Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Christian Identity: Pro-israelites and Anti-semites

Christian Identity is a label applied to a wide variety of loosely-affiliated groups and churches with a racialized theology. Most of them promote a Eurocentric version of Christianity. Their key commonality is British Israelism theology, which teaches that the Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Scandinavian, Germanic and associated cultures are the racial descendents of the tribes of Israel. Thus, by extension, Americans and Canadians, are composed of the descendents of the ancient Israelites of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). Furthermore, the teaching holds that these Israelites are still God's Chosen People, that Jesus was an Israelite and not of the tribe of Judah, and that modern Jews are of a separate, subhuman race.

Professor Michael Barkun's Religion and the Racist Right: The Origins of the Christian Identity Movement. traces the origins of the "right" extremism in this movement. Barkun's research includes millenarian and apocalyptic groups; political extremism; religiously-based violence and conspiracy theories. One of his current projects, "The Contemporary Significance of The Protocols" researches the continued influence of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion a century after publication and more than eighty years after their exposure. It is claimed that the Protocols are the minutes of a meeting of Jewish leaders at the first Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland, in 1897, in which Jews plotted to take over the world. It is also claimed that this was a hoax.

11 comments:

homeyra said...

:) Are you contaminated by the dear Il Dottore?

naj said...

you mean dr V?
or you are still thinking about my il-dottoriannesque outfit? ;) lol

Actually, yes Dr V is infectious (not in a bad sense though). I knew about the Protocol but I have to admit this Christian Identity was a new find for me.

And the Anglo-ism of it (and Israel's land having been British-owned and etc) trigger an intuitive alarm which I do not have the liberty of time to fully investigate at the moment.

so, what did you mean by il Dottore, anyways? :)

Sophia said...

Naj,
But you forget one thing: Even though Chritsian extremism existed and still exist, it is 'superior' to Muslim extremism because it is rational, dixit Benedict XVI. I feel a bit ironic today...

e said...

Naj,
So now you are advocating a conflict of civilizations? Is it smart to take on the Christians and the Jews at the same time?

Even after the Protocols have been proven to be a Russian forgery, you still seem to think they are true. How likely do you think it is that the Protocols are true?
e

naj said...

e,

You are fantasizing again?
You are quite welcome to comment as much as you wish on my blog. But until you have gotten your own blog and have revealed your philosophy and intellectual preferences, I refrain from responding to your questions or made-of-nonesense accusations!

e said...

Naj,
What is the problem? Why don't you show all your readers how stupid all the Zionists posters like me are by answering me?

Instead you creat the impression that because your case is so weak that you do not have the intellectual fortitude to engage in a civilized debate.

It is really a simple question: Do you believe that the protocols are fake or not?

e

naj said...

There are certain individuals who insist on accusing themselves of stupidity, on my behalf.

Disclaimer: This blogger does not believe, nor has any such mission to reveal anyone's intellect or stupidity.

There are also certain individuals who insist on getting yes/no answers to their questions, and they feel others owe that answer to them, and if they do not get that which they think is owed to them, start a tantrum.

To those individuals, I can only smile with affection of an older auntie.

But if venting off in my blog makes them feel better, they should vent off. Because often, when one listens to oneself, one can develop auiditory sophistication to listen to others as well.

e said...

Naj,
I do not insist on a yes no answer. Please elaborate as much as you want. I do feel though that you are equivocating on this issue and to me this raises a very serious red flag. After all, there is no use having discussions with antisemitic aunts, is there?
e

naj said...

I wonder if little e wants to define "antisemetic".

I also wonder what little e is fretting about?

I also wonder if little e has read the post. Or has read the statement of this blog. Or has read anything else on this blog. Or if he/she/it is capable of seeing the big pictures. Or maybe he/she/it is an automoton; maybe even a google script (and not even a scriptor) that just searches for keywords and then launches cliche attacks against non-existing enemies.

I expected a white supramatist to attack me for this post. Or an Anglo throw a tantrum! But nope, it's the good old little e!

Well I am in break now. And I spent my "can-be-wasted" minutes, but now it's time to get back to working and discussing with reasonable people.

But, e, if you read this, you can explain to me what anti-semetic is. More positively, and more productively, youcan also explain to me what semetic means. Then I will be able to tell you if I am against or for it. In general, I do not regard people in terms of their race, collective culture, religious decree, gender, sexual orientation and etc. I am anti anything that ends with "ist" or "ic"; you get it or you insist on seeing only zionIST and semetIC in the long list of all those divisive stuff?! This level of paranoia is not good for your health, you know?

I don't expect you to answer. But I do appreciate if you reflect a few minutes before posting your accusatory questions. To which I have no desire to response, and no time to elaborate.

e said...

Naj,

Instead of wasting time on hyperbole, why don't you just elaborate on whether you think the Protocols are a forgery or not? It would have taken you much less time than writing 3 paragraphs of nothing.

Why are you evading this question? People who do so are usually people who are ashamed to admit that they are antisemites and view the protocols as a basis for their beliefs. After all the Protocols are about Jews and not Zionism and are racist propoganda at its vilest. So, please tell us where you stand regarding the Protocols.

e

e said...

And by the way, just as the word "dogma" has nothing to do with "dog" and "ma", "anti-semitic" has nothing to do with "anti" or "semitic". It is just a word coined by some German that means racist behavior towards Jews. If you don't like it, you can replace it with the phrase "being racist towards Jews" and an antisemite is someone who is a racist about Jews.