Halfheartedness has no place in anti-Zionism

Mallory has good intentions, but also much to learn:

https://news.yahoo.com/women-march-leader-refuses-acknowledge-163106176.html

Embattled Women’s March co-chairwoman Tamika Mallory refused to acknowledge the state of Israel’s right to exist during a recent interview on PBS’s The Firing Line and seemed to suggest that, unlike Palestinians, Israelis were not “native” to the region.

Mallory, who has been forced in recent days to confront questions about her association with notorious anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan, acknowledged during the interview that “all people have the right to exist” but would not address the legitimacy of the Israeli state.

No, Mallory, not all people have the “right” to exist. Tribalists especially do not. And that includes Jews. The moment you let the enemy force you into saying “all people have the right to exist”, you have already lost the debate.

“I’m not Jewish, so for me to speak to that is not fair . . . because I’m speaking of the people who we know are being brutally oppressed at this moment,” Mallory told PBS’s Margaret Hoover. “Everyone has a right to exist. . . . I just don’t feel that everyone has a right to exist at the disposal of another group.”

Firstly, you emphatically do not have to be Jewish yourself in order to be able to speak authoritatively about Jews. On the absolute contrary, Jews are the least qualified to speak authoritatively about Jews, in the same way that in a criminal trial the defendant is the least qualified to give authoritative testimony about himself. This is so obvious that I regret I must embarrass you by having to spell it out, but it is my duty to do so.

Secondly, your last sentence is very good. But do you understand that your own last sentence logically invalidates the preceding sentence? If you disagree that everyone has the “right” to exist at the disposal of another group, then you are in effect admitting (admirably!) that those who oppress others do not deserve to exist. So why not say so outright? By failing to make a clear statement on the issue, you are revealing your capacity to be intimidated by those whom you yourself believe do not deserve to exist. But if you can be intimidated by them, how can you be counted on to contribute to ending their existence once and for all?

“I believe that all people have the right to exist. And that Palestinians are also suffering with a great crisis. And that there are other Jewish scholars who will sit here and say the same,” she added. “I’m done talking about this, you can move on.”

Yes, Palestinians are suffering. So how can you yet sit there and say that those causing their suffering have the “right” to exist? Do you realize how cowardly you sound?

And who cares what Jewish scholars have to say about it? If no Jewish scholars endorse us, do we pack up and give up? Since when was Jewish scholarly endorsement a prerequisite for us to be….. ANTI-ZIONISTS FFS?

And no, Mallory, you are not done talking about this, and no, they will not move on. They are going to keep calling you “anti-Semitic” for the rest of your life no matter how much you grovel and apologize and try to make your position sound moderate and unthreatening. So you might as well take the full plunge. I promise that the more strongly you come out against Jews, the greater the loyalty you will inspire in your followers.

“I didn’t call him the greatest of all time because of his rhetoric. I called him the greatest of all time because of what he’s done in black communities,” Mallory said Monday when asked about a February social-media post in which she labeled Farrakhan the “GOAT.”

Farrakhan, despite a heavily flawed understanding of Judaism, has managed to gain fanatically loyal followers because he at least does not compromise rhetorically in his hostility towards Jews. If you respect him, as you claim to, then learn from his attitude!

The fact is that leftist hostility towards Jews is getting under our enemies’ skin in a way they are not accustomed to handling, so all we need for now is to keep turning up the heat:

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13593/womens-march-antisemitism

The painful difference is that anti-Semitism is more tolerated on the hard left than other forms of racism. Moreover, anti-Semitism can mask itself as anti-Zionism — singling out only the nation state of the Jewish people for unique opprobrium, an act which is itself a form of bigotry, although one that is acceptable on the hard left. Consider the front page story in the New York Times Sunday Review, which singled out the Palestinian issue as “one of the great moral challenges of our time” — ignoring Syria, Ukraine, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Chechnya, Tibet, Cyprus and many far greater moral challenges, which are largely ignored by the hard left. The Palestinian issue receives center stage on the hard left, not because of how the Palestinians have been treated — they did, after all, reject offers of statehood and the end of the occupation on numerous occasions — but because of who is allegedly oppressing them: namely the nation state of the Jewish people.

We do not “single out Jews”. We single out only those who first chose to single out themselves. It’s funny that Dershowitz would conspicuously omit any mention of Myanmar, a case which everyone knows that leftists do care about, despite the oppressors of the Rohingya being non-Jewish.

There must be zero tolerance for anti-Semitism by the left and right alike, just as there must be zero tolerance for other forms of bigotry. Everyone must pass “the shoe on the other foot test.” If you would not march with leaders who declared David Duke to be “the Greatest of All Time” so, too, you must not march with leaders who declare Farrakhan to be “the GOAT.”

Farrakhan is far more dangerous than Duke precisely because his anti-Semitism is given a pass not only by the hard left, but also by several African American members of Congress and even two former presidents. Would President Clinton have remained at a memorial service if one of those on the stage had been David Duke? Of course not. He would have marched out in protest. Yet he remained on the stage at Aretha Franklin’s memorial service, sitting only a couple of seats away from Farrakhan, a man who believes he can have a successful career founded on racism, slander and hate. Years earlier, former President Barack Obama posed with Farrakhan and participated in his Million Man March. Would he have done those things with white bigots?

Clinton and Obama (who welcomed Farrakhan) would indeed not have welcomed Duke at their events, and for a perfectly good reason (which I have been repeating for several posts now): “whiteness” was invented by “whites” for themselves; “blackness” was not invented by “blacks” for themselves, but was invented by “whites” and imposed on “blacks”.

And Jewishness was, of course, invented by Jews for themselves. Thus it is Benjamin Netanyahu (and Aung San Suu Kyi), not Louis Farrakhan, who are comparable to David Duke. I repeat: we single out only those who first chose to single out themselves. This is not racism but anti-racism, not bigotry but anti-bigotry. And the longer Dershowitz and other Jews pretend not to understand this simple truth (when in fact they understand it better than anyone), the more despicable they reveal themselves to be, and consequently the more hostility to Jews will increase among leftists.

All who chose to single out themselves do not deserve to exist, and it is our duty to say this explicitly. Got that, Mallory?

This entry was posted in Aryan Sanctuary. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Halfheartedness has no place in anti-Zionism

  1. ItIsWhatItIs says:

    “Moral principles DO NOT depend on a majority vote. Wrong IS WRONG, even EVERYBODY is wrong. Right is right even if nobody is right.” — Venerable Fulton J. Sheen

    I’m noticing logical and moral absolutes such as the one above really make westerners squeamish. I suspect perhaps it is because if they accept them and still wish to consider themselves good people they’d have to stop being so wishy-washy and cowardly when it comes to truth, morals, and ethics?

    The truth IS NOT relative, neither are moral principles!!! If you believe they are, then take a good look in the mirror because your mind has already been Jewified, and you are on the same team as the oppressor of life on this planet!

    For those of you who read this and like to believe that you believe in God, let me ask you this, is your GOD not an absolute? If your God is not an absolute, you might want to do even more soul-searching in front of a mirror, before it’s too late for you. Think about it….

    Jews believe in censorship more than anybody else,(Hasn’t stopped them from promoting western democracy around the globe, for all those that think ‘free-speech’ and democracy go hand-in-hand.) all you gotta do is start talking about Jews and you’ll find all the papers will close up on you. They can’t take it, they can’t take any criticism, they’re the most sensitive white people on this earth. They don’t like you to talk about them, but they wanna talk about everybody else.” — Malcolm X

    “Firstly, you emphatically do not have to be Jewish yourself in order to be able to speak authoritatively about Jews. On the absolute contrary, Jews are the least qualified to speak authoritatively about Jews, in the same way that in a criminal trial the defendant is the least qualified to give authoritative testimony about himself. This is so obvious that I regret I must embarrass you by having to spell it out, but it is my duty to do so.”

  2. ItIsWhatItIs says:

    I’m surprised western states, and western styled states, have held together as long as they have!

  3. Manuel Bauer says:

    I read that the commander of armed forces of Myanmar is in the hands of Min Aung Hlaing, the Commander-in-Chief of Defence Services of Myanmar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Min_Aung_Hlaing Do you think he is involved like Aung San Suu Kyi?

  4. Manuel Bauer says:

    Also, may I ask about your opinion on Than Shwe, the former Commander-in-Chief of Myanmar, and Thein Sein, the former President of Myanmar?

  5. Manuel Bauer says:

    Last, I read that Aung San Suu Kyi is the daughter of Aung San, the Burma independence activist. What’s your opinion on him?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>