Saturday, December 19, 2009

Well, that was quick

The next time I hear someone invoke "human rights", I may be tempted to smack them.

The evils and tyrannies of the various Human Rights Commissions in Canada have certainly attracted my attention but, due to heroes like Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, are on the wane. Now in formerly Great Britain, a secular court has, in effect, taken on itself to define who is a Jew and who is not.

All in the name of anti-racism.

Can you imagine them trying to meddle in the affairs of a mosque?

Cowards all.



Leah said...

The Brits can try and redefine who is a Jew. The Jews will be looking back at history a few centuries from now discussing, what was a Brit?

Anonymous said...

It's surprising that such flaps about "who's a Jew?" for the Jewish Free Skoo in England don't occur more often in present-day political liberalism which constantly evades mentioning even in general ways what its principles are.

These liberals wish their valuations to prevail while maintaining that only neutralness and scientific empiricalness etc are occurring, and accordingly no discussion of principles is necessary. Insurgent "conservatives" are made to sound paranoid for attacking "secular humanism" -- even though, quite possibly, a general valuation set nameable as "secular humanism" would be the most readily defensible valuation set in contemporary conditions. ... You'd think that liberals would want the credit for deciding the course taken by the West's ships of state, but they want to let on that these ships have no helmsmen -- no helmspersons -- at all. All that liberals do is struggle against conservatives to keep conservative helmsmen from piloting the ships onto the rocks. (As if their ships haven't been foundering on rocks and shoals and reefs for many a decade!)

Faith-based schools but funded with public money presumably have some right to decide the content of their faith, but this must occur in accord with the valuation set imposed by the state. Actually, that reality holds even for faith-based schools that don't accept public money. Like it or not, even Islamic schools can't go too far in educating contrary to the state or regime -- unless the regime or state wishes to be taken over by some version of Islam. (Strauss, Natural Right and History, the 'regime' (state) ultimately determines the way of life or constitution.)

By now there should be a tradition of political, legal, judicial, broadly public discussion and decision-making in a post-Christendom "pluralist" or "diverse" society. But there isn't such a tradition because liberals haven't wanted to say that they like some valuations and dislike other valuations, and strive to impose the first and exclude the second -- and for these certain particular reasons. For I don't suppose that they would find any real difficulty in saying that they welcome Muslims to western societies, as long as Muslims support western principles. And I don't think it would be difficult to sustain an argument in public that reactionary tendencies in Christian fundamentalists have no rightful place anywhere near the helm, and perhaps no right to a place on the ship at all. The arguments could be found in Kant and Mill et al. For example, not difficult for liberal opinion leaders to say that one doesn't want a citizenry that doesn't think and understand but instead complies with what anti-thinking clerics insist on. (Better, history-grounded arguments could be found in Hegel, although accordingly these wouldn't be so one-dimensionally progressive or shallow in their implications on how historic change occurs via opinion-leadership.) ...
(continued next post)

Anonymous said...

(continued from previous post)
In accord with the long-prevailing liberal trend, the journalist you link us to tries to avoid substantive considerations by remarking on the 3000-year tradition of Judaism, which obviously no upstart secular supreme court should presume to interfere with. Well, long-standingness is one 'principle' of jurisprudence, but obviously not an absolute: laws and judges opinions change, and change very radically. Long-standingness is a derivative principle: jurisprudents have praised it on Zweck-rational grounds: some amount of respect for long-standingess makes for a stable political culture. Burke notes that the French Revolution fail'd because it had no intrinsic stability.

Legal and constitutional change is necessary especially in modern civilization which changes. Was it valid for secular courts to intervene against Christendom because Christianity isn't as old as Judaism? But if Hinduism is older, then secular courts in the West mayn't interfere with Hindu schools in any way? And Mormonism can be slap'd around any way judes like because it's so comparatively new in a way?

I'd say that if there is a deep culprit here it's to be found within the "Jewish community," which has ceased bothering to try to stand together on some rally important pragmata, which is reckless possibly even discombobulating for Jewry, considering who they are and their callings and obligations. ... In this one situation narrowly consider'd, I'd say the founders of this school should have gone with a more 'de facto' definition of "who's a Jew" -- while emphasizing that this definition is purely for the sake of running a "Jewish Free School" (whatever that is). A pragmatic definition would be both good enough for maintaining Jewishness while being able to avoid shipwreck on prevailing Jewry's ambiguousness on who's a Jew.

The Talmudic definition which the school's authorities have used is going to collide some time or another with the realities of living in the world as the world is in any epoch -- which Jews surely should never fail to consider. A high rate of intermarriage is going to result in Jews like the boy whose born-Gentile mother converted only after his birth. The Talmud's reasons -- like all reasons -- are going to be substantive, and therefore some slight thing like the sequence of mother's conversion and son's birth isn't going to be the guiding concern or reason. I guess the Old Testament suggests that matrilineal Jewishness is more likely to preserve little growing Jews from turning to idolatry: foreign women again and again entice their Jewish husbands to worship idols. This concern is not pertinent to this case.

(continued next post)

Anonymous said...

(continued from previous)
You could say that high rates of intermarriage do endanger Jewishness, but "Jewishness" is perhaps a slight thing, possibly even a bad thing, since maintaining Jewishness is possible even while devoting oneself and one's family to atheistic socialist humanism -- but since Jews are not genocided (only culturally genocided) by such processes, it isn't a bad thing. Herzl(?) is correct that Jewish identity is maintain'd only by anti-semitism -- at least when Jewish identity has been voluntarily reduced to Jewishness. ... Moses didn't do all that he did for the sake of "Jewishness." A shiksa who converts and believes that yhwh chose the Jews has got to be more valuable for the future of real Judaism than ... than women born Jewish and who maintain only Jewishness, although I can understand such tendencies, as from the wish to not seem to have made the holocaust a waste: Jews of some sort or another should continue.

Intermarriage perhaps also endangers Jews' commitment to the covenant, but this danger is not going to be diminish'd by slighting converts to Judaism who miss a formalistic deadline. If Jews should avoid intermarriage, then Judaism must become much more "cultic" -- separate, voluntarily ghetto-ised, and more or less committed to rejecting honours from Gentile society. The worst-best pied-piper and utimately the greatest anti-semite was Lessing: the only good Jew is a Jew culturally genocided into a more or less Greek Gentile sage. Hey, if Germans abandon actual Christian belief, Jews should give up Judaism and Jewishness. (Spinoza seems to have had more exacting standards for the melding of Christian and Jew -- but I'm not sure.)

But I don't suppose that voluntary re-ghetto-ization (e.g. Lubavicher etc movement Jews) is the only path to preserving Jews' commitment to Judaism. They can live among us as Jews, and with practical clarity about who is a Jew and who isn't. But for this, more explanations for Jews' and Gentiles' understandings is necessary -- since Jews' otherness isn't going to be maintain'd by lurid otherness (hair, attire, etc etc), as prevail'd in Europe prior to the Enlightenment. (Disraeli actually cultivated weird otherness to a small extent for vote-getting fascination. Arendt, Origins of Totalitarianism.) ... Perhaps I shouldn't say this, but I wouldn't be surprised if Lubavicher(sp?) etc Jews would be quite content (would be pleased?) to see Reform and Conservative Jews get culturally genocided into Gentilism. Not sure about the realities in such assimilation -- the ten(?) northern tribes disappear'd, but perhaps didn't cease to have any effect on Gentile cultures. ...

In any case, the Jewish Free School's authorities asserted only the formalist criterion (maternal conversion first, birth second), and this has to look arbitrary -- and the Torah must never look arbitrary, not even to Gentiles -- or rather, especially not to us (Deut. 6:4).
(continued next post)

Anonymous said...

(continued form previous)
That the authorities of the Jewish Free School insist on Talmudic punctiliousness on the Jewish character of every student invites laughter when one sees that the school boasts that the UK department of education awarded it "specialist Humanities College status" (wikipedia), which is to say, "Renaissance good, Talmud backward."

Then there's this prescription for assimilation, which indicates, furthermore, an ominous decay in the senses of humour that Jews and Englishmen were once famous for: »The school offers numerous school trips for students, including a 3-month trip to Kibbutz Lavi in Israel in Year 9, a trip to Poland in Year 12, a Maths trip to Disneyland Paris and a French trip to Strasbourg in Year 10. Also in Year 10 students can go on a two week 'Taste of Israel' trip to Israel. There is also a History trip to Belgium in year 9. The year 13 students have a chance to go to Odessa, Ukraine to learn about the underpriveliged living there.« Total programme for cultural assimilation to the prevailing sheygetz-headed criteria for what's important, but it won't be seen as such because besides visiting EuroDisneyland students also tour Holocaust venues and a kibbutz. (And despite the apparent typo, no hint that those who are "living" in the Ukraine are underprivileged because Slavic shkotsim went for the Jewish invention call'd Marxism.)

That a secular court is intruding into "who's a Jew?" at least for the purposes of public education in England is especially bad when you see that the criteria come from something call'd "The Race Relations Act." Bad adjudication: the wrongs and other problems call'd "racism" in Western societies have not been caused by factors quite different from the Talmud's definition of "Jew." The court should have focus'd on the purported purposes of the school in terms that a secular court can consider. Punctilious adherence to the talmud on who's a Jew cannot be shown relevant to the school's purposes -- evidently maintaining vague Jewishness with some knowledgeability about Jews' history, plus workaholic excellence in Gentile civilization. (The school boasts of the highest grades in university placement tests for the UK.) Not reasonable to bring in 'race' law criteria -- and perhaps rather ominous that the court does this, as the Kristallnacht photo accomanying your blog remarks rightly suggests.

But I think the more important question is, what high-IQ population group should have led us out of the Egypt of race identity after World War 2? That's right -- the Jews. How is it that we have had an essentially national socialist identity systmen hammer'd into us for as long as I can remember. Realistically speaking, "white" is the primary, the heaviest identity that I have, with "white male" a somewhat distant second. These are the only politically heavy identities I have.

The past is vividly and upclose-personally imagined for us as a tapestry of enormities committted by white males. I inherit the guilt of all the crimes done by white males since Plato's division of man (dixit Marimba Ani) -- or as white activists against white privilege say, the responsibility, not the guilt. So I'm only responsible for all the war crimes and exterminations "we" did. (Anything good we did was possible only because we were exploiting minorities and women.) No wonder low-class whites flip out when activists use the race identity system to causally tie the small change of their white privilege to enormities like exterminations and war crimes -- it's so plausible: Hitler's a white male, I'm a white male. How can I deny the inheritance of the guilt-responsibility?
(continued next)

Anonymous said...

(continued from previous)
So do we have a race war brewing inside the white race in America, pass'd off as a class war or cultural war? Waco and Ruby Ridge as preludes: whites killing whites, in a protracted struggle in order to preserve "white" supremacy in an America become predominantly black and brown by 2040 -- as white journalists in mainstream media frequently mention (and even then: the white population would be proportionately much older than the non-white population). This rather than moving to a Caribbean or Latin American colour-gradient system in which lighter is more prestigious than darker, but which isn't a "race" identity system? (the black or African population of Brazil, for instance, does not deem itself black or African -- despite efforts by American activists to change this.) (No longer would Jeremiah Wright be able to speak for "African Americans.")

If Jews had been fighting against the Gentile civilization's race identity system, instead of only fighting against racism (a fight which evidently compounds race identity), I would not fault them in this. But the application of "Race Law" to the question of "who's a Jew" is inevitable when race is the only identity we have. Wherefore haven't Jews provided us with a supplement and corrective to "race"? For I don't suppose that 'race' is a sufficient understanding of who we are, not even when 'gender' is added in -- even though evidently somehow 'racism' can blow Marxist-Leninism out of the water. The 'race' identity system that brew'd in post-Christendom Europe culminated in a disaster in 1939-45 -- a disaster not only for Jews, but surely for Jews. ... Maybe WW1 and the American Civil War (consider'd as an immolation of 600000 boys) were also race-identity-based disasters.

You could say that only an anti-semitic Gentile would think to have opinions on what Jews do, right and wrong, prudent and obtuse. I answer that, "His blood be on us an on our children" (Matthew 27:25). A dispensation involving God, Gentiles, Jews, and yhwh, can work out very well for Jews -- when Jews and Gentiles maintain it. When Christian bishops faithfully apply'd this dispensation (and I guess that Jews could see to that), Jews were protected as by Jesus' passover blood from the anti-semitism endemic to Gentilism -- even if they had to endure "slurs" etc. The bishops had to have an opinion, and I guess intervene when the people of high-IQs nevertheless undertook bad mistakes. Accordingly, I wish to do my part.

I.M.H.D. (doxa)

P.S. It's also surprising that England now suddenly has a "Supreme Court." Constitutional arrangements good enough for Burke and Bagehot and Bryce -- or rather constitutional arrangements they deem'd right for England's long tradition of developing law -- were tout d'un coup irrelevant! But hey! with all the high-achieving high-IQ Britons who are being graduated by the Jewish Free School and ready for leadership positions, obviously matters are well in hand, and disaster is impossible.

P.S. Jared Taylor, white nationalist theoretician and activist: “I want my grandchildren to look like my grandparents” (sc “racially” -- just any white person will do as descendant, not necessarily to have family resemblance more than that).
jpm: “I want my descendants to aspire to look the way Nietzsche sees, and to aspire to the will-to-power of Abraham -- toward sublating politics, which continues its activity in war by other means, into war of spirit. Something like that, anyway. My descendants could look like Othello." ... How difficult is it to out-think Jared Taylor for his troops? Wherefore isn't anyone doing this?

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...