We are the sons and heirs of a shyness about defending our own beautiful culture of freedom. And, our shyness is criminally vulgar.
From Demosthenes:
I'd like to say that which is forbidden, the greatest blasphemy of the social consensus. Before I do I want to say that prefer democratic resolution of issues confronting our society. However, neither the Universe nor human history (nor for that matter the Christian and Jewish religions) guarantee that every issue can be resolved peaceably. We may get ourselves into situations in which the only solution is to fight.
Europe is now in such a situation--a situation that would have been entirely avoidable if they had thought about morality as people producing the best arguments for a political course, instead of being fundamentalists of the Church of Human Rights.
Yes the Church of Human Rights is certainly right that Hitler was a horrible man, but the Church someway ignores Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Paul Pot and many other communist leaders were as evil as Hitler. Yes, the Church of Human Rights is right that the Europeans shouldn't have had pograms against the Jews in the middle ages. But the Church of Human Rights is wrong to never consider the question of what if Jews really went around poisoning wells and killing Christian children to use their blood to make matzos? The Christian would have been right to kill the Jews, then. It is not wrong to kill off groups that behave barbarically.
What is a gay European boy of age twenty to think now? By the time he reaches middle age, his country may well be muslim and his government may want to stone him to death. Why shouldn't he fight like a man now, rather been lead away to death like a sheep in his middle age? Or why shouldn't an European girl decide she would rather kill than being made a second class citizen under Sharia? Why should a young Christian permit his religious heritage to be thrown away for the sake of political correctness? If Christianity is the truth, shouldn't it be worth fighting for it against the followers of a murderous cult? The Europeans now have the choice of preserving Europe or committing suicide.
You see, we've already waited too long
But not all our hope is gone.
The future will be interesting.
4 comments:
"But the Church of Human Rights is wrong to never consider the question of what if Jews really went around poisoning wells and killing Christian children to use their blood to make matzos? "
I suspect that anyone who repeats the blood libel has never attempted to bake. Yeah genius, just try mixing blood with flour and see how that works out for you.
As a vegetarian, I have never attempted blood and blueberry pancakes, but it sounds like a delightful color scheme. But I suppose the blood would turn brown under cooking and ruin the color scheme.
Anyway anonymous seems to have quoted me in a way that suggests the opposite of what I clearly intended. I hope I'm wrong about anonymous's intent. If I'm not wrong, I'm not sure whether anonymous has bad reading interpretation skills or is deliberately lying--just as when I listen to typical political ads, I wonder if the people who write the ads are that stupid or do sincerely believe their political opponents are so simply evil?
Let it be clear that I hold the blood libel to be false. As a historical fact, Jews have treated Christians far, far better than Christians have treated Jews. My point in bringing up the blood libel was to make an analogy with Islam's long history of atrocities against Jew, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Animist and others. For instance, the 16th century thourgh early 19th century muslims made a religious decision that enslaving Christians & Jews was ok. Importantly, the Christians did not reciprocate such slavery in the early modern period. Another example, the treatment of muslims in Belgium versus treatment of Christians in Saudi Arabia. I could go on and on about how other people have treated muslims with far greater kindness than has been reciprocated. My point is that after fourteen centuries of muslim barbarity maybe the rest of us should be nice back no longer. How many centuries before we say enough is enough?
Anyway, I am perfectly willing to admit having some Jewish decent. I went to temple some as a child. I'm not at all a self-hating Jews and I'm intensely pro-Israel. I live near a neighborhood with many synagogues by choice. I'm not sure how someone like myself could possibly believe the blood libel to be true. Of course, I'd admit there is always a chance it did happen somewhere once. Just about evil under the sun has been attempted. But now would not be the time to dredge up such ancient history if it exists. Jews and Christians must face a common threat together.
No, I understood what you were saying perfectly well. I was taking that one sentence, out of contex intentionally, and attempting some humor.
So it is you who is missing the joke. And you get awfully defensive about it, no? And with friends like this:
"I'm not sure how someone like myself could possibly believe the blood libel to be true. Of course, I'd admit there is always a chance it did happen somewhere once."
I think the Jews ought best roll at it alone like we always do. Thanks for the help, but no thanks. I'd rather fight alongside someone who doesn't have a little shred of doubt in their mind that maybe somewhere, sometime my ancestors killed little kids and attempted to use their blood to bake.
And this is also choice:
"Anyway, I am perfectly willing to admit having some Jewish decent. I went to temple some as a child. I'm not at all a self-hating Jews and I'm intensely pro-Israel. I live near a neighborhood with many synagogues by choice. "
Gee, thanks, you generous of you to stoop to admitting you have some Jewish blood in you. And you actually live near Jews by choice? Wow. This is what really defensive racists say all the time--but, but I have black friends! Or, but, but, I live near blacks and I don't actually go an lynch them. You've got some issues son, and being a vegetarian is the least of them (using the word delightful in the context of fighting for survival being the more serious issue). Throw some frigging cranberries in your whole grain pancakes and you'll have your "delightful" color scheme.
In any event, we all know that Jews got fucked by the Muslims, and slightly less fucked by the Christians. Not news. And we all know the Muzzis have been downright evil towards every other religion they've come across. No doubt. That you feel like you need to go off on a tangent on blood libel and how you went to synagogue a few times and, gee, you really do like Jews, all to make the above points sounds like you're working out some personal issues. You know, that you'd really like to throw in your lot with the Jews in this battle, but, you're still not quite sure that we don't slip out in the dark of night and make vampire blood from little kids.
The entire issue is unnecessary to make the argument you want to make. Muslims are hypocrits. Got it. Muslims treat everyone else as dhimmi. Got it. Christians have, historically, been marginally more hospitable (certainly much more than marginally in the last couple hundred years) to other religions. Check. Everyone bends over backwards to be nice to Muzzis. Check two. Jews might have killed little kids and used black magic to make blood matzo. Left-fucking-field. So rather than presume I'm reading challenged, or, a liar (what exactly am I lying about?), maybe you ought to check your own logical train of thought before you let it derail next time.
Anon
Hey Anon,
Is that you? The Anon from IWW?
I don't think Demosthenes is the idiot you think he is.
Of course, one Jew, at some point in history, could have done something evil like that. Why would you object to the idea?
You know, one time a few years back, a dude named Baruch Goldstein walked into a mosque, with a machine gun, and killed something like 50 people, while they were praying.
Jews, just like all other people on the face of the Earth, are capable of doing evil.
Post a Comment