This is an appropriate way to begin his D's discussion of his somewhat representative selection of the extraordinarily large body of evidence for the thesis that the jews are a negative element in the American body politic and a literal "'fifth column'". Indeed following his first rhetorical rhetorical question D promptly asks another: where he wonders how we can "'suspect a whole people?'"
This is an unfortunate bit of phraseology on D's part as it assumes that group-based discrimination and/or judgement is something unusual in the life and behaviour of humans. Indeed in asking his second rhetorical question D forgets to point out that we make such judgments every day as when we see someone on the street then we analyse them based on own experience and that of others and decide if they are threat, a potential mate, somebody we could ask directions off etc. That momentary and almost unthinking analysis is the same thing that D is discussing, but rather than using our instincts to make snap decisions: we are using our intelligence to make; we believe, more considered and nuanced decisions.
Thus if we make these kind of decisions based on instinct every day: how is that making a similar decision based upon ones intellect is somehow problematic or suspect?
D's rhetorical reasoning is fundamentally flawed as we utilize our intellectual thought and influences to help exaggerate or suppress our instinctual responses to various situations.
So when a man sees a woman he may think her attractive and be inclined to try and see whether she is romantically and/or sexually interested in him, but then realise that because he is a Marxist this instinctual response is to be suppressed because it contravenes his intellectual ideology in that it "'objectifies and therefore degrades women'".
By contrast if a woman was walking alone in a dark street at night and she was feeling very uncomfortable her instinctual response might be to walk faster or focus very closely on her surroundings. However because she has say read several recent reports of attacks on lone women in the area she instead exaggerates her instinctual behaviour and phones a friend to come and pick her up in her car or decides to take much more publicly traversed route home.
What is going on in both these responses is the modification of instinctual human behaviour based on group discrimination or judgement based on previous intellectual experiences which have been used to modify behaviour to perceivably conform to intellectual expectations. Whether these expectations are justified is irrelevant to the behaviour modification as the individual considers them to be part of their internal intellectual cosmos and therefore behave to try to best conform to these perceived" 'known facts'".
So when D rhetorically asks how we can" 'suspect a whole people'" then we can very simply answer that not only is this quite natural to do, but that we do it more or less every day!
D then cites a personal story from when he was a child that I quote in full below:
"'As a boy, many long years ago, I lived down the street from the family of an Orthodox Rabbi. I often played with one of their sons. On several occasions, on Friday evenings, Mrs. Geller asked me to come into her kitchen to light the gas cook stove for her so she could warm the evening meal for the family. It was a simple matter of striking a match, turning on the gas, and waiting a moment for the flame to catch, but she could not do this because the Sabbath had begun and she could do no work on the Sabbath. She could not do it, but she saw no problem with asking a goy child to do it. She, a member of the Chosen People, could not do this because it violated one of the 613 points of the Pharisaic Law, but she saw no harm in asking me, one of the non-chosen and therefore expendable people, to do this because she was sure I was of no concern anyway. Thus reasons my friend the orthodox Jewish housewife! In the eyes of the Jews, they alone are the elect of God, they alone will be saved, and the rest of us really do not matter at all.'"
It is clear in the above that D is relating a real event in his life as the story reads like the typical use of the Shabbos goy by an Orthodox family to do their work for them during the Shabbos celebrations. D's account of the striking of a match to light the gas on a stove so Mrs Geller could cook is something of the past these days as enterprising jews have invented all sorts of weird little gadgets for doing most; although not all, of the tasks that gentiles used to do for them on Shabbos.
Indeed D's point that the fact she could not do it herself, but saw nothing wrong with asking a non-jewish (goy) child to do it is quite the apt characterisation of the place envisaged for obedient gentiles in Judaism. If you are not born a member of Israel (i.e. a jew) then you have very few routes open to you: you can convert (which is very difficult and even then you are not an Israelite and are; as such, a lesser being) or you can follow the Noahide laws (and serve jews your whole life on the promises you will quickly become a spiritual Israelite on death).
Hardly a choice: is it?
D correctly implies that this is not a system that is inherently flattering towards those not born jewish when he talks about how non-jews are considered utterly expendable (but jews are not) in Judaism. A position that you find very occasionally denied by a few rabbis, but implicitly endorsed by the majority of them with the odd rabbi even going as far as to make it very plain that as a gentile you are not worth a proverbial jewish fingernail.
D makes it quite clear that he happily understands this saint and sinner dichotomy in Judaism when he declares that jews believe themselves to be the (biological) "'elect of God'" as he introduces the qualification "'alone' "thereby signifying that he has correctly identified the jewish self-belief in their uniqueness, chosen status and special mission from Yahweh to rule the non-jews.
He further qualifies this by pointing out that according to the jews"'they alone will be saved'" and the" 'rest of us do not matter at all'". This is unfortunately somewhat incorrect in that jews do not believe in being "'saved'" per se (which is D juxtaposing his Christian beliefs onto Judaism); as they believe their jewishness by birth makes that a foregone conclusion, but rather assert that as born jews; if they have kept the Mitzvoth, then they will go straight to Gan Eden (roughly approximate to heaven). While those jews who have not obeyed the Mitzvoth or have become apostates will have to go through Gehenna (roughly approximate to purgatory) for a short time to make-up for their sins.
In contrast those gentiles who have converted to Judaism will have to go through Gehenna for a time regardless of whether they have kept the Mitzvoth faithfully or not as they are bodily impure and as such need to be magically turned; via the medium of suffering in Gehenna, into bodily pure jewish souls to allow them to enter Gan Eden. Much the same applies to Noahides who are not jewish souls born in gentile bodies (as converts are understood in Judaism), but rather gentiles who have decided to serve jews body and soul so that they may lessen their time in Gehenna. In the case of Noahides the time in Gehenna is held to be longer than that of pious gentile converts, but is generally approximate to it.
In the vast majority of cases however; as I am sure D would note, gentiles are neither converts to Judaism or keepers of the Noahide laws. So what is to become of the gentiles in general?
Well very simply most of these gentile souls according to Judaism will go to Gehenna to be made to suffer for a largely indeterminate amount of time before they can be cleansed of all their bodily and spiritual impurities so that they can evolve into bodily pure jewish souls that can then enter Gan Eden.
For the gentiles who remain; usually termed Amalek or in particularly strident cases Agagite (i.e. King of Amalek), there is to be no suffering and torture in Gehenna to make them bodily pure jewish souls, but rather they are to either to disappear completely (i.e. a kind of divine death sentence from Yahweh) or be held in a sub-area of Gehenna where they are subjected to suffering and torture forever more by the vengeful God of Israel.
These gentiles to be classified as Amalek and/or Agagites are those who have actively opposed the jews during their lifetime and as such are judged to be utterly evil and corrupt souls. As in Judaism to actively oppose jews; as D intimates, is to oppose the elect of Hashem and therefore to oppose the will of the single omnipotent and omnipresent (if rather confused and forgetful) creator of the cosmos: as he has set the jews to rule over the gentiles in his eternal name and show them the" 'path of the righteous'" to become part of that elect in Gan Eden by suffering the torments of Gehenna to purify body and soul.
I have heard Judaism referred to numerous times as being" 'remarkably egalitarian in death'"; as I am sure D himself has, however the foregoing discussion shows that this is not the case as there is a clear hierarchy in Judaism in death unrelated to ones own life but rather directly hinging on one's birth and caste position in Judaism.
Action comes second to birth in Judaism: in theory you could be a jewish serial killer and paedophile and still receive less time in Gehenna than a particularly pious gentile convert to Judaism.
In summation Judaism is all about being chosen rather than being charitable.
Reference: 33witches.blogspot.com
