Rather to my surprise I found myself disagreeing vigorously with this article on the BNP’s {futile} efforts to shed it’s anti-semite “image” and appeal to bigoted Jews using it’s new school rhetoric of virulent Muslim aimed bigotry.
{Bit of a mouthful, that last phrase. But then, so is “Islamaphobia”. I suspect that the failure of efforts on the left to combat that resurgent phenomenon is its inability to find a non-silly name for it.}
This is not because my efforts to peer around a part of the far-right from the inside has turned my head but instead for leftist reasons. All the same, I can not help but feel quite the contrarian for dissenting as forcefully as I do with this quote:
We, in the Jewish community, will not tolerate any form of racism or prejudice…I would be thoroughly ashamed if any member of the Jewish community voted for them.
That was from Henry Grunwald, who is in no less prestigious a position than the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. He is currently working along with Sikh and black aimed efforts to ensure that the BNP gain no seats upon the GLA in the forthcoming elections. Despite this it is my suggestion that Mr. Grunwald is currently acting as part of the problem rather than solution and that that quote evidences his lack of grasp on the only way to end racism and bigotry entirely and forever.
Firstly we must understand and appreciate the beast which we wish to slay. What bigotry of all stripes consists of is a rejection of the common worth shared by all sentient beings. This deceives us into considering some of those around us as of worth and dignity and others as separated from them and thus not. I would suggest that this is an entirely intrinsic element of human nature that can be reduced severely but never eradicated entirely. As long as there are those separate to us then this difference will be observed and many will consider the distance a mandate for degradation. As long as “We” refers not to us all but a specific group isolated and smudged into one we have something of a problem.
The argument for “diversity” is one that I can accept. We are all eclectic beings in our own various ways and to say that difference should be forcefully eradicated wherever it is found is certainly not my argument. I am many things and have been many more but conformist is not amongst them and, I suspect, never shall be. However I would suggest that realising and coming to terms with the natural tendency of humanity to differ in exciting and vivid ways is by no means the same as accepting society dividing itself into sects. For what is opposed is the separation.
How does this relate to Mr. Grunwald? Easily. He has divided a section of society that he considers to be as of himself. He responds to them personally in a way that he would not to the rest of humanity. He holds them to a different standard and treats their actions in a different way. He does not concern himself with individual circumstance but deems membership of this, entirely fictitious, group to be sufficient. The only element of this group’s identity which is even verging upon finite and tangible is their race. Mr. Grunwald is opposed to racism. Note the specification in his words. He would not feel ashamed if any Britain voted for the BNP, he would not feel ashamed if any human held such views, he would simply feel that emotion in the instance of a Jewish person voting for them. His area of humanity affect him personally in a way that the rest do not.
Why does this pose a problem? Because it is this very attitude that gives the BNP and all the fathomless plethora of those like it air for the flames. It is the viewpoint that considers our species divided into sub-sections that are to be evaluated and judged accordingly which leads the fragmented, distorted, perverted mindset which breeds intolerance. Let us not imagine that this destroys the reason of white Britain. Consider that Samson Blinded, amongst the most deranged blogs I have had the displeasure to read, would not exist without this perspective. Consider this article. Dov Lior has stated that “A thousand non-Jewish lives are not worth a Jew’s fingernail.” This sort of blatant nonsense relies upon the “Chosen People” myth, yes, but it also is entirely dependent upon viewing humanity as an inherently shattered mess of various groups that clash and shunt yet remain ever divided.
Zionism depends upon it, the most tolerable face of the expansionist nationalism that you can somehow appreciate the dogged, dog-ended imperialist BNP being in favour of. Somehow expect. But the brutality remains: Zionism desires, even demands, a Greater Israel and if the cost of this is the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians then where is the concern? They were not Chosen. Responding in kind the lives of Israelis are deemed something of negative value by Arabs, a concept more construct than observation in itself given that in Sudan various Africans have taken the title upon themselves and thus elevated their position above those of the “blacks” they slaughter.
It is the cause of every pogrom, from the most notorious to the most recent. The SS were taught that all Jews were ultimately the same and thus killing children was a pre-emptive strike. Elements of the New York black “community” in the ninties thought that the running down of a young child somehow condemned the entire Jewish “community” and thus the destruction of property and the fatal knifing of an overseas student could somehow be justified.
Where does this carnage all lead back to? The conflation of the differences desired by humanities to other and the worth of all, that is mutual to mankind. And as for the notion of somehow it being possible to sustain a society divided between sections that will enjoy each other, that is purely preposterous. The eminent Mr. Grunwald feels in a fashion that is far from isolated to him: once you are part of one group the rest are, by very definition of distinction, further from you than “your own kind”. You belong amongst them and thus, in whatever way, you are out of place elsewhere.
This is at it’s most observable when challenged. Noah Feldman wrote a highly telling article last year where he discussed the reaction of his Orthodox former school to his relationship with an Asian woman. This consisted of something that can be described in a single word: denial. A group photograph was taken of all the former members and both he and his girlfriend had been removed as surely as a comparison I have assured a friend I will not make. The response to this from some was striking, with one person claiming that Feldman was spitting in the face of those who had educated him by not accepting their reductionist view of humanity. Worse still can be found here where it is estimated “We lose approximately 100 Jews every day to intermarriage and assimilation” and quotes a website named “JewishSurvivalSeries” approvingly in that Intermarriage has created “A silent holocaust in this generation.” Which makes the PETA meat industry/Shoah comparison seem only moderately offensive.
The Nazis loom large, though. It is to be expected but their usage seems largely to be most perverse. They were mentioned as well in another reaction to the aforementioned article here where falling in love and having children with someone not of your own kind {end sarcasm} is constitutes an attempt to “Finish the job Hitler left undone.” To write about the utterly unreasonable air-brushing of his airbrushing is to adopt as your demograph “Subscribers to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” This is an irony of the highest and blackest order as the very cause of the Holocaust was the fear of the National Socialists that the fine Aryan race would have its supremacy diminished and spirit perverted by the foul and insidious influences of the Jew. Inter-breeding was what was feared by Hitler above all, as well as seemingly by those touched upon by this foul meme which rejects division of humanity over ancient lies.
Those who propose inter-breeding being accepted, and perhaps encouraged, are those most likely to make it entirely impossible for second attempt at the Third Empire of any manifestation. Indeed Jew-German inter-marriage was perfectly common in German society in the years preceding Nazi ascent and had the rise been averted most likely would have solved the problem through semen within a matter of generations. What those in favour of “assimilation” argue is effectively the absolute opposite of the deranged rantings of Mein Kamph. Embracing the merge ends woes and improves mankind. But it also eliminates a threat.
The only thing capable of ensuring that another Holocaust occurs never again is an end not to pacifism {as far too many wishing to launch jingoistic japes ending in horrific carnage claim} but instead the dicing of our noble species.
But how can this come to pass? Well many would say that it can not. That it is an impossibility to degrade this differences. Pure idiocy. Something of that nature can not be beyond the realms of reality when it has happened often, on a more remarkable scale, before. The history of Europe is filled with enough blood being split by Catholic upon Protestant to leaves oceans overflowing. Although pockets of this remained strong, even upon the island a few miles west of England, it now seems to be entirely at an end.
The distinction between a Catholic and Protestant has dwindled to nearly nothing. There are substantial points of Theological distinction but the tensions have eased almost totally and before the face of diversity a Christian is a Christian. This remains not enough, though. The only force capable of purging this completely is absence, and atheism is becoming increasingly dominant. Once the void exists it must be filled and division is bound to occur there but at least over ethics based upon reason there can be rational debate, which is more than can be said for the inherently immutable unsubstance of faith. It is appreciable that the Board of Deputies would not approve of this but it remains the case and while waiting for belief to die out and their post to become an irrelevance presidents of it should evade such comments.
A notable example of an alternative approach to alienating bigotry is that of Barack Obama. He has simply treated the notion that his race proving an impediment as offensive. Not to himself, though, but the American people. Who would be so limited as to judge somebody purely by half of their genetic code? Not, of course, that dividing the world into Americans and non-Americans is a total improvement but it seems to constitute a fine start.
An alternative interpretation of this is that Obama is a man in denial. There exists and insidious remnant of racial hatred, or at least mild disdain, within America and to claim otherwise is simply a lie. This is to confuse the reality which is grounded and beyond our influence and that which exists because we think it into being. “Reality is that which will not go away when you stop believing in it”, it has been said. But although “America will never elect a black president” may once have been true, and could well have been had Obama responded differently, when confronted with someone who trusts them completely and is so clearly competent the construct known as “America” may well change its collective views on race.
The success is limited but obvious: even David Duke has struggled to assail Obama and upon the lofty heights of discourse to be found at the Stormfront forum there is a thread claiming Obama’s popularity constitutes a “Cult” but far more bile aimed at Hillary. On a matter of far more importance Louisiana, by some way the last state to accept the end of segregation, voted for him by a margin of 21 points. Cynics would point out his failure in districts devoid of many blacks or suggest that misogyny simply won out over racism but then, they were also the sort that said his campaign was an impossibility from the outset. This year has thus far been one of utter misery for them as they have seen their snide predictions toppled one by sneering one. Obama has managed to not only overcome the difficulties of a mixed race candidate {and those were difficulties provided by both sides of that heritage divide} but also the power of name recognition and a campaign machine that had previously seemed impossible to so much as scratch, propelling a figure that might as well have been deemed the de facto leader. That figure is now deemed as a curious absurdity for their refusal to abandon a cause all around her know to be long lost.
Prejudices have power because that is what the expectations of humans are. They have might because they are ideas, not because they represent anything which is actually evidenced in reality. Huckabee claiming that he wasn’t there when Evolution occurred and thus is entitled not to accept it is pure folly in a way that Obama believing himself to be capable of overcoming racial boundaries simply isn’t. Evolution occurred and to deny the vast wall of evidence supporting such a statement is to deny what is in front of your very eyes. To deny that racism will impede you is different in that the very denial will alter the reality that surrounds you.
So to return to Grunwald, what error has been made? A grand hypocrisy. “The Jewish community” is a fantasy, as are all others. It exists in so much as there are those that accept the delusion of distinction, once they no longer remain neither shall the sect. To use that to imagine that no member of it will exhibit “prejudice” is to condemn yourself to as much purely by making the claim. His presumption itself is self-condemning.
For as long as he feels differently when a Jew places a cross next to the British National Party to how he would do when a Muslim, a Sikh, Satanist or atheist does we will remain divided. {I am thankful, once again, for private voting.} For as long as his fundamentally absurd organisation and those like it remain in existence we will be left in a preposterous position where the individual is denigrated in so severe a fashion that it makes collective consideration of a group of autonomous individuals seem almost reasonable:
The Jews of Britain require Deputies who will represent no one else. The Muslims of Britain require a Council that will speak for no other. The British Jews are perfectly well represented and we should listen to the views of this apparent cross-section over them individually. The British Muslims are well represented and perfectly thoroughly spoken for.
Let us not linger here, I have no concern for his feelings but I suspect that he will not alter his views. A man in his position can not afford to. Let us progress.
The way forwards is an easy one. We must rise above the notion that we are a ship divided. Humans are only led apart by their own mutual delusion. This can happen due to differences in class or race and especially owing to some sense of entitlement based upon the irrationality that is religion but when such points of division are allowed to establish into “communities” things solidify and harden. So long as there are people claiming that one rule applies to an entire section of the species that are selected purely on the grounds of their mother we will suffer from the equal absurdities of the hate that follows. The two are intrinsically linked: if a largely imaginary division is made then hatred based around it will follow.
We are presented with a unique opportunity: race is etched into our genetic code, formed by the environment provided by our empirical surroundings. It can not be altered, misconceptions can be our only targets. A community, contrastingly, serves as an environment as well but can cease to exist the moment its membership departs the collective. Without steady merging amongst races the concept of “Black” or “White” can not be dissolved and their very presence forms a barrier, with even the optimum model taking many decades. For “Jew” or “Muslim” the same is far from true. Indeed you could argue that, although orientation is inherent, much the same could be said for “Gay”. Without members there is no community. Even if enough resist the unrestricted application the extent to which the unconsenting can willingly be yoked under the grasp of artificial commune is highly limited. After this our messy merge will prove easy enough: if Feldman was willing to engage in the face of such fierce approval imagine how many might scale those shallow walls without the sharp tug of disapproval yanking at their ankles. More than enough. Humanity would be largely indistinguishable and blissfully devoid of the empty prejudices it had once been plagued by, now rendered a logistical impossibility rather than mere source of official disapproval, that the young delight in mockingly flouting.
But let us not focus purely upon the benefits to the whole of mankind, but instead the gain for each person who formerly accepted themselves as a “Member” rather than an untagged, unqualified human. Once these communities are departed they no longer bind, you are amongst humanity rather than restricted to being amongst your own type of people, your own little narrow corridor of the boundless oceans of shared humanity. Terrifying? In its way. Liberating? More than enough to compensate.
If the Board of Deputies honestly wishes to end the BNP once and for all they would cease existence as an organisation, leaving a suicide note telling their respective Muslim counterparts and so on to do the same. As it is they have higher concerns but for anyone who honestly considers ending bigotry a high priority a more radical and rational approach than the one taken at present is required. Slapping fines and prison sentences on people using nasty words in public is hardly going to eradicate the source. An end to the view of humanity as consisting of mutually exclusive “Communities” which can communicate but never truly merge and become indistinguishable will. The human propensity to spin even the sparsest of material into hatred is rendered far less threatening by the absolute superfluity of our divisions.
Only pathetic appeals to tradition stand in the path of progress.