Piety and Preaching

Self-righteous stupidity? Pious posturing? It’s impossible to beat a devout liberal atheist. One of my favourites is the neo-con journalist Nick Cohen. His irrational dogma and logical contortions are always entertaining to watch. He doesn’t write articles: he preaches sermons. After all, his surname means “priest” in Hebrew. But he would react badly to the suggestion that his ideology owes anything to his genetics. Like Richard Dawkins, the leader of his cult, and the late Christopher Hitchens, another of Dawkins’ disciples, he believes fervently in One Human Brain, in which  differences between different groups float mystically free of evolution and biology.

In a recent sermon in the neo-con Spectator, Cohen defended his cult-leader against attacks by other liberals. Dawkins has been criticizing the Muslim world for its failure to match Western achievements in science. The vast majority of Muslims are non-White, so Dawkins has been accused of blasphemy, that is, racism. Cohen rejects this accusation and goes on the offensive, saying that Dawkins’ critics are cowards. He points out that, unlike them, Dawkins “attacks Muslim bigots, not just Christian ones.” So far, so reasonable. But then Cohen begins his pious posturing. He raises the case of Nahla Mahmoud, a “Sudanese refugee who became a leading figure in the British Council of ex-Muslims.” But she is not receiving support from the supposedly feminist and freedom-loving liberals who are criticizing Dawkins.

“Abusing Islam is NOT free speech”

Mahmoud is an opponent of Sharia law, the violent and corrupt Muslim legal system. But, having crossed the border that Britain shares with Sudan, she “was shocked to find the same system here in her land of refuge.” She made a brief appearance on British television to support secular law for all. She and her family are now under threat for what Cohen calls her “simple moral clarity.” Cohen could, but doesn’t, say that this is yet another example of how Muslims hate free speech and do all they can to destroy it. Cohen himself pretends to adore free speech. But has he ever pointed out how bad Muslim immigration is for free speech? Read more

Definitively Dull

Goyishe kop is a Yiddish phrase that literally means “gentile head” (goyishe is pronounced like “goy-isha”). According to the Jewish English Lexicon, it can be defined as “Someone who fails to use his/her head; a dull mind.” It also means: “Someone who thinks like a non-Jew.” I have a goyishe kop in all senses of the phrase, which is why I’m puzzled by the behaviour described below. If you have a goyishe kop too, you will also be puzzled. So read on to test your G.K. rating.—

Fighting for Freedom

The American anti-jihadists Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer have recently been banned from entering the UK. This came as no surprise to politically aware Brits. Thanks to mass immigration, we have little free speech left here: Muslims and other non-whites despise it and happily collaborate with our hostile liberal elite in destroying it. But mass immigration also threatens the First Amendment in the US. Fortunately, Pamela Geller is one of the foremost defenders of the First Amendment. However, the blogger Irish Savant claims to have detected an inconsistency in her application of her core principles:

Pam, I notice that you adduce as the reason for the ban: “my principled dedication to freedom. I am a human rights activist dedicated to freedom of speech…” Well now, that’s not quite true. Like the “liberals” (ha ha) you despise, you are indeed passionate about free speech. Providing it supports your position. Otherwise it’s banned. I know this, you see, because I have tried to comment on your blog (Atlas Shrugs) on a number of occasions. I had two objectives: First to commend you on your fight against the Muslim invasion, but second to point out that said invasion (together with that from Africa) has been brought about largely by Jewish agency.

Strangely enough, not one of them was published – they were banished into the ether. Don’t you Pam, as a “human rights activist dedicated to freedom of speech” find this a bit contradictory? (Pamela Geller banned from Britain, 8 July 2013)

Goyishe kop! Irish Savant thinks like a non-Jew. He claims it’s contradictory for Geller to loudly support free speech and then to ban comments about Jewish involvement in mass immigration (not to mention the destruction of free speech). Irish Savant obviously does not understand the most important principle of all: “Is it good for Jews?” Pamela Geller does understand that principle. But then she doesn’t have a goyishe kop. She’s Jewish, after all.

Note: This is the first “Goy Figure” in an occasional series.

Editor’s note: In a recent blog (Jews and the Civil Rights Movement), I gave the standard account of Southern Jews gleaned from academic publications. Richard Thornbourn’s discussion is somewhat different because it is based on his personal experience and observations. It is therefore a valuable addition to our knowledge of Southern Jews during the Civil Rights era.

It was not unusual for small town Southern Jews to profess sympathy for segregation.

It would have been imprudent and financially suicidal for their courthouse square clothing stores for the Jews to have been overt in their hatred of White Christians and their civilization.

When I was a college student in the South, fairly often other students who came from small town Georgia argued in refutation to what I said about Jews—that the Jews in their home towns were not like “New York Jews” and caused no problems.

Several of these students as the years rolled by have come back into contact with me and updated this conversation. Read more