Monday, November 21, 2005

Two birds, one stone...

I was going to read other blogs, comment and do a post but I haven't had much time lately. So to combine commenting and posting here is some material from Down With Absolutes, citing a rabbi:
The leader of the largest branch of American Judaism blasted conservative religious activists in a speech Saturday, calling them “zealots” who claim a “monopoly on God” while promoting anti-gay policies akin to Adolf Hitler’s.

Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the liberal Union for Reform Judaism, said “religious right” leaders believe “unless you attend my church, accept my God and study my sacred text you cannot be a moral person.”

“What could be more bigoted than to claim that you have a monopoly on God?” he said during the movement’s national assembly in Houston, which runs through Sunday.
His transcendent historical or philosophical perspective seems to approach nil, especially for a rabbi.

For instance on history, the Nazis had "anti-gay policies" like they had anti-brown hair policies or rampantly discriminated in favor of Nordic looks. I.e., they quite simply did no such thing.* There were some policies and invidious discrimination with respect to such things depending on politics but history clearly demonstrates that they did not take such things as seriously as being Jewish. It's not even close to being comparable, so one could still be a Nazi of high rank and fail to have Nordic looks or fail to be heterosexual. Ernst Röehm was openly homosexual and led many Nazi homosexuals who considered themselves to be bonded together like the bundles of sticks of the ancient warrior cults or Sparta. Note Nazi policy:
The pragmatic position of certain nazis in power seems evident from the fact that Röehm was not the only homosexual in the nazi movement, and that before his liquidation homosexuality seems to have been tacitly tolerated in the SA and the Hitler Youth.

...the nazi movement may have attracted some homosexual men because of its...anti-bourgeois doctrines, the male comradeship in an organization like the SA, and the glorification of masculinity, youth and physical prowess and beauty. According to some leaders of the German homosexual emancipation movement, several homosexuals supported nazism for these reasons and some were even affiliated with the Nazi Party, especially the SA and the Hitler Youth. Especially prior to, but also after 1934, nazi policy was indeed characterized by inconsistency, probably due to a lack of consensus among the nazi leadership.

(Medicine, Male Bonding and Homosexuality in Nazi Germany
By Harry Oosterhuis
Journal of Contemporary History,
Vol. 32, No. 2. (Apr., 1997), :187-205)

There were also well known homosexual artists from the decadent Weimar who were never arrested and so on. In contrast, there were German/Jewish army heroes from WWI as well as Jewish scientists of the highest caliber who were still extirpated or forced to leave Germany. (This was fortunate for America, as some of those Jewish scientists came here to use their minds.) At any rate, the people with "anti-gay policies" akin to Hitler's are those who use homosexuality mainly to defame their political opponents as "closet gays" and so on thanks to their own proto-Nazi psychological dynamics. That sort of dynamic is increasingly common on the American Left. It leads into positions that make no sense, as they supposedly support homosexuality as normal yet then don't treat it that way. The Nazis came across the same contradiction and it added fuel to the dispute between Himmler and Röehm that eventually led to Röehm's bundle of sticks being purged on the Night of the Long Knives. So Nazis killed other Nazis, did the gay angle make Röehm's SA troops that had gone around eliminating electoral opposition with brutal tactics victims of it all? Note that homosexuals were on both sides of the camp fence as Nazi guards and prisoners. It is historically inaccurate to just lump everyone together as gay, was all the same when as a matter of fact, it simply was not.

That rabbi seems pig ignorant. Note his target as opposed to historical facts:
Although Jews and Christians correctly see in the rise of Nazism a failure on the part of the church, Hitler was made possible by the triumph of scientific naturalism in Europe, not by organized religion.
(America's Real War
By Rabbi Daniel Lapin
Multnomah Pub. Inc. (1999) :327)

The ignorant rabbi says, "What could be more bigoted than to claim that you have a monopoly on God?"

Is he a monotheistic Jew of ancient principle or a pagan who feeels a psychological urge to try to be intolerant of the "intolerance" or "the ethical code worship of the Jews" as the Nazis did?

If a rabbi is ignorant, then what does he have to teach us as a teacher? He does not even know that every claim made with words is a claim laden with the notion that it is ultimately true in some way?

Bigotry is ignorantly clinging to a false claim out of pride without regard for facts, logic and evidence. Leftists tend to use the term as synonymous with making a claim about ultimate truth because most of the time their claims reduce to: "Me like." "Me no like." That is about as far as they go into facts, logic, evidence and the search for truth. Which is why they are so susceptible to emotional conditioning. E.g., the sort of thing that relies on avoiding facts, logic and evidence:
Our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof...through repeated infralogical emotional conditioning, the person's beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not. Indeed, the more he is distracted by even specious, surface arguments, the less conscious he will be of the true nature of the process. In short, jamming succeeds insofar as it inserts even the slightest frisson of doubt and shame into the previously held unalloyed beliefs regarding heterosexuality and homosexuality.
(After the Ball: How America will conquer its fear & hatred of Gays in the 90's
By Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen :152-153)

It seems that the average American liberal cannot deal with "gay issues" based on accurate philosophy or history because their feelings are conditioned into: "Me like." "Me no like." based on whether one is being positive towards homosexuality or negative.

I think I will strive for the opposite and so for an effect achieved with reference to facts, logic and evidence.

*The Nazis did enforce discriminatory policies against smoking/smokers in the name of national health and medicalization just as they probably would have followed Himmler's views on homosexuality more as well if so many Nazis hadn't been homosexuals themselves, so what lessons can be learned or implications drawn from that? It would seem none, mainly because smokers aren't that good at victimization propaganda. Yet notice how virtually everyone is following the gay lead now of medicalization combined with inflating claims of discrimination and victimization to get the public policy that you want. Supposedly it's effective as Kirk and Madsen argued, although the 90s have come and gone and still no same-sex marriage.

No comments: