Embed Notice
HTML Code
Corresponding Notice
- Embed this noticeNext I spoke with another woman who is Jewish but of the nuanced variety. She is both relaxed about dietary rules and rituals, and hardcore about her interpretation of Judaism.
She does not use terms like tikkun olam, at least around me, but her philosophy is fundamentally progressive: nature hides devil demon darwinist gods, and humanity is found in fixing this situation with empathy, kindness, altruism, and so on.
I mentioned the conversation with the pro-Palestinian lady, and said that the problem with empathy is that it applies to all parties, even those behaving badly.
She responded with something out of Karl Popper: Palestinians are intolerant, therefore to protect tolerance, we must tolerate the intolerance.
I came back with the obvious, that then we were no longer talking about tolerance, but one morality of many. I mentioned my paganski triumf morality of "good to the good, bad to the bad" which I see as halfway between the third world "do what is good for me and my buddies only" and the Abrahamist/Bureaucratic "do good to everyone, especially the bad, so we can train them to be good."
I added that I embrace the obvious, and that is that if we leave the Palestinians and Hizbollah next door to Israel, the terror attacks will continue, and no nation can thrive under the constant threat of an October 7th, Holocaust, or 9/11.
She was surprised that I was a Holocaust Revisionist. I said the official story -- soap, gas chambers, lamp shades, ovens, bending guns, shock ponds, and occult sacrifices -- was obviously just as much nonsense as the Blood Libel, and anyone who believes Russian propaganda or Russians is some kind of mental defective. (She is a Europeanized Jew, so nodded at my opinion on Russians, who in my experience are criminal untermenschen like most of the third world.)
I also separated out Aktion T4 from the anti-Semitic activities of the Nazis for her, since this is an important distinction. Aktion T4 was the purging of the weak -- career criminals, the insane, the promiscuous, and the retarded -- and did not consider ethnic origin.
I added that, however, whether the Holocaust was one Jew thrown in a labor camp for being Jewish or six million Jews getting gassed for being Jewish, the problem was the same: this was a diversity conflict that, instead of being resolved through ethnic separation, had turned into a murder festival. I pointed out that both Palestinians and Jews have been accused of the same, and both accusations have "some" merit, and does pointing out that the Nazis were removing gypsies, Jews, and Italians from Germany as a type of self-defense. To avoid genocide, they had to commit genocidal relocation; such is the paradox of diversity. However, they did not need to enslave and kill Jews for being Jews. That strikes me as an emotional tantrum.
I also mentioned the partisan killings and barn-burnings in Poland; to me, I said, this is evidence that Jews were broadly unpopular with their European hosts, and so it is as stupid to keep them in Europe as it is to keep Palestinians in Israel.
She said she was shocked at the amount of Nazi imagery out there, but that the people who were supporting it seemed to have shifted. It was not skinheads any longer, but college students from comfort class origins. Yes, I said, this is the problem with empathy and altruism; they always go seeking someone who is a bigger victim. After WW2, Jews had victim cred, but now they have been replaced by Palestinians.
I further opined that what Palestine needed was to develop some kind of functional economy, and that south Syria was ironically a better place for this than Gaza, which has probably been a tourist destination since 6k BCE.
She was kind enough to buy us a round of Modelo Especials, and we talked about literature after that. Ironically she likes Ezra Pound (and also Wagner, I found out). A very interesting lady.