Atheism

Politics

Memes

Mind

Matters

String

Random

Interact

Feedback

Email

Links

Debate

Home

What is it about the Jews? What makes them such a special case? Did you know that there are two special categories of people who can jump the queue to become immigrants into Germany? Those of German tradition and Jews from the former Soviet Union. Jews are the ultimate special case. It is wrong to discriminate on the grounds of race, except for Jews.

Modern western culture is obsessed by the Jews. Why this is the case is not entirely clear. Obviously the holocaust in the war years has a lot to do with it. Many people bent over backwards to make things up to the Jews. A rather futile gesture. It is impossible to make amends, no amount of special treatment will put right the wrong done to that people, discrimination can only store up problems for the future. I'm sorry my grandfather killed five of your great uncles, here, have a BMW, and if you feel like beating anybody up I will look away. It doesn't work, does it?

Why is Israel so different to other countries? Why do they play by their own peculiar rules? If any other nation on the planet acted as Israel acts they would be an international pariah state and subject to stringent sanctions. If they were a Muslim country they would probably be regularly on the receiving end of Tomahawk missiles too. Israel invades its neighbours and occupies them. It shells their towns. It launches missiles attacks. If a bomb explodes in Israel the armed forces of Israel thinks it is perfectly justified in shelling towns associated with supporters of the group suspected of carrying out the bombing. This is state terrorism. Think about a direct analogy, an Irish Republican terrorist group explodes a bomb in Britain killing people who have nothing to do with the constitutional arguments over Northern Ireland, and who have never once been asked even to vote about it. In response, if the British thought like the Israelis, a legitimate response would be sending a warship to Boston harbour and taking out a couple of city blocks full of the Irish Americans who financed it. That kind of behaviour would not be tolerated by any nation, well, any gentile nation at least.

The problem is caused by Americans. Jewish Americans. They vote. They change their vote on matters of foreign policy, they also grant or withhold donations. That would not be a problem apart from the fact that they are pretty much the only people who do. Just as defence policy is too important to leave up to the generals and food policy is too important to leave up to the farmers the foreign policy of the world's biggest superpower is too important to leave up to the whims of a few million romantic Jewish voters. It is time some counterbalancing pressure was brought to bear which could stand up and fight for the interests of the gentiles in foreign policy. The vast majority of the American public is not Jewish, neither is the population of the planet.

Israel is smaller in size than New Jersey. It has a population of around 5.5 million. Which is similar to that of that other international heavyweight, Denmark. Israel should be less important than the following developed nations which all have much larger populations; The Czech Republic, Switzerland, Belgium, Austria, Greece, Portugal, and Sweden.

How many American people could place Bulgaria on a map? A country with twice the population of Israel and over five times the land area. A country that also needs far more economic help, having a GDP only a quarter the size. Neither you nor I need bother to ask which country actually receives more aid from Uncle Sam.

Israel is one very small country, much smaller than most US states, it does not deserve to be the focus of foreign policy of a superpower. It deserves equal status with other countries with similar populations. If we were to map the world according to the relative importance each country is to the American public the USA would fill up 99% of the map, Canada would be a thin streak across the top border and Israel would be bigger than Africa, India and Australia combined.

The political parties in America should go out of their way to encourage a counterbalancing force. I am not suggesting that there should be an anti-Israel group but some kind of large organization that could seek to counteract the few hundred thousand well motivated Pro-Israel group, that would require tens of millions of moderates to achieve a balance.

There is a general need for such a large block of organized apathy, the genuine silent majority who can stand up for the rights of the un-handicapped, the food consumer, the gentile, the married man, the civilian and the straight.

The problem with political pressure groups is that an unopposed small force can drag the inert mass of the political machinery far over onto the territory of the extremists. How many votes are there in opposing cripple's rights? How many votes in making farmers poor? How many votes in telling Jews where to get off? There is a real need for some politicization of the masses. It is in the interests of most people in the USA that Israel is treated just like any other small allied nation, like Belgium, Peru or Turkey, not allowed to dominate the foreign policy of a superpower.

It is also in the interests of the majority that the state does not become a substitute breadwinner for millions of single women and their children. It is in the interests of the majority that the costs of concessions to the disabled are costed out and decided on a rational basis, not thrown into a bottomless pit as the terminally deserving cry out for them. The majority also has a legitimate right to question the idea that because a man is born of a farming family that he somehow has a right to pursue that lifestyle choice in perpetuity, unlike the sons of miners or steam engine engineers, thieves or slave overseers.

Democracy cannot function to the benefit of the whole society unless the inert majority is given a voice. Note, they must be given the voice, they have too little incentive to assert it for themselves. Political parties should make a point of enfranchising the majority not just the noisy rainbow coalition of minorities. This is not in any way to be read as a reason for intolerance or the persecution of minorities, but the application of much needed active inertia. The majority should be a dead weight, hard to pull out of line, not just a push-over for the pushy minorities. Nobody is standing up for the rights of the majorities. Democracy has become a terrible system of organized minority pressure groups making far more noise than their numbers or real significance justifies.

Recently I heard in a radio program of a school for the autistic which costs £60,000 per year per pupil. Not a single voice was raised to state the obvious point that £60,000 is a very large sum of money, representing the local tax raised from several hundred people. Nobody asked how much was reasonable to spend on the education of a single child. I am not arguing that £60,000 is too much but somebody should at least consider the question. At what point would the disabled rights lobby think they were being greedy? Can we trust them not to ask too much? It cannot be right to allow policy to be made by people who subscribe to the no price is too high school of thought, or to allow the interests of the majority to be framed merely in terms of we do not have the budget for such a policy, no matter how worthy. We need people to say loud and clear that public money is not available in limitless quantity and that not every piece of potential public spending can be justified. That is not being heartless, that is being realistic. It is time that democracy really became the government of the people by the people rather than government by the organized minority group.

Comment on this page.

© 1999 - 2008 by Martin Willett.

mwillett.org: Debate Unlimited