Saturday, 19 July 2014

The pro-"Palestinian" demonstrations in France, which have featured some argy-bargy with local Jews, have provoked some unusual public soul-searching about the consequences of diversity among those of the Hebraic persuasion. There is now open talk of leaving France.
Already the Jewish populations, those who can, have folded in on themselves in the safest districts. Jewish children have deserted, en masse, public schools that are incapable of assuring their protection. Jewish students avoid certain universities. A Jewish element on a CV is often fatal. The Jewish schools themselves and the synagogues have become bunkers. Jews have been gradually pushed out of a space that is no longer "public" but fragmented under the effect of "diversity". ...What is going to be the impact of this event on the Jews of France? It could play the role that facts of this type have fulfilled in the past for Jews in the Arab world: a very powerful symbolic event (a riot, assassination, etc.) which gives the signal to leave by making it clear to Jews that they no longer have a future in the country that was theirs.
Source: Timesofisrael
Many "bien-pensants" accept that antisemitism should be denounced, as long as it comes from the far right. Now all the murderous attacks committed in France in the last few decades have been committed either by Islamists or terrorists who had come from the Middle East. 
Those who are killing the Jews today in Europe – Islamists like Mohammed Merah or Mehdi Nemmouche –, those who are mistreating Jewish children in the schools of the Republic, attack Jews in public transport or in the street because they are wearing a kippa, throw Molotov cocktails against synagogues, are not acting on the orders of a state or an organisation: they are doing it on their own initiative, driven by the anti-Jewish hatred that has been instilled into them. 
... 
If we consider history from the logical point of view, the future in France is bleak for the Jews, caught in a pincer movement between a growing Muslim population among whom antisemitism is increasing and a far right that is gaining in influence because of the economic crisis and among whom antisemitism is always present among a number of its members and in the very depths of its ideology. 
... 
France is not racist, or not more and certainly less than other nations. French people salute the virtues of race-mixing (m├ętissage), the bloods that mingle, the renewal it brings, cultures rubbing together, the energy that develops from that, but they want it to be done on the basis of common values. These values are respect for the country you settle in, respect for women, traditions, a discreet way of practising your religion, and, above all, tolerance. ...If real measures are not taken, it is clear that the Jews who can leave France will do so; a certain number have already done it. Better to leave than live in fear and shame.
Source: Le Monde

Finally it dawns on the Jews that diversity is going to be catastrophic for them, that the guilt spells don't work on brown people like they do on Europeans. Note there is still no acknowledgement of Jewish responsibility for what is happening through their relentless promotion of "diversity" as a moral ideal and shameless playing of the Hitler card against any European who tried to dissent. The second author, Arno Klarsfeld, can't even let go of his attachment to multicultural mania even as he contemplates its awful consequences.

Both Jewish authors contemplate the possibility of leaving France in response to Muslim colonisation. But could a French person contemplate leaving his own country in response to foreign colonisation? Could the French say, "Oh, things look bad with these Muslims, let's just hand over the keys to them and move somewhere else!" Of course not. The idea is ridiculous. People who are truly part of a nation have an unbounded commitment to it. They know that they will inevitably share its fate one way or the other. But Jews do not have that. Jews know they can always move on somewhere else.

Judaism is essentially an ideology of separateness that contemplates temporary residence in other people's countries while resolutely maintaining genetic and cultural segregation from them, a practice the Jews call "sojourning". And this sense that you can always move on somewhere else undoubtedly shapes their outlook on the world and on politics. You are likely to be much more cautious about embracing proposals for radical political change when you know you and your descendants will inevitably have to live with their consequences. Unquestionably, this sense of always having an option to "move on" somewhere else has influenced the Jews' eager embrace of Communism and multiculturalism. And that on its own is sufficient grounds for us to be suspicious, even "prejudiced", against these aliens who "sojourn" among us while stridently demanding that our countries be radically remodelled to their own utopic, experimental designs and tell us we're evil if we don't enthusiastically agree.

2 comments:

  1. Given the Jewish historical propensity for exaggeration and obfuscation, and a deliberately distorted picture of supposed persecution against them (whilst ignoring the ideological grounds for their own negative, parasitic and destructive conduct), perhaps one should query the extent of this 'flight' from the West by Jews. Also, it is in the interests of some Jewish organisations and groups (the 'counterjihad' amongst them) to create an impression of a people threatened, under siege and on track for becoming 'victims' "once again." There is an element in this of thinly-veiled hatred of the Christian West; it has always been noticeable that the largely Jewish-administered 'counter-jihad' has never ceased reminding its readers of what one commenter (at GoV) called the "disease of the mind and soul" {anti-semitism}: this is a favourite premise because it deftly prevents any concrete discussion of Judaic ideology (especially from the Talmud), demeans the Christian basis of the West and yet seeks to arouse the Christian West to 'defend' the Jews (who are amongst the main proponents of so much of the attitudes, mores and legislative constructs which are leading to the West's dissolution).

    ReplyDelete
  2. There's another side to this: in order to keep a group/people/tribe together, one must stoke the fires of emotional fears every so often, and it often emanates from leaders (in the community directly or indirectly as media, politicians etc) who reap financial benefits from their position in this 'community.' And some of the most blatant examples of 'persecution' appear to have been mass suicides (as in York) where Jews, due to their Talmudic practice of usury over non-Jews had become the King's protected favourites whilst inflicting huge financial burdens on the nobility and lower classes and taking over their properties (which the Jews required as collateral for their loans at huge interest rates). This created a volatile situation and it seems Jewish leaders in York encouraged their people to kill themselves en masse to avoid supposed forced conversion (more likely, the loss of their protected status and property title holdings). Yet this incident is always held up as an example of the 'mental disorder' of 'anti-semitism' rather than of self-inflicted mass hysteria (also, the Torah demands the death by the family, and by the Jewish community, of anyone who seeks to encourage Jews to leave the group ideology.

    ReplyDelete