The White Man’s Burden: Rudyard Kipling was Right
Replace “White Man” with “Western Civilization” and Kipling is as right today as he was in 1899
by Bill Levinson
It is easy for the politically correct Left to dismiss Rudyard Kipling’s “The White Man’s Burden” as racist because of its title, but it is necessary to place the poem in context. When Kipling wrote this poem in 1899, Japan, the United States, and Russia (noting the latter’s Asiatic domains) were the only advanced nations that were not almost exclusively Caucasian. This is why it was common at the time to use “White” as a catch-all for “advanced and civilized.”
During the subsequent 111 years, Asian countries like South Korea, Taiwan, and Indonesia have joined the ranks of civilized nations, and the same goes for several Black-majority countries like South Africa and Namibia. A closeup inspection of Africa shows, however, that only six Black or Arab majority countries have what civilized nations accept as complete human and political rights, while only four Asian-majority nations (South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, and Indonesia) qualify. In contrast, lack of freedom and civil rights is the exception (e.g. Russia, Belarus) rather than the rule in Caucasian-majority Europe and North America. The bottom line is however that civilization and human rights are a collective behavioral choice as opposed to a race, and Rudyard Kipling made this explicitly clear in the language of the late 19th century.
Kipling’s poetry shows emphatically that he was not a racist, and that he judged people by the content of their character as opposed to the color of their skin. Gunga Din describes how the racially white Britons treated their dark-skinned Indian water carrier very badly but, in the end, his behavior made him a better man than they were.
- ‘E would skip with our attack,
An’ watch us till the bugles made “Retire.”
An’ for all ‘is dirty ‘ide,
‘E was white, clear white, inside
When ‘e went to tend the wounded under fire!
Din! Din! Din!
You Lazarushian-leather Gunga Din!
Tho’ I’ve belted you an’ flayed you,
By the livin’ Gawd that made you,
You’re a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
The British soldier in the story talks about Gunga Din’s “dirty hide” but the content of the story stands this racist premise on its head by showing that the water carrier’s behavior under enemy fire, i.e. the content of his character, made him a better man than the Britons who often struck and abused him. Kipling’s Ballad of East and West emphasizes that it is character as opposed to skin color or ethnicity that makes a person what he is:
- Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgment Seat;
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face,
tho’ they come from the ends of the earth!
This says explicitly that Border (nationality), Breed and Birth (ethnicity) are meaningless, and only the content of a person’s character counts. In The Mother Lodge, Freemasons of all nationalities, religions, and races meet as brothers. Kipling, a Mason, refers to his “Brethren black an’ brown.”
- I wish that I might see them,
My Brethren black an’ brown,
With the trichies smellin’ pleasant
An’ the hog-darn passin’ down;
An’ the old khansamah snorin’
On the bottle-khana floor,
Like a Master in good standing
With my Mother-Lodge once more.
Outside – Sergeant! Sir! Salute! Salaam!’
Inside- Brother,” an’ it doesn’t do no ‘arm.
We met upon the Level an’ we parted on the Square,
An’ I was Junior Deacon in my Mother-Lodge out there!
The truth is therefore that Kipling, like Martin Luther King, judged people on the content of their character as opposed to the color of their skin, but the language of the late 19th century equated “White” with “Civilized.” He would probably have used different language, e.g. “Western Civilization” had he written The White Man’s Burden in 1999 instead of 1899, and he would have been 100 percent correct.
Now suppose that somebody had, on the 28th of June 1914, stopped Gavrilo Princip from firing two fatal pistol shots into Archduke Francis Ferdinand and his wife–or that, later in 1914, the Schlieffen Plan had worked as designed and Germany had won the First World War in six weeks. History might have then gone as follows:
(1) Adolf Hitler would have lived a long and happy life as an artist.
(2) Israel would not exist but Germany would be home to more than three million relatively wealthy Jews. An additional three million Polish Jews and three million Polish Catholics would not have been murdered in the Holocaust.
(3) England would control what are now India and Pakistan. In the case of India, the world’s largest democracy, this would be a wash but non-free Pakistan, where the law defines who is and who is not a Muslim, would be under civilized rule.
(4) Egypt and the Sudan, where militant “Islamic” Janjaweed persecute and kill Christians, would be under civilized British rule. This map of the British Empire shows, in fact, that at least three of the few African countries that are rated “Free” by Freedom House are all former British colonies. Zimbabwe would still be Rhodesia, admittedly under white rule but more prosperous and safe for its Black citizens than it is under Robert Mugabe.
(5) Russia would still be ruled by a Tsar, but it is effectively ruled by one now. Meanwhile, 30 million or so Russians and Ukrainians would not have been murdered by Joseph Stalin.
(6) Tanzania and Cameroon would be under German rule.
(7) A large number of semicivilized or uncivilized African countries would be under French control.
(8) Syria and a good part of Saudi Arabia would be under the Turkish boot heel, which was admittedly not a good place to be but was probably better than what the people of those countries have now. In the absence of war with Russia, the Ottoman Empire might not have perpetrated the infamous Armenian genocide of 1915.
(9) Nigeria, in which women have been sentenced to be stoned to death, would be under British rule.
So far, we have yet to see a downside to an alternate history in which the First World War either never happened or ended so quickly that the German, Austrian, Russian, and Ottoman Empires still existed today. The sole exception to such a utopia would be the fact that Poland would still be divided between Russia, Germany, and Austria, although a rapid German victory on the Eastern Front in the First World War might in fact have liberated the Russian section of Poland. Many of the world’s worst dictatorships including the Sudan, Idi Amin’s Uganda, and Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe would be under civilized governments with rule of law and protection for all persons regardless of their race, religion, or ethnicity. Again, the bottom line is that Rudyard Kipling was right.
- Take up the White Man’s burden–
Send forth the best ye breed–
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives’ need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild–
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.
Take up the White Man’s burden–
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another’s profit,
And work another’s gain.
Take up the White Man’s burden–
The savage wars of peace–
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.
[The Palestinians' destruction of greenhouses in Gaza is an outstanding example.]
Take up the White Man’s burden–
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper–
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.
Take up the White Man’s burden–
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard–
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:–
“Why brought ye us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?”
[Note how the Third World now denounces "colonialism" when it was colonialism that made many such countries into advanced, prosperous, and civilized nations]
Take up the White Man’s burden–
Ye dare not stoop to less–
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloak your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.
Take up the White Man’s burden–
Have done with childish days–
The lightly proferred laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!
What a lovely poem by a very wise man.
I hated Kipling and almost anything British 18th century or 19th. I equate them almost on par with the Nazi. I consider Kipling a puerile romantic and by today’s standards would be considered a racist.
Much of Indonesia is under sharia law. In South Africa, white farmers are being murdered. Malaysia is also largely under sharia law. Also in Indonesia and Malaysia, churches have been burned down. So I would declare that these particular nations are NOT in the ranks of the civilized.
I’m with Laura and based on Levinson’s romanticized conception of the world almost none of the countries he mentioned meet his definitions in reality. Poland doesn’t even meet his standard for being civilized.
Yamit82, I think you hate everybody so I am not surprised.
Poland is rated “Free” by Freedom House so it is of course a civilized nation. It had many modern freedoms like freedom of speech and religion more than 100 years before the United States existed.
Maybe Indonesia and Malaysia are backsliding like Laura says. I misread the Freedom House Map and Malaysia is only “Partly free.” Indonesia is “Free” but does not have the highest ratings.
Almost, but I reserve a special hate fore anti-Semites and Jew Killers. I don’t turn other cheeks, and I don’t forgive and forget, there by the will of G-d was me as one of their victims. “The past was erased, the erasure forgotten, the lie became truth.” Orwell, “1984″
Is that almost as good as Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval?
Rudyard would be considered racist by today’s perverse standards, and so what? The English-Speaking Nations of White Israelites have civilized the Gentile world, as prophesied. I’m gladly as racist as the ethnocentric Bible (with its focus on the family of Jacob) teaches me to be and wholeheartedly support Israel in the Isles – regardless if that’s condemned by lesser peoples as “racist,” “colonialism,” “imperialistic,” etc.
God save South Africans and raped Rhodesia, Zimbabwe ruins, from the primitive Gentiles.
Why invoke that liberal Jewish-pimped fraud, that adulterer, that plagiarizer Michael Luther King as if he is something worthy to emulate? He’s a forged hero created by godless Jews like the terrorist Nelson Mandela – why aid and support their BIG LIE? That’s a politically correct form of racism.
Invictus Idolatry
Yamit82 wrote,
I don’t hate them any more than I hate cockroaches and termites; I spray the latter with Raid or Black Flag, but I don’t hate them.
DavidBenAriel wrote,
South Africa worked out OK under Black majority rule but Rhodesia should have remained Rhodesia. I wrote in the Cornell Daily Sun LONG ago that Robert Mugabe was a common criminal and terrorist, and I was right.
Euro-American culture is superior and the Third World needs to either live with its inferiority or else adopt Euro-American culture to become civilized.
I know and have studied dispassionate Zen, but your Christian morality might get in your way and hesitate for that split second and they will Shirley kill you. If you emotionally hate them you won’t hesitate or at least will will be less likely to.
S Africa is deep in the crapper most whites have left the only ones staying on are those with the financial motivation to still be there.
S Africa has the highest violent crime rate in the world evey white home is protected like a max security prison only here it’s to keep the Barbarians out.
I love western technology and indoor toilets with running water as much as the next guy, I love the prospect of living through medical science and good genes to at least a hundred but to say western civilization is superior is the arrogance of ignorance.
All of you existence is predicated on cheap electricity and clean water. The water is dwindling and your energy source is vulnerable.
Those primitives as you might call them can survive without those things but could you? They can because that’s what they know, how to survive!
I can because I was trained ( cub scout den 34) . I know how to make fire. I know how to light fires. lots of other stuff too.
Uncle, you don’t have to convince me. You got my vote, in fact I’ll join your army any day.
ron, meant as a double entendre
Once more it’s Israel & the nations!
As always and forever: the Holy Blueprint!
As of now: two Jews & three opinions (the democracy of choice with lots of public space in which to demonstrate the various freedoms of opinion)
and presently it’s Israel without borders/ secure borders
not even Moses is inviolate
and oblivious of the sensitivities of others, Madiba Nelson Mandela
has just been desecrated
by one “DavidBenAriel”.
Understandably in his purview of who is civil-ized and who isn’t only the Almighty cannot be blasphemed.
And he had better take his hands off Dr. Martin Luther King who had this to say
http://christianactionforisrael.org/antiholo/ml_king.html
Well, the ideology of “Israel & the Nations” implies special high standards for Israel and that’s why you still act surprised when you hear yourself complaining all the time about double standards: one for Israel (very high) and one for the rest of the world, for which the set standards and expectations are considerably lower.
Israel still has to live with another idea: the family of nations, even the so called United Nations, which as we and they all know, is not so united.
Laura is in tears about churches being burned down in former PM, arch anti-Semite Mahathir Mohamad’s Mal-aysia and the Indonesia of Israel’s late friend Abdurrahman Wahid who indeed showed the more brotherly side of Islam towards bani-Israel. The same criteria can be applied to e.g. Nigeria which is currently president of the United Nations. In Nigeria not only churches are ritually burned down by Muslims, but Christians are ritually macheted too and then not turning the other cheek Mosques are burned down in revenge; long gone is the Christian spirit of forgiveness, of live and let live. The cycle of violence continues, some call it fratricide others say it’s merely intercine. Hopefully under the presidency of the new Nigerian president with the auspicious name of Dr.Goodluck Jonathan, things will gradually change for the better, with better law enforcement of the rights of all Nigerian citizens.
In 2009 Libya also held the presidency of the UN of the civilized nations
Bobby Fischer once showed contempt for the UN order banning him from playing a world Championship in Yugoslavia, by publicly spitting on the piece of paper which conveyed the order.
As the bard said:
“It’s easy to see without looking too far
That not much is really sacred. “
Once more it’s Israel & the nations!
correction corny it’s the nations against Israel, or the Jews.
http://christianactionforisrael.org/antiholo/ml_king.html
This missive has been widely attributed to King but he didn’t write it. Author unknown!!! King played up to the Jews because they were his principle financial backers. Jews even founded the NAACP. Stupid Jews, Kapo Jews!
Mandela was and is a scumbag anti-semite and should rot in a great lake of fire for all eternity. Nothing is too bad for that piece of shit.
“DavidBenAriel”. is a total fruitcake and is being punished for not succeeding in blowing up the Dome of he Rock, but he is mostly factual and historically accurate.
When you look closely you will find those things that Christianity and their civilizations once proclaimed sacred never really were.
yammy,
No evil intention : I’ll get back ta ya after midnight and pay you in your own coin.
What happens after midnight, you grow some Huevos Mamasita?: No es por el huevo sino por el fuero? Que pone huevos pero no es ave y no es mammifero? KISS Corny KISS
I’m so excited, I can’t wait for midnight!! Where is your midnight so I’ll know when to expect you?
“No reason to get excited,” the thief, he kindly spoke
“There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke
But you and I, we’ve been through that, and this is not our fate
So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late”
Now damit Yamit, don’t start trying to get too smart with me. This last Pesach Seder which was presided over by Rabbi Isak Nachman, I sat between an Orthodox Jew from South Africa, and another from Finland and we chatted about relevant things. I can fill you in with more about the South African aspect of the chat when you request it. Even about the bad air concerning allegations of relations between Israel, South Africa and the nuclear bomb – albeit to fight communists who were hell bent with inspiration from Angola for which reason it was feared they had the potential to eventually nationalise the milk cow, those gold and diamond mines etc. AS Malcolm X said, “You can’t have capitalism without racism”
Now let me ask you: do you think that Naturei Karta (Arafat’s rabbi Weiss) and the Satmar people and all other anti- Zionists and other unmentionable useless bits of shit “are scumbag anti-Semites and should rot in a great lake of fire for all eternity”?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Naturei+Karta+%3A+Rabbi+Y+D+Weiss
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Satmar+vs+Israel
Whilst the football jamboree is still going on in Madiba Nelson Mandela’s South Africa, I should hope that we will not be on the opposite sides of any future Racism conferences that could be held in Durban or elsewhere.
This is addressed to Yamit82 and anyone else who wants to aid and abet her:
“Justice, justice shall you pursue”
Let’s be reasonable here: First of all you’ve gotta realise that South Africa is not part of the Holy Land of Eretz Israel.
You cannot even put Madiba Nelson Mandela a native of South Africa, in David Ben-Gurion’s place/ shoes. I’m talking about the David Ben-Gurion who said unequivocally:
“I don’t understand your optimism. Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it’s true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations’ time, but for the moment there is no chance. So, it’s simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipe us out. “
From Memoirs : David Ben-Gurion (1970), p. 36, as quoted in The Jewish Paradox : A personal memoir (1978) by Nahum Goldmann (translated by Steve Cox), p. 99.
Yes, those are the words of David Ben-Gurion (I don’t know who his main Jewish financiers were, but I do know a little about South African finance , know about the Oppenheimers, the Lev Levievs, the fallen Rand – and much more : the immoral foundations of the Apartheid system which was all based on the immoral theological premises of the Dutch Reformed Church which encouraged those geezers from Holland to make Aliyah to their so called “Promised Land” of South Africa – and the ANC, PAC ( “ one settler , one bullet”) , AZAPO, COSATU and ALL the people of South Africa and indeed the whole world – including all those financed by proceeds from the People of South Africa’s goldmines, diamonds and other precious stones and minerals that the Almighty though fit to bury outside the holy land of Israel – all these people had a moral obligation to rectify that ungodly situation,
One more Jew – Joe Slovo, once minister of Housing:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+Joe+Slovo
Now Yamit, if you really want to come again, you’ll have to wait till the midnight hour and you’ll have to be here.
Questo pezzo è un pugno nello stomaco. Ma quanto era bravo Jimi Hendrix
I’m an old Dylan aficionado.
There must be some kind of way out of here
Said the joker to the thief
Theres too much confusion
I cant get no relief
Businessman they drink my wine
Plow men dig my earth
None will level on the line
Nobody of it is worth
Hey hey
No reason to get excited
The thief he kindly spoke
There are many here among us
Who feel that life is but a joke but uh
But you and I weve been through that
And this is not our fate
So let us not talk falsely now
The hour’s getting late
Hey
Hey
All along the watchtower
Princes kept the view
While all the women came and went
Bare-foot servants to, but huh
Outside in the cold distance
A wild cat did growl
Two riders were approachin
And the wind began to howl
Hey
Oh
All along the watchtower
Hear you sing around the watch
Gotta beware gotta beware I will
Yeah
Ooh baby
All along the watchtower
OK Corny, I’m unimpressed so far!
Never heard of the Rabbi but I guess you think I should and be impressed. Takes a lot to impress me.
Malcom X was an asshole Black racist and anti-semite. That’s your source behind your psycho babble?
Racism exists in some form in every creed, religion and culture. So what? So does greed and avarice.
Yup!
I never attend my own lynching voluntarily. I really could care less which side you are on but I’m sure it wouldn’t be on mine.
Was meant for Jews only not the gentiles. The whole ethical foundation of Judaism is predicated on Justice and social Justice amongst Jews not more not less.
You cannot even put Madiba Nelson Mandela a native of South Africa, in David Ben-Gurion’s place/ shoes. I’m talking about the David Ben-Gurion who said unequivocally:
“I don’t understand your optimism. Why should the Arabs make peace?
Ben Gurion was a fascist Marxist cretin! He hated the Arabs more than the right. He even had thousands of Arabs killed and forced to flee. In this he fulfilled the biblical mandate. The Arabs must go, They believe we stole their land and whether true or not that’s what they believe. Even if true every nation today exists on the bones of those who were there first.
I don’t care about apartheid. I care only for Jews and expect nothing good from the gentiles.
Corny I know the general history and here is the point, anyone who is an anti Zionist is a Anti-semite, anyone who aids and supports myh enemies is my enemy. Israel before Mandella had a lot in common and good relations. Any minority has a right and duty to protect themselves even culturally from a primitive majority if they can and by any means considering the alternatives I’d say that most Blacks fared better under apartheid S. Africa than they do today. Our Arabs know and reject the benefits the Jews brought to them. They had a desert before the Jews but it was their desert. I understand the sentiment and respect it. Therefore I say we must remove those Arbs from our midst otherwise we will someday have to kill them Transfer is more humane. That was the mistake of White S. Africans they kept within their society too many Blacks.
I am speechless. You win. I just shot myself
I agree with you that “anyone who is an anti Zionist is a Anti-Semite, anyone who aids and supports my enemies is my enemy.”
On the one hand there’s the idea of role-model “Israel and the nations”, and on the other there’s what you say: “it’s the nations against Israel ” – and that – “The stage is now being set by Israel’s enemies, with America and her Muslim President leading the charge”
The rest of what you say, “we must remove those Arabs from our midst otherwise we will someday have to kill them Transfer is more humane”echoes Avigdor Lieberman and what Rabbi Meir Kahane wrote in “Our Challenge” (1974) which I zapped through last night ( perhaps you’d like to contribute to his idea of “the Emigration Fund for Peace (Keren Hegira Imaan ha-Shalom)”?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=sv&rlz=1G1GGLQ_SVSE353&q=Rabbi+Meir+Kahane+%3A+Our+Challenge
Some of this is troubling in the extreme:
I repeat what a late friend Anthony Swerling often said (a statement of fact, not meant to “impress”) – that Israel/ Jews should try to win more friends and not isolate those we already have.
What bothers me most is that instead of trying to win over friends like Nelson Mandela and the disciples of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King you still expect Israel to survive and thrive in a hostile world by further distancing Israel from her friends? ( I dream that the Messiah will appear when the UN lays siege to Israel – and then the nations get to know that “God don’t make no promises that He don’t keep”
From an entirely religious point of view, Israel’s blessed existence:
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9997
This is not meant to be provocative, but whatever happened to “ “Be kind to the stranger in your midst, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”?
PS – and personally,I have not found anything objectionable in what he has said here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26151291/Our-Challenge-The-Holy-Land
on the contrary it is not only inspirational and practical – but also feasible – even in this modern world….
Role model? First things first. First secure the Jewish people and then we can proceed to being a role model. The Torah is explicit: Jews were chosen in order to raise us up (Exodus 20:17). In our prayers, we thank G-d for having chosen us from among all nations and exalting us above all towns. It’s great to be chosen by the biggest authority in the universe. We’re prepared to treat any non-abusive Gentile respectfully. Shulhan Aruch forbids cheating Gentiles, particularly in weights. I’m unaware of a similar express prohibition in Christianity. Theorists would argue that it is deducible from general principles, but what is deducible for them is not so clear for their merchants.
The love we’re supposed to share is curiously one-sided. I’ve yet to find a nation which loves Jews. Please, drop that mantra about the United States; about a quarter of its population holds anti-Semitic views, just like in Europe. Nor is it natural for one nation to love another. Compatriots cooperate, communities compete.
It’s more difficult with hate, not least because hate is hard to differentiate from antagonism. Naturally, I hate those who hate Jews, who killed us before and would kill again, given an opportunity. I hate them in the sense that I would gladly avenge the deaths of my fellow Jews at the hands of Germans or Ukrainians, but not perhaps in the sense of actively seeking an opportunity for revenge.
The “light unto the nations” promise is contained in the problematic Isaiah 42, traditionally a favorite of messianics for its verse, “the former things came to pass, and new things do I declare.” It cannot override the explicit commandment that Jews are “the people that dwells alone.”
Atheist Jewish liberals would not dare say to their gentile friends that Jews possess something which gentiles lack; that the Jewish way of life is inherently better. Liberals have no right to say this, as their way of life is not Jewish in any sense, but indistinguishable from the nations’. A Jewish liberal who speaks of Judaism somehow being equal to Jeffersonian political utopia—what can he teach his gentile acquaintances? His “Judaism” only includes the points acceptable to his fellow gentile liberals; all the rest is abandoned. It has not even been eradicated, as that would have required knowledge of Judaism on the liberal’s part, but simply abandoned, left unlearned and unknown. The liberal’s Judaism is narrower than gentile ethics, a subset of it. Such “Judaism” includes what gentiles accept, but not everything that they accept. It contains only the things which gentiles have long adopted anyway, and therefore cannot serve as a light unto the nations.
The light, or role model you mention is similar to the beacon’s. Ships sail toward it, but it doesn’t go forward to the ships. The beacon stays on its island; the ships move. Nations can start admiring the Jewish way of life only if we prove it to them. After the 1967 war, Jews became hugely popular around the world. By staying in Israel and making it into a strong, daring, unusual state, Jews have the best chance to draw gentiles to our values.
Obama worries me far less than BB and Barak. They hold the key not Obama.
The rest of what you say, “we must remove those Arabs from our midst otherwise we will someday have to kill them Transfer is more humane”echoes Avigdor Lieberman and what Rabbi Meir Kahane wrote in “Our Challenge” (1974) which I zapped through last night ( perhaps you’d like to contribute to his idea of “the Emigration Fund for Peace (Keren Hegira Imaan ha-Shalom)”?
Lieberman is a populist fake and probably a crimnal as well. Kahane, yes I know his works, and while we agree on many things many we don’t. I’m not a follower. I am if anything eclectic.
We don’t need friends just less enemies.
Nations don’t have friends just perceived interests. We shouldn’t have to buy friends through word or deed. I am not into buying friends. They are as loyal as the last best offer. I’m not into kissing any gentiles ass so he will love me either, well,(CORRECTION) there are a number of gentile broads I would consider kissing ass for.
No need to wait for Messiah, look around you, almost 7 million Jews in Israel a military and economic powerhouse soon to be energy independent as well. I’d say G-d is keeping his promises.
“O nations: Sing the praises of His People, for He will avenge the blood of His Servants; He will bring retribution upon His adversaries, and He will appease His Land [and] His People.” (Deuteronomy 32:43)
A MESSAGE FROM JESUS TO A GENTILE FOLLOWER:
This is not meant to be provocative, but whatever happened to “ “Be kind to the stranger in your midst, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”?
Not so sure, He didn’t take kindly to Christian Missionaries (death penalty if caught in the land of Israel) and even to almost absolute restrictions of all gentiles from the Holy Land. He would have burned all your churches to the ground as well.
See what happens when you cherry pick just those things you agree with?
PS
Learn real Judaism, Case in point:
The critical difference between us and the Christians is whom we consider a fellow man. Modern Christians unrealistically pronounce all people fellows, and surely fail to treat them as such. But their own parable of the Good Samaritan is instructive: even a despised Samaritan could be one’s fellow if the Samaritan helped him. A fellow is one from whom help is expected. Such a definition surely excludes the Canaanites and Palestinian Arabs from the commandment to love your fellow.
What is the love enjoined to our fellows? The context clarifies: “You shall not oppress your fellow” (19:13), “You shall not hate your brother” (19:17), and the 19:18: “You shall neither take revenge, nor restrain [yourself to take revenge later] at the children of your nation.” This, by the way, refutes the claims that human vengeance is prohibited in Judaism, that it is reserved for the power of God only. Revenge is prohibited only against fellow Jews, on the double presumption of their general goodwill and efficient law enforcement. In such a society, revenge on the personal level was superfluous. But taking revenge on the enemies of Jews (even their distant offspring) is not merely a right, but an often-reiterated obligation: “a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace” (Ecclesiastes 3:8).
The commandment of love concludes a list which parallels the Decalogue, and is therefore comparable to the prohibition of jealousy (Exodus 20:13).
The prescribed love for one’s fellow is the absence of hatred, vengeance, oppression, and jealousy. While gerim must not be oppressed, fellows must also not be hated. The Torah distinguishes between several circles of people: the closer is the circle, the more rights are accorded to it. Extended family, a closer circle, enjoys still more rights: one must respect his parents. One’s own family, the closest circle, awards generous rights to wives. Later on, when Hebrew society became strong and gerim were fully integrated, the commandment of love was expanded onto them (Deuteronomy 10:19); converts were thereafter to be treated strictly on par with native Jews.
The Torah prescribes, “The ger who resides among you in your land shall be for you like a native, and you shall love him just as you love yourself” (Leviticus 19:34). You cannot be more compassionate than that. But why does the Torah, so short on words, reiterate, “in your land”? So that the ger absolutely recognizes the land as ours. And indeed the parallel Exodus 12:48: “And if a ger will reside with you, and will keep the Pesach to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised… he shall be like the native…” In order to be like a Jew, ger must be like a Jew: he must circumcise, keep Jewish customs, and to all purposes become a Jew. Then, sure enough, we must love him just as we love any Jew, including ourselves.
To summarize: Where it says, “You shall not oppress strangers,” the Torah enjoins us against arbitrarily taking the life or property of the submissive resident aliens who are loyal to Judaism. Where it says, “You shall love your fellow just as yourself,” the Torah enjoins a positive attitude toward one’s compatriots, toward like-minded people only.
I see you have come back from the grave?
Christianity, being a sect of Judaism, shares the Tanakh and its prohibition against cheating, lying and stealing. The moral themes established in the ‘Old Testament’ are continued and deepened in the ‘New’.
Problematic for who?
Actually, Messianics probably care more about this other verse in Isaiah 42, in which Messiah is a covenant for ‘the people’ Israel and the gentiles:
This passage clearly teaches that Messiah is the ultimate light. (Israel can’t be a covenant for Israel.)
You might be thinking of Jeremiah 31:31+, which is the famous ‘New Covenant’ passage. Well, it’s famous among Christians and Messianic Jews. Bob Dylan – a Messianic Jew – actually quotes this verse on one of his albums. BTW, Cornelius, nice Dylan reference…
Yamit, I’m not sure why you quoted Jesus here. What is your point?
The interpretation of this verse from his followers is that salvation is FROM the Jews because Messiah is birthed by Israel. (I’d argue this is Israel’s central purpose: to birth and minister to Messiah) Anyway, Jesus echoes Isaiah 42 in claiming that Messiah is salvation, not Israel. And, of course, he claimed to be Messiah.
To summarize his teachings, which agree with the Tanakh: Salvation/Messiah is FROM the Jews but is FOR Jews and Gentiles.
Yes,
Dear Rabbi Yamit82,
I survived the crucifixion. As you may not already know,
“The grave’s a fine and private place,
But none I think do there embrace.”
Many thanks for the shiurim … and for the clarity with which you come across. Still I’m fearful and a little mystified by what you could mean by “I am if anything eclectic.” – I have in mind Rabbi Kahane saying on page 19 of “Our Challenge”:
“There may, therefore, be many who will be upset by some of the ideas in this book. Yet they cannot claim that they are not Jewish ideas that have throughout the centuries represented the mainstream of Jewish thought. Those who oppose them would do well to honestly search their own minds and hearts to discover whether their ideas are not really the products of intellectual and ideological assimilation.”
I suppose that by eclectic, you mean diverse Jewish sources? Such as “Israel and the Nations”/ Part ii chapter 4 of Moshe Chaim Luzzatto’s “Derech Hashem”/ The Way of God”…
Second little question: Does Lashon Hara only apply to fellow human beings of the house of Israel?
Concerning Rabbi Meir Kahane’s attitude to those who want to mislead the light unto the nations, you say that “He didn’t take kindly to Christian Missionaries (death penalty if caught in the land of Israel) and even to almost absolute restrictions of all gentiles from the Holy Land. He would have burned all your churches to the ground as well “( Sounds like the prohibitions about Christian missionary activity in Mecca – understandably, at this point Rabbi Yamit 82 would not like to wilfully antagonise or make enemies of any of our Christian Zionist allies…
Still, I particularly like the wording of the Mitzvoth 37 to 41, as presented here:
http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism/practices/613.htm
Actually I think the Muslims took their ideology mostly from the Jews but they have never let their distorted interpretations evolve like the Jews. There is a difference as to what I would like to see and what is feasible. I wouldn’t chop a missionaries head off today I would just jail him with Muslim Terrorists for a long time and if they survive the Muslims throw their sorry asses out of my country. When you are a guest you obey the rules and traditions of the land and people who are your hosts or don’t come.
Ted is into preserving good relations with Christians, me too but only on my terms in my Land. He has his reason, his truth and I mine so I won’t bash Christians on his blog but I won’t kiss up to them either. On a personal level we van get along with mutual respect but never theologically. I am liberal enough to allow you your beliefs but not so liberal that I will concede you have the truth.
My eclecticism is based wholly on Jewish sources.
Still, I particularly like the wording of the Mitzvoth 37 to 41, as presented here:
What do you like about them?
Lashon Harah:
Rabbis tried to make Jews nice, to make us “more pious than G-d.” Guess what, Jews are not nice. From those who fought under Abraham to those who robbed the Egyptians to those who knocked down the towns of Canaan to Dir Yassin to Kach—the Jews are anything but nice. Jews must serve G-d and their moral principles zealously, and how could humble people be zealous? Zeal is about certainty of one’s right and willingness to establish that right in the Land of Israel.
Nice Jews were supposed to talk nice, and rabbis invented the doctrine of evil tongue. What could be further from Judaism? It is the obligation of any Jew to talk bad—very bad—about deviants, and to denounce evildoers. That’s regardless of his or her own piety. Judges need not be unblemished and righteous in order to condemn sinners. The evil tongue is bad only if it spreads baseless rumors. Speaking evil of an evil person is an obligation. Jews need to denounce their own in order to cleanse society.
Modern rabbis have made Judaism into a copycat of Christianity by declaring “love your neighbor” to be the major commandment. It is only a technical commandment which bans inequality of aliens in the court of law. The major thing in Judaism is simply… Judaism. The Jews who oppose Judaism should be frowned at and expelled rather than loved. The rabbis’ toleration—even love—of all Jews sets a bad precedent: why, a common Jew asks himself, should I strive for righteousness if rabbis welcome even the sinners?
”When you are a guest you obey the rules and traditions of the land and people who are your hosts or don’t come.” Sounds like a non Multi-cultural Swede issuing an ultimatum to immigrants from the non-Nordic countries, especially from the Islamic Middle East & North Africa (to the paranoid mind, potential terrorists, honour killings). Indians and Far Easterners are usually less strident, no “say it loud I’m black and proud “, more compliant, less obtrusive perhaps due to Hindu ahimsa, Buddhist ethics, and the protestant work ethic inherent in Confucius. Those who will not be disposed to observing the rules of the house come anyway. The advice is not a prohibition. They come as refugees fleeing intolerance, persecution, political turmoil, poverty, hunger, disease, sometimes, homophobia.
What do I like about the wording of the commandments as presented here?
“Not to love the missionary Deut. 13:9
“Not to cease hating the missionary Deut. 13:9
“Not to save the missionary Deut. 13:9
“Not to say anything in his defense Deut. 13:9
“Not to refrain from incriminating him Deut. 13:9
Well, the word hate has surfaced in your discourse a couple of times in this thread:
“I hated Kipling and almost anything British 18th century or 19th. I equate them almost on par with the Nazi.”
“I reserve a special hate fore anti-Semites and Jew Killers.” and a dozen more hate examples of what you ‘ve said.
I think that we hate with the same degree of intensity and for the same reasons. As far as Christian missionary activity directed at Jews is concerned, in the mid 90s I read most of the literature I could get my hands on to fortify myself against the ever on-going Christian missionary onslaught, which is mostly only successful on Jews who are not sufficiently educated in Jewish traditions , although a rabbi or two have turned coat, not to mention Sabbatai Zevi who became a Muslim in Istanbul. I also went through all the issues of “Biblical Polemics “ published by these people:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=The+Jerusalem+Institute+of+Biblical+Polemics
Perhaps the inter-faith dialogues of the ecumenical movements are impacting on Conservative Judaism in particular compromising it to the extent that – as you say, “Modern rabbis have made Judaism into a copycat of Christianity by declaring “love your neighbor” to be the major commandment.” – and this is having far-reaching consequences:
It’s especially evident in some of the Jewish apologists and the the onlookers among the nations most of whom apply double standards when it comes to what is expected of Israel in the political and military arena – to which they would like to extend the “ Love your neighbour as yourself “ as the main criteria of Israeli political and military behaviour – not because the Almighty said it in Leviticus 19:18 “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbour as yourself: I am the Lord.” but because JC who was quoting the Almighty said it – although some people think that when he (JC) said “You have heard it said but I say unto you” it was his mortally divine super-ego speaking and giving a new commandment and so and they expect Israel to also fulfil other Jesus Christ commandments such as “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despite fully use you, and persecute you” – all of which do not sound too reasonable.
I wonder how Benjamin Netanyahu will be faring on with Barack Hussein Osama today.
Zionist Rabbi Kook pronounced on war , voluminously.
Addressing vacillation and lack of resolve, on P.31-32 of “ Our Challenge”(1974) Rabbi Meir Kahane echoes your last three paragraphs:
“We are inundated with all kinds of illusions and delusions. Let us return this land or that land and we will have blessed peace. Let us not dare to settle Jews in Eretz Israel it anger the Arabs and jeopardise blessed peace. Let us make partial and semi-partial and total and semi-total agreements and call for compromise and we shall have blessed peace. Let us not move Arabs from the borders and settle Jews there ; let us not dare to bomb terrorists lest we hit innocent civilians; let us be “better than they are”….let us realise that we can reach peace and brotherhood with the Arabs by political concessions and compromises……..
It is time for the Jew in Israel to throw away those negative attitudes that he retains from the galut, the exile. Chief among these is an unwillingness to look at bitter reality”….
On page 27 he asks this still topical question:
“One finds it difficult to understand those who claim that a return of the lands liberated in 1967 will bring peace closer. If that is the major drawback to peace in the Middle East, what in the world did Nasser want in 1967, when the Arabs had all the territory that they now ask to be returned?”
Sorry, it came out wrongly. I meant
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=Shmuel+Golding+and+The+Jerusalem+Institute+of+Biblical+Polemic
That sentence should read ” Let us not dare to settle Jews in Eretz Israel lest it anger the Arabs and jeopardise blessed peace”
” “I reserve a special hate for anti-Semites and Jew Killers.”
Pardonnez-moi Again, sorry.
Third time lucky:
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=Jewish+Counter-Missionary