Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Jewish God, anti-Semitism and Oedipus Complex

I promised before to explain what I mean when I say that anti-Semitism is the cultural Oedipus Complex of the Western/Christian civilization. In order to do that I need to give some background.

Religion seems to me to have been a clever civilizational invention. In the days when humans lived as hunters and gatherers, we can imagine a leadership of muscles. Change of leadership happened when the alpha-male was challenged by one of the younger ones that had grown strong enough. This sort of leadership could only perform the basic function of protection. It could only lead a smaller group. It lacked the intellectual substance to create more organized and larger communities.

Religious myths have probably always been part of human societies. But it is not until religion grows stronger--which leads to work-up of symbols, leading to hieroglyphs and alphabet--that more organized societies become possible. It's hard to see how intellectual leadership could have been introduced without religion. How would the weak guys with the books be able to challenge the leader of muscles, without a really big guy on their side? A giant symbolic leader, much more powerful and stronger than the leader of muscles. Polytheism was replaced by monotheism, which allowed for building a more solid hierarchy, since there is only one top. And allowed for the intellectual leadership to outbalance the leadership of muscles.

Christianity is a Jewish invention. Jesus was a Jew, St. Paul was a Jew, etc. Their monotheistic God was exported around the world. Before this the Romans had their Gods, the Greeks theirs, and the Germanic people theirs. With the spread of Christianity their national Gods, having the same ethnicity as themselves, was replaced by a foreign God.

Going back to my description of civilizational evolution--simple tribes, polytheism, monotheism--where does it seem to lead? As religion evolves, God(s) become less and less personal and more and more abstract. The polytheistic Gods were more personal, with more human flaws. And you were able to oppose them or ignore them--there were always other ones. Monotheism made the single God more distant as well as perfect (so how could he be opposed?). Follow this development in the tangent direction and you will end with a God that has lost all personal characteristics and become fully abstract--a mechanical God. A hierarchy of principles, with the principle of goodness at the top. Leading to a society where people adore mechanical saints such as the United Nation or International Law, which they consider unopposable.

Adding to this the background of having imported a foreign God, and denounced your former national Gods, is there any surprise that this undermines nationalism and leads to universalism? Let's also add the Christian traits of weakness, meekness and goodness, and we have a self-sacrificial universalism, which at the point when it has fully evolved into a "mechanical God", becomes directly suicidal.

I once said that I am a godless theist. That's diametrically different from being an atheist. My Gods have been stolen from me and I miss them. From one perspective Christianity is the most devastating anti-theistic movement there ever was. There's no other movement that has denied the existence of so many Gods and killed them. Islam, someone would say, but when Islam entered the stage, the job had already been done by Christianity. Christianity paved the way for Islam, and is still doing so.

So are we surprised that the most devastating anti-theistic movement in the history of mankind organically growed into a godless secular society of mechanical principles? Looking at it from such a perspective I'm not.

As I said before about empire and slave morality: a novel concept helps us seeing things in a new perspective. From this new position we can reuse the novel concept again and again and come to yet more insights. I find the concept of foreign God very interesting and useful. But for the Jews this God is not foreign, it's their good old national God. What does that mean for the Jews and their position in our society? For their self-confidence compared to ours?

Now to the anti-Semites. First of all I like to tell them how completely Jewish they are in their stance (as well as leftist, of course). Also Nietzsche describes anti-Semitism as the "the final consequence of Judaism". Their struggle in the net only makes them become more entangled and stuck in it. They have walked up on the stage of the Platonic theater, participating in the play as the bad guys. This is the exact opposite of leaving the cave. Tragic figures.

Then I'd like to tell them that they haven't even got a first clue about how influential the Jews are. The dead Jews. Mind you, not the Jews living today, their power is infinitesimal compared to the dead Jews. No, not those who died in the Holocaust, silly. Their influence is insignificant. It's dead Jews such as Moses, Ezra, Jesus, St. Paul, etc. I'm talking about. By importing their national God while denouncing our own, we made them getting an immense influence over us. We inherited our religion from them. We became children of their spiritual and moral culture.

Anti-Semitism thus means an immature reaction to this "father figure" (i.e. the Jewish culture we inherited from), which is forever inherent in Christianity. These people want to revolt, but cannot formulate their case, and do not know where to direct their anger. It's like the adolescent revolt of the Oedipus Complex: the wish to kill one's father. Clearly we all need to get over our fathers and become independent of them. However, killing him is not the way. The father killer is not one who's gotten over his father, but someone obsessed with him. I'd like to inform the anti-Semites that they could kill hordes of Jews, but the influence of Judaism upon us comes from dead Jews. So how would more dead Jews at all change the situation? If anything, it will make it worse.

Just as a disclaimer: I'd like to state that I do not wish to say that it is typical of anti-Semites to want to kill Jews. The common denominator is fear of Jews. But I just had to say so to draw the parallel with the Oedipus Complex, didn't I? And there has indeed been, and still are, quite a few anti-Semites who both wanted to, and killed Jews.

We need to get over the Jews, or more specifically Judaism, with it's slave morality, monotheism and inversion of values. Quite as we need to get over our father and become independent of him, in order to grow up. As grown ups, I think we should leave the Jews alone, while respecting their God as the only existing God--for them! (as the Romans humorously put it).

The Jews and their nation Israel should thence have our full support. They have faced Jihad longer than any Western nation. We must be strong allies with them. We must discard any Judaistic inversions of values (as e.g. in anti-Semitism) when looking upon the conflict of Israel/Palestine.

And in order to grow up we must leave Christian ethics.

26 comments:

politisktinkorrekt said...

Brilliant, as usual. I read it with a smile, though, but then I have a strange kind of humor. Especially I liked the mechanical saints part and their connection with the UN. Lovely.

I also found the link between monotheism and abstract God convincing.

However, Christianity has been seen as the main driving force behind Western supremacy as far a human achievements are concerned, by for instance Charles Murray, the IQ-guru.

And then there are anti-Semites and anti-Semites. Some are exterminationists, like the Nazis, others are so only mildly, like novelist Kingsley Amis.

If Israel wants my whole hearted support (I guess it can do without it, though), it has to support the Europeans against their elite. No sign of that yet.

On the contrary, such a prominent spokesman for Israel as our own Per Ahlmark, has been mute on the subject of Muslim immigration (to Europe, quite in line with Jewish cosmopolitanism).

Not one word about keeping Sweden Swedish, in contrast to his opinion that anyone proposing a non-Jewish Israel, is anti-Semite.

This double standard has been pointed out by neocon and philosemite Samtiden. com.
Look for "Antisemitism part 2" in their archives.

Both Ahlmark and Sahlin and our elite were critized. Samtiden cited a speech by Shimon Perez defending
Jewish homogeneity in Israel, and commented that saying something similiar about Swedish/Nordic homogeneityin Sweden, was political suicide.

Furthermore, this development has been actively supported by Jewish organizations in Sweden and in the US.

Of course this causes tension, not to say disappointment and sadness in a former (?) philosemite such as I (me? unsure about grammer here in both Swedish and English).

I've been for decades a supporter of Israel, but now my feelings are lukewarm, at best. Every time I see infighting among the dysfunctional Arabs, I sympathize with Israel, but I'm soon reminded of the lack of gratitude it shows for the US.

For instance giving the American traitor Pollard Jewish citizenship. Why, for Christ sake?

And that shady brit Robert Maxwell, who was very tight with the DDR. His burial in Israel was compared to a state funeral. And the lack of cooperativeness during the October war of '73, causing Henry Kissinger to lean on Israel. And the mistake of the attack on USS Liberty in 1967, if that was a mistake, which is still much debated.

And then the double standard about what one can say with respect to the Israel Lobby. Even if polls show that most American Jews put US interest before Israeli, the mere existence of an organization like AIPAC, is an affront, especially since it boasts about being "America's Pro-Israel Lobby".

And this lobby only AIPAC can talk about, anyone else who does is an anti-Semite.

If one follows the debate on immigration and the Mideast thru US Media, one gets another picture than one does if limiting oneself to only European Media. In the US the role of Jewish pressure groups is openly discussed, not on this side of the pond.

I've pointed out criticism of Jewish immigration liberalism by Jews like Lawrence Auster and Paul Gottfried, and if they can say the same as I'm saying, why should I be called an anti-Semite, perhaps, but not they?

Two good articles to understand the Jews are these.

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/culture/features/1478/

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.aip?id=10855

nisnayu said...

politisktinkorrekt, as much as it may bother you, I imagine the Israelis value the support of mainstream politicians and governments in good standing more than they value the support of bloggers - as they should.

politisktinkorrekt said...

So you think giving Jonathan Pollard an Israeli citizenship was a friendly act against the United States?

Casper Weinberger was furious because of Pollard's treason, and William Buckley said Pollard ought to be excuted.

With remarks like yours one gets the feeling that Israel is indeed unique, in the sense that it's the only democratic country beyond reproach.

nisnayu said...

politisktinkorrekt, you are of course free to feel whatever you want but if you expect me to defend an argument I didn't make, you're going to be disappointed.

What I am saying is that it's unreasonable for Israel to support a position that would alienate mainstream politicians only to please the sensibilities of a political fringe who would gain nothing from having an alienated state supporting it. Such a position would currently benefit no one, least of all the Israelis who have much more to lose than either you or I.

Conservative Swede said...

I write a post which is a sort of Nietzschian psycho analysis of our civilization, where I clearly stated that living Jews are of infinitesimal importance, and that we should instead bother about the dead Jews, the dead Jews within us. So what is the ensuing discussion about? Living Jews. Should I be surprised?

So the people of the Jewish nation are playing us. And in doing so they expose a flagrant double standard. Big deal. So is everyone, all from Mexicans to Muslims. They are all playing us, and we let them. We even ask for it. Obviously the fault is within ourselves, within what our civilization has become (the seeds of which has long been there).

Compared to us the people of the Jewish nation are acting more honourable. In spite of being the inventors of slave morality and inversion of values, their God is their own, so they have kept their nationalism substantially more intact than we have. In Christianity --especially once the genie of the Christian ethics escaped the bottle--slave morality and inversion of values become much worse than in Judaism (foreign God, then dead God). This analysis comes more or less straight from Nietzsche.

It's the same as with feminism. People who, rightfully, react against feminism, most often, wrongfully, blame it on the (feminist) women. To me it's obvious that feminism couldn't have happened if the men hadn't let it happen. We men are obviously to be blamed here. We have the power to let it happen, or to stop it. And the beauty of making ourselves the problem, is that it's fully in our own hands to change the situation. Whining and effeminate babbling against feminism, obviously won't change the situation. Rather we should just ignore all sorts of babbling, and start acting like men.

My final remark about support for Israel was not the important part of my post. I just put it there to clarify that there is no contradiction in denouncing Judaistic influence upon our civilization, while at the same time support Israel in their fight against Jihad. We should for example also support Russia and China and consider them allies in this fight. And none of them will fully respect us as long as we let them play us, thanks to our obsession with niceness. I'm talking about the fight against Jihad here! Get some perspective! Whatever wrong the nation of Jews are doing against us, it's merely low level noise in the bigger picture with Islam as a formidable enemy. And whatever wrong the nation of Jews are doing against us, it happens exactly because we let it happen.

The solution is obviously not to focus on the living Jews (or Mexicans or whatever) and say: "Hey, we have acted fully self-sacrificial and nice according to the principle of goodness, given up our sense of national identity, and given them plenty of room for manoeuvre within our borders, and now they act hypocritically and with double standards against us, so now we are morally indignant over this." Well, it's clearly our very moral standard that is the problem here, from the start to the end; that made us act irresponsibly in the first place, as well as making us indignant afterwards. Throw it away!

And there's probably no Westerner on the face of this planet to whom I cannot safely say: "You have spent far to much time worrying about living Jews. Already enough for a lifetime, and in excess. This is counterproductive and a waste of time. So stop it, and never do it again. Instead start being concerned about the dead Jews and their influence upon us, so that we can get over it and become ourselves again."

It's us that I expect to leave Judaistic slave morality and inversion of values, not the Jews. They are not interesting in this discourse.

politisktinkorrekt said...

Dear Nisnayu,

Well, there you go again with sly remarks like "fringe". As in "lunatic fringe" or "fringe" as in the far right or the far left?

I will try again to make my point.

I love the US, but still I would not spy for it on my own country.

I love the US, but I can now see that it can make serious mistakes in its foreign policy, though previously, during the Cold War, I supported it no matter what it did.

Is that why so many Israelis and philosemites defend Israel no matter what? Israel is under seige and all self-criticism or criticism by a friend would be used by the enemy in the propaganda war?

Looking at it from that perspective, maybe I can understand. Still the circumstances I refer to would be
better handled by Israel, if it dealt with them in a different manner.

It's true the US spies on its allies, too. Now that's not the trouble with the Pollard case from a moral standpoint, but rather that Israel just doesn't say "ooops, sorry", and then let Mr Pollard well-deservedly rot in jail.

He got ample pay for services rendered you know. According to Seymour Hersh 25 000 dollars a month. (From Israel. And then he had his US salary too, a salary payed by US taxpayers.)

Mr Hersh also writes in a New Yorker piece that before becoming a spy for Israel, Pollard contacted Pakistan and Iran.

In other words, he's no Dreyfus.

Still a large amount of Jewish organizations in the US and Israel
are behaving like he was.

Even if my feelings were more than
"lukewarm" vis à vis Israel, nowadays, I think I'd still be highly critical of it in the Pollard case.

If you are a true friend of Israel, you should critize it as its friend. As for instance Mr Ahlmark has critized Israeli settlements on the West Bank because its poor strategy, and
jeopardizes the security of Israel.

I take exception to the tone of your comments. I think they're really contraproductive.

Sure, I'm just a little blogger in Sweden, but as you well know,
the majority of Swedes and other Europeans are indifferent to Israel as well as the Arabs. As well as the fate of Israel.

Of course they think the Israelis are better than the Arabs, who they think are dysfunctional peoples, but this conflict has worn down Europeans to the level of indifference.

Rereading hastily what I wrote in my first post, I can't find anything really hostile towards either Jews or Israel, rather the voice of someone trying to be honest, hoping to find a friendly ear among the people who this primarly concerns.

One has to be tone deaf if one can detect any typical anti-Semite hostility under the surface of my text. I myself am sensitive to such hostility, and dislike it, therefore I went to lengths to avoid it.

I'm dismayed at the possibility to take a "third position" on this issue.

Conservative Swede said...

Politisktinkorrekt,

Let it go. You are off topic.

I very much appreciate your compliments about my article, but now read it again and absorb its message.

If you are a true friend of Israel, you should critize it as its friend. As for instance Mr Ahlmark has critized Israeli settlements on the West Bank because its poor strategy, and
jeopardizes the security of Israel.


Agreed.

You mostly make sense when you talk about this issue, but you talk too much about it.

Rereading hastily what I wrote in my first post, I can't find anything really hostile towards either Jews or Israel, rather the voice of someone trying to be honest, hoping to find a friendly ear among the people who this primarly concerns.

This is true. But you are off topic.

One has to be tone deaf if one can detect any typical anti-Semite hostility under the surface of my text.

Nobody suggested so. But you pay too much attention to the issue. Let it go.

Relax, you are not in Sweden now.

Conservative Swede said...

James W wrote to me in an e-mail:

Hello, Swede, still no blogger access here.
I see that you live and think in the realization of Sophocles: The keenest sorrow is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
It is fruitful, but ever unpopular. More preferred is Gide: A straight path never led anywhere but to its objective.
I believe we may not expect to save anything by our religious understandings but our own souls. If security exists at all, it derives from one's own ability to perform. It is at that point that we may lead a sermon with our lives, as Jefferson pointed out, and not our lips.
I like your understandings very much, and look forward to your posts.

Ah, the Jews, the Jews. Amazing, isn't it, a few million people and all that press? They are a proxy indeed.
Niels Bohr tells us an expert is someone who has made every mistake it is possible to make in a very narrow field. [...]

One little matter. The final resolution to the matter of Israel may be a surprise to you, or us all. I believe that it is clear they will not do to their enemies what their enemies will do to them. Because of this, the continual re-enactment of this play will eventually result it the extinction of Israel by Russian Roulette. Not entirely in ashes, for they will simply simply leave before it is necessary to truly kill their many enemies. To all points of the world, as before.
A million or so will stay, it is true. I do not know exactly what will be the resolution for them. But my point is this. The United States, which stood up and did the right thing against its national interest, and continues to do so, will now stand watching, holding its Johnson as this unfolds, sixty plus years of idealism flushed into dual passports. Cute, eh?
Prophecy is a tough business, but I'll bet you two shekels to a kroner. Show me the money.

politisktinkorrekt said...

Lot of collective guilt in your analysis. "We" (the white Europeans) are to blame for Jews and Mexicans playing us, and we men are collectively guilty for
feminism. Certainly you must be generalizing here. In what way am I guilty for the feminist scourge?

Feminists think in collective terms, too. The think that all men have an advantage because of their gender over all women. They think that Martha Stewart is worse off than a any homeless male bum. That is at least the logical consequence of their generalization about gender structure. Maybe they don't expect to be literally interpreted, but why not?

We have to be as precise as possible when we talk of reality.

I think social background is more important than gender. I honestly do, and the reason this is obscured is the cultural proletarianization
of society.

Though I very much appreciate your writings and kindness, I think you put a wee bit too much weight on Jihad. It reminds me of neoconservatism, while at the same it doesn't, when you speak of Russia and China as allies in the struggle against Jihadism. In my distrust of China and Russia, I myself remind me of a neocon.

In short, I think a stop to immigration from non-European countries, putting equality before the law above religious freedom and offering generous economic compensation to immigrants if they go back to the country of their origin, are important steps to save the West, if it's not gone beyond the point when it can't be saved.

As for Jihad. Earlier tonight I saw a TV program about Jihad, The Muslim Brotherhood and Osama Bin Ladin. If they are to be believed, all they want is for the West to get out of the Arab World. If we do, they'd leave us alone. No, no, no. I neither believe them nor entirely disbelieve them. Maybe the whole idea of Jihad is to conquer to whole world and "make it safe for Allah", just as the Wilsonians want to make it "safe for democracy"? I don't know.

Maybe we are also being played by people (Westerners) who for one reason or other want us to be as alarmist about Jihadists, as the "military-industrial complex " - according to Cold War revisionists - wanted us to be overly alarmed about the Soviet threat.

Conservative Swede said...

Answer to James W:

Ah, the Jews, the Jews. Amazing, isn't it, a few million people and all that press? They are a proxy indeed.

A lot has been written about how the Jews have a higher IQ and a bookish culture since long. But people miss the point that our civilization (in its current incarnation) is based on their God. So they are "at home"in it. That's a great advantage.

Quite as America and Sweden has top fertility rates in the West. Sweden and America are countries that are "at home" in an egalitarian universe. Sweden and America are both very unique countries in being traditionally egalitarian (I'll write more about that). This is why they have substantially higher fertility rates than other white countries (1.6-1.8). While Italy, Spain and Eastern Europe are alienated in the current civilizational paradigm (America, Wilson and all that), and therefore have much lower fertility rates (1.1-1.3). And then we read from Steyn and all those Americans how it is the welfare state that causes low fertility rates... But why let oneself be confused with facts... when there's an opportunity for simplistic chauvinism.


Because of this, the continual re-enactment of this play will eventually result it the extinction of Israel by Russian Roulette.

It's possible, but in that case we won't live to see it. The Jews are stronger than us, but still too weak. I always recommend the reading of Benny Morris.

Prophecy is a tough business, but I'll bet you two shekels to a kroner. Show me the money.

See you in heaven. Where money is not an issue. Unless heaven happens to be neoliberal. We'll see. I'll put in a krona.

Conservative Swede said...

@politisktinkorrekt

Collective guilt, We;

Let's start with the "we". It's a sort of pluralis majstatis, or pluralis hospitalis ("och så lägger vi oss ner på britsen och tar av oss kläderna"). I really do not include myself in the "we".

"Collective" -- We can talk until the cows come home about individualism, but "our" (pluralis hospitalis) thinking is not at all independent. It's stems from the same blueprint, the same paradigm.

"Guilt" -- I do not like the concept of guilt. I looks into the past instead of looking into the future. And it's a typical feature of Christian ethics to look for guilt.

Focus less on your potential personal guilt in this, and focus more on how it really happened. Did feminism happen because women became stronger than men, and defeated them? Or did the men simply let it happen. In the first case the same recipe would work equally well in South America, India or Saudi Arabia. Do you believe in that? If you believe in that, you also probably believe that Gandhi won over the Brits because non-violence outweighs a strong army. Or was it that the Brits let Gandhi win? Maybe we should use pacifism against the Jihadists?

Am I putting too much weight on Jihad? You should read more at JihadWatch, Faithfreedom, Gates of Vienna and VFR. Jihad is the big thing, especially demographic Jihad. Following current trends, Sweden will be majority Muslim already by 2050. And our cities already earlier. Study Islam. It is the most sick and perverted thing you could ever imagine. All differences (with China, Russia or Israel) collapses compared to Islam. You have watched a Swedish state propaganda television program about Jihad, such a joke!

Maybe the whole idea of Jihad is to conquer to whole world and "make it safe for Allah", just as the Wilsonians want to make it "safe for democracy"?

Yes it is. Assure yourself. Making it safe for Allah.

Maybe we are also being played by people (Westerners) who for one reason or other want us to be as alarmist about Jihadists, as the "military-industrial complex " - according to Cold War revisionists - wanted us to be overly alarmed about the Soviet threat.

So now the Soviet Union was not a threat during the cold war? Ronald Reagan was all about theater to make profit for the "military-industrial complex"? Do you know anyone from Eastern Europe? I suggest you discuss the issue with him/her.

Anyway, go to the sites I indicated and learn about Islam. Start with reading these testimonials from people who left Islam.

nisnayu said...

But people miss the point that our civilization (in its current incarnation) is based on their God. So they are "at home"in it. That's a great advantage.

I think you're overstating the advantage, if not seeing something that doesn't exist. While Christianity is an extension of Judaism, it places no emphasis on Jewish ethnicity and law and posits that non-Christians, including Jews, have no meaningful connection to God. Moreover, I'd like to see some proof in regards to Jews having an advantage over ourselves due to them feeling "at home" and experiencing a lack of adversity. I think history proves your theory to be wrong. Further, if Jews recognized the God that took the form of a man, discarded Jewish law, accused everyone of needing salvation, and declared that a human sacrifice was the only way to achieve it as their own, they would be Christians. The founders of Christianity were Jews, yes, but so was the founder of the Church of Satan, and scarcely any Jews joined either.

I also think you're overstating the extent to which Christians feel their God is alien. I'm no longer a believer but when I attended Episcopal services, the English/Anglican connection was very pronounced. After all, there isn't a great deal of cultural baggage associated with vanilla Protestantism, and the various Orthodox sects are very obviously attached to their cultures/countries as well. Everyone claims Christ as their own.

Conservative Swede said...

@nisnayu

I think history proves your theory to be wrong.

And according to you, my "theory" is that Jews experience a "lack of adversity" in Western civilization. What can I say? Have you entered this thread without reading my original article? The article centers around the concept of anti-Semitism. And anti-Semitism is a concept that translates into adversities for Jews. If your idea is that I have a theory that the Jews are experiencing a lack of adversity in the West, there is something seriously wrong with your counter-argument. So seriously wrong that you will need to throw it away and make a new one.

Further about your idea that at home means a place where there's a "lack of adversity". I'm sure you've heard of the concept domestic violence. For many people this means that they get regularly beaten up at home. For them, home surely is a place of adversity. So the key feature of home is clearly not to be a place with "lack of adversity". What makes home a home is that it is a place that is familiar to you. Where you easily and intuitively understand all aspects of the code system, including the finer nuances of it, most of which would get lost to someone that is not at home there.

Looking at Christianity, you should pay less attention to how Christianity presents itself, and more to what Christianity really is. Quite as Buddhism grew out of Hindu tradition, Christianity grew out of Jewish tradition. Christianity is all rooted in Jewish mythology. This is why the Old Testament has to be there in the Bible. It would be impossible to understand Christianity without the background material of Moses, Ezra, etc., etc. Their concept of morality, their spirituality, their monotheism, etc. When I went to school, Christian traditions were still upheld. The map of Israel was regularly pulled down and stories told about the people of Israel. Christianity does not tell stories of Romans or Germanic people, it tells stories about the people of Israel. This is a world in which the Jews a familiar with all aspects of the code system, they are at home. It's their God. For the others its an imported foreign God.

[Christianity] places no emphasis on Jewish ethnicity and law and posits that non-Christians, including Jews, have no meaningful connection to God.

So Christianity is Jewish, but does not present itself as Jewish. Quite as multiculturalism is Western, but does not present itself as Western. What's your point?

Further, if Jews recognized the God that took the form of a man, discarded Jewish law, accused everyone of needing salvation, and declared that a human sacrifice was the only way to achieve it as their own, they would be Christians.

Yes, then they would be Christians. What's your point?

I also think you're overstating the extent to which Christians feel their God is alien.

I never stated so at all. I haven't stated that an Anglican Christian feel that his Jehovah is alien, any more than the Indonesian Muslim feel that Allah is alien to him. I merely pointed out that Jehovah is alien, in the sense of being an imported foreign God. Quite as the Arabic God is alien in Indonesia. This doesn't imply that the Indonesian or the Anglican feel so. They have been indoctrinated to feel otherwise. Also the Indonesian Muslim will pay a vastly disproportionate attention to the events in Israel/Palestine at the cost of ignoring events in his own country.

politisktinkorrekt said...

Two things I'd like to question:
". . . the Christian traits of weakness, meekness and goodness, and we have a self-sacrificial universalism."
Meekness and goodness? What about the Crusades, the burning of heretics at the stake, the Inquisition, the expulsion of all Jews from Spain, the Thirty Year war, the homophobia, the suppression of women, the Evangelics (The Christian Right's) support for Israel and their longing for Harmageddon?
"Mind you, not the Jews living today, their power is infinitesimal compared to the dead Jews." I can't come to terms with "infinitesimal". It's debatable whether the living Jews are less powerful than dead - and among the dead, I would, in terms of power, include the victims of the Holocaust, since Shoa has been a mighty weapon for the living Jews.
No Shoa, no Israel. And no Shoa, no EU law making Holocaust denial (which also includes trivializing it or questioning certain aspects about the official version of it) a crime punishable with prison.

Conservative Swede said...

@politisktinkorrekt

You are stuck in Christian slave morality. You are yourself a perfect object of study of Christian weakness and goodness. For you morality is fairness and righteousness. It's a sentimental activity, which prime feature is emotions of moral indignation. For me morality is about acting correctly, after first having gotten things in perspective. Emotions of moral indignation is a sure way both to get things out of perspective and to fail to act correctly. For me morality is a practical matter, and it's the results that counts.

Your Christian weakness has been on display in this thread by you off-topic moral indignation about what you see as the betrayal of Israel and the Jews. Your unrealistic approach was elegantly countered by Nisnayu in his answers. But rational arguments do not bite on your moral indignation, and you go into high-pitch mode and show more of slave morality weakness and victimization stance. You show a Judaoid priestly character. You'd need to replace it with a Roman nobility/military attitude.

So the Jews and Israel have not acted righteously? This is your message to us. I'm sure this would cause them trouble on the Last Judgement Day. You have found this anomaly in the Judeo-Christian slave morality system. But instead of making you throw away this dysfunctional morality system, it makes you go deeper into it. You apply a Judaoid priestly approach, turning the Jewish slave morality against themselves, trying to beat the Jews in their own game. Quite as the anti-American Europeans are anti-American precisely becuase they are trying to beat the Americans in their own game.


And as an example of your Christian goodness we got this:

". . . the Christian traits of weakness, meekness and goodness, and we have a self-sacrificial universalism."
Meekness and goodness? What about the Crusades, the burning of heretics at the stake, the Inquisition, the expulsion of all Jews from Spain, the Thirty Year war, the homophobia, the suppression of women, the Evangelics (The Christian Right's) support for Israel and their longing for Harmageddon?


This is a highly ironic hagrangue coming from someone using the moniker Politically Incorrect (politisktinkorrekt). Here we have a wonderfully leftist mindset (the last stage of Christian ethics) to be fisking. You describe the history of Christianity in terms of "homophobia" and "suppression of women". Wow! You are really a child of the French Revolution, aren't you? Homophobia is such wonderful PC newspeak, which you have made into yours. In the leftist mind there is no room for comparing reality with reality, only for comparing reality with a Utopian blueprint. And of course, compared to the Utopian blueprint, Christianity is not good, weak and meek enough. Reality, human nature and the essence of Christianity does not enter the picture. Leftism is the highest developed level of Christian ethics, and you have adopted it perfectly.

The Crusades. A perfect example of Christian weakness. Far too little and far too late, and with no lasting effects. Except for the attack on the "heretics" of the Byzantine empire, which weakened them and helped paving the way for the Turks. So very typically Christian. Catches perfectly what I talk about.

Burning heretics. Well, a slave morality which defines evil, before it defines good, will act in this way. This slave morality is still busy rendering "heretics" harmless, even though the pacifistic side is stronger in today's unbottled Christian ethics, so the punishment is instead to make people socially dead. Intolerance against your own--a sure recipe for civilizational weakness.

And for the rest. While the genie of Christian ethics was held in the bottle of Christianity, when the slave morality still had a mighty master at its center, there were still displays of strength and power. But this doesn't make Christianity different from any other civilization. Instead it's the strong and ever growing emphasis on goodness, weakness and meekness that singles out Christianity among civilizations. And definitely not "homophobia".


"Mind you, not the Jews living today, their power is infinitesimal compared to the dead Jews." I can't come to terms with "infinitesimal". It's debatable whether the living Jews are less powerful than dead - and among the dead, I would, in terms of power, include the victims of the Holocaust, since Shoa has been a mighty weapon for the living Jews.
No Shoa, no Israel. And no Shoa, no EU law making Holocaust denial (which also includes trivializing it or questioning certain aspects about the official version of it) a crime punishable with prison.


Infinitesimal compared to the dead Jews. And to be able to make the comparison you will have to absorb the description I made of how influential the dead Jews are over us. But you are unable to focus your mind even for a second on the message of my post. As soon as you hear "dead Jews" you think of the Holocaust, and next you think of living Jews. Within a fraction of a second your mind always gravitates towards the living Jews, and their betrayal. There were really only two words in my article that stuck with you: "support" and "Israel". Words of little importance for my article, and written after a "thence".

But of course you do not want to consider, even for a second, the message of my article (the influence of the dead Jews). Christian slave morality is a huggy bear for you, that you would never let go of. The message of my article is how we need to leave this morality system so highly influenced by Jewish culture. I'm talking about us. I'm not talking about the Jews. I do not know how many time I need to say that I do not expect the Jews to leave Jewish culture. So the Jews are off topic in this discussion; the living Jews (obviously the dead Jews are unable to go through any change of morality system). But this is all your heart and mind is full of: the Jews, the Jews, the Jews.

You feel betrayed by the Jews and Israel. According to your Christian ethics of righteousness. First you supported them, imagining they represented something universally good. Then their behaviour disappointed you, and now you are highly morally indignant at them. Your perception of a betrayal is connected to your unrealistic expectations in the first place. But the Jews are, and has always been, another people. And have always acted so. Why should we expect more from them, than e.g. the Chinese? Your faulty assumption in the first place, as well as you moral indignation in the second place, both stems from your embracement of the Judeo-Christian slave morality. As I wrote above:

The solution is obviously not to focus on the living Jews (or Mexicans or whatever) and say: "Hey, we have acted fully self-sacrificial and nice according to the principle of goodness, given up our sense of national identity, and given them plenty of room for manoeuvre within our borders, and now they act hypocritically and with double standards against us, so now we are morally indignant over this." Well, it's clearly our very moral standard that is the problem here, from the start to the end; that made us act irresponsibly in the first place, as well as making us indignant afterwards. Throw it away!

The Christian slave morality, the Judaoid priestly character of your thinking, makes you go round in circles. You are full of doubt that Islam/Jihad, and even the Cold War, is/was really the overall important issue. Maybe it is/was a conspiracy from the "military-industrial complex" to makes us alarmist about the issue, you say. But there is one issue for which there never seems to be any doubt in your mind, and that's about the betrayal of the Jews and Israel. So for you this is the most important issue, more important than the Jihad of Islam.

Conservative Swede said...

@politisktinkorrekt

I missed to comment upon this:

the Evangelics (The Christian Right's) support for Israel and their longing for Harmageddon?

Regarding the support for Israel, you already made very clear to us that you consider this anathematic to Christian goodness. So we are not surprised to find that in your list.

But the Evangelics (the Christian Right) longing for Harmegeddon! Gee, wow! You really are a leftist. The PC elites play you like a piano. As a puppet you dance according to the fears they implant in you.

hsialinboy said...

This article is just another jewish racist rant. How can a jew be a jew if they are atheist? Isnt it the jew who runs around begging people to believe that being jewish is "just a religion", but when you remove the religion...a jew still claims to be a jew. So what we have here is yet another instance of the jewish way of thinking..."I must have my way so I will use any means at my disposal in my quest". If being a jew is simply a religion then how does one account for jewish women being able to pass on "jewdom" by giving birth? Ok, I`ll answer it for you. The jew has 2 sides to EVERY argument, and theres nothing you can say or do to argue with them. They are like little children who do not get their way and whine incessantly. Appearing on both sides of every issue gives the jew the look of being non-racist, when in fact the jew is the most racist people on the planet.

Frank said...

Conservative Swede,

why defend Israel? The only threat Islam poses is via immigration. If you expel all the Muslims, the threat is gone, no?

Expel the Jews and other aliens, and they're no longer a threat either.

---

What do you look to for religious guidance? What is left of Sweden's natural religion?

Mark said...

I am completely in agreement with the patricide argument. The murderous rage Christians have felt towards Jews may well be due also to the subconscious hatred they feel towards the impossible tasks set for them by their utopian Palestinian rabbi. No real Jewish rabbi would tell his followers to love an enemy; in fact the Talmud tells us that if we are aware that a person wants to kill us we should wake up earlier than that fellow and kill him first. The kind of ethics that may serve well if the world is about to end may be inappropriate for living in one that appears to be continuing at least into the near future.

Also I agree completely that Jews would be much happier if Christians and Muslims would leave us and our master stories alone. Go ahead and start a new religion, God Bless! Just stop claiming that somehow you have come to fulfill and complete us; especially when you get the basic narratives but miss the family dynamics that are the real guts of any Bible story.
Finally this business of Jews arguing both sides. Don't you non-Jews get it? The world is a quantum place! The is no single truth! Richard Feynman, the (Jewish) physicist showed that between point A and point B a particle takes ALL possible paths, not just the most direct. And so it is with the world, ideas and human events. And this truth may be the secret of Jewish "success"; we see that the truth is a moment to moment moving target that requires all our powers of intellect and spirit to understand.

Tabatha said...

No, Christianity was not a 'Jewish' invention.

Jesus did not start Christianity. He died a Jew, albeit probably a liberal one.

Christianity was the invention of Paul, and there is no evidence to suggest he was ever Jewish, whatever the Christian bible itself may state in this regard.

Tabatha said...

You are overlooking the fact that Judaism was never meant to be a universal faith. The Jewish G-d was originally a localised, tribal deity, intended only to be worshipped by Jews.

As for one of your closing statements:
'We need to get over the Jews, or more specifically Judaism, with it's slave morality, monotheism and inversion of values.'

Er, slave morality...?

Inversion of values...?

Hardly.

Tabatha said...

hsialinboy:


You are talking nonsense.

Jews can also be Atheists because to be Jewish is not just to be a member of a faith. It is also to be a member of a nation, a people, a tribe, and a family.

Only Jewish religious law gets to define Jewish identity. You don't get to come along and REdefine it.

And Jewish religious law states: a person born to a Jewish mother *remains* Jewish UNLESS they adopt ANY other faith.

An Atheist Jew is just a non practising Jew.
Just as someone can be a British citizen, for example, without being remotely patriotic.


As for your absurd allegation that Jews are 'racist' - oh, get real. Judaism is one of the few faiths that STATES that ALL HUMANS ARE ***EQUAL***.

All moral people reach 'heaven'.

That sound 'racist' to you?



CONSERVATIVE SWEDE:

Sorry but you are utterly wrong re your comments on the 'west bank'.

If you want to get the facts, I recommend to you:

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2009/06/obama-israel-and-settlements.html

And
http://www.ajewwithaview.com/?p=422



Finally - Jews do not have 'higher IQs'.

What a load of nonsense!

Judaism places a great deal of emphasis on reading, learning, debating, arguing and verbal sparring. This, if anything, is why Jews do excel in so many disparate fields.

Added to which, all Jewish boys and many Jewish girls learn a foreign language at the age of 12 (Hebrew). No doubt this also helps to develop a facility with language.

Frank said...

Judaism teaches dual morality, and it teaches that Jews are the Chosen.

In my view, one standard ought to apply to all. Only in extreme cases (e.g. stealing to eat) should it be OK to violate this.

Sean O'Brian said...

Hey Conservative Swede,

Olivia Manning, who was in Nazi-dominated Bucharest in 1940-41, records watching newsreels of victorious German soldiers singing, in 1940, 'Wir wollen keinen Christen sein, weil Christus war ein Judenschwein' - ‘We don't want to be Christians, because Christ was a Jewish pig'.

Houston Stewart Chamberlain, the original racialist theorist, and one of the prophets of Nazi racial theory, devoted some effort to trying to establish that Jesus was not a Jew. (Though it's perfectly obvious from the Gospels that Christ was a Jew.)

Per the above examples, *some* instances of anti-Semitism have been explicit and conscious attempts to expel the foreign Jewish God (or God-man). Or at least to de-Judaise him for personal use. This, for me, would seem to confirm your theory somewhat.

in the vanguard said...

The common denominator of anti-semitism, you ay, is "FEAR OF JEWS". Are you nuts? Most Jew haters never even met a Jew. And if they did, they met some bookworm or scholar, or tech enthusiast, or singer or poet, or teacher, or busy businessman, or violinists... you know what I mean?

The real reason people hate Jews - and take it from this Jew - is the antiSemite's hate for God! He hates God and therefore hates the people God chose to represent him.

Philosophize and rationalize all you want about the reasons for something us Jews know better than you nonJews, but your churning water foor nothing, your spinning your wheels on ice, going nowhere. Out sages tell us why and you now have the privilege of learning from these sages through this mediator of their words. There is no other reason.

So I'll say it again. Those who hate Jews really engender a hate towards God. Who, for example, rate among virulent Jew haters? "Religious" Muslims.

Could that be? Could it be these Muslims, who commonly shout out "God is the strongest" before they do their killings or cause pain, actually hate the very God they invoke? Yes. They're rebelling against the God they deeply despise. Notice how they never speak lovingly about God. And when they die for their perverted cause, they have lust on their mind. Do they do their wickedness to be closer to God? These creatures are driven by emotion, not brains. They have virginal blood on their minds, that's all. And mush for brains.

rebelliousvanilla said...

in the vanguard, sure, it has nothing to do with promoting Bolshevism, multiculturalism and the like. lol.

I'm an atheist and I hardly care about Jews being considered the chosen people. If they kept to themselves, I'd hardly care.

On the other hand, i don't really hate Jews for the sake of being Jewish.