Against Islam, Even Jews and Nazis can be Friends

Jews who make common cause with right-wing racist hate are no better than Jews who make common cause with left-wing racist hate. What your ignoring is that the latter is infinitely more common than the former and has nothing to do with what Caroline Glick wrote in her brillant column. Glick was outraged that liberal Jews did what liberals of all stripes do; they put narrow and petty party politics over everything else; even the opportunity to unite over the threats of a REAL genocidal anti-semitic fascist and they even used thuggish legal and financial threats against other Jews and their friends to intimadate them into submission.

The real fascism that Jews need to fear is Islamofascism and their useful idiots on the left.

I hate to drudge this up (who am I kidding--I love to drudge this up), but fascism is yet another of those meaningless words people use some times to call each other names. Calling someone a fascist, or for that matter an Islamofascist, does not help us in properly identifying that person's beliefs.

George Orwell wrote a spiffy article about how poor writing and the misuse of words makes political debate both meaningless and dangerous. The word 'fascist' is nothing more than a politically meaningless, unhelpful and dangerous slur. The word 'Islamofascist' is therefore equally meaningless, unhelpful and dangerous to use.

I agree that America is engaged in an ideological struggle--more accurately a number of individual ideological struggles-- against Islamic fundamentalist movements. Democrats would probably argue that Obama would prosecute America's part in these struggles better than John McCain.

I have no idea what you mean by your statements about 'liberals'. Liberalism is a political philosophy espoused by practically every American politician alive today. It is, I hope, a political philosophy that you espouse. Quite simply, a liberal believes that the best form of government is one that imposes minimal restrictions on freedoms of speech, and worship as well as other civil rights. If the word 'liberal' is to have any use in the domestic political context, it can only be that one. You use it as an awkward slur. If you wish to slur the Democrats, by all means do so. But try not to make nonsense of the English langauge at the same time.

There. Now I feel intelligent enough to grab myself a cookie as a reward for all this hard work.  

And for your pleasure and entertainment, courtesy of George Orwell, circa 1946, 'Politics and the English Language': 

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm 

Naziism was a Zionist construct, the collaboration between the Rothschild Zionists (for want of a more apt description) .and Adolf Hitler has been well documented, and the evidence so overwhelming and horrible. "Anti-semitism" has always been used by Talmudic Zionists to herd the Jews to serve their twisted ends...

http://iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/?dir=Willard.Hotel.19...

Try reading John Locke sometime, Zeevico. And then re-write your fourth paragraph. Or better yet, re-analyze it within the context of Orwell's own political beliefs.

I have read some of Locke, but my memory of him is fuzzy. I suppose Mill, to whom I failed to refer in my definition (but really ought to have), differed with Locke substantively on the level of tolerance that each was willing to extend. Lock was willing to extend tolerance to fellow protestant Christians only. Or perhaps I have missed your point. What is it?

Don't worry - my bad. I misread your fourth paragraph, actually. You obviously meant "minimal" in a dissuasive sense, and I had become too accustomed to doing battle in the blogosphere lately to realize it.

Hey Zeeviko!!

If George Orwell did indeed write  a spiffy article about how poor writing and the misuse of words makes political debate both meaningless and dangerous

than he was gulity of it himself.

"Pacificism is objectively pro-fascist"

George Orwell

Feel free to grab yourself another cookie for making an easily refuted point.

Which free market capitalist did you have in mind as historically hostile to Jews? Milton Friedman? Ayn Rand? Murray Rothbard? or was it Ludwig van Mises?

Isaac--"Don't worry - my bad. I misread your fourth paragraph, actually."

Well, yes, but that's more a fault of my poor writing. Alas, guilty of the very crime I condemn. I mean 'minimal', in the sense that criminal endangerment of others ought to be restricted, e.g. shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre, leading to many deaths.

Rob--

Perhaps you're right on the fascism issue. There is some merit in the comparison.

Don't worry, Zeevico. I've been accused of bad writing many times by a much better writer here. At one time I was probably much better myself, but having become accustomed to technical writing and working within the Dilbert-esque corporate world has left me with less panache!

Anyways, Orwell's advice about the deliberate manipulation of language still holds true in today's political systems, especially in America. But I think that writing well is a little bit more subjective than that - not that I don't appreciate Orwell's practical advice on the matter. I love reading Ismail's "works" and am trying to learn from how he constructs them. But I still think that I can pull off a good piece when I'm allowed a long, factually-oriented space in which to play. This must be why I both despise and sympathize with people like Joe Biden, for example. Although I've never plagiarized someone before. I wouldn't have the gall for that sort of thing.   

The most important thing when writing, as with any sort of expression, is to be honest.

See. I already outdid myself. Should have said "as with any form of expression".

Hey, that's ok. And just for the sake of clarity, I'll add to my paragraph anyway: Using other definitions of the word 'liberal' is fine if you actually define what you mean by it first. Obviously there are social liberals, economic liberals, and so on and so forth. But just attaching the word 'liberal' to everything and assuming people (read: I) know what you mean is really quite unhelpful.

The Lockean definition of classical liberalism is the most useful, and the way in which I perceived that you intended it. I believe that all the common, modern uses are unhelpful and typically meant in an intentionally pejorative way. For those, I recommend that people differentiate between "progressive", "libertarian", "socialist", etc., or specify whether or not they refer to an approach currently favored by the political left. When it comes to economics, most positions articulated or favored by the American right are actually called "neoliberal" in Europe as they represent the modern version of a clasically liberal/libertarian approach.

If you had read any of the books you claim to you would know that fascism has a very specific set of definitions. Fascist parties and governments are ones which conform to a number of well-defined and generally-accepted characteristics. I happen to like Eco's, but the others are all pretty much in line.

No we don't Dan. At least those of us who managed to get past Poli Sci 101. The hope was that once you left Jewschool and shut down Orthodox Anarchist, we'd be spared your moronic writing. But no.

You equate Jews who consort with Neo-Nazis (presumably a tiny number) to Jews who support Israel - or as you put it: "decades of Jewish dissembling in defense of Israel's most egregious criminal acts.." I forgot how much you love those words - "dissembling" and "egregious." It's like you accidentally ate an SAT in your overstuffed pastrami sandwich! Comparing this tiny fringe element of kooks with the conventional Jewish communal support for the only Jewish homeland we have is as egregious an example of dissembling as I have ever read.

Simon already pointed out the idiocy of your comment about free market capitalists, so I don't need to repeat that.

Dan, you really ought to stick to twitter and tumblr and updating your flickr photo album. Unlike most people, the less words you use, the less dumb you seem. Stay in your cubicle. Make sure that pesky JTA server keeps running. Maybe take a night class or two in community college, or design some more idiotic zionism=racism t-shirts. But do us all a favor. Shut the hell up. You're annoying.

How much you wanna bet that that last comment was left by Dave Abitbol from Jewlicious?  He's the only person obsessed enough with Sieradski's every move and jealous enough of his success to keep stalkerish tabs on him like that.  What a fucking creep.

FWIW, I think Sieradski was very clear in identifying that this is occuring among a small number, as he referred only to "some Jews."  He also made no equation between Jews who associate with Nazis and Jews who support Israel.  Instead, he identified that some Jews, out of their desire to support Israel, will defend the indefensible.  

Lending credence to that position, the author of the proceding comment (Abitbol?) was more concerned with the fact that Sieradski brought up the subject, in that it tarnishes the pro-Israel Right, than the fact that this phenomenon is occuring at all.  His invective was directed at Sieradski instead of the Jews making alliances with Nazis, thus proving Sieradski's point.

I think he's also right that free market capitalism -- in particular, the drive towards the privatization of public services and the giving of huge tax breaks to wealthy individuals and corporations -- is entirely out of step with the Jewish domestic agenda.

The study association Yeshurun Judaism against Zionism and Centre Zahra France have published an appeal to initiate a strategic friendship alliance between Judaism and Islam against Zionism. It is based on Rabbinical tradition, especially on a brilliant formulation by Rav Simon SCHWAB in his book “Heimkehr ins Judentum” (“Home to Judaism”,1934).
Discover it for yourself in www.bloggen.be/jesjoeroen and www.centre-zahra.com

Dear Mr. Sieradski,

as an editor of an Internetportal in Hebrew dealing with racism, i would like your pemission to translate your article into Hebrew.

Please let me know if you agree,

irishefets@kedma.co.il

regards and thanks

iris

Bernard Avishai also talks about Jews making strange bedfellows with "free market radicals" for the sake of Israel in his article on Obama and the Jews in this month's Harper's.

What kind of idiot is Rob who believes that the Left and the Right are the same?  The Left has always fought anti-Semitism whether it was in pre-Bolshevik Russia against the Czarist Black Hundreds or the Battle of Cable Street.  It was the Polish Socialist Party and Communist Party who supplied most of the weaponry to the Warsaw Ghetto Fighters, not the Right.

 Socialism, despite Stalinism, is based on class, regardless of 'race' and other artificial constructs.  The Right of course, in their attempts to prop up their corrupt system target minority groups - Jews yesterday, Muslims today.

 And this is where we see where Rob comes from.  'Islamofascism' is the main enemy.  Leaving aside the fact that there is no such thing, what he effectively does is provide succour and comfort to those who do take the ultimate step of allying with neo-Nazis among the Zionists.

And in this he is no different from the behaviour of the Stern Gang 'Lehi' which made during the war an offer of a military pact with the Nazis.  After all the common enemy was Britain, who cared if a few million Jews were being exterminated.  Rob follows in an excellent Zionist tradition.

 Those of us unashamedly on the Left believe that Muslims, being the main victims of racism in the West today, are people to ally with.  of course they have their reactionaries, but not half as many as the Zionists and their Christian fundamentalist supporters in the USA. 

Jews who make common cause with right-wing racist hate are no better than Jews who make common cause with left-wing racist hate. What your ignoring is that the latter is infinitely more common than the former and has nothing to do with what Caroline Glick wrote in her brillant column. Glick was outraged that liberal Jews did what liberals of all stripes do; they put narrow and petty party politics over everything else; even the opportunity to unite over the threats of a REAL genocidal anti-semitic fascist and they even used thuggish legal and financial threats against other Jews and their friends to intimadate them into submission.

The real fascism that Jews need to fear is Islamofascism and their useful idiots on the left.

The Torah's description of the Yom Kippur service opens on a seemingly negative note:

And God said to Moshe: Speak to Aharon your brother, that he not come into the holy place at any time. (Vayikra 16:2)

It focuses not on the holy day itself but rather on the other days of the year, prohibiting entry into the Holy of Holies. Nevertheless, we can learn from this verse a vital lesson concerning Yom Kippur itself, and concerning our attitude towards teshuva (repentance).

"What is teshuva?" asks the Rambam. He answers:

That the sinner leave his sin, remove it from his thoughts, and resolve in his heart not to repeat it… and THE KNOWER OF SECRETS CAN TESTIFY ON HIS BEHALF THAT HE WILL NEVER RETURN TO THIS SIN… (Hilkhot Teshuva 2:2)

This is one of the most difficult laws in all of the Rambam's writings. Many pens and many hearts have broken over these words. There are two ways of understanding them: the simpler and more extreme interpretation claims that unless teshuva is absolute and final, it is not considered teshuva at all. The Lechem Mishneh, on the other hand, maintains that a person fulfills the mitzva of teshuva at the time when he intends it, even if he later repeats the sin; the Rambam simply intends that the penitent should have in mind that the Holy One is witness to his teshuva.

The Lechem Mishneh fails to reassure us, because deep in our hearts we know that it is the first interpretation that demands our allegiance. It is possible that the MITZVA of teshuva was fulfilled at the time, and is not nullified retroactively by the repetition of the sin. Nevertheless, from the point of view of the PROGRESS that teshuva is supposed to bring – if one repeats his sin hasn't his teshuva lost its entire significance? Each year we come back to Yom Kippur with a strong feeling of deja vu; we know the whole procedure by heart. And we also know the script for after Yom Kippur: back to tests and failures; often – the same tests, with the same failures. What, then, we ask ourselves, is the point? (I would like to address this question from a slightly different angle than did Rav Lichtenstein shlit"a in this year's Rosh Ha-shana mailing.)

In the last century, two great Torah sages revealed new insights into the concept of teshuva. While the early sources give the impression that the crux of teshuva is the correction of sin, Rav Soloveitchik zt"l and Rav Kook zt"l both taught that its purpose is the correction of man. Of course, man's deviation and corruption are expressed in his sins, but the real source of the problem is man's distance from his Creator. Rav Soloveitchik speaks of the penitent as a person who creates and redeems himself. Rav Kook describes a teshuva that is necessary even in the absence of a specific sin, a teshuva that arises from the distance between the Holy One and His creations. Both focus on the change and the elevation that take place within the inner recesses of the soul.

This perspective may hold the key to a solution, but once again we must ask: What is the point of the soul being elevated and illuminated if ultimately we find ourselves once again mired in sin, continuing to commit wrongdoings, precisely as we did before? Can this really be called elevation and correction, or is it no more than an illusion?

In fact, the question expresses a certain illusion that has imposed itself on our thinking about teshuva. The problem lies in our mistake in thinking that teshuva must be absolute: all or nothing. The truth is that the principle that "there is no person so righteous in all the world that he does only good and never sins" applies also to a penitent. Ignoring this fact makes the process of teshuva unrealistic. Our mistake is to perform conditional teshuva: it is conditional on the fact that we will never sin again, and if sometime we do come to stumble, then in our minds we retroactively nullify our previous teshuva. This nullification has no objective justification. We do it ourselves, through our own free choice.

Paradoxically, one of the sources for our mistake is the spiritual awakening associated with the powerful period in which we find ourselves, and which reaches its climax on Yom Kippur – the day when the evil inclination has no control, when we become like angels. The danger is greater for someone who merits the feeling to which we all aspire, a feeling of inner illumination, signifying that something is indeed "happening." The evil inclination sits quietly on Yom Kippur, preparing its trap for afterwards. It knows that every Yom Kippur comes to an end, and that failure will come sooner or later. Then it will present us with irrefutable evidence that our repentance was all a joke, not serious, short-lived; the awakening was only an illusion. It serves the purposes of the evil inclination to leave us alone for that one day, for it will reap its profits on the next Yom Kippur, which we approach with greater skepticism, lacking faith in ourselves, in our ability to truly elevate ourselves, in the influence of the special days when the Holy One is close to us and awaits our teshuva.

The Torah wishes to prevent us from falling into this trap, and so it declares, at the very outset of the Yom Kippur ritual: "Let him not come at all times into the holy place!" But we rush to the heart of the matter, without internalizing this message. We do not pay attention to the greatness and uniqueness of this period. Entry into the "holy place" is an awesome act – but it is a one-time phenomenon, a gift from another world, which we may use to improve the quality of our lives throughout the year. If we imagine that entry into the holy place is a model for imitation the whole year round, we actually diminish the value of these days of repentance. Moreover, they will not achieve their intended purpose.

"It was customary in Germany that even those who were not careful to avoid bread manufactured by non-Jews the whole year round, would take avoid it during the Ten Days of Repentance" (Tur, OC 603, based on the Yerushalmi). Whom are we trying to impress? Is hypocrisy a worthy attribute for someone who is engaged in teshuva? Surely not. But it was clear to our sages that during this period, standards are different. During this period we must be more intense, take greater care – beyond that which we do at any other time, in order that we may emerge from the teshuva period with gains that will improve our lives throughout the rest of the year.

This special period is meant to awaken us, to penetrate our hearts with its purity. But concerning the process of teshuva itself, we must remember: its purpose is to carry us forward, to elevate our efforts to new levels, but certainly not "all or nothing." If someone invests all his consciousness and ability in the period of teshuva, then his investment is always significant – even if the person himself does not merit to sense its depth.

It is in the nature of teshuva to endow a person with peace and with solemnity simultaneously. Even the mere thought of teshuva is a comfort to him; in one tiny spark of its great light there is already to be found a lofty and elevated joy of a whole world. But together with this it confronts his mind continuously with the obligations of perfection, which save him from pride and bestow upon him a sweet light, which endows his life with great and abiding value…

It is necessary to deepen our faith in teshuva, and to be certain that even the mere thought of teshuva mends a great deal in oneself and in the world. It is inevitable that after every thought of teshuva, a person will be happier and more at peace with himself than he was before…

(Rav Kook, Orot Ha-teshuva 7:1, 7:6)

R. Tzadok ha-Kohen puts it differently, explaining that it is specifically the repeated battle with sin that characterizes a healthy and progressive process of teshuva:

Sometimes it seems to a person that he has teshuva and his sins have been forgiven, and then after some time he is aroused once again to bitterness over his sins, and he feels that these two thoughts are incompatible. But in truth both are genuine, for we hold that sins for which one confesses on Yom Kippur must be confessed again the next Yom Kippur - and this holds true even for sins which are forgiven immediately upon repentance... Just as there is no limit to the levels of a person, so is there no limit to the levels of teshuva… Therefore, when one arrives at a higher level, then according to that new level he has not yet embarked on his teshuva, and his sin is before him constantly as he rises from one level to the next. But when he is on the lowest level, he has already repented the sin according his level… But in any event, as he reaches a higher level, his sin returns to him in all its strength…

(Tzidkat Ha-tzaddik, 134)

Indeed, after a person has performed teshuva and has risen in his spiritual level, the duty to correct himself grows stronger accordingly. According to his new level, the sin is more serious, more disturbing, and the person is judged more harshly for it. Paradoxically, teshuva can give rise to a very strong sense of shame and disappointment, a feeling that was not possible at his previous level. But it is worth the pain: in order to merit standing in the place where only penitents stand, we are happy to pay the price; the responsibility will not deter us.

We call upon God, the Knower of all secrets, as our witness that we have embarked on the road of teshuva without any preconditions. We do this with the knowledge that even if we do not "return to THIS sin ever again," we have not guaranteed ourselves spiritual rest. We shall be ready psychologically for the new struggles that our teshuva itself will bring in its wake, with a "new sin." On the other hand, we shall stand firm – even if we stumble again into what looks like the familiar "this sin;" we shall know that this is not the case, for since then we have engaged in teshuva and the battle is now on a different level. Armed with this knowledge of the uniqueness of the act of teshuva and the period of teshuva, imbued with a desire to pursue the challenge continually upwards despite the difficulties involved, with this Aharon - and all of us - may approach the holy place.

The melding of Jewish ad Nazi interests using Islam as the reason is a normal progression from the longterm situation in Israel itself.   

Israel is using genocidal tactics in order to obtain as much ' safe' land as possible.  It has been doing so for generations. It has the complete support of the U.S. as the U.S. wants to completely control all the oil countries and peoples, so supporting Israel is useful.

It has been a foreign policy of the U.S. since 9/11 to demonize Islam, so these aims all dovetail.  Since Islamic peoples number well over a billion all these policies are montrously dangerous to the whole world creating the potential for constant wars for, again, generations.

Tellner-

I haven't read any books on the topic of fascism, but I have already admitted that I misundertood the 'Islamofascism' point. There may well be some merit to the comparison.

Must be the only instance where a genocide has actually resulted in an increase in population.

That would be really incompetent, but perhaps that's exactly what prompts anon 5:22 to speculate in this manner: his or her sense of identification with whatever obviously clusterfuck level of incompetence would be required for his/her fantasy of The Evil Genocidal Jew to make any sense.

Who are these goyishe dumbshits that post here? 

Shoo! Scat! You silly vermin! Go project your incompetence onto a lesser people to identify with!

Tony, I agree with everything you said except this:

 "of course they have their reactionaries, but not half as many as the
Zionists and their Christian fundamentalist supporters in the USA."

Don't be ridiculous.  There are a billion Muslims on Earth and 13.5 million Jews.  Islamic militants are waging wars in at least a half-dozen countries if not more.

How much you wanna bet that Anonymous 10/03/08 3:42 pm is Richard Silverstein, the whiny bitch behind richardsilverstein.com and Dan Sieradski's self-appointed attack dog? I don't need to post anonymously like a fucking coward. That having been said, it's instructive to note that anti-Semitic violence and anti-Muslim violence increase in a correlated manner. Sieradski's comparisons are ridiculous, and the author of the comment in question (Silverstein?) is a douchenozzle.

---------------------------------

I blog at Jewlicious.com

What a lovely way to start off the new year. 

"He also made no equation between Jews who associate with Nazis and Jews who support Israel.  Instead, he identified that some Jews, out of their desire to support Israel, will defend the indefensible."

What he said.

And uh, Dave, you're a douchenozzle yourself if you think Silverstein and I run together.

Enough now, children. G-d's taking notes.

I'm sorry if you felt I implied that you and Silverstein run together. I did mention that he was "self-appointed" meaning that whatever retarded mission he is on is being waged of his own volition, on his own, without your participation. I hope that's clear. And I hope my comment wasn't too... harsh. Of course the notion of Jews associating with Neo-Nazis for any reason is abhorrent. But a) There's really no comparing Jews who associate with Nazis with Jews who support the State of Israel b) I think the numbers involved are minimal and c) It is clear that when it comes to violence against minorities, Jews and Muslims share many of the same concerns - a society that fosters intolerance against one group will foster further intolerance against other groups. All those angry, self-righteous people that go on and on (and on and on and on) about Islamofacism ought to be mindful of the possibility that the intolerance and hate they are breeding will come back and bite them in the ass...

Gmar Chatima Tova!

---------------------------------

I blog at Jewlicious.com

I enjoyed this essay, but would note that more than collaboration between Jews and White Nationalists is a more frequent dialog between Jews and paleo-conservatives. There are numerous reasons for this, not the least of which is that even some of us on the moderate-Left prefer to have some debate partners more to the right of us (the far-Left can get quite tedious very quickly, and the hippies sing too much), the Neocons are completely off the wall, and the Zionists talk too much about Israel. The paleo-conservative intellectuals are quite curmudgeonly. they keep you on their toes.

I would say that immigration has become a real issue, because of the difficulty of absorbing sectors of Muslim immigration. Now I realize the situation is different here than in those countries with a history of colonialism and oppression of the Orient such as in...Canada...but never the less, I for one am a bit concerned.

Additionally, not all segments of moderate-left Jewry ever committed to affirmative action nor governement subsidized housing in expensive or middle class real estate markets, nor public school "busing," and the liberals aren't useful in even discussing these issues.

What I would ask Dan and others is no differentiate between the moderate paleos and the White Nationalists. They are not the same, and though there are paleos that are critical of the Jews, they do not want the same things.

reality are brian things. People who give a shit about you are driven by their hearts.

I just came across another example of Jews and Nazis making common cause:

Ilana Mercer, a columnist for WorldNetDaily and a fellow at the Jerusalem Institue for Market Studies, is also a contributor to VDARE, a right-wing anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim website oft cited and contributed to by neo-Nazis and White Nationalists.