Skip to content

On Israel’s Jewish New ‘Nation State’ Law

I am probably the wrong man to ask about Israel being named as an official Jewish state. My idea is that at least Jerusalem should be Christian. After all, Our Lord sacrificed himself there for all mankind. Christianity began there by men who saw the light, men who realized the Old Covenant(s) found its fulfillment in the New, an act made painfully clear even to unbelievers in the razing of the Temple in 70 anno Domini.

Interregnum Pope Benedict has recently published a paper on this general subject; it being written about in many places. But not many have or can read the paper, since it is in German. If anybody can translate or knows of a translation, please tell us. In this paper it is reported Benedict acknowledges that the re-founding of Israel was a political and not theological act. On that, see also this on Hal Lindsey.

Jews, of course, do not believe in the Divinity of Christ, and all that follows from that ultimate truth (though some Jews, calling themselves a race, call themselves Christian). They are thus in error on these fundamental points. They are not, again of course, alone in these errors. These errors are shared by people the world over, even by those who were once not in error. But there is practically speaking—and here is our third “of course”—a world of difference between ex-Christians and never-were-Christians.

Never mind all that. Israel has as little chance of turning Christian as do hot dogs with ketchup tasting good. Let’s deal therefore with things as they are, not how they should be.

Israel passed a law they’re calling the “nation state” law, which says “that Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people, and that ‘the right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.’ It establishes Hebrew as the official language of Israel and downgrades Arabic to a language with ‘special status.'” This “special status”, we gather, will be the same as that accorded traditionalists on American college campuses.

Well, Israel is its own country and can decide things however it wants. If they want to say Israel is the historic homeland of the “Jewish people”, that’s their business, as things stand. Of course (another one!), to do that they’ll have to decide who gets to be Jewish and who doesn’t. And Jews seem confused about that.

At times the term appears to mean a Jew is a person who adopts one of the several branches of Judaism, and that’s fair enough. Be born or convert, as the apostate daughter of our president did, and you’re a Jew. Whatever rules govern such conversions can decide.

But Jews also say they are a race, to which even those who reject Judaism can belong. The linked article above mentions a “Jewish diaspora”, for instance. That means the black lady rabbi I saw a reformed temple boasting about in print is of the same race as, for instance, Bill Kristol or Harrison Ford. And so, then, is Trump’s daughter of the same race (as long as she met the criteria for membership in the religion). And so are the many Ethiopian Jewish converts from times past of the same race. And so are the Arabs who converted, and so on and so forth. The Jews after all did pretty good at proselytizing after the Temple’s destruction.

But if that’s the demarcation of race, it means folks who have lived long enough with calling themselves a race are that race. Well, self-identification is the norm now. And Jews seems to recognize each other just as Christians do.

If all that is true, then are European and American Christians a race? If so, it means the Israeli government, and the Israeli-American dual-passport holders who are in our government’s and the media’s employ, ought to support with vigor a law here which states that the United States of America is unique to Christians (if Jews are a religion) or, say, blacks (if Jews are a race) in the same way Israel is a Jewish State.

We don’t need to stop at the USA. Austria can get in on this, too. And Poland. And a few other obvious candidates. English for the USA, naturally, German for Austria, and Polish for Poland, all other languages being designated as special status.

What do we make of this idea? At the best, (if Jews are a religion) it would acknowledge that when a designated official Christian country deals with Israel, she does so knowing that Israel denies the divinity of Christ, and is therefore in error on that and many associated points, points which would be by definition of prime importance to the official Christian country.

Israel (yet another of course!) would think the opposite. That is, they would think the official Christian country is wrong about the divinity of Christ, and Israel would deal with that country with that understanding. It’s an all-cards-on-the-table approach that is bound to pay off diplomatically.

If Jews are a race regardless of religion, and Israel is their home that all must recognize, then that country would and should support other countries that want to designate themselves official homes for various races. Right? It can’t be that Jews are the only race that get to call themselves a race that gets to make rules for itself and keep outsiders out. Can it? Israel is alt-right (I’m supposing the media’s definition of that term) and Jewish supremacist, and would seem to be obliged to support alt-right status for other nations.

There are difficulties of declaring Jews a singular race, though. There will be some race (if we use the older, commonsense definition of the word) among Jews which is at least a plurality, some race who has the highest count. I haven’t done this counting, but it looks like those of East European descent, perhaps Russian. Or maybe Kahazar/Turkish? Or even white. Whatever it is, it is something. It would not be a mistake to say that this numerical winner is “the” Jewish race; that would be up to Israel to decide. But it would follow that those of other races who consider themselves Jews are in official error, or are of secondary status.

Same goes for the Christian race. Some race is number one—maybe it’s Nigerians or Brazilians. It could even be Chinese (67 million Christians in China). I don’t know. Whoever is tops would then be “the” Christian race.

Rules for commenting: Let’s agree with the Encyclopedia Britannica that the first one to use the misnomer “anti-Semitism” loses, because not all Jews are Semitic, and not all Semites are Jews. If you mean “anti-Jew” say “anti-Jew.” Unless, of course, all non-Semites are declared by law non-Jews, and all Semites are thus declared Jews, regardless of their religion. Or maybe, if we accept self-identification, anybody who declares themselves a Jew becomes a Semite.

And then if Jews are an official race, by whatever rules Israel decides, and Israel must be seen as the official Jewish homeland, then to criticize Israel would by definition be criticizing Jews. That’s a win-win for them.

It’s all very confusing.

45 thoughts on “On Israel’s Jewish New ‘Nation State’ Law Leave a comment

  1. Yeah, but…they MUST take such drastic measures because of the unique plight they find themselves in.

    The poor country is beset with unprecedented fanatical Islamic religious terrorism. The “religion of peace” is totally unique in its barbaric use of terrorism.

    Oh, really?

    Before 1948, there was no such thing as “Islamic terrorism.”

    But there was “Zionist terrorism.” In fact, the Zionists perfected massacring innocents and political opponents decades before Palestinians dreamed of the need for such actions:

    June 30, 1924. Dutch Jew Jacob Israël de Haan was assassinated by Avraham Tehomi on the orders of Haganah leader Yitzhak Ben-Zvi[37] for his anti-Zionist political activities and contacts with Arab leaders.[38]
    1937–1939 The Irgun conducted a campaign of violence against Palestinian Arab civilians resulting in the deaths of at least 250.[39][40]
    July 15, 1938* A bomb left in the vegetable market in Jerusalem by the Irgun injured 28.[41]
    July 25, 1938* The Irgun threw a bomb into the melon market in Haifa resulting in 49 deaths.[42]
    November 6, 1944 Lehi assassinated British minister Lord Moyne in Cairo, Egypt. The action was condemned by the Yishuv at the time, but the bodies of the assassins were brought home from Egypt in 1975 to a state funeral and burial on Mount Herzl.[43]
    1944–1945 The killings of several suspected collaborators with the Haganah and the British mandate government during the Hunting Season.
    1946′ Letter bombs sent to British officials, including foreign minister Ernst Bevin, by Lehi.
    July 26, 1946 The bombing of British administrative headquarters at the King David Hotel, killing 91 people — 28 British, 41 Arab, 17 Jewish, and 5 others. Around 45 people were injured. In the literature about the practice and history of terrorism, it has been called one of the most lethal terrorist attacks of the 20th century.[44]
    1946 Railways and British military airfields were attacked several times.
    October 31, 1946 The bombing by the Irgun of the British Embassy in Rome. Nearly half the building was destroyed and 3 people were injured.[45]
    April 16, 1947* An Irgun bomb placed at the Colonial Office in London failed to detonate.[46] The woman arrested for planting the bomb, alias “Esther,” was identified as a Jewess claiming French nationality by the Scotland Yard unit investigating Jewish terrorist activities. The attack was linked to the 1946 Rome embassy bombing.[47][48]
    14 June 1947 The Reuters office in Tel Aviv was raided by “Jewish terrorists.”[49]
    July 25, 1947 The Sergeants affair: When death sentences were passed on two Irgun members, the Irgun kidnapped Sgt. Clifford Martin and Sgt. Mervyn Paice and threatened to kill them in retaliation if the sentences were carried out. When the threat was ignored, the hostages were killed. Afterwards, their bodies were taken to an orange grove and left hanging by the neck from trees. An improvised explosive device was set. This went off when one of the bodies was cut down, seriously wounding a British officer.[50]
    December 1947 – March 1948 Numerous attacks on Palestinian Arabs in the context of civil war after the vote of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine.
    ‘1947 Letter bombs sent to the Truman White House by Lehi.
    January 5–6, 1948 The Semiramis Hotel bombing, carried out by the Haganah (or, according to some sources, Irgun) resulted in the deaths of 24 to 26 people.
    April 1948 The Deir Yassin massacre carried out by the Irgun and Lehi, killed between 107 and 120 Palestinian villagers,[51] the estimate generally accepted by scholars.[52][53]
    September 17, 1948 Lehi assassination of the United Nations mediator Folke Bernadotte,[54][55] whom Lehi accused of a pro-Arab stance during the cease-fire negotiations.

    Irgun was described as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, British, and United States governments, and in media such as The New York Times newspaper,[20][21] and by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry.[22] In 1946, The World Zionist Congress strongly condemned terrorist activities in Palestine and “the shedding of innocent blood as a means of political warfare”. Irgun was specifically condemned.[23]

    Menachem Begin was called a terrorist and a fascist by Albert Einstein and 27 other prominent Jewish intellectuals in a letter to the New York Times which was published on December 4, 1948. Specifically condemned was the participation of the Irgun in the Deir Yassin massacre:[24]

    “terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants – 240 men, women and children – and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem.”
    The letter warns American Jews against supporting Begin’s request for funding of his political party Herut, and ends with the warning:

    “The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a “Leader State” is the goal.”[24]
    Lehi was described as a terrorist organization[25] by the British authorities and United Nations mediator Ralph Bunche.

  2. It’s quite clear. Jews are whoever the Jews say they are. They say they are both a race and a religion. Or either one or the other. Whatever suits the occasion and is best for the Jews.

    As long as we’re playing the game, let us all play by the same rules. Naturally, the minimal intersecting set always applies when there is conflict between varieties of rules. In this case, that appears to be “But is it good for me and my people, as defined by me and mine, for this particular situation?”

    In that case, I’m all for the concept of the nation-state. America is a white, Christian nation. And Jews, by their own definitions, are neither of those things. Especially since they’re not me and mine, in this context.

  3. McChuck,

    Sorry, I don’t play games. But I do deal with historical and current reality.

    Evidently you’re unaware of history, the history of warfare, the history of terrorism, and the history of 20th century terrorism. Your sources are very bad, and/or very biased.

    Wars are not terrorism, generally speaking.

    Historical practices in war cannot be retro-defined as terrorism.

    Genocidal massacres, carried out by conquerors were pretty much par for the course, general practice, before the 20th century (and in the 20th century, not uncommon).

    Your examples are not terrorism, but normal practices for conquering armies. Exceptions prove the rule.

    Political terrorism–for example, the Irgun bombing of the King David Hotel–was unknown in Palestine before Zionist gangs began its use:

    “It will be recalled that after Black Sabbath (Saturday), Menahem Begin received a letter from Moshe Sneh (chief of the Haganah General Headquarters) with instructions to blow up the King David. After preparatory work and several postponements, Irgun fighters gathered at 7 am. on Monday, July 22, 1946 at the Bet Aharon Talmud Torah seminary in Jerusalem. They arrived one by one, gave the password and assembled in one of the classrooms. They realized that they were being sent on a mission, but none of them knew what the target was. Shortly afterwards, the senior command arrived and it was only when the briefing began that the assembled fighters discovered that they were going to strike at the King David Hotel.

    “After the weapons had been distributed, the first unit – the group of “porters” – commanded by Yosef Avni, set out. Their assignment was to reach the hotel by bus and to wait at the side entrance so as to assist in unloading the explosives from the van when it arrived. All six “porters” were disguised as Arabs so as to avoid arousing suspicion. The strike force left next in a van loaded with seven milk-churns, each containing 50 kilograms of explosives and special detonators. The commander of the operation, Yisrael Levi (Gidon), rode in the van dressed as a Sudanese waiter, while his deputy, Heinrich Reinhold (Yanai), and the other members of the unit, were dressed as Arabs. The van drove through the streets of Jerusalem, its tarpaulin cover concealing the milk-churns and the passengers, and halted at the side entrance of the hotel, through which foodstuffs were brought into the basement ‘La Regence’ restaurant. The fighters easily overcame the guards by the gate and hastened to the basement, where they searched all the rooms, and assembled the workers in the restaurant kitchen. They then returned to the van, brought the milk-churns into the restaurant, and placed them beside the supporting pillars . Gidon set the time fuses for 30 minutes, and ordered his men to leave. The staff gathered in the kitchen were told to leave the building 10 minutes later to avoid injury.

    “During the withdrawal from the basement, heavy gunfire was levelled at the group and two fighters were injured. One of them, Aharon Abramovitch, later died of his wounds.

    “After exiting the hotel, Gidon summoned two women fighters who were waiting nearby, and ordered them to carry out their mission. They ran over to a nearby telephone booth, and delivered the following message to the hotel telephone operator and to the editorial office of the Palestine Post…”

    http://www.etzel.org.il/english/ac10.htm

  4. The Atlantic article is not very clear on what Jewish means in this context. I believe it means religion, and this is based on the Israeli government bringing lots of people who are seen by the Israelis themselves as Jewish, like the Ethiopean Jews.

    The racial argument will only work if the Israeli see themselves as a race. They probably do, but not to the extend that it supercedes the survivability of the State of Israel.

    So, you need to have the faith, and being of a traditional Jewish race is nice-to-have. That dynamic will probably change when the State of Israel feels itself secure enough so people can start squabbling over the issue.

    Recent converts of European stock are probably so few that nobody cares about is, especially if they stay out of Israel.

  5. It’s all very confusing because of the misuse of the term ‘race.’ Reserve it for the biological (genetic) domain and there are fewer problems. Appropriate it for behavioral/demographic/affiliation uses and the word no longer has value as a label. Not to mention that in modern use the word primarily is employed as a cudgel for battering opponents…

  6. Having grown up with, lived alongside, dated, and not infrequently partied with my Jewish friends and neighbours. Never have I heard them refer to themselves as a race synonymous with being, say, a Slav. What they do refer to themselves as is “a people”, or most commonly “a tribe”. Yes indeed others have, erroneously referred to them as a race. Furthermore many genetic studies have been done to find common links for purposes both benign and sinister and they are largely hopeless because so many disparate groups have assimilated into the Jewish people (or tribe). All of which explains why you can, if you so desire, join the tribe and become as Jewish as Moses. However a word of caution. As a friend pointed out it’s a bit like the mafia, once in never out. Benjamin Disraeli, for instance, is still a Jew.

  7. Don’t worry about the race/religion thing, there’s in place a pretty extensive religious law/practice (they call it Halacha) dealing with this issue. For sure, this was all hashed out in detail before they declared Israel for Jews!

    http://bethyeshua.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Jewish-Identity-Halacha.pdf

    “Beth Yeshua’s Jewish Identity Halacha

    Because of the prophetic importance of our Jewish people returning to Israel our Jewish identity halacha is based on the ability of a person to make aliyah (immigrate) to Israel.

    I. Following the consensus of Jewish tradition, we recognize as a Jew anyone who is born of a Jewish mother or who is a convert to Judaism. (Beth Yeshua does not endorse the current “conversions” occurring within Messianic Judaism by groups like the Messianic Jewish Rabbinical Council.)

    II. We also recognize as a Jew anyone who is born of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother if that person has undertaken public and formal acts of identification with the Jewish faith and people.

    III. We also recognize as a Jew anyone who would be able to make Aliyah to Israel under the “Law of Return.” If, however, the person has not been raised in a Jewish home, and has not undertaken public and formal acts of identification with the Jewish faith and people – we will require a period of discipleship with a Jewish believer of the same gender in order to bring them to full and meaningful Jewish participation within our community.

    IV. All of the above standards for Jewish identity must be established by tangible, physical evidence of Jewish descent and practice (ie. Jewish gravestones, B’rit Milah certificates, Bat Mitzvah certificates, Ketubbim, etc.)

    We DO NOT accept “word of mouth” confessions or testimonies of “Jewishness” that have been passed down by families.

    V. We DO NOT recognize as Jewish those who claim to have Jewish DNA. DNA “evidence” is still primarily geographically based, and as such is a speculative science. DNA “evidence” is also NOT allowed as proof for immigration to Israel.

    DNA evidence will probably never be allowed as proof for immigration to Israel since the current Palestinian people are an exact DNA match with current Israelis.”

    How about them apples? Palestinians are genetically identical to Israelis!

    Wow!

  8. “…when a designated official Christian country deals with Israel, , she does so knowing that Israel denies the divinity of Christ, and is therefore in error on that and many associated points, points which would be by definition of prime importance to the official Christian country”

    Philosophical blather. Setting aside the notion of a “official Christian country” (there are only five, all small and including Vatican City, that officially designate a Christian denomination as a State religion), when has any predominantly christian country engaged Israel on a topic of inter-country relationship where Israel’s rejection of Jesus as divine was an integral element, much less an element of “prime importance”?

    McC asserts: “America is a white, Christian nation.”
    Kudos for the savant-like ability to express so much falsehood and racism in a mere six words.
    White Christians in the U.S. are now at something in the high 40%’s of the population. And that population isn’t so impressive where it dominates local demographics; as WAPO noted:

    “When we’ve reached a place where good Christian folk think it’s a matter of major theological principle not to sell pastries to gay people but are willing to give pedophiles a pass, I think it’s safe to say that American Christianity today — white American Christianity in particular — is in a pretty sorry state.”
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/12/19/white-christianity-is-in-big-trouble-and-its-its-own-biggest-threat/?utm_term=.e58457d76cc2

  9. “It’s all very confusing.”

    Only to those, like Dr. Briggs, who are flummoxed by the use of a word in different senses in different contexts. The same smallness of mind leads to the tiresome, mistaken claim that “antisemitic” can not mean anti-Jew. That is what it means, as the Enc. Britannica told you. So you’ve noticed that it makes little etymological sense. Congratulations. Now you can dissect the thousands of other English words with an equally problematic pedigree, but that nevertheless mean what they mean. This makes for enthralling Thanksgiving dinner conversation.

    “the Israeli-American dual-passport holders who are in our government’s and the media’s employ”

    The obsession is hardening. The ugliness is never far from the surface.

  10. Anybody see/recall the movie, Star Trek: The Final Frontier where they finally meet up with “God” at the center of the universe, and, “God” wants to use the Enterprise starship? “God” needs that starship.

    Kirk asked the obvious (at least after he asked is was obvious), “What does God need with a starship?” We all see the incongruity with that demand and almost immediately realize that “God” wasn’t “God” after all, they’d merely met up with some powerful alien. McKoy as usual with his emotional reasoning was slow to catch on as was the dude that invested so much hope in getting to “God” he didn’t want to believe he’d made a mistake. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4HjR5xW7FU

    That bit from the movie is eerily similar to this sentiment regarding which so many self-impose intellectual blinders:

    “Our Lord sacrificed himself … for all mankind.”

    What does God need with a human sacrifice, especially a sacrifice of himself to himself? After all, he demands [many places in the Bible] we forgive each other, why couldn’t he, almighty & omnipotent, do the same?

  11. Back when an alternative “home” for the Jewish people was being mooted the British Empire generously offered up Newfoundland. I’m not kidding. I imagine if the entire population was invited down to their locals for free Screech and Cod in St John’s and Corner Brook the whole thing could have been wrapped up before the hangovers cleared. However the new Jewish state would have been left with the ethical dilemma of the major export being lobster!

    There ya go a “Newfie” joke and a Jewish joke in a single paragraph.

    But the bit about proposing Newfoundland is quite true!

  12. Kent Clizbe asserts “Before 1948, there was no such thing as Islamic terrorism.”

    Perhaps it is a quibble, but the United States Navy was formed at least in part to battle that very thing although it was then Barbary pirates at Tripoli.

    “From the Halls of Montezuma
    To the shores of Tripoli;
    We fight our country’s battles
    In the air, on land, and sea;
    First to fight for right and freedom
    And to keep our honor clean;
    We are proud to claim the title
    Of United States Marine.”

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

    “Capturing merchant ships and enslaving or ransoming their crews provided the Muslim rulers of these nations with wealth and naval power”

    Kent Clizbe also writes “Sorry, I don’t play games.”

    You are doing so this very moment. This game is called “I am right and you are wrong.”

    “But I do deal with historical and current reality.”

    Some bits of it, anyway.

  13. Ken asks “What does God need with a human sacrifice, especially a sacrifice of himself to himself?”

    As it happens, there be many branches of Christianity, some better suited to answer this. My answer is that Jesus isn’t God, he’s the SON of God (says so many times in the bible) and wonders aloud why he has been forsaken. At any rate, it balances the scale that was tipped in the Garden of Eden. Falling from perfection was not apparently remedied or even remediable by the millions of people that died in between.

    “After all, he demands we forgive each other, why couldn’t he, almighty and omnipotent, do the same?”

    He can, he did, and that forgiveness took place about 2000 years ago. But there’s a principle that not even God can violate, and that principle is justice. C.S. Lewis explores this very topic in his book The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. The Witch invokes a law of Justice to which Aslan the Lion (a metaphor or simile to Jesus) must consent, or lose his power, title, virtue or whatever. Cease to be God the moment you violate an eternal principle.

    But this trap which the Witch had set, had also been anticipated, and a way existed to escape the trap although there’s a price to pay. It required to balance the scale that had been tipped by the witch (Lucifer) by a perfect sacrifice. What the witch apparently didn’t appreciate is that Aslan didn’t stay dead; he didn’t simply come back alive, that would be weird even for CS Lewis, but he also didn’t stay dead.

    So the question eventually becomes whether you think God is impossible, omni-everything, can an omnipotent God create something too heavy to move? I have a doubt about all those omni’s. He doesn’t claim it of himself. There are certain things God won’t do; whether he CAN is unclear; but he will not rob justice.

    The contrary principle, Mercy, exists; and says that the scales can be balanced by someone else. The bank doesn’t care who pays the debt. So when I pay my daughter’s debts, which I do fairly regularly, she no longer owes the bank, she owes *me* and that is something I can forgive by turning it into a GIFT of my own choosing; and the debt simply vanishes into the ether from which it came in the first place.

    And so it is with Jesus. He paid the debt, balanced the scale, and the debt I owe him is of my own choosing since he requires nothing to him directly; wishes me to pay it forward to my neighbors. His sacrifice was life; mine is to be a broken heart and a contrite spirit.

    Except when blogging. There were times when Jesus argued most cleverly.

  14. Michael 2,

    You’re ignoring historical norms and methods of territorial defense/offense of the time.

    If you think attacking foreign ships off your coast is “terrorism,” then you’ve got a lot of re-learning to do.

    In the same era, a Muslim navy regularly stopped American ships in international waters in the name of its vile sultan, and kidnapped American sailors–forcing these American citizens to serve as slave sailors in the Muslim navy.

    The exact same Muslim navy sailed into the Chesapeake Bay, shelled Baltimore and other seaside American towns.

    The same Muslim navy set ashore its Marines and other Muslim soldiers, marched up to Washington DC, our under-construction capitol, and burned it to the ground.

    The same Muslim navy sailed up to the mouth of the Mississippi, sent ashore a massive army, bent on seizing New Orleans for their Muslim potentate. Thanks to Andrew Jackson, the terrorist Islamics were beaten back, took to their ships, and scuttled back to their vile den of Islamic vice.

    Except…oh, wait, did I say “Muslim”? Oh, my mistake. Substitute “Anglican” for Muslim and Islam above. And King of England for sultan. All of those “terrorist” actions were carried out by Anglican terrorists–British Christians.

    Again, there was no such thing as “Islamic terrorism” before 1948.

    Please let me know if you need any more help in understanding history.

    You really should stop reading the neocon blogs. They lead to silly ahistorical beliefs and fantastic misunderstanding. Happy to help.

  15. Kent Clizbe writes “You’re ignoring historical norms and methods of territorial defense/offense of the time.”

    And you abandoned not talking to me. But as Willard says, the only way to lose is not to play.

    “All of those terrorist actions were carried out by Anglican terrorists–British Christians.”

    I’d probably toss in some Spanish and French terrorists just to help complete the picture.

    “You really should stop reading the neocon blogs”

    What is neocon? (*) Why should I be shielded from neocon blogs? (**) I recognize that the Thought Police would prefer to filter what I see but I did not take you for the Thought Police. This is yet another incongruity on your character.

    * If Ben Shapiro is an example, say so. I love his logic and argumentation style. When he asked a young woman of 23 years of age why she couldn’t be 60 years of age, the look on her face was absolutely priceless. She had no answer. The inference was obvious; if you can be any gender or any race just by saying so then you can also be any age or any other presumably immutable characteristic just by saying so.

    ** An example of a neocon blog would help. I first heard the word on returning to the United States and spent a couple of years trying to find out what it means; other than leftwingers use it as an epithet which means “I don’t like you”. I think there might have been a small cabal of Ronald Reagan’s advisors that collectively were called new conservatives but it isn’t clear to me what made them so and who applied that label.

  16. “What is neocon? (*)”

    How can you have so many opinions, and so fervidly communicate them, all the while being so out of touch with reality? You don’t know what neo-conservatism is?

    I’d be happy to assign a reading list to begin your education on neocons, but will just tiptoe into the beginning here. Let me know if you need more.

    This one is a book review. However, the review is quite educational. Try the book if your appetite is whetted:

    http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/HeilbrunnReview-final.pdf

    “They Knew They Were Right The Rise of the Neocons
    Jacob Heilbrunn New York: Doubleday, 2008

    “Psychological Intensity, Anti-White Hostility
    The title of the book—They Knew They Were Right—says a great deal. As Heilbrunn shows, the neocons are people “of an uncompro-mising temperament who use (and treat) ideas as weapons in a moral struggle” (p. 13). He gets at the passion of Jewish involvement in po-litical causes, tracing it back to traditional Jewish attitudes in Eastern Europe: “As one Yiddish newspaper put it, ‘with hatred, with a three-fold curse, we must weave the shroud for the Russian autocratic gov-ernment, for the entire anti-Semitic criminal gang’” (p. 25). Regarding Max Shachtman, an early neocon follower of Trotsky, “his father transmitted his hatred of the Russian, German, and Austro-Hungarian empires to him” (p. 29).

    “The proto-neocons of the 1930s “reveled in their hatred of capitalism and their snobbish alienation from Ameri-can society” (p. 43). When George H. W. Bush became president, “the eastern establishment Republicans brought in by Bush, men like James Baker and Brent Skowcroft, represented everything the neocons despised” (p. 194).

    “These quotes reflect two themes I have stressed in a previous TOQ essay on background traits for Jewish activism: Psychological intensi-ty and the motivating force of hatred of the existing social order as an-ti-Jewish.1 There are many passages where he mentions the psycho-logical intensity of the neocons. For example, neocons “always believe what they are saying with the utmost intensity; it’s in their nature as prophetic personalities” (p. 137). And a prime passion is hatred of their enemies. Indeed, he contrasts William Buckley with the passio-nate intensity of Norman Podhoretz.”

    “Why should I be shielded from neocon blogs? (**)”

    Because they tell you things that are not true, and confuse you (and many other naive, easily influenced Americans) greatly. They cause you to think that Barbary Pirates’ warfare was “Islamic terrorism” , while never mentioning the “Anglican terrorism” that caused damage on the order of 10000x worse to our country, and that actually invaded our country and burned our capitol.

    “I recognize that the Thought Police would prefer to filter what I see but I did not take you for the Thought Police. This is yet another incongruity on your character.”

    Ever think that maybe you’re not a very good judge of character!

  17. Kent Clizbe asks “You don’t know what neo-conservatism is?”

    I do not know what it is TO YOU. It means nothing to me.

    I did just now read the Wikipedia article on it and found it quite illuminating. I have a doubt that people using the word are using it in the manner described, namely, refugees from the left (liberals) having converted to conservative are thus “new conservatives” having abandoned at least some, but not all, leftwing principles.

  18. You’re getting close to speaking a common language.

    However, there is clearly a gap in a common culture.

    Lack of understanding of common cultural terminology, events, history, and personalities is likely to handicap having a conversation with a fellow member of the culture.

    You really don’t need to worry about what a term means “to me.” If I use a term, I’m using it in accord with its meaning. I won’t use a term if I don’t know its meaning.

    Again, I’d be happy to assign a reading list to help you overcome your cultural deficit, just let me know.

    In the meantime, here are some explanatory notes, followed by someone else’s online bibliography:

    “Neo-conservative” is a clear and precise term to describe a group which is extremely important for real American conservatives to understand and pay attention to.
    The ideological father of neo-cons was Irving Kristol, actual father of one of today’s most prominent drum-banging neo-cons, William Kristol.
    Kristol pere embraced the term. See his 1979 article, “Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed ‘Neoconservative”
    “Today’s neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition (from the 60s-90s). Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists.
    “Norman Podhoretz’s magazine Commentary of the American Jewish Committee, originally a journal of liberalism, became a major publication for neoconservatives during the 1970s. Commentary published an article by Jeane Kirkpatrick, an early and prototypical neoconservative, albeit not a New Yorker.
    “Many neoconservatives had been leftist during the 1930s and 1940s, when they opposed Stalinism. After World War II, they continued to oppose Stalinism and to endorse democracy during the Cold War. Of these, many were from the Jewish[29] intellectual milieu of New York City.
    According to a conservative columnist:
    “The closer you examine it, the clearer it is that neoconservatism, in large part, is simply about enabling the most irredentist elements in Israel and sustaining a permanent war against anyone or any country who disagrees with the Israeli right. That’s the conclusion I’ve been forced to these last few years. And to insist that America adopt exactly the same constant-war-as-survival that Israelis have been slowly forced into… But America is not Israel. And once that distinction is made, much of the neoconservative ideology collapses.”

    http://contemporarythinkers.org/irving-kristol/tag/neoconservatism/

  19. Kent Clizbe recommends some books….

    Thank you for those recommendations; I’ll add to my to-read list but I’m a few books behind so it may take a while to get to them.

    Quoting: neocons “always believe what they are saying with the utmost intensity; it’s in their nature as prophetic personalities” (p. 137). And a prime passion is hatred of their enemies.

    Maxine Waters comes to mind.

    “Because they tell you things that are not true, and confuse you”

    All words are claims and everyone not me is they.

    “Ever think that maybe you’re not a very good judge of character!”

    Almost daily.

  20. I chuckled out loud at this one; a reflection of pedantic me:

    Kent Clizbe writes “If I use a term, I’m using it in accord with its meaning. I won’t use a term if I don’t know its meaning.”

    I’m the same way; only to discover from time to time I might be the only person using a word’s true and correct meaning. In technology it is very important to use words correctly. To me a good dictionary is one with the etymology of words; the most ancient words tend to be very similiar, or even identical, in other languages. The Icelandic word for “boat” for instance, is “boat” although spelled slightly different it has the same sounding.

  21. Kent, I am a Zionist to the extent that I believe Israel will be at or near the hub of important geopolitical events. Whether these events are merely foretold, or engineered to be so, is ambiguous but either way it does seem to be playing as predicted. That same prediction says all nations will get sucked into the conflict, as I interpret it, through their need for oil. While initially it seems Great Britain was to be Israel’s ally, in the end all will oppose Israel.

    Where I see misapprehension of the prophecy is that the Bible was not written for Americans; or anyone but Jews. The “Rapture” has already happened; one man standing and one man taken. What do they say of the raptured persons? Go straight to heaven? Sure, by way of Auschwitz. Being left behind is the preferred state!

  22. Michael2 – Please, for your own reputation, please think thru what you write and consider the arguments you make. Before you write them for posterity on-line. For example, you state a question and respond…and well over 400 words later never actually respond to the question. Consider:

    THE QUESTION: “What does God need with a human sacrifice, especially a sacrifice of himself to himself?”

    THE RESPONSE: “As it happens, there be many branches of Christianity, some better suited to answer this. My answer is that Jesus isn’t God, he’s the SON of God (says so many times in the bible) and wonders aloud why he has been forsaken.

    …. Jesus. He paid the debt, balanced the scale, … His sacrifice was life…”

    From start to finished nearly 450 words, conceding at the outset you’re not an expert and never once actually addressing the question posed.

    A curious consideration is posed: If the example of paying the bank money for another’s debt is a valid analogy this creates the conclusion that God needed the sacrifices…for…something … but what??? And what was sated by the human sacrifice that wasn’t sated over the preceding centuries by all those animal sacrifices??

    You also opened another interesting bit of history, “[Jesus on the cross] wonders aloud why he has been forsaken”: THAT bit comes from one of the very earliest sects of Christianity, (before all the various views were winnowed down to what we have in the NT, and, before a very comprehensive, but incomplete, purging of the contrary evidence occurred). That pre-Orthodox sect believed that Jesus was an ordinary human that, upon baptism was basically possessed by God — a human deity container. Then, while hanging on the cross that deity departed, leaving a mere mortal to dye alone — the lament about being forsaken is exactly that and makes perfect sense in this early context. Mark’s literary symbolism describes the sky opening, etc. at both these moments, the deity’s coming and going, and these depictions frame the story in very literary creative manner.

    Later (after that ‘forsaken’ part of the story was in wide circulation and could not be redacted), Jesus was reinvented as a deity from birth — making the current view of Jesus both a part of God (Trinity) and lamenting he’s abandoned by the Trinity he’s concurrently part of. How can an eternal member of a divine Trinity forsake himself so thoroughly that he forgets he’s an eternal part of the Trinity. This makes no sense whatsoever.

    Another version of the evolution of the Jesus story holds that Jesus was a man until God intervened, resurrected him, and made him a god — in the same manner other humans were said to be elevated to ‘god-ship’ in pagan religions. One need not review the Gospels that severely to see this.

    The concept of the Trinity similarly maps to the old Roman arrangement of supreme deities — the Capitoline & Archaic Triads, both had a supreme deity, a “first among equals” consistent with a workable hierarchy. The Trinity has this as well, even as this is denied by doctrine! Denial of the Holy Spirit is the unforgivable sin (and there’s only one of those, and its documented unmistakably in the Bible), which makes sense in the old version of who & what God & Jesus were. The final Trinity doctrine asserts the three deity elements of the Trinity are co-equal parts of a pre-existing/eternal larger whole, which makes no sense when one of those parts gets formal special status (the unforgivable sin). This is so irreconcilable the official doctrine asserts it is an unfathomable mystery for mere mortals … and believer are so excused from having to think about this significant clue about what’s really going on.

  23. So much fuss and nonsense when Jews decide something for themselves without first being granted permission.

  24. Ken writes “Michael2 – Please, for your own reputation, please think thru what you write and consider the arguments you make.”

    I appreciate your concern for my reputation.

    “and well over 400 words later never actually respond to the question.” *

    * 626 words for you. Linux counted them for me. Some things simply take more words!

    “If the example of paying the bank money for another’s debt is a valid analogy”

    Scripture contains at least two similar parables.

    “this creates the conclusion that God needed the sacrifices…for…something … but what???”

    Justice. God made a law. Perhaps he shouldn’t have. Perhaps he didn’t need to. Perhaps there is no God and we are arguing kibbles and bits.

    “And what was sated by the human sacrifice that wasn’t sated over the preceding centuries by all those animal sacrifices??”

    Justice. Animal sacrifices foretold the great sacrifice, and so does the Scape Goat; sent out to die, symbolically carrying society’s sins. “In the Bible, a scapegoat is an animal which is ritually burdened with the sins of others then driven away. The concept first appears in Leviticus, in which a goat is designated to be cast into the desert to carry away the sins of the community.”

    “You also opened another interesting bit of history, “[Jesus on the cross] wonders aloud why he has been forsaken”: THAT bit comes from one of the very earliest sects of Christianity”

    For me it came from the King James version of the Bible. Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ” was remarkable on this score. It was faithful to the concept that the atonement actually took place in the Garden of Gethsemane; the cross finished it and let the Son of God return to his home, presumably better in some way for having been human, more equipped to intercede for humanity.

    “That pre-Orthodox sect believed that Jesus was an ordinary human that, upon baptism was basically possessed by God — a human deity container. Then, while hanging on the cross that deity departed, leaving a mere mortal to dye alone — the lament about being forsaken is exactly that and makes perfect sense in this early context.”

    I believe that ALL human bodies are spirit containers. Jesus body just happened to contain a son-of-god spirit.

    “How can an eternal member of a divine Trinity forsake himself so thoroughly that he forgets he’s an eternal part of the Trinity. This makes no sense whatsoever.”

    There’s rather a lot of orthodox Christianity that does not make a lot of sense.

    As I undertstand it, humans were cut off from God by the “fall of Adam”, and for the sacrifice to be perfect, Jesus had to experience that same isolation, cut off from his Father in Heaven. The real sacrifice, the atonement, was mostly in the Garden of Gethsemane. That is when he was made to suffer, paid whatever debt had been incurred by Adam and Eve. For all I know he could have lived to an old age, or never die, and the atonement would still be valid. But that’s not the way it played, he died. I’m just not entirely convinced it was a necessary part. CS Lewis has some hints in that direction.

    “Another version of the evolution of the Jesus story holds that Jesus was a man until God intervened, resurrected him, and made him a god”

    I’ve encountered that one, too. Seems less common. It has justification; you’ll note that Jesus advised his followers to be perfect even as his father in heaven is perfect; rather pointedly not including himself in the list of perfect beings. I realize that one can put too much trust in a single word or phrase.

    “This is so irreconcilable the official doctrine asserts it is an unfathomable mystery for mere mortals”

    Or it could simply be wrong. If God is omni-anything, he can put in your mind a correct understanding that is more correct than what you could get from any expert. Jesus chose some pretty ordinary mortals as his apostles. It isn’t that difficult and it isn’t that complicated.

    I think that some of the more difficult parts are obscure for the simple reason they probably don’t matter much. The two Great Commandments seem pretty clear.

  25. I can’t be bothered reading all the comments as the “Anti defamation League” and “B’nai B’rith” are consummate deceivers and purveyors of contortion and confusion.

    The best I can assess is that Jews are neither a race nor a coherent religion (Rabbinical (Babylonian) Talmud nor (Satanic) Kabbalah) but might be most closely called an “ethnicity” with the only common, unifying, factor being an ideological “cultural narcissism” that self-justifies any kind of predation or exploitation of non-Jews (i.e. Goyim).

  26. Gary in ERko
    Well said. That was one of my initial thoughts.
    Very interesting discussion.
    There’s no such thing as a neocon! any more than there is a populist. It will be written down in history as fact though, as if these emotocons were all running around like an army, all of one mind.
    Starting from nowhere!

    I heard it defined,
    “A Liberal who is hijacked by reality”.
    Another answer tomorrow, for Ken not necessarily better, just different.

  27. Matt, you’re on to something. If Hebrew becomes the official language of all Jews, then the teachings/preachings of the Babylonian Talmud will be their guiding light not the old Testament AND IT WILL THUS REMAIN SECRET, MOSTLY. There is an English version (Socino) that I have read in its entirety but is limited in circulation by pricing it at $1,000. It says any non-jew that reads it is to be killed. Killing a non-jew is not murder (we are considered cattle) & having sex with a child over three is acceptable. ……The easiest/quickest/cheapest way to learn about its hideousness is to read any of Israel Shahak’s books. He,now deceased, was a physics teacher at Hebrew University in Jerusalem(sp?). It is the Z’s “bible” written by Rabbi’s over the centuries. Today, Israel’s government and court judges (rabbi’s all) are all Z’s. Not all Israeli’s are Z’s. They are persecuted, of course (see youtube anti-Z. Israel protesters). Israel,The World Council of Z.,ACLU,ADL & APAC = NWO

  28. God didn’t have to “get himself killed.”
    The problem of suffering and sin is justified by the birth and death of Jesus. God becomes part of the suffering in a real and tangible way for everyone. That is to fulfil people’s needs for salvation from sin and hope for eternal life.
    Forgiveness then makes sense after his death, which was not the end.
    God manifesting in the flesh means he knows what we experience. He is not distant. Blaming contemporary Jews for crucifying one of their own is hypocrisy. That was normal human behaviour. It was bound to happen.

    The belief in Israel’s doom, talk of Zion is a mistake.
    (It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy by all those who believe it’s true, as Michael 2 implied. There are a lot of them who care for all sorts of reasons about the region.)

    So this isn’t to give a prediction at all except that the Bible doesn’t predict it for our times.
    It is still in our hands.

    The “kingdom” is not of this world.
    The Geographical location of the Holy land matters to people quite rightly because of it’s history for ,all the mundane, Earthly reasons. Just as homelands and territory matter to people, most people. No more than that.
    God rules in the heart.
    It survives because the truth is in human hearts. The love of God. Not the fear of God. God is not a bully who asks you to love him because you are afraid.

    “Long lay the world in sin and error pining.
    Till he appeared and the soul felt it’s worth. “

  29. Ho hum! “Jewish” Zionism has been encapsulated and proffered by “British Imperialism” ever since Henry VIII traded the Kingdom (National sovereignty) for a titular Throne and privilege to the “European” money-lenders. (A paraphrase of Shakespeare’s Richard III “A horse! a horse! My Kingdom for a horse!”). “British Imperialism” has been ideologically sustained by the esoteric notions and justifications of “BIWF”… that is, “British Israel World Federation” which was/is promoted throughout the English speaking World by Freemasonry; along with many other irrational anthropo-centric doctrines of Judaeo-Protestantism.

    Now then, Joy, your Judaeo-Protestant insinuation that God didn’t really know what He was doing when He created all that is can not be acceptable to Apostolic Christianity or right Reason.

    No, I’m not sawing off the branch I’m sitting on. You are falling with the branch that was sawed off long ago.

  30. Israel has as little chance of turning Christian as do hot dogs with ketchup tasting good.

    Finally, someone recognizes that hot dogs go with mustard. But, I suppose, with God all things are possible.

  31. “How can an eternal member of a divine Trinity forsake himself so thoroughly that he forgets he’s an eternal part of the Trinity. This makes no sense whatsoever.”

    The concept of the trinity does not come directly from the bible.
    Nowhere does it say anything of the sort.
    It is derived easily by reasoning about him afterwards.
    1. That God exists,
    2. That Jesus exists and the Gospels together tell of what Jesus was, in not the same way, in each case but after his appearance to his disciples. After his death, there was no doubt. John’s gospel describes him very differently from the others. That the Gospels differ is typical of remembered event after the fact. Mel Gibson tried to stitch them together in one account.
    3 that Jesus said he would send a second comforter. This was the Holy spirit.
    The trinity is that.
    Working out how it is done is speculation unnecessary and trivial given the notion that God exists.

    It is the Holy spirit which people experience, in my opinion.

  32. Come now, Joy. Your speculation is as incoherent as any speculation that repudiates the notion that there is a reality that is independent of perceptions, or “feelings”, or “interpretation”. The alternative is that there is an absolute reality that is consistent and, therefore, incrementally knowable (at least in principle) by Reason subject to the laws of logic that is presented to the intellect by the senses (observation) and Revelation. Please find following a very simple condensation of the ponderous contemplation of many great scholars.

    “This First Cause must be unchangeable because there’s nothing greater or “outside” to cause a change.

    This great Power (Life) must also be the great Intellect because, according to common sense observation, “things” are carefully crafted to “work” as they do, and systems are orderly processes that do not, cannot, create themselves. The First Cause must also be the great Will because without the “I want it” there is no action, or result.

    Most of us have some “idea” of who and what we are and, for most of us (diabolical narcissists excepted), our “idea” of ourselves bears some resemblance to the “fact” of self.

    The infinite Being (which we customarily call God) with the infinite Intellect, however, has an “idea” of Himself that is precisely what He is… no glitch or error. Everything the same. The Second Person; distinct but inseparably integral.
    The First Person knows exactly Who He is and that knowledge of Himself is the Second Person, or “the Word” or “Logos” as sometimes called in Scripture.

    So God “knows” the absolute perfection which is Himself… and He loves the perfection that is the very definition of “goodness”. The greatest act of love is the gift of self. We see it in very muted form here on Earth with the gift of self in spouses and parents, and patriots. A gift must have a receiver of the gift and the receiver must be able to accept the gift. An infinite gift must have an infinite receptacle. The First Person gifts Himself in love as does the Second Person because neither can do what the other does not and that gift of self to each other with no reservations or glitches or blips is precisely God in every sense. The Third Person; distinct but inseparably integral.

    There can be no more and there can be no less. One omnipotent, omniscient, omni magnanimous Being of three Persons, eternal and unchangeable. ”

    There is no “Second Comforter” there is only “The Comforter” which is God’s gift of Himself tailored to the understanding and capacity of the receiver.

  33. Oldavid,
    Are you misunderstanding again accidentally on purpose?
    You could do “incoherent” for Australia! never knowingly comprehending anything I write!

    I’m not a Roman Catholic. It’s not about to change. Best ignore it or handle it some other way.

    My views on the Trinity aren’t controversial or even out of line with Catholic or Anglican teaching.
    God in three persons. Three manifestations. The word Trinity comes with divine revelation. More mundanely by deductive or inductive part of reasoning, which doesn’t require faith at all.
    It’s not clear why the word ‘Trinity’ matters so much. It starts to raise my suspicions.

    You apparently in what isn’t there and project because you seem wedded to an idea about what I think.
    There’s nothing I can do about that until you let it go. Look for a point of agreement. If it’s sim[ly that I’m a member of the Church of England then you’re wastng your time.

    Maybe you’re doing the usual, which is to be angry about what others DO think and you can’t find anybody else to blame. It’s the nature of reactionary thinkers. Love is reactionary!

    Regarding reality,
    There is only one reality and we all live in the same one! You might think that is an unfortunate coincidence. We might agree on that! Our experiences differ greatly. What is revealed to one is not the same as to another. Think about the shadow cave.

    I’m not debating nor defending my world view or my way of thinking. It isn’t necessary, least of all with an angry man on the internet who can’t take the time to read and understand. You’re just one of many!

    You, me and the others! Oldavid, We’re all in the same reality.
    Your orange wall and my brown table are there in different spaces but the same time. *yours being lower down on the globe, mine being superior, anatomically speaking…

    There must be some proper basis for your disagreement. Where the divergent view can be identified. If we can’t even agree that we agree because you disagree then it’s nonsensical…

  34. You apparently read in what isn’t there…”
    Is what it should say.
    and I’m still up here and you’re down there.

  35. Heh, heh! And my hat doesn’t fall off because it’s tied under my chin with a bit of string.

    [quote=Joy] God in three persons. Three manifestations. [/quote] Not a Christian understanding of one only God. There is no possible separation of the three Persons… “one” cannot be what the “others” are not. The Incarnation is more mysterious to me than the Trinity.

    You seem to be squirming.
    Sure, we could go with superficial “points of agreement” but that could be construed as me agreeing with your Judaeo-Protestant errors. Very ecumenical, to be sure. And that would inevitably “progress” to “points of agreement” with Freemasonry, Theosophy, Kabbalism and various other brands of Satanism… in which case the Man-God was sacrificed for no one’s Salvation.

  36. Oldavid,
    “‘You seem to be squirming.”
    Here we go again.

    The thing is I’m just not that intrigued or surprised by it the way you and others are.
    As life has gone on, I am even less surprised by THAT element.

    You seem to think my understanding of the Trinity is different from yours or any other confirmed Christian.

    To quote me as if I think there are three Gods isn’t the truth.

    Perhaps there are people in the world who think there are sixteen and a half gods?

    If it’s just that I used the naughty word,
    “MANIFESTATION”,
    MAN being some indication of a separate person.
    Or was it;
    God in three persons”?
    It’s a line from a hymn, which is a tacky, I will agree, probably why it sticks;
    The following line is blessed Trinity. The important part is ‘GOD…in’

    People get confused about this, or think there’s something even more special about the word, small w, itself. I used to wonder why we were singing about it! Perhaps it’s just me.
    God manifests as he chooses!
    So if you’re going to continue saying I dont’ know what the Trinity means then what would be the purpose?

    Misunderstanding with you appears to be a matter of policy. The reason? Something sectarian? Or is that my projection?
    If it pleases or entertains you to remain upset because you think, I think what you think I think, then you’ll have to do it without me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *