Dawkins Jumps on Board the International Jewish Conspiracy Bandwagon

_{Barry Arrington
October 10, 2007

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

See the whole interview in the Guardian here:

In an interview with the Guardian, he said: “When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told – religious Jews anyway – than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place.”

Comments

Dawkins committed intellectual suicide long ago when he became an atheist. It is well known that atheism brings a person to believe anything at all - as long as it isn't the simple and obvious truth of the design inference all humans in all ages have logically made when looking at nature.
Forth from his dark and lonely hiding-place, (Portentous sight!) the owlet Atheism, sailing on obscene wings athwart the noon, drops his blue-fringed lids, and holds them close, and hooting at the glorious sun in Heaven, cries out, ''Where is it?''
-Samuel Taylor ColeridgeBorne_{October 11, 2007
October
10
Oct
11
11
2007
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

Mac T: In an interview with the Guardian, he said: “When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place.” I don't think anyone here commenting so far thinks this is quite on par with true bigotry, but the phrasecraft is similar to the derogatory use often employed by groups who hate the "jew lobby" or the "Israli" lobby, the implication being that it is illegit support for a small trouble making nation that has our support to the exclusion of "the larger picture" of "Palestinian" rights--among other media created fictions (as in, the Jews stole precious Arab land). This has ALWAYS been the meaning of the "jewish lobby" phraseology--and the silly accompanying notion that the Palestinians don't have their own voices and legal and political rallying groups. Israel is a nation already almost bisected in half, smaller than some municipalities here in the West, and striving for mere survival--for this Dawkins has them lebeled with a particularly nasty smear for merely keeping from being pushed into the ocean.S Wakefield Tolbert_{October 11, 2007
October
10
Oct
11
11
2007
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

Here is another observation about Jews that I have. They are heavily involved in left wing politics and from what I understand of socialism were heavily involved in both German and Russian socialist movements. While Nazism was also a socialist movement it had different objective than other socialist movements which were more transnational. Israel was originally set up as a socialist state and it was successful as such, the first ever successful socialist movement in history. It then turned its back on socialism within a generation and is now mostly a capitalist society though the kibbutz still exist. Its main early supporter was the Soviet Union. So the left which still has many Jewish supporters may feel betrayed by what has happened and I believe a lot of the resentment towards Israel lies here and thus the left's feigned support for Islamic hardships. High levels of government always seem to dominated by idealist and most have liberal or left leanings. I think this is obvious in much of Europe and Israel is a thorn in the side of socialism success. Yes it can work in certain situations but its only success morphed into capitalism in a jiffy. I am sure it did not make them happy and they would like to see it disappear. Again just my observation.jerry_{October 11, 2007
October
10
Oct
11
11
2007
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

MacT, Do you really beleive that religious Jews monopolize US foreign policy? Are you an anti-semitic nut job? Do you also agree with Dawkins that we need to discuss whether eugenics might be a good idea?Jehu_{October 11, 2007
October
10
Oct
11
11
2007
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

I do not think it is religious Jews that have had the influence on American policy. I believe it is has been the non religious Jews that have influence though I am sure both are involved. I used to teach at Fordham University in the Bronx which is a Jesuit institutions and there were several non Catholics teaching there including several Jews and they were mostly conservative religious Jews. A couple of them told me they felt comfortable there because their religious beliefs were tolerated while at secular institutions they were derided. I also taught at Baruch College in Manhattan which is part of the CUNY system and there were many Jewish professors but few obviously religious ones. These were the secular Jews and felt extremely comfortable and were in control of the college and its policies. And by the way they could fight intensely with each other over minutiae. My wife and I also worked in some businesses in Manhattan and there were Jews at high levels in all of them. Most of my bosses were Jews. All secular. The New York Times is dominant by many Jewish interests, all secular. This is also true of Hollywood. The ACLU is heavily dominated by Jewish interests. My impression of life in New York City was one of rampant secularism which I believe is born out by independent observations other than mine. So this is where the power lies not with some very small religious movement. By the way there was movement of some religious Jews to grow rapidly but from within. One of my office mates had just had his seventh child when I left Fordham and he told me that it was a common phenomena within his community to have large families against the obvious trend that was going on in the country. As I said above my observation is that most Jews are atheists though not in the sense of Dawkins. They don't proselytize it. Probably if they did they would lose their power. Why bother they are very successful in a secular world and atheism is not an ideological objective for them though it may drive some of their actions. It does not help them reach their secular objectives. My experience is that Jews are as a group very smart people, at high levels of all the major areas of our society such as business, media, medicine, academia, entertainment, and to some extent government. They promote a sense of fairness within these organizations as far as I can see and the many Jewish bosses of my wife and I had no hesitation of promoting non Jews or firing incompetent Jews. You could almost use the argument that here is where natural selection has proved out. Since Jews have been routinely persecuted for 2000 years maybe only the fittest managed to slip through the pogroms. I have always found them very interesting people to engage and enjoyed my times working for and with them and can understand why they have so much influence for such a small population. Many of them were ferociously bright. I suggest those interested in understanding the phenomena more than my personal observations go to wikipedia and look up the pages Jewish atheist and secular Jewish culture.jerry_{October 11, 2007
October
10
Oct
11
11
2007
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

Indeed Dawkins has. Emjoyed the thoughful comments by all of you. Stuart Harris's stood out in the "imagine" department, as did this: So Dawkins is criticizing some of his biggest believers because many of these atheistic Jews are major supporters of Israel. Is Dawkins as vocal in his criticism of muslim influence in British politics these days? Dawkins is just revealing his left wing political leanings and the sad thing is that he probably doesn’t know why he believes certain things. He is just following his crowd via informational cascades. Dawkins brand of atheism has more the flavor of PCism than objective moral values--which interestingly (contradictorily?) is not (per his opinion) even present as some intrinsic value of the Cosmos and certainly not of biology in the first place. Worse than this philosophical quirk of finding political and moral values to harp about on the world front in international cabals and political dark warriors, Dawkins contradictions are funnier in light of the fact that other organizations are at work besides Jewish believers (and someone pointed out atheist Jew support for Israel as well!). Yes Virgnia, there REALLY is such a thing a Palestinian advocacy groups, many if not most of them religious in nature (per Islam's demands), and very active here and abroad in trying to shape US policy for the Mideast, else we would not have so much support for the Palestinian Authority nor be approving the absurdist compromises that Israel has forced to suffer (like cleaving the very NON-Muslim and NON-Arabic city of Jerusalem into parts to salve the anger of the Palestinians). Whom does Dawkins think he's fooling? This is PCness more than just "objective" atheism in any case. Is there no Palestinian Lobby? Is there no advocacy on their front? Dawkins tells us on the one hand when making the Grand Tour of materialism that nature shows us no intrinsic values to be had and that this is all mush and slush and mere gene replication mechanisms at work--nothing more. Yet he's blind to his own hooking by a....religious movement in its own right. Wow.S Wakefield Tolbert_{October 11, 2007
October
10
Oct
11
11
2007
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

Dawkins: “When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been..." File this in the Can You Imagine folder, as in "Can you imagine what would happen if, say, Behe, Dembski, or the Discovery Institute were to say something like that."StuartHarris_{October 11, 2007
October
10
Oct
11
11
2007
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

MacT: The issue is not that Mr Dawkins thinks that a well organised group can exert disproportionate influence, but the implications of the "example" he chose. BarryA highlights this well in no 4 above, and of course in the actual cite at the head of the thread:
[Guardian article, as cited at the head:]In an interview with the Guardian, he said: “When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place . . . . [BarryA, at no 4:]the fatuity of his analysis of American foreign policy would be funny if it were not so malevolent. Jews comprise approximately 2 percent of the American population; religiously observant Jews are a fraction of that. Can he seriously believe that small fraction of our population “monopolizes” our foreign policy? One wonders if he has been staying up nights reading “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” . . .
So, we can immediately see that contrary to your suggestion, BarryA and others have indeed been reading the article and seeing where it leads. Not to a good place, methinks. Of course, too, on the abundant and publicly available evidence of the past 100 or so years, I am not at all convinced that atheist-dominated public squares would improve our condition; not least based on Rummel's numbers on state-sponsored genocide by secularism-dominated regimes, which amount to well over 100 mn. But more to the point, Mr Dawkins here -- softening words notwithstanding -- in effect endorses the notion that a tiny fraction of [especially religious] Jews monopolise US Foreign policy. That is on abundant evidence plainly nonsensical, and it is nonsense driven by some of the worst bigotry, slanders and even propaganda out there. (It is also fraught with implications as to where his own group and others of like ilk may well end up if they gain even more power over the public square than they now have, which has its own sobering implications as I noted in my earlier remarks at 11; just cf. the new film, Expelled. BTW, thanks Mr Moderator, and will the spamkiller software finally learn, as advertised?) Then, between him and the Guardian, they extend such sl^and^er to in effect a veiled form of the now commonly met with "theo^cracy" slur against Christians who seek to engage the public square, as is our right and as is based on centuries of sacrificial contribution to the rise of modern liberty and democracy. (I speak on this as an inheritor of the tradition of the C18 - 19 Dissenter Evangelical Christians who played such a vital role in the liberation of my slave ancestors here in the Anglophone Caribbean.) That nakedly revealed bigotry, sadly, says a lot about the quality of Mr Dawkins' thinking, as well as that of too many of his fellow secularists; and none of it good. Going back to the main theme of this blog, the false accusation of improper injection of religious influence into the various major cultural institutions is one of the main wayus Secularist propagandists and polemicists seek to cloud and poison the atmosphere so that there will be no calm and objective evaluation of the evidence for design. To this end, they have repeatedly insisted on distorting the nature of the design theory paradigm, and its main theses, despite being frequently corrected on the point -- events in and surrounding Judge Jones' courtroom are a notorious case in point. And on such falsehood and misrepresentaiton, public policy is being set, and careers are being unjustly broken. This is happening already on a now routine basis in the University, the Science institutions, and in schools -- where evo mat driven secularist thought is already very influential. Guess what that tells us about the want of strength of their case on the merits of fact and logic? And, what it tells us on intent and likely behaviour (as well as the underlying moral principles and agenda) of such Evo Mat advocates? Multiply that by Lord Acton's observation that power tends to corrupt and power without accountability corrupts without limit. We would do well to heed the old saw about being forewarned . . . GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 11, 2007
October
10
Oct
11
11
2007
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

Why be so hard on Dawkins? All he's saying is that with enough focus, atheists might be able to control banking, the media, hollywood, and US foreign policy.Apollos_{October 11, 2007
October
10
Oct
11
11
2007
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

William J.: "Disproportionate compared to what? Other lobby groups, like the NRA or the AARP?" Yes, and the ACLU, AFL-CIO, AMA, and pretty much all other interest groups that make the investment in lobbying. The NRA may be the closest comparison in terms of clout, though it is much less familiar on the international stage. Dawkins did not single out Jews in a way that is irrational, or bigoted. He had a point about organizing to achieve influence, and made it clearly, if maybe a little clumsily. He could have made the same point by citing the NRA. That would not define his position, whatever it is, on the NRA. Suggesting that atheists might gain more influence if they followed the example of a powerful lobby group does not add up to bigotry. I don't know what Dawkins believes about speaking on behalf of other atheists, or what opinion other atheists may hold of him. How do you know?MacT_{October 11, 2007
October
10
Oct
11
11
2007
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

OMG the Dawkins Delusions keep on getting worse and worse!Tina_{October 11, 2007
October
10
Oct
11
11
2007
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

He was simply pointing out that a relatively small group, if it functions cohesively, can exert a disproportionate influence in society. Disproportionate compared to what? Other lobby groups, like the NRA or the AARP? Singling out Jews for this kind of irrational comparison reveals Dawkins' bigotry; he also errantly believes that he speaks for most atheists. I believe most atheists think Dawkins should shut up and quit giving atheism a bad name.William J. Murray_{October 11, 2007
October
10
Oct
11
11
2007
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

[Off topic] "A High Court judge who ruled on whether climate change film, An Inconvenient Truth, could be shown in schools said it contains 'nine scientific errors'." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stmRowan_{October 11, 2007
October
10
Oct
11
11
2007
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

Did anyone actually read the Guardian article? Dawkins wasn't criticizing the (purported) Jewish lobby. He was simply pointing out that a relatively small group, if it functions cohesively, can exert a disproportionate influence in society. His assertion that US foreign policy is monopolised by that lobby may overstate the case, but it is hardly indicative of anti-Semitism. He is merely indulging in some wishful thinking that atheists might emulate that lobby in order to achieve greater influence of their own.MacT_{October 11, 2007
October
10
Oct
11
11
2007
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT}

"Is Dawkins as vocal in his criticism of muslim influence in British politics these days ?" I doubt it. I suspect the guy is basically a coward. He is silent in the face of animals rights wacko's seeking to shut down actual productive science research, instead preferring to pick on targets that wont use violence in return to his idiocy.Jason Rennie_{October 11, 2007
October
10
Oct
11
11
2007
12:27 AM
12
12
27
AM
PDT}

Let's not forget that Dawkins also wants to reopen the debate on eugenics. He is not sure eugenics is such a bad idea.Jehu_{October 10, 2007
October
10
Oct
10
10
2007
11:41 PM
11
11
41
PM
PDT}

H'mm: Maybe, we need to look back at the lead of the Guardian article:
Britain's leading atheist is spearheading a campaign in America to challenge the dominance of religion in every day life and in politics, insisting that the millions of US godless deserve to be heard too. Atheists in the US "have been downtrodden for a very long time. So I think some sort of political organisation is what they need", he said . . . . Religion is palpable in US schools, places of work and public institutions. God is invoked by soldiers and politicians in a way that would seem inappropriate in Britain. George Bush used God as one of the reasons for invading Iraq. In Congress, where godlessness can equate with being unelectable, only one representative, Pete Stark, is prepared to admit to being a non-believer.
Now, of course, this is in a context where, through the courts, the campuses and the media, atheism and related secularist ideas and agendas actually have astonishing and disproportionate power. So, in that context, Mr Dawkins' revealing remark -- and plainly ill-informed and bigoted -- about wanting to have as much influence as "the Jews" do over US Foreign policy, reveals that he obviously wishes for atheism and its agendas to monopolise the US public square. Of course, as Barry A points out, in saying such an ill-informed patently slanderous thing against Jews, Mr Dawkins thereby reveals his prejudice, his failure to accurately research facts before spouting off his ideas, and perhaps even outright animosity to Jews. This, sadly, is all of a piece with the Village Atheist level thinking in especially his recent books, and indeed, in much of his shrill advocacy of Evolutionary Materialism in the name of "Science." Thus, too, the underlying targets are now all too plain: Evangelical, Bible-believing Christianity and probably as well Roman Catholicism, the largest and most influential religiously motivated conservative blocs of the US' public. (Indeed, the highlighted dubious -- and probably outright false and slanderous -- explanatory aside on Mr Bush is even more revealing of the perceptions of the Guardian's Editors and readership in some ways than the remarks on "Jews.") But, is any of this really surprising coming from the mouth of one who is unrepentantly on record that those who reject his evolutionary materialism are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked? And, as Robo highlighted (cf. the recent humorous Aug 20 or so thread on Darwin's 1861 ID quote), relative to such Evo Mat views, how can we ground/ warrant and thus assign any objective weight to moral judgements beyond in effect mere sentiment, or media- and campus- manipulated relativistic notions, or even outright "might makes right"? Coming back on the main themes of this blog, that immediately raises serious questions about the hostility of the elites of major educational and scientific institutions to ID thinkers, as has now been manifested in a long string of career-busting abuses and usurpations. [Cf the recent film, Expelled.] For, the power-centres of such institutions ARE unquestionably dominated by atheists and fellow secularists. Is that the kind of future that is being planned for us by Mr Dawkins' Atheists Alliance? If so, those who do not kowtow to the Evo Mat party-line should take fair warning and act in good time to protect themselves! GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 10, 2007
October
10
Oct
10
10
2007
10:38 PM
10
10
38
PM
PDT}

Isn't this a GOOD thing? Even Atheists are going to start turning on him. As some high ranking ones have, as far as I am aware, right?Gods iPod_{October 10, 2007
October
10
Oct
10
10
2007
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT}

What does he mean by "better"? No God = no objective moral values. Thus "better" must mean personal preference. So what Dawkins really means is: "...So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be [insert personal preferences here] place.” I wonder what his personal preference REALLY are? Different from Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and Mao I hope.Robo_{October 10, 2007
October
10
Oct
10
10
2007
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT}

From what I understand Christopher Hitchens animosity to religion and Catholicism in particular flows from his mother's suicide during an affair with an ex priest in Athens where they entered into a mutual suicide pact. But before this he had become a committed socialist and I assume atheist. He has since lost the socialism but his anti-religion is what drives him today. That is supposedly what mainly drives his support for Bush's policies in the Middle East. By the way Hitchens is technically jewish since he is a descendant through his mother's side from Jews.jerry_{October 10, 2007
October
10
Oct
10
10
2007
08:59 PM
8
08
59
PM
PDT}

Add paranoid antisemitism to the list of Dawkins' traits. The New Atheists are looking more and more like the monsters we thought were defeated in the last century.StuartHarris_{October 10, 2007
October
10
Oct
10
10
2007
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT}

Dawkins has completely lost it, and makes a fool of himself ever more convincingly. There is nothing more to say. It's sad and pathetic to watch.GilDodgen_{October 10, 2007
October
10
Oct
10
10
2007
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT}

I know a fair amount of Jewish people since I grew up in areas where there are large Jewish population (Atlantic City, Philadelphia and now live in the New York City area) and some have admitted to me that there are very few religious Jews and most are atheists. Now this is unscientific and maybe just the ones I know and have had discussions with but I found it interesting. I came across this for the first time when I was in college and worked at a Jewish day camp for the summer. Every non Jewish counselor at the camp had an assistant who was a Jewish teen ager and I would pick him up each morning and return him home at night. We had some long conversations about Jews and what they believed but the one which struck me the most was that fact that few Jews believed in God. This could have been this fellow's circle of acquaintances but I have seen and heard consistent points of view since. So Dawkins is criticizing some of his biggest believers because many of these atheistic Jews are major supporters of Israel. Is Dawkins as vocal in his criticism of muslim influence in British politics these days? Dawkins is just revealing his left wing political leanings and the sad thing is that he probably doesn't know why he believes certain things. He is just following his crowd via informational cascades.jerry_{October 10, 2007
October
10
Oct
10
10
2007
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT}

Dawkins main problem is that he is extremely superficial when dealing with anything outside his specialty, which, of course, is most things. His specialty is zoology, and I assume he is a competent zoologist. But when he speaks on anything else, it seems he can only spout hackneyed clichés that suit his prejudices. His atheism, for all its notoriety, is not really sophisticated. It is the kind of atheism that is commonly derided as “village atheist” atheism. Similarly, the fatuity of his analysis of American foreign policy would be funny if it were not so malevolent. Jews comprise approximately 2 percent of the American population; religiously observant Jews are a fraction of that. Can he seriously believe that small fraction of our population “monopolizes” our foreign policy? One wonders if he has been staying up nights reading “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” When did he wonder into the fever swamps of international conspiracy theorists? Is he a dilettante conspiracy kook? Or is this a serious new direction for him? NOTE THIS TOO: The Guardian article is nine days old. The American media, like sharks smelling a drop of blood in the water a mile away, usually goes into a feeding frenzy over the faintest whiff of anti-Semitism. One wonders why they have given Dawkins a pass on this.BarryA_{October 10, 2007
October
10
Oct
10
10
2007
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT}

Editor at Guardian;; "Hey the news is kind of slow today" Reporter on the beat: "sure is boss" Editor: "Hey go push that idiot Dawkin's buttons and see what comes out" Reporter: "Yea it's been a while since he has said anything stupid" Editor: "Yea you got to love that guy, our circulation always goes up when he is interviewed for his moronic views" Later on after interview: Editor: "Well what did Dawkins say this time?"" Reporter: "You are not going to believe it boss,,,He is saying atheist would make the world a better place if they had as much influence as the Jews have!" Editor: "Your kidding me right!?! Reporter: "No sir, he said it and said it stone cold sober at that!" Editor: "I could kiss that man!" Man I could kiss that man"bornagain77_{October 10, 2007
October
10
Oct
10
10
2007
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT}

One thing I find interesting here - Dawkins seems to assume that it's only religious jews who support Israel, or who are hawks. Which is more amusing when you look the way of Christopher Hitchens. He truly lives in a world where the only bad things that happen are the fault, ultimately, of religious people.nullasalus_{October 10, 2007
October
10
Oct
10
10
2007
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT}

It is a pity Dawkins is going completely off the deep end like this. He is getting progressively harder to parody as he keeps doing things like this. It would be funny if so many people didn't take him so seriously. As it stands it is just sad and pathetic.Jason Rennie_{October 10, 2007
October
10
Oct
10
10
2007
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply