Tuesday, March 27, 2007

The Non-Jewish Jew

Dennis Prager a television and radio regular, is called a Zionist, conservative commentator. Prager is the one who first raised the fuss about Congressman Keith Ellison swearing on the Koran, for his inaugeration ceremony. Ellison is the first Muslim in the House of Representatives in the USA. I'm from Ellison's district. He is a typical slightly left liberal politician, who was smeared by Prager.

A few weeks ago, Prager wrote an essay about the non-Jewish Jew, That term was invented by Isaac Deutscher, the biographer of Trotsky. It pertains to the leftist, internationalist Jew. Prager tries to use ex-Trotskyist Deutscher's writing against the left. Deutscher in his later years identified with socialist-humanism. In his words to sum up his Jewish identity. "Religion? I am an atheist. Jewish nationalism? I am an internationalist. In neither sense am I therefore a Jew. I am, however, a Jew by force of my unconditional solidarity with the persecuted and exterminated. I am a Jew because I feel the pulse of Jewish history; because I should like to do all I can to assure the real, not spurious, security and self-respect of the Jews." Deutscher uses the term 'Non-Jewish Jew" and not "Self Hating Jew", often used in Zionist polemics.

Prager's Polemic

What do Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky, Noam Chomsky and George Soros have in common?

They were/are all radicals, born to Jewish parents, had no Jewish identity and hurt Jews (not to mention non-Jews).

The term "non-Jewish Jew" is generally attributed to the Jewish historian Isaac Deutscher, who wrote an essay by that name in 1954. The term describes the individual who, though born a Jew (Judaism consists of a national/peoplehood identity, not only a religious one), identifies solely as a citizen of the world and not as a Jew, either nationally or religiously.

Once the walls of Jewish ghettos broke down and European Jews were allowed to leave Jewish societies, many Jews became non-Jewish Jews. In most cases, either they or their children assimilated into the societies in which they lived. However, a small but significant percentage became radicalized. They came to loathe "bourgeois," i.e., traditional middle class, values and Judeo-Christian society; Western national identities (though they generally supported anti-Western national identities); and they particularly loathed Jewish religious and national identity.

Karl Marx, the grandson of two Orthodox rabbis (and, to be entirely accurate, son of parents who converted to Christianity), wrote one of the most significant anti-Semitic essays of the 19th century, "On the Jewish Question" (1844). In it one finds such statements:

"Money is the jealous god of Israel, beside which no other god may exist. . . . The god of the Jews has been secularized and has become the god of the world. . . . The social emancipation of Jewry is the emancipation of society from Jewry."

Leon Trotsky, born Lev Bronstein, may be regarded as the intellectual father of Russian, later Soviet, Communism. He along with Stalin and three others fought to succeed Lenin as leader of the Communist Party after Lenin's death in 1924. In 1920, when Trotsky was head of the Red Army, Moscow's chief rabbi, Rabbi Jacob Mazeh, asked him to use the army to protect the Jews from pogromist attacks. Trotsky is reported to have responded, "Why do you come to me? I am not a Jew." To which Rabbi Mazeh answered: "That's the tragedy. It's the Trotskys who make revolutions, and it's the Bronsteins who pay the price."

Noam Chomsky has devoted much of his life to working against America and Israel. He is alienated from the very two identities into which he was born. Indeed he has vilified both his whole life. To cite but one example, he traveled to Lebanon to appear with Hizbollah leader Sayyed Nasrallah and lend his support to a group that is committed to the annihilation of Israel and is officially listed as a terrorist organization by the United States.

George Soros is the fourth example of an individual born Jewish who has become a radical world citizen who is alienated from America and from his Jewish origins, and damages both.

As described by Martin Peretz, editor-in-chief of The New Republic, "George Soros is ostentatiously indifferent to his own Jewishness. He is not a believer. He has no Jewish communal ties. He certainly isn't a Zionist. He told Connie Bruck in The New Yorker — testily, she recounted — that 'I don't deny the Jews their right to a national existence — but I don't want to be part of it.'"

Writing in The Wall Street Journal, writer Joshua Muravchik reported that Soros has publicly likened Israel to the Nazis.

Of course, Soros supports Palestinian nationalism, but that is a consistent feature of radicals — anti-Jewish and anti-American nationalisms are good, Jewish and American nationalisms are bad. Thus, as reported in the Jerusalem Post, "Soros and his wealthy Jewish American friends have now decided to aim their fire directly at Israel . . . to form a political lobby that will weaken the influence of the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC."

How to explain such Jews? People with no national or religious roots who become politically active will often seek to undermine the national and religious roots of others, especially those in their own national/religious group. It is akin to the special animosity some ex-Catholics have toward the Church. Non-Jewish Jews are far more likely to work to weaken Christianity in America than Jewish Jews, especially religious Jews. Religious Jews celebrate religious Christians.

Jews with no religious or national identity do not like Jews who have those identities, and Americans who have likewise become world citizens do not much care for Americans who wave the American flag.

Just as chauvinism — excessive and amoral nationalism — can lead to nihilism, so, too, the absence of any national or religious identity can lead to nihilism. The radical non-Jewish Jew loves humanity, but hurts real humans, especially his own.

The conversation between Leon Trotsky and Rabbi Mazeh, occured. They were joking with one another. The rabbi also said, "The Trotskys lead the revolution and the Bronsteins pay for it." They were having laughs together. I'm not directly related to Trotsky, but my family tree has been traced to intersect with his family's in Russia. Prager is ahistorical. Trotsky was against Hitler a decade before Winston Churchill. He wasn't opposed to a Jewish state, after he saw the extent of anti-Semitism in Germany, without believing in Zionism.

As a Jewish, internationalist and socialist, the Non-Jewish Jew should not be defined by a Dennis Prager.

From the American Socialist Collection of Sol Dolinger

By virtue of his special environment and social position,
the “non-Jewish Jew” from Spinoza to Freud has often
made important contributions to science, culture, politics.

Message of the Non-Jewish Jew

by Isaac Deutscher

The following article by the biographer of Stalin and Trotsky, whose writings on Russia and Eastern Europe appear regularly in periodicals throughout the world, is based on a lecture delivered in London last February during Jewish Book Week to the World Jewish Congress. This text, revised and extended by the author, appeared in Universities and Left Review, and is reprinted here with the author’s permission. A summary of the lecture had previously appeared in the British Jewish Observer and Middle East Review.

I REMEMBER that when as a child I read the Midrash I came across a story and a description of a scene which gripped my imagination. It was the story of Rabbi Meir, the great saint, sage, and the pillar of Mosaic orthodoxy and co-author of the Mishna, who took lessons in theology from a heretic Elisha ben Abiyuh, nicknamed Akher (The Stranger). Once on a Sabbath, Rabbi Meir went out on a trip with his teacher, and as usual they became engaged in deep argument. The heretic was riding a donkey, and Rabbi Meir, as he could not ride on a Sabbath, walked by his side and listened so intently to the words of wisdom falling from heretical lips, that he failed to notice that he and his teacher had reached the ritual boundary which Jews were not allowed to cross on a Sabbath. At that moment the great heretic turned to his pupil and said: “Look, we have reached the boundary—we must part now: you must not accompany me any further—go back!” Rabbi Meir went back to the Jewish community while the heretic rode on—beyond the boundaries of Jewry.

There was enough in this scene to puzzle an orthodox Jewish child. Why, I wondered, did Rabbi Meir take his lessons from the heretic? Why did he show him so much affection? Why did he defend him against other rabbis? My heart, it seems, was with the heretic. Who was he?,

I asked. He appeared to be in Jewry and yet out of it. He showed a curious respect for his pupil’s orthodoxy when he sent him back to the Jews on the holy Sabbath; but he himself, disregarding canon and ritual, rode beyond the boundaries. When I was thirteen or perhaps fourteen I began to write a drama on Akher and Rabbi Meir and tried to find out more about Akher’s character. What made him transcend Judaism? Was he a Gnostic? Was he the adherent of some other school of Greek or Roman philosophy? I could not find the answers, and I did not manage to go beyond the first act of my drama.

The Jewish heretic who transcends Jewry belongs to a Jewish tradition. You may, if you like, view Akher as a prototype of those great revolutionaries of modern thought about whom I am going to speak this evening—you may do so, if you necessarily wish to place them within any Jewish tradition. They all went beyond the boundaries of Jewry. They all—Spinoza, Heine, Marx, Rosa Luxemburg, Trotsky, and Freud—found Jewry too narrow, too archaic, and too constricting. They all looked for ideals and fulfilment beyond it, and they represent the sum and substance of much that is greatest in modern thought, the sum and substance of the most profound upheavals that have taken place in philosophy, sociology, economics, and politics in the last three centuries.

HAVE they anything in common with one another? Have they perhaps impressed mankind’s thought so greatly because of their special “Jewish genius"? I do not believe in the exclusive genius of any race. Yet I think that in some ways they were very Jewish indeed. They had in themselves something of the quintessence of Jewish life and of the Jewish intellect. They were a priori exceptional in that as Jews they dwelt on the borderlines of various civilizations, religions, and national cultures. They were born and brought up on the borderlines of various epochs. Their minds matured where the most diverse cultural influences crossed and fertilized each other. They lived on the margins or in the nooks and crannies of their respective nations. They were each in society and yet not in it, of it and yet not of it. It was this that enabled them to rise in thought above their societies, above their nations, above their times and generations, and to strike out mentally into wide new horizons and far into the future.

It was, I think, an English Protestant biographer of Spinoza who said that only a Jew could carry out that upheaval in the philosophy of his age that Spinoza carried out—a Jew who was not bound by the dogmas of the Christian churches, Catholic and Protestant, nor by those of the faith in which he had been born. Neither Descartes nor Leibnitz could free themselves to the same extent from the shackles of the medieval scholastical tradition in philosophy.

Spinoza was brought up under the influences of Spain, Holland, Germany, England, and the Italy of the Renaissance—all the trends of human thought that were at work at that time shaped his mind. His native Holland was in the throes of bourgeois revolution. His ancestors, before they came to the Netherlands, had been Spanish-Portugese Maranim, crypto-Jews, at heart Jews, outwardly Christians, as were many Spanish Jews on whom the Inquisition had forced the baptism. After the Spinozas had come to the Netherlands, they disclosed themselves as Jews; but, of course, neither they nor their close descendants were strangers to the intellectual climate of Christianity.

Spinoza himself, when he started out as independent thinker and as initiator of modern Bible criticism, seized at once the cardinal contradiction in Judaism, the contradiction between the monotheistic and universal God and the setting in which that God appears in the Jewish religion—as a God attached to one people only; the contradiction between the universal God and his “chosen people.” You know what the realization of this contradiction brought upon Spinoza: banishment from the Jewish community and excommunication. He had to fight against the Jewish clergy which, having itself recently been a victim of the Inquisition, was infected with the spirit of the Inquisition. Then he had to face the hostility of the Catholic clergy and Calvinistic priests. All his life was a struggle to overcome the limitations of the religions and cultures of his time.

AMONG Jews of great intellect exposed to the corradiation of various religions and cultures some were so torn by contradictory influences and pressures that they could not find spiritual balance and broke down. One of these was Uriel Acosta, Spinoza’s elder and forerunner. Many times he rebelled against Judaism; and many times he recanted. The rabbis excommunicated him repeatedly; and repeatedly he prostrated himself before them on the floor of the Amsterdam Synagogue. Spinoza had the great intellectual happiness of being able to harmonize the conflicting influences and to create out of them a higher outlook on the world and an integrated philosophy.

Almost in every generation, whenever the Jewish intellectual, placed at the concatenation of various cultures, struggles with himself and with the problems of his time, we find someone who, like Uriel Acosta, breaks down under the burden, and someone who, like Spinoza, makes of that burden the wings of his greatness. Heine was in a sense the Uriel Acosta of a latter age. His relation to Marx, Spinoza’s intellectual grandson, is comparable to Uriel Acosta’s relation to Spinoza

Heine was torn between Christianity and Jewry, and between France and Germany. In his native Rhineland there clashed the influences of the French Revolution and of the Napoleonic Empire with those of the old Holy Roman Empire of the German Kaisers. He grew up within the orbit of classical German philosophy and within the orbit of French Republicanism; and he saw Kant as a Robespierre and Fichte as a Napoleon in the realm of the spirit; and so he describes them in one of the most profound and moving passages of Zur Geschichte der Religion und Philosophie in Deutschland. In his later years he came in contact with French and German socialism and communism; and he met Marx with that apprehensive admiration and sympathy with which Acosta had met Spinoza.

Marx likewise grew up in the Rhineland. His parents having ceased to be Jews, he did not struggle with the Jewish heritage as Heine did. All the more intense was his opposition to the social and spiritual backwardness of contemporary Germany. An exile most of his life, his thought was shaped by German philosophy, French socialism, and English political economy. In no other contemporary mind did such diverse influences meet so fruitfully. Marx rose above German philosophy, French socialism, and English political economy; he absorbed what was best in each of these trends and transcended the limitations of each.

To come nearer to our time: Rosa Luxemburg, Trotsky, and Freud—every one of them was formed amid historic cross currents. Rosa Luxemburg is a unique blend of the German, Polish, and Russian characters and of the Jewish temperament; Trotsky was the pupil of a Lutheran Russo-German gymnasium in cosmopolitan Odessa on the fringe of the Greek-Orthodox Empire of the Czars; and Freud’s mind matured in Vienna in estrangement from Jewry and in opposition to the Catholic clericalism of the Hapsburg capital. All of them had this in common, that the very conditions in which they lived and worked did not allow them to reconcile themselves to ideas which were nationally or religiously limited and induced them to strive for a universal Weltanschauung.

Spinoza’s ethics were no longer the Jewish ethics, but the ethics of man at large—just as his God was no longer the Jewish God: his God, merged with nature, shed his separate and distinctive divine identity. Yet, in a way, Spinoza’s God and ethics were still Jewish, only that his was the Jewish monotheism carried to its logical conclusion and the Jewish universal God thought out to the end; and once he had been thought out to the end, he ceased to be Jewish.

HEINE wrestled with Jewry all his life; his attitude towards it was characteristically ambivalent, full of love-hate or hate-love. He was in this respect inferior to Spinoza who, excommunicated by the Jews, did not become a Christian. Heine did not have Spinoza’s strength of mind and character; and he lived in a society which even in the first decades of the nineteenth century was still more backward than Dutch society had been in the seventeenth. At first he pinned his hopes on that pseudo-emancipation of Jews, the ideal of which Moses Mendelsohn had expressed in the words: “Be a Jew inside your home and a man outside.” The timidity of that German-Jewish ideal was of a piece with the paltry liberalism of the gentile German bourgeoisie: The German Liberal was a “free man” inside his home and an allertreuester Untertane outside. This could not satisfy Heine for long. He abandoned Jewry and surrendered to Christianity in order to obtain an “entry ticket to European culture.” At heart he was never reconciled to the abandonment and the conversion. His rejection of Jewish orthodoxy runs through the whole of his work. His Don Isaac says to the Rabbi von Bacherach: “I could not be one of you. I like your cooking much better than I like your religion. No, I could not be one of you; and I suspect that even at the best of times, under the rule of your Kind David, in the best of your times, I would have run away from you and gone to the temples of Assyria and Babylon which were full of the love and the joy of life.” Yet, it was a fiery and resentful Jew who had, in An Edom, “gewaltig beschworen den tausendjaechrigen Schmerz."

Marx, about twenty years younger, surmounted the problem which tormented Heine. Only once did he come to grips with it, in his youthful and famous Zur Judenfrage. This was his unreserved refection of Jewry. Apologists of Jewish orthodoxy and Jewish nationalism have because of it severely attacked Marx as an “ant-Semite.” Yet, I think that Marx went to the very heart of the matter when he said that Jewry had survived “not in spite of history but in history and through history,” that it owed its survival to the distinctive role that the Jews had played as agents of a money economy in environments which lived in a natural economy, that Judaism was essentially a theoretical epitome of market relationships and the faith of the merchant; and that Christian Europe, as it developed from feudalism to capitalism, became Jewish in a sense. Marx saw Christ as the “theorizing Jew,” the Jew as a “practical Christian” and, therefore, the “practical” bourgeois Christian as a “Jew.” Since he treated Judaism as the religious reflection of the bourgeois way of thought, he saw bourgeois Europe as becoming assimilated to Jewry. His ideal was not the equality of Jew and Gentile in a “Judaized" capitalist society, but the emancipation of Jew and non-Jew alike from the bourgeois way of life, or, as he put it provocatively in his somewhat over-paradoxical Young Hegelian, idiom, in the “emancipation of society from Jewry.” His idea was as universal as Spinoza’s yet advanced in time by two hundred years—it was the idea of socialism and of the classless and stateless society.

AMONG Marx’s many disciples and followers hardly any were, in spirit and temperament, as close to him as Rosa Luxemburg and Leon Trotsky. Their affinity with him shows itself in their dialectically dramatic vision of the world and of its class struggles and in that exceptional concord of thought, passion, and imagination which gives to their language and style a peculiar clarity, density, and richness. (Bernard Shaw had probably these qualities in mind when he spoke of Marx’s "peculiarly Jewish literary gifts.") Like Marx, Rosa Luxemburg and Trotsky strove, together with their non-Jewish comrades, for the universal, as against the particularist, and for the internationalist, as against the nationalist, solutions to the problems of their time. Rosa Luxemburg sought to transcend the contradiction between the German reformist socialism and the Russian revolutionary Marxism. She sought to inject into German socialism something of the Russian and Polish revolutionary elan and idealism, something of that “revolutionary romanticism” which so great a realist as Lenin unabashingly extolled; and occasionally she tried to transplant the Western European democratic spirit and tradition into the socialist underground movements of Eastern Europe. She failed in her main purpose and paid with her life. But not only she paid for it. In her assassination Hohenzolleern Germany celebrated to last triumph and Nazi Germany—its first.

Trotsky, the author of the Permanent Revolution, had before him the vision of a global upheaval transforming mankind. The leader, together with Lenin, of the Russian revolution and the founder of the Red Army, he came in conflict with the State he had helped to create when that State and its leaders put up the banner of socialism in one country. Not for him was the limitation of the vision of socialism to the boundaries of one country.

All these great revolutionaries were extremely vulnerable. They were, as Jews, rootless, in a sense; but they were so only in some respects, for they had the deepest roots in intellectual tradition and in the noblest aspirations of their times. Yet, whenever religious intolerance or nationalist emotion was on the ascendant, whenever dogmatic narrow-mindedness and fanaticism triumphed, they were the first victims. They were excommunicated by Jewish rabbis; they were persecuted by Christian priests; they were hunted down by the gendarmes of absolute rulers and by the soldateska; they were hated by pseudo-democratic philistines; and they were expelled by their own parties. Nearly all of them were exiled from their countries; and the writings of all were burned at the stake at one time or another. Spinoza’s name could not be mentioned for over a century after his death—even Leibnitz, who was indebted to Spinoza for so much of his thought, did not dare to mention it. Trotsky is still under anathema in Russia today. The names of Marx, Heine, Freud, and Rosa Luxemburg were forbidden in Germany quite recently. But theirs is the ultimate victory. After a century during which Spinoza’s name was covered with oblivion they put up monuments to him and acknowledged him as the greatest fructifier of the human mind. Herder once said about Goethe: “I wish Goethe read some Latin books apart from Spinoza’s Ethics." Goethe was indeed steeped in Spinoza’s thought; and Heine rightly describes him as “Spinoza who has shed the cloak of his geometrical-mathematical formulae and stands before us a lyrical poet.” Heine himself has triumphed over Hitler and Goebbels. The other revolutionaries of this line will also survive and sooner or later triumph over those who have worked hard to efface their memory.

I AM afraid I have said very little about Freud. But it is very obvious why he belongs to the same intellectual line. In his teachings, whatever their merits and demerits, he transcends the limitations of earlier psychological schools. The man whom he analyzes is not a German or an Englishman, a Russian or a Jew—it is the universal man in whom the subconscious and the conscious struggle, the man who is part of nature and part of society, the man whose desires and cravings, scruples and inhibitions, anxieties and predicaments are essentially the same no matter to what race, religion, or nation he belongs. From their viewpoint the Nazis were right when they coupled Freud’s name with Marx’s and burned the books of both.

All these thinkers and revolutionaries have had certain philosophical principles in common, although their philosophies vary of course, from century to century and from generation to generation. They are all, from Spinoza to Freud, determinists. They all hold that the universe is ruled by laws inherent in it and governed by Gesetzmassigkeiten. They do not see reality as a jumble of accidents or history as an assemblage of caprices and whims of rulers. There is nothing fortuitous, so Freud tells us, in our dreams, follies, or even in our slips of the tongue. The laws of development, Trotsky says, “refract” themselves through accidents; and in saying this he is very close to Spinoza.

They are determinists all because having watched many societies and studied many “ways of life” at close quarters, they grasp the basic regularities of life. Their manner of thinking is dialectical, because, living on borderlines of nations and religion, they see society in a state of flux. They conceive reality as being dynamic, not static. Those who are shut in within one society, one nation, or one religion, tend to imagine that their way of life and their way of thought have absolute and unchangeable validity and that all that contradicts their standards is somehow “unnatural,” inferior, or evil. Those, on the other hand, who live on the borderlines of various civilizations comprehend more clearly the great movement and the great contradictoriness of nature and society.

All these thinkers agree on the relativity of moral standards. None of them believes in absolute good or absolute evil. They all observed communities adhering to different moral standards and different ethical values. What was good to the Roman Catholic Inquisition under which Spinoza’s grandparents had lived, was evil to the Jews; and what was good to the rabbis and Jewish elders of Amsterdam was evil to Spinoza himself. Heine and Marx experienced in their youth the tremendous clash between the morality of the French revolution and that of feudal Germany.

Nearly all these thinkers have yet another great philosophical idea in common—the idea that knowledge to be real must be active. This incidentally has a bearing on their views on ethics, for if knowledge is inseparable from action of Praxis which is by its nature relative and self-contradictory, then morality, the knowledge of what is good and what is evil, is also inseparable from Praxis and is also relative and self-contradictory. It was Spinoza who said that “to be is to do and to know is to do.” It was only one step from this to Marx’s saying that “hitherto the philosophers have interpreted the world; henceforth the task is to change it."

Finally, all these men, from Spinoza to Freud, believed in the ultimate solidarity of men; and this was implicit in their attitudes towards Jewry. We are now looking back on these believers in humanity through the bloody fog of our times. We are looking back at them through the smoke of the gas chambers, the smoke which no wind can really disperse from our eyes. These “non-Jewish Jews” were essentially optimists; and their optimism reached heights which it is not easy to ascend in our times. They did not imagine that it would be possible for “civilized” Europe in the twentieth century to sink to a depth of barbarity at which the mere words “solidarity of men” would sound as a perverse mockery to Jewish ears. Alone among them Heine had the poet’s intuitive premonition of this when he warned Europe to beware of the coming onslaught of the old Germanic gods emerging “aus dem teutschem Urwalde,” and when he complained that the destiny of the modern Jew is tragic beyond expression and comprehension—so tragic that “they laugh at you when you speak of it, and this is the greatest tragedy of all."

WE do not find this premonition in Spinoza or Marx. Freud in his old age reeled mentally under the blow of Nazism. To Trotsky it came as a shock that Stalin used against him the anti-Semitic innuendo. As a young man Trotsky had, in most categorical terms, repudiated the demand for Jewish “cultural autonomy” which the Bund, the Jewish Socialist Party, raised in 1903. He did it in the name of the solidarity of Jew and non-Jew in the socialist camp. Nearly a quarter of a century later, while he was engaged in an unequal struggle with Stalin and went to the party cells in Moscow to expound his views, he was met there with vicious allusions to his Jewishness and even with plain anti-Semitic insults. The allusions and insults came from members of the party which he had, together with Lenin, led in the revolution and civil war. In Trotsky’s archives I have found a letter which he wrote about this to Bukharin in 1926. He described the scenes in the Moscow organization and asked: “Is it possible...”—and you can feel in the words and in his underscorings the anguish, the astonishment, and the horror of the man—“is it possible that in our party, in workers’ cells, here in Moscow, people should use anti-Semitic insults with impunity? Is it possible?” With the same astonishment and anguish he asked the same question at a session of the Politbureau, where his colleagues shrugged him off and pooh-poohed the matter. After another quarter of a century, and after Auschwitz and Majdenek and Belsen, Trotsky’s question had to be asked anew when once again, this time much more openly and menacingly, Stalin resorted to the anti-Semitic innuendo and insult.

It is an indubitable fact that the Nazi massacre of six million European Jews has not made any deep impression on the nations of Europe. It has not truly shocked their conscience. It has left them almost cold. Was then the optimistic belief in humanity voiced by the great Jewish revolutionaries justified? Can we still share their faith in the future of civilization? I admit that if one were to try and answer these questions from an exclusively Jewish standpoint it would be hard, perhaps impossible, to give a positive answer. As to myself, I cannot approach the issue from an exclusively Jewish standpoint; and my answer is: Yes, their faith was justified. It was justified in so far, at any rate, as the belief in the ultimate solidarity of mankind is itself one of the conditions necessary for the preservation of humanity and for the cleansing of our civilization of the dregs of barbarity that are still present in it and poison it.

Why then has the fate of the European Jews left the nations of Europe, or the gentile world at large, almost cold? Unfortunately, Marx was far more right about the place of the Jews in European society than we could realize some time ago. The major part of the Jewish tragedy has consisted in this, that in result of a long historic development, the masses of Europe have become accustomed to identify the Jew primarily with trade and jobbing, money lending and money making. Of these the Jew had become the synonym and the symbol to the popular mind.

Look up the Oxford English Dictionary and see how it gives the accepted meanings of the term “Jew": firstly, it is a “person of the Hebrew race; secondly—this is the colloquial use—an “extortionate usurer, driver of hard bargains.” “Rich as a Jew” says the proverb. Colloquially the word is also used as a transitive verb: to jew, the Oxford Dictionary tells us, means “to cheat, overreach.” This is the vulgar image of the Jew and the vulgar prejudice against him, fixed in many languages, not only in English, and in many works of art, not only in the Merchant of Venice.

However, this is not only the vulgar image. Remember what was the occasion on which Macaulay pleaded, and the manner in which he pleaded for political equality of Jew and Gentile and for the Jew’s right to sit in the House of Commons. The occasion was the admission to the House of a Rothschild, the first Jew to sit in the House, the Jew elected as a Member for the City of London. And Macaulay’s argument was this: If we allow the Jew to manage our financial affairs for us, why should we not allow him to sit among us here, in Parliament, and have a say in the management of all our public affairs? This was the voice of the bourgeois Christian who took a fresh look at Shylock and hailed him as brother.

I SUGGEST that what had enabled the Jews to survive as a separate community, the fact that they had represented the market economy amidst people living in a natural economy—that this fact and its popular memories have also been responsible, at least in part, for the Schadenfreude or the indifference with which the populace of Europe has witnessed the holocaust of the Jews. It has been the misfortune of the Jews that, when the nations of Europe turned against capitalism they did so only very superficially, at any rate in the first half of this century. They attacked not the core of capitalism, not its productive relationships, not its organization of property and labor, but its externals and its largely archaic trappings which so often were indeed Jewish.

Had the peoples of Europe remained attached to capitalism they would not have spent their frustration and fury on the Jew, the traditional and, in the main, primitive agent of the money economy. Had they, on the other hand, risen against capitalism seriously, they would have overthrown it and would not have found scapegoats in Jewish shopkeepers and peddlers. It was because the peoples had turned against capitalism only in a half-hearted and half-witted manner that they turned against the Jews. Bebel once said that “anti-Semitism is the socialism of the fools.” The masses of Europe have been socialist enough to accept the socialism of the fools but not wise enough to embrace socialism.

This is the crux of the Jewish tragedy. Marx and Rosa Luxemburg imagined that mankind would pass from capitalism to socialism before it had degenerated culturally through remaining too long under the sway and spell of capitalism. They had imagined that mankind would make its exit from capitalism in good and civilized form. This has not happened. Decaying capitalism has overstayed its day and has morally dragged down mankind: and we, the Jews, have paid for it and may yet have to pay for it.

All this has driven the Jews to see their own State as the way out. Most of the great revolutionaries, whose heritage I am discussing, have seen the ultimate solution to the problems of their and our times, not in nation-states but in international society. As Jews they were the natural pioneers of this idea, for who was as well qualified to preach the international society of equals as were Jews free from all Jewish and non-Jewish orthodoxy and nationalism? However, the decay of bourgeois Europe has compelled the Jew to embrace the nation-state. This is the paradoxical consummation of the Jewish tragedy. It is paradoxical; because we live in an age when the nation-state is fast becoming an archaism—not only the nation-state of Israel but the nation-states of Russia, the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, and others. They are all anachronisms. Do you not see it yet? Do you not see that when atomic energy daily reduces the globe in size, when man starts out on his own interplanetary journey, when a sputnik flies over the territory of a great nation-state in a minute or in seconds, that at such a time technology renders the nation-state as ridiculous and out-lived as medieval little princedoms were in the age of the steam engine?

EVEN those young nation-states that have come into being as the result of a necessary and progressive struggle waged by colonial and semi-colonial peoples for emancipation—India, Burma, Ghana, and others—cannot, in my view, preserve their progressive character for long. They form a necessary stage in the history of some peoples; but it is a stage that those peoples too will have to overcome in order to find wider frameworks for their existence. In our epoch any new nation-state, soon after its constitution begins to be affected by the general decline of this form of political organization; and this is already showing itself in the short experience of India, Ghana, and Israel. The world has compelled the Jew to embrace the nation-state and to make of it his pride and hope just at a time when there is little or no hope left in it. You cannot blame the Jews for this; you must blame the world. But Jews should at least be aware of the paradox and realize that their intense enthusiasm for “national sovereignty” is historically belated. They did not benefit from the advantages of the nation-state in those centuries when it was a medium of mankind’s advance and a great revolutionary and unifying factor in history. They have taken possession of it only after it had become a factor of disunity and social disintegration.

I hope, therefore, that, together with other nations, the Jews will ultimately become aware—or regain the awareness—of the inadequacy of the nation-sate and that they will find their way back to the moral and political heritage that the genius of the Jews who have gone beyond Jewry has left us—the message of universal human emancipation.


Lew Scannon said...

When Zionists speak of the Jews as a race, do they mean the sephardim, or the Khazars? Two distinctly different races.

Frank Partisan said...

Jews are an ethnic group, not a race period.

Craig Bardo said...

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction -- a proverb of Solomon, King of Israel and a Jewish Jew

An interesting set of viewpoints. It is a fascinating, non-conversation, on several fronts for me. Although neither addresses the other directly, it is interesting that you cast Prager as the polemicist, but I won't get bogged down with that triviality. It also seems, that as a "Jewish Jew" Prager is definitionally qualified to pass on what constitutes a "non Jewish Jew."

I am intrigued about this non-conversation because I admire so much of what I see in Judaism and in Jews I know and associate with. Jews have impact far beyond their relative population because of their over-representation in the professions. Jews account for less than 2% of America's population but non-Jews believe there to be a much larger presence here in the States.

Jewish culture includes a heavy regiment of religious study, which naturally carries over to education and IQ which leads to positions of influence. I especially admire Jewish intellect, because it comes nearest to matching my own!

I am also intrigued because of the sharp rise in violent anti-semitism in Europe accompanied by little publication nor outrage. So I sought out sources of this resurgence in intollerance and was led to Prager's book entitled Anti-Semitism.

Then there's the personal angle of being a black radical, some would say heretic or sellout (among the nicer appellations). I could, in some respects, although not accurately, like B Hussein Obama, be characterized as the "non-black black."

Finally, I am a Sabbath keeping Christian who supports Israel's right to exist and defend itself from those who only want her destruction.

What Deutcher describes are the spiritual pinnings of relative morality, anti-capitalism and anti-zionism. He does so in a pseudo-intellectual construction I'm all too familiar with and can sum up with one word - FEAR. It is an attempt to rationalize an incorrect response to pogroms throught recorded time directed toward Jews by packaging them in some high sounding philosophy they hope will be palatable to non-Jews so they can become a part of the community of man.

If you identify as a Jew, you place a potential target on your forehead. If you congregate in a synagogue much less a Jewish homeland, you place yourself in the cross hairs. If you say that you are the chosen of God, you condemn yourself to a death sentence.

I understand the concern, even the response to it, but the attempt to cannonize it under a philosophical banner escapes me.

Craig Bardo said...

Hebrews are a race, Jews or Judaism is a faith. There are growing numbers of Ethiopian Jews, for example.

Anonymous said...

A Jew is a Jew period!
There is no such thing as a Non-Jewish Jew period!
Non of the Jews cited as examples as non Jews ever denied their Jewishness. Chomsky is an anti zionist... that certainly does not make him an anti Jew or a non Jew. The same was true of Trotsky. Marx hd a Jewish father, Christian mother, so in his case the term non Jewish Jew can applied as he is not considered Jewish according to the laws of the religion.
Jewishness is far more than a religion, there are probably more Jews in the world today that do not adhere to Jadaism, but they are Jews. There are more Jews living outside of Israel than inside it, most have little or no connection to Israel or zionism... but they are Jews.
Not Praeger nor anyone else can strip a Jew of his Jewishness... it just cannot be done. You are what you are whether you like it or not. This was proven in Germany by the nazis... a Jew was a Jew there no matter how loudly he denied it or tried to hide it.
In these days of criminal activities in Israel, it would be best for all Jews against these crimes and injustices to identify as Jews and speak out agains them rather than deny their identity. As I mentioned, Chomsky never denied it and is recognised as one of the most anti zionist spokesmen in the world today. It carries more weight when a zionist crime is condemned by a Jew.
So, in my opinion, the term used by Deutcher and Praeger is as ridiculous as the term 'Self hating Jew' used by the Lobby supporters.

MarxistFromLebanon said...

Judaism is a religious belief, Zionism is a colonialist movement that transformed Jews to a race on the expense of the Palestinians (Christians, Muslims, and Jews included). Prior to the arrival of Zionists to Palestine, there has been no problems between Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

Problem is anyone who attack Zionism and their racist perspectives or historical butchery, they tag a person anti-semite and start playing on their woes.

Puppeteer said...

Wow, Ren, real interesting things you exposed here. Opened my mind to some facts until now unnoticed. I think I'll write you a longer email about some of the ideas.

Anonymous said...

Hi this is vijaykumar

If you identify as a Jew, you place a potential target on your forehead. If you congregate in a synagogue much less a Jewish homeland, you place yourself in the cross hairs. Our site is also related to this for more information follow this link.....united first financial

Graeme said...

Very interesting piece Renegade. I feel like I learned a lot.

sonia said...

There are many definitions of who is or isn't a Jew. But ultimately, only one definition matters at the end - the anti-semitic one. A Jew is anybody who has been denounced as such, so that definitely includes Marx, Trotsky, Soros and even Chomsky...

Those differences in definition account for the strange fact that the number of Jews in Poland is listed as either under 5,000 (according to the strict, Jewish-mother-and-synagogue-attending criteria) or over 1 million (according to the anti-semitic, one-drop-of-Jewish-blood-make-you-a-Jew-even-if-you-were-baptized-ten-times definition).

The Trotskys lead the revolution and the Bronsteins pay for it. They were having laughs together.

Well, the Jews who were victims of horrible pogroms during the Civil War (especially in the Ukraine) certainly weren't laughing. The only one laughing was Stalin, who cynically put all the blame for the excesses of the Bolshevik revolution on the Jews, and presented himself a moderate savior who purged the Communist party of its most radical elements.

This is why so many non-Communist Americans, from Armand Hammer to Joseph Davis to Walter Duranty to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, were impressed by Uncle Joe even before the war. You should see 'Mission to Moscow' about US ambassador to Moscow, Joseph Davis's support of the Stalinist show trials. He wasn't supporting them because of Communist sympaties. He was supporting the show trials because he believed that the most evil among the Bolsheviks (read: Jews) were being purged from the party...

Craig Bardo said...

Prager writes in his book Why The Jews? The Reason for Antisemitism, that for thousands of years Judaism has consisted of 3 major components: God, the Torah and Israel (nationhood).

If you are a Muslim, Christian or a non-Jewish, Jew and you say that Jews are ok, but Zionists are colonists, then you are trying to define Judaism to your own liking. If you define it as you like, then you can't be burdened with charges of anti-semitism or being a non-Jewish, Jew. But since when did Islam allow itself to be defined by Christians of vice versa? Why are only Jews subject to this nonsense?

I am a Christian. I tell you Jesus is the son of God and you shoot back at me, that's not Christianity, that's not what Christians believe - then you have tried to define for me and the billions like me, what Christianity is which is patently absurd. You may not agree with my faith, but to try to compartmentalize me and attack me on that basis looks foolish.

But let's break out our copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and tell our children that Jews need their blood to survive. We might be able to conjure up enough hate among them to run those trouble making Jews right out of Palestine.

Frank Partisan said...

I like how Desert Peace answered the question. The best answer is not Non-Jewish Jew, oe being defensive when called a Self Hating Jew. A Jew is a jew is a Jew.

I actually agreed with Sonia for the most part. What she said was in line with Roosevelt's immigration policy, which fed into Zionism.

CB: You are woefully wrong thinking of Jews as a race. Even the Zionists would bite your head off saying that.

Prager's definition is ahistorical. Nation is not in the definition of Judaism.

MFL Jews are an ethnic group. The religion is only part of the definition. This Prager guy loves calling everyone who isn't Zionist an anti-Semite.

vijay ?

Craig Bardo said...


I think I said Hebrews are a race, Jews are adherents to Judaism. I mentioned the Ethiopian Jews as an example of non Hebrew Jews.

I don't know about Prager's take on Judaism, I'm not Jewish. But I do know I have seen those same sentiments published elsewhere (Judaism is comprised of God, Torah, Israel) and I haven't seen that disputed.

Baconeater said...

CB, who uses Hebrews anymore? A Jew is a Jew by ethnicity (mom was a Jew) and/or by religion.
Renegade, Jews do not have a set way of belief. The reality is that we've been a shunned minority for over 2000 years. And one that was forced to invent ways to make a living, which generally made the successful ones capitalists. And once successful minorities when economies failed or government changed policy, the Jews were the easiest to have their businesses and land taken away.
I know that simplifies things, but Israel didn't happen just because of the Holocaust. It happened when Herzl (a non believer), started a movement to get Jews a state to escape anti-semitism.
I don't want to get repetitive so I'll ask you to watch my videos on Youtube justifying Israel.
I'm not saying a Jewish majority state is needed in the long run. Hopefully the world will shake the idea of religion and at least accept evolution (I'm talking masses, including Muslims), so that yes, it will be safe to be a citizen of the world.
25% of Jews in Israel are Atheist, and another 25% Agnostic. Atheists and Agnostics tend to be liberal.
But there is no real tendency for Jews to follow any political way of life.
To me, Israel makes Jews safer in the world today.
OH and marxistfromlebanon, you are an ignorant fool. Nothing but assmonkey rhetoric. Your whiney rhetoric is pathetic.

Here are my videos:

SecondComingOfBast said...

Vijay's web-site to which you were all invited to link is "fast mortgage eliminator". I seriously doubt that it has anything to do with this post.

I have habitually thought of Jews as not a seperate race in and of themselves, but as one sub-set of the "Semitic" race. Semitic itself being a Biblical term in origin. I think though I'm not sure that Semites generally originated so far as is known from the nation of Aram, from which the Aramaic languages were derived. I think that would include Arabic, but what the relatiosnhip is of Aramaic to Hebrew I'm not sure.

I guess it would be the same thing as referring to the Irish as "the Irish race". There's no such thing, but Irish would just be considered a branch of the Celtic tribes, which were themselves a sub-set of the Indo-Aryans, like the Germanic tribes but a seperate one.

Using Biblical jargon, they would have been considered of the "Japhethic" race, or descendant of Japheth (one of Noah's sons).

Anonymous said...

Khazars. You are the one of jews. Our jews on JRomances.com will be with you.
Chloe Jones

beepbeepitsme said...

I keep it simple.

If someone calls themselves a jew, they are a jew. If someone calls themselves a sioux,they are a sioux.

If someone calls themselves a christian, they are a christian.

If someone calls themselves a "koori" (native australian). they are a koori.

The word "jew" doesn't identify a person's religion anymore than the word "muslim" identifies a person ethnicity.

And the word "buddhist" doesn't identify one's ethnicity anymore than the word "anglo" identifies someone's religion.

How people define themselves should ultimately be left up to the individual, as there is not one word which can be used to identify everything about ourselves anyway.

Graeme said...

I read somewhere that the Palestinian Arabs are closer to various Jewish ethnic groups than they are to other Arabs. Interesting if it's true.

Anonymous said...

糖尿病 糖尿病症状 糖尿病饮食 糖尿病治疗 妊娠糖尿病 糖尿病的症状 糖尿病症状 糖尿病的饮食 糖尿病的治疗 中国糖尿病网 妊娠期糖尿病 糖尿病并发症 2型糖尿病 糖尿病足 糖尿病中医治疗 糖尿病药物 血糖 血糖仪 胰岛素 胰岛素泵 糖尿病常识 糖尿病食谱 什么是糖尿病 糖尿病的预防 糖尿病的症状 糖尿病人饮食 糖尿病肾病 妊娠糖尿病注意事项 糖尿病注意事项 中国文秘网

Graeme said...

by closer, I mean genetically closer.

Baconeater said...

Graeme, since I don't buy into the Exodus...no evidence, and I even have my doubts about David being a Jew or Judaism existing until around 650-800 BC, the Jews originally were most likely the same ethnicity as everyone in that area. The original Jews just branched off at that time. So it makes sense that Sephardic Jews are most closely related to any Arab who traces back to the region of Palestine around 2500 years ago.

But since then, there was a huge divergence amongst Jews and non Jews in the area.

SecondComingOfBast said...

If you read the Old Testament with a discerning eye you can easily make the case Beaj made. For the most part, it reads (once you get past the bullshit) like the vast majority of the nation of "Israel" (of which Jews were just one tribe, the "Tribe of Judah", with elements of two other tribes mixed in)wwere actually pagans, or as the writers of the books put it "idolators".

Judaism as such may have existed just as a relatively small cult movement, but was not necessarily predominant until after the Babylonian captivity (which the writers ascribed as happening due to God's punishment of said idolatry).

For that matter, there is no true historical or archaeoliogical evidence so far as I'm aware that King David actually existed as an historical person.

He, like many of the so-called patriarchs, may have originally been a god himself, then humanized centuries later as a means of rewriting history.

Anonymous said...

Palestinians, and most of the Levantines, have Canaanite and Akadeean ascendancy. If you consider that none are part of the Semite ethnic family, then that makes us, generally, neither Semite nor Arab.

Craig Bardo said...

The comments of Beaj and PT are a completely irrelevant, if not humorous, distraction to the original posting. Slightly less relevant than the vijay trying to sell mortgages!

Baconeater said...

CB, what exactly is humorous about my comments? Just curious.
Maybe you should read this from Judaism 101: Who is a Jew

As far as my ideas of the history of Judaism, they are based on evidence that is known right now. I don't look at either bibles as being historical except when you take into consideration the years around when they were written.

I'm pretty sure that Ezra was the first to write anything down regarding the OT.

And as far as the NT is concerned, it is very hard to find any evidence anything was written down prior to 100-200 years after "the fact," and I'm also convinced in a theory that Paul or someone like Paul made up the Jesus myth based on myths and beliefs that were around at the time. Many things were added over time to Pauls story, like a virgin birth (which was a common story of the time for many mythological stories) etc.

SecondComingOfBast said...

BK-No need to get defensive over your myths, bro. But in order to understand the Jewish origins, you pretty much have to take into consideration the fact that they have no truly authentic written history prior to the time of the Babylonian exile. That tends to happen to people when their leaders rewrite history to suit their own ends. Once you see their psuedo-history (The Old Testament) for what it is, you can gradually somewhat pierce the shroud of ages and catch a slight glimmer of truth.

That truth being they are Semites, as are Arabs, probably originating from the ancient nation of Aram, who were dispersed by the Babylonians under Hammurabi, after which time they migrated to the Palestine region where they themselves displaced the Canaanites.

A lot of their Egyptian based mythology (Moses) is derived from a period when one segment of them actually overthrew the Egyptian dynasty of either the Old or Middle Kingdom, then were themselves run out of Egypt after a fairly brief reign. They then grouped in with other Semites already in the Palestine area, where the Egyptians called them the "Hirksu" (Hebrews).

That was the true beginning of their history. How they ended up becomming monotheistic is open to debate, but like I said you can see a lot by reading between the lines and discarding the bullshit.

Once you do that you can derive a lot of the sense and the form of true Jewish history and cultural identity.

Of course, it's your right if you want to believe Moses actually did exist and do the things the Old Testament claims he did, but if you insist on that, the onus is on you to prove it, not for those of us who believe in the rational to disprove it.

But on the other hand, you don't have to believe a blind hedonistic secular person like myself, who has been deluded by years of Satanic education and study. I'm positive your "faith" has taught you better than to fall for my wicked lies.

Whatever, it is a hell of a lot more germaine to the aspect of understanding Jewish culture and tradition than selling mortgages-well, unless you subscribe to the theory that all Jews are Shylocks.

Craig Bardo said...

I would be happy to debate Old Testament orthodoxy, the anthropological evidence supporting biblical accounts or to discuss the '57 Chevy. I can even talk about Beaj's Yuotubes - which provided a reasonably accurate account of the formation of Israel and disingenuous Arab outrage. But none of that is relevant to the original post!

Aaron A. said...

Great Discussion


I'm certainly impressed by the sheer girth of your discussing ability.
Wink, wink, nod, nod...

beepbeepitsme said...

The whole idea that someone can only call themselves a jew based on whether or not they conform to judaism seems to be to be flawed from the outset.

It presupposes that there is someway to test someone's "jewishness." And that after the completion of the test, one can then say, well - that settles it, he is a jew.

There is no test available and there is no way to construct such a test, as people who call themselves jews have a variety of reasons for doing so.

By assuming that there is a specific definition of the word "jew" which all people must hold to, presupposes that there is only one context in which the word is used, and also that there is only one legitimate form of judaism.

AS there are a variety of belief structures in judaism, - Hasidim, Haredim, Progressive, Reform Judaism and Liberal Judaism how does one ascertain that all of these, none, only some, or one, have garnered the right to call themselves jews?

One can't. The only way to settle issues associated with religious faith and culture is to accept that people have the right to define themselves.

The same would apply to any other word such as the word "christian". How does one ascertain that all people who call themselves christian are legitimately christians? In order to do so, one would need to presuppose that there is only one legitimate form of christianity which is valid.

Who is then going to take on the job of arbitration to decide who has the right to call themselves a christian and who does not?

SecondComingOfBast said...

Just to set the record straight, the ancient Egyptian word for the ancient Hebrews were "Hapiru", not Hirksu or whatever I said before, I don't know where I dredged that up from.

I just thought since we were discussing what makes a person a Jew, an attempt at understanding their cultural and historical traditions might prove useful. But you unfortunately have to do that through the fog of mythology once you arrive back to a certain point.

Otherwise, so far as I know, what makes a person a Jew is determined matralineally. If your father is a Jew, then you, too, might be a Jew. But if your mother is a Jew, end of story. You are a Jew, period, regardless of your religious beliefs.

Somebody brought up something once about the Ashkenazi Jews of Europe, and a study was conducted using DNA, which determined that at least forty percent of all Ashkenazi Jews were descended from four Jewish women, at least one of whom could be traced back as far as two thousand years ago in Palestine.

This has always been the standard. King Herod Agrippa I had been reassured, for example, that since his mother Berenice was Jewish as well as related to the former Haesmonaean dynasty, his claims to the Jewish throne were legitimate, despite the ancestry of his grandfather Herod The Great (half Arab, half Idumaean).

I could convert to Judaism tomorrow, and I would be accepted into the faith, but I would not be considered wholly Jewish. Neither would my children, but my grandchildren would be considered Jewish. This presumably has something to do with the assumption that a practicing Jew will marry into the Jewish people, therefore by the time three generations has passed that matrilineal bloodline will then be established sufficiently enough that the third generation can be considered legitimately Jewish.

MarxistFromLebanon said...

nope Renegade, it started as a religion, till the isolationists transformed them to an ethnic group, while the Zionists officially made them in Europe as a race. In Palestine, prior to 1919, there was no problems between the Muslims, Christians, and Jews... each practiced their beliefs safely.

Check Yossi on how Judaism was carved out


The Sentinel said...

To better understand how Jews lend themselves to the 'conspiracy' market and to see the extent of Israeli espionage operations against its primary ally check this out:


? said...

a very loud and clear message, transcending boundaries.

Baconeater said...

Yeah Sentinel you conspiracy Joo paranoid retard, the Israelis warned the US that the cancer that is Islam was about to attack anytime.
The US spies everywhere btw. I don't blame Israel for spying where they can. They have to protect their own interests.

troutsky said...

That topic always opens up some contentious territory, it is Occams razor! It seems so much violence stems from the practice of associating religion with nationality I wonder how anyone can defend it.All the archeology in the world won't return Montana to the Crow or Blackfeet because real ownership is about Power.And to those who want the US to be Christian nation, they want to cause division and disharmony but mostly they want title, ownership.

The Sentinel said...


As a self-proclaimed "Friend of Israel" I suppose your response is expected.

But, 9-11 issues aside, the Fox News video also reveals that Israel screens every telephone call made in the USA and uses its influence with contracting companies based in Israel (or owned by them?) to completely compromise and undermine serious criminal investigations.

Not really standard behaviour is it?

And just why would Israel be interested in scuppering that drug investigation if it were not involved?

That Fox News report reveals a lot of sinister angles to Israeli activities in the US.

By the way, I notice that you do not hesitate to use the freedom provided on my blog to insult me, but are not so keen on providing the same freedom on yours.

For the full series of 4 reports see:


Baconeater said...

Sentinel, it is obvious from your website that you are mentally ill.

There are lots of mentally ill people on the web who have extensive blogs with lots of links.

Like Young Earthers, Anti-evolutionist, flat earthers, and of course Jooo-obsessed paranoid conspiracy whack jobs like you.

I can only mock you from now on.

SecondComingOfBast said...

Beaj and Sentinel-

The reason the Israelis engage in spying on the US is due to paranoid defensive tendencies. They see us as a nation that is sharply divided and therefore could with the drop of a hat engage in complete reversal of policy which they perceive could be to their detriment. They are just looking out for their own interests, as do most nations that are not suicidal.

By the same token when they are caught spying on us they should receive the same reprimands as any other foreign nation that does so, just as we are when we are caught. That's just something that goes with the territory.

Troutsky-It's "Blackfoot" tribe, there is no such thing as the "Blackfeet".

The Sentinel said...


Your inane accusations of "mental illness" are as baseless as they are boring. It is a standard technique for people with no position or defense to resort to insults- and your "I can only mock you from now on" only confirms your shallowness.

The fact is that Israel, as exposed in that video, scuppered a major criminal drug investigation in the US involving Israeli organised criminals, they did it by using a company that collects all phone billing information for the US- and therefore has all of the telephony records - and another company used for wire tapping in the US- both based in Israel; one has a 50% subsidy from the Israeli government.

This is not spying, this criminal inference.

Agnes said...

The link is not available, man, is the world ruled by gays or Israelis or Israeli gays or what...I adore conspiracy theories, really. Spying IS interference , whatever the great Fox news stated on that link. (the spies must have removed it, no other explanation). Probably Osama is a non Jewish Arab, who knows nowadays with this identity crisis....

Ren, a huge debate in Hungary whether an ethnic group or religion, but we already know that...however this time it is the Jewish community who wishes to decide it. At least that.

Sonia, unfortunately true.

Good post Ren, Deutscher is a very interesting (and remarkable) author. Sad thing, that one still feels the need to discuss it. It tells the story.

Baconeater said...

Sentinel, I have written on your buddy Mark Glenn. I have even exchanged emails with the Jew hating Lebanese mongrol. He is the biggest retarded assmonkey on the internet.
I bitchslapped him and his wench Joanne Francis.
You and them are just conspiracy nuts who have one goal, and that is to spread hatred against Jews and Israel. And you do this using flimsy conspiracy theories, and when refuted you simply turn the page like a mentally ill Young Earth Creationist does when given hard data to refute their b.s.

You are just sickos and you represent the lunatic fringe. Most likely you have ties to Al Qaeda, but that is only a speculation.

Do a web search "Mark Glenn assmonkey" LOL. You'll find a few of my posts outing the retard.

Frank Partisan said...

Sentinel: If one reads something as "Foreign Affairs", published by the Council On Foreign Relations, you can tell the discussion is between people who are in positions of power, or have influence over powerbrokers. They are simply talking in their own interest. That is different than conspiracy.

The conspiracy ideas lead nowhere politically. As much as I dislike Bush, I know he is not going to personally blow up New York office property.

MFL: Good link

Redwine: I haven't heard from you in awhile.

I think someone could read these comments, and actually learn something.

beaj: You're in a funny spot, being strongly secular and supporting a religion based state. Wouldn't supporting Jewish people fighting anti_semitism from within their individual homeland be more in line with your beliefs?

The Sentinel said...


Thanks for pointing out that the video had been pulled. No surprise really given the reaction of the ADL to the outing of its parent organisation- Mossad.

I have found another video that works (for now!) and I have embedded it in the link below, if you want to see what you were stopped from seeing the first time around.



I have no idea who Mark Glenn is, not a buddy of mine at all- I just linked a post of his.

But don't let that stop you making wild leaps of assumption; you only seem content when raging, insulting and telling people who disagree with you that they are "mentally ill."

The fact is that Israel, through Mossad, interfered with a criminal investigation into a drugs gang comprised of Israelis. Now it wouldn't be too hard to figure that they have an obvious vested interest in doing so; they are involved in drug dealing and other criminal activities in the US (and elsewhere) and use ostensibly private Israeli companies to interfere with the criminal investigations into such activities.

Now that is a conspiracy. Fact.

Baconeater said...

Sentinel, only an imbecile would equate a group of drug dealers with an entire country, or having anything to do with the Israeli gov't.

Other than that ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz.

Renegade, we could have had this discussion in the late 1920's in Europe, and I would have agreed with you. However, I don't see Israel as a religious nation but a secular ethnic Jewish nation that protects Jews partially world wide.

If Israel would have existed prior to Nazi Germany's rise, there may not have been a Holocaust.

When anti-semitism is wiped off the planet, I'll have little reason to believe a majority Jewish state is needed anywhere.

But that time is not now.

Baconeater said...

Oh another thing, I'm not alone. 25% of Jews in Israel are Atheist, and up to another 25% are Agnostic.

Israel is one place where a Jew from anywhere on the planet can go and not have to worry about not being treated as an equal (well except for the Ethiopean Jews, but that is changing)

In other words, I'm supporting Israel as a secular state, which it is, in principal. Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism was in fact an Atheist.

The Sentinel said...


The evidence is clear- and it is not my assertion but the investigative reportings of Fox News.

You obviously do not like facts and inconvenient truths but there you go.

As well as the video


Take a look at how 6 companies are responsible 96% of the worlds media output- and 5 of them are operated by Jews.

More coincidence?!


Maybe you can now fathom why these "conspiracy theories" exist.

Then again, probably not.

Craig Bardo said...

Jambalaya, Fruit Salad?


You've managed to assemble an eclectic group, to say the least. With a few exceptions, I probably most often agree with a nudist from Tonga who was born into communism. On this issue, I'm more in alignment with an atheist (Non Jewish) Jew that believes in evolution and that Judaism is a contrivance of the apostle Paul. The Sentinel, while providing data points, some of which are well documented, is unbalanced in application and poorly synthesized (if you are a dialectician).

But what do I know, I'm a black capitalist that believes that the United States should forcibly annex Mexico, that we should nuke Tehran, that Jesus was born of a virgin and that he had a conversation with himself before creation saying as el ohim, let us make man in our image, after our likeness.

Frank Partisan said...

CB: The discussion moved away from Prager vs Deutscher. Overall it has been a good post. I received personal email from someone who changed an opinon on the definition of a Jew.

Sentinel: Since I'm a Marxist, I'm most comfortable with Marxist vocabularly.

The ruling class is America is if anything Protestant.

Jews have high positions in media and show biz by default. To the Christian majority in the early days of America, entertainment was sin.

I come from Minneapolis. For decades Jews couldn't get jobs in banks or even in healthcare. In Minneapolis the Jewish and the Afro-American community opened up the Mt. Sinai Hospital. That was because of discrimination.

I've been too polite. Your blog is racist crap.

The Sentinel said...

Yeah and I have been too polite, your blog is Marxist shit.

The Sentinel said...


"only an imbecile would equate a group of drug dealers with an entire country, or having anything to do with the Israeli gov't."

Do you remember the Iran-Conta affair? Or the CIA's involvement in the 'golden triangle'? To name but two examples.

Certain governments and their agencies have been, and are, heavily implicated in drug trafficking.

Why would Israel interfere with that drug investigation if not it were not involved?

Baconeater said...

Countries often get involved when their citizens are arrested. That doesn't mean the country is behind it.

Frank Partisan said...

I think what Sentinel said about Israel is probably true. You can color me shocked.

The problem is how you look at facts. I can agree the event occured. I don't come to a racialist solution from it.

The Zionist lobby is strong in the USA. Not as strong as in anti-Semitic literature. Hitchens wrote a good article about this in Slate.

Craig Bardo said...


I made that point earlier about Sentinel. He has some accurate data points, but draws the wrong or too strong of a conclusion.

It is like saying there is more human activity and the planet is getting warmer - therefore the planet is getting warmer because of human activity. It is a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.

Puppeteer said...

I see now better. We alway start on the premise that Jusdaism is a religion, and that "Jew" is a person of Judaic persuasion, and over the centuries, the Judaic persons have congregated into a people, or nation. But in fact, things should be seen the other way round, no? What if the Jews started not a religion but an ethnic group, or a family of tribes, the Tribes of Jacob, or Israel. According to mythology, El, the Judaic god, was in fact the same creator god worshiped by a whole array of Semitic peoples, before the Jews adopted him as a main god. Considering that most of the persons here are secular, I can state that the Judaic religion must have built it's canons and beliefs around this adopted god, El, and developed it into nowadays Judaism. Over the centuries all of the peoples worshiping El were either lost or dinitergrated or suffered a whole arsenal of paradigm shifts (like the Aramean), and only the Judaic religion survived, and was perpetuated by, attention here, it's founders, the Jewish ethnic group. Therefore, my point is that first came the Jews, or Hebrew, then came the Judaic religion. Therefore this statement of non-Jewis Jew is quite correct. It simply means a person of Jewish ethnic descent that doesn't believe in Judaism. It's the same with Arabs and Islam, but I'll tell about that some other time.
Now, departing from the point that Jews, or the descendants of the Hebrew tribes, are an ethnic group, a smaller one of the many ethnic groups of the wide semitic family (Canaanite, Akadean and Sumerians not included), definig them as a race is a bit absurd, or as a nation in fact. The point about nations is that they're a 100% human creation. If within an ethnic group many factors are out of the human control, like the genetic legacy for an instance, the main players within a nation are fully artificial and human-made concepts, and territory stands on top. (Think of the US and realise that there isn't an ethnic group not to be part of this modern days Babylon. All US citizens are part of the US nation.)
So, if Jews are to be considered an ethnic group or family, and considering that ethnic families are a much more natural state of being than nations (that are generally a cocktail of ethnic groups and religions living in un-natural defined boundaries), this somehow explains why Jews are until now regarded as a religion not a nation amongst the Arabs. Leaving Palestine aside, Jews were always considered a religious group not ethnic one, here in the Levant, because of the physical similarity. That's right, if you put Levantines of all sort together, you can only say about them that they're, well, Levantine. I think it counts very much, everybody here is "taned" with black hair and dark eyes, there isn't a concept of "they're not like us", the way Jews passed to Islam was shahada (we have many convert families, from back during the Otoman empire, some even of Ashkenazi descent), then they became Muslim. Religion. Yes, that blasted Aramean paradigm shifting curse!

Anonymous said...

Written in 1954. Isaac Deutscher (1968) The Non-Jewish Jew and other essays, London: Oxford University Press, pp 111-113
Israelis who have known me as an anti-Zionist of long standing are curious to hear what I think about Zionism. I have, of course, long since abandoned my anti-Zionism, which was based on a confidence in the European labour movement, or, more broadly, in European society and civilization, which that society and civilization have not justified. If, instead of arguing against Zionism in the 1920s and 1930s I had urged European Jews to go to Palestine, I might have helped to save some of the lives that were later extinguished in Hitler’s gas chambers.

Agnes said...

Will, bingo.

marcel said...

vous pouvez inscrire votre blog sur jewisheritage.fr

vuong said...

英会話 横浜
ビジネス英語 メール
ビジネススクール 英語
東京都 人材派遣
債務整理 東京
過払い 渋谷
液晶 テレビ 32
浮気調査 江戸川
浮気調査 荒川区
備考調査 追跡調査 東京
不倫調査 離婚調査 東京
浮気調査 素行調査 東京 
ストーカー相談 ストーカー対策 東京
結婚調査 結婚詐欺 東京
信用調査 企業調査 東京
調査料金 東京
身上調査 身元調査 身辺調査 東京
所在調査 東京
夫 妻 浮気 東京

arkuda2 said...

Nowadays, you cannot find a man or woman who does not want to be unique. Nowadays, watches have become an object of attention. Many people now want to change their appearance by a good looking watch, but not many of these people can afford to buy one. That is where replica watches come in as they are so affordable. The best way to show off uniqueness and exquisite style to friends and family is to buy a replica watch. These watches are actually becoming more popular than their original counterparts. Best replica watches are the compromise of quality and price. There are quality replica watches of any brand, from Tag Heuer to Breitling. all replica watches
* A.Lange & Sohne
* Alain Silberstein
* Audemars Piguet
* Baume & Mercier
* Bell&Ross
* Blancpain
* Breguet
* Breitling
* Bvlgari
* Cartier
* Chopard
* ChronoSwiss
* Concord
* Corum
* Ferrari
* Franck Muller
* Girard Perregaux
* Glashutte
* Graham
* Hamilton
* Harry Winston
* Hublot
* Jacob&Co
* Jaeger leCoultre
* Maurice Lacroix
* Montblanc
* Omega
* Oris
* Panerai
* Patek Philippe
* Piaget
* Porsche Design
* Richard Mille
* Roger Dubuis
* Rolex
* Romain Jerome
* TAG Heuer
* U-Boat
* Ulysse Nardin
* Vacheron Constantin
* Welder
* Wyler
* Zenith