Sunday, December 8, 2019

For the Love of Jews

Source: The Unz Review


French Demos

England and France, two antagonists, two mainstays of European civilisation, are simultaneously engulfed in paroxysm of Judeophilia. The result of the forthcoming very important parliamentary elections in Britain hinges on this issue, with Labour and Tories competing who will express their love of Jews more profusely, while the Jews can't decide whom they loath less. France, after a year of the middle-class Yellow Vests rebellion, enters the fresh working class uprising with million strikers rioting on the streets, but its parliament finds prime time to ponder and rule how Frenchmen should love Jews and hate those who hate them. What is the meaning of this charade?

Surely they do not argue about Jewish cuisine. While palatable, it is rarely more than that. A proof can be found in Israel, where Arab food rules, Japanese is recognised, Italian cherished but Jewish cuisine shines by its absence. It is not Jewish noses, though a significant feature of facial anatomy, they are not more elaborate or prominent than, say, Sicilian. It is all about ideas.

Judeophilia, love of Jews is a troublesome symptom of a dangerous malady, of elites' estrangement from its working classes, the malady presently in full bloom in France and England. Judeophilia strikes divided societies and could lead to their collapse much faster than its Siamese counter-twin, antisemitism. It did so in the past, most famously in Kingdom of Poland, where the szlachta (nobility) loved Jews and despised ordinary folks, the bydlo (rednecks), until their state collapsed. In a Christian, or post-Christian society, Jews are a symbol, a signifier of a certain attitude and behaviour that is profoundly non-Christian.
Jews are a small minority that defies the large society and opposes it. Jews care for themselves and disregard the majority and its needs; they have no scruples beyond prescribed by the criminal law; they feel no communality with the majority. Jews do not share communion with majority, and do not appeal to the same deity. Jews prosper when the majority regresses. They are fast to see a break and use it for their advantage.
We won't enter a discussion whether the real Jews fit the description, and to what extent. That is how they are perceived by those who love them and who hate them. There were Jews who acted against the paradigm, and they weren't considered 'good for Jews'. Bruno Kreisky, the Austrian Chancellor, Lazar Kaganovich, the Soviet official, Leon Trotsky or Torquemada weren't 'good for Jews'. And there are plentiful Gentiles who were considered 'good for Jews', like Hillary Clinton or Tony Blair. Usually they were bad for everybody else. So, while we shall defer our judgment on 'real Jews', there is no doubt that philo-Semites are bad for your health.

The dominant economic and political paradigm, Neo-Liberalism claims that Jewish attitude is the right one, and that we all should emulate Jews. This is an impossible claim; a majority can't emulate a minority. A society whose members relate to each other as Jews-to-Gentiles is a cannibals' cabal, and that is exactly what happens in our world. Jews prosper because they are few; if all emulate Jews, the result is misery, not prosperity. An all-Jewish society can't exist; Israel is a place where Thai, Chinese, Ukrainians and Palestinians work, the Russians and Druze guard them, while Jews do usual Jewish things.

In England, the Jews are divided about Boris Johnson. They do not want Brexit to succeed, but the access of Corbyn scares them even more. Corbyn is an avowed enemy of … no, not of Jews, but of neo-liberalism. Combine it with his rejection of Israeli politics, and you come to the sum of anti-Jewish attitudes. Yes, Corbyn is anti-Jewish, if you wish, even anti-Semite, i.e. a man whom Jews hate, for he is against both Jewish modes of operation, the capitalist and the Zionist. He is perfectly ok with people of Jewish origin, he has no prejudice, he is no racist, but it is irrelevant. His victory won't be 'good for Jews', neither for Jews who bleed Palestine, nor for Jews who prosper at the expense of the British worker. Perhaps Corbyn would be wonderful for Jewish workers, but they are not represented in the Board of Deputies, and the Chief Rabbi does not care for them.

On the international scene, Corbyn is not a friend of NATO. If he could he would take the UK out of this obsolete military alliance. So would President Trump, who is looking for a justification to steer the US out of NATO. Jews do not like this attitude. For them, the US and the UK should stay in NATO, for NATO is a strong defender and supporter of the Jewish state.

Brits have a difficult choice in the coming elections. Johnson is not too bad, and his stand against EU should be applauded. Corbyn is likely to seek compromise on every position, including Brexit, immigration, NATO, but his initial stand is good. For a working man, he is the right choice. And the Jewish attitude to him is a strong indicator: of the two contenders, Corbyn would be better for those who do not emulate Jews.


In France, the Jews are very close to power, and it is usually a sign that things do not go well for native middle and working classes. Indeed things go from bad to worse. While a million of French workers demonstrated against Macron's government, the French parliamentarians discussed antisemitism. Not surprisingly, they accepted the definition produced by a Jewish organisation. Demurring against this definition caused a lot of trouble for Corbyn; Macron had learned a lesson.

I am all for such definitions; their scope is too narrow, if anything. I'd prefer a broad definition that would describe as anti-Semite any person who attends a church or a mosque; who does not contribute to Jewish settlements; who does not believe in God-chosen Jewish nation being above all mortal laws. Maybe then the Gentiles would be healed of their fear of being labelled 'anti-Semite'. This fear kills their souls more than the accusation. Though, best of people, Shakespeare, St John the Divine, Dostoyevsky and Chesterton are considered anti-Semites, and it did not diminish their fame and glory.

You can’t escape this label; if they want they will attach it to your name. Likewise, a man can’t avoid being called a male chauvinist and accused of harassment by a radical feminist. Anna Ardin, the Swedish feminist who accused Julian Assange of rape and destroyed his life as surely as if she'd knifed him, also accused a student of harassment because he avoided looking at her. Such accusations should be shrugged off.

Please go to The Unz Review to read the entire essay by Israel Shamir.


Masters of Discourse


Flowers of Galilee

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Who's visiting Abel Danger
view a larger version of the map below at