Israel: the arsenal of an undeclared nuclear power.

Post Reply New Topic

Good old ruveyn. One minute he’s ranting about “his people” and about the “Goyim” and the “Amalekites”, the next he's promoting individualism and coming out with “we are all one race” cliches. But there’s no contradiction here because “his people” are a religious group (even if they’re atheists) … or a linguistic group (even if they only speak English) … or a cultural group … or something.

Well, race is real, however many times people on message boards say that it is not. And this idea that Jewishness has no racial or genetic connotations is just false.
1. Israeli policy is that anybody who is racially Jewish can become an Israeli citizen, even if they are atheists who can’t speak Hebrew.
2. A simple google search will reveal several scientific papers discussing, say, Ashkenazi Jews as a distinct genetic cluster. Such as http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/9/14
3. The Robert Lappin Charity is a charity devoted to preventing Jews from assimilating with Gentiles. Now, why would that be so important to them? (As an exercise for the reader, try clicking on the link and replacing each instance of ‘Jewish’ with ‘White’.)
4. The words of Rabbi Stephen Wise, president of the American Jewish Congress and the World Jewish Congress in 1938, "I am not an American citizen of the Jewish faith, I am a Jew... Hitler was right in one thing. He calls the Jewish people a race and we are a race."

By the way, I’m not sure people knew anything about the genetics of race eighty years ago since the structure of DNA was only discovered in 1953 – but it was about eighty years ago that Franz Boas, the godfather of academic race-denial, was doing his work.
Franz Boas just happened to be Jewish.

You can say it's so, but that doesn't make it so.

well until your post in another thread I was going to say I was being over-zealous, had misread your post and my only contention was with the part about blaming 'euro-man'

I was mainly looking for something beyond ethnocentrism is natural and normal. I reject any arguments that can't go beyond assertions of being 'natural' as ideology, but your's is somewhat different - now, prime example: Barack Obama's parents were anglo-saxon mother and kenyan father - does barack obama alone now comprise an entirely new ethnic group based on the combination of these two ethnic groups or does he go beyond his family to find others who are born to a similar combination of ethnic groups? What about the ethnic backgrounds of his parents? I don't know what they are exactly but say his mother was born to an irish father and teutonic (or any other kind of germanic) mother and his father was born to kenyan parents - is Barack Obama now Teutono-Irish-African? My point being that basing this on kinship ties can become fractal - at some point an abitrary determination of ethnic group is made and is therefore not 'natural'.

"just as loyalty to ones family is normal and natural" again same line of argument - evidence? Around the end of the nineteenth and the start of the twentieth centuries poorer families in the UK would sell their children into prostitution, one can also cite the instances of incestuous rape, fratri- matri- soror- infanta- and patricide. Cain and Abel as well as Abraham fundamental parts of the Jewish religion.

Humans share something in the region of 90-98% of our genetic makeup with the apes - pardon my facetiousness but are they my kin or do we draw another abitrary line in the sand?

Where exactly do the distinctions between one ethnic group and another begin and end on the genetic level? So far as I understand it an ethnic group is determined by shared culture, history etc, not genetics.

And once again a nationalist appears to be misreading a scientific document or their own ends. I haven't read it myself but I understand Dawkins was making the point that a gene acting 'selfishly' (a very poor word open to misunderstanding) would lead to un-selfish and altruistic behaviour in a group. Not that it was right to exclude an individual, at times violently, based on a statistically insignificant genetic variation. Seeing as I have so much in common with the apes should we be discussing giving them British citizenship or is this an absurdist position?



I agree with the first sentence but for different reasons - that it is done at the expense of others is precisely the problem of nationalism. By the line of logic adopted in the second I could argue that making sure a specified group ate two good meals a day was a form of nationalism since it serves the interests of that group to do so. And no, they are not two sides of the same coin, nationalist Zionism relies on the religion of Judaism as its ideological foundation, and in order to do so it relies on a very specific understanding of Judaism. Nationalism only emerged as a political ideology after the 18th century and seeing as Judaism had been around for a couple centuries before that nationalist Zionism is, therefore, born out of specific historical conditions (persecution by the catholic church, by large parts of europe, the black hundreds and tsarism in Russia etc) based upon something they had in common as its ideological foundation - Zionism is subsequent to and dependent upon Judaism, not the other way around.



Which is why I said that nationalism obfuscates the site of the problem. The problem is not mass immigration as cause of a given problem and how to end it. Mass immigration is a symptom. The problem is economics (in my opinion as a Trotskyist). Nationalism at best will tilt at windmills for a few years if it doesn't descend into yet another european bloodbath over who is the most pure bred of the inbreds, and for what? It misdiagnoses the problem. The reason mass immigration takes place is because European and American capitalism makes it hell for near everyone in the second and third worlds. Let me be clear that I think that liberal multiculturalism is one of the most virulently racist ideologies yet to be seen - this being as it is simply the obverse of global capitalism, without it the first world would lose political stability - not good for business. Drive a stake through capitalism then we can all sit down and discuss who lives where when we're not stepping on each other for work, homes, food and water. no need to fight over it, many if not the overwhelming majority of those who come to europe do so out of sheer desperation, eastern europeans do so because they pay is better than at home, businesses employ immigrants because they are either not protected by or not aware of the minimum wage legislation, working hours etc etc. Nationalism has and always will be used by the powers that be in their own interest, it's a petit-bourgeois political tendency incapable of independent action.



Well how's about I be reasonable and propose the following - the Zionist movement established Israel, Western Imperialism (US particularly) has maintained it since, perhaps that is a reasonable synthesis of the current dialectic?

"Humans share something in the region of 90-98% of our genetic makeup with the apes - pardon my facetiousness but are they my kin or do we draw another arbitrary line in the sand?

Where exactly do the distinctions between one ethnic group and another begin and end on the genetic level? So far as I understand it an ethnic group is determined by shared culture, history etc, not genetics. "

He meant humankind when he talked about the percentages, and i'm currently studying bio anthropology. He speaks the truth. Despite cultural and small physical differences, all humans are mostly the same when it comes to the basic genetic structure. This explains why we all look alike to some degree (despite some regional differences).