Religions > Atheism > Every Jew Should Want A Strong Believing Traditional Christian America
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
30 Dec 2006 03:32:18 PM |
| Object: |
Every Jew Should Want A Strong Believing Traditional Christian America |
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006971.html
A liberal Jew's Christmas wish for America
What is the end of multiculturalism, what is the origin of
multiculturalism, and how can we stop and reverse its progress over us?
These thoughts were set off when VFR reader Ben sent this article about
the Seattle airport Christmas tree controversy and told me I had to
read the following comment by Elizabeth LaZella of Gold Bar,
Washington:
As a Jew I am totally dismayed to find that in this world of great
diversity we have to fight to be recognized.
Being raised in America early on in the 50's etc. we were forced in
school to have Christmas songs, displays, etc. with no mention of other
religions. Then as the years went by it changed a bit, but even
today-the holidays come around trees, etc. come out and it is a total
Christian display with NO diversity.
I believe and still will believe and have pride to hope the Rabbis
continue to fight for each and every town, city, little bitty or big in
Washington State to have-not only Christmas displays but add the
Menorah also this would encourage other religions to do the same and
together-and I mean together as a nation of diversity, a nation of
many, many faiths to finally agree we are all one.
God does not chose which person, Jew, Christian, Muslim or other to go
to his throne. God chooses those who have held the faith, and be all
brothers on this earth.
What we have here is the undiluted liberal Jewish credo, coming right
from the heart, which has been openly expressed by more and more Jews
in the last decade or so as the majority culture has faded and Jews
have felt at complete liberty to reveal their true feelings and
desires. Just as various Jews have been saying that as Jews they are
morally obligated to seek open borders, Elizabeth LaZella declares that
as a Jew she seeks the imposition of a systematic and uniform diversity
on every city and hamlet in the land, on "each and every town, city,
little bitty or big," a pattern that implicitly goes beyond holiday
symbols to become an all-embracing multicultural paradigm. But her
pro-minority imperialism doesn't stop there. In an unconscious
confirmation of the anti-Semitic narrative, she declares that she wants
the Jews to be the vanguard of this program of cultural
dismemberment-first the Menorah shall be installed alongside the
Christmas symbols, then, once the doors to diversity have been opened
by the Jews, the symbols of all the other religions as well. The idea
is that all religions shall be equal, all cultures shall be equal, and
there shall not be a single nook or cranny in American society where
Christianity will not be swamped by other religions and where the
American majority culture will not be swamped by other cultures. So
assured is LaZella that there is no intact majority culture that will
resent her declaration of intent to wipe out every jot and tittle of
American particularity, especially Christian particularity, that she
feels completely at ease speaking these outrageous things.
Now I wouldn't especially blame LaZella if she were just seeking the
inclusion of Jewish symbols, like the rabbi at the Seattle-Tacoma
airport. Given how America's former majority culture has retreated
from the scene on one front after another, such behavior by an
ethnic/religious minority looking out for itself would seem rational,
if regrettable. But LaZella's all-encompassing multicultural program,
including Islam and everything else under the sun, goes beyond any
rational self-interest. It is a form of hyper-diversity, an embrace of
cultural chaos that would destroy what's left of our culture and thus
ultimately harm the Jews as well. Yet, as irrational as this
hyper-diversity program is, it too results from the fact that the
majority culture has decamped, leaving no common allegiances in place
and no common rule to put bounds around minority self-assertion, bounds
that were once accepted as a matter of course in this country, enforced
by the majority culture and by the minorities themselves. Thus minority
cultural aggression-whether the relatively rational though still
destructive type in which various groups seek the public validation of
their culture alongside and as the presumed equal of the majority
culture, or the extreme LaZella type that aims to impose an insane
multicultural paradigm on every atom of American society-has been
engendered by, and is moving into the cultural void left by, the
ongoing suicide of the majority culture.
All is not lost, however. The path we have taken toward this calamity
also shows us the way out of it. The majority culture gave up its
identity and authority as a result of its leaders and ordinary members
ceasing to love it and to believe in it and to assert its standards as
authoritative. It follows that the majority culture can be regained if
its members and spokesmen believe in it and stand for it once again.
This restoration of a damaged or lost cultural order is the work of
traditionalism.
Impossible, you say? That's because you're thinking in terms of
some complete cultural restoration; and from where we sit now, that
indeed seems impossible. But what is possible is that we, even at this
moment, can start pushing back against the dominant anti-culture, by
rejecting its anti-standards and assserting the good standards that
were still operative in this country not that long ago. But unlike the
majority culture of the past, which could rely on shared habits and
attitudes transmitted from previous generations, and which was shoved
aside by liberalism because it had no articulated principles to pose
against liberalism's articulated principles, we restorationists must
act on the basis of conscious and articulated principles. We must know
what we are doing.
The anti-culture won because the American culture stopped believing in
itself and asserting itself. If it started asserting itself again, if
traditionalism became active in relation to the prevailing liberalism
instead of passive and reactive, everything would be different. The key
to saving our culture is this change of direction.
- end of initial entry -
Tom S. writes:
The ultimate irony of LaZella's position is that, if Christianity is
ever demoralized and demoted as she wishes it to be, that will mean
that conservative Christians in the U.S. have lost-which will mean
that Israel, and the Jewish people, are doomed. Never has liberalism as
death wish been so clearly put forth. Every Jew should want a strong,
believing, traditional Christian America, because only this kind of
America will provide a haven of freedom for the Jews, and a strong ally
for Israel. It was that terrible, repressive "Christian" 1940s and
1950s America that helped establish Israel, welcomed many Holocaust
survivors, produced the freest and safest environment that Jews had
ever known. It's in modern, "liberal" multi-culti America where
anti-Semitism is on the rise, where Muslims attack Jews on campus,
where ex-Presidents compare Israel's situation with the Palestinians
to South African apartheit. La Zella's love of liberalism is
obviously stronger that her love of her people. Whatever happened to
"Is it good for the Jews?"
LA replies:
VFR's analysis of liberalism provides the answer to your question:
Jews (including Israelis) dropped their unprincipled exception to
liberalism, under which they had cared about their own ethnic
peoplehood, which is not a liberal idea, and became consistent in their
liberalism, and thus suicidal.
Jason writes from New Jersey:
Merry Christmas Mr. Auster.
I say that to everyone, even though I work for a major company and I am
Jewish. If someone wishes me a Merry Christmas, the last thing I would
ever do is correct them. I simply say thank you and wish them one back.
I send a Christmas card to the ACLU each year that says the following:
"Merry Christmas ACLU from a Conservative Republican Jew who is not
the least bit offended by Christmas, in fact the only thing that does
offend me of late is the ACLU."
If this wonderful Kapo of my faith and people really wants to defend
us. he should speak out about an entire faith of billions of people
whose holy book mentions very specifically how they want to kill us. I
thank G-D each and every day I live in a predominantly Christian
country.
Anyway, have a great Christmas.
James N. writes, under the subject line "A contrary thought about
Elizabeth LaZella":
An incident in fifth grade (1961) made a huge impression on me. Our
class was doing the Nativity Story as the school Christmas play. A boy
named Michael W. was cast as one of the kings.
His mother, being Jewish, asked the teacher if he could have a part
that did not involve kneeling at the creche. The teacher said. "He
kneels at the creche, or he's out of the show".
This was, I think, unreasonable in a public school.
There is a distinction to be made, an important one, between
permitting, or even facilitating, the Christian majority's free
exercise right (now almost totally obliterated by Everson and Lemon's
***** children)-and the oppressive exercise of political and
government power in a way that makes a religious minority (and I really
mean Jews, here) feel compelled to celebrate Christian festivals.
Merry Christmas!
LA replies:
That's not contrary to anything I've said. I agree with James.
Mark P. writes:
What Jews like LaZella don't understand is that liberalism reduces
all religion to a purely private matter, an act of personal
consolation, a bunch of colorful nonsense designed to make stupid
people feel good. This, of course, contradicts the daily experience of
billions of people and history, but liberals are foolish this way.
Thus, they honestly think that religion is not important in the conduct
of daily life.
Unfortunately for the Jews, the liberal view of religion is inherently
anti-Semitic because if true, the Jews have been lying to the world for
3,000 years and have worked, and continue to work, a monstrous fraud
upon the world by insisting on a distinct identity. The Jewish claim to
possess, for example, nationhood despite being scattered to the four
corners of the earth, which is the basis of the legitimacy of Zionism,
only makes sense if one accepts religion as a valid part of what
constitutes national identity (thank you, Robert Locke, for this
insight.) Since liberalism cannot accept religion as a valid part of
national identity because they treat adherence to it as silly, they
cannot logically accept a nation like Israel. To them, it would be like
accepting the "search for national identity" among lovers of
vanilla ice cream. Furthermore, this non-acceptance of Israel will also
translate to a complete non-acceptance of any Jewish "vanguard"
attempting to deconstruct the United States.
What's truly amazing is how Jews don't seem to understand this, yet
it is understandable why. The Jews are essentially a weak people and,
like all weak people, they seek general rules and principles that are
capable of keeping them out of the gas chamber. Nuance and the drawing
of distinctions, even fair ones, are for the strong, and the Jews have
never really been strong. Unfortunately, no one can predict how general
principles will morph. A principle may operate perfectly for a while
until someone derives a new conclusion from it, creating altogether
different results. This is how the Jews have ceased to be
politically-correct in barely ten short years.
Of course, there are Jews like Allan Dershowitz that are deeply alarmed
by what is going on. Unfortunately, they think they are battling the
"old" anti-Semitism like the blood libel, the Crucifixion, or their
grandfathers not getting into country clubs or Yale. The new
anti-semitism is squarely grounded in the secular religion of
liberalism to which Jews like Dershowitz are deeply commited. Unless
Jews initiate a radical realignment away from liberalism, they will not
survive the 21st century.
LA replies:
My understanding is that the Zionist movement was not based on religion
or the Bible at all, but purely on the fact that the Jews were a
historically existing people who had historically lived on that land.
True, the Jews came into existence as a people because of religion, but
I don't think that that was emphasized in Zionism.
However, I have found this point to be hopelessly confused when talking
to Jews about it. Every self-identified Jews I have spoken to about
Jewishness insists that a common ethnicity/race has nothing to do with
Jewishness, but that Jewishness is purely a matter of religion. (Once,
after a long, long discussion, I finally got a Jewish friend to admit
that a common ethnicity had something to do with Jewishness.) But if
Jewishness is purely a matter of religion, what happens to the
non-religious nature of Zionism? I don't know the answer. It may be
that American Jews have a very different take on this from Israeli
Jews.
Ben writes:
Your whole analysis of her words and why this is happening is why I
love VFR, it's not just sitting around hand wringing throwing your
hands up in the air and saying "I just can't understand this!"
It's explaining why it happened and gives ways how to reverse it.
Good work and Merry Christmas.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 22, 2006 11:58 PM
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Jews do not give a ***** for Americans or the Christianity |
30 Dec 2006 03:57:35 PM |
|
|
The only thing Jews believe in is power over others and money, that is
all. If America did not have cash, there would be no love lost between
Jews and America. Ask yourself, how come Jews do not make friends with
Malawi! No cash, no gold, no oil, that is why
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
