Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:32 | #

The SPLC is an organization devoted to gratuitously attacking the Euro ethnicity in the United States, attacking and eradicating it.  It’s a Jewish organization and an example of a Jewish anti-Eurochristian hate group.  Other examples are the ADL and the ACLU, both Jewish.  There are dozens of these Jewish groups, nay scores of them, all spewing hate against Eurochristians and working tirelessly for their destruction.  It’s none other than purest ethnic Jewish hate.

Let’s see some of what the Jews are up to.

Natalie Portman | 26
Most ‘Salacious’ Headline:  Considered “immodest” by locals when she filmed a kissing scene near Jerusalem’s holy Wailing Wall.  Police asked her to come back later.  (—from the AOL welcome screen this morning; there wasn’t a specific URL; Hollywood actress Natalie Portman is Jewish)

When Jews are in their own country they don’t like immodesty.  When they’re in ours they love us to be immodest:  it breaks down our morality, makes us degenerate, which makes them feel a whole lot better.  But they don’t want anyone breaking down their morality, especially in their own country.  So badly do they want to see our morality broken down, so good do they see it for themselves as a group when we act degenerate, so pro-Semitic is our degenerateness in their eyes since it’s so “Good for the Jews,” that they call cinematic representations of the diametrical opposite, such as The Lord of the Rings,” “anti-Semitic.”  The only way to be pro-Semitic in Jewish eyes if you’re Euro is to be degenerate and on the road to extinction.  Then you’re pro-Semitic.  Anything else and you’re an anti-Semite.  If you’re healthy, normal, modest, and respectful of your group’s women, you’re ipso facto an anti-Semite.  So much for the term “anti-Semite” — just so we all understand what that term means.  It means someone Jews want exterminated who hasn’t yet succumbed to their efforts — someone who needs more work before he’ll go quietly into extinction ...

David Duke, speaking at a conference in Moscow last month, cited some Jewish frankness about this:

Professor Nathan Abrams, writing in the Winter 2004 issue of The Jewish Quarterly, in an article titled ”Triple Exthnics,” literally boasts about the preeminent Jewish role in transforming pornography to mainstream culture in the United States and Europe. He also quotes leading Jewish pornographers revealing their motivations:

“Is there a deeper reason, beyond the mere financial, as to why Jews in particular have become involved in porn?  A. Goldstein, the publisher of Screw, said, “The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks.  Catholicism sucks.  We don’t believe in authoritarianism.”  Pornography thus becomes a way of defiling Christian culture and, as it penetrates to the very heart of the American mainstream (and is no doubt consumed by those very same WASPs), its subversive character becomes more charged… Extending the subversive thesis, Jewish involvement in the X-rated industry can be seen as a proverbial two fingers to the entire WASP establishment in America…”

Abrams, writing in a Jewish journal for a presumably Jewish audience, writes matter-of-factly about the “atavistic hatred” against us by Jewish pornographers and their motivation to “weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion.”

Jewish involvement in porn, by this argument, is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority:  they are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion.  Astyr remembers having

“to run or fight for it in grammar school because I was a Jew. It could very well be that part of my porn career is an ‘up yours’ to these people.” …

Goldstein goes on to write:

“Jews were also at the vanguard of the sexual revolution of the 1960s.  Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse and Paul Goodman replaced Marx, Trotsky and Lenin as required revolutionary reading… Pacheco was one Jewish porn star who read Reich’s intellectual marriage of Freud and Marx … Why are we ashamed of the Jewish role in the porn industry?  We might not like it, but the Jewish role in this field has been significant and it is about time it was written about seriously.”

Now I must address a topic it pains me to discuss:  the white slave trade –  the horrible degradation and tragic loss of tens of millions of White women, including many women from here in Moscow, across Russia and across Eastern Europe.  Is there anyone here at this conference or anyone anywhere in the White World not aware that this abominable trade is centered in Israel and led by their brethren from New York to Los Angeles, Vladivostok to Dublin? In a New York Times News Service article on January 11, 1998, titled “Slave traders Lure Slavic Women,” Michael Specter identifies these millions of unimaginably degraded victims as mostly eastern European young women and he documents their masters to be Jews.  He quotes an Israeli White slave master, Jacob Golan:

“The women who work there, like nearly all prostitutes in Israel, are Russian; their boss is not.  ‘Israelis love Russian girls,’ said Jacob Golan. . . . ‘They are blond and good looking and different from us,’ he said, chuckling.”

Specter points out that millions of Eastern European women have been brutalized in this Jewish criminal racket.  That’s right: I said millions.  Isn’t it amazing that there are those in our ranks who condemn some of us for even identifying the evil creatures who kidnap, enslave, rape and degrade our women in perhaps one of the most cruel and inhuman practices in the history of mankind?  In his book Prostitution and Prejudice, Jewish historian Edward Bristow writes about how the world Jewish prostitution network enslaving European women has operated not just for decades but for centuries.

We forever hear about collective guilt of Germans and Eastern Europeans against Jews but how much do you hear about this disgusting, massive violation of the most sacred of human rights?  These atrocities against our women and girls are going on right now, even as I speak.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:45 | #

While the SPLC is spouting off about Prof. MacDonald, here’s some more of what the Jews are up to, excerpted from the Duke Moscow speech linked in my comment above:

Of all issues important to the participants here, the immigration issue is the key issue for most of you.  As you can see by the documentation in my book Jewish Supremacism, a non-European, Jewish minority has been at the forefront in changing immigration laws in the United States and Europe, indeed, in every nation of the White world.  Jewish organizations and Jewish financial, political and media power lead the transformation of America and Europe into non-European nations. There is no serious argument about this fact, for Jewish extremists even boast about their destruction of our heritage.  Earl Raab, executive director of the Perlmutter Institute of Jewish Advocacy, an associate of the ADL (Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith) and writer for the San Francisco Jewish Bulletin, wrote the following:

“It was only after World War II that immigration law was drastically changed… In one of the first pieces of evidence of its political coming-of-age, the Jewish community has a leadership role in effecting those changes.”

Raab goes on to celebrate the coming minority status of Whites in America:

“The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country.”

My friends, our gates have not been battered down from the outside; they have been opened from the inside.  Sen. Jacob Javits, one of the invaders who was a long time leader of the effort for open borders in the U.S. Senate, expressed their agenda clearly in the title of an article he wrote for the New York Times Magazine: “Let’s Open Our Gates.”  Javits, though, wasn’t writing about the gates of the nation where his true loyalty rested:  Israel.  He, of course, supported Israel’s strict “Jews only” immigration laws.  He was for opening America’s Gates, not Israel’s.  (Javits, J. (1951). “Let’s Open Our Gates.” New York Times Magazine July 8. p.8, 33.)

Long before America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand “opened their gates,” Jewish academia and media relentlessly laid the groundwork for our genocide.  Until their dramatically increased influence of the early 20th Century, European Mankind was clearly on the upward path.  Anthropology was not only a science that recognized race, it was considered by the leading anthropologists of the day as the science of race.  Almost every European nation adopted severe restrictionist immigration laws to protect the heritage of its people.  Most European nations even enacted eugenics laws meant to help maintain the genetic quality and health of its population.

Today, after over a century of egalitarian brainwashing, to speak of one’s genetic quality evokes a sinister response in the hearts and minds of most of our people, whereas most people in the 1930’s considered it normal and healthy to discuss our people’s biological destiny.  Nowadays a college professor can talk about maintaining the purity and genetic line of his pet Cocker Spaniel, but if he expressed public concern about the precious genetic makeup of his own children and grandchildren, he would become a pariah in academia.

The racial egalitarian movement was founded by Jewish immigrant Franz Boas, who had surrounded himself with a number of Jewish disciples including Gene Weltfish, Isador Chein, Melville Herskovits, Otto Klineberg, and Ashley Montagu.  Montagu’s real name, by the way, was Israel Ehrenberg, and he wrote the media- and academia-popularized bible of egalitarianism called Race: Man’s Most Dangerous Myth, which basically informed we White people that we don’t really exist, and that there no real difference exists between the races of mankind.  Doesn’t it feel good to know that there is no real difference between us here and the Hottentots or the Australian aborigines?  No real difference between Mozart and Puff Daddy or Beethoven and Snoop Doggy Dog.  Franz Boaz, his followers, and a cheerleading Jewish media laid the foundation of the racial propaganda that has led us to this crisis.

Unfortunately, the Jewish legacy of racial egalitarianism did not end with Boas.  The leading modern gurus of egalitarianism are of the same heritage.  Stephen Rose, Richard Lewontin, Leon Kamin, Jared Diamond and the late Stephen Jay Gould are, of course, five self-acknowledged Jews, and they also just happen to be the leading academic proponents of egalitarianism.

It is not just the egalitarianism movement that these extremist Jews have led.  Every aspect of our existential crisis has a clear, non-European authorship.  The Modern movements of egalitarianism, Freudianism, feminism, communism, multiculturalism, the promotion of sexual deviance and degeneracy, open immigration, abortion, race-mixing, zero population growth —  every one of them has a foundational and dominating leadership that is not European.  I repeat: not European.

These egalitarians are nothing more than con men, and they secretly don’t believe a shred of the lies they preach to the goyim. For instance, the preeminent proponent of the “race is a myth” hokum is Jared Diamond.  Diamond, writing in a recent Natural History magazine article, says that genetic studies prove that Jews differ genetically from non-Jews. He makes this startling assertion:

“There are also practical reasons for interest in Jewish genes. The state of Israel has been going to much expense to support immigration and job retraining of Jews who were persecuted minorities in other countries. That immediately poses the problem of defining who is a Jew.”

Diamond says that there are no real differences between the major races of mankind, between an African Hutu say and a Blond Russian, but there are clear genetic differences between Jews and non-Jews.  Diamond says how wonderful it is that Israel will now be able to genetically identify Jews so that it can effectively enforce genetically-based racially exclusive immigration laws!

In the destruction of the family, one personality towers over the rest.  He is, of course, Sigmund Freud.  He was the first major voice in the West that trashed the institution of marriage and elevated gratuitous sex into sort of a religion.  Made into an icon by the Jewish-influenced media, he actually wrote that he considered himself of alien race with a mission to destroy European morality by destroying the values foundations laid by the Christian church.  All I must do is to quote him for you directly:

“Hannibal. . . had been the favourite hero of my later school days. . . . I began to understand for the first time what it meant to belong to an alien race . . . the figure of the Semitic general rose still higher in my esteem. To my youthful mind Hannibal and Rome symbolized the conflict between the tenacity of Jewry and the organisation of the Catholic Church . . .”

Freud makes his Jewish supremacist viewpoint very clear in a letter to a Jewish woman who thought to conceive a child by a Gentile, Freud wrote to her about the “superior Jewish race” and urged her only to conceive a Jewish child. Freud writes:

“I am, as you know, cured of the last shred of my predilection for the Aryan cause, and would like to take it that if the child turned out to be a boy he will develop into a stalwart Zionist. He or she must be dark in any case, no more towheads. Let us banish all these will-o’-the-wisps!”

It’s funny, the night Wolf Blitzer was ragging Duke on CNN about being the former head of the KKK he didn’t bring up any of the above Jewish shenannigans.  I wonder why, Wolf?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:52 | #

More of what Jews like those running Jewish hate groups such as the SPLC are up to:  Here’s a letter pasted into the Occidental Dissent comments thread by someone signing as “Firpo,” one which was originally posted at the Inverted World site.  It’s self-explanatory:

I became “anti-semitic” or perhaps realized how Jews negatively impacted my employment prospects because I am white when I got a good look at the names of the lawyers involved in the anti-white side of all the affirmative action lawsuits.

They were mostly Jewish names. I counted only the most obvious Jewish names like Goldberg as Jewish. I did not count maybe Jewish names like Becker and Bergman as Jewish.

Kaiser vs Weber, Duke Power vs Griggs, all the unqualified blacks vs police and government agencies, in every affirmative action case you will find that the pro affirmative action, anti white attorneys were mostly Jews.

For instance Prop 209, the California anti affirmative action initiative that passed with a huge majority. It went through the appeals process.

Attorneys opposed to prop 209 filed a lawsuit against it as soon as the state court building opened the day after the election. Obviously the suit had been prepared well in advance of election day.

Numberous racist anti white organizations such as NOW, ACLU, ADL, SPLC, etc etc filed friend of the court briefs against prop 209.

Every filing involved in the lengthy appeals process had a list of all the attorneys and addresses involved so that the court clerks could send out copies of all court papers to the several hundred attorneys involved.

I counted all the attorney’s names. 80 percent of those names were obviously Jewish names.

As a non Jewish white, I cannot help but notice that the attorneys who created and now uphold affirmative action were and are mostly Jews. Affirmative action means that an employer must hire an illegal alien felon with no qualifications over the must superbly qualified American white.

There is also the fact that the Simon Wiesenthal Center and Museum of Tolerance and Hatred of Whites has inserted itself into the notorious Long Beach Ca. 2006 Halloween beating of 3 white women. The thugs who were convicted were not sent to Juvenile camp as the Probation Department recommened.

The thugs were sent to summer school at the Wiesenthal Center. Furthermore Los Angeles County is paying the center $29,000 to teach 3 black thugs their version of tolerance. I live near the Wiesenthal Center and have attended some of their programs. The gist of their tolerance classes is the Tim Wise mantra, whites must be exterminated.

Incidentally, one of the 3 women the black thugs beat is permanently blind in one eye and faces years of reconstructive surgery because one of the thugs saved from Juvenile camp beat her face to a pulp with his skateboard.

So what is an objective person to think about this? Black thugs beat 3 white women, one of whom is blinded and disabled. The Jewish Weisenthal Center spends months bullying the Probation Department to exonerate the thugs (the Probation Department which is mostly affirmative action blacks strongly recommened Juvenile Camp as a punishment.)

The Wiesenthal Center manages to get the case moved from its proper jurisdiction to black Judge Irma Brown in Inglewood. The Wiesenthal Center got them off. A week before the hearing in front of Irma Brown one of the thugs attacked and robbed a white woman. And now the Weisenthal Center is teaching the 3 thugs their version of Tolerance, which is Whiteness must be exterminated.

So what is a non Jewish white to think of all this? Jews created and enforce affirmative action. Jews have sided with black criminals and against their white victims since the 1940’s.

The Wiesenthal Center is teaching 3 black thugs who blinded a white woman that whites must be exterminated and that blacks are justified in murdering, beating and robbing whites because to quote Tim Wise “whites must be exterminated.”

By Carolyn Brady on 8/9/07 at 3:57 pm

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:54 | #

(I neglected to say the Firpo comment is the second comment in the thread underneath the Duke Moscow speech log entry linked in my first comment above.)

Posted by Matra on Mon, 20 Aug 2007 22:40 | #

Following on Fred’s quote involving the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Israel has decided to deport Darfur refugees to Egypt. The Israelis say that in future they will bar illegals, including those from Darfur where there is supposedly a genocide going on. Here’s a rich quote:

Ephraim Zuroff of the Nazi-hunting Simon Wiesenthal Center said the Jewish people could not be expected to right every wrong just because of its past.

“Israel can’t throw open the gates and allow unlimited access for people who are basically economic refugees,” Zuroff said.

http://tinyurl.com/2xzvmd

Posted by avocado on Tue, 21 Aug 2007 01:48 | #

Re Js and AA, Hugh Murray wrote <a >White Male Privilege: A Social Construct for Political Oppression [pdf]
</a>

Posted by avocado on Tue, 21 Aug 2007 01:50 | #

Or better, try this:

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_8.pdf

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 21 Aug 2007 02:27 | #

White men aren’t being attacked:  Jews, the ones doing the attacking, are white and aren’t attacking themselves.  Euro men are being attacked.  The Jews are attacking them because there’s an ethnic war on.  The Euro men are losing because they’re too dense to realize they’re under attack.  Why are the Jews attacking Euro men, not women?  Because when one army tries to destroy another it attacks men, not women.  A group’s men are the ones who will defend against enemy attack if they can.  Women won’t.  Therefore, obviously, when trying to bring down an enemy group you attack its men, not its women.  That’s why the Jews have launched this war on “white men.”  It’s an ethnic war of extermination, Jews against Eurochristians.  In that kind of offensive you don’t bother with attacking women, which would serve no purpose:  if you beat all the women you’d still have to turn around and engage the men.  No, you go after the men and when you’ve beaten them, you’re done:  you’ve won.  The Jews have of course enlisted Euro women as their allies by whipping them up against their own men through expertly playing psychologically on the well-known frustrations, difficulties, and depressions women are subject to by the nature of their sex, childbearing/motherhood/wife role, hormonal make-up, neuronal architecture, and so on.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 21 Aug 2007 02:28 | #

The last comment of mine was in response to the PDF article Avocado had cited just above it.

Posted by second class citizen on Tue, 21 Aug 2007 04:37 | #

Excellent commenting, Fred!

You are also spot on wrt the attack on Euro men. It’s been going on since at least the Suffragette movement. It was started by Emmeline Pankhurst (maiden name Goulden) in 1889. My only surprise is that this precedes the Frankfurt school by several decades.

It’s worth attacking the terms “sexism” and “misogyny” whenever one hears them too, on the grounds that the only longterm investments a women will have are in her children, half of which are male on average.

And btw women are certainly being attacked. The primary idea is to reduce the number of White children and their ability. A White woman should not have children, but if she must, then they should be half caste, if not half caste, the children should be as few in number as possible and also stupid and effeminate.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:04 | #

Thanks, SCC.  And you make good points.

Posted by Amalek on Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:12 | #

Jews aren’t white, Fred. They are Asiatics, like their close genetic cousins the Arabs.

Turks aren’t white either.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:52 | #

I know what you’re saying, Amalek, and you’re right of course, except in the sense that there are different types of white (if one accepts that thesis, which I do), Euros being one type of white and Semites another.  In that sense Jews are white but not Euros.  They’re Semites, a different type of white. 

As someone with some Jewish ancestry at the grandparent level and who was brought up in New York City in a largely Jewish world, I can say that Jews are a mixture of Euro white and Semitic white.  They’re neither entirely Euro nor entirely Semitic.

One trend I think I can discern is a move on their part away from their Euro roots/identity and toward their Asiatic (i.e., Semitic) ones.  It’s a rejection of their Euroness.  That trend all by itself is going to prove a bit divisive among them, as there are a considerable number who do not wish to de-Euro themselves, and have no intention doing so.  You can see that reflected in the reluctance of Ashkenazis in Israel to intermarry with Sephardics, and in many other ways both in Israel and in the diaspora.

Posted by Rnl on Wed, 22 Aug 2007 22:07 | #

SCC wrote:

the Suffragette movement ... was started by Emmeline Pankhurst (maiden name Goulden) in 1889.

I doubt Emmeline Pankhurst had Jewish ancestry. One of her daughters joined the pro-Axis Australia First Movement.

In any case first-wave feminism had little in common with the Jewish-led feminism of the 1970s. They are both called feminism, but most of the early feminists would be appalled by what their movement has become.

the only longterm investments a woman will have are in her children, half of which are male on average

First-wave feminism (the suffragist movement) was diverse, with a wide range of sometimes incompatible opinions. But insofar as it had a mainstream, few in the mainstream of early feminism would have disagreed that women have an investment in their male children. Some feminists had the deep hostility to men that would mark the modern feminist movement, but they were not the majority. The core feminist beliefs were moderate and reasonable. Nineteenth-century feminists believed women should be allowed to vote. They believed women should be educated. They campaigned against child prostitution. They believed that the moral virtues of the home should be introduced into politics, for the betterment of all. Those aren’t anti-social views.

Sylvia Pankhurst, though a communist, called suffragettism “the great movement to bring the mother-half of the race into the councils of nations.” I realize that one or two posters here don’t think that’s a good idea, but it is the exact opposite of the war between the sexes promoted by second-wave feminism, which is divisive as a matter of principle.

***

For interest’s sake, the following was posted on the first AmRen mail-list; modern feminists are often embarrassed by the illiberal views of their iconic heroines:

The occasion was the Annual Meeting of the American Equal Rights Association, May 12, 1869. Susan B. Anthony is responding to Frederick Douglass, who argued that Negro suffrage should take precedence over woman’s suffrage.

An account of this meeting was published in _The Revolution_, Vol III - No. 20, Thursday, May 20, 1869, Whole No. 72., p. 306. This paper, published in New York, was edited by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Parker Pillsbury. Susan B. Anthony was listed as Proprietor. George Francis Train, a colorful character, a founder and financier of the paper, had just withdrawn from the paper ...

Here is the start of Susan B. Anthony’s remarks.

Miss Anthony - I want to say a single word. The old anti-slavery school and others have said that woman must stand back and wait until the other class shall be recognized. But we say that if you will not give the whole [c]loak of justice and suffrage to an entire people, give it to the most intelligent first. (Applause.) If intelligence, justice, and morality are to be placed in the government, then let the question of woman be brought up first and that of the negro last. (Applause.)

[End Quote]

In William McFeely’s biography of Douglass, he accuses Anthony of “cross[ing] the line into racism when she said that women were more intelligent than the black men who, she now saw, were competing with her and her fellow women for the vote.” Presumably McFeely is referring to the quote above. “Woman first and Negro last” was a contemporary slogan.

Posted by Byron the Bulb on Sat, 25 Aug 2007 17:39 | #

“I know what you’re saying, Amalek, and you’re right of course, except in the sense that there are different types of white (if one accepts that thesis, which I do), Euros being one type of white and Semites another.  In that sense Jews are white but not Euros.  They’re Semites, a different type of white. ” 

  What exactly is the point of this semantic game, Fred?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 25 Aug 2007 18:27 | #

“What exactly is the point of this semantic game, Fred?”  (—Byron)

What game, Byron?  Say exactly what the game is please, as I’m not aware of any being played.  Here, let’s change the wording of the offending passage:

“there are different types of Caucasian, Euros being one type of Caucasian and Semites another.  In that sense Jews are Caucasian but not Euros.  They’re Semites, a different type of Caucasian.“

Is that OK?

Apart from the above quibble:

“Jews are a mixture of Euro white and Semitic white.  They’re neither entirely Euro nor entirely Semitic.”

Looking at that from my original comment, I’ll change it:  there’s a noticeable Turkic element in Ashkenazi Jews (ones who look like Israeli politician Simon Perez for example, who for my money has Turkic looks), as well as a noticeable Semitic element (ones who look like Yassir Arafat) and a noticeable Euro element (seen for example in Hollywood stars Kirk Douglas and Paul Newman).  So change that to:  Jews are a mixture of Euro-type Caucasian, Semitic-type Caucasian, and Turkic.  To what extent Turkic peoples are Caucasian I’m not going to get into.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 25 Aug 2007 18:30 | #

“In that sense Jews are Caucasian but not Euros.”  (—my comment just above)

Meaning, of course, “In that sense, Jews are Caucasian but aren’t Euros.”  The wording was clumsy, sorry.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 25 Aug 2007 18:36 | #

If anyone wants to look up his photo, I spelled his name wrong:  it’s Shimon Peres.

Posted by Fr. John on Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:18 | #

“As someone with some Jewish ancestry at the grandparent level and who was brought up in New York City in a largely Jewish world, I can say that Jews are a mixture of Euro white and Semitic white.  They’re neither entirely Euro nor entirely Semitic.”

So, Fred, which one of your goyim forebears made you leave the fold, as it were? On your mother’s, or on your father’s side? For if it were your mother’s side, and your female relatives are all goyim (mother’s mother’s mother, etc.) you are freed from the curse of the ‘sons of Satan’ as Christ called them. [John 8:44] In that regard, I am thankful my mom was an Irish Catholic, for obvious reasons. LOL

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:38 | #

Neither of my parents was Jewish and Jewish is not my majority ancestry.  My own religious upbringing — what there was of one — is complicated.  In earliest childhood it was formally Catholic at the insistence of my father’s very Catholic, very “bourgeois” German family in the southern Rhineland, an old, at one time well-known family in that area.  In my thirties I found my own way back to Christianity after many years of thought and coming to the realization that atheism was neither satisfactory, nor true, nor even coherent — coherent meaning capable of being comprehended — and Catholicism, which was the religion I remembered from my earliest childhood, was what I found my way back to.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:48 | #

I reject this notion of a one-drop rule for Jewishness.  All these commenters who insist on calling people like Sarkozy and Hitchens Jews are living in some kind of weird fantasyland.  I for one completely ignore that stuff, having given up disputing it.

Posted by Frank McGuckin on Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:55 | #

Fred, I attended Catholic school for eight years. I had kids in my class with least names such as Goldberg and Berman. We all “enjoyed” our regular beatings from the compassionate Sisters of (no)Mercy.

At the Church I occasionlay attend mass at, the confirmation roles have the names of Irish kids with Jewish last names. The number of Jewish names on the confirmation rolls seems to have grown over time.