Conference taveng::bagels

    I find your note sickening and offensive.

    re: .0
    
    Ben Wattenberg has been into right-wingism for quite some time now,
    like Norman Podhoretz he has gone from one end of the spectrum to
    the other.  So it's not surprising to hear his views on population
    growth in the third world and the east bloc.
    
    What he omitted in his comments on the Soviet Union was that there
    is a decline in population in the European half, and an increase
    in the Asian half of Russia.  Of course this would reenforce the
    "screaming yellow hordes" theory which he so cleverly disguises.
    
    As far as his comments on the Jewish birthrate in Israel and america
    are concerned, basically he is right.  But blaming a low birthrate
    amongst American Jews on Jewish feminists is a product of his ignorant
    reactionism.  What he fails to point to are factors of assimilation,
    i.e., intermarriage, tendency to follow the majority's mores, etc.
    
    re: .1
    
    I didn't find his note "sickening " or "offensive".  All views should
    be permitted to be expressed here.  You should make your feelings
    know to Ben Wattenberg, not the originator of this note.
    
    David 

    Re .1
    
    I'm not too sure why you had such a strong negative reaction
    to the base note.
    
    I re-read it a couple of times, and while I can't be sure of
    all the statistics given there, the note didn't affect me the
    same way it did you.
    
    Am I missing something?
    
       Alan
    

       I don't get it.  What is sickening and offensive?
       
       The fact that Jews have a very low birth rate (plus a high
       inter-marriage rate) from which one can conclude that the world
       Jewish population is declining and in danger of extinction? 
       
       Or was it the way .0 was phrased?              

    SOrry, my fault, it's not the note per se, and def not
    the noter who put it in, it's the implication that American
    Jews are to blame for this.

    My apologies if I wasn't clear.

    Defining a trend is not exactly putting blame on any social group.
    However the trend that is defined happens to have dire consequences
    for the Jewish people.  Ben Wattenberg probably obtained the statistics
    from a study done by the World Jewish Congress, an organization
    made of Jews not only from Israel, but all over the diaspora.
    
    If people are reproducing at a startingly low rate then what do
    you expect the results to be?
    
    David 

    RE: .2
    >when he omitted in his comments on the soviet union was that there
    >is a decline in the population in the european half,and an increase
    >in the asian half of russia. of course this would reenforce the
    >"screaming yellow hordes" theory which de cleverly disguises

    if u read wattenbergs' book or listened to him speak u would find
    that he is also concerned about the decline in population of japan.
    and of course they are not european.wattenberg also advocates 
    not restricting immigration,which of course would come predominately
    from third world countries
    
    as far as ben wattenberg is concerned
    
    when u speak of him as being a right winger u expose urself as to what 
    political beliefs u are speaking from. u therefore are not speaking
    as an objective person but rather as a person  who has his own political
     view point. so in essence if wattenberg is right wing
    then u may be guilty of being left wing
    
    re: .1
     i don't understand why there is any need to be so upset. i am not
    guilty of anything. i am not suggesting that all jews start
    massproducing babies. i mself have no plans of having10 kids to
    increase the jewish population. i also do not understand why my
    note was put in the in the context of blaming american jews. it
    seems to me at least to be a very objective issue. simply stated        
    and i think logically is that if american jews do not have american
    jewsih children there will be no american jewish population.
    
    as far as feminism is concerned i am not for it or against it.
    what wattenberg stated made sense to me, sure assimilation and
    intermarriage lead to the decline inthe jewish population. but these
    people after assimilation for the most may not even have a 
    jewish identity and are lost as far as the jewish communtiy os concerned.
     what wattenberg was refering to were jews who already had a 
     jewish identity and the role that feminism plays in a low jewish
    birhtrate. i do not think that by name calling and blowing away the
    whole issue without giving any reasons or facts does any service to  the
    problem. it seems to me to be an easy way out
     and at the same time addressing the issue with out any
    facts does  seems to be any easy way out
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    You're repeating youself... 8-}

    I'm the first to admit, I overreacted.

    My Apologies.

    Who needs to apologize for anything?  Ben Wattenberg is what denizens
    of the 'box would call a First Class Jerk.  He belongs in
    BETHE::SOAPBOX Topic 204.  But this isn't _quite_ the 'box.
    
    Given his social agendas, he logically blames feminism for the low
    birth rate, as if it were a big problem.  If it were _sustained
    forever_, it might be.  But I hate to use simple bodycounts to
    determine how vital our people is.  Is Mexico such a great world
    power because they're so overpopulated?  Is Kenya, with the world's
    highest birthrate (of any full country -- Israeli Arabs have a higher
    one)?  No, they're just crowded.
    
    Intermarriage and assimilation are a real problem.  Colonialism
    that causes Israel to acquire a hostile, fecund population is a
    problem.  Feminism & education aren't a problem, they're part of
    the solution.  And, damn it, I'M A LEFTIST AND I'M PROUD!!!  So there!

re: .9
    first of all i do not even know where to begin in this unbelievable
    note.
    
     i am glad that u are so proud of being a leftist.
    "all hail marx snd lennon" is an interesting statement. i don't
    even know if u  mean it or  said it in jest. when u mean lefitist
    i hope u don't condider urself a marxist because then ur whole thinking
    is baseless. there is no defense of a regime that now occupies half
    of europe, that holds no elections that bars jewish education
    or emmigration ect. ect. and the list goes on and on. i do not want
    to dwell anymore on the s.u because i don't know where ur feeling
    lie on the subject. but as a jew u should especially be sensitive of
    how communist countries and communist revolutions have treated israel
    and the jews. under the sandanistas the jews were vitually thrown
    out of the country their only synogogue firebombed and destroyed
    by the sandinistas it seems strange to me how jews that are leftists
    and (i don't know if that includes u) are so quick to praise the
    sandanista regime, a regime with no free elections(elections were
    called a fraud bu independent observers in nicaragua and boycotted
    by the main opposition party for the same reason)no indep. press
    ect. ect. and at the same time call israel a colonial state at least that
    is what i think u were saying. i also wonder if u are aware that
    the sandanistas were trained by the plo and the s.u, and have plo
    advisers in nicaragua rite now. not to mention that they broke 
    relations with israel along with the s.u and all its' client states
    with the exception of yugoslovia.                   
    
    i wonder if as a lefitst u also support the anc in south africa
    like some other "progressive" jews do. one only has to read to find how
    they stand on issues of concern to jews. they identif with the plo and
    have called for the "armed struggle" against israel.
    that's enough of that. i could go on and on. and by the i way do not
     support right wing dictatorships either. so pls don't
    accuse me of that.
    
    

> colonialism that causes israel to acquire a hostile,fecund population
> is a problem. 
    
   could u please explain how u consider israel to be a colonial power.
    unbelievable statement. would u have been happier if the jews
    would have stood still to be slaughtered and in so doing there would
    be no westbank or any bank for that matter. or would advocate a
    seperate "palestinain" state on the the w.b.
    where according to the latest poll close to 100% ofthe arabs favor the
    plo and armed struggle to regain what they call "palestine" which
    is according to the plo (founded in 1964 before there was awest bank)
    not just nablus and hebron but good old tel aviv and haifa  don't
    be so naive.
    
    

    

    

     re .10:
     
     It's hard to know which is the more offensive: the stylized writing
     (which is particularly intereesting when mixed with your unwitting
     spelling and grammar errors), the ad hominem attacks, or the plain
     errors of fact.
     
     Your facts about the Soviet Union are wrong (they haven't been Marxist
     for years -- complain about Albania if you want to bleat about
     Marxism), your double standards are nauseating (you ask people not to
     put words in your mouth, then you twist a statement to accuse the
     author of .9 of calling Israel a "colonial power"), and your writing
     style both falls short of being clever and prevents your thoughts (if
     any) from being communicated.
     
     --Mr Topaz

    So there.

    A few of you have replied to the author of this note with pertinent
    points that I don't have to repeat.
    
    All I want to comment is on the baseless accusations re: the
    Sandinistas being Anti-Semitic, etc.  This was a false accusation
    which was pushed through the ADL by the Norman Podhoretz/Wattenberg
    clic.  There was absolutely no substance to these reports.
    
    How do you expect Nicaragua to react to Israel, after the Israelis
    supplied the former dictator Somoza with all the weapons he could
    purchase?  " Oh gee Yitzhak, let's let bygones be bygones."  As
    much as Israel has been victimized by the Arabs and the East Bloc
    in the third world, it hasn't countered too well with wholesale
    arms sales to sadistic third world dictators (the most absurd being
    Strossner in Paraguay, now there is someone who hid Nazi war
    criminals!).
    
    David   

    wutz rong wit u pipple. cant u reed da kinks inglish. mabey needs
    ta bee in funny rite to left carakters.
    			Love Mother

RE: .0

	It seems that you have raised the ire of the left leaning readers
	of this file...to the point where they are even criticizing your 
	writing	style. 

	In the early 60's Cuba was the darling of the left and the 
	disenchanted youth of this country and now we have Nicaragua.
	It brings to mind a quote made by the radical lawyer and all around
	swell guy William Kunstler when asked what he thought about what had 
	happened in Cambodia during the Pol Pot regime replied:

	' I make it a habit to never criticize a Socialist country.'

David

    When I made my original reply to this note, I didn't envision a
    political debate arising over "left-right", despite the fact that
    I referred to Ben Wattenberg as a reactionary.
    
    I spent the greater part of my life endorsing ideologies of various
    shades (no, never on the right).  From this experience I have learned
    that ideologies of any kind are divisive and fragmenting.  The world
    is fragmented enough as is without our help.
    
    However I do try and point out the truth as I know it.  If people
    are upset about Nicaragua, and about how undemocratic it is, then
    why didn't they raise a decibel or two about the Sandinista's
    predecessors,the Somozas?  Yes, I know very well how cruel the Pol
    Pot regime was in Cambodia, and I don't hold it up as a model of
    socialism.  But for every Pol Pot in the world, this country seems
    to find ten that terrorize their nations but "at least are
    anti-communist".
    
    David

    The author of the base note not only has trouble writing the King's
    English or its American descendant, but he seems to have some reading
    problems too!
    
    My "personal name" field says, 
    	All Hail Marx & Lennon (Bros. & Sisters)
    
    The Marx brothers were a Jewish comedy act, namely Groucho, Harpo,
    Gummo, Zeppo and Chico.  The Lennon sisters were a singing group.
    The Bolshevik's name was "Lenin", not "Lennon".
    
    Yes, it's a pun.  It comes from a Firesign Theatre record cover
    which had Groucho Marx and John Lennon on it.
    
    The rest of the diatribe is equally misguided, but why flame on
    endlessly?  Why do facts matter?  Hell, I'm a Jewish leftist and
    DAMN PROUD.  And I have lots of Jewish leftist friends, too.  Most
    of us didn't like Pol Pot _or_ Somoza, Brezhnev _or_ Pinochet, Arafat
    _or_ Sharon.  So there.  We do like human rights, justice, freedom,
    peace and all that good stuff.

    i just want to thank all the left leaning(falling over) readers
    out there for ur objective and of course constructive criticism.
    
    it really has been marvelous having this conversation with so many 
    intellectuals and educators

        
    

    Just as an aside, 
    
DELNI::GOLDSTEIN "All Hail Marx and Lennon (Bros. &" 20 lines  4-AUG-1987 17:12

    You'll notice that NOTES gratuitously lops off the end of your
    profile personal name.  It does rather obscure the humor a bit.
    Cute phrase just the same.  I've used other personal names that
    have become down right embarrassing when truncated! 
    
    -joel

    i just had to reply one more time to blow off a little steam.
    
    i want to direct this note to the pompous readers who have attempted
    to embarrass me by resorting to name calling and insulting me
    personally. who the hell do u think u are attempting to discredit
    me in this way. i really am surprised as to how u sanctimonous
    intellectuals have resorted to such tactics. it really isn't becoming
    of you intellectuals to act this way. i always thought u people
    were so open and willing to discuss the issues.but in the event
    that u feel there is a further need to ridiclue me please let's do
    it on a more personal basis. i'd be glad to meet everyone of u to
    discuss the matter. 
                                                      
    i really think u snobs have shown ur true colors. u have proven that there
    is such a thing as a pseudo condescending intellectual.
    
    one last thing 
    i wish this weren't a public conference because then i would be able
    to tell u (those fair and open minded intelectuals) what part of
    me u could kiss.    
   
      

re: 0

	I certainly agree with you - you have been treated shabbily and
	unfairly. It is interesting to note that most of the attacks were
	directed toward you personaly and not towards refuting Wattenberg's
	book. I think there is a reason for this tact.

	Most of your detractors know ,in their hearts, that Wattenberg's
	premise is correct. The problem is that it makes them feel very
	guilty to have such thoughts and hence the rage towards you.

	BTW: It is true that Israel supplied Somoza with arms but what is also
	true is that Somoza's father was one of only a few that supplied the
	emerging Jewish state with arms during the 40's.

David
	    

     re .21:
     
     > Most of your detractors know ,in their hearts ...
     
     Do you have some special knowledge that lets you see through the
     words people write and into their hearts?  If so, I'm impressed.
     Alternatively, could it be that you don't yet know how to see other
     viewpoints?
                
     > Somoza's father was one of only a few that supplied the emerging
     > Jewish state with arms during the 40's. 
     
     Regardless of whether this is true or not, it is utterly irrelevant.
     If a dictator is a freedom-hating tyrant, whether it's Somoza or
     Stalin or Marcos or Hitler, you sink to his level if you allow
     yourself to be bought by his financial or military support.
     
     And as to the way that poor Mr/Ms Magnes (the notes are unsigned)
     has been treated, he/she was the first to issue a gratuitous personal
     attack, in the note criticizing Fred Goldstein personal name.
     
     --Mr Topaz
     
     p.s.: 
     
     > I think there is a reason for this tact.
     
     Don't you love it when people make puns and never realize it?

    re: all this nonsense
    
    I think this entire discussion (if one may call it this a discussion
    now) is starting to go off into areas which are best not seen on
    our tubes.
    
    Believe it or not, I did sympathize with Mr. Magnes, as to the
    personally insulting (and they were, let's admit it) replies he
    was getting.  I'm probably the guilty party for polarizing this
    discussion into "left-right", since I was the one who described
    Ben Wattenberg as a reactionary.
    
    However, .20 reveals that Mr. Magnes can stoop to even lower levels.
    His diatribe against "intellectuals" was entirely obnoxious.  I
    presume than that he is his sites' sanitary engineer, who just happens
    to have a VAX account.  
    
    David

Re: .22:

     If a dictator is a freedom-hating tyrant, whether it's Somoza or
     Stalin or Marcos or Hitler, you sink to his level if you allow
     yourself to be bought by his financial or military support.
     
I basically agree.  It's degrading for Israel to get in bed with reprehensible
regimes such as Somoza's or the one in South Africa.  On the other hand,
beggars can't be choosers.  Israel needs all the help it can get, and precious
few people are willing to deal with the Israelis.  

In South Africa, there is a very large Jewish community in a precarious 
position on how actively they can oppose apartheid.  In Nicaragua, Israel's
contacts with Somoza antagonized the Sandinistas and have been repudiated
by the Contras.  In Iran, Israel still maintains covert contacts established
during the Shah's rule, and some of these contacts are inside the current
Islamic regime.  That helps explain their role in the recent US arms deals.

Overall, it's a difficult situation for Israel, and I'd hate to be the one to 
decide on the compromises that have to be made.  Real politics does make
strange bedfellows.

    re: .24
    
    In the case of Israel's arms sales in the third world, the realpolitik
    which has governed these sales is foreign currency, cold cash, of
    which there is precious little in the Bank of Israel.
    
    David

    re:.25
    Re: Realpolitik; that's true, money talks, though it's better when
    someone admits it than when one gets sanctimonious.  France is pretty
    brazen in their middle east arms trading.  Reagan's boys got
    sanctimonious about "Iranian moderates".  Get the difference?  Somoza
    bought from Israel and nobody said it was anything but business,
    but it's understandable how the Sandinistas got a bit upset.
    
    re:.19
    Yes, I know my Personal_name is truncated; it shows "Bros." clearly
    enough but you have to extract or Reply to see the whole thing.
    The spelling is the heart of the pun, the parentheses are there
    just in case you miss it.  It used to say "John" but the Lennon
    Sisters seemed a better match for the Marx Brothers.
    
    Re: several;
    Perhaps we should forgive Steve Magnes his lack of literary grace,
    though his turning BAGELS into SOAPBOX isn't great etiquette.
    Some of the schools down in New Jersey aren't too good.  Though
    even Passaic High required you to know about "you" and upper case
    on the first letter of a sentence.

    Hey, come on, folks, what kind of an example are we setting in this
    note, for each other and for the "goyim" (casual readers of this
    file, I mean)?  I'm sure we really don't MEAN all these personal
    attacks, so let's not continue in that vein, OK?

    You're a sick man, Mordechai.
    
    		Paul
    

Today's Wall Street Journal has a book review of Wattenberg's book.

The review makes 2 good points:
	1) For a political conservative, W. is getting into bed with
	   some pretty strange bedfellows by proposing that the West
	   ought to imitate the kind of state social engineering that
	   is attempted in Eastern-bloc communist countries for increasing
	   the birth rate.

	1a) There's no evidence that these sorts of social-engineering
	   programs work any too well anyways.

	2) Straight extrapolation of current demographic trends beyond
	   the current generation results in usually obtusely wrong predictions.
	   Nobody predicted that third world birthrates would decline as
	   precipitously as they have in the last generation (yes they
	   are still higher than 1st world birthrates, but overall are
	   alot lower than they were 20-30 years ago.  For example.)

	   If you know that the current birth rate is x, then that is all
	   you know.  You do not know anything about how long the current
	   rate will persist, and you know even less about how the
	   next generation will behave. 

As the Swedes say, predictions are a wonderful thing except when you
apply them to the future.  or something to that effect.

Also, W. has no reason to suppose that the only way to get college-educated
productive members of American society is by reproducing them within
college-educated middle-class families; that is not the way we got where
we are today...
		...
			...

my parents between them have 13 years of formal education.  Their three
offspring have 1 PHD (a colidge perfesser, no less), one M.Arch and one B.A.
(That's me. I went to a school so snotty about the value of it's undergrad
education that I was persuaded that no other institution's graduate degree
could possibly add to the luster...)

Most of you are probably a generation away from this pattern.

Anyway, if W. is concerned about the future of America, he should put some
thought and energy into making sure that the children of American poor
whites, poor blacks, poor Hispanics, Mexican immigrants, Asian immigrants,
and so on have the motivation to succeed and accomplish, rather than make
hay about how college-educated women need to breed.

You can't deny that college-educated women today are having fewer children
than certain segments of American society did in the past.  But that is a
far cry from seeing any cause for individual *guilt* on the part of any
individual college-educated woman.  For a so-called conservative, of all
people, to make that claim, is simply amazing.

    The Wall St. Journal said it was a Danish expression, not Swedish.
    I'd guess the original version went like this:
    
    "Predictions are hard to make, especially about the future."
    
    As an aside--I've found the WSJ book and movie reviews to be
    clear and useful.  Not quite what you'd expect from a "business"
    newspaper!
    
    				-John Bishop

    RE .30
    
    with regards to feminism...
    i don't think anyone  is trying to put a guilt trip on the
    educated jewish woman. all wattenberg was doing was laying out hte
    facts. they speak for themselves. educated jewish women who stay
    in the workforce will have less children. watt. or for that matter
    anyone else has little relevance to the issue. critcising watt.
    political beliefs will not change the problem as it concerns the
    decline of population in the jewish community. as i said before
    i have 2 daughters and their future (as well as i can tell the future)
    will lead them rite straight to college because for the most part
    they will have no choice. so  just to set the record straigth
    those are my feelings towards education for women. but still the
    problem exists and i think should be addressed as a problem by the
    jewish community so steps if any canbe taken to alleviate the problem
    
    in regards to social engineering
    
    i dont't know what that actually entails. what wattenberg had in
    mind was a type of tax benefit for families that had more children
    and incorporating more day care facilities  especially by business
    (by the way that is hardly a right wingers' approach).this approach
    is used in many scandanavian countries and similiar spproaches are
    taken in israel for both jew and of course to be democratic the
    arab to(we of course want to encourage them to have children only
    fair way lest we be "racist").
    
    just to digress alittle bit
    
    in resp to .30 again i know that the main thrust or ur reply was
    not what i am about to comment on but i think it is somewhat relevant
    and deserves some attention.
    
    i appreciate your concern for the various minorities in this country
    as u stated in .30. i think overall jews have consistently shown
    sensitivity to other minorities and have in disproportionately high
    numbers even championed the cause of other groups.
    
    the only problem with this altruism, as i see it is that these same
    groups that we as jews have been so concerned over have not shown
    the same reciprocal sensitivity towards our concerns. i have marched
    for soviet jewry for years and the only people i see are jews and
    strange enough the majority happen to be religious. (intersesting
    but i think that could be other topic). where are all these people
    that we have attempted to help. probably quite naturally, they are
    for the most part not that intersted in our plight. why should they
    have the feeling  or need to go out of their way to help us as
    we do to them(other groups). i think that besides being apathetic
    to our concerns i think that somewhere along the line resentment
    starts to grow. how else can u explain the anti-semitic remarks
    of a jessie jackson or who can froget the famous duet of benjamin
    hooks with yassar arafat singing "we shall overcome." these two
    people both worked with many jews who risked their lives to bring
    civil rights to theblack community. and what of the many rabbis
    who displayed their outrage and rightly so at the apartheid gov't
    in s africa and found themselves arrested and only then after repeated
    pleas from activists in the soviet jewry movement were these same
    rabbis willing to to arrested for demonstrating in front of the
    s.us' embassy. how.....
    ... do we face the fact that louy baby (farakan was able to  attract
    such large audiences form the black community. no i don't think that
    all members of the black communityare anti semitic.but i do say
    that there is enough to  say that there is something wrong
    especially in college where i have found it to be in vogue
    to identify with the plo as a liberating force. i do not advocate
    ignoring injustice against other peoples. but i do think that we
    need to concentrate our efforts more on the our community first,
    as other groups seem to do. we also have problems with the poor
    and elderly. we have problems that no other group is going to champion
    for us ranging from the elderly poor to intermarriage assimilation
    and the list goes on. i don't think thsre is any need to elaborate
    i'm sure everyone is aware of the differnt issues
    
                     
    

     re .32:
     
     I imagine that most or all Jews who spoke out against racism and/or
     oppression of particular minority groups did so because they felt that
     racism and oppression were wrong, plain and simple.  I doubt you'd
     find any Jew who was active in the 60s civil rights movement because
     he or she expected tit-for-tat support from the black community. 
     
     Racism is wrong, divisive, and harmful, regardless whether its source
     is an overt statement by a black man toward Jews or a thinly-veiled
     screed of comtempt by a Jew toward blacks.
     
     --Mr Topaz

I mean by Social engineering the attempt to change the behavior of 
large subgroups in a society through either legislation, or through
setting up incentives, usually monetary.  

The behavior that W. proposes we change is the tendency of college-educated
women to have fewer children than he thinks they should.

A legislative approach might be to enact laws that require fertile women
to bear eleventy-eight children. [Unconstitutional in our country, and
difficult to implement in any case.]  A less extreme example would be
to enact a law forcing companies to grant  parental-leave.

An incentive approach is to offer tax advantages, or government funding
directly to college-educated women who have had more than eleventy-eight
children.  Or to offer free daycare, or to offer cheap mortgages to families
with more than x children, .... you get the idea.  

I thought the main thrust of Wattenberg's book was the dismal demographic
future he predicted for the U.S. if college-educated women didn't start
having more babies.

My replies in this note have therefore focussed on discussion of Wattenberg's
pseudo-scientific misapplication of demographics to the U.S.

A similar analysis, applied with even greater hysterical force, to the 
prediction of demographic catastrophe in Israel, has been the trademark
of Meir Kahane's demagogical rise to prominence.  There's another note
somewhere in this conference about Meir Kahane, and if you want to continue
to discuss the validity of applying these demographic theories to the
cas of Israel, maybe you could look up the discussion in that note first.

Steve, I don't know how you managed to misconstrue my earlier posting to be
a plea for better treatment of American minorities on humanitarian, or
anti-racism grounds.  I see it as the obvious rational solution to this
'birth dearth' problem Wattenberg is flaming about.  There is no birth
dearth in America.  There are plenty of kids being born.  If you want to
ensure the future of American successes and civilization, invest in today's
American kids.  If you want to ensure that the children of today's middle
class retain their numerical strength,  follow Wattenberg's proposals.

Finally, I absolutely agree with you that Ben Wattenberg is no conservative.
He THINKS he is, but that's another matter.

	Kathy

    re:.33
    
    I detect a familiar note in your references to Farakhan and Jesse
    Jackson.  To which I reply that I do not accept your apparent thesis:
    That because not all Blacks support all of the Jewish agenda, all
    Jews must oppose the Black agenda.
    
    Equality for all means all.  Not equality for all non-Blacks.
    
    As Kathy has pointed out, Wattenberg's agenda misses the historical
    truth of American demographics, though it seems more in tune with
    English demographics.  In England, you are born into and die into
    the same social class, with fairly unusual exceptions.  In America,
    we have very assiduously cultivated a society that does not accept
    the rigidity of class assignment.  (This has other impacts on the
    poor American understanding of class struggle, but that's not for
    here.)  We call our method things like "the American dream", etc.,
    and it's summed up in the notion that a person can be born poor
    and grow up to be a Somebody.  Or even rich.
    
    The way that has worked in practice is simple:  The rich get richer,
    and the poor have children.  Since the rich don't have alot of kids,
    and the poor do, there are openings in the middle classes for poorer
    kids.  When those born-poor people grow up middle class, their kids
    have fewer kids, but they are wealthier than their parents were
    as kids.  "When I was a kid I walked 10 miles to school in the snow
    and only owned one worn-out wool coat."
    
    Now the bulk of the Jewish population is middle class or above,
    except for the elderly who are often poor (but already had their
    kids).  That's why we have a low birth rate.  There are some poor
    Jews, and the frum community is less wealthy, and they tend to have
    more kids, but some of them grow up to be middle class and, heaven
    forbid, even join Conservative and Reform schuls!  But that tends
    to preserve the size of the frum community too.  Overall, I'd suggest
    that our population in the US is declining, but not vanishing, and
    not necessarily declining in influence.  
    
    If raw numbers were the only thing that kept Jews alive for 4000
    years, we'd have been dead millenia ago.  That we've survived for
    so long with such small numbers, with such adversity, is miracle
    enough.  So I don't panic over demographics.
    
    Not that W.'s "social engineering" is entirely a bad idea:  We could
    use more/better day care, parenthood leave, etc.  Europe is way
    ahead of the US in this.  But that's not a Jewish issue, it's a
    human one.
          fred

    People should choose whatever religion they wish to follow, or to
    follow none at all.  The hidden premise in the phrase "Jewish
    poulation suicide" is that parents should brainwash/indoctrinate
    their kids into the parents' religion.  Islamic children predominately
    become Islamic; Catholic children predominately become Catholic;
    Jewish children predominately become Jewish.
    
    If a religion is true or at least helpful, it will stand on its
    own.  If the only way a religion can be perpetuated is by forcing
    children into it, then it is not much of a religion.
    
    In the United States, people are exposed to a freeflow of ideas.
    People sift out those ideas, combined with their own experiences,
    and choose what they believe.  This is the best situation.
    

re: .31 or thereabouts. The only Swedish expression I know that fits
translates as "It's easy to predict the future if you don't have the
facts."

Martin.

    re:.36
    
    Where did religion come into this?

    When doesn't it?

    "Jewish Population Suicide" is the topic.  "Jewish" refers to
    adherents of the Jewish religion.  That's where religion enters
    the discussion.  How can there possibly be any question of its
    relevance?
    

    To try bring some enlightenment into the latest point of discussion
    in this note --> Yes, Jewish does refer to religion, but in the
    greater context (and in the context of this issue), we are referring
    to the Jews as a distinct national minority, not just "adherents
    to the Jewish religion".
    
    David

    re:.41, previous
    
    Thank you, that is exactly what I thought was terribly implicit
    in the discussion.
    
    We're talking ethnic groups and demographics, not religion. 

    Well, then, suppose there were a smaller number of Jews in the
    United States, or in the world, in the future, due to birth rate,
    assimilation, conversion, intermarriage.  Other than being a
    shame, what would be bad about that situation?  The only way
    that this would be bad is if one holds the ethnocentric view
    that Jews are somehow better than other people.  We mustn't
    be so conceited.
    
    

    >Well, then, suppose there were a smaller number of Jews in the
    >United States, or in the world, in the future, due to birth rate,
    >assimilation, conversion, intermarriage.  Other than being a
    >shame, what would be bad about that situation?  The only way
    >that this would be bad is if one holds the ethnocentric view
    >that Jews are somehow better than other people.  We mustn't
    >be so conceited.
    
    Huh??  What would be so bad about dwindling numbers of the Jewish
    people?  That's seems like kind of a silly question to ask.
    SURVIVAL is the name of the game here, and there is no connection
    to opinions as to whether "Jews are somehow better than other people"
    (whoever implied such an opinion?).

    David  
    

    RE .43

<    Well, then, suppose there were a smaller number of Jews in the	>
<    United States, or in the world, in the future, due to birth rate,	>
<    assimilation, conversion, intermarriage.  Other than being a	>
<    shame, what would be bad about that situation?			>

    Flame on...

    The situation would be bad because we as Jews have a responsibility
    for our own survival as a people.  If nothing else that justifies our
    being concerned.

    You can also add to that the responibility that many of the "religious"
    among us accept implicitly the we must be "a light unto the nations".
    We can't be that if we ain't here!

    Flaming off.

    Shalom,
    Gavriel

<    You can also add that the responsibility that many of the    	>
<    "religious" among us accept implicitly that we must be "a light    >
<    unto the nations." 						>
                                                                        
    
    I thought we all agreed that in this note "Jewish" refers to
    ethnicity, not religious adherence.  Being "a light unto the
    nations" would seem to me to refer to benefitting the world
    through Judaism's religious teachings.      

    re .46 (.45 and any others) : 
    
    Are you saying that you can only fulfil this role through 
    'religous adherence'? There are many Jewish laws that wouldn't fall
    into this category.  
    
    When questions about the very "raison d'etre" of Jewish existence 
    is raised I'm not surprised that responses like this are provoked. 
    
    I myself doubt if being "a light unto the nations" especially
    through Judaism's religious teachings is any more than a rallying
    call to the masses. When did religious Jews start to teach to the
    nations?

    It is my understanding that monotheism originated with the Jews,
    in the olden days.
    As for being "a light unto the nations" at the present time,
    could somebody please give some examples?
    

    .-1,-2 etc.

    1) As I said, I was flaming.  Therefore don't expect logic just emotion
       and rabble rousing.

    2) While I explicitly mentioned the reglious as taking this to heart,
       being a good example to others is something we all can/should do.

    3) I never said we were good at either.

    Erev Tov,
    Gavriel

    I worked with someone from Iran.  She glibly defended terrorism
    and hostage-taking.  She said it didn't all really happen--the
    American media exaggerates everything and is out to get her
    country, etc., etc.  I came to a realization that we all
    cheer for the home team. . .Rah rah rah and all that.
    We go to high school basketball games and cheer for our
    school's team because that's the thing to do.  It's good,
    I guess, to have pride in one's school, hometown, religion,
    political party, etc., but not good to let it go to one's
    head.
    
    
    

    This topic is amazing! Or maybe it's just the summer heat.
    
    The original note referred to a real phenomenon: the decline in
    the Jewish population in the U.S. in both absolute and relative
    terms. Whether you view this from an ethnic or a religious point
    of view, the _facts_ remain the same. We can speculate as to cause
    (women's lib, assimilation, you name it), and can also debate the
    consequences. Even the significance from "Who cares?" to "We cannot
    allow the light to the nations to be extinguished."
    
    I'd like to see a little more respect for each other's point of
    view. Some of the notin this topic should be no source of pride
    to their authors.
    
    BTW, there was a reference a couple of replies back to this conference
    not being "religious" in nature. Could someone refer me to earlier
    notes defining what is/is not appropriate for discussion? I haven't
    had the opportunity to read much of this notes file.
    
    - Richard

    I agree Richard about your reservations on the attempt to exclude the
    "religous" aspect to this topic. 
    
    I don't think we all made an agreement. Maybe one or two people
    did! The religous aspect has a definate effect on 'the decline of
    world Jewry'. A large part of Jewry determines every action in their
    lives due to observance of 'religous laws', and I would suspect that 
    most others are affected directly or indirectly, from beliefs (or
    shades of) and cultural pressures/ traditions. Lets not try to exclude 
    the source of much of our culture from this discussion.
    
    Malcolm
    

	"A light to the nations"

       I think this is a phrase from Isaiah.  However, it received
       an important modern interpretation by a German Jew in the
       early 20th century -- Franz Rosenzweig.
       
       According to Rosenzweig, the Jewish mission to the world was
       accomplished not by preaching to Gentiles and converting Gentiles
       to Judaism, but by being a good example and through that example,
       teaching the world about the existence and nature of the one God. 
       
       During Rosenzweig's era in Germany, Jews were undergoing rapid
       assimilation.  Rosenzweig, himself, almost converted to
       Christianity.  Some members of his family did convert. Rosenzweig
       came to see the Jews as exhibiting worthy moral and religious
       standards for the world to emulate. He saw the role of teacher by
       example as the purpose of Judaism in the world. Since that time a
       lot has changed.  Israel has done a lot to change the Jew's
       self-image.  Perhaps Rosenzweig's interpretation of "A light to
       the nations" is no longer valid.                  
       
              
       
       
       
       

    Anything related to Jews, Judaism or Israel is allowed
    in this file.

    Moderator 

    I wonder if .51 confused "topic" with "conference".
    
    I had mentioned (in .38? .39?) that _religion_ was not the issue.
    This was because the base topic referred to ethnic, not religious,
    matters.  Now we're off on a tangent on "light to the nations",
    "chosen people", etc., etc.
    
    Sure we can talk about religion.  But the topic (number before the
    point in the notenumber) concerns Ben Wattenberg's statement that
    the low Jewish birth rate is bad and is in large part due to pushy
    women who don't know their place.  Wattenberg is bad enough to debate
    without bringing religion into it!

    Yep. Confused "topic" with "conference". It was late, and I was
    tired.
    
    Somewhat related to the last few replies, a year or so ago, I attended
    a Hadassah dinner in NYC (I believe it was the annual U.S. convention).
    Anyway, the principal speaker was Elie Weisel (sp.?). I was sitting
    in the back, but fortunately, they had a large TV projection screen.
    He spoke of himself as a "witness", who was compelled to testify
    as to what he had seen, and what he believes is right. Perhaps there's
    another note where this is discussed; evidently, there's some Biblical
    or Talmudic references to the role of a witness for mankind.
    
    As you can tell, I'm not the best informed individual around. Anyway,
    Weisel never lifted his voice, but the emotional impact the man
    makes is incredible.
    
    - Richard