Seriously, if you're looking to learn more about Christianity in a demonination that really focuses on God-centered worship that's based on sound, systematic theology, look at the Presbyterian Church in America, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, or the Christian Reformed Church. In the Reformed Church in America, the denomination in which I was raised, the individual churches vary from very godly congregations to those desperately wanting to impress the lefties.

    The biggest 'Calvinist' denomination is the Presbyterian Church USA, but they're pretty far gone in their eager conformity to a cultural Marxist worldview, although again there are individual congregations within this denomination that are still faithful.

    Remember that a denomination is not exactly like a brand. There is great variation among individual congregations in most denominations.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    Calvin himself was a lawyer, and many of the early Reformed (such as those on the Mayflower) were self-consciously trying to recreate a New Jerusalem. Very Torah-centered. That tradition lives on in various ways through the various Reformed branches.

    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist
    @Desiderius


    Calvin himself was a lawyer, and many of the early Reformed (such as those on the Mayflower) were self-consciously trying to recreate a New Jerusalem. Very Torah-centered. That tradition lives on in various ways through the various Reformed branches.

     

    Good observations. The serious Calvinist churches are by far the most 'bookish' of the various Christian denominations, both in terms of their reverence for scripture, and their incorporation of quite difficult, abstract theology in their preaching and catechizing.

    I listen to podcasts from the Reformed Forum, which is run by pastors and seminary professors who are mostly from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Recent entries include an hour-long discussion of just three pages' worth of a seminal Reformed theological text, extremely sophisticated explorations of Derrida's metaphysics and ethics in the context of a Reformed, Biblically-formed worldview, a practical discussion of the importance of, and ways of conducting, regular family worship, and so on. It's like being transported back to a university in an age I thought was lost.

    I hasten to add, though, that listening to Reformed Forum podcasts, no matter how worthy they may be, is not the place to get started learning about Christianity. You need to attend a real church comprising real Christians. There is no intellectualized substitute for this.

    Replies: @Desiderius

  19. @SPMoore8
    @SFG

    I think if you are a conservative your best best is the Catholic church. Some of the traditions and beliefs are kind of creaky, but they will never let them go.

    I don't think you'd like the Episcopal Church because it has become too watered down; I can't believe any conservative could tolerate it. My experience with other protestant denominations is that they are either too watered down, too plain, or too much into "Jesus" (ironically, since Jesus is of course important in any Christian denomination, because of the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but tends to be heavily emphasized in some Christian denoms more than elsewhere -- even in the Catholic Church, which is heavy on the Trinity but also has a lot of room for Mary and Saint (pick your favorite) worship.)

    Another possibility would be the various manifestations of the Orthodox Church, either Greek, Russian, or Uniate (last has a relationship with Rome.) That tradition emphasizes meditative techniques, and there's a lot of room, as in Catholicism, for different phases of worship. I suppose the biggest difference is the priests can marry, so I assume sex scandals are less.

    These are needless to say my opinions and observations. I've known several Jews since childhood who converted; usually either Episcopal or Catholic.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Desiderius, @Alec Leamas

    I don’t think you’d like the Episcopal Church because it has become too watered down; I can’t believe any conservative could tolerate it.

    You can find Episcopalian/PCUSA congregations where the doctrine is still theologically rigorous and sound, even (or especially) some of the more “liberal,” unless of course the theology comes into conflict with Progressive™ orthodoxy, where the latter still must prevail. Often in those congregations though nowadays you’ll find them tiptoeing around those issues so they can “get away with” their increasing yearning for traditional theology and forms.

    Sort of like hipsters.

    • Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist
    @Desiderius

    When I was a kid, you could spot a more old-fashioned Episcopal Diocese if it still used the 1928 prayer book. Mine was a compromise church- the new one was used only during Lent. Eventually the old book was used just for those who went to the 7 a.m. service.
    I remember acolyting at the early service, the priest comin in just in time through the back, taking off his hunting waders after hunting for ducks at dawn, then throwing on the vestments and starting the incense.

    Replies: @Desiderius

  20. @SPMoore8
    @SFG

    I think if you are a conservative your best best is the Catholic church. Some of the traditions and beliefs are kind of creaky, but they will never let them go.

    I don't think you'd like the Episcopal Church because it has become too watered down; I can't believe any conservative could tolerate it. My experience with other protestant denominations is that they are either too watered down, too plain, or too much into "Jesus" (ironically, since Jesus is of course important in any Christian denomination, because of the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but tends to be heavily emphasized in some Christian denoms more than elsewhere -- even in the Catholic Church, which is heavy on the Trinity but also has a lot of room for Mary and Saint (pick your favorite) worship.)

    Another possibility would be the various manifestations of the Orthodox Church, either Greek, Russian, or Uniate (last has a relationship with Rome.) That tradition emphasizes meditative techniques, and there's a lot of room, as in Catholicism, for different phases of worship. I suppose the biggest difference is the priests can marry, so I assume sex scandals are less.

    These are needless to say my opinions and observations. I've known several Jews since childhood who converted; usually either Episcopal or Catholic.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Desiderius, @Alec Leamas

    too much into “Jesus”

    Conversely some liberal/mainline/corporatish congregations will downplay Jesus/the Cross/ Sin as a sort of culture marker of relatively high class. I remember being struck by Bel Air Presbyterian’s omission of the Prayer of Confession and Assurance of pardon in their order of worship.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    @Desiderius

    ///////

    https://media.giphy.com/media/3o6UB5RrlQuMfZp82Y/giphy.gif

    , @SPMoore8
    @Desiderius

    Yes, I've seen that. Of course Jesus is important to the idea of God-Man and it is important in terms of describing an exemplary life and as a path for salvation for individual lives. A lot of religion is using superficially hard to believe images to get at more complicated and abstract notions, I don't think I'm being very original in pointing that out. However it is certainly true for those who are not particularly intelligent or sensitive organized religion is a good way to acquire things like conscience, empathy, and compassion, even if they don't know what those words mean.

    What I was getting at was back when the Christmas Tsunami occurred, they had a bunch of religious figures talking about it (I think, unfortunately for Hinduism, they had Deepak Chopra representing them). Anyway, the Christian representatives were all very empathetic and inclusive, which is what a Christian reverend/priest/pastor is supposed to be, but there was one Baptist minister who kept harping on the fact that because these people hadn't found Jesus they were all going to Hell. I mean it was awful.

    The other two Christians -- Episcopal and Catholic -- tended to emphasize inclusion and forgiveness, which is what they are supposed to do. At the same time, the Catholic Church seems to be the only Christian denom which combines those other two qualities with a take it or leave doctrine about sin, salvation, and the meaning of human sexuality. In my experience, the insistence that humans are sinners is the #1 complaint against the Church, often expressed to me with much bitterness. This suggests to me that such people do not understand what sin represents, since they really don't see themselves as without faults, or wrong inclinations, or remorse over past actions.

    Replies: @Desiderius

  21. OK, semi-serious question: if I go Christian later in life, anyone recommend a denomination?

    Anglicanism is probably the best brand for a newbie Christian.

    It is a broad church and one can reach the level of at least bishop without having to actually believe in God as a kind of celestial air traffic controller who specializes in what people on the ground do with their genitals.

    However it is also a divided church with the African branches being very homophobic and the survival of the church in the west dependent on providing gay marriage services to supplement the income obtained from funerals. Unfortunately gay marriages do not produce a lot of baptisms (known as christening) within the first year.

    Anglican doctrine is based on three legs of the tripod of tradition, reason, and scripture, so it is a bit like the constitution of the US, with reason acting as the Supreme Court, scripture as the Constitution, and Archbishops in the Presidential role. In England the Queen is actually the head of the Church of England, having been divinely appointed, but if you don’t believe in that, then you are forgiven.

    In Anglicanism you are expected minimally to show up in church two times annually on major festivals known as Easter Day and Christmas Day. ( In the US these may be more familiar to you as Spring Break and Happy Holiday.) On those days you will drink a sip of wine which is actually the blood of Christ, although it tastes like a cheap, sweet red wine. and eat a morsel of wafer, which is the body of Christ while kneeling. By participating in this cannibalistic feast you buy insurance against an eternity in Hell as long as your premiums are up to date.

    However if you do not believe in this you are forgiven and God is unlikely to punish you for your foolishness. After all you are a lost sheep and he is a good shepherd.

    I think that is the basics… Oh, yes, you have to go to classes and be “confirmed” to be allowed to participate in Communion. You can’t just be a walk in. However the good news is that circumcision is not required. This also applies to women.

    Basically it is all good clean fun and Anglicanism is a good religion for schools too, as it is not very doctrinal, but you can learn a few prayers and songs. Anglicanism is also strong musically and you may enjoy joining the choir which means you get to wear robes and sit up front near the altar out of sight of the regular congregants in the pews.

    • Replies: @bomag
    @Jonathan Mason

    That was good.

  22. @biz
    The issue is that while it is theoretically possible to be anti-Zionist without being antisemiticc, in practice all anti-Zionist activity and rhetoric descends into antisemitism.

    Judith Butler, the Berkeley prof quoted, is the worst of the loony left - a Jewish butch lesbian who marches with Hamas.

    Replies: @Randal, @SFG, @Romanian, @Mr. Anon

    in practice all anti-Zionist activity and rhetoric descends into antisemitism

    No it doesn’t. Though there is certainly a tendency for it to happen, for the simple reason that anti-Zionists will encounter hostility and attempted censorship from jewish people, many of who as a matter of simple fact feel loyalty towards Israel, and this tends to generate hostility in the victim.

    (This latter point, by the way, is illegal hate speech in Britain, I have been told – suggesting that jewish people might have dual loyalties is in the CPS guidelines as indicative of antisemitic hate speech, even if you state it as a tendency and a generalisation and not a universal. Another example of the kind of thing that generates hostility towards jewish people – making stating the obvious truth illegal.)

    I have see this happen and experienced it myself.

    But jewish people and their sympathisers also tend to be over-sensitive on the topic of Israel and antisemitism, and much of the anti-Zionism that is called out as anti-Semitism is in fact just opposition to Israel or its policies.

    • Replies: @biz
    @Randal


    But jewish people and their sympathisers also tend to be over-sensitive on the topic of Israel and antisemitism, and much of the anti-Zionism that is called out as anti-Semitism is in fact just opposition to Israel or its policies.
     
    This is simply incorrect. Anti-Zionists rarely take care to oppose Israeli policies since by definition they oppose the existence of the state in the first place. Anti-Zionist rhetoric involves not discussions of policy but ridiculous applications of terms like "colonialism" "apartheid" and "ethnic cleansing" that are parodies of themselves when applied to the Middle East's only democracy and advanced economy.

    Replies: @Randal

    , @marwan
    @Randal


    But jewish people and their sympathisers also tend to be over-sensitive on the topic of Israel and antisemitism, and much of the anti-Zionism that is called out as anti-Semitism is in fact just opposition to Israel or its policies.
     
    I believe it has much more to do with the double standard that the Jewish State is held to . For example it gets the most media attention by far and the most hostility by far than any of the myriad of conflicts going on in the world at the moment , despite the fact that it is no where near the worst by any metric . Also the major proponents of anti-zionism / anti-Semitism are leftists and their muslim allies , and they are eager to ignore the dozens of conflicts currently causing hundreds of thousands of casualties a year perpetuated by muslims , although there is only 1 conflict in the world involving jews .

    For example , lets use the metric of casualties per conflict . The Islamic republic of Sudan's occupation of South Sudan and Darfur has caused over a million casualties , The Indonesian occupation of Papua has seen half a million Papuans killed , The Chinese occupation of Tibet has seen over a million Tibetans killed , The Russian occupation of Chechnya and Dagestan has seen 150,000 Chechens killed , The Israel Palestinian conflict has seen 22,000 Palestinians killed . Yet what gets the most media attention and hostility ?

    Furthermore there is nonstop daily muslim terror attacks worldwide . Even just today Nigeria had a female suicide bombing in a mosque that killed 22 , and pakistan had a bus bombed by islamists that killed 16 .

    Replies: @ben tillman, @Harold, @Randal, @NOTA, @Marcus

  23. @SFG
    I'd probably bet on 1. 2. is just too hard a sell nowadays. And 3., well, 3. is just too nice a possibility to happen in real life.

    One of the things that struck me is that there aren't that many groups with money on the left, for obvious reasons. If you're one of the few groups that can bring the bling to the party, you can have a lot of influence. This was exactly the argument a fellow made to me back at college when I asked why Jews don't go Republican given their income (I was trying to do the Jewish-identity thing back then, which went as far as eating at the kosher cafeteria).

    OK, semi-serious question: if I go Christian later in life, anyone recommend a denomination?

    Replies: @Hubbub, @Ed, @Anonymous, @Pseudonymic Handle, @SPMoore8, @Nico, @Anonymous, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @OLD JEW, @Anonymous, @Alec Leamas, @Maj. Kong, @Reg Cæsar, @Aaron Gross, @StAugustine, @donut, @International Jew, @Gunnar von Cowtown, @Bannon, @Anonymous

    If you’re going to be a Christian, you may as well be Catholic. -Muriel Spark

  24. @SFG
    I'd probably bet on 1. 2. is just too hard a sell nowadays. And 3., well, 3. is just too nice a possibility to happen in real life.

    One of the things that struck me is that there aren't that many groups with money on the left, for obvious reasons. If you're one of the few groups that can bring the bling to the party, you can have a lot of influence. This was exactly the argument a fellow made to me back at college when I asked why Jews don't go Republican given their income (I was trying to do the Jewish-identity thing back then, which went as far as eating at the kosher cafeteria).

    OK, semi-serious question: if I go Christian later in life, anyone recommend a denomination?

    Replies: @Hubbub, @Ed, @Anonymous, @Pseudonymic Handle, @SPMoore8, @Nico, @Anonymous, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @OLD JEW, @Anonymous, @Alec Leamas, @Maj. Kong, @Reg Cæsar, @Aaron Gross, @StAugustine, @donut, @International Jew, @Gunnar von Cowtown, @Bannon, @Anonymous

    Become a Swedenborgian.

    The coolest, brightest founder a religion will ever have, plus a human spiritual diversity framework where people of different kind have a different set of places to belong to in the beyond.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanuel_Swedenborg

  25. On Zionists vs Palestinians’ Rights groups I refer to this old comment:

    It’s like the Superbowl where you hope both teams’ planes crash into one another.

  26. @SFG
    I'd probably bet on 1. 2. is just too hard a sell nowadays. And 3., well, 3. is just too nice a possibility to happen in real life.

    One of the things that struck me is that there aren't that many groups with money on the left, for obvious reasons. If you're one of the few groups that can bring the bling to the party, you can have a lot of influence. This was exactly the argument a fellow made to me back at college when I asked why Jews don't go Republican given their income (I was trying to do the Jewish-identity thing back then, which went as far as eating at the kosher cafeteria).

    OK, semi-serious question: if I go Christian later in life, anyone recommend a denomination?

    Replies: @Hubbub, @Ed, @Anonymous, @Pseudonymic Handle, @SPMoore8, @Nico, @Anonymous, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @OLD JEW, @Anonymous, @Alec Leamas, @Maj. Kong, @Reg Cæsar, @Aaron Gross, @StAugustine, @donut, @International Jew, @Gunnar von Cowtown, @Bannon, @Anonymous

    I’d recommend fives, tens or twenties for the collection plate. Any higher might seem ostentatious.

  27. @Desiderius
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    Calvin himself was a lawyer, and many of the early Reformed (such as those on the Mayflower) were self-consciously trying to recreate a New Jerusalem. Very Torah-centered. That tradition lives on in various ways through the various Reformed branches.

    Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist

    Calvin himself was a lawyer, and many of the early Reformed (such as those on the Mayflower) were self-consciously trying to recreate a New Jerusalem. Very Torah-centered. That tradition lives on in various ways through the various Reformed branches.

    Good observations. The serious Calvinist churches are by far the most ‘bookish’ of the various Christian denominations, both in terms of their reverence for scripture, and their incorporation of quite difficult, abstract theology in their preaching and catechizing.

    I listen to podcasts from the Reformed Forum, which is run by pastors and seminary professors who are mostly from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Recent entries include an hour-long discussion of just three pages’ worth of a seminal Reformed theological text, extremely sophisticated explorations of Derrida’s metaphysics and ethics in the context of a Reformed, Biblically-formed worldview, a practical discussion of the importance of, and ways of conducting, regular family worship, and so on. It’s like being transported back to a university in an age I thought was lost.

    I hasten to add, though, that listening to Reformed Forum podcasts, no matter how worthy they may be, is not the place to get started learning about Christianity. You need to attend a real church comprising real Christians. There is no intellectualized substitute for this.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @The Last Real Calvinist


    quite difficult, abstract theology
     
    Abstraction is easy; it's the concrete that's the hard part.
  28. @Desiderius
    @SPMoore8


    too much into “Jesus”
     
    Conversely some liberal/mainline/corporatish congregations will downplay Jesus/the Cross/ Sin as a sort of culture marker of relatively high class. I remember being struck by Bel Air Presbyterian's omission of the Prayer of Confession and Assurance of pardon in their order of worship.

    Replies: @Santoculto, @SPMoore8

    ///////

  29. Buying off PoC is not going to work. Look at Hollywood, currently in the midst of a purge of the White/Jewish talent in favor of … what Shonda Rhimes cousins? Tyler Perry’s nephew’s barber? Will Smith’s kids. [Shudder.]

    Victimization won’t work either … PoC don’t care and already call the Holocaust “White on White crime” and suggest that because the victims were … wait for it … White, they don’t matter at all.

    Most popular culture has bought into the idea that White people don’t matter — that’s baked into the cake so to speak.

    Jews best bet is a universal White identity embracing them, the Irish to the West, to the Russians to the East; the Finns to the North and the Greeks to the South. With an emphasis on Sinn Fein willingness to fight and engage in both separatism and identitarianism.

    Everything in this life is a struggle. If you don’t fight for it, you don’t get anything.

  30. @SFG
    I'd probably bet on 1. 2. is just too hard a sell nowadays. And 3., well, 3. is just too nice a possibility to happen in real life.

    One of the things that struck me is that there aren't that many groups with money on the left, for obvious reasons. If you're one of the few groups that can bring the bling to the party, you can have a lot of influence. This was exactly the argument a fellow made to me back at college when I asked why Jews don't go Republican given their income (I was trying to do the Jewish-identity thing back then, which went as far as eating at the kosher cafeteria).

    OK, semi-serious question: if I go Christian later in life, anyone recommend a denomination?

    Replies: @Hubbub, @Ed, @Anonymous, @Pseudonymic Handle, @SPMoore8, @Nico, @Anonymous, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @OLD JEW, @Anonymous, @Alec Leamas, @Maj. Kong, @Reg Cæsar, @Aaron Gross, @StAugustine, @donut, @International Jew, @Gunnar von Cowtown, @Bannon, @Anonymous

    Unitarian!!!

    Why?

    Howard M., the Unitarian, most friendly to me inmy first month in small town USA in 1973

  31. @Desiderius
    @SPMoore8


    I don’t think you’d like the Episcopal Church because it has become too watered down; I can’t believe any conservative could tolerate it.
     
    You can find Episcopalian/PCUSA congregations where the doctrine is still theologically rigorous and sound, even (or especially) some of the more "liberal," unless of course the theology comes into conflict with Progressive™ orthodoxy, where the latter still must prevail. Often in those congregations though nowadays you'll find them tiptoeing around those issues so they can "get away with" their increasing yearning for traditional theology and forms.

    Sort of like hipsters.

    Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist

    When I was a kid, you could spot a more old-fashioned Episcopal Diocese if it still used the 1928 prayer book. Mine was a compromise church- the new one was used only during Lent. Eventually the old book was used just for those who went to the 7 a.m. service.
    I remember acolyting at the early service, the priest comin in just in time through the back, taking off his hunting waders after hunting for ducks at dawn, then throwing on the vestments and starting the incense.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @yaqub the mad scientist

    Prayerbook controversies are always good fun:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenny_Geddes

    Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist

  32. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @SFG
    I'd probably bet on 1. 2. is just too hard a sell nowadays. And 3., well, 3. is just too nice a possibility to happen in real life.

    One of the things that struck me is that there aren't that many groups with money on the left, for obvious reasons. If you're one of the few groups that can bring the bling to the party, you can have a lot of influence. This was exactly the argument a fellow made to me back at college when I asked why Jews don't go Republican given their income (I was trying to do the Jewish-identity thing back then, which went as far as eating at the kosher cafeteria).

    OK, semi-serious question: if I go Christian later in life, anyone recommend a denomination?

    Replies: @Hubbub, @Ed, @Anonymous, @Pseudonymic Handle, @SPMoore8, @Nico, @Anonymous, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @OLD JEW, @Anonymous, @Alec Leamas, @Maj. Kong, @Reg Cæsar, @Aaron Gross, @StAugustine, @donut, @International Jew, @Gunnar von Cowtown, @Bannon, @Anonymous

    I’m biased because it’s my own denomination, but I would recommend the Eastern Orthodox Church. But it really depends on your personality, and what you seek in religious faith. The Orthodox Church is transcendant and mystical and ritualistic, and that touches some people to their core, and alienates others. If you are interested in learning more, the American actor Jonathan Jackson converted to Greek Orthodoxy along with his family (although he was already a Christian, not Jewish) and has spoken very eloquently about his conversion and what drew him to that faith.

    Here is one interview, as a podcast and also transcribed:

    http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/emmaus/general_hospital

    As for the subject at hand, I think that anti-Zionism veers into anti-Semitism when Israel is a specific target of boycotts and outcries, with no mention or consideration of similar violations in other countries. I can confirm what Steve says that boycotts and criticism of Israel are far more widespread and uncontroversial in various parts of Europe than in the USA. However it often doesn’t reflect well at all on the artists, intellectuals, and student groups who call for it, not when they have a fairly transparent focus only on Israel, and not other countries with similar issues.

    There are many hate speech codes in Europe, so anti-Semitism is definitely sometimes masked as anti-Zionism here, because the latter is legally and culturally sanctioned. With that said, criticisms of Israel can definitely be separate from anti-Semitism, and people must be sick of accusations of anti-Semitism whenever such criticisms are attempted.

  33. It’s apparent that the Right, not the Left, is forming the circling firing squad. On the Left, there are these relatively unimportant conflicts on campuses, but they don’t threaten the integrity of the Democratic Party. The Republican Party, in contrast, is falling apart at the seems.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @anon

    "Falling apart at the seems" is an evocative phrase.

    Replies: @vinteuil, @Anonym, @iffen

    , @Discard
    @anon

    The GOP has no integrity. It's all about a ruling caste betraying their followers. The followers are beginning to refuse to follow.

    OTOH, the Democrats are all about helping Blacks and foreigners rob the people who built the country. The different varieties of foreigner all despise one another, and despise Blacks in particular, but as long as there's still meat on Whitey's bones, they'll refrain from shooting one another. Except the Blacks.

  34. @anon
    It's apparent that the Right, not the Left, is forming the circling firing squad. On the Left, there are these relatively unimportant conflicts on campuses, but they don't threaten the integrity of the Democratic Party. The Republican Party, in contrast, is falling apart at the seems.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Discard

    “Falling apart at the seems” is an evocative phrase.

    • Replies: @vinteuil
    @Steve Sailer

    "Falling apart at the seems" = enough material for an entire conference at some CompLit Department at some A-list school.

    , @Anonym
    @Steve Sailer

    The GOP seems plenty seamy, so logically it can't be falling apart at the seams.

    , @iffen
    @Steve Sailer

    It seems to me that the exposure of the seams by Trump is considered unseemly by many.

  35. @SPMoore8
    @SFG

    I think if you are a conservative your best best is the Catholic church. Some of the traditions and beliefs are kind of creaky, but they will never let them go.

    I don't think you'd like the Episcopal Church because it has become too watered down; I can't believe any conservative could tolerate it. My experience with other protestant denominations is that they are either too watered down, too plain, or too much into "Jesus" (ironically, since Jesus is of course important in any Christian denomination, because of the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but tends to be heavily emphasized in some Christian denoms more than elsewhere -- even in the Catholic Church, which is heavy on the Trinity but also has a lot of room for Mary and Saint (pick your favorite) worship.)

    Another possibility would be the various manifestations of the Orthodox Church, either Greek, Russian, or Uniate (last has a relationship with Rome.) That tradition emphasizes meditative techniques, and there's a lot of room, as in Catholicism, for different phases of worship. I suppose the biggest difference is the priests can marry, so I assume sex scandals are less.

    These are needless to say my opinions and observations. I've known several Jews since childhood who converted; usually either Episcopal or Catholic.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Desiderius, @Alec Leamas

    The Orthodox Churches, at least in the U.S., seem to be more cultural affinity groups in practice. (I dated a Greek girl a while ago). Most will have a better understanding of “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” and Spanikopita recipes than the doctrines of the Church. They seem to have their catechesis hampered by not being numerous enough to have established parochial schools of their own (like we Catholics) and wanting to remain segregated to a degree to ensure the perpetuation of the ethnicity and attendant religion and as an antidote to assimilation.

    By doctrine there is supposed to be an autocephalous American Orthodox Church, rather than separate Greek, Russian, etc. but there is immense pressure to keep their governance separate and distinct.

    A convert of another ethnicity – particularly one who is not marrying a Greek (or Russian, etc.) – may not be welcomed or embraced by the congregants, if even by Father Demetrious Papadapoulous.

  36. @Randal
    @biz


    in practice all anti-Zionist activity and rhetoric descends into antisemitism
     
    No it doesn't. Though there is certainly a tendency for it to happen, for the simple reason that anti-Zionists will encounter hostility and attempted censorship from jewish people, many of who as a matter of simple fact feel loyalty towards Israel, and this tends to generate hostility in the victim.

    (This latter point, by the way, is illegal hate speech in Britain, I have been told - suggesting that jewish people might have dual loyalties is in the CPS guidelines as indicative of antisemitic hate speech, even if you state it as a tendency and a generalisation and not a universal. Another example of the kind of thing that generates hostility towards jewish people - making stating the obvious truth illegal.)

    I have see this happen and experienced it myself.

    But jewish people and their sympathisers also tend to be over-sensitive on the topic of Israel and antisemitism, and much of the anti-Zionism that is called out as anti-Semitism is in fact just opposition to Israel or its policies.

    Replies: @biz, @marwan

    But jewish people and their sympathisers also tend to be over-sensitive on the topic of Israel and antisemitism, and much of the anti-Zionism that is called out as anti-Semitism is in fact just opposition to Israel or its policies.

    This is simply incorrect. Anti-Zionists rarely take care to oppose Israeli policies since by definition they oppose the existence of the state in the first place. Anti-Zionist rhetoric involves not discussions of policy but ridiculous applications of terms like “colonialism” “apartheid” and “ethnic cleansing” that are parodies of themselves when applied to the Middle East’s only democracy and advanced economy.

    • Replies: @Randal
    @biz

    No, it's not incorrect. As I said I have direct personal experience of this and I am not open to being told that what I have seen happen, did not happen.

    Some anti-zionists oppose the very existence of Israel, some its existence outside the 1967 borders, some oppose only its behaviour (settler colonial expansionism etc). Some are in fact anti-Semitic in a wider sense.


    ridiculous applications of terms like “colonialism” “apartheid” and “ethnic cleansing” that are parodies of themselves when applied to the Middle East’s only democracy and advanced economy.
     
    This assertion reflects your own bias, and not objective reality. These issues (whether and to what degree those terms apply to Israel and its behaviour) are matters of opinion, upon which reasonable folk can honestly disagree.

    Replies: @biz

  37. @biz
    The issue is that while it is theoretically possible to be anti-Zionist without being antisemiticc, in practice all anti-Zionist activity and rhetoric descends into antisemitism.

    Judith Butler, the Berkeley prof quoted, is the worst of the loony left - a Jewish butch lesbian who marches with Hamas.

    Replies: @Randal, @SFG, @Romanian, @Mr. Anon

    There’s an obvious tendency, but the government of Iran, for example, tolerates a local Jewish population while opposing the state of Israel. Of course, the countries are also mortal enemies.

    You can even believe Israel has a right to exist (which is what Zionist originally meant), just that they’ve gotten away with a little too much recently.

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    @SFG

    IMO, Iran does that only to propagandize itself is being morally superior to Saudi Arabia. The IRI isn't as anti-Western as many think. Many of their Cabinet took postgraduate education in Europe.

    The Muslims have historical evidence that they will eventually prevail over Israel (I doubt they will), given that the Crusader kingdoms lasted from 50 to slightly less than 200 years. While the average Arab Muslim seems to believe Israel will be gone in 20 years, and has believed this since 1948, their existence can only be called 'stable' after more than a century of peace.

    Replies: @Cwhatfuture

    , @dfordoom
    @SFG


    You can even believe Israel has a right to exist (which is what Zionist originally meant), just that they’ve gotten away with a little too much recently.
     
    You can believe, as I do, that Israel has the right to exist - within its own borders. Its pre-1967 borders.
  38. @SFG
    I'd probably bet on 1. 2. is just too hard a sell nowadays. And 3., well, 3. is just too nice a possibility to happen in real life.

    One of the things that struck me is that there aren't that many groups with money on the left, for obvious reasons. If you're one of the few groups that can bring the bling to the party, you can have a lot of influence. This was exactly the argument a fellow made to me back at college when I asked why Jews don't go Republican given their income (I was trying to do the Jewish-identity thing back then, which went as far as eating at the kosher cafeteria).

    OK, semi-serious question: if I go Christian later in life, anyone recommend a denomination?

    Replies: @Hubbub, @Ed, @Anonymous, @Pseudonymic Handle, @SPMoore8, @Nico, @Anonymous, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @OLD JEW, @Anonymous, @Alec Leamas, @Maj. Kong, @Reg Cæsar, @Aaron Gross, @StAugustine, @donut, @International Jew, @Gunnar von Cowtown, @Bannon, @Anonymous

    As a Catholic I would feel compelled to make the case for the Roman Catholic Church, however I don’t think it’s the sort of thing that can be forcefully argued.

    I would recommend if you were so inclined and if you are of a more intellectual bent than purely spiritual, to refer to the works of great converts – it is said that G.K. Chesterton, Ronald Knox, and John Henry Newman “wrote their way into” Catholicism from Anglicanism.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Alec Leamas


    I don’t think it’s the sort of thing that can be forcefully argued.
     
    The best argument is a life well-lived. But counter-arguments can be effectively countered, especially of the caliber floating around nowadays.
  39. “OK, semi-serious question: if I go Christian later in life, anyone recommend a denomination?”

    OK, semi-serious reply: if you’re gay, Episcopalian. If you’re straight, Orthodox. If you can’t quite make up your mind, Catholic.

  40. @Steve Sailer
    @anon

    "Falling apart at the seems" is an evocative phrase.

    Replies: @vinteuil, @Anonym, @iffen

    “Falling apart at the seems” = enough material for an entire conference at some CompLit Department at some A-list school.

  41. @Randal
    @biz


    in practice all anti-Zionist activity and rhetoric descends into antisemitism
     
    No it doesn't. Though there is certainly a tendency for it to happen, for the simple reason that anti-Zionists will encounter hostility and attempted censorship from jewish people, many of who as a matter of simple fact feel loyalty towards Israel, and this tends to generate hostility in the victim.

    (This latter point, by the way, is illegal hate speech in Britain, I have been told - suggesting that jewish people might have dual loyalties is in the CPS guidelines as indicative of antisemitic hate speech, even if you state it as a tendency and a generalisation and not a universal. Another example of the kind of thing that generates hostility towards jewish people - making stating the obvious truth illegal.)

    I have see this happen and experienced it myself.

    But jewish people and their sympathisers also tend to be over-sensitive on the topic of Israel and antisemitism, and much of the anti-Zionism that is called out as anti-Semitism is in fact just opposition to Israel or its policies.

    Replies: @biz, @marwan

    But jewish people and their sympathisers also tend to be over-sensitive on the topic of Israel and antisemitism, and much of the anti-Zionism that is called out as anti-Semitism is in fact just opposition to Israel or its policies.

    I believe it has much more to do with the double standard that the Jewish State is held to . For example it gets the most media attention by far and the most hostility by far than any of the myriad of conflicts going on in the world at the moment , despite the fact that it is no where near the worst by any metric . Also the major proponents of anti-zionism / anti-Semitism are leftists and their muslim allies , and they are eager to ignore the dozens of conflicts currently causing hundreds of thousands of casualties a year perpetuated by muslims , although there is only 1 conflict in the world involving jews .

    For example , lets use the metric of casualties per conflict . The Islamic republic of Sudan’s occupation of South Sudan and Darfur has caused over a million casualties , The Indonesian occupation of Papua has seen half a million Papuans killed , The Chinese occupation of Tibet has seen over a million Tibetans killed , The Russian occupation of Chechnya and Dagestan has seen 150,000 Chechens killed , The Israel Palestinian conflict has seen 22,000 Palestinians killed . Yet what gets the most media attention and hostility ?

    Furthermore there is nonstop daily muslim terror attacks worldwide . Even just today Nigeria had a female suicide bombing in a mosque that killed 22 , and pakistan had a bus bombed by islamists that killed 16 .

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @marwan


    I believe it has much more to do with the double standard that the Jewish State is held to . For example it gets the most media attention by far and the most hostility by far than any of the myriad of conflicts going on in the world at the moment....
     
    No. The conflict between whites and non-whites in the US gets the most media attention, and whites in the US (and elsewhere) get many times more hostility than Israel. The hostility toward Israel is just a by-product of the fact that those instigating the hostility against whites can't explain that they're doing it to serve an ethnopolitical agenda, so the anti-white coalition does what it believes it is supposed to do and applies the anti-white mandate against Israel as well as the gentile nations.

    Replies: @Randal

    , @Harold
    @marwan

    It’s anti-Whitism attenuated by the threat of accusations of anti-Semitism. If they were Swedes the opprobrium would be magnified a thousandfold.

    , @Randal
    @marwan

    There's no double standard. Israel is held (by anti-Zionists, if not by governments and most of our media) to the standards of the soi-disant civilised world because that is what it aspires to being part of, and that is what it is held to be part of by our ruling elites.

    If Israel wanted to be judged by other standards then it would have to accept being lumped in with those other countries for all purposes (as imo it should, based upon its ongoing settler colonial expansion alone).

    , @NOTA
    @marwan

    Israel is a first-world country, so it gets held to first world country standards, like Spain or Belgium.

    Replies: @Cwhatfuture, @marwan

    , @Marcus
    @marwan

    The US (and to an extent Germany and other Euro countries)"
    special relationship" with Isrull means it will exist under a microscope relative to third world backwaters, deal with it.

  42. @The Last Real Calvinist
    @Desiderius


    Calvin himself was a lawyer, and many of the early Reformed (such as those on the Mayflower) were self-consciously trying to recreate a New Jerusalem. Very Torah-centered. That tradition lives on in various ways through the various Reformed branches.

     

    Good observations. The serious Calvinist churches are by far the most 'bookish' of the various Christian denominations, both in terms of their reverence for scripture, and their incorporation of quite difficult, abstract theology in their preaching and catechizing.

    I listen to podcasts from the Reformed Forum, which is run by pastors and seminary professors who are mostly from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Recent entries include an hour-long discussion of just three pages' worth of a seminal Reformed theological text, extremely sophisticated explorations of Derrida's metaphysics and ethics in the context of a Reformed, Biblically-formed worldview, a practical discussion of the importance of, and ways of conducting, regular family worship, and so on. It's like being transported back to a university in an age I thought was lost.

    I hasten to add, though, that listening to Reformed Forum podcasts, no matter how worthy they may be, is not the place to get started learning about Christianity. You need to attend a real church comprising real Christians. There is no intellectualized substitute for this.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    quite difficult, abstract theology

    Abstraction is easy; it’s the concrete that’s the hard part.

  43. @Alec Leamas
    @SFG

    As a Catholic I would feel compelled to make the case for the Roman Catholic Church, however I don't think it's the sort of thing that can be forcefully argued.

    I would recommend if you were so inclined and if you are of a more intellectual bent than purely spiritual, to refer to the works of great converts - it is said that G.K. Chesterton, Ronald Knox, and John Henry Newman "wrote their way into" Catholicism from Anglicanism.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    I don’t think it’s the sort of thing that can be forcefully argued.

    The best argument is a life well-lived. But counter-arguments can be effectively countered, especially of the caliber floating around nowadays.

  44. @yaqub the mad scientist
    @Desiderius

    When I was a kid, you could spot a more old-fashioned Episcopal Diocese if it still used the 1928 prayer book. Mine was a compromise church- the new one was used only during Lent. Eventually the old book was used just for those who went to the 7 a.m. service.
    I remember acolyting at the early service, the priest comin in just in time through the back, taking off his hunting waders after hunting for ducks at dawn, then throwing on the vestments and starting the incense.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    Prayerbook controversies are always good fun:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenny_Geddes

    • Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist
    @Desiderius

    I'd never heard of this!

  45. @marwan
    @Randal


    But jewish people and their sympathisers also tend to be over-sensitive on the topic of Israel and antisemitism, and much of the anti-Zionism that is called out as anti-Semitism is in fact just opposition to Israel or its policies.
     
    I believe it has much more to do with the double standard that the Jewish State is held to . For example it gets the most media attention by far and the most hostility by far than any of the myriad of conflicts going on in the world at the moment , despite the fact that it is no where near the worst by any metric . Also the major proponents of anti-zionism / anti-Semitism are leftists and their muslim allies , and they are eager to ignore the dozens of conflicts currently causing hundreds of thousands of casualties a year perpetuated by muslims , although there is only 1 conflict in the world involving jews .

    For example , lets use the metric of casualties per conflict . The Islamic republic of Sudan's occupation of South Sudan and Darfur has caused over a million casualties , The Indonesian occupation of Papua has seen half a million Papuans killed , The Chinese occupation of Tibet has seen over a million Tibetans killed , The Russian occupation of Chechnya and Dagestan has seen 150,000 Chechens killed , The Israel Palestinian conflict has seen 22,000 Palestinians killed . Yet what gets the most media attention and hostility ?

    Furthermore there is nonstop daily muslim terror attacks worldwide . Even just today Nigeria had a female suicide bombing in a mosque that killed 22 , and pakistan had a bus bombed by islamists that killed 16 .

    Replies: @ben tillman, @Harold, @Randal, @NOTA, @Marcus

    I believe it has much more to do with the double standard that the Jewish State is held to . For example it gets the most media attention by far and the most hostility by far than any of the myriad of conflicts going on in the world at the moment….

    No. The conflict between whites and non-whites in the US gets the most media attention, and whites in the US (and elsewhere) get many times more hostility than Israel. The hostility toward Israel is just a by-product of the fact that those instigating the hostility against whites can’t explain that they’re doing it to serve an ethnopolitical agenda, so the anti-white coalition does what it believes it is supposed to do and applies the anti-white mandate against Israel as well as the gentile nations.

    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Randal
    @ben tillman

    Reading this kind of article:

    Why BDS Cannot Lose: A Moral Threshold To Combat Racism in Israel

    it's certainly easy to understand the intense schadenfreude any white nationalist would feel at seeing the jewish state harmed by the BDS movement, given the massive jewish involvement in the anti-apartheid movements that destroyed white ruled South Africa and Rhodesia.

    Replies: @Judah Benjamin Hur, @Gabriel M, @Reg Cæsar

  46. @marwan
    @Randal


    But jewish people and their sympathisers also tend to be over-sensitive on the topic of Israel and antisemitism, and much of the anti-Zionism that is called out as anti-Semitism is in fact just opposition to Israel or its policies.
     
    I believe it has much more to do with the double standard that the Jewish State is held to . For example it gets the most media attention by far and the most hostility by far than any of the myriad of conflicts going on in the world at the moment , despite the fact that it is no where near the worst by any metric . Also the major proponents of anti-zionism / anti-Semitism are leftists and their muslim allies , and they are eager to ignore the dozens of conflicts currently causing hundreds of thousands of casualties a year perpetuated by muslims , although there is only 1 conflict in the world involving jews .

    For example , lets use the metric of casualties per conflict . The Islamic republic of Sudan's occupation of South Sudan and Darfur has caused over a million casualties , The Indonesian occupation of Papua has seen half a million Papuans killed , The Chinese occupation of Tibet has seen over a million Tibetans killed , The Russian occupation of Chechnya and Dagestan has seen 150,000 Chechens killed , The Israel Palestinian conflict has seen 22,000 Palestinians killed . Yet what gets the most media attention and hostility ?

    Furthermore there is nonstop daily muslim terror attacks worldwide . Even just today Nigeria had a female suicide bombing in a mosque that killed 22 , and pakistan had a bus bombed by islamists that killed 16 .

    Replies: @ben tillman, @Harold, @Randal, @NOTA, @Marcus

    It’s anti-Whitism attenuated by the threat of accusations of anti-Semitism. If they were Swedes the opprobrium would be magnified a thousandfold.

  47. @SFG
    I'd probably bet on 1. 2. is just too hard a sell nowadays. And 3., well, 3. is just too nice a possibility to happen in real life.

    One of the things that struck me is that there aren't that many groups with money on the left, for obvious reasons. If you're one of the few groups that can bring the bling to the party, you can have a lot of influence. This was exactly the argument a fellow made to me back at college when I asked why Jews don't go Republican given their income (I was trying to do the Jewish-identity thing back then, which went as far as eating at the kosher cafeteria).

    OK, semi-serious question: if I go Christian later in life, anyone recommend a denomination?

    Replies: @Hubbub, @Ed, @Anonymous, @Pseudonymic Handle, @SPMoore8, @Nico, @Anonymous, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @OLD JEW, @Anonymous, @Alec Leamas, @Maj. Kong, @Reg Cæsar, @Aaron Gross, @StAugustine, @donut, @International Jew, @Gunnar von Cowtown, @Bannon, @Anonymous

    From a Machiavellian perspective, I would suggest the LDS.

  48. @SFG
    @biz

    There's an obvious tendency, but the government of Iran, for example, tolerates a local Jewish population while opposing the state of Israel. Of course, the countries are also mortal enemies.

    You can even believe Israel has a right to exist (which is what Zionist originally meant), just that they've gotten away with a little too much recently.

    Replies: @Maj. Kong, @dfordoom

    IMO, Iran does that only to propagandize itself is being morally superior to Saudi Arabia. The IRI isn’t as anti-Western as many think. Many of their Cabinet took postgraduate education in Europe.

    The Muslims have historical evidence that they will eventually prevail over Israel (I doubt they will), given that the Crusader kingdoms lasted from 50 to slightly less than 200 years. While the average Arab Muslim seems to believe Israel will be gone in 20 years, and has believed this since 1948, their existence can only be called ‘stable’ after more than a century of peace.

    • Replies: @Cwhatfuture
    @Maj. Kong

    Yes, the Muslims have been predicting Israel's demise since 1949. "Artificial state, economically unviable, will be finished off militarily, demographically doomed and recently someone called it a pirate state" those are the usual reasons. And yet it is Syria and and Iraq and Libya which proved artificial and which have dissolved, it is Israel which has the most advanced economy in the Middle East, it is Israel which certainly has the strongest military in the region, it is Israel which grows more Jewish and it is the Muslim Somali pirates who are all dead. But hope springs eternal in the minds of the Israel obsessed. I am betting on Israel (literally - stock market and real estate - excellent investments).

  49. @Steve Sailer
    @anon

    "Falling apart at the seems" is an evocative phrase.

    Replies: @vinteuil, @Anonym, @iffen

    The GOP seems plenty seamy, so logically it can’t be falling apart at the seams.

  50. @SFG
    I'd probably bet on 1. 2. is just too hard a sell nowadays. And 3., well, 3. is just too nice a possibility to happen in real life.

    One of the things that struck me is that there aren't that many groups with money on the left, for obvious reasons. If you're one of the few groups that can bring the bling to the party, you can have a lot of influence. This was exactly the argument a fellow made to me back at college when I asked why Jews don't go Republican given their income (I was trying to do the Jewish-identity thing back then, which went as far as eating at the kosher cafeteria).

    OK, semi-serious question: if I go Christian later in life, anyone recommend a denomination?

    Replies: @Hubbub, @Ed, @Anonymous, @Pseudonymic Handle, @SPMoore8, @Nico, @Anonymous, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @OLD JEW, @Anonymous, @Alec Leamas, @Maj. Kong, @Reg Cæsar, @Aaron Gross, @StAugustine, @donut, @International Jew, @Gunnar von Cowtown, @Bannon, @Anonymous

    OK, semi-serious question: if I go Christian later in life, anyone recommend a denomination?

    Too bad you’re not in my city. Our parish’s Men’s Club enjoys excellent attendance thanks to two sneaky tricks: a) everyone eligible is automatically a member; and b) free beer at meetings and events. (Someone has an in with a distributor.)

    In fact, the current president joined the Club years before he joined the Church. He was still a practicing Lutheran. I can’t decide who tricked whom there.

  51. Little Off-Topic here, but when I attended UC Santa Cruz back in the early 90’s, it along with UC Santa Barbara was known as whitest UC Campuses with white students comprising over 80 percent of student body. Now white students are under 40 percent in both places.

  52. [I posted this replying to Razib’s comments, but I’d be interested in hearing responses from Steve’s readers as well.]

    1. It seems subjective to accept barring anti-Muslim and anti-Gay agitation, but not apply the same to anti-Israeli agitation. Religion is a choice, so it would be easier for religious adherents to cease belonging to their religion or to change their name than it would be for a nation to allow itself to cease to exist.

    2. It’s not very professional for universities to be aggressive political wargrounds in which the far-left majority threaten students and teachers who hold inconvenient ideas. It wouldn’t be tolerated at professional businesses, and it misleads students as to what’s acceptable in the professional world.

    3. It’s worth remembering that the founding of Israel was a WW2 land swap, with 700,000 Islamic Middle Easterners losing their land, versus 850,000 Jewish Middle Easterners losing their land (in the 1948 Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries). Liberals are as against the data on Israel as they are on human biodiversity.

    ——

    If liberals are fine with millions of Syrians moving elsewhere, they should also be fine with Israelis buying-out Palestinians’ stake in their small remaining plots of land. Israel could fund it with some years of their saved future military budget. That would let them make Palestinians who accept the buy-out richer than the average American. That’s a much better deal than Syrians are currently getting.

    But rational solutions like that are less likely if we maintain the liberal status quo of “good vs. evil; death and destruction for hundreds of years before multi-sum compromises.”

  53. OT: Republican Ron Unz joins race for Boxer’s US Senate seat
    Mar 16, 2016

    LOS ANGELES (AP) —Another Republican has joined the race to succeed California Sen. Barbara Boxer.

    Ron Unz, a previous candidate for governor and U.S. Senate, said Wednesday he filed paperwork in Santa Clara County to enter a race in which the leading candidate is state Attorney General Kamala Harris.

    He acknowledges he’s unlikely to win.

    Unz says his primary reason for running is to bring attention to an effort to repeal Proposition 227 – a ballot proposal he pushed in 1998 that dismantled California’s bilingual education system.

    The theoretical-physicist-turned-software-developer calls the effort to repeal it “absurd.”

  54. @anon
    It's apparent that the Right, not the Left, is forming the circling firing squad. On the Left, there are these relatively unimportant conflicts on campuses, but they don't threaten the integrity of the Democratic Party. The Republican Party, in contrast, is falling apart at the seems.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Discard

    The GOP has no integrity. It’s all about a ruling caste betraying their followers. The followers are beginning to refuse to follow.

    OTOH, the Democrats are all about helping Blacks and foreigners rob the people who built the country. The different varieties of foreigner all despise one another, and despise Blacks in particular, but as long as there’s still meat on Whitey’s bones, they’ll refrain from shooting one another. Except the Blacks.

    • Agree: Clyde
  55. @SFG
    I'd probably bet on 1. 2. is just too hard a sell nowadays. And 3., well, 3. is just too nice a possibility to happen in real life.

    One of the things that struck me is that there aren't that many groups with money on the left, for obvious reasons. If you're one of the few groups that can bring the bling to the party, you can have a lot of influence. This was exactly the argument a fellow made to me back at college when I asked why Jews don't go Republican given their income (I was trying to do the Jewish-identity thing back then, which went as far as eating at the kosher cafeteria).

    OK, semi-serious question: if I go Christian later in life, anyone recommend a denomination?

    Replies: @Hubbub, @Ed, @Anonymous, @Pseudonymic Handle, @SPMoore8, @Nico, @Anonymous, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @OLD JEW, @Anonymous, @Alec Leamas, @Maj. Kong, @Reg Cæsar, @Aaron Gross, @StAugustine, @donut, @International Jew, @Gunnar von Cowtown, @Bannon, @Anonymous

    OK, semi-serious question: if I go Christian later in life, anyone recommend a denomination?

    Given your (our) genetically programmed group evolutionary strategy to destroy the Noble White Race, I’d go Anabaptist. Pacifist, inclusive…that way you can join Christendom and undermine it at the same time.

  56. @marwan
    @Randal


    But jewish people and their sympathisers also tend to be over-sensitive on the topic of Israel and antisemitism, and much of the anti-Zionism that is called out as anti-Semitism is in fact just opposition to Israel or its policies.
     
    I believe it has much more to do with the double standard that the Jewish State is held to . For example it gets the most media attention by far and the most hostility by far than any of the myriad of conflicts going on in the world at the moment , despite the fact that it is no where near the worst by any metric . Also the major proponents of anti-zionism / anti-Semitism are leftists and their muslim allies , and they are eager to ignore the dozens of conflicts currently causing hundreds of thousands of casualties a year perpetuated by muslims , although there is only 1 conflict in the world involving jews .

    For example , lets use the metric of casualties per conflict . The Islamic republic of Sudan's occupation of South Sudan and Darfur has caused over a million casualties , The Indonesian occupation of Papua has seen half a million Papuans killed , The Chinese occupation of Tibet has seen over a million Tibetans killed , The Russian occupation of Chechnya and Dagestan has seen 150,000 Chechens killed , The Israel Palestinian conflict has seen 22,000 Palestinians killed . Yet what gets the most media attention and hostility ?

    Furthermore there is nonstop daily muslim terror attacks worldwide . Even just today Nigeria had a female suicide bombing in a mosque that killed 22 , and pakistan had a bus bombed by islamists that killed 16 .

    Replies: @ben tillman, @Harold, @Randal, @NOTA, @Marcus

    There’s no double standard. Israel is held (by anti-Zionists, if not by governments and most of our media) to the standards of the soi-disant civilised world because that is what it aspires to being part of, and that is what it is held to be part of by our ruling elites.

    If Israel wanted to be judged by other standards then it would have to accept being lumped in with those other countries for all purposes (as imo it should, based upon its ongoing settler colonial expansion alone).

  57. @biz
    @Randal


    But jewish people and their sympathisers also tend to be over-sensitive on the topic of Israel and antisemitism, and much of the anti-Zionism that is called out as anti-Semitism is in fact just opposition to Israel or its policies.
     
    This is simply incorrect. Anti-Zionists rarely take care to oppose Israeli policies since by definition they oppose the existence of the state in the first place. Anti-Zionist rhetoric involves not discussions of policy but ridiculous applications of terms like "colonialism" "apartheid" and "ethnic cleansing" that are parodies of themselves when applied to the Middle East's only democracy and advanced economy.

    Replies: @Randal

    No, it’s not incorrect. As I said I have direct personal experience of this and I am not open to being told that what I have seen happen, did not happen.

    Some anti-zionists oppose the very existence of Israel, some its existence outside the 1967 borders, some oppose only its behaviour (settler colonial expansionism etc). Some are in fact anti-Semitic in a wider sense.

    ridiculous applications of terms like “colonialism” “apartheid” and “ethnic cleansing” that are parodies of themselves when applied to the Middle East’s only democracy and advanced economy.

    This assertion reflects your own bias, and not objective reality. These issues (whether and to what degree those terms apply to Israel and its behaviour) are matters of opinion, upon which reasonable folk can honestly disagree.

    • Replies: @biz
    @Randal


    These issues (whether and to what degree those terms apply to Israel and its behaviour) are matters of opinion, upon which reasonable folk can honestly disagree.
     
    That is ridiculous. Let's take "apartheid". How could it be seen as reasonable that the term "apartheid" be applied to a country where Jews, Arabs, Druze, Circassians, and other minorities attend the same universities, eat in the same restaurants, bathe at the same beaches, ride the same transportation, shop at the same stores, and get the same welfare benefits? There is no reasonable argument that the term applies. Anyone who claims that it does is simply ignorant of life in Israel, ignorant of what the term means, or knowingly lying.

    Or we can look at "ethnic cleansing". The Arabs who in the 70s started calling themselves Palestinians have one of the highest rates of population increase in the world. Again, there is no reasonable view that the term ethnic cleansing could apply to that.

    And on and on.

    As for your contention about anti-Zionists, you must be confused on what the term means. It means opposition to the existence of Israel. It does not mean opposition to this or that policy. This is simply a definitional issue.

  58. @ben tillman
    @marwan


    I believe it has much more to do with the double standard that the Jewish State is held to . For example it gets the most media attention by far and the most hostility by far than any of the myriad of conflicts going on in the world at the moment....
     
    No. The conflict between whites and non-whites in the US gets the most media attention, and whites in the US (and elsewhere) get many times more hostility than Israel. The hostility toward Israel is just a by-product of the fact that those instigating the hostility against whites can't explain that they're doing it to serve an ethnopolitical agenda, so the anti-white coalition does what it believes it is supposed to do and applies the anti-white mandate against Israel as well as the gentile nations.

    Replies: @Randal

    Reading this kind of article:

    Why BDS Cannot Lose: A Moral Threshold To Combat Racism in Israel

    it’s certainly easy to understand the intense schadenfreude any white nationalist would feel at seeing the jewish state harmed by the BDS movement, given the massive jewish involvement in the anti-apartheid movements that destroyed white ruled South Africa and Rhodesia.

    • Replies: @Judah Benjamin Hur
    @Randal


    given the massive jewish involvement in the anti-apartheid movements that destroyed white ruled South Africa and Rhodesia.
     
    And yet Jews get blamed for propping up apartheid South Africa. That's often a selling point of the BDS movement.
    , @Gabriel M
    @Randal

    The United States government played a far bigger role than Jews in bringing down White South Africa and Rhodesia, as did the governments of Europe, supported by the overwhelming majority of their populations, so, according to your nihilist logic, we should laugh as they are inundated with third world colonizers.

    Or perhaps non-leftists among both Jews and Whites should combine where possible to save their respective civilizations from destruction. Obviously, that will take some mutual forebearance on both sides and a willingness to let by gones be by gones, as well as a recognition that both sides have legitimately different historical memories (e.g. about the Crusades) and neither should demand the other accept their particular vantage point on all issues as a precondition for mutual solidarity. On the other hand, both sides are well within their rights to demand good behaviour from the other. Whites can legitimately demand that Zionists do something to mitigate the activities of their leftist brethren in the United States and Jews can demand that Palecons stop mindlessly parroting every Palestinian talking point as if it were gospel.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Randal


    ...massive jewish involvement in the anti-apartheid movements that destroyed white ruled South Africa and Rhodesia.
     
    At the same time, Israel was quite friendly with South Africa, both being pariahs.

    What destroyed white-ruled South Africa and Rhodesia was having blacks and whites living together in the same state, which can't work anywhere, ever. It was a grave mistake of theirs never to have carved out their own territory, and told the natives to stay on their side of the ditch.

    But had they done that, who'd've made their beds?
  59. @Jonathan Mason

    OK, semi-serious question: if I go Christian later in life, anyone recommend a denomination?
     
    Anglicanism is probably the best brand for a newbie Christian.

    It is a broad church and one can reach the level of at least bishop without having to actually believe in God as a kind of celestial air traffic controller who specializes in what people on the ground do with their genitals.

    However it is also a divided church with the African branches being very homophobic and the survival of the church in the west dependent on providing gay marriage services to supplement the income obtained from funerals. Unfortunately gay marriages do not produce a lot of baptisms (known as christening) within the first year.

    Anglican doctrine is based on three legs of the tripod of tradition, reason, and scripture, so it is a bit like the constitution of the US, with reason acting as the Supreme Court, scripture as the Constitution, and Archbishops in the Presidential role. In England the Queen is actually the head of the Church of England, having been divinely appointed, but if you don't believe in that, then you are forgiven.

    In Anglicanism you are expected minimally to show up in church two times annually on major festivals known as Easter Day and Christmas Day. ( In the US these may be more familiar to you as Spring Break and Happy Holiday.) On those days you will drink a sip of wine which is actually the blood of Christ, although it tastes like a cheap, sweet red wine. and eat a morsel of wafer, which is the body of Christ while kneeling. By participating in this cannibalistic feast you buy insurance against an eternity in Hell as long as your premiums are up to date.

    However if you do not believe in this you are forgiven and God is unlikely to punish you for your foolishness. After all you are a lost sheep and he is a good shepherd.

    I think that is the basics... Oh, yes, you have to go to classes and be "confirmed" to be allowed to participate in Communion. You can't just be a walk in. However the good news is that circumcision is not required. This also applies to women.

    Basically it is all good clean fun and Anglicanism is a good religion for schools too, as it is not very doctrinal, but you can learn a few prayers and songs. Anglicanism is also strong musically and you may enjoy joining the choir which means you get to wear robes and sit up front near the altar out of sight of the regular congregants in the pews.

    Replies: @bomag

    That was good.

  60. @Ed
    @SFG

    "OK, semi-serious question: if I go Christian later in life, anyone recommend a denomination?"

    I've not really thought about this from a Jewish perspective, and it really would depend on the reasons for conversions.

    Two Protestant denominations that come to mind are Episcopalians and Baptists. While generally considered to be polar opposites, they are actually the most compatible for anyone whose approach to Christianity is idiosyncratic. Episcopalians hold to the Nicene Creed and the rulings of the first seven Church councils, but not much beyond that, so you are not required to believe in a huge amount of fixtures and trimmings that the church has picked up throughout its history. Anglicanism would be congenial for someone coming from a Reform Jewish background. Baptism is highly decentralized, so there is an advantage that there is always a compatible church and pastor somewhere around. Baptism might be a better fit for someone from a Conservative Jewish background. For someone moving from Orthodox Judaism, I have no idea.

    Catholicism is sort of the McDonald's/ Starbucks/ big Hollywood studio version of Christianity, there are some things they have to do to be able to rope in as many believers as they do, which you may or may not be OK with. I think you may find the other Protestant denominations either too watered down or too bizarre.

    Another group of churches to consider are the Middle Eastern churches that rejected the Council of Chalcedon, they have a different view of the nature of Christ than is standard among Christians, though the difference is very subtle.

    Replies: @Romanian

    The cafeteria buffet approach to religion, as Hitchens called it, when he also discussed the profusion of targeted Bible translation.

    http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2011/05/hitchens-201105

    Not to over-prize consensus, it does possess certain advantages over randomness and chaos. Since the appearance of the so-called “Good News Bible,” there have been no fewer than 48 English translations published in the United States. And the rate shows no sign of slackening. Indeed, the trend today is toward what the trade calls “niche Bibles.” These include the “Couples Bible,” “One Year New Testament for Busy Moms,” “Extreme Teen Study Bible,” “Policeman’s Bible,” and—somehow unavoidably—the “Celebrate Recovery Bible.” (Give them credit for one thing: the biblical sales force knows how to “be fruitful and multiply.”) In this cut-price spiritual cafeteria, interest groups and even individuals can have their own customized version of God’s word. But there will no longer be a culture of the kind which instantly recognized what Lincoln meant when he spoke of “a house divided.” The gradual eclipse of a single structure has led, not to a new clarity, but to a new Babel.

    You forgot Orthodox Churches! 😉 Best of all, their organization makes them cater mostly to specific peoples, through autocephalous patriarchates, for those who dislike universalism.

  61. @biz
    The issue is that while it is theoretically possible to be anti-Zionist without being antisemiticc, in practice all anti-Zionist activity and rhetoric descends into antisemitism.

    Judith Butler, the Berkeley prof quoted, is the worst of the loony left - a Jewish butch lesbian who marches with Hamas.

    Replies: @Randal, @SFG, @Romanian, @Mr. Anon

    Can you be a pro-Zionist anti-semite?

    • Replies: @EriK
    @Romanian

    It is decidedly so.

    , @Gunnar von Cowtown
    @Romanian

    I'm being kind of tongue-and-cheek here, but that describes one of my favorite iSteve-isms.


    "Different groups of people have very different ideas about the basis of social order. That's what different countries are for."
     
    Repatriation is an act of love.
    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Romanian

    Present.

  62. @Romanian
    @biz

    Can you be a pro-Zionist anti-semite?

    Replies: @EriK, @Gunnar von Cowtown, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    It is decidedly so.

    • Agree: BenKenobi
  63. @marwan
    @Randal


    But jewish people and their sympathisers also tend to be over-sensitive on the topic of Israel and antisemitism, and much of the anti-Zionism that is called out as anti-Semitism is in fact just opposition to Israel or its policies.
     
    I believe it has much more to do with the double standard that the Jewish State is held to . For example it gets the most media attention by far and the most hostility by far than any of the myriad of conflicts going on in the world at the moment , despite the fact that it is no where near the worst by any metric . Also the major proponents of anti-zionism / anti-Semitism are leftists and their muslim allies , and they are eager to ignore the dozens of conflicts currently causing hundreds of thousands of casualties a year perpetuated by muslims , although there is only 1 conflict in the world involving jews .

    For example , lets use the metric of casualties per conflict . The Islamic republic of Sudan's occupation of South Sudan and Darfur has caused over a million casualties , The Indonesian occupation of Papua has seen half a million Papuans killed , The Chinese occupation of Tibet has seen over a million Tibetans killed , The Russian occupation of Chechnya and Dagestan has seen 150,000 Chechens killed , The Israel Palestinian conflict has seen 22,000 Palestinians killed . Yet what gets the most media attention and hostility ?

    Furthermore there is nonstop daily muslim terror attacks worldwide . Even just today Nigeria had a female suicide bombing in a mosque that killed 22 , and pakistan had a bus bombed by islamists that killed 16 .

    Replies: @ben tillman, @Harold, @Randal, @NOTA, @Marcus

    Israel is a first-world country, so it gets held to first world country standards, like Spain or Belgium.

    • Replies: @Cwhatfuture
    @NOTA

    There is no comparing an Israel in existential war - as it has been since its founding - with Western nations at peace. Western nations at such wars were ruthless. Firebomb Dressen, nuke Hiroshima. And that solved their problems. Were Israel to use those standards it would have long ago expelled the Palestinians and turned Tehran to glass. It is odd, the Muslim states and most of the third world have contempt for, and some are at war with, the Western liberal order. If not for that order, which Israel accepts, Israel might have long ago solved its problems - in the way New Zealand solved its Maori problem or Belgium dealt with the Congo.

    In any event the West these days is suicidal. Israel deciding not to be suicidal I suppose is breaking with the standards of the West. As for Jews in the West, most of them are suicidal as well and so a gulf is opening between liberal Jews and Israel and anyone who reads the Jewish press sees this every day.

    Replies: @Marcus

    , @marwan
    @NOTA

    Russia and China are first world countries , yet China has killed over a million Tibetans during their occupation with almost zero media attention , so the comparison stands . Russia continues to occupy Chechnya with close to zero media attention so the comparison stands .

    The others are 3rd world countries , but even 3rd world countries should get media coverage when they are killing millions of people . Even giving Sudan and Indonesia the same scrutiny as Israel gets would still be disproportionate to Israel , given the small amount of palestinains killed ( 22,000) as compared to the amount killed by Sudan ( 1 million plus ) and indonesia ( 500,000) .

    Replies: @Marcus

  64. @SFG
    I'd probably bet on 1. 2. is just too hard a sell nowadays. And 3., well, 3. is just too nice a possibility to happen in real life.

    One of the things that struck me is that there aren't that many groups with money on the left, for obvious reasons. If you're one of the few groups that can bring the bling to the party, you can have a lot of influence. This was exactly the argument a fellow made to me back at college when I asked why Jews don't go Republican given their income (I was trying to do the Jewish-identity thing back then, which went as far as eating at the kosher cafeteria).

    OK, semi-serious question: if I go Christian later in life, anyone recommend a denomination?

    Replies: @Hubbub, @Ed, @Anonymous, @Pseudonymic Handle, @SPMoore8, @Nico, @Anonymous, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @OLD JEW, @Anonymous, @Alec Leamas, @Maj. Kong, @Reg Cæsar, @Aaron Gross, @StAugustine, @donut, @International Jew, @Gunnar von Cowtown, @Bannon, @Anonymous

    My preference is to go to them all. I have a soft spot for Moravian churches, but if you are coming from the outside, the differences even between Protestants and Catholics will seem small, compared to the stylistic differences between high, middle and low church, vs Baptist and non-denominational “happy-slappy” or speaking-in-tongues.

    Its worth picking up a book on, or reading up on wikipedia what the different sects of Protestantism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism
    I always forget the Pentacostals… And it’s worth keeping in mind that there are many splinters beyond what is discussed. In just American Lutheranism, you have the Missouri Synod, Wisconsin Synod, Evangelical…and some smaller ones as well. It’s quite the rabbit hole.

    Check out as well, what the church hierarchy structure is: obviously the Catholics have the Pope in Rome and all the structure of the Church, but if you go for other flavors, there are Episcopalians (“Protestant, yet Catholic” aka American Anglican, they have a “Presiding Bishop” instead of the Pope), all the way to the Congregationalists, of which every church is autonomous.

    It depends on what you’re looking for, and what the options are where you live.

    Look for a style or formula that you find suitable. Decide if music is important and of what quality/style. I was a paid chorister once in a tiny (20-30 members?) English Angelican (in the US); they paid me about $75 a week – so for the 8-member choir plus the organist, they were probably shelling out $50K annually just for the musicians. I don’t know how they did it, but it was clearly important.

    If you decide to become a member somewhere, make sure to get your hands on the church finances – there can be all kinds of stuff going on. American protestant churches I think are mostly self funded – that means the members of the church pay for everything, including the building expansions and renovations. Of course, there’s no obligation to give, other than the doctrinal one, but plenty of back-room dealing goes on anyway. It’s money, after all.

    If its important, look at what charities and missionary work are being supported. Check to see what member groups the church supports – youth groups, youth camps, local charity work, bible study groups, focused help groups for young people, men, women, old people.

    Different pastors/priests have different speaking styles. Some follow the church calendar, giving the same spiel each calendar week every year-very formulaic, but not unhelpful. Some guys like to tie everything into current events. Some people like to do in-depth discussions of the Bible, taking months to cover Corinthians in every historical and inter-related detail.

    You may be able to find some Catholic or Anglican churches doing the mass in Latin, if that’s of interest.

    Of course, you can always just read the sacred and doctrinal texts, and find your own little chapel or waterfall somewhere.. Unz readers can probably recommend some for you.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    @StAugustine


    If you decide to become a member somewhere, make sure to get your hands on the church finances
     
    Antisemite! Haha, just kidding. That was a very interesting post (even for someone with no interest in converting).
    , @iffen
    @StAugustine

    Of course, you can always just read the sacred and doctrinal texts, and find your own little chapel or waterfall somewhere..

    Impressively thorough comment which includes, "start your own". (He can actually come up with his own texts and doesn't have to take what is on the shelf.)

  65. @marwan
    @Randal


    But jewish people and their sympathisers also tend to be over-sensitive on the topic of Israel and antisemitism, and much of the anti-Zionism that is called out as anti-Semitism is in fact just opposition to Israel or its policies.
     
    I believe it has much more to do with the double standard that the Jewish State is held to . For example it gets the most media attention by far and the most hostility by far than any of the myriad of conflicts going on in the world at the moment , despite the fact that it is no where near the worst by any metric . Also the major proponents of anti-zionism / anti-Semitism are leftists and their muslim allies , and they are eager to ignore the dozens of conflicts currently causing hundreds of thousands of casualties a year perpetuated by muslims , although there is only 1 conflict in the world involving jews .

    For example , lets use the metric of casualties per conflict . The Islamic republic of Sudan's occupation of South Sudan and Darfur has caused over a million casualties , The Indonesian occupation of Papua has seen half a million Papuans killed , The Chinese occupation of Tibet has seen over a million Tibetans killed , The Russian occupation of Chechnya and Dagestan has seen 150,000 Chechens killed , The Israel Palestinian conflict has seen 22,000 Palestinians killed . Yet what gets the most media attention and hostility ?

    Furthermore there is nonstop daily muslim terror attacks worldwide . Even just today Nigeria had a female suicide bombing in a mosque that killed 22 , and pakistan had a bus bombed by islamists that killed 16 .

    Replies: @ben tillman, @Harold, @Randal, @NOTA, @Marcus

    The US (and to an extent Germany and other Euro countries)”
    special relationship” with Isrull means it will exist under a microscope relative to third world backwaters, deal with it.

  66. @SFG
    I'd probably bet on 1. 2. is just too hard a sell nowadays. And 3., well, 3. is just too nice a possibility to happen in real life.

    One of the things that struck me is that there aren't that many groups with money on the left, for obvious reasons. If you're one of the few groups that can bring the bling to the party, you can have a lot of influence. This was exactly the argument a fellow made to me back at college when I asked why Jews don't go Republican given their income (I was trying to do the Jewish-identity thing back then, which went as far as eating at the kosher cafeteria).

    OK, semi-serious question: if I go Christian later in life, anyone recommend a denomination?

    Replies: @Hubbub, @Ed, @Anonymous, @Pseudonymic Handle, @SPMoore8, @Nico, @Anonymous, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @OLD JEW, @Anonymous, @Alec Leamas, @Maj. Kong, @Reg Cæsar, @Aaron Gross, @StAugustine, @donut, @International Jew, @Gunnar von Cowtown, @Bannon, @Anonymous

    “if I go Christian later in life” . I assume that you mean to hedge your bets on your deathbed . If that is indeed the case then you should go RC . That way you get the Last Rites which provide you with “absolution for sins by penance, sacramental grace and prayers”. The only drawback from your heirs point of view is that the priest will be expecting a tip . Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism after all .

  67. @NOTA
    @marwan

    Israel is a first-world country, so it gets held to first world country standards, like Spain or Belgium.

    Replies: @Cwhatfuture, @marwan

    There is no comparing an Israel in existential war – as it has been since its founding – with Western nations at peace. Western nations at such wars were ruthless. Firebomb Dressen, nuke Hiroshima. And that solved their problems. Were Israel to use those standards it would have long ago expelled the Palestinians and turned Tehran to glass. It is odd, the Muslim states and most of the third world have contempt for, and some are at war with, the Western liberal order. If not for that order, which Israel accepts, Israel might have long ago solved its problems – in the way New Zealand solved its Maori problem or Belgium dealt with the Congo.

    In any event the West these days is suicidal. Israel deciding not to be suicidal I suppose is breaking with the standards of the West. As for Jews in the West, most of them are suicidal as well and so a gulf is opening between liberal Jews and Israel and anyone who reads the Jewish press sees this every day.

    • Replies: @Marcus
    @Cwhatfuture

    What a stupid statement, Israel routinely shows contempt for sovereignty of other countries, invading Lebanon, bombing Iraq, Tunisia, and Syria, assassinating Iranian scientists, etc. They deserve their status as a pariah/outlaw nation as only the whipped US' support keeps them unaccountable.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  68. @NOTA
    @marwan

    Israel is a first-world country, so it gets held to first world country standards, like Spain or Belgium.

    Replies: @Cwhatfuture, @marwan

    Russia and China are first world countries , yet China has killed over a million Tibetans during their occupation with almost zero media attention , so the comparison stands . Russia continues to occupy Chechnya with close to zero media attention so the comparison stands .

    The others are 3rd world countries , but even 3rd world countries should get media coverage when they are killing millions of people . Even giving Sudan and Indonesia the same scrutiny as Israel gets would still be disproportionate to Israel , given the small amount of palestinains killed ( 22,000) as compared to the amount killed by Sudan ( 1 million plus ) and indonesia ( 500,000) .

    • Replies: @Marcus
    @marwan

    Russia and China are definitely 3rd world and Chechnya is more or less autonomous, Putin lets Kadyrov run things as long as it remains de facto part of Russia.

  69. @SFG
    I'd probably bet on 1. 2. is just too hard a sell nowadays. And 3., well, 3. is just too nice a possibility to happen in real life.

    One of the things that struck me is that there aren't that many groups with money on the left, for obvious reasons. If you're one of the few groups that can bring the bling to the party, you can have a lot of influence. This was exactly the argument a fellow made to me back at college when I asked why Jews don't go Republican given their income (I was trying to do the Jewish-identity thing back then, which went as far as eating at the kosher cafeteria).

    OK, semi-serious question: if I go Christian later in life, anyone recommend a denomination?

    Replies: @Hubbub, @Ed, @Anonymous, @Pseudonymic Handle, @SPMoore8, @Nico, @Anonymous, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @OLD JEW, @Anonymous, @Alec Leamas, @Maj. Kong, @Reg Cæsar, @Aaron Gross, @StAugustine, @donut, @International Jew, @Gunnar von Cowtown, @Bannon, @Anonymous

    I think the Catholic church was cool back when everybody had to speak Latin, but that’s in the past.

  70. @Desiderius
    @SPMoore8


    too much into “Jesus”
     
    Conversely some liberal/mainline/corporatish congregations will downplay Jesus/the Cross/ Sin as a sort of culture marker of relatively high class. I remember being struck by Bel Air Presbyterian's omission of the Prayer of Confession and Assurance of pardon in their order of worship.

    Replies: @Santoculto, @SPMoore8

    Yes, I’ve seen that. Of course Jesus is important to the idea of God-Man and it is important in terms of describing an exemplary life and as a path for salvation for individual lives. A lot of religion is using superficially hard to believe images to get at more complicated and abstract notions, I don’t think I’m being very original in pointing that out. However it is certainly true for those who are not particularly intelligent or sensitive organized religion is a good way to acquire things like conscience, empathy, and compassion, even if they don’t know what those words mean.

    What I was getting at was back when the Christmas Tsunami occurred, they had a bunch of religious figures talking about it (I think, unfortunately for Hinduism, they had Deepak Chopra representing them). Anyway, the Christian representatives were all very empathetic and inclusive, which is what a Christian reverend/priest/pastor is supposed to be, but there was one Baptist minister who kept harping on the fact that because these people hadn’t found Jesus they were all going to Hell. I mean it was awful.

    The other two Christians — Episcopal and Catholic — tended to emphasize inclusion and forgiveness, which is what they are supposed to do. At the same time, the Catholic Church seems to be the only Christian denom which combines those other two qualities with a take it or leave doctrine about sin, salvation, and the meaning of human sexuality. In my experience, the insistence that humans are sinners is the #1 complaint against the Church, often expressed to me with much bitterness. This suggests to me that such people do not understand what sin represents, since they really don’t see themselves as without faults, or wrong inclinations, or remorse over past actions.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @SPMoore8

    SPMoore8,

    I don't mean at all to dismiss your perspective, it is of course that of many I love and even admire as better men than myself. It also happens to be a class marker for a class I couldn't depart if I tried, so I'd be disingenuous in not giving it the credit it has in fact rightfully earned. That said, I believe we've been incomplete, if not mistaken in our approach, and gravely so.


    In my experience, the insistence that humans are sinners is the #1 complaint against the Church, often expressed to me with much bitterness. This suggests to me that such people do not understand what sin represents, since they really don’t see themselves as without faults, or wrong inclinations, or remorse over past actions.
     
    Well, there's the rub, then, isn't it?

    The emphasis on inclusion/forgiveness über alles (in practice, cheap grace/self-esteem/niceness Churchianity) has led directly to neglect of that which the Church is ultimately for: the cure of sin. Communities which have lost that capacity are, in fact, headed to Hell in a very real sense whether we feel nice saying it or not. We've had enough time now to see to see that play out around us.

    As with other topics touched on in this blog, there are truths involved which are only less comfortable than continuing in what turns out to be a not so benign conspiracy to avoid them.

    "The nature of Christ's existence is mysterious, I admit; but this mystery meets the wants of man - Reject it and the world is an inexplicable riddle; believe it, and the history of our race is satisfactorily explained."

    - Napoleon

    There's surely more to it than that. Can there be less?

    Replies: @SPMoore8

  71. @StAugustine
    @SFG

    My preference is to go to them all. I have a soft spot for Moravian churches, but if you are coming from the outside, the differences even between Protestants and Catholics will seem small, compared to the stylistic differences between high, middle and low church, vs Baptist and non-denominational "happy-slappy" or speaking-in-tongues.

    Its worth picking up a book on, or reading up on wikipedia what the different sects of Protestantism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism
    I always forget the Pentacostals... And it's worth keeping in mind that there are many splinters beyond what is discussed. In just American Lutheranism, you have the Missouri Synod, Wisconsin Synod, Evangelical...and some smaller ones as well. It's quite the rabbit hole.

    Check out as well, what the church hierarchy structure is: obviously the Catholics have the Pope in Rome and all the structure of the Church, but if you go for other flavors, there are Episcopalians ("Protestant, yet Catholic" aka American Anglican, they have a "Presiding Bishop" instead of the Pope), all the way to the Congregationalists, of which every church is autonomous.

    It depends on what you're looking for, and what the options are where you live.

    Look for a style or formula that you find suitable. Decide if music is important and of what quality/style. I was a paid chorister once in a tiny (20-30 members?) English Angelican (in the US); they paid me about $75 a week - so for the 8-member choir plus the organist, they were probably shelling out $50K annually just for the musicians. I don't know how they did it, but it was clearly important.

    If you decide to become a member somewhere, make sure to get your hands on the church finances - there can be all kinds of stuff going on. American protestant churches I think are mostly self funded - that means the members of the church pay for everything, including the building expansions and renovations. Of course, there's no obligation to give, other than the doctrinal one, but plenty of back-room dealing goes on anyway. It's money, after all.

    If its important, look at what charities and missionary work are being supported. Check to see what member groups the church supports - youth groups, youth camps, local charity work, bible study groups, focused help groups for young people, men, women, old people.

    Different pastors/priests have different speaking styles. Some follow the church calendar, giving the same spiel each calendar week every year-very formulaic, but not unhelpful. Some guys like to tie everything into current events. Some people like to do in-depth discussions of the Bible, taking months to cover Corinthians in every historical and inter-related detail.

    You may be able to find some Catholic or Anglican churches doing the mass in Latin, if that's of interest.

    Of course, you can always just read the sacred and doctrinal texts, and find your own little chapel or waterfall somewhere.. Unz readers can probably recommend some for you.

    Replies: @International Jew, @iffen

    If you decide to become a member somewhere, make sure to get your hands on the church finances

    Antisemite! Haha, just kidding. That was a very interesting post (even for someone with no interest in converting).

  72. @biz
    The issue is that while it is theoretically possible to be anti-Zionist without being antisemiticc, in practice all anti-Zionist activity and rhetoric descends into antisemitism.

    Judith Butler, the Berkeley prof quoted, is the worst of the loony left - a Jewish butch lesbian who marches with Hamas.

    Replies: @Randal, @SFG, @Romanian, @Mr. Anon

    “The issue is that while it is theoretically possible to be anti-Zionist without being antisemiticc, in practice all anti-Zionist activity and rhetoric descends into antisemitism. ”

    Do you maintain then that anti-semitism should be illegal? A person has no right to be one?

    “Judith Butler, the Berkeley prof quoted, is the worst of the loony left – a Jewish butch lesbian who marches with Hamas.”

    She isn’t alone as a jewish anti-zionist. There seem to be a lot of them. Isn’t your anti-anti-zionistm then really just a a form of anti-semitism?

    • Replies: @biz
    @Mr. Anon


    Do you maintain then that anti-semitism should be illegal? A person has no right to be one?
     
    Of course no viewpoint should be illegal. But when it comes to setting boundaries on offensive speech at universities - which I am not in favor of but if done should be done consistently - then anti-Zionism / antisemitism is as offensive as other forms of bigotry.

    As for the Judith Butler thing, yes you are correct there are a lot of Jewish anti-Zionists and many of them are also gay, such as Glen Greenwald and Max Blumenthal. I think that psychology and neuroscience have a lot of fertile ground studying the puzzle of why a subset of gay Jews are so eager to side with Islamic radicals, who would murder them once for being Jewish and again for being gay.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

  73. @Romanian
    @biz

    Can you be a pro-Zionist anti-semite?

    Replies: @EriK, @Gunnar von Cowtown, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    I’m being kind of tongue-and-cheek here, but that describes one of my favorite iSteve-isms.

    “Different groups of people have very different ideas about the basis of social order. That’s what different countries are for.”

    Repatriation is an act of love.

  74. @SFG
    I'd probably bet on 1. 2. is just too hard a sell nowadays. And 3., well, 3. is just too nice a possibility to happen in real life.

    One of the things that struck me is that there aren't that many groups with money on the left, for obvious reasons. If you're one of the few groups that can bring the bling to the party, you can have a lot of influence. This was exactly the argument a fellow made to me back at college when I asked why Jews don't go Republican given their income (I was trying to do the Jewish-identity thing back then, which went as far as eating at the kosher cafeteria).

    OK, semi-serious question: if I go Christian later in life, anyone recommend a denomination?

    Replies: @Hubbub, @Ed, @Anonymous, @Pseudonymic Handle, @SPMoore8, @Nico, @Anonymous, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @OLD JEW, @Anonymous, @Alec Leamas, @Maj. Kong, @Reg Cæsar, @Aaron Gross, @StAugustine, @donut, @International Jew, @Gunnar von Cowtown, @Bannon, @Anonymous

    Other commenters have touched on this, but there’s a substantial amount of variation within denominations. Since they all worship the same God and the same Jesus, the best advice I can give you is to find a church you like.

  75. Trying to ban Antizionism: sure it’s wrong-headed to limit speech, but it would be in line with what modern “liberals” do when their feelings have been hurt.

    If they asked me (which they won’t) I’d tell them that they should advocate for reducing immigration from Muslim countries. The participants and ringleaders of these “antizionist” movements are heavily immigrant (or 1st generation). We had anti-Israel types back in my college days too but they were just leftist Americans, far less vicious and Israel was never their main interest anyway.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    @International Jew

    "Anti-Zionism" can be seen as "anti-Semitic" if it is taken to mean that the Jewish people, uniquely, are not entitled to a state of their own.

    However, in practice, "Anti-Zionism" means criticizing anything Israel does, because the argument is always made that Israel is only doing what it does "in order to survive", and therefore if you criticize anything Israel does you are denying the Jewish people the right to have a state of their own, etc. etc.

    Replies: @biz, @NOTA, @International Jew, @dfordoom

  76. @Steve Sailer
    @anon

    "Falling apart at the seems" is an evocative phrase.

    Replies: @vinteuil, @Anonym, @iffen

    It seems to me that the exposure of the seams by Trump is considered unseemly by many.

  77. @International Jew
    Trying to ban Antizionism: sure it's wrong-headed to limit speech, but it would be in line with what modern "liberals" do when their feelings have been hurt.

    If they asked me (which they won't) I'd tell them that they should advocate for reducing immigration from Muslim countries. The participants and ringleaders of these "antizionist" movements are heavily immigrant (or 1st generation). We had anti-Israel types back in my college days too but they were just leftist Americans, far less vicious and Israel was never their main interest anyway.

    Replies: @SPMoore8

    “Anti-Zionism” can be seen as “anti-Semitic” if it is taken to mean that the Jewish people, uniquely, are not entitled to a state of their own.

    However, in practice, “Anti-Zionism” means criticizing anything Israel does, because the argument is always made that Israel is only doing what it does “in order to survive”, and therefore if you criticize anything Israel does you are denying the Jewish people the right to have a state of their own, etc. etc.

    • Replies: @biz
    @SPMoore8


    However, in practice, “Anti-Zionism” means criticizing anything Israel does
     
    Not true. The anti-Zionists on college campuses and on web forums such as Mondoweiss are very explicit these days that it isn't about anything particular that Israel does. They believe that Israel has no right to exist within any borders.

    Replies: @SPMoore8

    , @NOTA
    @SPMoore8

    As an aside, there are a whole lot of Kurds who would take issue with that "uniquely" part.

    Replies: @iffen

    , @International Jew
    @SPMoore8


    However, in practice, “Anti-Zionism” means criticizing anything Israel does,
     
    In today's climate, no western (in the broad sense) country bordering the 3rd world can escape the usual accusations of racism/islamophobia/xenophobia, if it stands up for itself.

    Ask the Hungarians.
    , @dfordoom
    @SPMoore8


    if it is taken to mean that the Jewish people, uniquely, are not entitled to a state of their own.
     
    The Basques might disagree with the uniquely part. So might the Scots. And the Welsh. And the Catalans. And the Cornish. And the Roma. And the Maoris. And the Tibetans. And the Hawaiians.

    The distinct ethnic groups that don't have a state of their own probably outnumber those that do.
  78. @StAugustine
    @SFG

    My preference is to go to them all. I have a soft spot for Moravian churches, but if you are coming from the outside, the differences even between Protestants and Catholics will seem small, compared to the stylistic differences between high, middle and low church, vs Baptist and non-denominational "happy-slappy" or speaking-in-tongues.

    Its worth picking up a book on, or reading up on wikipedia what the different sects of Protestantism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism
    I always forget the Pentacostals... And it's worth keeping in mind that there are many splinters beyond what is discussed. In just American Lutheranism, you have the Missouri Synod, Wisconsin Synod, Evangelical...and some smaller ones as well. It's quite the rabbit hole.

    Check out as well, what the church hierarchy structure is: obviously the Catholics have the Pope in Rome and all the structure of the Church, but if you go for other flavors, there are Episcopalians ("Protestant, yet Catholic" aka American Anglican, they have a "Presiding Bishop" instead of the Pope), all the way to the Congregationalists, of which every church is autonomous.

    It depends on what you're looking for, and what the options are where you live.

    Look for a style or formula that you find suitable. Decide if music is important and of what quality/style. I was a paid chorister once in a tiny (20-30 members?) English Angelican (in the US); they paid me about $75 a week - so for the 8-member choir plus the organist, they were probably shelling out $50K annually just for the musicians. I don't know how they did it, but it was clearly important.

    If you decide to become a member somewhere, make sure to get your hands on the church finances - there can be all kinds of stuff going on. American protestant churches I think are mostly self funded - that means the members of the church pay for everything, including the building expansions and renovations. Of course, there's no obligation to give, other than the doctrinal one, but plenty of back-room dealing goes on anyway. It's money, after all.

    If its important, look at what charities and missionary work are being supported. Check to see what member groups the church supports - youth groups, youth camps, local charity work, bible study groups, focused help groups for young people, men, women, old people.

    Different pastors/priests have different speaking styles. Some follow the church calendar, giving the same spiel each calendar week every year-very formulaic, but not unhelpful. Some guys like to tie everything into current events. Some people like to do in-depth discussions of the Bible, taking months to cover Corinthians in every historical and inter-related detail.

    You may be able to find some Catholic or Anglican churches doing the mass in Latin, if that's of interest.

    Of course, you can always just read the sacred and doctrinal texts, and find your own little chapel or waterfall somewhere.. Unz readers can probably recommend some for you.

    Replies: @International Jew, @iffen

    Of course, you can always just read the sacred and doctrinal texts, and find your own little chapel or waterfall somewhere..

    Impressively thorough comment which includes, “start your own”. (He can actually come up with his own texts and doesn’t have to take what is on the shelf.)

  79. @Cwhatfuture
    @NOTA

    There is no comparing an Israel in existential war - as it has been since its founding - with Western nations at peace. Western nations at such wars were ruthless. Firebomb Dressen, nuke Hiroshima. And that solved their problems. Were Israel to use those standards it would have long ago expelled the Palestinians and turned Tehran to glass. It is odd, the Muslim states and most of the third world have contempt for, and some are at war with, the Western liberal order. If not for that order, which Israel accepts, Israel might have long ago solved its problems - in the way New Zealand solved its Maori problem or Belgium dealt with the Congo.

    In any event the West these days is suicidal. Israel deciding not to be suicidal I suppose is breaking with the standards of the West. As for Jews in the West, most of them are suicidal as well and so a gulf is opening between liberal Jews and Israel and anyone who reads the Jewish press sees this every day.

    Replies: @Marcus

    What a stupid statement, Israel routinely shows contempt for sovereignty of other countries, invading Lebanon, bombing Iraq, Tunisia, and Syria, assassinating Iranian scientists, etc. They deserve their status as a pariah/outlaw nation as only the whipped US’ support keeps them unaccountable.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Marcus

    That is quite an argument. Maybe you could make it stronger with an all caps.

    Too bad it ignored what I wrote and in fact emphasizes exactly how correct my statement was. Nations formally at war with Israel and who do not recognize its existence have no right to complain about Israeli violations of their sovereignty. Nations cannot have it both ways. But you go ahead and seethe about Israel. Israel I note is doing quite well despite you and your seething.

    Replies: @Marcus

  80. @SPMoore8
    @International Jew

    "Anti-Zionism" can be seen as "anti-Semitic" if it is taken to mean that the Jewish people, uniquely, are not entitled to a state of their own.

    However, in practice, "Anti-Zionism" means criticizing anything Israel does, because the argument is always made that Israel is only doing what it does "in order to survive", and therefore if you criticize anything Israel does you are denying the Jewish people the right to have a state of their own, etc. etc.

    Replies: @biz, @NOTA, @International Jew, @dfordoom

    However, in practice, “Anti-Zionism” means criticizing anything Israel does

    Not true. The anti-Zionists on college campuses and on web forums such as Mondoweiss are very explicit these days that it isn’t about anything particular that Israel does. They believe that Israel has no right to exist within any borders.

    • Agree: International Jew
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    @biz

    I have to disagree with you on this, based on hundreds of internet squabbles about Israel's conduct read in the past 20 years. The ultimate fallback position in an argument about Israeli conduct is to accuse the other of "Anti-Zionism."

    Two examples, which cover the ground of Israeli conduct. #1 - Incursions, and killing of Palestinians. Okay, well first Palis are being killed because the terrorists are hiding among them. Check. But if you say, maybe Israel shouldn't have attacked (including for reasons of self interest) you will be told, If you don't think Israel can defend itself, then you are condemning Israel to be destroyed, and therefore anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism. Even such things as the assault on that boat that was going to Gaza is defended in the same way -- if Israel can't defend itself, then Israel can't defend its citizens, then it is repudiating itself as a homeland for the Jewish people, anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism. I have seen this literally dozens of times.

    Case #2 - Given that Israel refuses to stop colonizing the West Bank, how about just making Palis equals? Can't do that, because they would become a majority, and thus the end of the Jewish state, anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism. I even recall seeing this back in 2003, when Tony Judt (British Jew from Belgium) first started arguing for One State, and the corresponding "Israel can be a democracy, or Jewish, but not both" (a position also articulated by Uber-Jew Jeffrey Goldberg). I have even seen that position articulated as ultimately anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism.

    The reason the linkage is inescapable is that Zionism is a political ideology, and political ideologies can always be criticized, even to their core beliefs. E.g., there are, and will be, those who think the US should be disbanded, but nobody expresses this in terms of America's "right to exist", even if we fight a Civil War over it. Therefore, any political criticism of Israel can easily be carried back to a criticism of the "Jewish people" as such, thus, anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism.

    However, it's precisely for that reason that "banning" anti-Zionism is silly. The first questionable assumption is that any group of people that wants to form their own country has a right to do so: everybody knows that isn't true. And by extension denial of that right is not viewed as "anti-Southernism" (as per 1861) or "anti-Germanism" (as per 1918). Not to mention, as NOTA has mentioned, Kurds, Biafrans, etc. etc.

    The second questionable assumption is that Zionism as such has anything to do with Jewish identity or the practice of the Jewish religion. Of course, it does, to some extent, but the easiest refutation comes from the fact that a significant number of Jews do not in fact endorse Zionism (including some of the most religious ones.)

    I don't have a hobby horse on this issue but let's be honest: Anti-semitism is a thing, and it pertains to hating Jews (with various stereotypical concepts), on the usual assumption that there is no reason for this hostility. Anti-Zionism is criticism of the state of Israel, including its right to exist as a Jewish privileged state, but need not and often does not involve any irrational hatred of Jews as such.

    Replies: @International Jew, @Citizen of a Silly Country

  81. @marwan
    @NOTA

    Russia and China are first world countries , yet China has killed over a million Tibetans during their occupation with almost zero media attention , so the comparison stands . Russia continues to occupy Chechnya with close to zero media attention so the comparison stands .

    The others are 3rd world countries , but even 3rd world countries should get media coverage when they are killing millions of people . Even giving Sudan and Indonesia the same scrutiny as Israel gets would still be disproportionate to Israel , given the small amount of palestinains killed ( 22,000) as compared to the amount killed by Sudan ( 1 million plus ) and indonesia ( 500,000) .

    Replies: @Marcus

    Russia and China are definitely 3rd world and Chechnya is more or less autonomous, Putin lets Kadyrov run things as long as it remains de facto part of Russia.

  82. @Mr. Anon
    @biz

    "The issue is that while it is theoretically possible to be anti-Zionist without being antisemiticc, in practice all anti-Zionist activity and rhetoric descends into antisemitism. "

    Do you maintain then that anti-semitism should be illegal? A person has no right to be one?

    "Judith Butler, the Berkeley prof quoted, is the worst of the loony left – a Jewish butch lesbian who marches with Hamas."

    She isn't alone as a jewish anti-zionist. There seem to be a lot of them. Isn't your anti-anti-zionistm then really just a a form of anti-semitism?

    Replies: @biz

    Do you maintain then that anti-semitism should be illegal? A person has no right to be one?

    Of course no viewpoint should be illegal. But when it comes to setting boundaries on offensive speech at universities – which I am not in favor of but if done should be done consistently – then anti-Zionism / antisemitism is as offensive as other forms of bigotry.

    As for the Judith Butler thing, yes you are correct there are a lot of Jewish anti-Zionists and many of them are also gay, such as Glen Greenwald and Max Blumenthal. I think that psychology and neuroscience have a lot of fertile ground studying the puzzle of why a subset of gay Jews are so eager to side with Islamic radicals, who would murder them once for being Jewish and again for being gay.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @biz

    "Of course no viewpoint should be illegal."

    Well, that's mighty white of you.

  83. @Randal
    @biz

    No, it's not incorrect. As I said I have direct personal experience of this and I am not open to being told that what I have seen happen, did not happen.

    Some anti-zionists oppose the very existence of Israel, some its existence outside the 1967 borders, some oppose only its behaviour (settler colonial expansionism etc). Some are in fact anti-Semitic in a wider sense.


    ridiculous applications of terms like “colonialism” “apartheid” and “ethnic cleansing” that are parodies of themselves when applied to the Middle East’s only democracy and advanced economy.
     
    This assertion reflects your own bias, and not objective reality. These issues (whether and to what degree those terms apply to Israel and its behaviour) are matters of opinion, upon which reasonable folk can honestly disagree.

    Replies: @biz

    These issues (whether and to what degree those terms apply to Israel and its behaviour) are matters of opinion, upon which reasonable folk can honestly disagree.

    That is ridiculous. Let’s take “apartheid”. How could it be seen as reasonable that the term “apartheid” be applied to a country where Jews, Arabs, Druze, Circassians, and other minorities attend the same universities, eat in the same restaurants, bathe at the same beaches, ride the same transportation, shop at the same stores, and get the same welfare benefits? There is no reasonable argument that the term applies. Anyone who claims that it does is simply ignorant of life in Israel, ignorant of what the term means, or knowingly lying.

    Or we can look at “ethnic cleansing”. The Arabs who in the 70s started calling themselves Palestinians have one of the highest rates of population increase in the world. Again, there is no reasonable view that the term ethnic cleansing could apply to that.

    And on and on.

    As for your contention about anti-Zionists, you must be confused on what the term means. It means opposition to the existence of Israel. It does not mean opposition to this or that policy. This is simply a definitional issue.

  84. @SPMoore8
    @International Jew

    "Anti-Zionism" can be seen as "anti-Semitic" if it is taken to mean that the Jewish people, uniquely, are not entitled to a state of their own.

    However, in practice, "Anti-Zionism" means criticizing anything Israel does, because the argument is always made that Israel is only doing what it does "in order to survive", and therefore if you criticize anything Israel does you are denying the Jewish people the right to have a state of their own, etc. etc.

    Replies: @biz, @NOTA, @International Jew, @dfordoom

    As an aside, there are a whole lot of Kurds who would take issue with that “uniquely” part.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @NOTA

    Are there anti-Kurdites?

    Replies: @NOTA

  85. @Romanian
    @biz

    Can you be a pro-Zionist anti-semite?

    Replies: @EriK, @Gunnar von Cowtown, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Present.

  86. @NOTA
    @SPMoore8

    As an aside, there are a whole lot of Kurds who would take issue with that "uniquely" part.

    Replies: @iffen

    Are there anti-Kurdites?

    • Replies: @NOTA
    @iffen

    Go ask the Turks.

  87. @Randal
    @ben tillman

    Reading this kind of article:

    Why BDS Cannot Lose: A Moral Threshold To Combat Racism in Israel

    it's certainly easy to understand the intense schadenfreude any white nationalist would feel at seeing the jewish state harmed by the BDS movement, given the massive jewish involvement in the anti-apartheid movements that destroyed white ruled South Africa and Rhodesia.

    Replies: @Judah Benjamin Hur, @Gabriel M, @Reg Cæsar

    given the massive jewish involvement in the anti-apartheid movements that destroyed white ruled South Africa and Rhodesia.

    And yet Jews get blamed for propping up apartheid South Africa. That’s often a selling point of the BDS movement.

  88. @SPMoore8
    @Desiderius

    Yes, I've seen that. Of course Jesus is important to the idea of God-Man and it is important in terms of describing an exemplary life and as a path for salvation for individual lives. A lot of religion is using superficially hard to believe images to get at more complicated and abstract notions, I don't think I'm being very original in pointing that out. However it is certainly true for those who are not particularly intelligent or sensitive organized religion is a good way to acquire things like conscience, empathy, and compassion, even if they don't know what those words mean.

    What I was getting at was back when the Christmas Tsunami occurred, they had a bunch of religious figures talking about it (I think, unfortunately for Hinduism, they had Deepak Chopra representing them). Anyway, the Christian representatives were all very empathetic and inclusive, which is what a Christian reverend/priest/pastor is supposed to be, but there was one Baptist minister who kept harping on the fact that because these people hadn't found Jesus they were all going to Hell. I mean it was awful.

    The other two Christians -- Episcopal and Catholic -- tended to emphasize inclusion and forgiveness, which is what they are supposed to do. At the same time, the Catholic Church seems to be the only Christian denom which combines those other two qualities with a take it or leave doctrine about sin, salvation, and the meaning of human sexuality. In my experience, the insistence that humans are sinners is the #1 complaint against the Church, often expressed to me with much bitterness. This suggests to me that such people do not understand what sin represents, since they really don't see themselves as without faults, or wrong inclinations, or remorse over past actions.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    SPMoore8,

    I don’t mean at all to dismiss your perspective, it is of course that of many I love and even admire as better men than myself. It also happens to be a class marker for a class I couldn’t depart if I tried, so I’d be disingenuous in not giving it the credit it has in fact rightfully earned. That said, I believe we’ve been incomplete, if not mistaken in our approach, and gravely so.

    In my experience, the insistence that humans are sinners is the #1 complaint against the Church, often expressed to me with much bitterness. This suggests to me that such people do not understand what sin represents, since they really don’t see themselves as without faults, or wrong inclinations, or remorse over past actions.

    Well, there’s the rub, then, isn’t it?

    The emphasis on inclusion/forgiveness über alles (in practice, cheap grace/self-esteem/niceness Churchianity) has led directly to neglect of that which the Church is ultimately for: the cure of sin. Communities which have lost that capacity are, in fact, headed to Hell in a very real sense whether we feel nice saying it or not. We’ve had enough time now to see to see that play out around us.

    As with other topics touched on in this blog, there are truths involved which are only less comfortable than continuing in what turns out to be a not so benign conspiracy to avoid them.

    “The nature of Christ’s existence is mysterious, I admit; but this mystery meets the wants of man – Reject it and the world is an inexplicable riddle; believe it, and the history of our race is satisfactorily explained.”

    – Napoleon

    There’s surely more to it than that. Can there be less?

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    @Desiderius

    Thanks for a thoughtful and eloquent reply. Not offended in the least. Inclusion and forgiveness are a default for all, among most Christians. But that is past sin. Not future sin. It sort of reminds me of the young woman who went to confession to tell her priest she was about to have an abortion. No. You can forgive the past, but forgiving the future is something else. See John, 8:11.

    There's a long debate about the salvation of life forms that haven't been blessed by JC or who knew JC, as we both know, including Dante's first circle. The dead deserve some respect just as creation deserves some respect. I'm sure we agree about this, but the inclusiveness and forgiveness I referenced entailed that.

    However, there's also the practical fact that most humans are not Christians and cannot relate to the system. In practical terms, again, I can't condemn them or consign them to oblivion.

    But you are right about one thing; absent the timeline and the goal that Christ on Earth represents, our culture, and the individuals who comprise that culture, does not and do not really have much purpose. But I think that's more a function of our shared history.

    Basically, I think religion gives humans a Gold Standard for how they should live their lives, by what standards, to what purpose, to what goal, and to what collective goal. I don't think secularism can ever come close to answering those questions, and that's part of where we are now. I'm sure other religions can fill the role that Christianity traditionally played -- I have some familiarity with Judaism, Hinduism, and Taoism -- But these other standards tend to be either ethnocentric, ascetic, or subjective for my tastes. But I admit my biases as a Christian and condemn no one.

    Replies: @Desiderius

  89. @SFG
    I'd probably bet on 1. 2. is just too hard a sell nowadays. And 3., well, 3. is just too nice a possibility to happen in real life.

    One of the things that struck me is that there aren't that many groups with money on the left, for obvious reasons. If you're one of the few groups that can bring the bling to the party, you can have a lot of influence. This was exactly the argument a fellow made to me back at college when I asked why Jews don't go Republican given their income (I was trying to do the Jewish-identity thing back then, which went as far as eating at the kosher cafeteria).

    OK, semi-serious question: if I go Christian later in life, anyone recommend a denomination?

    Replies: @Hubbub, @Ed, @Anonymous, @Pseudonymic Handle, @SPMoore8, @Nico, @Anonymous, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @OLD JEW, @Anonymous, @Alec Leamas, @Maj. Kong, @Reg Cæsar, @Aaron Gross, @StAugustine, @donut, @International Jew, @Gunnar von Cowtown, @Bannon, @Anonymous

    Southern Baptist — its source of theology/doctrine is clear: the Bible, and the Bible only, with every member standing on equal footing to find its meaning (no Church Authority). Its power structure is loose an non-hierarchical — every neighborhood church is autonomous, and recruits its pastor like a football coach. And it is a large organization that is loving, but not infected with the slightest hint of SJW-style political correctness. Everyone just goes about their business with the traditions they prefer (or think are right, whatever), with a very peaceful consensus on all the issues of the day as it relates to LGBT and gender.

  90. @SPMoore8
    @International Jew

    "Anti-Zionism" can be seen as "anti-Semitic" if it is taken to mean that the Jewish people, uniquely, are not entitled to a state of their own.

    However, in practice, "Anti-Zionism" means criticizing anything Israel does, because the argument is always made that Israel is only doing what it does "in order to survive", and therefore if you criticize anything Israel does you are denying the Jewish people the right to have a state of their own, etc. etc.

    Replies: @biz, @NOTA, @International Jew, @dfordoom

    However, in practice, “Anti-Zionism” means criticizing anything Israel does,

    In today’s climate, no western (in the broad sense) country bordering the 3rd world can escape the usual accusations of racism/islamophobia/xenophobia, if it stands up for itself.

    Ask the Hungarians.

  91. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Marcus
    @Cwhatfuture

    What a stupid statement, Israel routinely shows contempt for sovereignty of other countries, invading Lebanon, bombing Iraq, Tunisia, and Syria, assassinating Iranian scientists, etc. They deserve their status as a pariah/outlaw nation as only the whipped US' support keeps them unaccountable.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    That is quite an argument. Maybe you could make it stronger with an all caps.

    Too bad it ignored what I wrote and in fact emphasizes exactly how correct my statement was. Nations formally at war with Israel and who do not recognize its existence have no right to complain about Israeli violations of their sovereignty. Nations cannot have it both ways. But you go ahead and seethe about Israel. Israel I note is doing quite well despite you and your seething.

    • Replies: @Marcus
    @Anonymous

    Israel is a pirate state, why should anyone recognize it? Their future will not be so bright once the US sugar daddy can't protect them from retribution any more.

    Replies: @biz

  92. @Desiderius
    @SPMoore8

    SPMoore8,

    I don't mean at all to dismiss your perspective, it is of course that of many I love and even admire as better men than myself. It also happens to be a class marker for a class I couldn't depart if I tried, so I'd be disingenuous in not giving it the credit it has in fact rightfully earned. That said, I believe we've been incomplete, if not mistaken in our approach, and gravely so.


    In my experience, the insistence that humans are sinners is the #1 complaint against the Church, often expressed to me with much bitterness. This suggests to me that such people do not understand what sin represents, since they really don’t see themselves as without faults, or wrong inclinations, or remorse over past actions.
     
    Well, there's the rub, then, isn't it?

    The emphasis on inclusion/forgiveness über alles (in practice, cheap grace/self-esteem/niceness Churchianity) has led directly to neglect of that which the Church is ultimately for: the cure of sin. Communities which have lost that capacity are, in fact, headed to Hell in a very real sense whether we feel nice saying it or not. We've had enough time now to see to see that play out around us.

    As with other topics touched on in this blog, there are truths involved which are only less comfortable than continuing in what turns out to be a not so benign conspiracy to avoid them.

    "The nature of Christ's existence is mysterious, I admit; but this mystery meets the wants of man - Reject it and the world is an inexplicable riddle; believe it, and the history of our race is satisfactorily explained."

    - Napoleon

    There's surely more to it than that. Can there be less?

    Replies: @SPMoore8

    Thanks for a thoughtful and eloquent reply. Not offended in the least. Inclusion and forgiveness are a default for all, among most Christians. But that is past sin. Not future sin. It sort of reminds me of the young woman who went to confession to tell her priest she was about to have an abortion. No. You can forgive the past, but forgiving the future is something else. See John, 8:11.

    There’s a long debate about the salvation of life forms that haven’t been blessed by JC or who knew JC, as we both know, including Dante’s first circle. The dead deserve some respect just as creation deserves some respect. I’m sure we agree about this, but the inclusiveness and forgiveness I referenced entailed that.

    However, there’s also the practical fact that most humans are not Christians and cannot relate to the system. In practical terms, again, I can’t condemn them or consign them to oblivion.

    But you are right about one thing; absent the timeline and the goal that Christ on Earth represents, our culture, and the individuals who comprise that culture, does not and do not really have much purpose. But I think that’s more a function of our shared history.

    Basically, I think religion gives humans a Gold Standard for how they should live their lives, by what standards, to what purpose, to what goal, and to what collective goal. I don’t think secularism can ever come close to answering those questions, and that’s part of where we are now. I’m sure other religions can fill the role that Christianity traditionally played — I have some familiarity with Judaism, Hinduism, and Taoism — But these other standards tend to be either ethnocentric, ascetic, or subjective for my tastes. But I admit my biases as a Christian and condemn no one.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @SPMoore8


    Inclusion and forgiveness are a default for all, among most Christians. But that is past sin.
     
    Only with repentance.

    I guarantee you you'll find no shortage of congregations, liberal and conservative both, where that word hasn't passed lips in years, especially those who like to talk themselves blue about inclusion.

    The dead deserve some respect just as creation deserves some respect. I’m sure we agree about this, but the inclusiveness and forgiveness I referenced entailed that.
     
    Respect is not salvation. We respect tragic heroes to the extent we write and perform and study great works of literature about them. Their stories are not thereby made comedy. The Christian story is ultimately a comedy. The Divine One, as Dante notes.

    However, there’s also the practical fact that most humans are not Christians and cannot relate to the system. In practical terms, again, I can’t condemn them or consign them to oblivion.
     
    Either you have a greatly inflated understanding of your power over the world ( a possibility I think we can both safely dismiss), or you've missed the argument. Reality is not what you or I determine it to be, it is what it is (and He (who made it) Is what He Is - that's even the name he gave to Moses). Our task is merely to accurately apprehend it.

    In any event, oblivion is the default. There is some possibility of an alternative, it wouldn't be fair to blame one who suggests it for others deciding against it.

    As for "cannot," that is not for us to know. Will not seems to correspond sufficiently with the facts at hand, at least with those presently alive of whom you speak.

    absent the timeline and the goal that Christ on Earth represents, our culture, and the individuals who comprise that culture, does not and do not really have much purpose
     
    I spoke of the purpose of the church, not man.

    "Injustice, poverty, slavery, ignorance - these may be cured by reform or revolution. But men do not live only by fighting evils. They live by positive goals, individual and collective, a vast variety of them, seldom predictable, at times incompatible."

    - Sir Isaiah Berlin

    The church is the engine by which purposes are achieved; ideally God's, in reality man's sometimes aiming at God's. In any event, man, in God's image, is a purpose-making animal. He needs no help on that score, other than in aiming those purposes toward God's, to the extent we can make them out.

    Basically, I think religion gives humans a Gold Standard for how they should live their lives, by what standards, to what purpose, to what goal, and to what collective goal.
     
    That's the Old Testament. Some day perhaps you'll consider the New, which deals with the first derivative of that function.

    I don’t think secularism can ever come close to answering those questions, and that’s part of where we are now.
     
    And yet it does quite well for high achievers all around us and throughout history. The secular is the fruit of the sacred, the two go hand in hand. On the community level, both are essential, particularly to one another. So God loved the World that He made.

    I’m sure other religions can fill the role that Christianity traditionally played
     
    Ruling the world would certainly be easier were that true.
  93. @biz
    @SPMoore8


    However, in practice, “Anti-Zionism” means criticizing anything Israel does
     
    Not true. The anti-Zionists on college campuses and on web forums such as Mondoweiss are very explicit these days that it isn't about anything particular that Israel does. They believe that Israel has no right to exist within any borders.

    Replies: @SPMoore8

    I have to disagree with you on this, based on hundreds of internet squabbles about Israel’s conduct read in the past 20 years. The ultimate fallback position in an argument about Israeli conduct is to accuse the other of “Anti-Zionism.”

    Two examples, which cover the ground of Israeli conduct. #1 – Incursions, and killing of Palestinians. Okay, well first Palis are being killed because the terrorists are hiding among them. Check. But if you say, maybe Israel shouldn’t have attacked (including for reasons of self interest) you will be told, If you don’t think Israel can defend itself, then you are condemning Israel to be destroyed, and therefore anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism. Even such things as the assault on that boat that was going to Gaza is defended in the same way — if Israel can’t defend itself, then Israel can’t defend its citizens, then it is repudiating itself as a homeland for the Jewish people, anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism. I have seen this literally dozens of times.

    Case #2 – Given that Israel refuses to stop colonizing the West Bank, how about just making Palis equals? Can’t do that, because they would become a majority, and thus the end of the Jewish state, anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism. I even recall seeing this back in 2003, when Tony Judt (British Jew from Belgium) first started arguing for One State, and the corresponding “Israel can be a democracy, or Jewish, but not both” (a position also articulated by Uber-Jew Jeffrey Goldberg). I have even seen that position articulated as ultimately anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism.

    The reason the linkage is inescapable is that Zionism is a political ideology, and political ideologies can always be criticized, even to their core beliefs. E.g., there are, and will be, those who think the US should be disbanded, but nobody expresses this in terms of America’s “right to exist”, even if we fight a Civil War over it. Therefore, any political criticism of Israel can easily be carried back to a criticism of the “Jewish people” as such, thus, anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism.

    However, it’s precisely for that reason that “banning” anti-Zionism is silly. The first questionable assumption is that any group of people that wants to form their own country has a right to do so: everybody knows that isn’t true. And by extension denial of that right is not viewed as “anti-Southernism” (as per 1861) or “anti-Germanism” (as per 1918). Not to mention, as NOTA has mentioned, Kurds, Biafrans, etc. etc.

    The second questionable assumption is that Zionism as such has anything to do with Jewish identity or the practice of the Jewish religion. Of course, it does, to some extent, but the easiest refutation comes from the fact that a significant number of Jews do not in fact endorse Zionism (including some of the most religious ones.)

    I don’t have a hobby horse on this issue but let’s be honest: Anti-semitism is a thing, and it pertains to hating Jews (with various stereotypical concepts), on the usual assumption that there is no reason for this hostility. Anti-Zionism is criticism of the state of Israel, including its right to exist as a Jewish privileged state, but need not and often does not involve any irrational hatred of Jews as such.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    @SPMoore8


    based on hundreds of internet squabbles about Israel’s conduct read in the past 20 years. The ultimate fallback position in an argument about Israeli conduct is to accuse the other of “Anti-Zionism.”
     
    Well, the Internet is a big place. There are places where people go to fling insults, and places where you're more likely to find a civilized conversation. Like here.
    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @SPMoore8

    Wait, antisemitism "pertains to hating Jews (with various stereotypical concepts), on the usual assumption that there is no reason for this hostility."

    If that's the case, then the word antisemitism is grossly and endlessly misused.

    My antisemitism grows out of my people getting pushed around and dismantled by Jewish elites. Having had many Jewish friends and even a few Jewish girlfriends, it's difficult for me to have a personal animosity toward individual Jews or Jews in general; however, it is their people - even if only the elites - who seem hellbent on turning my country into an uptight version of Brazil.

    What do you call the dislike of Jewish elites for their assault on gentiles? What do you call the disdain that many of us feel for the silent acquiescence of Jews in general to that assault?

    Is it not antisemitism if, in fact, I do have a reason for this hostility.

  94. @Anonymous
    @Marcus

    That is quite an argument. Maybe you could make it stronger with an all caps.

    Too bad it ignored what I wrote and in fact emphasizes exactly how correct my statement was. Nations formally at war with Israel and who do not recognize its existence have no right to complain about Israeli violations of their sovereignty. Nations cannot have it both ways. But you go ahead and seethe about Israel. Israel I note is doing quite well despite you and your seething.

    Replies: @Marcus

    Israel is a pirate state, why should anyone recognize it? Their future will not be so bright once the US sugar daddy can’t protect them from retribution any more.

    • Replies: @biz
    @Marcus

    I suppose given the concern you are showing for international borders and minority rights you are many times more bothered bothered by the many times worse acts and higher death tolls racked up by Indonesia (Invasion of West Papua and East Timor, ~1 million dead), Morocco (invasion of Western Sahara, 500,000 dead and displaced), and various other countries?

    Replies: @Marcus, @SPMoore8, @Brutusale

  95. @SPMoore8
    @biz

    I have to disagree with you on this, based on hundreds of internet squabbles about Israel's conduct read in the past 20 years. The ultimate fallback position in an argument about Israeli conduct is to accuse the other of "Anti-Zionism."

    Two examples, which cover the ground of Israeli conduct. #1 - Incursions, and killing of Palestinians. Okay, well first Palis are being killed because the terrorists are hiding among them. Check. But if you say, maybe Israel shouldn't have attacked (including for reasons of self interest) you will be told, If you don't think Israel can defend itself, then you are condemning Israel to be destroyed, and therefore anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism. Even such things as the assault on that boat that was going to Gaza is defended in the same way -- if Israel can't defend itself, then Israel can't defend its citizens, then it is repudiating itself as a homeland for the Jewish people, anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism. I have seen this literally dozens of times.

    Case #2 - Given that Israel refuses to stop colonizing the West Bank, how about just making Palis equals? Can't do that, because they would become a majority, and thus the end of the Jewish state, anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism. I even recall seeing this back in 2003, when Tony Judt (British Jew from Belgium) first started arguing for One State, and the corresponding "Israel can be a democracy, or Jewish, but not both" (a position also articulated by Uber-Jew Jeffrey Goldberg). I have even seen that position articulated as ultimately anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism.

    The reason the linkage is inescapable is that Zionism is a political ideology, and political ideologies can always be criticized, even to their core beliefs. E.g., there are, and will be, those who think the US should be disbanded, but nobody expresses this in terms of America's "right to exist", even if we fight a Civil War over it. Therefore, any political criticism of Israel can easily be carried back to a criticism of the "Jewish people" as such, thus, anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism.

    However, it's precisely for that reason that "banning" anti-Zionism is silly. The first questionable assumption is that any group of people that wants to form their own country has a right to do so: everybody knows that isn't true. And by extension denial of that right is not viewed as "anti-Southernism" (as per 1861) or "anti-Germanism" (as per 1918). Not to mention, as NOTA has mentioned, Kurds, Biafrans, etc. etc.

    The second questionable assumption is that Zionism as such has anything to do with Jewish identity or the practice of the Jewish religion. Of course, it does, to some extent, but the easiest refutation comes from the fact that a significant number of Jews do not in fact endorse Zionism (including some of the most religious ones.)

    I don't have a hobby horse on this issue but let's be honest: Anti-semitism is a thing, and it pertains to hating Jews (with various stereotypical concepts), on the usual assumption that there is no reason for this hostility. Anti-Zionism is criticism of the state of Israel, including its right to exist as a Jewish privileged state, but need not and often does not involve any irrational hatred of Jews as such.

    Replies: @International Jew, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    based on hundreds of internet squabbles about Israel’s conduct read in the past 20 years. The ultimate fallback position in an argument about Israeli conduct is to accuse the other of “Anti-Zionism.”

    Well, the Internet is a big place. There are places where people go to fling insults, and places where you’re more likely to find a civilized conversation. Like here.

    • Agree: SPMoore8
  96. @SPMoore8
    @biz

    I have to disagree with you on this, based on hundreds of internet squabbles about Israel's conduct read in the past 20 years. The ultimate fallback position in an argument about Israeli conduct is to accuse the other of "Anti-Zionism."

    Two examples, which cover the ground of Israeli conduct. #1 - Incursions, and killing of Palestinians. Okay, well first Palis are being killed because the terrorists are hiding among them. Check. But if you say, maybe Israel shouldn't have attacked (including for reasons of self interest) you will be told, If you don't think Israel can defend itself, then you are condemning Israel to be destroyed, and therefore anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism. Even such things as the assault on that boat that was going to Gaza is defended in the same way -- if Israel can't defend itself, then Israel can't defend its citizens, then it is repudiating itself as a homeland for the Jewish people, anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism. I have seen this literally dozens of times.

    Case #2 - Given that Israel refuses to stop colonizing the West Bank, how about just making Palis equals? Can't do that, because they would become a majority, and thus the end of the Jewish state, anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism. I even recall seeing this back in 2003, when Tony Judt (British Jew from Belgium) first started arguing for One State, and the corresponding "Israel can be a democracy, or Jewish, but not both" (a position also articulated by Uber-Jew Jeffrey Goldberg). I have even seen that position articulated as ultimately anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism.

    The reason the linkage is inescapable is that Zionism is a political ideology, and political ideologies can always be criticized, even to their core beliefs. E.g., there are, and will be, those who think the US should be disbanded, but nobody expresses this in terms of America's "right to exist", even if we fight a Civil War over it. Therefore, any political criticism of Israel can easily be carried back to a criticism of the "Jewish people" as such, thus, anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism.

    However, it's precisely for that reason that "banning" anti-Zionism is silly. The first questionable assumption is that any group of people that wants to form their own country has a right to do so: everybody knows that isn't true. And by extension denial of that right is not viewed as "anti-Southernism" (as per 1861) or "anti-Germanism" (as per 1918). Not to mention, as NOTA has mentioned, Kurds, Biafrans, etc. etc.

    The second questionable assumption is that Zionism as such has anything to do with Jewish identity or the practice of the Jewish religion. Of course, it does, to some extent, but the easiest refutation comes from the fact that a significant number of Jews do not in fact endorse Zionism (including some of the most religious ones.)

    I don't have a hobby horse on this issue but let's be honest: Anti-semitism is a thing, and it pertains to hating Jews (with various stereotypical concepts), on the usual assumption that there is no reason for this hostility. Anti-Zionism is criticism of the state of Israel, including its right to exist as a Jewish privileged state, but need not and often does not involve any irrational hatred of Jews as such.

    Replies: @International Jew, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Wait, antisemitism “pertains to hating Jews (with various stereotypical concepts), on the usual assumption that there is no reason for this hostility.”

    If that’s the case, then the word antisemitism is grossly and endlessly misused.

    My antisemitism grows out of my people getting pushed around and dismantled by Jewish elites. Having had many Jewish friends and even a few Jewish girlfriends, it’s difficult for me to have a personal animosity toward individual Jews or Jews in general; however, it is their people – even if only the elites – who seem hellbent on turning my country into an uptight version of Brazil.

    What do you call the dislike of Jewish elites for their assault on gentiles? What do you call the disdain that many of us feel for the silent acquiescence of Jews in general to that assault?

    Is it not antisemitism if, in fact, I do have a reason for this hostility.

  97. @Randal
    @ben tillman

    Reading this kind of article:

    Why BDS Cannot Lose: A Moral Threshold To Combat Racism in Israel

    it's certainly easy to understand the intense schadenfreude any white nationalist would feel at seeing the jewish state harmed by the BDS movement, given the massive jewish involvement in the anti-apartheid movements that destroyed white ruled South Africa and Rhodesia.

    Replies: @Judah Benjamin Hur, @Gabriel M, @Reg Cæsar

    The United States government played a far bigger role than Jews in bringing down White South Africa and Rhodesia, as did the governments of Europe, supported by the overwhelming majority of their populations, so, according to your nihilist logic, we should laugh as they are inundated with third world colonizers.

    Or perhaps non-leftists among both Jews and Whites should combine where possible to save their respective civilizations from destruction. Obviously, that will take some mutual forebearance on both sides and a willingness to let by gones be by gones, as well as a recognition that both sides have legitimately different historical memories (e.g. about the Crusades) and neither should demand the other accept their particular vantage point on all issues as a precondition for mutual solidarity. On the other hand, both sides are well within their rights to demand good behaviour from the other. Whites can legitimately demand that Zionists do something to mitigate the activities of their leftist brethren in the United States and Jews can demand that Palecons stop mindlessly parroting every Palestinian talking point as if it were gospel.

  98. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_3379

    United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, adopted on November 10, 1975 by a vote of 72 to 35 (with 32 abstentions), “determine[d] that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination”.

    • Replies: @biz
    @interesting

    repealed in 1994.

  99. @interesting
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_3379


    United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, adopted on November 10, 1975 by a vote of 72 to 35 (with 32 abstentions), "determine[d] that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination".

    Replies: @biz

    repealed in 1994.

  100. @Randal
    @ben tillman

    Reading this kind of article:

    Why BDS Cannot Lose: A Moral Threshold To Combat Racism in Israel

    it's certainly easy to understand the intense schadenfreude any white nationalist would feel at seeing the jewish state harmed by the BDS movement, given the massive jewish involvement in the anti-apartheid movements that destroyed white ruled South Africa and Rhodesia.

    Replies: @Judah Benjamin Hur, @Gabriel M, @Reg Cæsar

    …massive jewish involvement in the anti-apartheid movements that destroyed white ruled South Africa and Rhodesia.

    At the same time, Israel was quite friendly with South Africa, both being pariahs.

    What destroyed white-ruled South Africa and Rhodesia was having blacks and whites living together in the same state, which can’t work anywhere, ever. It was a grave mistake of theirs never to have carved out their own territory, and told the natives to stay on their side of the ditch.

    But had they done that, who’d’ve made their beds?

  101. @Marcus
    @Anonymous

    Israel is a pirate state, why should anyone recognize it? Their future will not be so bright once the US sugar daddy can't protect them from retribution any more.

    Replies: @biz

    I suppose given the concern you are showing for international borders and minority rights you are many times more bothered bothered by the many times worse acts and higher death tolls racked up by Indonesia (Invasion of West Papua and East Timor, ~1 million dead), Morocco (invasion of Western Sahara, 500,000 dead and displaced), and various other countries?

    • Replies: @Marcus
    @biz

    As far as I can tell, the US isn't subservient to Morocco or Indonesia, so no.

    , @SPMoore8
    @biz

    You realize this is classic whataboutism, right? Either Israel is guilty of discrimination against its non-Jewish citizens, or it isn't. Either Israel is guilty of discrimination against the non-Israelis in the West Bank, or it isn't. Either Israel is continuing to use the resources (water) and expand settlements on the far side of the Green Line, or it isn't. Either those policies are a violation of Fourth Geneva, or they aren't.

    Personally, I have hearing about all of this for 50 years, and I'd rather not hear about it. Yet it has been Israel, for the past ten years, that has been banging the drum about getting the US to attack Iran. Sometimes Israel's defenders ask as though people are obsessed with Israel: They are not. Our media is obsessed with Israel.

    As for the fine-tuning of Anti-Zionism as a concept, I laid some of that out. Sure, one can say that intelligent people will take the high road and will not criticize people who think that Israel is committing national suicide by expanding into the West Bank as "Anti-Zionists." But in fact, #1, it is very easy to do. #2, we are talking about college kids here, thus, #3, if "Anti-Zionism" actually became a component of UC speech codes, that would effectively mean that criticism of Israeli politics would be called "Anti-Zionism" by some enterprising complainant.

    Let's look at BDS. I have no interest in BDS. But in fact BDS is not out to "destroy Israel". It's an attempt to use boycotts, disinvestment, and sanctions as leverage against actual Israeli political policies. So why is that anti-Zionist? Or is any attempt to gain leverage over actual Israeli actions also "Anti-Zionist"? Or does that mean that one can say, "that's wrong", but as soon as you try to do something about it, that's "anti-Zionist"? It makes no sense.

    Again, I know a lot more Jews than I know Muslims and the only things I know about Israel and the West Bank is what I read in the major media; I don't even read alternative media on the Middle East. But based on what I read it does seem that there are some serious problems over there.

    Replies: @Marcus

    , @Brutusale
    @biz

    Stay on topic, son. We ain't supporting those countries with blood and treasure.

    I'd be more than happy for the US to have the same relationship with Israel that we have with the countries you listed.

  102. @biz
    @Marcus

    I suppose given the concern you are showing for international borders and minority rights you are many times more bothered bothered by the many times worse acts and higher death tolls racked up by Indonesia (Invasion of West Papua and East Timor, ~1 million dead), Morocco (invasion of Western Sahara, 500,000 dead and displaced), and various other countries?

    Replies: @Marcus, @SPMoore8, @Brutusale

    As far as I can tell, the US isn’t subservient to Morocco or Indonesia, so no.

  103. @biz
    @Marcus

    I suppose given the concern you are showing for international borders and minority rights you are many times more bothered bothered by the many times worse acts and higher death tolls racked up by Indonesia (Invasion of West Papua and East Timor, ~1 million dead), Morocco (invasion of Western Sahara, 500,000 dead and displaced), and various other countries?

    Replies: @Marcus, @SPMoore8, @Brutusale

    You realize this is classic whataboutism, right? Either Israel is guilty of discrimination against its non-Jewish citizens, or it isn’t. Either Israel is guilty of discrimination against the non-Israelis in the West Bank, or it isn’t. Either Israel is continuing to use the resources (water) and expand settlements on the far side of the Green Line, or it isn’t. Either those policies are a violation of Fourth Geneva, or they aren’t.

    Personally, I have hearing about all of this for 50 years, and I’d rather not hear about it. Yet it has been Israel, for the past ten years, that has been banging the drum about getting the US to attack Iran. Sometimes Israel’s defenders ask as though people are obsessed with Israel: They are not. Our media is obsessed with Israel.

    As for the fine-tuning of Anti-Zionism as a concept, I laid some of that out. Sure, one can say that intelligent people will take the high road and will not criticize people who think that Israel is committing national suicide by expanding into the West Bank as “Anti-Zionists.” But in fact, #1, it is very easy to do. #2, we are talking about college kids here, thus, #3, if “Anti-Zionism” actually became a component of UC speech codes, that would effectively mean that criticism of Israeli politics would be called “Anti-Zionism” by some enterprising complainant.

    Let’s look at BDS. I have no interest in BDS. But in fact BDS is not out to “destroy Israel”. It’s an attempt to use boycotts, disinvestment, and sanctions as leverage against actual Israeli political policies. So why is that anti-Zionist? Or is any attempt to gain leverage over actual Israeli actions also “Anti-Zionist”? Or does that mean that one can say, “that’s wrong”, but as soon as you try to do something about it, that’s “anti-Zionist”? It makes no sense.

    Again, I know a lot more Jews than I know Muslims and the only things I know about Israel and the West Bank is what I read in the major media; I don’t even read alternative media on the Middle East. But based on what I read it does seem that there are some serious problems over there.

    • Replies: @Marcus
    @SPMoore8

    Since Israel wields extraordinary influence over the US' foreign policy, it's only fair that Americans try to return the favor.

  104. @Desiderius
    @yaqub the mad scientist

    Prayerbook controversies are always good fun:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenny_Geddes

    Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist

    I’d never heard of this!

  105. @iffen
    @NOTA

    Are there anti-Kurdites?

    Replies: @NOTA

    Go ask the Turks.

  106. @SPMoore8
    @Desiderius

    Thanks for a thoughtful and eloquent reply. Not offended in the least. Inclusion and forgiveness are a default for all, among most Christians. But that is past sin. Not future sin. It sort of reminds me of the young woman who went to confession to tell her priest she was about to have an abortion. No. You can forgive the past, but forgiving the future is something else. See John, 8:11.

    There's a long debate about the salvation of life forms that haven't been blessed by JC or who knew JC, as we both know, including Dante's first circle. The dead deserve some respect just as creation deserves some respect. I'm sure we agree about this, but the inclusiveness and forgiveness I referenced entailed that.

    However, there's also the practical fact that most humans are not Christians and cannot relate to the system. In practical terms, again, I can't condemn them or consign them to oblivion.

    But you are right about one thing; absent the timeline and the goal that Christ on Earth represents, our culture, and the individuals who comprise that culture, does not and do not really have much purpose. But I think that's more a function of our shared history.

    Basically, I think religion gives humans a Gold Standard for how they should live their lives, by what standards, to what purpose, to what goal, and to what collective goal. I don't think secularism can ever come close to answering those questions, and that's part of where we are now. I'm sure other religions can fill the role that Christianity traditionally played -- I have some familiarity with Judaism, Hinduism, and Taoism -- But these other standards tend to be either ethnocentric, ascetic, or subjective for my tastes. But I admit my biases as a Christian and condemn no one.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    Inclusion and forgiveness are a default for all, among most Christians. But that is past sin.

    Only with repentance.

    I guarantee you you’ll find no shortage of congregations, liberal and conservative both, where that word hasn’t passed lips in years, especially those who like to talk themselves blue about inclusion.

    The dead deserve some respect just as creation deserves some respect. I’m sure we agree about this, but the inclusiveness and forgiveness I referenced entailed that.

    Respect is not salvation. We respect tragic heroes to the extent we write and perform and study great works of literature about them. Their stories are not thereby made comedy. The Christian story is ultimately a comedy. The Divine One, as Dante notes.

    However, there’s also the practical fact that most humans are not Christians and cannot relate to the system. In practical terms, again, I can’t condemn them or consign them to oblivion.

    Either you have a greatly inflated understanding of your power over the world ( a possibility I think we can both safely dismiss), or you’ve missed the argument. Reality is not what you or I determine it to be, it is what it is (and He (who made it) Is what He Is – that’s even the name he gave to Moses). Our task is merely to accurately apprehend it.

    In any event, oblivion is the default. There is some possibility of an alternative, it wouldn’t be fair to blame one who suggests it for others deciding against it.

    As for “cannot,” that is not for us to know. Will not seems to correspond sufficiently with the facts at hand, at least with those presently alive of whom you speak.

    absent the timeline and the goal that Christ on Earth represents, our culture, and the individuals who comprise that culture, does not and do not really have much purpose

    I spoke of the purpose of the church, not man.

    “Injustice, poverty, slavery, ignorance – these may be cured by reform or revolution. But men do not live only by fighting evils. They live by positive goals, individual and collective, a vast variety of them, seldom predictable, at times incompatible.”

    – Sir Isaiah Berlin

    The church is the engine by which purposes are achieved; ideally God’s, in reality man’s sometimes aiming at God’s. In any event, man, in God’s image, is a purpose-making animal. He needs no help on that score, other than in aiming those purposes toward God’s, to the extent we can make them out.

    Basically, I think religion gives humans a Gold Standard for how they should live their lives, by what standards, to what purpose, to what goal, and to what collective goal.

    That’s the Old Testament. Some day perhaps you’ll consider the New, which deals with the first derivative of that function.

    I don’t think secularism can ever come close to answering those questions, and that’s part of where we are now.

    And yet it does quite well for high achievers all around us and throughout history. The secular is the fruit of the sacred, the two go hand in hand. On the community level, both are essential, particularly to one another. So God loved the World that He made.

    I’m sure other religions can fill the role that Christianity traditionally played

    Ruling the world would certainly be easier were that true.

  107. SP,

    I don’t mean to be glib. By considering the New, I’m referring to Paul in Romans, particularly ch.7-8.

    • Agree: SPMoore8
  108. @SFG
    @biz

    There's an obvious tendency, but the government of Iran, for example, tolerates a local Jewish population while opposing the state of Israel. Of course, the countries are also mortal enemies.

    You can even believe Israel has a right to exist (which is what Zionist originally meant), just that they've gotten away with a little too much recently.

    Replies: @Maj. Kong, @dfordoom

    You can even believe Israel has a right to exist (which is what Zionist originally meant), just that they’ve gotten away with a little too much recently.

    You can believe, as I do, that Israel has the right to exist – within its own borders. Its pre-1967 borders.

  109. @Maj. Kong
    @SFG

    IMO, Iran does that only to propagandize itself is being morally superior to Saudi Arabia. The IRI isn't as anti-Western as many think. Many of their Cabinet took postgraduate education in Europe.

    The Muslims have historical evidence that they will eventually prevail over Israel (I doubt they will), given that the Crusader kingdoms lasted from 50 to slightly less than 200 years. While the average Arab Muslim seems to believe Israel will be gone in 20 years, and has believed this since 1948, their existence can only be called 'stable' after more than a century of peace.

    Replies: @Cwhatfuture

    Yes, the Muslims have been predicting Israel’s demise since 1949. “Artificial state, economically unviable, will be finished off militarily, demographically doomed and recently someone called it a pirate state” those are the usual reasons. And yet it is Syria and and Iraq and Libya which proved artificial and which have dissolved, it is Israel which has the most advanced economy in the Middle East, it is Israel which certainly has the strongest military in the region, it is Israel which grows more Jewish and it is the Muslim Somali pirates who are all dead. But hope springs eternal in the minds of the Israel obsessed. I am betting on Israel (literally – stock market and real estate – excellent investments).

  110. @SPMoore8
    @International Jew

    "Anti-Zionism" can be seen as "anti-Semitic" if it is taken to mean that the Jewish people, uniquely, are not entitled to a state of their own.

    However, in practice, "Anti-Zionism" means criticizing anything Israel does, because the argument is always made that Israel is only doing what it does "in order to survive", and therefore if you criticize anything Israel does you are denying the Jewish people the right to have a state of their own, etc. etc.

    Replies: @biz, @NOTA, @International Jew, @dfordoom

    if it is taken to mean that the Jewish people, uniquely, are not entitled to a state of their own.

    The Basques might disagree with the uniquely part. So might the Scots. And the Welsh. And the Catalans. And the Cornish. And the Roma. And the Maoris. And the Tibetans. And the Hawaiians.

    The distinct ethnic groups that don’t have a state of their own probably outnumber those that do.

  111. All ideas are fine until their ideas win.

  112. @SPMoore8
    @biz

    You realize this is classic whataboutism, right? Either Israel is guilty of discrimination against its non-Jewish citizens, or it isn't. Either Israel is guilty of discrimination against the non-Israelis in the West Bank, or it isn't. Either Israel is continuing to use the resources (water) and expand settlements on the far side of the Green Line, or it isn't. Either those policies are a violation of Fourth Geneva, or they aren't.

    Personally, I have hearing about all of this for 50 years, and I'd rather not hear about it. Yet it has been Israel, for the past ten years, that has been banging the drum about getting the US to attack Iran. Sometimes Israel's defenders ask as though people are obsessed with Israel: They are not. Our media is obsessed with Israel.

    As for the fine-tuning of Anti-Zionism as a concept, I laid some of that out. Sure, one can say that intelligent people will take the high road and will not criticize people who think that Israel is committing national suicide by expanding into the West Bank as "Anti-Zionists." But in fact, #1, it is very easy to do. #2, we are talking about college kids here, thus, #3, if "Anti-Zionism" actually became a component of UC speech codes, that would effectively mean that criticism of Israeli politics would be called "Anti-Zionism" by some enterprising complainant.

    Let's look at BDS. I have no interest in BDS. But in fact BDS is not out to "destroy Israel". It's an attempt to use boycotts, disinvestment, and sanctions as leverage against actual Israeli political policies. So why is that anti-Zionist? Or is any attempt to gain leverage over actual Israeli actions also "Anti-Zionist"? Or does that mean that one can say, "that's wrong", but as soon as you try to do something about it, that's "anti-Zionist"? It makes no sense.

    Again, I know a lot more Jews than I know Muslims and the only things I know about Israel and the West Bank is what I read in the major media; I don't even read alternative media on the Middle East. But based on what I read it does seem that there are some serious problems over there.

    Replies: @Marcus

    Since Israel wields extraordinary influence over the US’ foreign policy, it’s only fair that Americans try to return the favor.

  113. @biz
    @Marcus

    I suppose given the concern you are showing for international borders and minority rights you are many times more bothered bothered by the many times worse acts and higher death tolls racked up by Indonesia (Invasion of West Papua and East Timor, ~1 million dead), Morocco (invasion of Western Sahara, 500,000 dead and displaced), and various other countries?

    Replies: @Marcus, @SPMoore8, @Brutusale

    Stay on topic, son. We ain’t supporting those countries with blood and treasure.

    I’d be more than happy for the US to have the same relationship with Israel that we have with the countries you listed.

  114. @biz
    @Mr. Anon


    Do you maintain then that anti-semitism should be illegal? A person has no right to be one?
     
    Of course no viewpoint should be illegal. But when it comes to setting boundaries on offensive speech at universities - which I am not in favor of but if done should be done consistently - then anti-Zionism / antisemitism is as offensive as other forms of bigotry.

    As for the Judith Butler thing, yes you are correct there are a lot of Jewish anti-Zionists and many of them are also gay, such as Glen Greenwald and Max Blumenthal. I think that psychology and neuroscience have a lot of fertile ground studying the puzzle of why a subset of gay Jews are so eager to side with Islamic radicals, who would murder them once for being Jewish and again for being gay.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    “Of course no viewpoint should be illegal.”

    Well, that’s mighty white of you.

  115. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @SFG
    I'd probably bet on 1. 2. is just too hard a sell nowadays. And 3., well, 3. is just too nice a possibility to happen in real life.

    One of the things that struck me is that there aren't that many groups with money on the left, for obvious reasons. If you're one of the few groups that can bring the bling to the party, you can have a lot of influence. This was exactly the argument a fellow made to me back at college when I asked why Jews don't go Republican given their income (I was trying to do the Jewish-identity thing back then, which went as far as eating at the kosher cafeteria).

    OK, semi-serious question: if I go Christian later in life, anyone recommend a denomination?

    Replies: @Hubbub, @Ed, @Anonymous, @Pseudonymic Handle, @SPMoore8, @Nico, @Anonymous, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @OLD JEW, @Anonymous, @Alec Leamas, @Maj. Kong, @Reg Cæsar, @Aaron Gross, @StAugustine, @donut, @International Jew, @Gunnar von Cowtown, @Bannon, @Anonymous

    Have you considered traditional / modern Orthodox Judaism? From previous posts, I’ve gathered you’re a maternal half-Jew and therefore a halachic Jew. The social justice and feminist lunacy that pervades Reform and Conservative Jewish congregations is much more muted among the Orthodox. If you’re worried about being drawn into something crazy like Lubavitch or other hasidism/haredism, there are Sephardi Orthodox congregations in some cities. The Sephardi Orthodox tradition didn’t give rise to movements as extreme as the Ashkenazi Orthodox tradition.

  116. Reporting from the AIPAC policy conference in DC.

    Method #1. Is alive and well http://youtu.be/nl2iorQpL0o

    As is method #2.

    https://youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=mj_jyG8OpeU&t=19m38s

    Method #3. Is no where to be found. The discussion of campus BDS completely ignores the POC element

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS