kanethenotorious
Phoron
This is my reddit post. There's no reason for moderators to go neck bird on it, but with reddit you never know. So if my post disappears I'll have to move it.
Jews and Arabs Should Coexist in a single non-religious State
- Thread starter kanethenotorious
- Start date
This is my reddit post. There's no reason for moderators to go neck bird on it, but with reddit you never know. So if my post disappears I'll have to move it.
Lord Osmund de Ixabert
I X A B E R T.com
The astute architects of the British Empire, whose fondness for theatre is only Surpassed by their cunning in war, Set up both Palestine and Israel as two opposing secular states with irreconcible state interests, in order to Keep Jews and Arabs in a state of perpetual conflict. This serves as a control mechanism to keep both groups enslaved. It also serves as a justification for constant Anglo-British intervention in the Near East.
Lord Osmund de Ixabert
I X A B E R T.com
Thus the Jews are the slaves of the British ruling class, not the other way round.
Lord Osmund de Ixabert
I X A B E R T.com
What you are advocating is possbile only within the framework of Islam. The existence of Jews and Arabs in a single Islamic state has worked for centuries. The only reason it doesn't work in this case is because of Anglo-American intervention.
kanethenotorious
Phoron
That's actually correct that it is possible. It would also be possible in a secular state. For instance Jews live in Iran. Iran is not Arab.
Gawn Chippin
Arachnocronymic Metaphoron
The Jews should have their own ethnostate, without us interfering in their affairs, in exchange for Jews staying out of ours.
Whether or not they design their ethnostate around religion or secularism should solely be left up to them.
Arabs are and always have been nomads, as witnessed by their substituting European populations, to an extent, through Jews organized for this initiative,...
...renderring these transforming societies in a state of cold war with hot war flare-ups between Arabs and their hosts.
Keeping Arabs among themselves without outside interference is their form of self-population control, given that they are in a constant war with each other, to varying degrees
Whether or not they design their ethnostate around religion or secularism should solely be left up to them.
Arabs are and always have been nomads, as witnessed by their substituting European populations, to an extent, through Jews organized for this initiative,...
...renderring these transforming societies in a state of cold war with hot war flare-ups between Arabs and their hosts.
Keeping Arabs among themselves without outside interference is their form of self-population control, given that they are in a constant war with each other, to varying degrees
Last edited:
kanethenotorious
Phoron
But it's a dumb location to put the ethnostate. It's like trying to run Jim Crow Segregation in New York City. Too many people want to live there who aren't Jewish.
Back to IX, I'm beginning to think the British set it up this way on purpose, because they want colonialism. It's like Richard Kuklinski, who would take two cats and tie their tails together and watch them fight. When there's a fire, there's a need for a fireman. British imperialists were thinking imperialistically.
Back to IX, I'm beginning to think the British set it up this way on purpose, because they want colonialism. It's like Richard Kuklinski, who would take two cats and tie their tails together and watch them fight. When there's a fire, there's a need for a fireman. British imperialists were thinking imperialistically.
Last edited:
Gawn Chippin
Arachnocronymic Metaphoron
Less successfull races always want to live among those races of which are more resourcefull than they themselves
British colonialists made it a habit of setting up artificial borders, as evident on regional maps displaying these former colonies
Lord Osmund de Ixabert
I X A B E R T.com
Mohammedans & Torahic Jews cannot entertain the bifurcation of secular & religious spheres so long as they adhere to the core tenets of their respective religions.
The very conception of a secular state, never mind its implementation, presupposes an historically contigent Western-European worldview, a cultural inheritance predicated on atheous philosophical assumptions contrarious to their own beliefs. The two wordlviews are unintegrable.
Mohammedans & Torahinc Jews constitute the core defining elements of Arabdom & Jewry respectively. They are also determinative of Arabic & Judæan ethnogeny. They cannot be excluded. They would have to be the central focus.
One cannot reasonably anticipate the acquiescence of people who disacknowledge secularity as a conceptual possibility to the governance of a secular state. How can you expect their participation in the governance of such a state, never mind their subservience thereto?
They cannot do so by definition; and if you exclude them, you exclude the very idea of “Jew” & “Arab”.
Thus, in such an order as you propose, power would ineluctably devolve into the exclusive clutches of secularists (whereby I include those elements who, like Evangelical Xtian leaders e.g., may pay lip-service to religiosity, but whose primary allegiance is to secular institutions antithetical to religion).
Only outsiders, in other words, would ascend the ranks of power within a secularist framework.
For as soon as anyone begins to adhere to the teachings of their religion,—w/o which Jews & Arabs are not a people to begin w/,—they’d immediately detach themselves from the secular state.
We have to remember that secularism itself functions as a religion of its own. It is based on assumptions that can be regarded as theological in character, making it religoin.
The very conception of a secular state, never mind its implementation, presupposes an historically contigent Western-European worldview, a cultural inheritance predicated on atheous philosophical assumptions contrarious to their own beliefs. The two wordlviews are unintegrable.
Mohammedans & Torahinc Jews constitute the core defining elements of Arabdom & Jewry respectively. They are also determinative of Arabic & Judæan ethnogeny. They cannot be excluded. They would have to be the central focus.
One cannot reasonably anticipate the acquiescence of people who disacknowledge secularity as a conceptual possibility to the governance of a secular state. How can you expect their participation in the governance of such a state, never mind their subservience thereto?
They cannot do so by definition; and if you exclude them, you exclude the very idea of “Jew” & “Arab”.
Thus, in such an order as you propose, power would ineluctably devolve into the exclusive clutches of secularists (whereby I include those elements who, like Evangelical Xtian leaders e.g., may pay lip-service to religiosity, but whose primary allegiance is to secular institutions antithetical to religion).
Only outsiders, in other words, would ascend the ranks of power within a secularist framework.
For as soon as anyone begins to adhere to the teachings of their religion,—w/o which Jews & Arabs are not a people to begin w/,—they’d immediately detach themselves from the secular state.
We have to remember that secularism itself functions as a religion of its own. It is based on assumptions that can be regarded as theological in character, making it religoin.
Last edited:
Lord Osmund de Ixabert
I X A B E R T.com
If one wants secularity, it’d necessitate the construction of a pan-Abrahamic Semitic federation of autonomous Judæo-Mohammedan ethnostates demarcated by ethnoreligion. A Semitic Suprastate within which both Jew & Mohammedan traditions could flourish autonomously in their own ethnoreligious under-states.
Only then could the intermixion of the sacred & secular worlds be rendered harmonious, as the loyalty of the folk would be to their own respective under-states, & these in turn could be of a religio-ethnic character.
Only then could the intermixion of the sacred & secular worlds be rendered harmonious, as the loyalty of the folk would be to their own respective under-states, & these in turn could be of a religio-ethnic character.
Last edited:
Gawn Chippin
Arachnocronymic Metaphoron
Persians are not Semitic. Arabs and Jews are, despite obvious differences in evolutionary advances of the former. Evidently, Jews and Persians are compatible with one another, within a religiously Islamic-dominated society. The religious Persian bears no hatred for the Jew. The hatred of which the Persian posesses is that of which bears contempt for the Jewish secular state's displacement of fellow Muslim occupants of Isreali territory.
Returning to the thread's main topic, Arabs pose a threat not only to non-Semitic societies of both religious and secular design (once advanced homogeneous ancient Egypt is one of the first examples of a liberal society of which embraced the multi-racialism of which in turn eroded this once advanced society to its present day evident downfall and terminal backwardness). They also would pose a threat to Jews within a hermetic society, simply because of differing birth rates. Especially, when comparing birth rate differences between Arabs and secular Jews
Last edited:
kanethenotorious
Phoron
This post has some good comments for people who are asking the question "why is Zionism bad."