web analytics
July 30, 2016 / 24 Tammuz, 5776

Posts Tagged ‘values’

Suicide as a Jewish Value

Tuesday, August 7th, 2012

http://sultanknish.blogspot.co.il/2012/08/suicide-as-jewish-value.html

A month ago, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz sat down with the host of a Jewish television channel and could not name any reason for Jews to vote for Obama except for his support for abortion. Which is to say that the favorite muppet of the Democratic Party could not think of any reason to support B.O. except a mutual commitment that fewer Jews be born.

It is a little-known fact that Margaret Sanger, that pioneer of eugenic solutions to “racial, political, and social problems,” began by targeting Jews, opening her first center in Brownsville, Brooklyn, complete with Yiddish and Italian flyers, aiming for the two immigrant groups whose high reproduction rates were considered a social problem.

Abortion as a Liberal Jewish value has been a stunning success. In New York City, where Sanger first set up shop, 74 percent of all Jewish children are members of the traditionalist Orthodox religious group. Liberal Jews are already panicking over the prospect of a future Jewish population in New York City that is staunchly conservative and religious.

A recent survey of New York City Jews also shows a nearly even split between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. 46 percent of New York Jews are planning to vote against Obama, and a majority of New York City Jews think that Romney would be better at fixing the economy than B.O. But it is only to be expected that the group for whom abortion isn’t a Jewish value would come to outnumber the group for whom abortion is a Jewish value.

The problem with values is that you have to live with their consequences. When your values dictate that terrorists deserve all the protections of the civilian justice system, then you have to be ready to live with the explosions. If your values dictate minimal population growth, then you have to accept the consequences of extinction. Values that are contrary to survival carry their own natural cost. And when your values are at odds with your interests, then your values might as well be an open window, a loaded revolver or a dose of strychnine.

Liberal Jews like to talk about Jewish values rather than Jewish interests, because their values are incompatible with Jewish interests– even as a matter of simple survival. The usual liberal grab bag of values that are represented by the Jewish hand puppets of liberalism, like Wasserman-Schultz, aren’t just alien, they threaten the basic survival of the Jewish People.

When asked to justify what interests the Democratic Party and American Jews have in common, the Jewish liberal dives into a copy of the New York Times and comes up with illegal immigration, abortion, gay rights and support for peace in the Middle East.

That list of Liberal Jewish values not only fails to align with a single Jewish interest, but each of them threatens Jewish interests… that is if survival is to be considered a Jewish interest.

Peace in the Middle East means aborting Israel, dissecting it into small pieces and repeating the process until there is no country left. It’s another case of liberal Jews trying to do to Israel what they have already done to themselves. To believe that pressuring Israel into making a non-stop roll of concessions to Muslim terrorists is a Jewish value is to believe that suicide is a Jewish value.

Illegal immigration, a cause that virtually every major Jewish organization has signed on to, means the mass migration of Mexicans to the United States. The ADL’s own survey shows that nearly half of foreign-born Latinos rate as strongly Anti-Semitic, over three times the rate of white Americans. (Bad news for the glorious civil rights alliance; the ADL’s strongly antisemitic ratings are 12 percent for white Americans, 35 percent for African-Americans and 44 percent for foreign-born Latinos.) The only way to make sense of this is that Liberal Jewish groups believe that increasing Anti-Semitism in America is actually a Jewish value.

But liberals of all creeds need more Mexican illegal aliens and immigrants from all across the Third World to compensate for the good work of Sanger. Liberal Christians fear the reproduction rates of Conservative Christians as Liberal Jews fear the reproduction rates of Orthodox Jews. The only way out of the demographic race is to import “ringers” who will have the children that they won’t. The new eugenics is political eugenics. Birth control is no longer for the people that Sanger considered the “unfit”, they’re valued now for their reproductive rates which help the “fit” stay in power.

Daniel Greenfield

Islam’s Threat to Diversity

Tuesday, July 17th, 2012

Egyptian identity, like so many others made up of several layers, begins in Ancient Egypt, a civilization that flourished for nearly thirty centuries. Further layers derive from the Coptic Age, when Egypt in its entirety was an Eastern Christian society. Then there are countless layers from the Islamic and Arabic-speaking Egypt. There are still more layers deriving from modern Egypt, the founder of which, Mohamed Ali, ruled from 1805 to 1848, and whose kingdom continued for over a century after his death.

Finally, there are the many layers produced by Egypt’s geographical location as a Mediterranean society, more specifically, as an Eastern Mediterranean country with its opulent diverseness from trade.

This complex construct, which formed over millennia the rich and multi-layered Egyptian identity – a product of fruitful interaction and cross-fertilization among different civilizations and cultures – is today in grave peril, facing as it does systematic and deliberate attempts to destroy its very essence as represented in the many layers that make up its variegated character.

It is these layers that distinguish Egyptian society from various surrounding societies which seem to have a less-developed civilizational and cultural formation as a result of their one-dimensional composition.

The trend of political Islam is exulting as it stands poised to take over the reins of power in Egypt. However, the domination by this trend over the country’s political and cultural landscape poses a real danger to the multi-layered nature of the Egyptian people.

Because of the grip the conservative schools of thought have acquired over the minds of most Muslims today — with the rampant spread of the ideas of ibn-Hanbal and his disciples, ibn-Taymiyah, ibn Qaiym Al-Juzeya and all the Salafi schools – the spread of a cultural wave that is opposed to the non-Islamic dimensions of the Egyptian identity is a likely – and exceedingly dangerous – development. We are already hearing ominous mutterings about the ungodliness of “pagan” relics of Ancient Egypt, and threats to destroy the pyramids and other splendors of one of the most glorious civilizations in history.

We are also likely to see the spread of values opposed to the Other — whatever form “otherness” may take — representing yet another very dangerous threat to Egyptian diversity.

There is also the serious fear that the Islamic trend will redesign educational programs to promote the Islamic and Arab dimension at the expense of the other layers that make up the luxuriance that is Egypt.

This possibility is far from remote in the context of a legislative assembly dominated by a single trend. The mindset of the Islamic lawmakers who preside over the education committee is certainly opposed to religious or cultural diversity. There is no doubt that this trend will focus on magnifying the importance of the Islamic and Arab dimension while downgrading all the other dimensions that make up the richness of Egyptian identity. This is all that can be expected from a theocratic Parliament claiming a divine commission.

Unfortunately the trend to foster a one-dimensional identity actually began some years back as Islamic religious thinking came to permeate the minds of those responsible for the all-important sector of education in our society. Nowhere is the success of this trend more apparent than in the way the Arabic language and the Arabic literature curricula have evolved over the last few years. Instead of presenting literary masterpieces by such luminaries as Ahmed Lotfy el-Sayed, Taha Hussein, Abbas el-Aqqad, Abdul Qader el-Mazny, Salama Moussa, Tewfik el-Hakim, Naguib Mahfouz, Youssef Idris, Nizar Qabbani, Badr Shaker el-Sayab, Mikhael Na’ema an others, Arabic language and literature courses are now virtually indistinguishable from religious courses.

The well-known Lebanese author and intellectual, Amin Maalouf, rightly describes any one-dimensional identity as “destructive.” For in this day and age, a monolithic identity that attributes itself to a single source is bound to clash with the values of pluralism, diversity, analytic thinking, critical questioning, and acceptance of the Other, not to mention the recognition that the various civilizations and cultures have all contributed to the higher ideal of a common humanity.

There are those who claim that the Islamization of Egyptian society reflects “the will of the people.” But history teaches us that the will of the people is not always beneficial. Eight decades ago, the will of the German people brought Adolf Hitler to power, plunging mankind into genocidal wars and massacres that claimed more than fifty million lives. This example allows us to criticize the current cultural wave sweeping over Egypt – one that threatens to sweep away the non-Islamic components of Egyptian identity and to transform us into a society with a one-dimensional identity, like the desert societies that surround us. Even if the present state of affairs came about by “the will of the people,” we would do well to remember that, as Voltaire said: Even if repeated by a thousand people, a mistake is still a mistake.

Tarek Heggy

Deconstructing Israeli Society

Thursday, July 5th, 2012

The photo of homosexual soldiers on the IDF’s official website should have set off many alarm bells for many public figures. But they were all afraid. The heavy-handed politically correct code paralyzes our representatives. They prefer to remain silent and let somebody else fend off the arrows that are sure to come. MK Uri Ariel (National Union) deserves our appreciation and admiration, as he was the only MK to courageously state the simple truth by calling on the IDF to conduct itself on this issue as it has in the past.

There is no question that a person’s individual rights in the privacy of his own home must be carefully guarded. Thus, nobody should harass homosexuals. But today the situation is reversed: Homosexuality harasses normalcy.

Homosexuality represents a set of values. For a long time now, the issue has not been the right of those people with different inclinations to do what they please in their own homes. Instead, the issue is their demand that society recognize the values represented by their inclinations.

Israeli and Western societies are in a perpetual state of conflict between the founding values that built them and the opposite values, which strive for deconstruction. The fundamental leftist ideal of “We will destroy the old world down to its foundations” is not a means to an end, but the end itself. The Left always pronounces some utopia for which it is worthwhile to destroy everything (socialism, peace, democracy). But the simple truth is that at its foundation, the Left seeks to return the world to a state of chaos, anarchy and blurring of the differentiation with which God created the world. If you don’t quite get it, sing a few lines of John Lennon’s “Imagine.”

How does the Left go about deconstructing the world? Any value that binds society is fair game for attack.

The Left attacks and undermines settlement in the Land of Israel because it is the foundation of the renaissance of the Jewish nation. They inject as many foreigners as possible into the veins of Israeli society: foreigners who do not share values with the nation of Israel and who have no real intention of sharing its fate.

The Left also attacks the family because it is the foundation of society. The attack is not frontal; it is accomplished by empowering anti-family values, e.g. the invention of concepts like the single-parent family, meaning that any combination makes a family. And when anything makes a family, the family is really nothing.

Another tactic the Left uses to deconstruct the family is to invalidate the status of the man in the family, turning him into some sort of downtrodden creature that is to blame for everything. The woman is the home, but the man in the home turns the group into a family. Without a father, the family is completely unbalanced.

The Left promotes homosexuality as a value, as a barometer of “equality” and “liberty.” It promotes feminism as a barometer of “women’s rights.” Any value that threatens or undermines the values of society and family becomes hallowed.

A prime example of this process is the appointment of MK Einat Wilf to head the Knesset’s Education Committee. Wilf is a very intelligent person with an impressive security record. On the surface, she seems like a worthy choice. But the Knesset’s representative now responsible for the education of Israel’s children is married to a German journalist.

In the politically correct times in which we live, you have to be crazy to claim that a Jewish woman who marries a non-Jewish man is not exactly a role model for Jewish children. After all, the Left dictates that religion doesn’t matter. Nobody dared oppose the appointment – not even the religious MKs.

Another example is Labor Chairwoman Shelly Yachimovich, who until recently was head of the Knesset Committee on Children’s Rights. Yachimovich is also a highly intelligent woman who worked honestly and energetically to improve life for children. But similar to Wilf, Yachimovich’s personal life contradicts the values represented by the position to which she was appointed. Every child has an elementary right to a family: a father and a mother. If a person has not managed to provide her children with this basic right, how can she be the standard-bearer of children’s rights?

Moshe Feiglin

Danny Danon: Remembering Shamir – The Integrity of ‘No’

Tuesday, July 3rd, 2012

The people of Israel lost a true leader with the passing of Yitzhak Shamir. Before assuming the reins as our seventh prime minister, Shamir dutifully served his people and his country first as head of the underground Lehi, then in the Mossad where he was responsible for tracking down and eliminating some of our worst enemies including Nazi war criminals who had fled to Egypt, and finally in the political arena where he served as a Member and then Speaker of Knesset, Foreign Minister and finally Prime Minister after the resignation of his mentor Menachem Begin.

Upon the death of a loved one, we often take the time to look through the memory book of their life and search for the lessons that their legacy can teach us. In the case of Yitzhak Shamir, a multi-volume set of thick bound tomes might be more appropriate a metaphor. These books are filled with the earth of the whole land of Israel, and immersed in values and an understanding of our unique place in history. His spirit and his values are an inspiration to all of those who love this land, and especially to the members of his beloved Likud movement that strive to stay true to Shamir’s teachings.

You do not negotiate on your core ideology. This is what guided Shamir in his steadfast defense of the rights of the Jewish people to their historic homeland. In the years that he guided Israel’s foreign policy, he would not compromise on this basic tenet. In 1992, under intense pressure from the American administration, Shamir stood fast and made clear to the world that money cannot buy and replace values. He bravely rejected the US demand that he stop building in Judea and Samaria in return for loan guarantees. This money was very much needed to absorb our brothers who were then coming home from the former Soviet Union, but Shamir knew such an act on his behalf would create a slippery slope that would set a terrible precedent for the future leaders of Israel. Such a move on his behalf would have endangered his beloved settlement enterprise which he knew was invaluable for the future well-being of the State.

Shamir’s decisions and policies were not always popular or politically correct. There was no end of criticism both in Israel and form the international community. In fact, there were times when his refusal to abandon his core values probably cost him at the ballot box, such as when he lost to Yitzhak Rabin in the 1992 elections. Nevertheless, over time, his steadfastness disproved today’s assumption that you must be guided daily by opinion polls to obtain power, and then govern. Without ever abandoning his beliefs, Shamir was able to not only reach the highest office in the land, but he also ended up serving in office longer than any other prime minister since David Ben Gurion. Moreover, because of his intellectual honesty and core decency, since leaving office Shamir is admired by all Israelis – whatever their political persuasion – for the great leader that he was.

To better convey Shamir’s unique foresight and leadership capabilities, I must share a short story. In the early 1990s, while serving as a Betar emissary in the United States, I invited one of my childhood heroes to visit my host community. Yitzhak graciously agreed to come and speak at an event I had organized promoting Israel and aliyah. When he was asked for his opinion about the demographic threat that is so often raised, Shamir answered with full confidence that we must remain steadfast and work tirelessly to bring millions of Soviet Jews home to Israel. At that time, such a prediction seemed completely unrealistic and even a tad naïve. Nevertheless, Shamir’s analysis proved with time to be completely accurate and proved how important it is for a leader to remain true to his values. By believing and planning, one million Russians ultimately came to live in Israel, changing our core demographic reality forever.

That night, after he had finished addressing the group, I had the honor of spending an evening with the former Prime Minister. I was enthralled with his stories and life lessons, especially with his core conviction that a leader must truly believe in and be ready to defend his policies. If a leader does so, he told me, there is no need to worry about the criticism that will inevitably follow any brave decision.

Danny Danon

White/Black Supremacists Aligning Against the Jews

Tuesday, June 26th, 2012

Over the last decade, we’ve seen the convergence and alliance of Islamism with the far Left (and, with time, the not-so-far Left).  Ten years ago, this seemed bizarre, since logic appeared to dictate that nothing could be more antithetical to the supposed values of the Left (equality, feminism, tolerance, freedom of/from religion, etc.) than the reactionary Islamic world, with its institutionalized brutal repression, its humiliation and abuse of women, its torture and execution of gays, and its extreme policies of religious persecution.  Yet, with time, we grew accustomed to this alliance, and today, the glaring contradictions between values barely even faze anybody anymore.

Today, there seems to be another supposedly “impossible” convergence underway:  We are witnessing the beginnings of an alliance between the radical Right (KKK, neo-Nazis, etc.) and the radical black Left (Black Panthers, Farrakhan, etc.)  A dramatic example of this happened last week, when a former KKK Grand Wizard and neo-Nazi, former Congressman David Duke, released a video declaring his endorsement of Charles Barron in his current run for Congress.  Barron is a former Black Panther, a radical antisemite who justified the anti-Jewish riots in Crown Heights in the ’90’s and compares Israel to the Nazis, and whose declared heroes are Muammar Kaddafi, Robert Mugabe, and Louis Farrakhan.  At first glance, it might be difficult to imagine what basis there could possibly be for an alliance between a Right-wing neo-Nazi KKK leader and a Left-wing Black Supremacist Farrakhan supporter.  The answer, of course, is that in spite of their obvious differences, they nevertheless have something very fundamental in common, which has brought them together:  Their intense hatred of Jews and Israel.  The centrality of their shared antisemitism comes through loud and clear in Duke’s endorsement video:

Just like the alliance between the Islamists and the radical Left, the new alliance between the White Supremacists and the Black Supremacists seems absurd but really isn’t:  In both cases, the seemingly vast differences between the sides are trumped by the power of their shared Jew-hatred.  And these two alliances are not at all unrelated:  There is, of course, already a powerful alliance between the Black Power movement and the Islamist movement, epitomized by Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam.  It is clear to anyone following the current trends that very soon, all four of these groups — the radical Left, the Islamists, the Black Supremacists, and the White Supremacists — will all be united in a common offensive against the Jews and Israel.

Moshe Matitya

Sharansky, Cotler Discuss Compatibility of Jewish and Democratic Values on Day 2 of President’s Conference

Wednesday, June 20th, 2012

Hebrew University President and former Knesset member Professor Menahem Ben Sasson led a panel of experts including Natan Sharansky, Chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel and former Deputy Prime Minister, Canadian MP Professor Irwin Cotler, in which they analyzed the ramifications of a “Jewish and democratic” State as well as highlighted the challenges that Israel faces regarding tensions between religious and secular values.

“Democracy and religion do not contradict, you do not have to give up on one in favor of the other,” said Sharansky. “The basic desire to be free but to also belong, to live a life of quality, liberty and meaning are simply two dimensions of the same thing. A life of values provides strength to fight for your freedom.”

He imparted that this idea is very natural to him, having lived in the former Soviet Union with no freedom and no identity and then discovering both at the same time when he arrived in Israel. He stated that conflict is inevitable among those living as both “proud and free Jews” and that Israel faces many challenges to which there is no simple solution. To this, he stresses the importance of introducing general “traffic rules” to help navigate these issues.

Cotler emphasized the important role that Jewish values, such as aiding the downtrodden, remembering and honoring the past, valuing equality, and refraining from assaultive speech and slander, can play in shaping a democratic society.

“Israel is both a Jewish and democratic State with the added challenge of living in a hostile environment,” he said. “The fundamental Jewish values of respect for the sanctity of human life should frame our discourse and policy when it comes to national issues, including Israel’s current African migration challenge.”

Jewish Press Staff

The Progressive-Traditionalist War

Tuesday, June 19th, 2012

http://sultanknish.blogspot.co.il/2012/06/progressive-traditionalist-war.html

The main weapon that progressives wield against traditionalists is their ability to break down the values that make up their worldview by challenging norms of behavior and thought, with the goal of using cultural friction to slowly replace traditional values and mores with their own.

This is a weapon that progressives have explicitly disavowed using against Islam. In Europe there are some hesitant attempts at promoting integration, but it’s a fitful self-doubting effort that consists of the authorities telling everyone who listens that integration is moving along smoothly, while the No-Go Zones grow, black ghosts haunt the alleyways of major cities and the mosques go on crying Jihad from minaret loudspeakers rising above European capitals.

There is the occasional burqa ban, a nervous ban placed on the most extreme of the extreme clerics, an occasional investigation of a school that teaches that infidels are animals to be killed, and a cautious warning from some putatively conservative politician to the Muslim community that things have to change. But none of them adds up to anything.

The left, which excels at attacking traditional values, has signed a pact with Islam. Not only does it refuse to undermine its religion and traditional values the way that it undermines those of everyone else, but it actively promotes Islamic values and traditions as morally superior to those of its own society.

The reason for this is simple strategy. The progressives of the left in each society are at war with their own traditionalists. American liberals are at war with American conservatives. European liberals are at war with European conservatives. Liberal Christians are at war with Conservative Christians and Progressive Jews are at war with Traditional Jews.

This war isn’t always as overt as it was in the Soviet Union, or as it is in Cuba or Sweden. It’s a quiet war marked by “artistic statements,” by the school curriculum and the late-night newscast, by laws that transform public spaces into government spaces and private spaces into public spaces, and put the whole thing under government regulation whose overriding purpose is behavior modification.

Despite their many victories, the progressives have numerous disadvantages in this war. They are a minority dependent on front groups and divide-and-conquer politics. Rarely are they able to openly state their agendas and beliefs, because, if they did, they would be stoned on the spot. Instead, they have to worm their way in, presenting a false front of moderation, and slowly move their agenda through its outer stages to its inner core.

The left is up against common sense, which is just shorthand for the traditional way of thinking. And traditions exist because they are natural; right or wrong, they are organic, embedded in human nature and the way that people live their lives and draw their conclusions. Its utopian schemes put it up against the human animal, so that the left has to ride the body politic like a bronco buster fighting to stay on a mutinous steed. Much of its rank and file doesn’t know this, but its leaders and planners are well aware of how precarious their position is.

But there is also a more practical angle. Demographics. The progressives tend to have a lower birth rate than traditionalists. If values were transmitted on a generational basis, by now they would be deader than Disco. To compensate for their demographic disadvantage, the left reproduces by insinuating itself into the educational system. The Cuckoo’s reproductive strategy is to plant its eggs in the nests of other birds to be raised by those birds, but the reproductive strategy of progressives is to raise someone else’s young as a member of their species, while getting paid for it by the taxpayers.

This demographic disadvantage makes it vital for progressives to attack tradition, because it is also the only way that they can reproduce. Their reproductive strategy is entirely dependent on disrupting the ability of fertile groups to pass on their values to their offspring.

There are parallels in biology to this behavior. A number of species compete for territory by interfering with the reproduction of another species. The fertility limitations of liberals make it an ideological imperative to disrupt the reproduction of more traditional species.

Daniel Greenfield

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/blogs/sultan-knish/the-progressive-traditionalist-war/2012/06/19/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: