Never Again

Linda Sarsour said some bad things recently.

Apparently, she made the observation that Israel is built on Jewish supremacy.

I wouldn’t necessarily say supremacy. However, Israeli policies concerning Aliyah does bespeak a kind of homogeneity that is being forced out of other parts of the world. For instance, you can’t immigrate to Israel if you are a Christian… even if you are a Jew.

If traditional englishmen dared to claim that England was for traditional englishmen, everyone would claim that they were white supremacists and white nationalists.

So Linda Sarsour is just applying the rhetoric aimed at nationalists in the West to a very ardently nationalist country.

If nationalism = supremacy, which it does to Ben Shapiro, Jonah Goldberg, and a host of other conservative pundits, then Jewish nationalism is Jewish supremacy.

Maybe we should start asking ourselves if there really is something horribly wrong with it or not? Or is it only ok for the Jews? Because of their history?

Something I’ve been becoming embittered about is that I thought “Never Again” applied to all ethnic groups – never again would we let what happened to the Jews happen to anyone. It’s why I thought Holocaust education was important. But we have in this country an active campaign to dehumanize an entire ethnic group as what was done in the decades before the holocaust. But its anti-Semitic to compare the two.

So I have little respect for anyone claiming it is different because they are Jews. No. Either ethnic nationalism is right for everyone or it is right for no one. To argue otherwise IS, in fact, supremacy.

9+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

94 thoughts on “Never Again”

  1. Robert A. McReynolds:
    So ends justifying means is not an indictment of one’s philosophy…unless you disagree with the philosophy.

    Murder and torture don’t justify a thing and the American Founders pulled off one of the greatest “upsets” in history without resorting to rabid violence. If a movement is based upon evil actions, it inevitably results in a less than honorable result.

    I enjoy France, but I have no respect for their sullen, misanthropic, bureaucratic attitude even if I actually have been treated decently there. (I never am perceived as American- what luck!) Although I’m happy that Paris avoided destruction in WWII, I’m resentful that American lives were lost ending the war and saving them from destruction when they chose to lay down their guns.

    My favorite tacky joke?

    “What’s the key selling point for a French arms dealer? Answer: Never been used and only dropped once.”

    0

  2. 10 Cents:
    How about the other Catholic countries, Robert? I noticed you mentioned more northern countries. (I want to be proved wrong.)

    Northern climes require rigorous preparation and periods of very hard work to survive, so you are going to naturally find better work ethic in northern climes than in places where food is more readily available year round through gathering, fishing, or hunting. Even in America, the south has a stronger feel of laid back than the north does because of this dynamic. But also, resting in the heat of the day conserves resources. So south American Catholic work ethic isn’t catholic, it is regional.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  3. Robert A. McReynolds:
    I beg to differ. The Germans and French were both very Catholic and very industrious. I think it may have more to do with some other characteristic besides Catholicism.

    A lot of German Protestants would beg to differ.

    0

  4. EThompson:
    I’m always willing to learn so pls give me specific examples. Would appreciate it!

    I think we are making different distinctions.

    You appear to define Jew as a religion and I am using it as an ethnic with special dispensation.

    In spite of the diversity of faith within Israel, they are largely ethnically homogeneous in a similar way that the USA was in the 19th century – they are majority semite.

    The primary exception to the ethnic homogeneity is the dispensation to largely ethnic europeans who are Jews and the exception to that exception is ethnic European Jews who converted to Christianity.

    And DrLorentz already provided quotes of actual laws, so see his comments for your specific examples.

    0

  5. ctlaw:
    A lot of German Protestants would beg to differ.

    All together now: “correlation does not imply causation”.  In Europe, where most of these stereotypes originate (and in many cases the people who have populated other regions such as North and South America), protestantism began in the North and to this day is more prevalent in northern than southern countries.  So you have two intertangled things: latitude (and hence climate) and prevalent religion.  If there is a difference in “work ethic” (however that might be measured), then either or both independently could be the cause, one could cause the other, or both might be caused by something else entirely.  To disentangle them, you need to look at things like isolated homogeneous communities of emigres in other locations, and that’s a study somewhat more ambitious than can be done in a comment thread.

    4+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  6. Stina:
    You appear to define Jew as a religion and I am using it as an ethnic with special dispensation.

    You are correct because I do not believe Judaism is an ethnic identity and neither do any of my reformed, conservative and orthodox friends. But again, my experience is merely anecdotal and I won’t back up my opinions with irrelevant links.

    I do wish people would just get out into the world and engage in real life.

    I will say this site has taught me to appreciate the experiences that I used to take for granted; I am very grateful for the knowledge I received from real people in real situations. I was naive enough to think this was typical; now I realize that point de vue is truly the definition of naivete. People would much prefer to sit in front of a computer and ‘google’ all their information and succumb to the influences of the writers they read.

    While I’m on a rant, I can’t stand the dismissive attitude toward NR, the Weekly Standard (now Washington Examiner), and even my beloved WSJ (!). Take a moment and pick through all of these publications; one can find some real gems.

    Keep up your armchair/internet observations and I will continue to explore.

    0

  7. 10 Cents:

    Mate De:

    10 Cents:
    Robert, how about the current French Work Ethic?

    Prior to the French Revolution the French were very industrious. They build canals to increase trade routes. Colonized parts of North America, Africa and Asia obviously they made beautiful cathedrals. The French are a very hard working, industrious people but the echoes of the revolution still remain today. The yellow vest revolt is evidence of that.
    Americans shouldn’t be too cocky our star can fall the same as any other country.

    I was talking about the modern French.
    Why did the French revolt?

     

    LOL, I am smiling at reading in Japan about Americans shouldn’t be cocky. After the war no one thought the Big Three Auto Makers would ever be dethroned. Or that Detroit would fall on bad times.

    In Japan, people have a strong work ethic. Some of it comes from their religion and not wanting to let down their ancestors.

    Frankly, the French revolted because of tremendous public debt due to France’s assisting the colonies during the Revolution and a tremendous food shortage due to a bad harvest in consecutive years. A good source on this is The Pursuit of Glory: Europe 1648 – 1815 by Prof. Tim Blanning.

    3+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  8. EThompson:

    Robert A. McReynolds:
    So ends justifying means is not an indictment of one’s philosophy…unless you disagree with the philosophy.

    Murder and torture don’t justify a thing and the American Founders pulled off one of the greatest “upsets” in history without resorting to rabid violence. If a movement is based upon evil actions, it inevitably results in a less than honorable result.

    I enjoy France, but I have no respect for their sullen, misanthropic, bureaucratic attitude even if I actually have been treated decently there. (I never am perceived as American- what luck!) Although I’m happy that Paris avoided destruction in WWII, I’m resentful that American lives were lost ending the war and saving them from destruction when they chose to lay down their guns.

    My favorite tacky joke?

    “What’s the key selling point for a French arms dealer? Answer: Never been used and only dropped once.”

    BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! You seriously need to read some history if you think there wasn’t some level of violence in the lead up to the Declaration. The governor of Massachusetts and his family was trapped in his house one evening while a rabble surrounded it and began hurling bricks and rocks through the windows and threatening to light it on fire while the family was inside.

    Also, Jefferson’s personal observations of the French Revolution came in the very beginning, before the terror. He was in France in the late 1780s if you recall, that is why he was not in Philadelphia. Here is the French Revolution timeline. Look at this in conjunction with my previous link to the LOC.gov page and compare what Jefferson writes and the years they are written.

    https://www.thoughtco.com/french-revolution-timeline-1221901

    I am not asking that you like Jefferson–we all know where your affections lie–but at the very least be historically accurate in your comments.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  9. Robert A. McReynolds:
    BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! You seriously need to read some history if you think there wasn’t some level of violence in the lead up to the Declaration. The governor of Massachusetts and his family was trapped in his house one evening while a rabble surrounded it and began hurling bricks and rocks through the windows and threatening to light it on fire while the family was inside.

    Big deal. You’re comparing apples to crab apples and focusing upon very specific examples. That is defined as manipulation of the bigger picture.

    Robert A. McReynolds:
    Also, Jefferson’s personal observations of the French Revolution came in the very beginning, before the terror.

    Wrong again. Even after the women in Lafayette’s family were beheaded and thrown into an open grave, Jefferson never wavered in his support of the Jacobins. And yes, you are correct; he is not my favorite Founder although I do appreciate his fiscal irresponsibility because I treasure the Library of Congress.

    Robert A. McReynolds:
    I am not asking that you like Jefferson–we all know where your affections lie–but at the very least be historically accurate in your comments.

    I’ve made no historically inaccurate comments on this thread. You’ve chosen to sit behind your desk and nitpick irrelevant details.

    0

  10. 10 Cents:

    JTOmland:

    Robert A. McReynolds:
    I beg to differ. The Germans and French were both very Catholic and very industrious. I think it may have more to do with some other characteristic besides Catholicism.

    Religion is a very small knob in work ethic.  The big knob is probably opportunity.  I believe capitalistic society with at least a belief in meritocracy will have a much higher work ethic regardless of religious beliefs.

    Where do you think meritocracy comes from?

    I think how one views the world matters a lot. One’s religion or lack of it informs their views. I agree that for some people religion is a small knob but I don’t think that is universal or seen throughout history.

    Your question is a good one.  I am trying to learn more about it.

    I agree with your statement.  If your religious and if your religion teaches work ethic as important, most certainly this will be a big knob for you as an individual.  I wasn’t thinking about the individual scale.  I was thinking on a national scale.  I don’t think the Koreans picked up a work ethic because of their religion.  I  think when, as a nation, they were put in a situation that provided opportunity to improve themselves and their country through hard work they started to work hard.   I could be wrong.  Maybe Koreans always have worked hard but it wasn’t reflected in economic success until other factors fell into place.  I don’t know if the Protestant religion currently teaches that work ethic is part of being a good christian?

    However, I did find something I thought was interesting.  The impact of religion on economic outcome and  Protestant vs Catholic work ethic has been recently studied.

    http://freakonomics.com/podcast/religiosity/

    0

  11. EThompson:

    Robert A. McReynolds:
    BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! You seriously need to read some history if you think there wasn’t some level of violence in the lead up to the Declaration. The governor of Massachusetts and his family was trapped in his house one evening while a rabble surrounded it and began hurling bricks and rocks through the windows and threatening to light it on fire while the family was inside.

    Big deal. You’re comparing apples to crab apples and focusing upon very specific examples. That is defined as manipulation of the bigger picture.

    Robert A. McReynolds:
    Also, Jefferson’s personal observations of the French Revolution came in the very beginning, before the terror.

    Wrong again. Even after the women in Lafayette’s family were beheaded and thrown into an open grave, Jefferson never wavered in his support of the Jacobins. And yes, you are correct; he is not my favorite Founder although I do appreciate his fiscal irresponsibility because I treasure the Library of Congress.

    Robert A. McReynolds:
    I am not asking that you like Jefferson–we all know where your affections lie–but at the very least be historically accurate in your comments.

    I’ve made no historically inaccurate comments on this thread. You’ve chosen to sit behind your desk and nitpick irrelevant details.

    Oh heaven forbid we back up our assertions with, you know, historical data!

    I’m sorry, but you are just plain historically ignorant. I provided to you the handwritten proof of his own comments regarding the situation in France and the dates of those comments. His support for the Revolution was strictly relegated to his support for republican forms of government–he was supportive of the revolutions in Holland and Greece as well. But alas, this is more of me “nitpicking irrelevant details.”

    Fiscal irresponsibility? Interesting that you would say that since you are a devotee of the man who said that a public debt is a public blessing. But since you brought it up, let’s take a look at some “irrelevant details.” When Jefferson took office in 1801 the federal budget was already in the midst of a sharp decline while revenues were in the midst of a sharp increase. Throughout his presidency, spending never went past where it was right at the beginning of that sharp decline just before he took office. There is, you will note a sharp decrease in revenues at the very end of his presidency–which is most likely due to the embargo he placed on New England shipping (an act of his that I disagree with). But throughout his presidency, the federal government operated on a surplus. So again, your tales from the crypt are void of actual historical data and the blatherings of a Hamo-phile.

    Also, you will notice that during the Adams administration–when Ham-bone was at his zenith in influence within the executive–spending climbed. Revenues did not climb until the very tale end of Adams, likely due to the dissipation of the threat of war with France. Here is the source, if you are so inclined…but given your previous comments you will continue to bury your head in Hamiton’s sand.

    https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/thomas-jeffersons-sequester

    0

  12. Early in July 1789, Lafayette presented the newly-formed “National Assembly” with the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen — a document that he had produced with the help of his friend Jefferson.

    Later, as the French Reign of Terror progressed, Jefferson denounced the atrocities of Robespierre and other French radicals, but he continued his support for and remained committed to the success of the French Revolution.

    In later life, Jefferson concluded that the French people had not been ready for the leap from “despotism to freedom,”24 and that if Louis XVI had issued a declaration of rights but been retained as a limited monarch, the French would have avoided “those enormities which demoralised the nations of the world, and destroyed, and is yet to destroy millions and millions of it’s inhabitants.”

    From Monticello, with original sources if you wish to see for yourself.

    https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/french-revolution

    0

  13. 1. When I referred to “fiscal irresponsibility,” I was obviously alluding to his personal bankruptcy that forced him to sell his extensive collection of books.

    2. Robert A. McReynolds:
    Later, as the French Reign of Terror progressed, Jefferson denounced the atrocities of Robespierre and other French radicals, but he continued his support for and remained committed to the success of the French Revolution.

    He may have denounced terrorism but he didn’t seem to comprehend that liberte, egalite, fraternite was inexplicably linked for quite some time with mass murder. Other Framers wanted nothing to do with it particularly Lafayette (who I consider an honorary Framer).

    0

  14. EThompson:
    1. When I referred to “fiscal irresponsibility,” I was obviously alluding to his personal bankruptcy that forced him to sell his extensive collection of books.

    2. Robert A. McReynolds:
    Later, as the French Reign of Terror progressed, Jefferson denounced the atrocities of Robespierre and other French radicals, but he continued his support for and remained committed to the success of the French Revolution.

    He may have denounced terrorism but he didn’t seem to comprehend that liberte, egalite, fraternite was inexplicably linked for quite some time with mass murder. Other Framers wanted nothing to do with it particularly Lafayette (who I consider an honorary Framer).

    Once again you show your ignorance.

    Recognizing that it would be difficult for Congress to replace the library that had been lost, given the war and the difficulty of procuring items from Europe, Thomas Jefferson offered up his large personal library to Congress.

    In his letter to Smith, Jefferson indicated that he had intended that his library should eventually become public property and be offered at his death to Congress at whatever price was acceptable. But with the congressional library’s destruction, Jefferson felt that it was the proper time to offer his library to Congress, “without regard to the small remnant of time, and the barren use of my enjoying it.”2 He agreed to accept any valuation and payment terms Congress decided on (even payment after the war had ended), but insisted if Congress agreed to purchase his library, it should be purchased in its entirety.

    Seems rather odd for one who is selling his library out of financial desperation to “accept any valuation and payment terms” for it. https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/sale-books-library-congress-1815

    I am not sure where you are getting your historical “knowledge” from but you should probably ask for your money back as I know you are consumed with counting your shekels.

    Lafayette was played a key role in the opening acts of the French Revolution. Did you not see that it was he and Jefferson who drew up the Declaration of Rights that Jefferson said should have been adopted by Louis? Oh, you couldn’t be bothered to click the link and read the whole article because you have your Ron Chernow and that is all you need. With that, I am disengaging from this conversation because it is clearly pointless to try to convince you that maybe your history is wrong.

    0

  15. Robert A. McReynolds:
    Recognizing that it would be difficult for Congress to replace the library that had been lost, given the war and the difficulty of procuring items from Europe, Thomas Jefferson offered up his large personal library to Congress.

    Who’s the ignorant one now? Jefferson was in deep debt and begged the govt to BUY his 12,000 book collection.

    You have no sense of decorum and you’re not as smart as you think you are. We can agree here: let’s just call it quits; you’re a waste of my energy.

    0

  16. EThompson:

    Robert A. McReynolds:
    Recognizing that it would be difficult for Congress to replace the library that had been lost, given the war and the difficulty of procuring items from Europe, Thomas Jefferson offered up his large personal library to Congress.

    Who’s the ignorant one now? Jefferson was in deep debt and begged the govt to BUY his 12,000 book collection.

    You have no sense of decorum and you’re not as smart as you think you are. We can agree here: let’s just call it quits; you’re a waste of my energy.

    What part of the quoted section leads you to conclude that he “begged” for his library to bought? Yes, Jefferson was in debt, but your assertion that this led to his selling of his library is just not factual. Much of his debt was settled by an estate sale after his life:

    https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/debt

    I may not be all that smart, but at least I can operate freaking google. Learn to do the same before you make demonstrably ignorant comments.

    0

  17. I love robust debates. Within reason I think it is great that people get to see things unfiltered and people can decide for themselves who has the better argument. I wish everyone could “play nice” but in heated disagreements people do have trouble doing that. I think most people understand this and can tolerate it. It is far better than to have whole comments destroyed by over zealous moderators.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  18. EThompson:
    Keep up your armchair/internet observations and I will continue to explore.

    All of my observations come from the online postings by Jews, specifically those that post at The Other Place.

    I also get my information on Israel immigration from a Messianic Jew who can’t move to Israel because of his faith – they won’t let him.

    I don’t know many Jews in my real life because I’m a suburban/rural mom who stays home with my kids. I don’t come across a lot of jews out here but when I do, they identify as Jewish and atheist.

    So your reformed/orthodox religious Jews see it as a religion (bias?), but that is clearly a subset of Jews. Is George Soros religious? Diane Feinstein? Weinstein (the Hollywood ones or the IDW ones)? Paul Singer? All of the Jews who have served on the SC identified as Jews but were not religious while on the court except one.

    Should I disbelieve my lying eyes?

    3+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar

Leave a Reply