When US Secretary of State Blinken visited Israel recently and appeared with Israeli president Reuven Rivlin, there was a lot of talk of anti-semitism. Personally, since I accept the legitimacy of religions as well as nation states as healthy parts of the human condition, I accept two explanations for anti-Semitism which follow from these phenomena. Many religious Jews explain anti-Semitism as a metaphysical fact of reality, and Jews of a Marxist persuasion explain anti-semitism as real, but also as a subterfuge for Israel’s pose in the middle east (see video below). I don’t dismiss either of these. So, I’m put in mind of a question: can we have a list of anti-Semitism that can be blamed substantially on gentiles, while also explicitly omitting that anti-semitism which is either religiously explained, or a tool of the IDF?
Two things bug me the most in discussion; undisclosed loyalties, and poorly-defined terms. The former makes for dishonest interactions because whereas one side is having a debate with a peer, the other side might be seeking to win ground in a battle as part of a larger war, and the latter makes for what-amounts-to an idiotic bought between children. In this essay, I shall seek to offer a way out of such frustrations. I’m bothered when called-for concessions aren’t made, and specifically at how religious the multicultural left is. Like a wife approaching her golden anniversary, I find it terribly galling at how stubborn my mate can be. You can lead a lefty to a conclusion, but you can’t make him stop emoting. I can’t explain why, but I feel driven to carve out of thought narrow-bands of hypotheticals and reasoning that might, given the most gracious loony-lefty interlocutor (if such a creature exists), cause a moment of ideological insecurity. I seem to be the onl
A country having an explicit policy of racial discrimination is likely not for the good, especially if this policy is ever relaxed. It is a policy which, if not maintained in perpetuity, will make future blow back inevitable. It is far better to have an ancestral policy, by which I mean, persons not sharing the ancestral heritage of the native population can at best hold only some kind of second class citizenship, and are not able to hold public office at all. The racial, demographic effect on the population that this policy will have is a sign of sensible policy. An ancestral policy is also one which is more relevant to social concerns anyway. A population needs to have ancestry in common, not necessarily be racially pure. But if its original discriminatory policy should ever be relaxed, and members of a previously-oppressed group should hold public office, it should be acknowledged without fanfare, as a proof that the previous discriminatory policy is now in the past. A single previo