A lost soul’s descent
On another topic, an unpleasant one, Dennis Mangan disgraces himself with another attack on you that ends with him saying you love Israel so much more than America you might as well just do aliyah, the return of Jews to Israel. I left a comment expressing my disgust at the implication of his comment. I do not know if Mangan posted my comment, and I don’t think there is any value in you reading his post or the comments there. But my lord, the obsession of certain corners of the paleo world with you is bizarre!
Because of the non-moral, tribalist, paleocon-type of thinking to which Mangan subscribes, he cannot conceive that I and others defend Israel because a unique evil has been unleashed against it and that evil must be opposed. Being a tribalist and a material reductionist, he cannot understand my defense of Israel against its evil enemies as anything other than a tribal defense, based on tribal identity in the narrowest sense. We see again how the paleocons’ tribalism and material reductionism renders them incapable of moral reasoning and useless to the defense of civilization. See the April 2010 thread, “Why should we care about Israel?” The reasoning in that discussion is as far beyond the comprehension of the paleocons as Mozart’s Don Giovanni is beyond the comprehension of the vuvuzela players in South Africa.
Mangan’s conclusion that I care less for America than for Israel—a country of which I know very little except for the matters related to the constant campaign of evil against it—is the purest smear. My entire writing career has been inspired by, and began as a result of, the need to defend America, the white race, and Western civilization from the forces attacking them from without and within. But Mangan would have his readers believe that what I am really about is a tribal loyalty to Israel, and that I am, as the anti-Semites constantly say about me, a Jewish fifth columnist whose secret mission it is to undermine whites in favor of the Jews. He would blot out and turn on its head everything I am and everything I’ve fought for.
Thus, purely in reaction to me, Mangan moves deeper and deeper into falsehood and evil. As I’ve said before, I seem to have a unique talent for unintentionally bringing out and revealing the worst in people.
Mangan is so blind in his reaction against me, in his desire to smear me at all costs, that he doesn’t even realize that I could not do aliyah even if I wanted to, because I am a baptized Christian and thus not a Jew according to Jewish law and Israel’s Law of Return. But that too must be part of my false front. As the anti-Semites say, I became a Christian in order to fool white gentiles into believing that I am one of them. The Darwinian anti-Semites and paleocons, believing only in matter, power, and self-seeking, and not in truth, cannot conceive of a person, let alone a Jew, becoming a Christian because he believes in Jesus Christ.
- end of initial entry -
Roland D. writes:
Take it as a compliment that you rile them to the extent that they feel motivated to attack you; they aren’t worth your time to refute in detail, IMHO.
Even though I do think you’re far too eager to intertwine the interests of these United States with the interests of the State of Israel, I understand and respect your views, and your motivations. Being able to disagree with one another in a civilized manner, without resorting to ad hominem attacks and to demonization of those with whom one disagrees, is one of the hallmarks of civilized men—and these people who savage you so clearly don’t merit that distinction.
However, I disagree with the idea that this is mainly about trying to intertwine the interests of the U.S. with those of Israel. You have inadvertently bought in to the anti-Israel paleocons’ false construction of the issue.
For example, in everything written at this site about the “peace flotilla” and aftermath, I have not said a single thing about any action the U.S. ought to take on Israel’s behalf. I have been speaking purely in terms of the rights and wrongs of the matter—the fact that most of the world is demonizing Israel for exercising normal rights of self-defense, which amount to the world saying that Israel shouldn’t exist. I’ve said that that’s wrong, and I’ve said that we—meaning we as individuals—should stand with Israel against this evil campaign against it. That position has nothing to do with any action that would intertwine the U.S. government with Israel’s government. It is, first and foremost, a matter of conscience, a matter of what is right and what is wrong.
But the anti-Israel paleocons constantly misrepresent the issue as: shall the U.S. be involved with Israel or not? This avoids and obscures the real issue, which is, is it right that most of the world, meaning Western leftist and Muslim opinion, should gang up on one country and seek to deny it the ordinary right to defend itself and thus to exist? The anti-Israel paleocons in fact side with the leftists and Muslims in denying Israel the right to defend itself and to exist. They desire and they seek Israel’s destruction. But they cover up their real aim by claiming that they are only seeking to avoid U.S. involvement with Israel.
“The Darwinian anti-Semites and paleocons, believing only in matter, power, and self-seeking, cannot conceive of a person, let alone a Jew, becoming a Christian because he believes in Jesus Christ.”
To be fair, neither can most Jews, as evinced by the condemnation directed at “Jews for Jesus”. I’m not sure why Jews find an honest conversion attempt so insulting (see Donny Deutch’s reaction to Ann Coulter suggesting they go to church together), but I’ve read many an article excoriating this group and their efforts.
Nora Brinker (the Editrix) writes from Germany:
You write: “Mangan is so blind in his reaction against me, in his desire to smear me at all costs, that he doesn’t even realize that I could not do aliyah even if I wanted to, because I am a baptized Christian and thus not a Jew according to Jewish law and Israel’s Law of Return.”
That is not true. The Law of Return strives to provide sanctuary as an Israeli citizen to anyone who would be persecuted under the Nuremberg Laws. I know very little about your personal circumstances, but what I know would suggest that this applies to you.
Not that this makes the arguments of the Mangans of this world any more valid. Many people without a single drop of Jewish blood in their veins support Israel because it’s the only sane and decent thing to do.
You are quoting from a document called “The Law of Return: An Introduction.” That document links to the Law of Return, which states:
1. Every Jew has the right to come to this country as an oleh.
Then Amendment 2 to the Law or Return says:
Oleh’s visa 2. (a) Aliyah shall be by oleh’s visa.
(b) An oleh’s visa shall be granted to every Jew who has expressed his desire to settle in Israel, unless the Minister of Immigration is satisfied that the applicant
(1) is engaged in an activity directed against the Jewish people; or
(2) is likely to endanger public health or the security of the State.
4B. For the purposes of this Law, “Jew” means a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion.
There’s some ambiguity there created by syntactical awkwardness. I will eliminate the ambiguity by taking out the middle phrase and replacing it with ellipses:
4B. For the purposes of this Law, “Jew” means a person who was born of a Jewish mother … and who is not a member of another religion.
So, under the Law of Return, I am not a Jew.
At the same time, the document you sent says:
There is also fierce debate surrounding the question of “Who is a Jew,” and by extension, who is eligible to make aliyah under the Law of Return. At present, the definition is based on Hitler’s Nuremberg Laws: the right of Return is granted to any individual with one Jewish grandparent, or who is married to someone with one Jewish grandparent. As a result, thousands of people with no meaningful connection to the Jewish people theoretically have the right to immigrate.
This passage is based on Amendment 2, Sect. 4A of the Law of Return, which states:
4A. (a) The rights of a Jew under this Law and the rights of an oleh under the Nationality Law, 5712-1952***, as well as the rights of an oleh under any other enactment, are also vested in a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew, except for a person who has been a Jew and has voluntarily changed his religion.
So, while some non-Jews have the right of aliyah, based on family relationship, a Jew who has changed to another religion is explicitly barred from aliyah.
In other words, Sect. 4A gives the right of aliyah to persons who would be considered as Jews under the Nuremberg Laws, except for Jews who have converted to another religion.
Such persons would thus liable to persecution as Jews under the Nuremberg Laws, but are not permitted to immigrate to Israel.
Putting this in personal and concrete terms, the anti-Semites hate me as a Jew, while the Jews and Israel don’t regard me as a Jew, and Israel would not give me protection as one. My behavior makes no sense in paleocon-tribalist or Darwinian terms. Darwinian-style power- and status-seeking cannot explain my becoming a Christian.
Nora Brinker replies:
Thanks for the clarification!
Thank you for bringing it up. I didn’t know all that until you sent me these documents.
James P. writes:
What I find fascinating is that Mangan, in a post devoted to attacking you, accuses you of “picking fights with people”. He also interpreted your criticism of Alternative Right as a personal attack on him. This is frankly bizarre, since he’s not an editor there, merely a contributor.
I’ve only read his initial entry, not the thread which as of yesterday had 41 comments. In my post attacking Alternative Right I did not mention or reference Mangan in any way.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 19, 2010 05:41 PM | Send