Posted on 04/15/2021 10:19:41 AM PDT by inpajamas
International Jews and terrorist Jews: While separating the two under different headers, Churchill sees these two groups as of one mind. Both pose the same diabolical threat in that they embrace Marxist ideologies. …Such people are no more “Jews” than “Christians” who embrace the evil of Marxism are Christian.
“Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism.”
— Lenin, “Religion”, Introduction
*Good article ping*
We just might be looking at JINOs and CHRINOs, then?
agreed, that is entirely correct.
the term “Jews” can encompass a wide spectrum but atheism and especially atheistic materialism lacking any genuine moral basis ... is not Jewish. It is in opposition to Judaism (and Christianity).
In pre-WWII Europe there were Zionists and “Bundists” who abhorred the idea of a Jewish State, because they felt it took away from their real goal of a worldwide Socialist Revolution, and they wanted nothing to do with the Zionists.
That’s a theme that’s all through the Bible, in fact.
The General Jewish Labor Bund may have appropriated the name “Jewish”, but they were anything but, even calling traditional Jewish life “reactionary” and thus labeling it bourgeoisie. Descent from the tribe of Judah is one thing, but without Biblical morals and instead embracing dialectical materialism it’s an utter rejection of one’s heritage.
A lot of them did migrate to this country. That explains why there are a lot of Jews here that couldn’t care less about Israel.
Gets down to that self-identification thingy.
How many Christians in name only do we have that are really raging Marxists? No shortage of them in politics; the current usurper is certainly one, never mind Pelosi and others like those two; and of course the Bushes who are nominally Methodist.
Happening today, at least last week. Randi Weingarten Tells Jews Not to Criticize Teachers’ Unions: ‘American Jews Are Now Part of the Ownership Class’ You'll find the term "ownership class" in early Marxist writings, it's the bourgeoisie. Bourgeoisie and petit bourgeoise has a better ring to it.
I'm sure in Churchill's mind "Terrorist Jews" included those in Palestine fighting for independence. Understandable for a Brit.
Agreed. Beautiful visions of future utopian states are one thing. Working to help create them are a second thing, and can be understood as desirable and even mandated behavior. But all conduct must still be informed by the core Jewish or hydro-christian moral code. Absent such guidance, the chances of “jumping the shark” or “going off the rails” and causing great harms to society and individuals — are manifest. See for instance communism, most manifestations of socialism, today’s DNC “progressivists”, and so forth. It would be far far better for the world if such misguided, amoral “do-holders” would just stay home and watch reruns of Peter Paul and Mary concerts on the boob toob. Far better.
Correct
Why would you assume Churchill thought that? Lots of Marxist terrorists in there that called themselves “Jewish” but were actually fighting to turn Israel into a socialist state that would persecute religious Jews for being Jewish.
I’ve had to face up to Churchill not being wrong about Irish terrorists, besides, in spite of what I was taught in Irish schools about some of whom they regard as heroes for independence.
There were marxist amongst the Irgun and particularly Lehi but I wouldn’t call either a marxist organization. Brits considered them, and others committing violent acts against the Mandatory government terrorists. I assume Churchill would take the same position. I don’t consider the King David bombing a terrorist act given the prior warning, but particularly because it housed British military headquarters and Mandatory headquarters. I don’t know if he used the term terrorist, but he was highly critical. As I’d expect of a brit. Of course the term terrorist has a somewhat different meaning today, focusing more on attacks against civilians/non military targets than government assets. I’m not criticizing Churchill for it.
That is correct.
Lehi may not have been specifically Marxist, but they were hard left.
Chamberlain’s White Paper was a disaster, publicly repudiating the Balfour Declaration and appeasing the Arabs with the appearance of British weakness.
That’s it exactly!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.