Posted on 01/27/2004 10:48:39 AM PST by Zionist Conspirator
I recently discovered a Scottish nationalist web site with an interesting and refreshingly honest statement on its religious position. It was so refreshingly honest that it has given me new insight as to why I, as a rural heartland Anglo-American from a Fundamentalist Protestant background, am denied any ethnic identity but am forced to be the world’s only human abstraction.
(Excerpt) Read more at redneck_rastafarian.tripod.com ...
This is my response to said article and to all who hold its philosophy, openly or otherwise.
BTW, either respond seriously or don't respond at all. Thank you.
...
Most of the anti-Semitism I encounter nowadays comes from leftists or Muslims (who tend to be notoriously anti-American), so I'm not really agreeing with this. It's possible I'm missing something, but...
Actually, that statement was pretty logical, if not a bit loaded. This might be a broader way of putting it: If there is a God and a Law that proceeds from such, then any logical worldview must be based on the reality of the True God and submission to His Law.
The English, of course, are not alone in thinking along such lines. The revolutionary Breton is a traitor to France; the Basque freedom fighter is a terrorist traitor to Spain; and two thousand years ago any Jew who did not accept the Roman law was a traitor to Rome. Yet today any Palestinian who fights the Jews is a traitor to Israel. It's a wonderful world!
Our actions, in contrast with some of Britain’s border-line fascist activities in numerous corners of the globe, would have the justifiable weight, as in Zimbabwe, that the colonialists had no right, either culturally or legally, to the land in the first place. One of the most startling dichotomies in relation to reporting of fascist colonial oppression lies with the establishment and expansion of the state of Israel. When was the last time Israeli troops were accused of using Nazi-style tactics by the British press?
Well, I'm not quite sure exactly how I'm supposed to respond seriously to your article. For one thing, it's totally incoherent. The ability to express thoughts as a complete whole is highly overrated, and this article is a perfect example. Occasionally, there were gems here and there that would stand out well on their own, but taken as a whole, I could barely figure out what the h*ll the article was saying.
Nevertheless, here are my two cents. (And feel free to correct me if I misunderstood something, as I often do.) The condemnation of the Right (which I assume refers to those who embrace the sort of nationalism of European patriots and American paleoconservatives) as anti-Semitic makes absolutely no sense whatsoever nowadays. The most anti-Semitic people today are a) academic Leftists, and b) Muslim fundamentalists. Neither one of them has much in common with Western Nationalists. In fact, us "paleoconservative" Euro-American nationalists that the article loves to condemn are probably some of the most vocal non-Jewish pro-Zionist people around.
And I can't quite grasp whether the opposition to Euro-American Nationalism is because it promotes anti-Semitism (which it does not, as I have already stated) or because it is based on Christianity (as opposed to Judaism) or what. In any event, I should point out that most Christianized countries no longer have official ties with any church. The Christophobia in this article is quite interesting, to say the least. And truth be told, I almost have to wonder whether the author is a Protestant Fundamentalist or an Orthodox Jew, but I assume the latter. (Or, as a third option, a Jew who was raised Protestant Fundamentalist; never mind that a Protestant Fundamentalist converting to Judaism is at least slightly peculiar in and of itself.)
My head hurts. Blah. Anyway, once again, feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood anything, but what I could make out of the article, frankly, annoyed me.
Oh. Somehow, I didn't pick that up initially.
Where to begin, where to begin?
Apparently you are laboring under the unfortunate misapprehension that I am a Jew who doesn't realize that non-Jewish Biblical Fundamentalists of European descent are the closest allies Jews have in the world, and who doesn't realize that the Left is the Jews' greatest enemy. Wrong. First of all, I a non-Jewish Biblical Fundamentalist of European descent. I'm a redneck. I'm a good ol' boy. I'm a bubba. And some of the most painful memories of my life have been liberal Jewish bigots on the Donahue show and elsewhere screaming to high heaven about "the chr*stian right" while Communist Arabs and moslems were murdering Jews in the Holy Land. Indeed, were you to go to my web site you would see just how frequently I express my frustration and bitterness at Jews (not all of them liberals) who apparently have never read the Book of Joshua and who think their job in this world is to be harmless little pacifist fuzzballs constantly invoking the Bill of Rights and sounding like secular humanists when they should be militantly working to bring about the Kingdom of G-d.
Now, I am aware that outside the small target audience of my posts on this subject, they perhaps seem like merely clumsy swipes at all rightwing "nationalists" of European descent. However, the audience they were aimed at (despite how smugly they may play ignorant) know exactly what I was saying, and that satisfies me. For the rest of you, I can only apologize and assure you that you have misinterpreted the posts as attacks on you when they were in fact attacks on something very different.
I have been a Biblical Fundamentalist all my life. I am one now. I will be one when I die. And in my middle aged life I have learned some very painful lessons, one of the most painful of which is that not all "rightwingers" are Biblical Fundamentalists. And the article I posted and which I responded to in another post elucidated the non-Fundamentalist "rightwing nationalist" philosophy more openly and more honestly than I have ever seen it. That philosophy states that "religion" is the creation of man, than each "unique culture" creates its own "spirituality" in its own unique image. Now maybe to you this sounds quite benign. But to a Biblical Fundamentalist this philosophy is even more dangerous than atheist Communism (which at least does not disguise its atheism and its attacks on morality). The whole point of opposing Communism is that it defies G-d. If there were no G-d to defy--if our morality is merely the man-created expression of our various racial "folk-souls"--then there is no reason to oppose Communism. Communism would be just one more thing out there no more legitimate or illegitimate than anything else. Now I realize most people on this forum oppose Communism because it is "tyrannical" or "oppresses freedom" or has committed countless crimes. I am opposed to it for only one reason: it denies and defies G-d. If there were no G-d Communism would be guilty of no crimes at all, because in order for the concept of crime, of right and wrong, to exist at all, there must be a Creator to decree just what fits into each category. This horrifies most people who foolishly pretend to believe that objective right and wrong exist independently of a Creator G-d, but it is the simplest truth in the world. Communism is wrong because it has committed numberless acts that G-d has declared to be crimes, because it opposes His moral laws. Is there anything more wrong than this? Yes, I can think of one.
That thing is to endorse traditional morality, not because it is the law of G-d, but because "millions of years of trial and error" or of "human evolution" have taught man what "works" and what "doesn't." The article I was responding to said in black and white that G-d is a human creation (chas vechalilah!), that the various religious traditions are all equally valid expressions of the "spirits" of the various ethnocultures of the world. It is this philosophy which is so much more dangerous than atheistic Communism because it patronizingly poses as the "friend" of religion and morality. I'm sorry if this offends you, but I find this philosophy positively horrifying.
I stated several times in my own article that the original to which I was responding was not itself anti-Semitic or anti-Israel at all. However, it is my honest belief that this philosophy of theirs is what many anti-Semitic rightwingers actually believe and why they so oppose Jewish nationalism. They recognize that the Jews and their Objective G-d Who exists outside of the universe is the ultimate threat to the concept of "spirituality" which supposedly emerges from the "blood and soil" of ethnocultures. Why else do so many "rightwingers" scream bloody murder about "Jewish chauvinism" when they advocate chauvinism themselves? Because Jewish chauvinism, based on their election by the Objective Creator G-d threatens the subjectivism that would allow other nations to create false, subjective hierarchies with themselves at the top. Why do the advocates of "rootedness" and "attachment to place" have such a hatred of Jewish connections to the Holy Land? Simply because the Jewish roots extend beyond this world to Something outside it which no human being has created, and which threatens the imaginary, subjective religions and beings that the nations have created from their own imaginations. Much of the "internationalist/nationalist" dichotomy promoted by these people and groups is in fact a code for the dichotomy between the objective (Israel) and the subjective (the nations). And yes, I most definitely believe that a great deal of the breast-beaters for "chr*stian civilization" privately subscribe to this philosophy, otherwise they'd be invoking G-d instead of anyone's "civilization," which doesn't have the authority to propogate any moral code to begin with.
I am painfully aware that G-d has become so unimportant to most people that He is no longer the point that divides enemies. Nowadays "believers" make alliances with unbelievers on both sides of the spectrum based on other factors. But in reality there is no other factor than HaShem (Blessed be His Name) because only HaShem actually exists. Yes, I'm a religious fanatic--which simply means that I take religion to its logical conclusion (and why don't all religious people do the same?) The members on the forum are not united by belief in G-d. Many, perhaps most do believe in Him, but others do not (some are even quite nasty in their scorn of us believers). In an ideal world the division would be between those who acknowledge G-d on one side and everyone who does not (whether Communist or anti-Communist or any thing else) on the other. But instead John Brown is regardes as a leftist because, though he was a Fundamentalist Calvinist, he was an abolitionist. Meanwhile the late, unlamented atheist madman Revilo P. Oliver (mach shemo), who ridiculed religious believers and the notion that man has a soul, who endorsed the teaching of Darwinism in the public schools, and who even ridiculed the idea that objective good and evil existed at all, is regarded as a "rightwing extremist" because he considered Communism a Jewish plot against the "aryan race."
I am not an ally or even a quasi-ally of any non-Theist on any issue. I reject the "traditional morality" of open or concealed atheists just as I reject the "Zionism" of atheists like Abe Foxman and Alan Dershowitz. To me all non-Theists are comrades united in a single cause. And it is G-d and not anything else that constitutes the division between "us" and "them." And unfortunately, from my perspective, there are many, many people on this forum who are "them" (and even a few confused people on the Left who are with "us").
So unless you are defending the theory that each race creates its own "gxd" in its own image the two posts are not aimed at you at all. If you do defend this then it is aimed at you and you may ridicule me all you want and I will not retract a single word. If you simply misunderstood my article then I apologize. If you understood it and attacked it anyway, then to h*ll with you, and I only hope to continue to bring you more pain over the course of my life.
The people on this forum (and they know who they are) at whom it was aimed, as well as their comrades at "Liberty Fourm" and "Original Dissent," know exactly what I meant however much they pretend not to and however much scorn they pour on me and my fellows. I don't expect any acknowledgement from them when I have landed a blow. I am satisfied that both I and they know what this issue is about.
Again, if you misunderstood my article, my apologies. If not, then my response is basically "get bent."
Apparently, I did misunderstand the article. From now on, I resolve to quit responding to unknowns. My apologies, and thank you for the clarification.
Make that, "except to request clarification."
Your supplement made sense, and I understand it, although I would dissent at a couple of points, which I shall address via FReepmail.
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.