Monday, October 24, 2011

Evola and Judaism: for Mad Fishmonger

Right after I posted my response to Mad Fishmonger, he went and posted a response to me.  Alas, his post has left me with more questions than answers.
Evola, while not convinced of their authenticity, made, amongst points, the extremely valid point that in many ways The Protocols do accurately reflect what many Jewish leaders do now or have in the past wished to bring about in the world.
Which contemporary and/or historical Jewish leaders are seeking world domination?  If you're going to make a statement as explosive as this, you will really need specific examples to back it up.  Who are these wannabe Elders of Zion and what has their influence been on world history and contemporary culture?  Without names, dates and places I'm going to have a hard time accepting that this statement is even slightly, never mind extremely, valid.  
Even a summary perusal of the canonical texts of Jewish law unambiguously supports his conclusion that Jewish law is based on a racial distinction between Jew and Goy, a distinction placing Goy at a lower level, no better than slaves and at times less than animals.
Which "canonical texts of Jewish law" are we talking about here? An English translation of The Babylonian Talmud runs to 22 volumes, while Penguin's selection of essential Talmudic texts is nearly 900 pages.  It could be that Mad Fishmonger has made a summary perusal of these works. It could also be that he is speaking of passages which were taken out of context by people who were searching for evidence of Jewish perfidy.  I would want to see the results of this summary perusal before I made any further comment. 
And, as I said in a previous paragraph, Zionism is not a special case in relation to religious triumphalism, i.e. the effort to install one's religion as the prevailing political power, and sometimes to spread the religion through conversion efforts, though modern Judaism specifically has little interest in conversion and some even actively doubt the possibility of conversion based on the legal distinction between Jew and Goy.
Mad Fishmonger is correct in stating that modern Judaism has little interest in conversion.  But I've never heard of any Jewish religious leader who doubted the possibility of giyur, or conversion.  As Lubavitcher Rabbi Tzvi Freeman says: "In short, a ger is an adopted member of the Jewish family. In the words of the paradigm of all gerim, Ruth the Moabite, 'Your people are my people; your G‑d is my G‑d.'"

As far as religious triumphalism goes, there is certainly a strong emphasis in Judaism upon the Holy Land, aka Zion. But while there is considerable quibbling over where the borders of that land should lie, I've not yet found any Jewish leaders who believe they should dominate the whole world.  One might argue that Zionism has led to a state of apartheid in the state of Israel: indeed, many have. But there's far less connection to Zionism and a call for world domination. 

Right now I'm inclined to think that Mad Fishmonger has fallen into the trap which led me to post my earlier message.  He is an intelligent and well-meaning guy who has bought into a line of toxic nonsense spun by people with unsavory agendas. Thankfully, he is smart enough to repudiate many of the most dangerous myths connected with these agendas.  He has repeatedly disavowed the existence of a shadowy Zionist conspiracy which controls Hollywood, Jerusalem, Washington and Wall Street.  What concerns me is the people who are reading this crap and buying into it wholesale.