The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Alison Weir Archive
International Campaign Is Criminalizing Criticism of Israel as ‘antisemitism’
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Delegates at the 2009 Inter-Parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism convention in London. The organization issued a declaration calling on governments to use an Israel-centric definition of antisemitism and to outlaw and prosecute such “antisemitism.”
Delegates at the 2009 Inter-Parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism convention in London. The organization issued a declaration calling on governments to use an Israel-centric definition of antisemitism and to outlaw and prosecute such “antisemitism.”

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

For two decades, some Israeli officials and Israel partisans have worked to embed a new, Israel-focused definition of antisemitism in institutions around the world, from international bodies and national governments to small college campuses in heartland America. This effort is now snowballing rapidly. As a result, advocacy for Palestinian rights is well on the way to being curtailed and even criminalized as “hate.”

As the world has witnessed the oppression and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, many people have risen in protest. In response, the Israeli government and certain of its advocates have conducted a campaign to crack down on this activism, running roughshod over civil liberties (and the English language) in the process.

The mechanism of this crackdown is the redefinition of “antisemitism”[1]I’m using the newer, unhyphenated spelling of this word, which seems to be growing in popularity. I feel it is a more appropriate spelling, since the hyphenated version suggests that it refers to all Semites, which is incorrect. The word was created in 1879 specifically to refer to anti-Jewish prejudice. to include criticism of Israel, and the insertion of this definition into the bodies of law of various countries.

Where most people would consider “antisemitism” to mean bigotry against Jewish people (and rightly consider it abhorrent), for two decades a campaign has been underway to replace that definition with an Israel-centric definition. That definition can then be used to block speech and activism in support of Palestinian human rights as “hate.” Various groups are applying this definition in law enforcement evaluations of possible crimes.

Proponents of this Israel-centric definition have promoted it step by step in various arenas, from the U.S. State Department and European governments to local governments around the U.S. and universities.

While this effort has taken place over the last two decades, it is snowballing rapidly at this time. The definition is increasingly being used to curtail free speech and academic freedom, as well as political activism.

Furthermore, such politicizing of an important word may reduce its effectiveness when real antisemitism occurs, doing a disservice to victims of true bigotry.

As of this writing, the U.S. Congress has endorsed the distorted definition, the governments of the UK and Austria have officially adopted it (in December and April, respectively), various U.S. State legislatures are considering it, and numerous universities are using it to delineate permissible discourse. Many representatives and heads of other states around the world have embraced the new meaning, even if they have yet to officially implement it.

This article will examine the often interconnected, incremental actions that got us where we are, the current state of affairs, and the public relations and lobbying efforts that are promoting this twisting of the definition of “antisemitism” — often under cover of misleadingly named “anti-racism” movements.

Claims of “Antisemitism” Used to Silence Support for Palestinians

For many years, numerous respected organizations have documented Israeli violations of Palestinian human rights, including killing of Palestinian civilians, abuse of Palestinian children, torture of Palestinian prisoners, confiscation of Palestinian land, and other cases of systematic violence and oppression. Detailed reports have been compiled by Defense for Children International, the International Red Cross, Amnesty International, Foreign Service Journal, Physicians for Human rights, Christian Aid, Human Rights Watch, the National Lawyers Guild, Israel’s Public Committee Against Torture, Israel’s B’Tselem and others.

Israel long claimed that its 1948 creation was on “a land without a people for a people without a land,” and many people may still believe this founding myth. The fact is, however, that the land was originally inhabited by an indigenous population that was approximately 80 percent Muslim, 15 percent Christian, and a little under 5 percent Jewish. The Jewish State of Israel was created through the ejection of approximately three-quarters of a million people.

Over the decades since Israel’s founding in 1948, accusations of antisemitism have been leveled against many people who criticized Israeli actions. Indeed, the accusation was used effectively to silence very prominent critics.[2]Former Israeli parliament member Shulamit Aloni explained this in a 2002 interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy now. “It’s a trick. ” she said. “We always use it. When from Europe somebody is criticizing Israel, then we bring up the Holocaust. When in this country people are criticizing Israel, then they are ‘anti-Semitic’.

Aloni noted that the pro-Israel lobby in the United States “is strong, and has a lot of money.” She continued: “Ties between Israel and the American Jewish establishment are very strong … their attitude is ‘Israel, my country right or wrong.’”

“It’s very easy,” she said, “to blame people who criticize certain acts of the Israeli government as ‘anti-Semitic’ and use that claim to justify everything Israel does to the Palestinians.”

Examples abound of critics of Israel silenced in this way. One telling story is that of once-famous journalist Dorothy Thompson, who was virtually erased from history after writing about the Palestinian cause. Read about her here and here.

However, for most of that time, the meaning of the term itself was not in question. The standard definition was, in Google’s terms, “hostility to or prejudice against Jews.”[3]Dictionaries all agreed on this meaning, with one exception that caused considerable outrage. This was Merriam-Webster’s mammoth unabridged dictionary, which included a second meaning: “opposition to Zionism: sympathy with opponents of the state of Israel.”

When some people discovered this extra, Israel-related meaning in 2004 and raised objections to it, there was a general outcry that the additional meaning was inaccurate and should be removed, including by New York Times columnist and linguistics arbiter Jeffrey Nunberg, who wrote that it “couldn’t be defended.”

Merriam-Webster responded by saying that the extra meaning would “probably be dropped when the company published a new unabridged version in a decade or so.” The company hasn’t published a new version yet, but it seems to have followed through with this decision. The online version of the unabridged dictionary, which says it is updated with the latest words and meanings, makes no mention of Israel or Zionism.
Around the turn of this century, though, certain advocates began promoting official and even legal definitions of antisemitism that included various kinds of criticism of Israel.

Conflating Criticism of Israel with Antisemitism
Natan Sharansky, Israeli minister, in 2003: “The State of Israel has decided to take the gloves off and implement a coordinated counteroffensive against anti-Semitism.” Sharansky’s formulation formed the basis for the new Israel-centric definitions adopted around the world.
Natan Sharansky, Israeli minister, in 2003: “The State of Israel has decided to take the gloves off and implement a coordinated counteroffensive against anti-Semitism.” Sharansky’s formulation formed the basis for the new Israel-centric definitions adopted around the world.

Unsurprisingly, the new definitions appear to have originated from within the Israeli government, or at least with an Israeli government official.

The definitions adhere to a pattern set by a man named Natan Sharansky, who was Israel’s Minister for Jerusalem and Diaspora Affairs and chair of the Jewish Agency for Israel. Sharansky founded a Global Forum against Anti-Semitism in 2003, stating: “The State of Israel has decided to take the gloves off and implement a coordinated counteroffensive against anti-Semitism.”

But Sharansky apparently didn’t mean a counteroffensive against just anti-Jewish bigotry, but an offensive against criticism of Israel. The following year he wrote a position paper that declared: “Whereas classical anti-Semitism is aimed at the Jewish people or the Jewish religion, ‘new anti-Semitism’ is aimed at the Jewish state.”

Sharansky’s paper laid out what he called the “3-D Test of Anti-Semitism.” Sharansky applied the term “antisemitic” to criticism of Israel in three cases. First, he argued that statements that “demonize” Israel are antisemitic — by being, in his mind, unfairly harsh. (Some of those allegedly guilty of “demonizing” Israel are Jimmy Carter, Desmond Tutu, Alice Walker, Human Rights Watch, Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme, French President François Mitterrand, and others.)

Second, Sharansky declared that it’s antisemitic to apply a “double standard” to Israel — in other words, to criticize Israel for actions that other states may also take. However, if one could never criticize, protest or boycott abuses without calling out every single other similar abuse, no one would ever be able to exercise political dissent at all.

Finally, Sharansky said it’s antisemitic to “delegitimize” Israel, or dispute its “right to exist” (a standard Israeli talking point for many years). In fact, insisting Israel has the “right” to exist amounts to saying it had the right to expel Muslim and Christian Palestinians in order to found a religiously exclusive state. (See “What ‘Israel’s right to exist’ means to Palestinians,” by John Whitbeck, published in the Christian Science Monitor.)[4]An increasingly common Israeli talking point is the claim that it’s antisemitic to deny the Jewish people their “right to self-determination.” This is disingenuous: Self-determination is the right of people on a land to determine their own political status, not the right of some people to expel others in order to form an exclusive state on confiscated land. In reality, the principle of self-determination would have had the Muslim, Christian and Jewish residents of historic Palestine forming a government for all of them, and today would give Palestinians living under Israeli occupation the freedom to determine their own destiny.

Sharansky’s outline provided the pattern for a European agency to create a new definition of antisemitism the next year, 2005 — a definition that would then be adopted by a succession of organizations and governments, including the U.S. State Department.

There is a back story to how this all came about.
Jean Kahn (R) with French President Francois Mitterand. Kahn initiated the creation of the European Monitoring Centre, which released an Israel-centric “working” definition of antisemitism.
Jean Kahn (R) with French President Francois Mitterand. Kahn initiated the creation of the European Monitoring Centre, which released an Israel-centric “working” definition of antisemitism.

This European agency itself was founded and run by a man with important connections to Israel. It was called “The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia,” under the Council of the European Union. A Frenchman named Jean Kahn had convinced European heads of state to create it in 1997.

Kahn had been a President of the European Jewish Congress, elected in a plenary session in Israel, and said the Congress “would demonstrate its solidarity with Israel” and that he hoped European countries would “coordinate their legislation outlawing racism, anti-Semitism or any form of exclusion.”

Kahn was chairman of the Monitoring Centre’s management board and called the “personification” of the agency. Within three years, the Centre issued a position paper calling for the definition of anti-Semitic offenses to be “improved.”

A few years later, Israeli professor Dina Porat took up the effort to create a new definition. Working with her were Kenneth Stern and Rabbi Andrew “Andy” Baker of the American Jewish Committee. Stern reports that when the Monitoring Centre’s then head, Beate Winkler, had failed to deliver the desired definition, Andy Baker “smartly developed a working relationship with her.” Stern and others[5]Michael Whine, Jeremy Jones, Israeli Roni Stauber, Felice Gaer, Israeli Yehuda Bauer, Michael Berenbaum and Andy Baker, and later on, AJC’s Deidre Berger, previously an NPR reporter. then created a draft for the Monitoring Centre to use.

Israeli Dina Porat, Kenneth Stern, Rabbi Andrew Baker worked to draft what became the European Monitoring Centre definition of antisemitism.
Israeli Dina Porat, Kenneth Stern, Rabbi Andrew Baker worked to draft what became the European Monitoring Centre definition of antisemitism.

In 2005 the agency issued its “Working Definition of Anti-Semitism,” largely based on that draft. It included an array of negative statements about Israel as examples of antisemitic offenses. While standard dictionary definitions of antisemitism didn’t even mention Israel, fully half of the newly devised Monitoring Centre definition referred to Israel.

Once the Monitoring Centre had created its expanded definition, certain Israel partisans used it to promote similar definitions elsewhere. And while the Monitoring Centre itself continued to term it only a “working” definition and its replacement organization eventually withdrew the definition, in other countries and agencies the expanded definition became official.

In addition, quite frighteningly, proponents pushed successfully to begin applying the Israel-centric definition to law enforcement.

In the United States

The same year Sharansky created his “3-D” antisemitism test — a year after he founded the Global Forum against Anti-Semitism — the U.S. Congress passed a law establishing exceptional government monitoring of antisemitism. The law created a special State Department envoy and office for this monitoring, over objections of the State Department itself.

The law, called the “Global Anti-Semitism Review Act,” included a line that subverted its meaning by enshrining a new definition of antisemitism aligned with Sharansky’s: “Anti-Semitism has at times taken the form of vilification of Zionism, the Jewish national movement, and incitement against Israel.”

The bill was introduced in April 2004. That June, a Congressional hearing was conducted about how to combat antisemitism. A major witness was Israeli minister Sharansky. In his testimony Sharansky proposed his “3-D” Israel-connected definition for anti-Semitism.[6]The other witnesses were representatives of the Orthodox Union of Jewish Congregations, American Jewish Committee, U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council, Anti-Defamation League, National Conference for Soviet Jewry, B’nai B’rith International, World Jewish Congress, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Simon Wiesenthal Center, Shai Franklin, and Jay Lefkowitz of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP.

State Department officials objected to the proposed legislation, saying the new office was unnecessary and would be a “bureaucratic nuisance” that would actually hinder the Department’s ongoing work. A State Department press release opposing the new office described the many actions that State was already taking against antisemitism.

Despite this opposition, the Senate bill acquired 24 cosponsors representing both parties, including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Sam Brownback, Saxby Chambliss and Ted Stevens. Similar bills (here and here) were introduced in the House of Representatives, acquiring 35 cosponsors, again including both Republican and Democratic leaders. The legislation passed easily and quickly became law.

Gregg Rickman, first U.S. antisemitism envoy, later worked for AIPAC.
Gregg Rickman, first U.S. antisemitism envoy, later worked for AIPAC.

The first Special Envoy, Gregg Rickman, endorsed the European Monitoring Centre’s Working Definition in 2008. Rickman’s report called it a “useful framework” for identifying and understanding antisemitism. After Rickman left the State Department, he went to work for the American Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the major Israel advocacy organization that lobbies Congress.

The next Special Envoy, Hannah Rosenthal, took this campaign a major step forward: In 2010 the office officially adopted the European Monitoring Centre’s definition.

Rosenthal was extremely proud of having achieved this “breakthrough” definition. She began making use of it quickly, establishing a 90-minute course on the new antisemitism at the Foreign Service Institute, the training school for diplomats.

“We have now a definition we can train people on,” she told the Times of Israel, “and we’ve been very aggressive in training foreign service officers.”

Hannah Rosenthal adopted the “breakthrough” Israel related definition and promptly used it in training U.S. diplomats.
Hannah Rosenthal adopted the “breakthrough” Israel related definition and promptly used it in training U.S. diplomats.

Rosenthal announced that with the new definition including criticism of Israel, their reporting on antisemitism improved “300 percent,” even though, she said, that didn’t mean that antisemitism had actually increased in all the countries monitored.

The gloves were off. Now fully half of the official U.S. State Department definition of antisemitism had gone beyond the normal meaning of the word to focus on Israel.

Applying the New Definition to U.S. Citizens

The State Department uses the new definition to monitor activities overseas. But once the State Department definition was in place, efforts began to use it to crack down on political and academic discourse and activism within the U.S.

This past December (2016) the U.S. Senate passed a law to apply the State Department’s definition (i.e. the Sharansky-Stern-Rosenthal definition) of antisemitism to the Education Department, for use in investigating reports of religiously motivated campus crimes.

A companion bill for the House is supported by AIPAC, the ADL, the Jewish Federations of North America and the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

South Carolina’s House of Representatives recently passed legislation under which the State Department’s definition “would be used in probes of possible anti-Semitism at state colleges and universities.” The state senate will consider this in 2018. If passed, it will mean that the state will now probe criticism of Israel on state campuses.

Similar bills are being considered in Virginia and Tennessee but as of now are tabled. [The Virginia bill was tabled and reportedly will not be considered in 2017. Consideration of the Tennessee bill has also been delayed, but efforts to pass it continue.]

Such efforts are also ongoing in California. In December Democrat Brad Sherman called on the California Secretary of Education to “expand its definition to include certain forms of anti-Israel behavior.” Pro-Israel organizations such as the Amcha Initiative have also been pushing the state legislature for several years to officially adopt the State Department definition. So far these have been defeated but continue to be promoted.

U.S. Campuses

A parallel effort has been occurring on U.S. campuses. In 2003 Sharansky said that college campuses were “one of the most important battlefields” for Israel.

In 2015 University of California President Janet Napolitano (head of 10 campuses) publicly supported adopting the state department definition, after 57 rabbis sent a letter to her and the University Board of Regents promoting the definition.

Student councils or other groups at various universities have passed resolutions adopting the State Department definition, which can then be used to block campus events about Palestine.

An AIPAC official announced at the 2010 convention: “We’re going to make certain that pro-Israel students take over the student government. That is how AIPAC operates in our nation’s capitol. This is how AIPAC must operate on our nation’s campuses.”
An AIPAC official announced at the 2010 convention: “We’re going to make certain that pro-Israel students take over the student government. That is how AIPAC operates in our nation’s capitol. This is how AIPAC must operate on our nation’s campuses.”

An ongoing campaign to ensure Israel partisans become influential in student government has supported these efforts. This campaign was announced by an AIPAC leader in 2010: “We’re going to make certain that pro-Israel students take over the student government,” he said. “That is how AIPAC operates in our nation’s capitol. This is how AIPAC must operate on our nation’s campuses.” (Video here.)

Resolutions referencing the Israel-centric definitions have now been passed by student governments at UC Santa Barbara, UCLA, East Carolina University, Indiana University, Ohio’s Capital University, Ohio’s Kent State, Orange County’s Chapman University, San Diego State University, and other campuses around the country.[7]An organization called Students Supporting Israel (SSI) takes credit for most of these initiatives. Created in 2012 at the University of Minnesota by Israeli Ilan Sinelnikov and his sister, Valeria Chazin, SSI now has chapters on over 40 college campuses around the U.S., at least three high schools, and some campuses in Canada. In 2015 Israel’s Midwest Consulate chose SSI to receive the award for “Outstanding Pro Israel Activism.” Campus Hillels are also frequently involved.

The bill at Chapman University passed but was vetoed. Another vote will probably be proposed in in the fall.

An example of these resolutions is the 2015 bill at Indiana University. The resolution denounced anti-Semitism “as defined by the United States State Department” and stated that the student government would not fund antisemitic activities or activities that “undermine the right of the Jewish people to self-determination.” It also said that student government executives and Congress members would undergo diversity training on anti-Semitism.

According to the student newspaper, the bill was written by Rebekah Molasky, a fellow with the international pro-Israel organization Stand With Us. After the resolution was passed, “the bill’s sponsors and outside supporters hugged and high-fived before gathering in the hallway to take a picture to commemorate the moment.”

As evidenced above, such resolutions can now be used to censor student events. The UC San Diego resolution largely replicated the Indiana format, announcing that the student government will not support activities that “promote anti-Semitism” under the new definition, including “denying Israel the right to exist.” Stand With Us applauded the resolution.

In 2012, an organization called the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under the Law was founded and immediately began promoting the new definition. Within a year it launched an initiative to establish student chapters at law schools throughout the U.S. to advance “the organization’s mandate to combat campus anti-Semitism through legal means.” The Center helped push the South Carolina legislation. It is one of numerous organizations promoting the new definition.

(Incidentally, former Supreme Court Justice Brandeis was a leader in the world Zionist movement and worked in public and covert ways to promote it — see here.)

“Thought Policing”

A number of analysts have pointed out some of the many significant flaws with such legislation.

Anthony L. Fisher at Reason.com writes of Congress’s December law applying the State Department definition to the Education Department: “It gives the federal government the authority to investigate ideas, thoughts, and political positions as violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

Fisher continues: “By specifically using the broad language of a 2010 State Department memo attempting to define anti-Semitism, the Senate bill wades into thought policing.”

Attorney Liz Jackson wrote in an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times: “Anyone who values the constitutional right to express political dissent should worry about this development.”

NY Times columnist Bret Stephens says Jewish Americans should “do all we can to assure the survival of the Jewish State.”
NY Times columnist Bret Stephens says Jewish Americans should “do all we can to assure the survival of the Jewish State.”

On the other side of the debate is New York Times columnist Bret Stephens, formerly Wall Street Journal deputy editorial page editor and before that editor of an Israeli newspaper. Stephens, extremely hawkish on Israel, writes and speaks fervently against the movement to boycott Israel (BDS) and what he says is antisemitism on US campuses and elsewhere. In a Wall Street Journal editorial, he claimed that “anti-Semitism is the disease of the Arab world.”

In 2014 Stephens spoke at the Tikvah Fund, a philanthropic foundation committed to supporting the “Jewish people and the Jewish State,” opining that it would be a scandal if Jewish people failed “to do all we can to assure the survival of the Jewish State.”

U.S. and European Lawmakers Pressure Governments to Ban Criticism of Israel

During all this time, parallel efforts to promote the new definition continued in Europe.

In 2009 an organization called the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism (ICCA) took up the effort to spread the expanded definition. The group says it brings together parliamentarians from “around the world” to fight antisemitism and lists a steering committee of six European and U.S. legislators.

UK politician (and later Prime Minister) David Cameron signed the Inter-Parliamentary Coalition statement calling on governments to outlaw certain forms of criticism of Israel, including calls to boycott Israel; to regulate criticism of Israel in the media; to monitor criticism of Israel online and elsewhere; and to prosecute critics of Israel under “hate crimes” legislation.
UK politician (and later Prime Minister) David Cameron signed the Inter-Parliamentary Coalition statement calling on governments to outlaw certain forms of criticism of Israel, including calls to boycott Israel; to regulate criticism of Israel in the media; to monitor criticism of Israel online and elsewhere; and to prosecute critics of Israel under “hate crimes” legislation.

The group held a conference in London in 2009 at which it issued a “London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism,” which was signed by then British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and other heads of state and legislators. This declaration called on governments to use the European Monitoring Centre’s definition and to outlaw and prosecute such “antisemitism.”

It was couched in “anti-racism” terms, but when we look at the declaration’s recommendations combined with its definition of antisemitism, one thing becomes clear: In the declaration, numerous lawmakers of the Western world called on world governments to restrict political dissent.

Specifically, they called on governments to outlaw certain forms of criticism of Israel, including calls to boycott Israel; to regulate criticism of Israel in the media; to monitor criticism of Israel online and elsewhere; and to prosecute critics of Israel under “hate crimes” legislation.

Among numerous other demands, the lawmakers declared that governments:

  • “must expand the use of the EUMC [Monitoring Centre] ‘Working Definition of antisemitism’” including “as a basis for training material for use by Criminal Justice Agencies;”
  • should “isolate political actors” who “target the State of Israel;”
  • “should legislate ‘incitement to hatred’ offences and empower law enforcement agencies to convict;”
  • “should … establish inquiry scrutiny panels;”
  • “should utilise the EUMC [Monitoring Centre] ‘Working Definition of antisemitism’ to inform media standards;”
  • “should take appropriate and necessary action to prevent the broadcast of antisemitic programmes on satellite television channels, and to apply pressure on the host broadcast nation to take action to prevent the transmission of antisemitic programmes” (keeping in mind here that the declaration’s definition of “antisemitic” includes various criticism of Israel);
  • “should use domestic ‘hate crime’, ‘incitement to hatred’ and other legislation … to prosecute ‘Hate on the Internet’ where racist and antisemitic content is hosted, published and written” (again keeping in mind what is defined as “antisemitic”);
  • and that “education authorities should … protect students and staff from illegal antisemitic discourse and a hostile environment in whatever form it takes including calls for boycotts.”

In 2015 the European Commission created a special position to coordinate work on combating antisemitism and appointed German national Katharina von Schnurbein to the post. Schnurbein proceeded to promote the use of the Israel-centric definition.[8]For information on additional Israel-centered campaigns, see the works of Israeli strategist Yehezkel Dror, such as his paper “Foundations of an Israeli Grand Strategy toward the European Union”

UK and Austria Adopt Definition

In December 2016, the UK announced it would formally adopt the Israel-centric definition. It was quickly followed by Austria, which adopted the definition in April 2017. The Austrian justice minister had previously announced that the new definition would be used in the training of new judges and prosecutors.

British Prime Minister Theresa May announced the adoption of the Israel-centric definition at a Conservative Friends of Israel event.
British Prime Minister Theresa May announced the adoption of the Israel-centric definition at a Conservative Friends of Israel event.

UK Prime Minister Theresa May made the announcement during a talk before 800 guests at the Conservative Friends of Israel’s annual lunch.

UPI reported: “The British police are already using this definition[9]The AJC’s Andy Baker reported: “It is part of police-training materials in the UK.”, which can now also be used by other groups, such as municipal councils and universities. The definition is not a law, but provides a formal interpretation of an illegal act that can serve as a guideline for criminal proceedings.” Shortly afterward the UK’s higher education minister sent a letter informing universities that the government had adopted the IHRA definition and directing them to utilize it.

(The London council quickly followed suit with its own adoption of the definition, and other cities have now done the same. In May the Israel-Britain Alliance (IBA) began asking candidates for Parliament to sign a pledge that they would support the new definition.)

A number of groups objected to the definition, arguing that the definition “deliberately equates criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews.”

Opponents said it was “vigorously promoted by pro-Israel lobbyists to local authorities, universities, Labour movement organisations and other public bodies.”

They stated that after its adoption there had been “an increase in bannings and restrictions imposed on pro-Palestinian activities, especially on campuses.” Some of the cancellations cited the IHRA definition. Oxford Professor Stephen Sedley wrote in the London Review of Books that the IHRA definition gives “respectability and encouragement to forms of intolerance which are themselves contrary to law.”

Professor Jonathan Rosenhead, recipient of the President’s Medal of the British Operational Research Society and Chair of the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine, said there were many examples of the definition creating a “chilling effect” on institutions’ willingness to permit lawful political activity, “even when the definition was not specifically cited.”

AJC’s Rabbi Andrew “Andy” Baker helped create and disseminate the new definition throughout Europe, Eurasia, the U.S., and Canada.
AJC’s Rabbi Andrew “Andy” Baker helped create and disseminate the new definition throughout Europe, Eurasia, the U.S., and Canada.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which represents all of Europe, Eurasia, the U.S., and Canada — a billion people — was also pushed to adopt the definition at its December 2016 conference.

The American Jewish Committee, which has offices in Berlin, Brussels, Paris, Rome, and Warsaw, reported that it had “met with senior European government officials to encourage OSCE adoption of the definition.” However, adoption of the definition has so far been blocked by one member: Russia.

AJC leader Rabbi Andrew Baker wrote that the AJC would now work “to foster its greater use by the individual states of the OSCE and members of the European Union.”

Inter-Parliamentary Coalition’s American Representatives

Two American Congressmen are among the six-member steering committee of the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism (CCA).

One is Florida Congressman Ted Deutch. Deutch’s Congressional website highlights his support for Israel as well as his work against antisemitism.

Florida Congressman Ted Deutch has pushed the use of the Israel-centric definition to curtail academic freedom and campus political dissent within the United States. Deutch’s website declares him “a passionate supporter of Israel whose advocacy for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship stretches back to his youth.”
Florida Congressman Ted Deutch has pushed the use of the Israel-centric definition to curtail academic freedom and campus political dissent within the United States. Deutch’s website declares him “a passionate supporter of Israel whose advocacy for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship stretches back to his youth.”

According to the site, Deutch “works closely with his colleagues in the House and Senate to… pass resolutions strongly opposing manifestations of anti-Semitism at home in South Florida, across the United States, and around the world.”

The website reports: “Congressman Ted Deutch is a passionate supporter of Israel whose advocacy for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship stretches back to his youth. Ted spent his summers at Zionist summer camp, worked as a student activist in high school and college, and served in leadership roles on several local and national Jewish organizations throughout his professional career. Today, Ted serves as Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s influential Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee, where he continues to champion Israel’s security during a time of great volatility in the Middle East.”

Deutch is also a member of the Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats. His ICCA bio announces that he plans to use this position “to continue to publicly condemn anti-Semitism.”

Deutch receives considerable funding from the pro-Israel lobby.

In March Deutch led a bipartisan letter to Trump “Urging Forceful Action on Anti-Semitism.” It demanded ‘a comprehensive, inter-agency strategy that called for the Justice Department to investigate “anti-Semitic crimes” and “ensure the perpetrators are brought to justice.”

Deutch was one of two Congresspeople who introduced the December law to apply the State Department definition to education.

New Jersey Congressman Chris Smith, member of the Inter-Parliamentary Coalition, brought Sharansky to testify before Congress about his new definition.
New Jersey Congressman Chris Smith, member of the Inter-Parliamentary Coalition, brought Sharansky to testify before Congress about his new definition.

The other U.S. Congressman on the steering committee of the ICCA is Republican Chris Smith of New Jersey. Smith is also a senior member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. According to the website Open Secrets, a large proportion of his campaign donations are also from pro-Israel sources.

Natan Sharansky twice testified at hearings Smith chaired. In a speech at an event honoring Smith for his work against antisemitism, Smith remembered that Sharansky had “proposed what he called a simple test to help us distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism. He called it the three Ds: Demonization, double standard, and de-legitimization.”

Spreading the New Definition Under Cover of “Anti-Racism” Movement

UK universities have seen repression of pro-Palestinian activism on an epic scale. In 2007 the UK’s National Union of Students (NUS) adopted the new antisemitism definition at its national conference, when pro-Israel students introduced a motion entitled “AntiRacism: Challenging Racism on Campus and in Our Communities.” Some student unions at various UK universities then did the same.

This was a particularly ironic name for a pro-Israel motion, given that many people around the world consider Israel’s founding ideology, political Zionism, racist. In fact, in 1975 the UN General Assembly specifically passed a resolution that “Zionism is a form of racism.”

(The resolution was revoked In 1991, but not because the world body had changed its mind. In that year President Bush was pushing for the Madrid Peace Conference, which he hoped would end the “Arab-Israeli” conflict. When Israel said it would only participate in the conference if the UN revoked the resolution, the U.S. pressured member states to do just this.)

Through the years numerous entities have affirmed that Zionism is a type of racism, including conferences in South Africa and a recent UN commission which reported that Israel was practicing apartheid. (This report was then removed by the UN Director General, after Israeli and U.S. pressure.)

The UK student actions exemplify a trend that has pervaded this movement since the beginning: Efforts to shut down pro-Palestinian activism, curtail free speech and police thought both online and off are repeatedly packaged as “anti-racism” and sometimes “anti-fascism.”[10]An antifa group in France, for example, reportedly shut down a talk by an anti-Zionist intellectual.

Campaign for New Definition Overcomes Hiccups

Taken together, these steps towards redefining “antisemitism” to include criticism of Israel, and then ban it, are effectively (and increasingly rapidly) producing significant results in terms of actual regulation and even law enforcement. Nevertheless, there apparently has been some resistance to the change.

In 2013, the successor organization to the European Monitoring Centre (called the European Fundamental Rights Agency) quietly dropped the working definition from its website. Without any public announcement, the definition was simply no longer on its site. When questioned about this, the agency’s director simply said that the organization had “no mandate to develop its own definitions.”

Proponents of the definition were outraged. Shimon Samuels of the Simon Wiesenthal Center complained that the agency’s “disowning of its own definition is astounding” and that “those who fight antisemitism have lost an important weapon.” (The Wiesenthal Center is a global organization that declares it “stands with Israel” with offices in Los Angeles, New York, Toronto, Miami, Chicago, Paris, Buenos Aires, and Jerusalem.)

However, the fact that the Monitoring Centre had never officially adopted the definition, and that its successor organization now had apparently discarded it, seems to have been ignored by those who had adopted it.

The U.S. State Department continues to use the discarded version. The only difference is that the PDF that gave its Monitoring Centre origins has been removed from State’s website.

The World Jewish Congress convention 2014, chaired by David de Rothschild, urged “all countries to adopt a binding definition of anti-Semitic crimes” based on the Israel-centric definition.
The World Jewish Congress convention 2014, chaired by David de Rothschild, urged “all countries to adopt a binding definition of anti-Semitic crimes” based on the Israel-centric definition.

The following year, the World Jewish Congress, which represents Jewish umbrella bodies in 100 countries, called on “all countries to adopt a binding definition of anti-Semitic crimes based on the Working Definition of Anti-Semitism developed by the former European Union Monitoring Commission (EUMC) and used in a number of states’ law enforcement agencies.”

IHRA Picks Up the Ball

Other groups stepped into the vacuum and kept the definition alive. In 2016 The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) adopted the definition.

The IHRA consists of 31 Member Countries, ten Observer Countries, and seven international partner organizations. Its chair announced that the IHRA’s goal was to inspire “other international fora” to also adopt “a legally binding working definition.” It’s working: Britain and Austria almost immediately followed suit.

The U.S. Brandeis Center applauded the move, saying that “because the IHRA has adopted it, the definition has now officially been given the international status that it was previously lacking.”

The Brandeis Center reported that this was the “culmination of a process initiated by Mark Weitzman, Director of Government Affairs at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, two years ago, with help from others including Ira Forman and Nicholas Dean of the U.S. Department of State.”

Ira Forman, antisemitism envoy under Obama and formerly of AIPAC, played a pivotal role in the IHRA adoption of the new definition.
Ira Forman, antisemitism envoy under Obama and formerly of AIPAC, played a pivotal role in the IHRA adoption of the new definition.

Forman was the State Department Special Anti-Semitism Envoy under Obama, reportedly led Obama’s reelection campaign in the Jewish community, had worked for Bill Clinton, and had served as Political Director and Legislative Liaison for AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobbying organization. Nicholas Dean had been the State Department Special Envoy for the Holocaust.

The New York Jewish Week reported that Forman and Dean “played a pivotal role in diplomatic efforts that led to the recent adoption by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance of a Working Definition of Anti-Semitism.”

“This is the first-ever formal international definition of anti-Semitism, and a potentially crucial tool for forcing governments and international agencies to confront and take action against it,” the article continued.

Pressure On State Department to Continue Extra Monitoring

Among much budget slashing proposed by President Donald Trump were cuts to the State Department that would have ended funding for the antisemitism monitoring office and special envoy (though State Department monitoring of antisemitism would continue even after the cuts).

Various organizations are lobbying to keep the office and envoy, including the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a U.S. organization whose mission is to “stop the defamation of the Jewish people” but which in effect seems to serve as an American extension of the most right-wing elements of Israel’s government. It has a long and infamous history of attacking critics of Israeli policy as “antisemites” and also uses an Israel-centric definition of antisemitism.

The ADL and allies pointed to a rash of bomb threats against Jewish institutions to strengthen their argument that this exceptional office must be funded. A letter with over a hundred signatories was sent to Trump demanding that he keep the dedicated State Department position, a bipartisan letter in support of retaining that special monitor was circulated in Congress, and over 100 Holocaust memorial groups and scholars urged Trump to keep the office.

As this political fight has raged, the ADL, which has a budget of over $56 million, sent out press releases to national and local media around the country reporting that antisemitic incidents have soared. The release was repeated almost verbatim in numerous national media and in individual states (as a random example, a Massachusetts headline declared: “Report: Anti-Semitism on the rise in Massachusetts.”)

However, it is impossible to know how many of the antisemitic incidents reported by the ADL were actually related to criticism of Israel, because the ADL didn’t release the data on which these results were based.

Israeli man arrested for over 2,000 bomb threats.
Israeli man arrested for over 2,000 bomb threats.

In addition, the ADL’s reported spike includes a spate of threats called in to Jewish organizations, schools and community centers that, thankfully, were hoaxes. The vast majority of threats (reportedly to over 2,000 institutions) apparently were perpetrated by an 18-year-old Jewish Israeli who reportedly suffers from medical and mental problems. (This alleged perpetrator is also accused of trying to extort a US Senator, threatening the children of a US official, and a range of other crimes.)

Another individual, an American in the U.S., apparently perpetrated eight hoax bomb threats in a bizarre campaign to get his former girlfriend in trouble.

A Jewish News Service article says the threats by the Israeli teen made up a significant percentage of the ADL’s spike and reported: “The Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) decision to count an Israeli teenager’s alleged recent bomb hoaxes as ‘anti-Semitic incidents’ is prompting criticism from some Jewish community officials.”

An ADL official admitted that the audit is an approximation, saying “the science on it is currently being written.” A regional ADL director said that “this is not a poll or a scientific study,” but rather “an effort to get a sense of ‘what’s going on in people’s hearts.’”

Regarding hard data, the report said that anti-Semitic assaults across the nation had “decreased by about 36 percent.”

The ADL blames various groups for antisemitism, pointing the finger at people of color with claims that Hispanic Americans and African Americans are “the most anti-Semitic cohorts,” at “white supremacists” and at Trump’s election — but not at the Israeli teen responsible for 2,000+ hoax threats that terrorized Jewish institutions, nor at its own distorted, Israel-connected definition.[11]A number of analysts have also suggested that some antisemitism may at times be an (inappropriate) response to Israeli violence and oppression of Palestinians. Yale Chaplain Bruce Shipman pointed out in a letter to the New York Times that an earlier period of reported rising antisemitism in Europe paralleled “the carnage in Gaza over the last five years, not to mention the perpetually stalled peace talks and the continuing occupation of the West Bank.” Israel partisans were outraged and Shipman was soon required to resign.

Claims of increased antisemitism are cited repeatedly in calls for the U.S. government to maintain funding for the special State Department monitoring.

Former US Ambassador to UN Samantha Power tweeted that the entire Trump administration should focus on antisemitism.
Former US Ambassador to UN Samantha Power tweeted that the entire Trump administration should focus on antisemitism.

Former Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power and two Democratic congressional representatives, Reps. Nita Lowey of New York and Deutch of Florida, are among those demanding that Trump appoint a new antisemitism monitor and maintain this office at full strength, even while he cuts other federal spending.

Power tweeted: “Anti-semitism is surging in world. Entire Trump admin needs to focus on it & envoy position must be kept.”

Lowey demanded: “The president must show he takes the rise of anti-Semitism seriously by immediately appointing a special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism and fully staffing the Special Envoy’s office.”

In a May 2017 speech, World Jewish Congress leader Ronald Lauder said, “Being anti-Israel is being anti-Semitic.” He announced that the congress “is creating a new communications department, or what you might call Hasborah” to counter this new “antisemitism.”

Dissenting Views

Many Jewish writers and activists dispute Lauder’s contention and oppose the campaign to conflate antisemitism with criticism of Israel. An article in Israel’s Ha’aretz newspaper points out that “were anti-Zionism a cover for the abuse of individual Jews, individual Jews would not join anti-Zionist groups. Yet many do. Jewish students are well represented in anti-Zionist groups like Students for Justice in Palestine.”

Rabbi Ahron Cohen of Naturei Kartei (“Guardians of the Faith”) writes that “Judaism and Zionism are incompatible and mutually exclusive.” Cohen states that antisemitism is “an illogical bigotry. Anti-Zionism, however, is a perfectly logical opposition, based on very sound reasoning, to a particular idea and aim.”

Cohen argues: “According to the Torah and Jewish faith, the present Palestinian Arab claim to rule in Palestine is right and just. The Zionist claim is wrong and criminal. Our attitude to Israel is that the whole concept is flawed and illegitimate. So anti-Zionism is certainly not anti-Semitism.”

Antisemitism?

Recently Israel’s Ha’aretz newspaper published a column entitled, “An Israeli Soldier Shot a Palestinian in Front of Her Kids. Where’s Her Compensation?”

The article, by Israeli journalist Gideon Levy, begins: “For three months, Dia Mansur was certain his mother was dead. He was 15 years old when he saw her collapse in the living room of their home, felled by a bullet fired by an Israel Defense Forces soldier that sliced into her face, tearing it apart. He saw his mother lying on the floor, blood oozing from her mouth…”

Gaza, 2014. Israel’s invasions and shelling of Gaza killed and injured thousands of children and left multitudes homeless.
Gaza, 2014. Israel’s invasions and shelling of Gaza killed and injured thousands of children and left multitudes homeless.

Levy, citing a report by an Israeli human rights organization, writes that from September 2000 to through February 2017, “Israel killed 4,868 noncombatant Palestinian civilians, more than one-third of them (1,793) were children and adolescents below the age of 18.” (More info here.)

He continued: “Thousands of others, who were also not involved in fighting, have been wounded and permanently incapacitated.” (Photos here.)

Shifa Hospital, Gaza, 2014
Shifa Hospital, Gaza, 2014

A few weeks before that report, Ha’aretz published an article that described Israel’s month-long imprisonment of a 12-year-old Palestinian boy, one of over 200 Palestinian children taken by Israeli forces in a little over three months. The boy, accused of throwing stones against Israeli soldiers, would have been released from incarceration earlier, except that his impoverished family didn’t have enough money to pay the fine.

In the article, Israeli journalist Amira Haas reported that the boy’s father said that his son “wasn’t how he used to be before he was arrested.” “He used to joke,” the father said, “and he stopped doing that. He talked a lot, and now he is silent.”

Haas wrote that UNICEF had issued a report four years ago that Israel was “extensively and systematically abusing detained Palestinian children and youth.” Today, she reported, “The stories of physical violence, threats, painful plastic handcuffs and naked body searches remain almost identical.”

Sadly, every week there are similar stories.

Israeli soldiers arrest Palestinian boy in West Bank town of Hebron, June 20, 2014. “Human Rights Watch on Monday accused Israel of ‘abusive arrests’ of Palestinian children as young as 11 and of using threats to force them to sign confessions.” – AFP
Israeli soldiers arrest Palestinian boy in West Bank town of Hebron, June 20, 2014. “Human Rights Watch on Monday accused Israel of ‘abusive arrests’ of Palestinian children as young as 11 and of using threats to force them to sign confessions.” – AFP

To the multi-billion dollar network of lobbies advocating for conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism, those who work to get such information to the American people – whose government gives Israel $10 million per day – are antisemitic.

Many others of all faiths and ethnicities have a different view.

Sixteen years ago I wrote: “Equating the wrongdoing of Israel with Jewishness is the deepest and most insidious form of anti-Semitism of all.”

It is ironic that it is the Israel lobby that is today doing this equating, and that it has worked to invert the very meaning of antisemitism itself. Rather than denoting only abhorrent behavior, as it once did, today the term is often officially applied to what many consider courageous actions against oppression.

More troubling, still, these lobbying groups are working to outlaw conduct that numerous people (including many Israelis and Jewish Americans) consider morally obligatory.

It seems imperative for Americans who wish for justice and peace in the Middle East, and who oppose Orwellian distortions of language and law, to speak out against this campaign – while we can.

* * *

N.B. I deeply hope that no one will exaggerate or misrepresent the information this article reveals. The actions above were taken by specific individuals and organizations. They alone are responsible for them, not an entire religious or ethnic group, most of whom quite likely have little idea that this is occurring.


Alison Weir is executive director of If Americans Knew, president of the Council for the National Interest, and author of Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel.

Timeline for creating new Israel-centric definition of antisemitism

Following is a timeline of some of the key events in the creation, promotion and adoption of the Israel-focused definition of antisemitism. It provides an outline, but does not include every step of the process, all the key players, or every action.

1991 – Jean Kahn is elected president of the European Jewish Congress at its plenary session in Israel. He announces an ambitious agenda, including demonstrating solidarity with Israel and European countries coordinating legislation to outlaw antisemitism.

1997 – Kahn “convinces 15 heads of state” to create the The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia to focus on “racism, xenophobia and antisemitism.”

2000 – The Monitoring Centre issues a position paper calling for the definition of antisemitic offenses to be “improved.”

2003 – Israel’s minister for diaspora affairs Natan Sharansky founds the Global Forum against Anti-Semitism, stating: “The State of Israel has decided to take the gloves off and implement a coordinated counteroffensive against anti-Semitism.”

2004 – Sharansky, who is also chair of the Jewish Agency for Israel, issues a position paper that lays out the “3-D Test of Anti-Semitism:” statements that “demonize” Israel, apply a “double standard” or “delegitimize” Israel are “antisemitic.” These will form the blueprint for new definitions adopted by lobbying organizations and finally governments.

2004 – US Congress passes law establishing special office and envoy in the State Department to monitor antisemitism that includes statements about Israel under this rubric. (Sharansky is witness at Congressional hearing.)

2004 – American Jewish Committee directors Kenneth Stern and Rabbi Andrew “ Andy” Baker work with Israeli professor Dina Porat to draft a new antisemitism definition and push the Monitoring Centre to adopt it, according to Stern. Their draft drew on Sharansky’s 3 D’s.

2005 – Monitoring Centre issues a “Working Definition of Anti-Semitism” that includes Sharansky’s 3 D’s, based on Stern et al’s draft. While standard dictionary definitions of antisemitism didn’t even mention Israel, fully half of the newly devised Monitoring Centre definition referred to Israel.

2007UK’s National Union of Students (NUS) adopts the new antisemitism definition focused on Israel, after pro-Israel students introduce a motion misleadingly entitled “AntiRacism: Challenging Racism on Campus and in Our Communities.” Some student unions at various UK universities then follow suit.

2008 – The first U.S. State Department Special Envoy on antisemitism, Greg Rickman, endorses the Monitoring Centre working definition in State Department report to Congress. (Rickman later went to work for AIPAC.)

2009 – The Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism (CCA), which brings together parliamentarians from around the world, issues the London Declaration signed by then British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and others. The Declaration calls on governments to use the Monitoring Centre definition and to outlaw and prosecute such “antisemitism.” US Congressmen Ted Deutch and Chris Smith are members of the CCA’s steering committee.

2010 – Second US State Department Special Envoy on antisemitism Hanna Rosenthal officially adopts European Monitoring Centre definition; this is subsequently referred to as the State Department definition of antisemitism. Rosenthal creates course on antisemitism using this definition to train Foreign Service Officers.

2012Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under the Law is founded and immediately begins promoting the new definition. Within a year it launches an initiative to establish student chapters at law schools throughout the U.S.

2013 – Successor organization to the European Monitoring Centre (called the European Fundamental Rights Agency) quietly drops the working definition from its website. When questioned about this, the agency’s director says the organization had “no mandate to develop its own definitions.” (Groups using the definition continue to use it.)

2014 – Mark Weitzman, Director of Government Affairs at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, with help from Ira Forman and Nicholas Dean of the U.S. Department of State, initiates efforts for another agency to adopt and promote the working definition of antisemitism.

2015 – European Commission creates a special position to coordinate work on combating antisemitism, appointing German Katharina von Schnurbein to the post. Schnurbein proceeds to promote use of the Israel-centric definition.

2015 – Indiana University passes resolution denouncing “anti-Semitism as defined by the United States State Department and will not fund or participate in activities that promote anti-Semitism or that ‘undermine the right of the Jewish people to self-determination.’” University of California Santa Barbara and UCLA also pass such resolutions.

2016 – The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), consisting of 31 Member Countries, adopts the definition; the goal is to inspire others to also adopt “a legally binding working definition.” An analyst writes that the IHRA action is “a potentially crucial tool for forcing governments and international agencies to confront and take action.”

December 2016 – U.S. Senate passes law to apply the State Department’s definition of antisemitism to the Education Department, for use in investigating reports of religiously motivated campus crimes. Now the law defines actions connected to criticism of Israel as “religiously motivated.”

December 2016 – UK announces it will formally adopt the Israel-centric definition–the first country to do so besides Israel. UK Prime Minister Theresa May made the announcement during a talk before 800 guests at the Conservative Friends of Israel’s annual lunch.

December 2016 – Adoption of the definition by the 57-member Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which had been heavily lobbied by the American Jewish Committee, is blocked by Russia. The AJC then says it will push for individual member states to adopt it.

March 2017 South Carolina House of Representatives passes legislation under which the State Department’s definition “would be used in probes of possible anti-Semitism at state colleges and universities.” The Senate version will be discussed in 2018. Similar bills are being considered in Virginia and Tennessee.

March – May 2017 – Resolutions adopting the Israel-centric definitions are passed by student governments at Ohio’s Capital University and Kent State, California’s San Diego State University and at other campuses around the U.S.

April 2017

  • Austria adopts the definition. (The Austrian justice minister previously announced that the new definition would be used in the training of new judges and prosecutors.)
  • The ADL, which uses Israel-centric definition of antisemitism, announces that antisemitism has risen by 86 percent in 2017, but includes questionable statistics. News organizations throughout the U.S. report the ADL claim.
  • Reports that Trump administration budget cuts might cause special antisemitism envoy position to remain vacant provokes outrage among Israel lobby groups and others. Samantha Power calls for entire Trump administration to focus on antisemitism. Soon, Trump administration says it will fill post.
  • All 100 US Senators send a letter to UN demanding it stop its actions on Israel and connects these to antisemitism.

May 2017 –

  • Israel-Britain Alliance begins asking candidates for Parliament to sign a pledge that they will support the new definition.

Endnotes

[1] I’m using the newer, unhyphenated spelling of this word, which seems to be growing in popularity. I feel it is a more appropriate spelling, since the hyphenated version suggests that it refers to all Semites, which is incorrect. The word was created in 1879 specifically to refer to anti-Jewish prejudice.

[2] Former Israeli parliament member Shulamit Aloni explained this in a 2002 interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy now. “It’s a trick. ” she said. “We always use it. When from Europe somebody is criticizing Israel, then we bring up the Holocaust. When in this country people are criticizing Israel, then they are ‘anti-Semitic’.

Aloni noted that the pro-Israel lobby in the United States “is strong, and has a lot of money.” She continued: “Ties between Israel and the American Jewish establishment are very strong … their attitude is ‘Israel, my country right or wrong.’”

“It’s very easy,” she said, “to blame people who criticize certain acts of the Israeli government as ‘anti-Semitic’ and use that claim to justify everything Israel does to the Palestinians.”

Examples abound of critics of Israel silenced in this way. One telling story is that of once-famous journalist Dorothy Thompson, who was virtually erased from history after writing about the Palestinian cause. Read about her here and here.

[3] Dictionaries all agreed on this meaning, with one exception that caused considerable outrage. This was Merriam-Webster’s mammoth unabridged dictionary, which included a second meaning: “opposition to Zionism: sympathy with opponents of the state of Israel.”

When some people discovered this extra, Israel-related meaning in 2004 and raised objections to it, there was a general outcry that the additional meaning was inaccurate and should be removed, including by New York Times columnist and linguistics arbiter Jeffrey Nunberg, who wrote that it “couldn’t be defended.”

Merriam-Webster responded by saying that the extra meaning would “probably be dropped when the company published a new unabridged version in a decade or so.” The company hasn’t published a new version yet, but it seems to have followed through with this decision. The online version of the unabridged dictionary, which says it is updated with the latest words and meanings, makes no mention of Israel or Zionism.

[4] An increasingly common Israeli talking point is the claim that it’s antisemitic to deny the Jewish people their “right to self-determination.” This is disingenuous: Self-determination is the right of people on a land to determine their own political status, not the right of some people to expel others in order to form an exclusive state on confiscated land. In reality, the principle of self-determination would have had the Muslim, Christian and Jewish residents of historic Palestine forming a government for all of them, and today would give Palestinians living under Israeli occupation the freedom to determine their own destiny.

[5] Michael Whine, Jeremy Jones, Israeli Roni Stauber, Felice Gaer, Israeli Yehuda Bauer, Michael Berenbaum and Andy Baker, and later on, AJC’s Deidre Berger, previously an NPR reporter.

[6] The other witnesses were representatives of the Orthodox Union of Jewish Congregations, American Jewish Committee, U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council, Anti-Defamation League, National Conference for Soviet Jewry, B’nai B’rith International, World Jewish Congress, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Simon Wiesenthal Center, Shai Franklin, and Jay Lefkowitz of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP.

[7] An organization called Students Supporting Israel (SSI) takes credit for most of these initiatives. Created in 2012 at the University of Minnesota by Israeli Ilan Sinelnikov and his sister, Valeria Chazin, SSI now has chapters on over 40 college campuses around the U.S., at least three high schools, and some campuses in Canada. In 2015 Israel’s Midwest Consulate chose SSI to receive the award for “Outstanding Pro Israel Activism.” Campus Hillels are also frequently involved.

The bill at Chapman University passed but was vetoed. Another vote will probably be proposed in in the fall.

[8] For information on additional Israel-centered campaigns, see the works of Israeli strategist Yehezkel Dror, such as his paper “Foundations of an Israeli Grand Strategy toward the European Union

[9] The AJC’s Andy Baker reported: “It is part of police-training materials in the UK.”

[10] An antifa group in France, for example, reportedly shut down a talk by an anti-Zionist intellectual.

[11] A number of analysts have also suggested that some antisemitism may at times be an (inappropriate) response to Israeli violence and oppression of Palestinians. Yale Chaplain Bruce Shipman pointed out in a letter to the New York Times that an earlier period of reported rising antisemitism in Europe paralleled “the carnage in Gaza over the last five years, not to mention the perpetually stalled peace talks and the continuing occupation of the West Bank.” Israel partisans were outraged and Shipman was soon required to resign.

(Republished from Israel Palestine News by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 235 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. “Where most people would consider “antisemitism” to mean bigotry against Jewish people (and rightly consider it abhorrent)”

    This is laughable, the term “anti-semitism” was inveted in the first place to silence criticism, this whole surprise about the broadening of the definition to include Israel is nothing.
    You know what are other “shut-up” words? Racist, Islamophobic, Homophobic, Xenophobic, Sexist, etc that along with “Anti-Semitic” make up the bulk of the Capital Sins of the new Globalist Religion (of course, made by and for Jews).

    I have the right to hate, speak badly and denounce anyone I want. It would be a crime if I infringed one’s rights, which means, physical violence – but then again, physical violence alone is enough of a crime without motive, so it doesn’t discriminate and doesn’t need special snowflake groups and orwellian newspeech laws.

    Read More
    • Agree: Che Guava, Mark Green
    • Replies: @Randal
    Weir's position seems to be that she's fine with the demonization of dissenting opinions, even though that demonisation is presently being used to justify censorship, violence and even outright criminalisation, as long as her particular kind of dissent can somehow be protected from it.
    , @Seraphim
    There are no 'rights' to speak badly, to insult people. But there is a duty to denounce wrongdoings, lies, harm done to defenseless people.
    , @UglyTruth
    "I have the right to hate, speak badly and denounce anyone I want."

    No, you don't have the right to commit libel or slander.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /article/international-campaign-is-criminalizing-criticism-of-israel-as-antisemitism/#comment-1884233
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Wally says: • Website

    Truth is hate to those who hate the truth.

    Forgetting “that shitty little country” for a moment, what is wrong with generally being critical of Jews?
    Certainly they are not the only people who undergo criticism.

    As for contrived ‘attacks on Jews’:
    ex.:
    Jew arrested for dozens of fake ‘hate crimes’

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/23/israeli-jew-19-arrested-antisemitic-hate-crime-hoax-spree/

    Staged ‘antisemitic’ crimes are the rule, not the exception.
    As a rule, these are never ‘crimes’ that are tried in courts of law.
    These are only what some people ‘report’ as ‘hate crimes’, not what was actually charged against someone & tried in court.
    IOW, if someone doesn’t like what someone said, they then report it as ‘racist, antisemitic, anti-whomever’ and voila! … instant ‘hate crime’ statistics.

    Is mentioning that Israeli immigration laws allow JEWS ONLY considered a ‘hate crime’, how about Israel’s huge WALL? Is it ‘antisemiti’ to be truthful?

    What Zionists and their bought shills really want is a worldwide ban on free speech concerning the impossible ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’. Much of Europe already has such anti free speech laws.

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:

    http://codoh.com

    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    http://forum.codoh.com

    recent:
    Pakistan Observer cites The Rudolf Report on alleged Auschwitz gas chambers

    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11111

    Read More
    • Agree: Druid
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. I have little patience for Jewish victimization propaganda, but Israel does have a right to exist: there were a substantial number of Jews in the Ottoman Empire, and when it was broken up after WWI, everybody got their own country, except the Kurds and the Jews.

    Read More
    • Disagree: SolontoCroesus
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
    Except the Kurds were indigenous, whereas the Azhkenazic Jews came from Europe.
    , @Beefcake the Mighty
    Whatever "right" it has to exist, it should do so on it's own and not live parasitically off of Western (i.e., non-Jewish) nations.
    , @Moi
    I guess you're okay with a European people grabbing land from Palestinians. Interesting (and that's putting it mildly).
    , @annamaria
    "...but Israel does have a right to exist..." - for the expense of others?

    "Among numerous other demands, the lawmakers declared that governments:
    "should “isolate political actors” who “target the State of Israel;”
    “should legislate ‘incitement to hatred’ offences and empower law enforcement agencies to convict;”
    should establish inquiry scrutiny panels...”

    Where did we see that before? - In the Soviet Russia, run by a Bolshevik government that was 85% Jewish, including the chiefs of security services (CheKA, NKVD, KGB...).
    No wonder that Sharansky, a former Soviet and rabid russophobe, has designed the blueprint for thought policing to protect the ugly project of Israel. - He knew perfectly well how totalitarianism/fascism should work.
    The influence of Israel-firsters on the US Congress and MSM is best illustrated by this educational video: Beautiful wasp zombifies cockroach, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ySwuQhruBo,
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHsSqsqJtZg
    "The parasitoid wasp Ampulex controls the cockroach's behaviour for the benefit of its own offspring. The wasp's venom inhibits parts in the cockroach's brain which enable the cockroach to start walking on its own. This allows the wasp to walk the stung cockroach, much like a dog on a leash, into a prepared burrow where it will serve as live food for the wasps offspring. The docile cockroach does not leave its tomb even while it is being consumed, over several days, by the wasp's offspring. Adapted from The wasp Ampulex compressa, a predator of the cockroach Periplaneta americana [oh irony!] by Wijnand Heitmans; University of Amsterdam, 1986. Gal et al., Current Biology 18(12), 877-882."

    , @Alden
    The Jews did get their own country, Israel, imposed on the natives by the great British Empire. Guess you haven't heard of the Balfour declaration which delivered Palestine to Jews.
    , @bjondo
    Also
    a substantial number of Christians and Muslims and others in the Ottoman Empire. All got the country in which they were living.

    Only Jew got somone else's land and the homes on that land and those Jews were from outside the ME. The Arab Jews were bombed by other Jews to flee to occupied Palestine.

    No Jew has a right to Palestine except those who were there historically. Netanyahoo and benGurion, et al are ahistorical, ie, frauds, fakes, aliens, lies.
    , @JoaoAlfaiate
    "...everybody got their own country, except the Kurds and the Jews."

    Right, the Jews got somebody else's country.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Brewer says:

    Antisemitism is a logical absurdity.
    It creates an offense that relies solely on the identity of the victim for its definition.
    This is an anomaly for it can be committed against only one class of human beings, regardless of their behavior. Thus it differs from prejudice against gender or class.
    In actuality, the offense referred to is fully described by the term “racism”, for all practical purposes Although many Jews do not claim to be a “race”, by claiming antisemitism they are self-identifying as such.
    Singling out a race for special treatment defines racism.

    What is being proposed here is a consequence of a greater absurdity – a State that claims special status for one class of human being and that, like the World-bearing Elephants on a Turtle, is dependent on another absurdity – a chosen race. From there, it is turtles (absurdities) all the way down.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. The jewish identity is ‘eternal innocent victim’.
    Therefore any criticism of jews, jewry, or the judaic religion, is antisemitism.

    It is like the Armenians, their identity is the genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman regime.
    It therefore is impossible to explain to them it never happened.

    Likewise, the present German identity is guilt about two world wars, no chance to make them understand that the great majority of Germans never wanted any war.

    The USA identity is saviours of the world, that all over the world people have quite other ideas about the USA, they simply are wrong.

    Terrorism by Muslims, they must be ‘deradicalised’, this means make them think that western atrocities against Muslims are for their own good, or caused by bad Muslims.

    As John Maynard Keynes long ago already knew, ideas are the most powerfull in the world, even if they have no relation with reality whatsoever.

    CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas, yet people all over the world believe that CO2 does great harm to us, despite the simple fact that climate changed as long as the earth exists, when humans had little influence, except when they began agriculture.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Very interesting article, Alison, it is enlightening to read a detailed account of this, I had only read of the lowest tiers of it before.

    Jilles, your

    It is like the Armenians, their identity is the genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman regime.
    It therefore is impossible to explain to them it never happened.
     
    I have only ever met two or three ethhic Armenians, they never banged on about their identity as victims. The scale of the murders is about the same as that of Jewish people in the stupid invasion of the USSR and the less stupid occupation of continental western Europa.

    The 'shoot all Jewish political commisars of Red Army units' policy of the Germans was pretty smart, after all, they were sheltered and fond of shooting common Soviet soldiers, mainly Russians.

    Of course, we are not to consider the latter point. Nor the murders of many millions while the Jewish Bolsheviki were in power, until Stalin eventually curbed them. ... and they made a path to steal almost everything after his murder.

    Not to continue with further thoughts, but you are either very poor at expression (as am I at times without much concentration and sometimes dictionary), or you are really to saying some silly things.
    , @Wally
    Jews created fake Jewish graves
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10337

    The True Cost of Parasite Israel
    Forced US taxpayers money to Israel goes far beyond the official numbers.
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-true-cost-of-israel/

    Jews: the bride at every wedding, the corpse at every funeral

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. El Dato says:

    Finally an excellent explanation of why antisetimism is increasing day by day while I fail to see any throngs of marching malcontents in the streets.

    But how to take back the right to existence of not officially approved thoughts?

    OTOH, reminder that the problem will likely autosolve as Israel becomes Murocco with nukes, interest in the Middle East disappears and one can finally go back to actually important discussions:

    http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Terra-Incognita-Israel-is-not-a-Western-country-and-never-has-been-490048

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. Its unbelievable.
    Makes the term “Örwellian” look weak.
    Words that come to mind are ” ïnsidious”, “sneaky”, “fascistic”, “devious”, ëvil”.
    Ironically — sadly ? — this “new” antisemitism seems perfectly designed to inspire traditional antisemitism. Such a cynical manipulation of nation states by another state & a particular ethnic/cultural group (often working against the interests of their own citizens/nations) seems perfectly adapted to generating hate & fear in the recipients of this wholly anti-democratic, anti-humanistic program.

    Read More
    • Agree: Z-man
    • Replies: @Erebus

    Such a cynical manipulation of nation states by another state & a particular ethnic/cultural group (often working against the interests of their own citizens/nations) seems perfectly adapted to generating hate & fear in the recipients...
     

    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor... rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague."

    Marcus Tullius Cicero

    Are these people totally oblivious to the history of what happens to traitors when they are found out? No, they know it well enough. They call it "Jewish suffering", and hope thereby to press prior treasons into service against those they're undermining today.

    They are closer to success than ever before, but I fear it will not end well.
    , @Z-man

    Its unbelievable.
    Makes the term “Örwellian” look weak.
    Words that come to mind are ” ïnsidious”, “sneaky”, “fascistic”, “devious”, ëvil”.
    Ironically — sadly ? — this “new” antisemitism seems perfectly designed to inspire traditional antisemitism. Such a cynical manipulation of nation states by another state & a particular ethnic/cultural group (often working against the interests of their own citizens/nations) seems perfectly adapted to generating hate & fear in the recipients of this wholly anti-democratic, anti-humanistic program.
     
    Bares repeating.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Randal says:

    International Campaign Is Criminalizing Criticism of Israel as ‘Antisemitism’

    Yes, this is certainly true as a matter of observable fact and personal experience, but this is merely one aspect of a much broader societal trend, exploited in this particular case by the supporters of Israel.

    It is not the fact that the enemies of liberty are falsely conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism that is the problem, but the fact that they seek to define antisemitism as inherently evil and illegitimate, to ban the expression of any opinions classed as antisemitism from the public sphere, and wherever possible to criminalise it. The former would not be a problem were it not for the latter.

    Spreading the New Definition Under Cover of “Anti-Racism” Movement

    In the neverending war on liberty waged by the powerful, for whom the freedom of ordinary folk to say and do things that annoy or offend them, or that threaten their position, is an eternal impertinence, the most vital front is freedom of speech. To the extent that freedom of speech is restricted, to that same extent is democracy negated. That front is also currently the most active in the war against liberty, and the attempt to separate and suppress “hate speech” is the schwerpunkt of the efforts by the enemies of liberty.

    Those who call people or their opinions racist or anti-Semite or homophobic or islamophobic or whatever, and thereby seek to define their opinions as illegitimate per se, are the most dangerous enemies of liberty in the societies of the modern US sphere.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. Tin foil hat stuff. Up your medication author. The UN is the Palestinians protection racket.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    They must have upped the per word payment for Hasbara. How else can one explain the mindless brevity of your post?
    , @bjondo

    The UN is the Palestinians protection racket.
     
    Only in the mind of Jew or Jew agent.
    , @Druid
    Ziofascist alert! An ideology defined by theft, elitist chosenism, murder, ethnic cleansing, hatred and lies, Stone Age fake religiosity with crazy Talmudism, etc. and that's not even a fraction of it!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Randal says:
    @ReallyAJoke
    "Where most people would consider “antisemitism” to mean bigotry against Jewish people (and rightly consider it abhorrent)"

    This is laughable, the term "anti-semitism" was inveted in the first place to silence criticism, this whole surprise about the broadening of the definition to include Israel is nothing.
    You know what are other "shut-up" words? Racist, Islamophobic, Homophobic, Xenophobic, Sexist, etc that along with "Anti-Semitic" make up the bulk of the Capital Sins of the new Globalist Religion (of course, made by and for Jews).

    I have the right to hate, speak badly and denounce anyone I want. It would be a crime if I infringed one's rights, which means, physical violence - but then again, physical violence alone is enough of a crime without motive, so it doesn't discriminate and doesn't need special snowflake groups and orwellian newspeech laws.

    Weir’s position seems to be that she’s fine with the demonization of dissenting opinions, even though that demonisation is presently being used to justify censorship, violence and even outright criminalisation, as long as her particular kind of dissent can somehow be protected from it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Seraphim says:
    @ReallyAJoke
    "Where most people would consider “antisemitism” to mean bigotry against Jewish people (and rightly consider it abhorrent)"

    This is laughable, the term "anti-semitism" was inveted in the first place to silence criticism, this whole surprise about the broadening of the definition to include Israel is nothing.
    You know what are other "shut-up" words? Racist, Islamophobic, Homophobic, Xenophobic, Sexist, etc that along with "Anti-Semitic" make up the bulk of the Capital Sins of the new Globalist Religion (of course, made by and for Jews).

    I have the right to hate, speak badly and denounce anyone I want. It would be a crime if I infringed one's rights, which means, physical violence - but then again, physical violence alone is enough of a crime without motive, so it doesn't discriminate and doesn't need special snowflake groups and orwellian newspeech laws.

    There are no ‘rights’ to speak badly, to insult people. But there is a duty to denounce wrongdoings, lies, harm done to defenseless people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Then, tell Netanyahu- the Zionist thug who was asking for assassination of Dr. Assad, the legitimate leader of Syria elected by the majority of Syrian people under US terrorist state and its criminal regime of Obama and illiterate pimp.

    It is the time that everyone calls for assassination of this occupier, thief, terrorist and racist and his allies in Washington, Britain and Saudi Arabia who have killed millions of Muslims and destroyed many countries and communities with millions more as refugees. ICC is a whore house and those at the top are nothing but pimps. ICC is the tool of the criminal west.
    Netanyahu burnt Palestinian toddlers with phosphorous bombs where ICC watched and did nothing.

    The execution of these war criminals should be world's demand. The criminal regime of Trump just killed close to 200 civilians Mosel in one day where no western shed tears, but there was HUGE propaganda in the media when 2 westerners were killed by one of their own citizen in reaction to huge criminal and terrorist activities of the west including invasion and terrorism in Muslim countries.
    Down with imperialism and Zionism. US and its terrorists must fuck off from the region NOW. The CIA has constructed many sunni terrorist organizations including the terrorist Kurds.

    terrorist kurds = ISIS = Al Qaeda = Jabhat al-Nusra = and many other terrorist organizations trained by US paid by the thugs in Saudi Arabia
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Erebus says:
    @animalogic
    Its unbelievable.
    Makes the term "Örwellian" look weak.
    Words that come to mind are " ïnsidious", "sneaky", "fascistic", "devious", ëvil".
    Ironically -- sadly ? -- this "new" antisemitism seems perfectly designed to inspire traditional antisemitism. Such a cynical manipulation of nation states by another state & a particular ethnic/cultural group (often working against the interests of their own citizens/nations) seems perfectly adapted to generating hate & fear in the recipients of this wholly anti-democratic, anti-humanistic program.

    Such a cynical manipulation of nation states by another state & a particular ethnic/cultural group (often working against the interests of their own citizens/nations) seems perfectly adapted to generating hate & fear in the recipients…


    “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor… rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”

    Marcus Tullius Cicero

    Are these people totally oblivious to the history of what happens to traitors when they are found out? No, they know it well enough. They call it “Jewish suffering”, and hope thereby to press prior treasons into service against those they’re undermining today.

    They are closer to success than ever before, but I fear it will not end well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @animalogic
    Thankyou for this great quote from Cicero.
    , @Druid
    So very true. Happened numerous times and still they persist. When they're powerful, they used that power against everybody but their own, thinking they can go on forever.
    , @Joe Franklin
    The Jewish relationship to gentiles is a form of symbiosis:

    Symbiosis (from Greek συμβίωσις "living together", from σύν "together" and βίωσις "living")[2] is any type of a close and long-term biological interaction between two different species, be it mutualistic, commensalistic, or parasitic. In 1879, Heinrich Anton de Bary defined it as "the living together of unlike organisms."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis


    Jewish leaders advertise their symbiotic relationship with gentiles as being commensalistic or mutualistic, but in reality the relationship is parasitic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Seraphim says:

    The apposition of ‘antisemitism’ to any ‘phobias’ has a long history (it was just the list of phobias that grew overtime):

    “The International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism—or Ligue Internationale Contre le Racisme et l’Antisémitisme (LICRA) in French—was established in 1927, and is opposed to intolerance, xenophobia and exclusion.
    In 1927, French journalist Bernard Lecache created “The League Against Pogroms”, and launched a media campaign in support of Sholom Schwartzbard who assassinated Symon Petliura on 25 May 1926 in the Latin Quarter of Paris. Schwartzbard viewed Petliura as responsible for numerous pogroms in Ukraine. After Schwartzbard’s acquittal, the league evolved into LICA (Ligue internationale contre l’antisémitisme—or international league against anti-semitism). Schwartzbard was a prominent activist in this organization…
    The LICRA keeps fighting neonazism and Holocaust denial. This was demonstrated when it supported the Klarsfeld couple (Serge and Beate Klarsfeld), and during Klaus Barbie’s trial in 1987.
    In the last few years, LICRA intensified its international actions by opening sections abroad, in Switzerland, in Belgium, in Luxembourg, in Germany, in Portugal, in Quebec and more recently in Congo Brazzaville and in Austria.
    Since 1999, with the arrival of president Patrick Gaubert, LICRA has extended its area of action. It now addresses social issues such as work discrimination, citizenship, and disadvantaged youth”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. “Likewise, anti-Semitism is a universally accepted notion, but goy-hatred is not. These are just two amongst many other such ‘one-way mental blocks”…Friends, this is not a coincidence. This is a *system* designed to make us all stupid and gullible.”

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-orlando-massacre-the-lies-the-exploitation-and-unasked-questions/

    Not only stupid and gullible but malleable and controllable as well, it seems.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. @Erebus

    Such a cynical manipulation of nation states by another state & a particular ethnic/cultural group (often working against the interests of their own citizens/nations) seems perfectly adapted to generating hate & fear in the recipients...
     

    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor... rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague."

    Marcus Tullius Cicero

    Are these people totally oblivious to the history of what happens to traitors when they are found out? No, they know it well enough. They call it "Jewish suffering", and hope thereby to press prior treasons into service against those they're undermining today.

    They are closer to success than ever before, but I fear it will not end well.

    Thankyou for this great quote from Cicero.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Z-man
    LOL! This reminded me of this little pearl that I read years ago.

    CICERO (Marcus Tullius Cicero). First century B.C. Roman statesman, writer.
    "Softly! Softly! I want none but the judges to hear me. The Jews have already gotten me into a fine mess, as they have many other gentleman. I have no desire to furnish further grist for their mills." (Oration in Defense of Flaccus)
     
    Beware the power of the Cabal.
    , @Z-man
    And then there is this quote which is more apropos.

    SENECA (Lucius Annaeus Seneca). First century Roman philosopher. "The customs of that most criminal nation have gained such strength that they have now been received in all lands. The conquered have given laws to the conquerors." (De Superstitione)
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @Felix Krull
    I have little patience for Jewish victimization propaganda, but Israel does have a right to exist: there were a substantial number of Jews in the Ottoman Empire, and when it was broken up after WWI, everybody got their own country, except the Kurds and the Jews.

    Except the Kurds were indigenous, whereas the Azhkenazic Jews came from Europe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @Felix Krull
    I have little patience for Jewish victimization propaganda, but Israel does have a right to exist: there were a substantial number of Jews in the Ottoman Empire, and when it was broken up after WWI, everybody got their own country, except the Kurds and the Jews.

    Whatever “right” it has to exist, it should do so on it’s own and not live parasitically off of Western (i.e., non-Jewish) nations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Svigor says:

    This is how Jews always get themselves into trouble. They have no “off” switch on advantage-seeking. They can’t not press an advantage. Someone needs to tell them that bullying people into assent isn’t the same as making them forget – people do tend to remember this stuff.

    The mechanism of this crackdown is the redefinition of “antisemitism”[1] to include criticism of Israel, and the insertion of this definition into the bodies of law of various countries.

    And what if, as has been the norm at a great many points in history, humanity decides to redefine “anti-semitism” as “good”?

    Where most people would consider “antisemitism” to mean bigotry against Jewish people (and rightly consider it abhorrent)

    Not if Jews get their way, apparently.

    I am reminded of a (very memorable) book title: Jews and the State: the Fatal Embrace.

    Second, Sharansky declared that it’s antisemitic to apply a “double standard” to Israel — in other words, to criticize Israel for actions that other states may also take. However, if one could never criticize, protest or boycott abuses without calling out every single other similar abuse, no one would ever be able to exercise political dissent at all.

    If it’s bigotry to apply double standards (it’s a double standard to limit the conversation to anti-semitism, by the way), then Jews have been the world’s greatest bigots beyond living memory.

    This was a long piece, I hope I have time to read it all closely at some point.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. Surprised the resident cuck brigade (you know who I mean) hasn’t jumped in here yet.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. Svigor says:

    Ron Unz: WOW, whatever you did to optimize Javascript/load times, it worked. Faster than I’ve ever seen it here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. DanCT says:

    Criticizing Israel or Jewish organizations is a hate crime because, you see, Israel and Jews acting collectively have never and can never do anything wrong. This follows from those purported standards of proof being textbook examples of logical fallacies and thinly veiled hate crimes themselves, requiring us to look elsewhere for the implicit justification. Jewish martyrology and absolute goodness, therefore, must become the one, supreme ontological truth before which all peoples, nation states, and religions must genuflect. Maybe Chris Smith has the courage to introduce a new preamble to the Constitution enshrining this as the ultimate law of the land.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. anarchyst says:

    This ties in with the criminalization of anyone who dares to do honest research on the Jews’ number one weapon..the “holocaust ™” which is a “cash cow” fraud of massive proportions, that they do not want to see ended. The numbers just don’t add up…there were 2.4 million Jews before WW2 and 3.8 million Jews counted immediately after WW2 that were demanding “reparations”.
    In countries that have criminalized any dissent from the “official holocaust ™ story”, TRUTH cannot be used as a defense. This makes any court that convicts honest researchers as being no better than the Nuremberg trials–the first officially sanctioned “kangaroo courts”, in which defendants were tortured into admitting outlandish “crimes against humanity”.
    I hope that the “holohoax” (oops, I mean the so-called “holocaust ™”) meets a timely death on the “dustbin of history”.
    There are Jewish “holocaustianity ™” proponents and promoters (along with fellow travelers such as Christian zionists) who are suggesting that “holocaust ™” transference” is burdening the grandchildren of so-called “holocaust ™” survivors, so they should be granted “holocaust ™ reparations” as well. This is but another “cash grab” that they are so good at…
    Adding insult to injury, some Jews are tattooing their ATM (oops, I mean “camp”) numbers on their grandchildren, therefore assuring a steady supply of “holocaust ™ survivors”. Sick…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. Moi says:
    @Felix Krull
    I have little patience for Jewish victimization propaganda, but Israel does have a right to exist: there were a substantial number of Jews in the Ottoman Empire, and when it was broken up after WWI, everybody got their own country, except the Kurds and the Jews.

    I guess you’re okay with a European people grabbing land from Palestinians. Interesting (and that’s putting it mildly).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    I guess you’re okay with a European people grabbing land from Palestinians. Interesting (and that’s putting it mildly).
     
    How is that worse than an Arabian people grabbing land from Philistines, and numerous other tribes and civilizations?

    Israel is the size of New Jersey. Araby is the size of Canada. Jews are responsible for 0.5% of Semitic land thievery.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Che Guava says:
    @jilles dykstra
    The jewish identity is 'eternal innocent victim'.
    Therefore any criticism of jews, jewry, or the judaic religion, is antisemitism.

    It is like the Armenians, their identity is the genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman regime.
    It therefore is impossible to explain to them it never happened.

    Likewise, the present German identity is guilt about two world wars, no chance to make them understand that the great majority of Germans never wanted any war.

    The USA identity is saviours of the world, that all over the world people have quite other ideas about the USA, they simply are wrong.

    Terrorism by Muslims, they must be 'deradicalised', this means make them think that western atrocities against Muslims are for their own good, or caused by bad Muslims.

    As John Maynard Keynes long ago already knew, ideas are the most powerfull in the world, even if they have no relation with reality whatsoever.

    CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas, yet people all over the world believe that CO2 does great harm to us, despite the simple fact that climate changed as long as the earth exists, when humans had little influence, except when they began agriculture.

    Very interesting article, Alison, it is enlightening to read a detailed account of this, I had only read of the lowest tiers of it before.

    Jilles, your

    It is like the Armenians, their identity is the genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman regime.
    It therefore is impossible to explain to them it never happened.

    I have only ever met two or three ethhic Armenians, they never banged on about their identity as victims. The scale of the murders is about the same as that of Jewish people in the stupid invasion of the USSR and the less stupid occupation of continental western Europa.

    The ‘shoot all Jewish political commisars of Red Army units’ policy of the Germans was pretty smart, after all, they were sheltered and fond of shooting common Soviet soldiers, mainly Russians.

    Of course, we are not to consider the latter point. Nor the murders of many millions while the Jewish Bolsheviki were in power, until Stalin eventually curbed them. … and they made a path to steal almost everything after his murder.

    Not to continue with further thoughts, but you are either very poor at expression (as am I at times without much concentration and sometimes dictionary), or you are really to saying some silly things.

    Read More
    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Of the supposed 1.5 million murdered Armenians never more than 15.000 names were specified.
    I hope I here express myself clearly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Sherman says:

    I’m happy pro-Israel forces are vigilant in exposing that so much “anti-Israel” rhetoric is little more than crude anti-Semitism.

    This article is proof of that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Druid
    Hasbara showed up!!!!!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. “Where most people would consider “antisemitism” to mean bigotry against Jewish people (and rightly consider it abhorrent), for two decades a campaign has been underway to replace that definition with an Israel-centric definition.”

    I pretty much wrote this piece off as soon as I read the above quote. Any non-Jew, especially white Christians in America and Europe, who doesn’t at least have a prejudiced or bigoted view of Jewish organizations or power is an idiot. If Jews want less antisemitism, then they need to police their own for signs of hostility, bigotry, racism and corruption towards others, but I doubt that will happen, since the hostility, bigotry, racism and corruption seem organic to Jews in general.

    Maybe if “activists” like Ms. Weir would concentrate on taking on Jewish power of all kinds, then the West could reform and Israel would be forced to reform, go extinct, or whatever. As it is, they just play a shell game with “Palestinian rights,” while going full SJW on the rest of us. I don’t give a damn about Israel, neocon Jews, Palestinians or leftist Jews. I care about my people and my country, and Jews of all political stripes are far more of a threat to both than Palestinians or whatever Muslims who are allowed to infiltrate will ever be.

    I state everything above understanding full well that Palestinians are the victims of Jewish power and the world-wide Jewish community. Unfortunately, outside of the Israel issue, most Palestinians and Muslims side with the multicult, anti-Western, heavily Jewish (phony) left. In the end, I can’t see how Jews will be able to play all the different groups against each other for their own benefit, and I don’t care. I just want to be rid of Jewish influence and Jewish power.

    Read More
    • Agree: anarchyst
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. Z-man says:
    @animalogic
    Its unbelievable.
    Makes the term "Örwellian" look weak.
    Words that come to mind are " ïnsidious", "sneaky", "fascistic", "devious", ëvil".
    Ironically -- sadly ? -- this "new" antisemitism seems perfectly designed to inspire traditional antisemitism. Such a cynical manipulation of nation states by another state & a particular ethnic/cultural group (often working against the interests of their own citizens/nations) seems perfectly adapted to generating hate & fear in the recipients of this wholly anti-democratic, anti-humanistic program.

    Its unbelievable.
    Makes the term “Örwellian” look weak.
    Words that come to mind are ” ïnsidious”, “sneaky”, “fascistic”, “devious”, ëvil”.
    Ironically — sadly ? — this “new” antisemitism seems perfectly designed to inspire traditional antisemitism. Such a cynical manipulation of nation states by another state & a particular ethnic/cultural group (often working against the interests of their own citizens/nations) seems perfectly adapted to generating hate & fear in the recipients of this wholly anti-democratic, anti-humanistic program.

    Bares repeating.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. TK says:

    Jews always forget basic Newton laws:
    “For every action there is an equal or opposite reaction”.
    In a long run you can not silence people, it will backfire.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23

    Jews always forget basic Newton laws:
    “For every action there is an equal or opposite reaction”.
    In a long run you cannot silence people, it will backfire.
     
    That's generally true, but in some cases the genocide and destruction can be so intense as to be irreversible. For example after the third Punic War, the Romans systematically burnt and demolished Carthage, selling what was left of the population into slavery ( the few remaining people were dispersed throughout the Empire and lost their identity).

    There's a certain resonance here.

    Jews were also defeated and dispersed throughout the Empire (and its successor states), although in their case, they held onto their identity for millennia through tradition, religion, inter-marriage laws, constant prayer for the refounding of Israel and an adaptive survival strategy in their host societies.

    A problem was their lack of numbers, which coupled with their refusal to inter-marry and integrate giving the inevitable result of ghettoization (living apart).

    The survival strategy was to undertake activities distained by traditional aristocratic elites, most notably commerce and money lending, developing financial power and converting it into political power (political protection), with for example, the Clintons being the latest in an endless historical line of corrupt political collaborators.

    That's not to say that absolute power didn't/doesn't have an attraction.

    The Bolshevik Jews succeeded in their 1917 Coup against Russian society, and cognizant of their numerical weakness (Jews about 1% of Russian society and activists even less) aggressively liquidated the educated Russian middle class in Pol Pot style, viewing them as their only realistic opposition. Béla Kun (Kohn) did the same (Hungary in 1919) with his successful but short lived all Jewish Coup (Hungarian Soviet Republic) launching his "Red Terror" horror show against educated ethnic Hungarians.

    And the same formula was applied to Germany, with Liebknecht & Luxemburg's Strike & Spartacist Uprising (Berlin 1919) "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", and Levine's Bavarian Soviet Republic (Munich 1919) "Workers and Soldiers Council", however, in this case, with both Coups ending in bloody failure in the face of armed German ethnic nationalism (ferocious street gun battles with the Freikorps).

    US Jews today hold key US power centers, such as the media and finance, and can dictate policy to Congress, although they have the usual historic problem of only being 2% of the population, very much proven by their inability to get their client (Clinton) elected as US President, despite their best efforts, and despite an unprecedented media barrage.

    All this points to a fundamental incompatibility between ethnic Jewish group power and Democracy, and there has to be the temptation to resolve the conflict through a Coup, with a good deal of evidence showing that 9/11 was a first attempt, probably with more to follow.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Agent76 says:

    Feb 24, 2017 Israeli Spying in the US: A Brief History

    NOTE: This video was produced for BoilingFrogsPost com on April 11, 2012. It is being made available in its entirety here for the first time.

    The knowledge that Israeli-connected companies and intelligence agents have been involved in detailed and elaborate spying operations in the US is of course nothing new. The phenomenon has been painstakingly documented over the years by numerous journalists and sources. Indeed, the documented cases of Israeli spying on their supposed ally — the self-same American government that is supplying it with $3 billion in grants each year — are nearly too numerous to document.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. iffen says:

    Anti-Semites brought this upon themselves by constantly attacking the right of Israel to exist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @OilcanFloyd
    Jews have been treated extremely well in the U.S. Their treacherousness predates Israel, and has nothing to do with "antisemitism." At least your excuse making acknowledges the problem.
    , @Incitatus
    Please specify exactly how “Anti-Semites brought this upon themselves” iffen. Detailed history please.

    After all, we’re talking about curtailment of constitutional free speech rights, as unpleasant as they might be at times. Precedent?

    Love to know.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @AnonymousMomus
    Tin foil hat stuff. Up your medication author. The UN is the Palestinians protection racket.

    They must have upped the per word payment for Hasbara. How else can one explain the mindless brevity of your post?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @iffen
    Anti-Semites brought this upon themselves by constantly attacking the right of Israel to exist.

    Jews have been treated extremely well in the U.S. Their treacherousness predates Israel, and has nothing to do with “antisemitism.” At least your excuse making acknowledges the problem.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Their treacherousness predates Israel, and has nothing to do with “antisemitism.”
     
    There's a lot to be said for that concept. Historically there's plenty of evidence that they often can't even stand themselves. Josephus alone provides many hair-raising examples. Then there's the tribal dude, one of countless victims, who said the wrong things at the wrong time and without sanction of the "authorities." There must be a message in there somewhere...

    On a slightly diff topic, I’ll probably live to see the day when the goyim will be excluded from banking and a few other professions on the basis of “cultural appropriation”…

    White women's burrito shop is forced to close after being hounded with accusations it was 'culturally appropriating Mexican food and jobs'

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4538398/Burrito-shop-shuts-accused-stealing-culture.html#ixzz4i6js09vy
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. annamaria says:
    @Felix Krull
    I have little patience for Jewish victimization propaganda, but Israel does have a right to exist: there were a substantial number of Jews in the Ottoman Empire, and when it was broken up after WWI, everybody got their own country, except the Kurds and the Jews.

    “…but Israel does have a right to exist…” – for the expense of others?

    “Among numerous other demands, the lawmakers declared that governments:
    “should “isolate political actors” who “target the State of Israel;”
    “should legislate ‘incitement to hatred’ offences and empower law enforcement agencies to convict;”
    should establish inquiry scrutiny panels…”

    Where did we see that before? – In the Soviet Russia, run by a Bolshevik government that was 85% Jewish, including the chiefs of security services (CheKA, NKVD, KGB…).
    No wonder that Sharansky, a former Soviet and rabid russophobe, has designed the blueprint for thought policing to protect the ugly project of Israel. – He knew perfectly well how totalitarianism/fascism should work.
    The influence of Israel-firsters on the US Congress and MSM is best illustrated by this educational video: Beautiful wasp zombifies cockroach, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ySwuQhruBo,

    “The parasitoid wasp Ampulex controls the cockroach’s behaviour for the benefit of its own offspring. The wasp’s venom inhibits parts in the cockroach’s brain which enable the cockroach to start walking on its own. This allows the wasp to walk the stung cockroach, much like a dog on a leash, into a prepared burrow where it will serve as live food for the wasps offspring. The docile cockroach does not leave its tomb even while it is being consumed, over several days, by the wasp’s offspring. Adapted from The wasp Ampulex compressa, a predator of the cockroach Periplaneta americana [oh irony!] by Wijnand Heitmans; University of Amsterdam, 1986. Gal et al., Current Biology 18(12), 877-882.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Cannot see any legal right for the existence of Israel.
    It only exists de facto, not de jure.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @OilcanFloyd
    Jews have been treated extremely well in the U.S. Their treacherousness predates Israel, and has nothing to do with "antisemitism." At least your excuse making acknowledges the problem.

    Their treacherousness predates Israel, and has nothing to do with “antisemitism.”

    There’s a lot to be said for that concept. Historically there’s plenty of evidence that they often can’t even stand themselves. Josephus alone provides many hair-raising examples. Then there’s the tribal dude, one of countless victims, who said the wrong things at the wrong time and without sanction of the “authorities.” There must be a message in there somewhere…

    On a slightly diff topic, I’ll probably live to see the day when the goyim will be excluded from banking and a few other professions on the basis of “cultural appropriation”…

    White women’s burrito shop is forced to close after being hounded with accusations it was ‘culturally appropriating Mexican food and jobs’

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4538398/Burrito-shop-shuts-accused-stealing-culture.html#ixzz4i6js09vy
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Alden says:
    @Felix Krull
    I have little patience for Jewish victimization propaganda, but Israel does have a right to exist: there were a substantial number of Jews in the Ottoman Empire, and when it was broken up after WWI, everybody got their own country, except the Kurds and the Jews.

    The Jews did get their own country, Israel, imposed on the natives by the great British Empire. Guess you haven’t heard of the Balfour declaration which delivered Palestine to Jews.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    The Balfour declaration delivered nothing.
    Home has no legal meaning, and Britain could not deliver what Britain did not have.
    GB had a mandate over Palestine, what meant rule until the region could rule itself.
    In 1948 or 1947 GB gave the Mandate 'back' to the UN, as legal successor of the Volkerenbond.
    Neither the Balfour declaration, nor the Mandate changed anything as to who owned the land.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @Che Guava
    Very interesting article, Alison, it is enlightening to read a detailed account of this, I had only read of the lowest tiers of it before.

    Jilles, your

    It is like the Armenians, their identity is the genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman regime.
    It therefore is impossible to explain to them it never happened.
     
    I have only ever met two or three ethhic Armenians, they never banged on about their identity as victims. The scale of the murders is about the same as that of Jewish people in the stupid invasion of the USSR and the less stupid occupation of continental western Europa.

    The 'shoot all Jewish political commisars of Red Army units' policy of the Germans was pretty smart, after all, they were sheltered and fond of shooting common Soviet soldiers, mainly Russians.

    Of course, we are not to consider the latter point. Nor the murders of many millions while the Jewish Bolsheviki were in power, until Stalin eventually curbed them. ... and they made a path to steal almost everything after his murder.

    Not to continue with further thoughts, but you are either very poor at expression (as am I at times without much concentration and sometimes dictionary), or you are really to saying some silly things.

    Of the supposed 1.5 million murdered Armenians never more than 15.000 names were specified.
    I hope I here express myself clearly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    You express yourself clearly. It is also a lie, as you would well know.

    Since your surname isn't Dutch and you say such nonsense, I think commentors of good heart would do well to ignore you, not as in block comments, but to rubbish your sly any stupid comments any time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @Alden
    The Jews did get their own country, Israel, imposed on the natives by the great British Empire. Guess you haven't heard of the Balfour declaration which delivered Palestine to Jews.

    The Balfour declaration delivered nothing.
    Home has no legal meaning, and Britain could not deliver what Britain did not have.
    GB had a mandate over Palestine, what meant rule until the region could rule itself.
    In 1948 or 1947 GB gave the Mandate ‘back’ to the UN, as legal successor of the Volkerenbond.
    Neither the Balfour declaration, nor the Mandate changed anything as to who owned the land.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    You are wrong. By 1922 the British allowed the establishment of The Jewish Agrncy a branch of the British colonial government.

    Both Jews and Palestinians, the people involved who live in Israel consider the Balfour Declaration and the establishment of The Jewish Agency in 1922 the founding of the state of Israel. All those propaganda books written to glorify the founding of Israel claim the Balfour Declaration as the founding.

    Not all Americans are ignorant fools as you European pseudo intellectuals useful idiots seem to think.

    A lot of what you post is dead wrong. Get away from Wikepedia and get yourself to a good university library: to the books written before the Marxist take over of the university.
    , @JoaoAlfaiate
    Article Two of the Palestine Mandate reads: "The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."

    Note that nothing is said about the political rights of the indigenous people to establish "self-governing institutions". Consistent with the Balfour Declaration, the Zionists and the British Gov't denied the Palestinians self determination and wound up imposing a host of unwanted immigrants on them by force.

    The Zionist view was that the only political rights they were willing to grant the native population were those the Arabs "enjoyed" as subjects under the Ottoman rule.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @annamaria
    "...but Israel does have a right to exist..." - for the expense of others?

    "Among numerous other demands, the lawmakers declared that governments:
    "should “isolate political actors” who “target the State of Israel;”
    “should legislate ‘incitement to hatred’ offences and empower law enforcement agencies to convict;”
    should establish inquiry scrutiny panels...”

    Where did we see that before? - In the Soviet Russia, run by a Bolshevik government that was 85% Jewish, including the chiefs of security services (CheKA, NKVD, KGB...).
    No wonder that Sharansky, a former Soviet and rabid russophobe, has designed the blueprint for thought policing to protect the ugly project of Israel. - He knew perfectly well how totalitarianism/fascism should work.
    The influence of Israel-firsters on the US Congress and MSM is best illustrated by this educational video: Beautiful wasp zombifies cockroach, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ySwuQhruBo,
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHsSqsqJtZg
    "The parasitoid wasp Ampulex controls the cockroach's behaviour for the benefit of its own offspring. The wasp's venom inhibits parts in the cockroach's brain which enable the cockroach to start walking on its own. This allows the wasp to walk the stung cockroach, much like a dog on a leash, into a prepared burrow where it will serve as live food for the wasps offspring. The docile cockroach does not leave its tomb even while it is being consumed, over several days, by the wasp's offspring. Adapted from The wasp Ampulex compressa, a predator of the cockroach Periplaneta americana [oh irony!] by Wijnand Heitmans; University of Amsterdam, 1986. Gal et al., Current Biology 18(12), 877-882."

    Cannot see any legal right for the existence of Israel.
    It only exists de facto, not de jure.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. bjondo says:
    @Felix Krull
    I have little patience for Jewish victimization propaganda, but Israel does have a right to exist: there were a substantial number of Jews in the Ottoman Empire, and when it was broken up after WWI, everybody got their own country, except the Kurds and the Jews.

    Also
    a substantial number of Christians and Muslims and others in the Ottoman Empire. All got the country in which they were living.

    Only Jew got somone else’s land and the homes on that land and those Jews were from outside the ME. The Arab Jews were bombed by other Jews to flee to occupied Palestine.

    No Jew has a right to Palestine except those who were there historically. Netanyahoo and benGurion, et al are ahistorical, ie, frauds, fakes, aliens, lies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. bjondo says:
    @AnonymousMomus
    Tin foil hat stuff. Up your medication author. The UN is the Palestinians protection racket.

    The UN is the Palestinians protection racket.

    Only in the mind of Jew or Jew agent.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. bjondo says:

    Support Alison Weir and If Americans Knew.

    Read More
    • Agree: Z-man
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  42. Durruti says:

    I rarely participate here:

    as my offer to discuss (in article form), the true murderers of JF Kennedy and the overthrow of the American Republic on November 22, 1963, have not been accepted by Mr. UNZ. The MOSSAD, and their junior agency, CIA, organized the first successful ‘Arab Spring’ in Dallas. They have committed innumerable crimes since.

    Jack Rubenstein (not Ruby), – anyone? The Mafia has been controlled by Jewish Banker gangsters. Meier Lansky – anyone, ‘Dutch Schultz,’ & dozens more – do I need a verb?. The reason Hollywood (who did Mel Gibson say his father said controlled Hollywood?), made the Godfather movies was to anchor/implant/brainwash in everyone’s mind that the Mafia was an Italian run outfit (albeit with some Jewish members – the truth is that it is the other way around). If there had been a meeting of the Mafia leaders in Havana in 1958-9, Lansky would have chaired the event, not ‘Corleone.

    Subsequently, they (nice conversation in the movie “Conspiracy Theory” where Mel Gibson discusses “them/they”), murdered Robert Kennedy, who, along with Martin Luther King, was attempting to Restore the Republic – by way of electoral efforts. Martin L. King was subsequently repeatedly warned by the above agencies; his opposition to the the LBJ/Nixon War against Vietnam signed his death certificate. John Lennon suffered the same fate, from the same agencies, for much the same reason.

    NOW the real reason for my intervention:

    Orwell’s best known book, 1984 major political point is how the ruling Oligarchs control our minds. They control our language, written & vocal. What is Winston’s job in the “Ministry of Information?” He helps to limit the usefulness of human interaction, by destroying segments of communication.

    Listen well: This is not the first time I have explained this here:

    I am not an anti-Semite! I like Arabs!

    The great majority of Jews are not now, nor have they ever been Semites.

    Like much of my family on my mothers side, we are German Jews. We are born with blond hair, & my mother & I have blue eyes. My Belgian Christian dad, who actually fought Germans, and later served in the American Army brought brown hair & brown eyes to our side of the family.

    The Zionist Terrorists have disrupted much resistance to their oppression of the Palestinian and other Arab nations by mis-labeling their the Arab peoples attempts to survive, and our attempts to secure the Sovereignty of our nations. If we oppose Zionist and the Banking imperialist Rothschilds, and dozens of other Jewish Oligarchs, we are definitely not anti-Semites. We might be anti-Jewish, we might be anti-Zionist, but, unless we oppose the Arab Nations, (whose peoples are 99% Semites), we are definitely NOT anti-Semites.

    It is the Jewish Land Thieves who are Anti-Semites: They hate Arabs, Palestinians, Their Victims. And that explains their devious effort to destroy the usefulness of communication, and to deprive the victims of the key weapon of resistance. Why is it that Alison Weir, and so many other ‘experts’ cannot see this so clear misuse of language?

    My family are Northern Europeans. And as my Grandfather, Capt. Jerome A. Lederman, US Navy, always lectured us, We are loyal to only one nation, The United States of America. We fly one flag! All others are traitors!

    Underneath that flag, to the right, or left we may fly the Black Flag of Anarchy (my other flag),
    or the Banners of the Southern Rebellion (which I honor, along with the statues of their heroes).
    Down my street, One neighbor Flies the Confederate flag – in front of his house, and a few houses down, another flies the Black Nationalist flag. We remain friends. All flags are inviolate, as are our libertarian spirits.

    Do not tread on us! We have been tread upon, repeatedly. We must:

    Restore the Republic!

    God Bless!

    Durruti – for the Anarchist Collective!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Agent76
    The Republic has been gone for sometime now and this will give you an actual glimpse in this single link.

    May 6, 2016 How Much Liberty Do Americans Have Left?

    This post explains the liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights – the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution – and provides a scorecard on the extent of the loss of each right.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-much-liberty-do-americans-have-left/5524450
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. anarchyst says:

    There are those who insist that “God” gave Jews the land…to which I reply “God is not a real-estate agent”…shuts ‘em up every time…

    Read More
    • Replies: @bjondo
    God isn't a real estate agent nor is God an agent for a group of lepers, plague bearers, liars, thieves, genocidalists.
    But
    satan is.
    , @Druid
    Also, as pointed out by a Jewish person: the Zionists are largely atheists, yet God gave them land.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Agent76 says:
    @Durruti
    I rarely participate here:

    as my offer to discuss (in article form), the true murderers of JF Kennedy and the overthrow of the American Republic on November 22, 1963, have not been accepted by Mr. UNZ.
    The MOSSAD, and their junior agency, CIA, organized the first successful 'Arab Spring' in Dallas. They have committed innumerable crimes since.

    Jack Rubenstein (not Ruby), - anyone? The Mafia has been controlled by Jewish Banker gangsters. Meier Lansky - anyone, 'Dutch Schultz,' & dozens more - do I need a verb?. The reason Hollywood (who did Mel Gibson say his father said controlled Hollywood?), made the Godfather movies was to anchor/implant/brainwash in everyone's mind that the Mafia was an Italian run outfit (albeit with some Jewish members - the truth is that it is the other way around). If there had been a meeting of the Mafia leaders in Havana in 1958-9, Lansky would have chaired the event, not 'Corleone.

    Subsequently, they (nice conversation in the movie "Conspiracy Theory" where Mel Gibson discusses "them/they"), murdered Robert Kennedy, who, along with Martin Luther King, was attempting to Restore the Republic - by way of electoral efforts. Martin L. King was subsequently repeatedly warned by the above agencies; his opposition to the the LBJ/Nixon War against Vietnam signed his death certificate. John Lennon suffered the same fate, from the same agencies, for much the same reason.

    NOW the real reason for my intervention:

    Orwell's best known book, 1984 major political point is how the ruling Oligarchs control our minds. They control our language, written & vocal. What is Winston's job in the "Ministry of Information?" He helps to limit the usefulness of human interaction, by destroying segments of communication.

    Listen well: This is not the first time I have explained this here:

    I am not an anti-Semite! I like Arabs!

    The great majority of Jews are not now, nor have they ever been Semites.

    Like much of my family on my mothers side, we are German Jews. We are born with blond hair, & my mother & I have blue eyes. My Belgian Christian dad, who actually fought Germans, and later served in the American Army brought brown hair & brown eyes to our side of the family.

    The Zionist Terrorists have disrupted much resistance to their oppression of the Palestinian and other Arab nations by mis-labeling their the Arab peoples attempts to survive, and our attempts to secure the Sovereignty of our nations. If we oppose Zionist and the Banking imperialist Rothschilds, and dozens of other Jewish Oligarchs, we are definitely not anti-Semites. We might be anti-Jewish, we might be anti-Zionist, but, unless we oppose the Arab Nations, (whose peoples are 99% Semites), we are definitely NOT anti-Semites.

    It is the Jewish Land Thieves who are Anti-Semites: They hate Arabs, Palestinians, Their Victims. And that explains their devious effort to destroy the usefulness of communication, and to deprive the victims of the key weapon of resistance. Why is it that Alison Weir, and so many other 'experts' cannot see this so clear misuse of language?

    My family are Northern Europeans. And as my Grandfather, Capt. Jerome A. Lederman, US Navy, always lectured us, We are loyal to only one nation, The United States of America. We fly one flag! All others are traitors!

    Underneath that flag, to the right, or left we may fly the Black Flag of Anarchy (my other flag),
    or the Banners of the Southern Rebellion (which I honor, along with the statues of their heroes).
    Down my street, One neighbor Flies the Confederate flag - in front of his house, and a few houses down, another flies the Black Nationalist flag. We remain friends. All flags are inviolate, as are our libertarian spirits.

    Do not tread on us! We have been tread upon, repeatedly. We must:

    Restore the Republic!

    God Bless!

    Durruti - for the Anarchist Collective!

    The Republic has been gone for sometime now and this will give you an actual glimpse in this single link.

    May 6, 2016 How Much Liberty Do Americans Have Left?

    This post explains the liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights – the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution – and provides a scorecard on the extent of the loss of each right.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-much-liberty-do-americans-have-left/5524450

    Read More
    • Replies: @Durruti
    Nice compilation/reminder of the Constitution, - 10 amendments Bill of Rts, and the Declaration.

    As a Hist Prof, have used the above in all my classes, regardless of specific nature of History, undergrad or grad level course.

    Most of my students had not read any of America's founding documents or its Constitution. Almost none could discuss them. So much for their secondary education.

    Our collective has circulated this and other fliers as best we can.

    The actual flier is justified & a bit more presentable.

    For THE RESTORATION OF THE REPUBLIC

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal… governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles…”

    The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson.

    We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.

    The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy destroyed the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963, when they assassinated the last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and overthrew his government. All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.

    A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam, conducted by the murderers of Kennedy, left 2 million dead in a wake of napalm and burning villages.

    In 1965, the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.

    In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala.

    In the 1970s, the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America’s middle class, by encouraging the export of industry and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation’s Oligarchs cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.

    The impoverishment of America’s middle class has undermined the nation’s financial stability. Without a productive foundation, the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion. This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations. Concurrently, the top 1% of the nation’s population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as their savings cannot stay even with the inflation rate.

    The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures, and is or has recently conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much on military weapons of terror as the rest of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget is spent on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.

    The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the Founders of the United States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as with previous administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever is chosen in November 2016, operates a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely tortured. The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act, enacted by both Democratic and Republican factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.

    The nation’s media is controlled, and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population; the people are intimidated and treated with contempt.

    The United States is No longer Sovereign

    The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress, is bought, utterly owned and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts, to name only a few of the best known.

    The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government, with its controlling International Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations, including ours.

    For Love of Country

    The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts owed to that unconstitutional regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with a clean slate.

    As American Founder, Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:

    “I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living’:”

    “Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it’s course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. Generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation.”

    Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful government which will ensure President Franklin Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms, freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom from want “which…means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants…” and freedom from fear “which…means a world-wide reduction of armaments…”

    Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people. We will establish a government, hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage of the previous totalitarian governments.

    For the Democratic Republic!
    Sons and Daughters of Liberty
    florent.defeu@yahoo.com
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. What’s new? The cabal power is ballooning to a size greater than our planet! Alas, just one pin prick, or too much pressure will result in a noisy boom. And disappear in a distant memory.
    But, as always, it’ll reappear . In what form though?
    Remember the usury (legal), that put millions of Europeans into infinite poverty , created Rothschild and all its branches that we all work for to pay our never ending debts?
    Anti-Semitism will remain as long as these Semitic practices continue.
    The “balloon” has to burst. Only Jews can end this, we must, and they need our support.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. bjondo says:
    @anarchyst
    There are those who insist that "God" gave Jews the land...to which I reply "God is not a real-estate agent"...shuts 'em up every time...

    God isn’t a real estate agent nor is God an agent for a group of lepers, plague bearers, liars, thieves, genocidalists.
    But
    satan is.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Svigor says:

    Anti-Semites brought this upon themselves by constantly attacking the right of Israel to exist.

    Jew hates freedom of speech, news at 11.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  48. Mithera says:

    Kill em all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  49. Alden says:
    @jilles dykstra
    The Balfour declaration delivered nothing.
    Home has no legal meaning, and Britain could not deliver what Britain did not have.
    GB had a mandate over Palestine, what meant rule until the region could rule itself.
    In 1948 or 1947 GB gave the Mandate 'back' to the UN, as legal successor of the Volkerenbond.
    Neither the Balfour declaration, nor the Mandate changed anything as to who owned the land.

    You are wrong. By 1922 the British allowed the establishment of The Jewish Agrncy a branch of the British colonial government.

    Both Jews and Palestinians, the people involved who live in Israel consider the Balfour Declaration and the establishment of The Jewish Agency in 1922 the founding of the state of Israel. All those propaganda books written to glorify the founding of Israel claim the Balfour Declaration as the founding.

    Not all Americans are ignorant fools as you European pseudo intellectuals useful idiots seem to think.

    A lot of what you post is dead wrong. Get away from Wikepedia and get yourself to a good university library: to the books written before the Marxist take over of the university.

    Read More
    • Agree: Z-man
    • Disagree: L.K
    • Replies: @L.K
    Nope, he is absolutely correct.
    I would add to what Dykstra said, that neither had the UN any legal mandate to partition Palestine, giving 55% of it to a minority of Jewish immigrants and settlers.
    In fact, the proposal totally violated International law and the UN's own charter!
    Several authors and researchers have exposed these myths concerning the creation of the zionist entity.
    Former BBC’s Panorama correspondent and author of several books on Zionism, Alan Hart stated:


    In my book and on public platforms I also take head-on the matter of Israel’s right or not to exist.

    According to first and still existing draft of history, Israel was given its birth certificate and thus legitimacy by the UN Partition Resolution of 29 November 1947. This is nonsense.

    - In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine did not have the right to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.
    - Despite that, by the narrowest of margins, and only after a rigged vote, the UN General Assembly did pass a resolution to partition Palestine and create two states, one Arab, one Jewish, with Jerusalem not part of either. But the General Assembly resolution was only a proposal – meaning that it could have no effect, would not become policy, unless approved by the Security Council.
    - The truth is that the General Assembly’s partition proposal never went to the Security Council for consideration. Why not? Because the US knew that, if approved, it could only be implemented by force; and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine.
    So the partition plan was vitiated, became invalid, and the question of what the hell to do about Palestine (after Britain had made a mess of it and walked away) was taken back to the General Assembly for more discussion. The option favoured and proposed by the US was temporary UN Trusteeship. It was while the General Assembly was debating what do that Israel unilaterally declared itself to be in existence – actually in defiance of the will of the organised international community, including the Truman administration.


    The truth of the time was that the Zionist state, which came into being mainly as a consequence of Zionism terrorism and ethnic cleansing, had no right to exist and, more to the point, could have no right to exist unless ….. Unless it was recognised and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during the creation of the Zionist state. In international law only the Palestinians could give Israel the legitimacy it craved. And that legitimacy was the only thing the Zionists could not take from the Palestinians by force.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Druid says:
    @AnonymousMomus
    Tin foil hat stuff. Up your medication author. The UN is the Palestinians protection racket.

    Ziofascist alert! An ideology defined by theft, elitist chosenism, murder, ethnic cleansing, hatred and lies, Stone Age fake religiosity with crazy Talmudism, etc. and that’s not even a fraction of it!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Z-man

    Ziofascist alert! An ideology defined by theft, elitist chosenism, murder, ethnic cleansing, hatred and lies, Stone Age fake religiosity with crazy Talmudism, etc. and that’s not even a fraction of it!
     
    Love it!!! Thumbs up!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Druid says:
    @Erebus

    Such a cynical manipulation of nation states by another state & a particular ethnic/cultural group (often working against the interests of their own citizens/nations) seems perfectly adapted to generating hate & fear in the recipients...
     

    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor... rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague."

    Marcus Tullius Cicero

    Are these people totally oblivious to the history of what happens to traitors when they are found out? No, they know it well enough. They call it "Jewish suffering", and hope thereby to press prior treasons into service against those they're undermining today.

    They are closer to success than ever before, but I fear it will not end well.

    So very true. Happened numerous times and still they persist. When they’re powerful, they used that power against everybody but their own, thinking they can go on forever.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Druid says:
    @Sherman
    I'm happy pro-Israel forces are vigilant in exposing that so much "anti-Israel" rhetoric is little more than crude anti-Semitism.

    This article is proof of that.

    Hasbara showed up!!!!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Druid says:
    @anarchyst
    There are those who insist that "God" gave Jews the land...to which I reply "God is not a real-estate agent"...shuts 'em up every time...

    Also, as pointed out by a Jewish person: the Zionists are largely atheists, yet God gave them land.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Z-man says:
    @Druid
    Ziofascist alert! An ideology defined by theft, elitist chosenism, murder, ethnic cleansing, hatred and lies, Stone Age fake religiosity with crazy Talmudism, etc. and that's not even a fraction of it!

    Ziofascist alert! An ideology defined by theft, elitist chosenism, murder, ethnic cleansing, hatred and lies, Stone Age fake religiosity with crazy Talmudism, etc. and that’s not even a fraction of it!

    Love it!!! Thumbs up!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Seraphim
    There are no 'rights' to speak badly, to insult people. But there is a duty to denounce wrongdoings, lies, harm done to defenseless people.

    Then, tell Netanyahu- the Zionist thug who was asking for assassination of Dr. Assad, the legitimate leader of Syria elected by the majority of Syrian people under US terrorist state and its criminal regime of Obama and illiterate pimp.

    It is the time that everyone calls for assassination of this occupier, thief, terrorist and racist and his allies in Washington, Britain and Saudi Arabia who have killed millions of Muslims and destroyed many countries and communities with millions more as refugees. ICC is a whore house and those at the top are nothing but pimps. ICC is the tool of the criminal west.
    Netanyahu burnt Palestinian toddlers with phosphorous bombs where ICC watched and did nothing.

    The execution of these war criminals should be world’s demand. The criminal regime of Trump just killed close to 200 civilians Mosel in one day where no western shed tears, but there was HUGE propaganda in the media when 2 westerners were killed by one of their own citizen in reaction to huge criminal and terrorist activities of the west including invasion and terrorism in Muslim countries.
    Down with imperialism and Zionism. US and its terrorists must fuck off from the region NOW. The CIA has constructed many sunni terrorist organizations including the terrorist Kurds.

    terrorist kurds = ISIS = Al Qaeda = Jabhat al-Nusra = and many other terrorist organizations trained by US paid by the thugs in Saudi Arabia

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Z-man says:
    @animalogic
    Thankyou for this great quote from Cicero.

    LOL! This reminded me of this little pearl that I read years ago.

    CICERO (Marcus Tullius Cicero). First century B.C. Roman statesman, writer.
    “Softly! Softly! I want none but the judges to hear me. The Jews have already gotten me into a fine mess, as they have many other gentleman. I have no desire to furnish further grist for their mills.” (Oration in Defense of Flaccus)

    Beware the power of the Cabal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus
    From Cicero, to Seneca, and finally to Nietzsche, and many others in between. All of them mis-maligned as anti-semites by those who misunderstood them (or pretended to), Nietzsche has probably borne that epithet more unjustly than any other because the complexity and grand historical sweep of his thought confounds the small-minded, and together with his presence at the founding moments of the Jewish Century made his critique both devastating and incontrovertible.

    Here's one of the last things he wrote on the matter. It bears thoughtful re-reading:

    The Jews are the most remarkable nation of world history because, faced with the question of being or not being, they chose... being at any price: the price they paid was the radical falsification of all nature, all naturalness, all reality, the entire inner world as well as the outer. ... Considered psychologically, the Jewish nation is a nation of the toughest vital energy which ... took the side of all decadent instincts—not as being dominated by them but because it divined in (decadent instincts) a power by means of which one can prevail against ‘the world.’ [T]his kind of man has a life-interest in making mankind sick, and in inverting the concepts of ‘good’ and ‘evil,’ ‘true’ and ‘false’ in a mortally dangerous and world-maligning sense. (The Anti-Christ, sec. 24)

    Emphases are, of course, added.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Z-man says:
    @animalogic
    Thankyou for this great quote from Cicero.

    And then there is this quote which is more apropos.

    SENECA (Lucius Annaeus Seneca). First century Roman philosopher. “The customs of that most criminal nation have gained such strength that they have now been received in all lands. The conquered have given laws to the conquerors.” (De Superstitione)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Svigor says:

    I have little patience for Jewish victimization propaganda, but Israel does have a right to exist: there were a substantial number of Jews in the Ottoman Empire, and when it was broken up after WWI, everybody got their own country, except the Kurds and the Jews.

    The same right to exist held by Apartheid South Africa and the Confederacy, yes.

    There are no ‘rights’ to speak badly, to insult people. But there is a duty to denounce wrongdoings, lies, harm done to defenseless people.

    Sure there is. That’s so nobody (like, say, you) gets to define speech they like as “bad” or “insulting.”

    I’m happy pro-Israel forces are vigilant in exposing that so much “anti-Israel” rhetoric is little more than crude anti-Semitism.

    This article is proof of that.

    Another Jew misanthrope happy about suppression of Freedom of Speech, news at 11.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  59. Svigor says:

    *dont* like

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  60. @Felix Krull
    I have little patience for Jewish victimization propaganda, but Israel does have a right to exist: there were a substantial number of Jews in the Ottoman Empire, and when it was broken up after WWI, everybody got their own country, except the Kurds and the Jews.

    “…everybody got their own country, except the Kurds and the Jews.”

    Right, the Jews got somebody else’s country.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. anon says: • Disclaimer

    An AIPAC official announced at the 2010 convention: “We’re going to make certain that pro-Israel students take over the student government. That is how AIPAC operates in our nation’s capitol. This is how AIPAC must operate on our nation’s campuses.”

    Say it on TV as a quote and you are done as an anti-Semite.

    Put it up on the billboard and see the backlash against the board itself, the road,the highway and the advertisers

    Now say this with alterations ( substituting Palestine fro Israel AIPAC ) in a meeting somewhere in a ME desert in a meeting attended by some some Palestinian leaders – sounding like a game plan for Palestinian , you will see it all over the news -FOX CNN WSJ and all the Posts from Washington to Ottawa to o Jerusalem followed by heavily emotional discussion on TV and in congress by people like Huckabee Graham Clinton Obama , Spencer, Bill Maher Thersha May and Macron about how Shariah law is being interceded in campuses and in districts and cities of Europe and USA.

    Video will be downloaded by SITE and delivered to CNN

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    Oh yeah, SITE!
    Investigative journalist & author, C. Bollyn, has written many interesting articles on SITE.


    Why do ISIS Videos All come from Israeli Intelligence?
    The grisly ISIS videos, like the most recent one supposedly showing the killing of a Russian soldier, all come to us through Israeli agents working for Israeli intelligence. How can it be that the ISIS media outlet "al Furat Media Foundation" is able to produce high quality videos, but does not even have a website? Nor is ISIS even able to send its nasty videos directly to its chosen audience, in this case the Russian government or media outlets. Why is it that ISIS videos all come to us from Israeli intelligence?

    Let's look at the most recent ISIS video and examine how it came to Western media outlets:

    First, the Israeli intelligence agent Rita Katz of SITE Intelligence Group in Bethesda, Maryland, issues a message with photos and information, like the one above. Western media outlets subscribe to her propaganda service and report on the videos giving source credit to SITE Intelligence Group, which is usually described as "U.S.-based" although there is nothing American about it. It is purely Israeli intelligence/progaganda to feed Israel's fraudulent War on Terror. In this message Katz says the video comes from Furat Media - what's that?

    If we look up "al Furat" in Wikipedia we find four media outlets named Furat, but none of them are "al Furat Media Foundation." If we do a Google search for videos from al Furat Media, we find that all the videos supposedly from ISIS Furat Media don't come from a website belonging to "al Furat" at all, but come to us from a website called Jihadology.net. What is that?

    ... All of the Furat videos come from Jihadology.net. Who runs that?
    Well, Jihadology.net is run by a Jewish Zionist from Highland Park, Illinois, named Aaron Zelin. He works with Zionist think-tanks like the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and graduated from Brandeis University.
     
    Read it all @ http://bollyn.com/#article_15910
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Incitatus says:
    @iffen
    Anti-Semites brought this upon themselves by constantly attacking the right of Israel to exist.

    Please specify exactly how “Anti-Semites brought this upon themselves” iffen. Detailed history please.

    After all, we’re talking about curtailment of constitutional free speech rights, as unpleasant as they might be at times. Precedent?

    Love to know.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Please specify exactly how “Anti-Semites brought this upon themselves” iffen. Detailed history please.

    After all, we’re talking about curtailment of constitutional free speech rights

    My comment was not meant in support of efforts in the US to enact restrictions on free speech through the administrative bureaucracy. I am thankful for the 2nd amendment. God Bless James Madison! The Europeans are on their own, although I understand that WWII was fought there and the fascists took over several countries, so perhaps that is a mitigating circumstance for Europeans. Even though I think liberal democracy is failing and free speech will disappear, I will cling to it and support it until Armageddon, at which time, no rules will apply.

    I am short on facts and details at the moment and will have to rely upon opinion and assertion. I am fully aware that this sets me apart from some of the better commenters here, but it puts me firmly within the overwhelming majority.

    Anti-Semitism has changed and will change over time. The medieval variety was quite different from the late 19th century and early 20th century variety. About the only thing that they had in common was the target. The same applies today. Although, when your planet Germania inhabitants are weaving their web of delusions, omissions, lies, half-truths, obfuscations, red herrings and selective use of historical facts, they don’t throw that first strand into the wind to chance, but rather project it at AH with a force and accuracy that would intimidate Lithobates catesbeianus. That said, the anti-Semitism of 2017 is not the anti-Semitism of 1927. One defining premise of today’s is Holocaust denial, which of course did not exist in 1927, but rather was a product of 1927’s variety.

    Much of the criticism of Israel derives from anti-Semitism. The criticism is unique to Israel and most of the critics don’t even fake trying to use the same criteria when evaluating Israel as when evaluating other countries. If you think that Israel does not have a right to exist because it was founded by and for Jews; that is anti-Semitic, unless you apply the same criteria to all other countries, and I haven’t seen anyone doing that.

    I am not saying that criticizing Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians makes one an anti-Semite. I’m saying that if you only get hand-wringey about the Palestinians, you stand a good chance of being one. One can make a complaint about 2nd class citizenship for Palestinians, but what about the hundreds of other examples of 2nd class citizenship (or worse) for many hundreds of different peoples around the world. Sam seems to be reliable and he has first-hand knowledge of the conditions in Israel. From what he has relayed, I think that if I had to be a 2nd class citizen, I would give Israel serious consideration.

    Criticism of Israel is the tip of the iceberg of anti-Semitism. One just needs to make sure you are an ice cube when you do your criticizing.

    , @iffen
    My comments are spam now, I.

    I can't get my reply to you.

    Moral victory for me.

    Feels good man!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. So we’ll all end up in maximum security prisons for offending God Almighty by questioning his “Chosen Ones”s behavior . Hmm, we are damned in this and after life. What a bummer!!!

    Me thinks the Bolsheviks have been revived, and this time with “Capitalism of Rothschild and Goldman Sachs” as the ideology pushers. Just as in Russia after the communists took over, we might even face executions for those deemed Anti-Semitics. We’ve seen political, and career deaths. The “goyim” has no escape, just serve THE MASTER……

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  64. Wally says: • Website
    @jilles dykstra
    The jewish identity is 'eternal innocent victim'.
    Therefore any criticism of jews, jewry, or the judaic religion, is antisemitism.

    It is like the Armenians, their identity is the genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman regime.
    It therefore is impossible to explain to them it never happened.

    Likewise, the present German identity is guilt about two world wars, no chance to make them understand that the great majority of Germans never wanted any war.

    The USA identity is saviours of the world, that all over the world people have quite other ideas about the USA, they simply are wrong.

    Terrorism by Muslims, they must be 'deradicalised', this means make them think that western atrocities against Muslims are for their own good, or caused by bad Muslims.

    As John Maynard Keynes long ago already knew, ideas are the most powerfull in the world, even if they have no relation with reality whatsoever.

    CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas, yet people all over the world believe that CO2 does great harm to us, despite the simple fact that climate changed as long as the earth exists, when humans had little influence, except when they began agriculture.

    Jews created fake Jewish graves

    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10337

    The True Cost of Parasite Israel
    Forced US taxpayers money to Israel goes far beyond the official numbers.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-true-cost-of-israel/

    Jews: the bride at every wedding, the corpse at every funeral

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Erebus says:
    @Z-man
    LOL! This reminded me of this little pearl that I read years ago.

    CICERO (Marcus Tullius Cicero). First century B.C. Roman statesman, writer.
    "Softly! Softly! I want none but the judges to hear me. The Jews have already gotten me into a fine mess, as they have many other gentleman. I have no desire to furnish further grist for their mills." (Oration in Defense of Flaccus)
     
    Beware the power of the Cabal.

    From Cicero, to Seneca, and finally to Nietzsche, and many others in between. All of them mis-maligned as anti-semites by those who misunderstood them (or pretended to), Nietzsche has probably borne that epithet more unjustly than any other because the complexity and grand historical sweep of his thought confounds the small-minded, and together with his presence at the founding moments of the Jewish Century made his critique both devastating and incontrovertible.

    Here’s one of the last things he wrote on the matter. It bears thoughtful re-reading:

    The Jews are the most remarkable nation of world history because, faced with the question of being or not being, they chose… being at any price: the price they paid was the radical falsification of all nature, all naturalness, all reality, the entire inner world as well as the outer. … Considered psychologically, the Jewish nation is a nation of the toughest vital energy which … took the side of all decadent instincts—not as being dominated by them but because it divined in (decadent instincts) a power by means of which one can prevail against ‘the world.’ [T]his kind of man has a life-interest in making mankind sick, and in inverting the concepts of ‘good’ and ‘evil,’ ‘true’ and ‘false’ in a mortally dangerous and world-maligning sense. (The Anti-Christ, sec. 24)

    Emphases are, of course, added.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    How the rabidly anti-Christian madman who would have "liked to kill all the German antisemites", and Jews' ass licker in the proper sense (his practice of 'gay science' with the Jew Paul Ree - the 'philosopher' who is the real inspiration of his ravings - was of public notoriety, which led to his split with Wagner) came to be dubbed an 'antisemite' beggars belief.
    , @AaronB
    Nietzsche, as usual, is engaging in rhetoric and polemic rather than philosophy, in this passage.

    Its an extremely unperceptive and unintelligent passage. The Christian attitude to life that Nietzsche hated so much is shared by Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Sufis, Egyptian religion, Plato, Pythagoras, Greek and Roman Mystery religions, elements of Persian religions.

    In other words, this "life-denying" attitude was held by three-fourths of mankind, and it long antedated Christianity. It is indeed a timeless and perennial philosophy - some even call it the Perennial Philosophy - and it is highly likely that Christianity was an Indian import grafted onto Judaism. Buddhist monks were living in Alexandria at that time.

    But no! Nietzsche views it as an utterly local phenomenon pertaining merely to Jews in the Mediterranean, and their petty strife with gentiles He is utterly incapable of placing Christianity in a wider context and seeing it in a world perspective, as expressing a timeless human metaphysical tendency. Even if he rejects it - at least understand it.

    And yet Nietzsche knew all this, and more - but he could not connect the dots, or forgot them in his fury against this "life-denying" religion that opposed his beloved God, "Power".

    Like any furious partisan taking sides, he became stupid.

    Nietzsche's positive philosophy is unintelligent (his criticisms are often perceptive). He was a materialist atheist who nevertheless elevated vague terms like "life" and "power" into metaphysical principles. He despised metaphysics but his philosophy is utterly metaphysical.

    "Decadence" is a meaningless term in an atheist materialist world - there can be no reason to prefer "life" and "power" in a world without God or metaphysics. In such a world, whatever "is", simply "is".

    If the "weak" can survive, triumph, and flourish over the "strong", then it begs the question in what sense they are "weak" (he might have studied Taoism on this point. ) - But why "prefer" the weak over the strong? Whatever survives and succeeds is therefore justified. "Preferences" cannot exist in an atheist materialist system.

    Nietzsche gave many examples of how weakness can overcome strength, in fact, but continued to use these terms as if "triumphing weakness" was still weakness in some "ultimate" sense, and "defeated strength" in some ultimate sense was still strength - in a metaphysical sense, that is. He was saturated by metaphysics, just of a peculiarly unintelligent kind.

    Nietzsche was never able to clearly and fully spell out his theory of the superman, as it is incoherent. His philosophy of "life" and "power" clearly point to a mere animal existence, yet such a trivial, if not repugnant ideal, could not sustain his grandiose quasi-religious language and sense of cosmic significance. Yet the obvious alternative to animal existence, religion, was closed off to him. So Nietzsche lost himself in misty vapors and dead ends.

    Ironically, Nietzsche saw himself as a mighty critic of his age - yet he was merely an extreme intensification of its worst tendencies. Which is why both both left and right could find so much to like in him and use for their purposes.

    In the end, Nietzsche was a mere polemicist and partisan - and anyone who has read Schopenhauer knows how unoriginal Nietzsche was. Entire passages seem lifted straight out of Schopenhauer basically unchanged, and others with just the "values" reversed. But Schopenhauer was a true antagonist of his times, so the times never found much use for him.

    And yes, Nietzsche tremendously admired Jews, as in contrast to all other people's Jews desire power and earthly success beyond all other goals - "vitality" he calls it. Ha! - and the Jewish religion has a lower spiritual and moral tendency than any of the great religions.

    Walter Kaufmann - who wrote in an essay he would rather be born a Jew than any other people - loved and admired Nietzsche and sought to make him popular in the Western world.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. The Zionist Entity is in the service of evil as is Washington and Brussels. Pray for Russia, China and Iran.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  67. Thank you. It’s many years since I was reading Nietzsche. With your permission I will recommend Walter Kaufmann as translator for first time English speaking readers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  68. @jilles dykstra
    The Balfour declaration delivered nothing.
    Home has no legal meaning, and Britain could not deliver what Britain did not have.
    GB had a mandate over Palestine, what meant rule until the region could rule itself.
    In 1948 or 1947 GB gave the Mandate 'back' to the UN, as legal successor of the Volkerenbond.
    Neither the Balfour declaration, nor the Mandate changed anything as to who owned the land.

    Article Two of the Palestine Mandate reads: “The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”

    Note that nothing is said about the political rights of the indigenous people to establish “self-governing institutions”. Consistent with the Balfour Declaration, the Zionists and the British Gov’t denied the Palestinians self determination and wound up imposing a host of unwanted immigrants on them by force.

    The Zionist view was that the only political rights they were willing to grant the native population were those the Arabs “enjoyed” as subjects under the Ottoman rule.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    All these details just confuse what happened.
    Zionism began when colonialism still was seen as civilising the world.

    Herzl never asked the Palestinian people anything, he visited the Russian minister Von Plehve, he visited the Ottoman sultan.

    Zionists never realised that when they by force realised their colonial objectives, more than colonial, because they ethnically cleansed Palestine, the world had changed.
    Colonialism was out.

    And zionists, victims of their own propaganda, never realised that Palestinians did exist, were a people, still are a people.
    I suppose they thought that the great and cruel population exchanges in SE Europe, including present Turkey, from 1912 to 1925, could be repeated.

    The great zionist mistake of 1948 was not to exterminate the Palestinians, at the time it still was possible, there were less than a million Palestinians, jews still had the sympathy of the world, video cameras and satellite connections did not exist.

    The Palestinian population explosion was made by zionism, they marry at fifteen, just married men with children are allowed to work in Israel, just families get UN food aid.
    So now there are four of five million Palestinians, who politically are more and more important, at the same time Israel is condemned by nearly the whole world.

    Part of the Deep State resistance to Trump is fear that Israel loses its preferred situation as a fixed aircraft carrier of the USA in the ME.
    If, IF, Trump's visit to NATO again seems to confirm it, USA has normal relation with Russia, Isrrael loses its strategical value.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Seraphim says:
    @Erebus
    From Cicero, to Seneca, and finally to Nietzsche, and many others in between. All of them mis-maligned as anti-semites by those who misunderstood them (or pretended to), Nietzsche has probably borne that epithet more unjustly than any other because the complexity and grand historical sweep of his thought confounds the small-minded, and together with his presence at the founding moments of the Jewish Century made his critique both devastating and incontrovertible.

    Here's one of the last things he wrote on the matter. It bears thoughtful re-reading:

    The Jews are the most remarkable nation of world history because, faced with the question of being or not being, they chose... being at any price: the price they paid was the radical falsification of all nature, all naturalness, all reality, the entire inner world as well as the outer. ... Considered psychologically, the Jewish nation is a nation of the toughest vital energy which ... took the side of all decadent instincts—not as being dominated by them but because it divined in (decadent instincts) a power by means of which one can prevail against ‘the world.’ [T]his kind of man has a life-interest in making mankind sick, and in inverting the concepts of ‘good’ and ‘evil,’ ‘true’ and ‘false’ in a mortally dangerous and world-maligning sense. (The Anti-Christ, sec. 24)

    Emphases are, of course, added.

    How the rabidly anti-Christian madman who would have “liked to kill all the German antisemites”, and Jews’ ass licker in the proper sense (his practice of ‘gay science’ with the Jew Paul Ree – the ‘philosopher’ who is the real inspiration of his ravings – was of public notoriety, which led to his split with Wagner) came to be dubbed an ‘antisemite’ beggars belief.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus

    How (Nietzsche) came to be dubbed an ‘antisemite’ beggars belief.
     
    Well, it may beggar your belief, but not mine (or, one assumes, others).

    Nietzsche is "anti-Christian" in exactly the same way he is "anti-Semitic". Both ends (and middle) of the Judeo-Christian spectrum misunderstand him in the same way. They think he's speaking to them, while he was speaking to fellow Hyperboreans from a vantage point that transcended both. That vantage point has long been lost to us, which is perhaps why Heidegger called him "the last great metaphysician of the West".

    Reading Nietzsche one is well advised to keep Wittgenstein's Ladder Metaphor in mind. The metaphor can be distilled to "He who finally understands me understands that I've been talking nonsense. He must throw away the ladder, so to speak, having climbed it".

    Once there, one sees as clearly as he did that the West, having killed the Judeo-Christian God(s), had better find a new Narrative quick or succumb to decadence, and eventually extinction. The Judaic end of the spectrum took due note, and promptly weaponized decadence to gain power over the other. The Western Christians offered no coherent response, and are now sliding towards extinction. Only the Orthodox, namely the Russians, successfully revived their God and are fighting a disciplined rear-guard action that has a decent chance of success, which may explain some of the denigration being heaped on them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. L.K says:
    @Alden
    You are wrong. By 1922 the British allowed the establishment of The Jewish Agrncy a branch of the British colonial government.

    Both Jews and Palestinians, the people involved who live in Israel consider the Balfour Declaration and the establishment of The Jewish Agency in 1922 the founding of the state of Israel. All those propaganda books written to glorify the founding of Israel claim the Balfour Declaration as the founding.

    Not all Americans are ignorant fools as you European pseudo intellectuals useful idiots seem to think.

    A lot of what you post is dead wrong. Get away from Wikepedia and get yourself to a good university library: to the books written before the Marxist take over of the university.

    Nope, he is absolutely correct.
    I would add to what Dykstra said, that neither had the UN any legal mandate to partition Palestine, giving 55% of it to a minority of Jewish immigrants and settlers.
    In fact, the proposal totally violated International law and the UN’s own charter!
    Several authors and researchers have exposed these myths concerning the creation of the zionist entity.
    Former BBC’s Panorama correspondent and author of several books on Zionism, Alan Hart stated:

    In my book and on public platforms I also take head-on the matter of Israel’s right or not to exist.

    According to first and still existing draft of history, Israel was given its birth certificate and thus legitimacy by the UN Partition Resolution of 29 November 1947. This is nonsense.

    - In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine did not have the right to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.
    - Despite that, by the narrowest of margins, and only after a rigged vote, the UN General Assembly did pass a resolution to partition Palestine and create two states, one Arab, one Jewish, with Jerusalem not part of either. But the General Assembly resolution was only a proposal – meaning that it could have no effect, would not become policy, unless approved by the Security Council.
    - The truth is that the General Assembly’s partition proposal never went to the Security Council for consideration. Why not? Because the US knew that, if approved, it could only be implemented by force; and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine.
    So the partition plan was vitiated, became invalid, and the question of what the hell to do about Palestine (after Britain had made a mess of it and walked away) was taken back to the General Assembly for more discussion. The option favoured and proposed by the US was temporary UN Trusteeship. It was while the General Assembly was debating what do that Israel unilaterally declared itself to be in existence – actually in defiance of the will of the organised international community, including the Truman administration.

    The truth of the time was that the Zionist state, which came into being mainly as a consequence of Zionism terrorism and ethnic cleansing, had no right to exist and, more to the point, could have no right to exist unless ….. Unless it was recognised and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during the creation of the Zionist state. In international law only the Palestinians could give Israel the legitimacy it craved. And that legitimacy was the only thing the Zionists could not take from the Palestinians by force.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    In a way you're right. But as a practical matter, the country was given to the Jews in 1922 by the British forcing Jewish immigration and the quasi governmental Jewish Agency allowed autonomous control of all Jews including the indegenous Mizrahi Jews whether they wanted rule by Russian immigrants or not.

    Certainly that's what both Israelis and Palestinians think about the founding of the Jewish state.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. L.K says:
    @anon
    An AIPAC official announced at the 2010 convention: “We’re going to make certain that pro-Israel students take over the student government. That is how AIPAC operates in our nation’s capitol. This is how AIPAC must operate on our nation’s campuses.”

    Say it on TV as a quote and you are done as an anti-Semite.

    Put it up on the billboard and see the backlash against the board itself, the road,the highway and the advertisers


    Now say this with alterations ( substituting Palestine fro Israel AIPAC ) in a meeting somewhere in a ME desert in a meeting attended by some some Palestinian leaders - sounding like a game plan for Palestinian , you will see it all over the news -FOX CNN WSJ and all the Posts from Washington to Ottawa to o Jerusalem followed by heavily emotional discussion on TV and in congress by people like Huckabee Graham Clinton Obama , Spencer, Bill Maher Thersha May and Macron about how Shariah law is being interceded in campuses and in districts and cities of Europe and USA.

    Video will be downloaded by SITE and delivered to CNN

    Oh yeah, SITE!
    Investigative journalist & author, C. Bollyn, has written many interesting articles on SITE.

    Why do ISIS Videos All come from Israeli Intelligence?
    The grisly ISIS videos, like the most recent one supposedly showing the killing of a Russian soldier, all come to us through Israeli agents working for Israeli intelligence. How can it be that the ISIS media outlet “al Furat Media Foundation” is able to produce high quality videos, but does not even have a website? Nor is ISIS even able to send its nasty videos directly to its chosen audience, in this case the Russian government or media outlets. Why is it that ISIS videos all come to us from Israeli intelligence?

    Let’s look at the most recent ISIS video and examine how it came to Western media outlets:

    First, the Israeli intelligence agent Rita Katz of SITE Intelligence Group in Bethesda, Maryland, issues a message with photos and information, like the one above. Western media outlets subscribe to her propaganda service and report on the videos giving source credit to SITE Intelligence Group, which is usually described as “U.S.-based” although there is nothing American about it. It is purely Israeli intelligence/progaganda to feed Israel’s fraudulent War on Terror. In this message Katz says the video comes from Furat Media – what’s that?

    If we look up “al Furat” in Wikipedia we find four media outlets named Furat, but none of them are “al Furat Media Foundation.” If we do a Google search for videos from al Furat Media, we find that all the videos supposedly from ISIS Furat Media don’t come from a website belonging to “al Furat” at all, but come to us from a website called Jihadology.net. What is that?

    … All of the Furat videos come from Jihadology.net. Who runs that?
    Well, Jihadology.net is run by a Jewish Zionist from Highland Park, Illinois, named Aaron Zelin. He works with Zionist think-tanks like the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and graduated from Brandeis University.

    Read it all @ http://bollyn.com/#article_15910

    Read More
    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. You sound like a sharia sympathizer. What kind of surname is “Weir” anyhow? I highly recommend changing it to “Warren” or “Ward” to better assimilate with the anglophone origins of the land.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Weir or Ver is a Norwegian name originally. It cane to England with the Norman conquest. She's a well known historian of English medieval and Renaissance history. Her books are biographies of both well known and obscure British royals, mostly women.
    She's written around 35 books. I've read about 10 of them.

    I don't know how she she got interested in Israel vs Palestine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. mcohen says:

    Alison weir used to post on mondoweiss.she was popular.then a little problem with whom she associated with arose and she was sent on her way.
    Annie robbins of mondoweiss is well aware of the conundrum
    Perhaps she could shed some light

    Annie can you hear me.its “mcohen” you remember me .could you………..shed some light

    Ps ron unz is a supporter of mondoweiss

    Read More
    • Replies: @alexander
    I believe Alison Weir was ostracized by the JVP community because she elected to give a presentation of the lesser known facts (as to the history of Israel ) on a "radio show "reputed to be owned and operated by the KKK.

    I cannot say what is or is not true about any of this, only that Ms. Weir took a thumping for it and had to write an open letter justifying her actions.

    Given, today, the ability of those in power to underwrite legislation which effectively erases all distinction between criticism of Israel's actions as a "state".... and "antisemitism".....it may not be long before anyone who gives a presentation such as Ms.Weir's,( anywhere in our country), will be greeted with handcuffs and prison time, once their presentation is done.

    In fact,it may not be long before "Acknowledging the Nakba" in the USA , is the corresponding " criminal equivalent" of "Denying the Holocaust" in post WWII Germany.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Alden says:
    @L.K
    Nope, he is absolutely correct.
    I would add to what Dykstra said, that neither had the UN any legal mandate to partition Palestine, giving 55% of it to a minority of Jewish immigrants and settlers.
    In fact, the proposal totally violated International law and the UN's own charter!
    Several authors and researchers have exposed these myths concerning the creation of the zionist entity.
    Former BBC’s Panorama correspondent and author of several books on Zionism, Alan Hart stated:


    In my book and on public platforms I also take head-on the matter of Israel’s right or not to exist.

    According to first and still existing draft of history, Israel was given its birth certificate and thus legitimacy by the UN Partition Resolution of 29 November 1947. This is nonsense.

    - In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine did not have the right to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.
    - Despite that, by the narrowest of margins, and only after a rigged vote, the UN General Assembly did pass a resolution to partition Palestine and create two states, one Arab, one Jewish, with Jerusalem not part of either. But the General Assembly resolution was only a proposal – meaning that it could have no effect, would not become policy, unless approved by the Security Council.
    - The truth is that the General Assembly’s partition proposal never went to the Security Council for consideration. Why not? Because the US knew that, if approved, it could only be implemented by force; and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine.
    So the partition plan was vitiated, became invalid, and the question of what the hell to do about Palestine (after Britain had made a mess of it and walked away) was taken back to the General Assembly for more discussion. The option favoured and proposed by the US was temporary UN Trusteeship. It was while the General Assembly was debating what do that Israel unilaterally declared itself to be in existence – actually in defiance of the will of the organised international community, including the Truman administration.


    The truth of the time was that the Zionist state, which came into being mainly as a consequence of Zionism terrorism and ethnic cleansing, had no right to exist and, more to the point, could have no right to exist unless ….. Unless it was recognised and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during the creation of the Zionist state. In international law only the Palestinians could give Israel the legitimacy it craved. And that legitimacy was the only thing the Zionists could not take from the Palestinians by force.
     

    In a way you’re right. But as a practical matter, the country was given to the Jews in 1922 by the British forcing Jewish immigration and the quasi governmental Jewish Agency allowed autonomous control of all Jews including the indegenous Mizrahi Jews whether they wanted rule by Russian immigrants or not.

    Certainly that’s what both Israelis and Palestinians think about the founding of the Jewish state.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Junior

    Certainly that’s what both Israelis and Palestinians think about the founding of the Jewish state.
     
    Rothschild says the same in this interview with him a few months ago in which he openly discusses that his family created Israel. I've posted the video below.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj5eypBex-U

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Erebus says:
    @Seraphim
    How the rabidly anti-Christian madman who would have "liked to kill all the German antisemites", and Jews' ass licker in the proper sense (his practice of 'gay science' with the Jew Paul Ree - the 'philosopher' who is the real inspiration of his ravings - was of public notoriety, which led to his split with Wagner) came to be dubbed an 'antisemite' beggars belief.

    How (Nietzsche) came to be dubbed an ‘antisemite’ beggars belief.

    Well, it may beggar your belief, but not mine (or, one assumes, others).

    Nietzsche is “anti-Christian” in exactly the same way he is “anti-Semitic”. Both ends (and middle) of the Judeo-Christian spectrum misunderstand him in the same way. They think he’s speaking to them, while he was speaking to fellow Hyperboreans from a vantage point that transcended both. That vantage point has long been lost to us, which is perhaps why Heidegger called him “the last great metaphysician of the West”.

    Reading Nietzsche one is well advised to keep Wittgenstein’s Ladder Metaphor in mind. The metaphor can be distilled to “He who finally understands me understands that I’ve been talking nonsense. He must throw away the ladder, so to speak, having climbed it”.

    Once there, one sees as clearly as he did that the West, having killed the Judeo-Christian God(s), had better find a new Narrative quick or succumb to decadence, and eventually extinction. The Judaic end of the spectrum took due note, and promptly weaponized decadence to gain power over the other. The Western Christians offered no coherent response, and are now sliding towards extinction. Only the Orthodox, namely the Russians, successfully revived their God and are fighting a disciplined rear-guard action that has a decent chance of success, which may explain some of the denigration being heaped on them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    That's a bit of a contrived explanation. Like all Heidegger's foggy shallow profundities.
    The Orthodox did not have to 'revive their God', because they never killed him (we know who believed they killed him, that end of the spectrum). They did not throw away the 'Ladder of Divine Ascent' of Saint John of the Ladder (Climacus), which many Russian saints continued to climb to these days to meet the Living God. They have nothing to do with the fanciful 'Hyperboreans'.
    Nietzsche was not the last metaphysician, he was no metaphysician at all. He was a Nihilist and a madman at that.
    , @SolontoCroesus

    Once there, one sees as clearly as he did that the West, having killed the Judeo-Christian God(s), had better find a new Narrative quick or succumb to decadence, and eventually extinction. The Judaic end of the spectrum took due note, and promptly weaponized decadence to gain power over the other. The Western Christians offered no coherent response, and are now sliding towards extinction. Only the Orthodox, namely the Russians, successfully revived their God and are fighting a disciplined rear-guard action that has a decent chance of success, which may explain some of the denigration being heaped on them.
     
    "Judeo-Christian" is a contradiction in terms.
    It gained traction post-WWII, when Jews began to dominate US institutions.

    Trump's speech in Saudi Arabia that called for unity among the "Abrahamic" traditions was/is insidious: it normalizes the notion that the concept of god originated with Jews, that is, Jews own god; Jews speak for god, Jews are the chosen people of god; Jews are the moral leaders of all mankind, chosen by god to lead all people 'kicking and screaming' to live ethically.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV2COCsedCw

    This notion, of Abraham as the origin of "god", is deeply antithetical to the foundations of the United States: the Declaration of Independence broadened the concept of god, grounding the notion in "the Creator" and in "nature's god" rather than in the particularist definitions and dogmas of a specific sect or group or set of myths.

    The rights of free men and women everywhere do not find their defense in the tenets of the god of Abraham or of his chosen people, but in the very stuff of existence:


    http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/


    When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
     

    , @Veritatis
    You give Nietzsche too much credit. His unsystematic writings had the charm of novelty, especially since coupled with a categorical and irreverent tone. He has been interpreted in different ways, but coherent he was certainly not. However, today nihilism and skepticism are more comfortable positions for many than sustaining the tradition of virtues (classic or Christian). At the individual level, this is nothing new, the difference is that today it is precisely the opinion leaders that promote nihilism and skepticism.

    Those leaders also promote anti-Christianity, and with this idea in mind, Walter Kaufmann, a german émigré after WWII could come to Princenton to translate (indeed soften) and popularize Nietzsche in the cultural bulldozer which is the US academia. Kaufmann in fact rescued Nietzsche from the dustbin of ideas. And the "fruits" of nietzschean thought are rather sad: Derrida, Deleuze, Foucault et al, and need plenty of propping by the establishment to be read (if that really occurs).

    The idea of "Western Christians" offering no 'coherent defense' I find unclear. The Catholic Church, for example, is based on the teachings of Christ, on the whole of the Bible, on a 2000 year old tradition of systematic thinkers and on the Catechism. A way of understanding Creation, and man, as coherent as they come. Whoever chooses to live as Christian in a community, meaning the Church, is being coherent. But being a Christian is voluntary, as we are endowed with free will. The number of practicing Christians has gone down, true. But perhaps a smaller Church is a truer Church, and certainly not the same as "on the road to extinction". Being 'salt of the earth' is distinct from being earth itself.

    Nietzsche is long dead, but God is not. What we shall soon find out is whether Europe can not be Christian, and continue to be called Europe.

    , @Sam Shama
    A fascinating discussion and I enjoyed every word you wrote on this thread. Nietzsche in my book was all that you summed him up for; the last metaphysician, brilliant stylist and, as I like to think, a contrarian for its own sake, or rather, simply the deliberate "madman" who curated proposals he then elbowed to get a reaction from those he considered weak-kneed or dull. He was more; equally anti-Christian and anti-Semitic; certainly a happy-misogynist (set of such things being narrow) which prompted a sharp reprimand from Russell.

    So I feel I am on firm ground to declare both love and hate for him. Well, hate goes too far I suppose, annoyed, being more appropriate for his antisemitism. And naturally not non-plussed to see my Christian brethren upbraid the man for his anti-Christianity. Yet both sides would be unsound at a slightly deeper level. As you correctly establish, Nietzsche predicted Nihilism and lamented its coming.

    A small matter. I wonder if you'd care to elaborate on the notion that the Judaic end of the spectrum took due note and "promptly weaponized decadence" to suit its ends :-))

    Cheers

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Alden says:
    @John Murray
    You sound like a sharia sympathizer. What kind of surname is "Weir" anyhow? I highly recommend changing it to "Warren" or "Ward" to better assimilate with the anglophone origins of the land.

    Weir or Ver is a Norwegian name originally. It cane to England with the Norman conquest. She’s a well known historian of English medieval and Renaissance history. Her books are biographies of both well known and obscure British royals, mostly women.
    She’s written around 35 books. I’ve read about 10 of them.

    I don’t know how she she got interested in Israel vs Palestine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RobinG
    That is a different Alison Weir. (There are photos of both online.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Erebus

    Such a cynical manipulation of nation states by another state & a particular ethnic/cultural group (often working against the interests of their own citizens/nations) seems perfectly adapted to generating hate & fear in the recipients...
     

    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor... rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague."

    Marcus Tullius Cicero

    Are these people totally oblivious to the history of what happens to traitors when they are found out? No, they know it well enough. They call it "Jewish suffering", and hope thereby to press prior treasons into service against those they're undermining today.

    They are closer to success than ever before, but I fear it will not end well.

    The Jewish relationship to gentiles is a form of symbiosis:

    Symbiosis (from Greek συμβίωσις “living together”, from σύν “together” and βίωσις “living”)[2] is any type of a close and long-term biological interaction between two different species, be it mutualistic, commensalistic, or parasitic. In 1879, Heinrich Anton de Bary defined it as “the living together of unlike organisms.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis

    Jewish leaders advertise their symbiotic relationship with gentiles as being commensalistic or mutualistic, but in reality the relationship is parasitic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Z-man

    Jewish leaders advertise their symbiotic relationship with gentiles as being commensalistic or mutualistic, but in reality the relationship is parasitic.
     
    Bares repeating.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. RobinG says:
    @Alden
    Weir or Ver is a Norwegian name originally. It cane to England with the Norman conquest. She's a well known historian of English medieval and Renaissance history. Her books are biographies of both well known and obscure British royals, mostly women.
    She's written around 35 books. I've read about 10 of them.

    I don't know how she she got interested in Israel vs Palestine.

    That is a different Alison Weir. (There are photos of both online.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Really?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Ms. Weir has done a lot of tremendous work but she’s fallen into a trap. Anti-Semitism is not ‘abhorrent’. Ridiculous. ‘Anti-Semitism’ is a sometimes-necessary cultural defense-mechanism. It is therefore a misnamed virtue.

    Unfortunately, Ms Weir has learned to conflate well-earned distrust, disdain and disgust for Jewish wrongdoing with indiscriminate violence directed towards Jewish women and babies.

    This weaponized fallacy (‘anti-Semitism’) is used to silence criticism, stifle resistance, and gut Free Speech. Has Weir really fallen for it–or is she just paying homage to Jewish power?

    It’s also possible that Ms. Weir has attended one-too-many Jewish-lead workshops on ‘eradicating racism’ or ‘How to Achieve Mideast Peace’ (without upsetting Israel). Maybe she needs a vacation.

    In any case, Weir expends too much energy trying to prove to her tormentors that she ‘doesn’t hate Jews’, even though their actions have produced harm, dislocation, ruin and suffering; deplorable things all.

    Fact: Jews are not underdogs. Jews are not victims. Jews are not outsiders.

    Fact: Jews are powerful. Jews are aggressive. Jews dominate our political and cultural world. They are the new insiders. And they’re not stepping down.

    The German National Socialists had a brief rein in one section of Europe. But they paid the ultimate price. For all their infamy, the NSDP footprint was small and short-lived. And their war crimes were committed as Allied bombs were falling on German cities and killing German women and German babies.

    Today’s Jews on the other hand remain intrusive, global and often lethal. Yet they are not under attack. They function as a top predator with a global niche.

    But don’t say anything mean about them! It against the law and it shows racial bias!

    Indeed, if they get their way, this tribe of downtrodden geniuses will soon be above reproach–even in conversation. That’s chutzpah. So Allison Weir deserves a lot of credit for detailing their diabolical plans to control speech and thought worldwide.

    Worse still, these clever internationalists have demonstrated that they have the savvy to maneuver NATO and Washington into doing Israel’s political dirty work. Quite clever. Quite evil.

    This may explain why there will be no apologies for the destruction of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon or Palestine. Or America’s woeful decline into unsought multi-culturalism and needless militarism. G-d’s Chosen People must always be protected.

    As for ‘anti-Semitism’, even the lexicon is a fraud. ‘Anti-Semitism’ starts with a lie since its core animus concerns Jews, not Semites. Why the rhetorical sleight-of-hand? Jews don’t want to invoke the J-word in this context as it might bring Jewish beliefs and Jewish malfeasance down to earth and into the conversation where they belong.

    Conceptual ‘anti-Semitism’ is therefore designed to keep the discussion of Jewish wrongdoing off the table. And it works. At the same time, this Holocaust-drenched term injects loaded and manipulative imagery into the brain of every listener. Its mission is to suggest that the accused (‘anti-Semite’) suffers either from a psychological disorder or just plain bad character. A little red light goes off in the brain: it’s genocide!

    And wouldn’t you know it, the all-kosher paradigm of ‘anti-Semitism’ was cooked up in part by none other than Sigmund Freud and the infamous Frankfurt School. Oy vey.

    But anti-Semitism is merely antipathy towards Jews. Nothing more. And sometimes a little antipathy is a very good thing. Indeed, sometimes ‘anti-Semitism’ is richly-deserved and sorely needed. Perhaps its emergence will save humanity from WWIII.

    With the hopeful emergence of the next strain of ‘virulent anti-Semitism’, it’s just possible that Israel’s next war of aggression in the Middle East will be thwarted by ‘anti-Semites’ demanding justice, non-aggression, and the rule of law.

    Read More
    • Agree: Z-man, L.K, anarchyst
    • Replies: @L.K
    Excellent post, Mark!
    , @mcohen
    Mark green

    Alison weir got into trouble associating with bullshit much like you have posted.
    The green hurry curry gives you away.
    , @Sam Shama
    For me, this post does not deserve a lengthy reply, only hearty laughter, followed by relief. Laughter, to behold its struggle to dress a plainly commonplace bigotry into something deeper; and relief, to witness the unmasking of small men who constantly remind us that anti-Zionism is distinct from Jew hatred.

    Naturally felicitated by the usual cretins and reptiles, it requires no other argument for summary dismissal, other than to note in passing the pseudo-concern to guard humanity.

    Guarding your own fundaments against possible 'green hurry curry' as mcohen funnily puts it, is more like it.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @JoaoAlfaiate
    Article Two of the Palestine Mandate reads: "The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."

    Note that nothing is said about the political rights of the indigenous people to establish "self-governing institutions". Consistent with the Balfour Declaration, the Zionists and the British Gov't denied the Palestinians self determination and wound up imposing a host of unwanted immigrants on them by force.

    The Zionist view was that the only political rights they were willing to grant the native population were those the Arabs "enjoyed" as subjects under the Ottoman rule.

    All these details just confuse what happened.
    Zionism began when colonialism still was seen as civilising the world.

    Herzl never asked the Palestinian people anything, he visited the Russian minister Von Plehve, he visited the Ottoman sultan.

    Zionists never realised that when they by force realised their colonial objectives, more than colonial, because they ethnically cleansed Palestine, the world had changed.
    Colonialism was out.

    And zionists, victims of their own propaganda, never realised that Palestinians did exist, were a people, still are a people.
    I suppose they thought that the great and cruel population exchanges in SE Europe, including present Turkey, from 1912 to 1925, could be repeated.

    The great zionist mistake of 1948 was not to exterminate the Palestinians, at the time it still was possible, there were less than a million Palestinians, jews still had the sympathy of the world, video cameras and satellite connections did not exist.

    The Palestinian population explosion was made by zionism, they marry at fifteen, just married men with children are allowed to work in Israel, just families get UN food aid.
    So now there are four of five million Palestinians, who politically are more and more important, at the same time Israel is condemned by nearly the whole world.

    Part of the Deep State resistance to Trump is fear that Israel loses its preferred situation as a fixed aircraft carrier of the USA in the ME.
    If, IF, Trump’s visit to NATO again seems to confirm it, USA has normal relation with Russia, Isrrael loses its strategical value.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Z-man

    Part of the Deep State resistance to Trump is fear that Israel loses its preferred situation as a fixed aircraft carrier of the USA in the ME.
     
    Funny thing the USA has never really used the Zionist State as an 'aircraft carrier' in fact it's gone out of it's way to avoid using it, as not to offend it's Arab friends.
    But you're right on, on the conclusions you make.
    , @L.K
    Some comments;

    J.D: 'I suppose they thought that the great and cruel population exchanges in SE Europe, including present Turkey, from 1912 to 1925, could be repeated.'

    I suppose. Besides, the brutal ethnic cleansing of some 14 million Germans from their ancestral homelands in Central and Eastern Europe had been going on since the end of WW2 and continued until 1950. None of that changes anything re the illegality of it all.

    J.D: 'The great zionist mistake of 1948 was not to exterminate the Palestinians'

    I think the zionists did the best they could, their efforts at expelling as many Palestinians as possible are very well documented by now.
    It must me said that at the time of the creation of the illegal zionist entity, the Palestinians were still the absolute majority, at nearly 70%.
    It's possible that the facts you mention may have helped increase the indigenous population over time, but I think it was mostly due to their birth rates & improvements in medicine since then and this all over the world. Of course, in Europe, Japan, etc, population declined/stagnated due to ever lower birth rates.

    J.D: "Part of the Deep State resistance to Trump is fear that Israel loses its preferred situation as a fixed aircraft carrier of the USA in the ME.
    If, IF, Trump’s visit to NATO again seems to confirm it, USA has normal relation with Russia, Isrrael loses its strategical value."

    The Deep State clearly wants Trumps head, they may feel he is unpredictable, though, to be sure, he has been doing all he promised NOT to do in his campaign... what was that in Zaudi Barbaria, eh?
    Re NATO, I think my conclusion, unfortunately, is the opposite of yours. The notion of NATO joining the fighting on 'isis' is merely an excuse to try to carve up Syria. This will put ZUSA/NATO on collision course with Syria and its allies, Russia and Iran.
    It must also be said that Israel has ZERO strategic value to the US, it is actually a liability.
    As far as fixed air carriers go, ZUSA has plenty of bases in the various M.E client regimes, no real need for Israel.
    , @JoaoAlfaiate
    From JD: "And zionists, victims of their own propaganda, never realised that Palestinians did exist, were a people, still are a people."

    Not correct. Although that's what apologists for the Zionist enterprise claim today, it was not always so. Parts of Jabotinsky's "Iron Wall" speech are well known, but not this:

    " ...this does not mean that there cannot be any agreement with the Palestine Arabs. What is impossible is a voluntary agreement. As long as the Arabs feel that there is the least hope of getting rid of us, they will refuse to give up this hope in return for either kind words or for bread and butter, because they are not a rabble, but a living people. "
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. alexander says:
    @mcohen
    Alison weir used to post on mondoweiss.she was popular.then a little problem with whom she associated with arose and she was sent on her way.
    Annie robbins of mondoweiss is well aware of the conundrum
    Perhaps she could shed some light

    Annie can you hear me.its "mcohen" you remember me .could you...........shed some light

    Ps ron unz is a supporter of mondoweiss

    I believe Alison Weir was ostracized by the JVP community because she elected to give a presentation of the lesser known facts (as to the history of Israel ) on a “radio show “reputed to be owned and operated by the KKK.

    I cannot say what is or is not true about any of this, only that Ms. Weir took a thumping for it and had to write an open letter justifying her actions.

    Given, today, the ability of those in power to underwrite legislation which effectively erases all distinction between criticism of Israel’s actions as a “state”…. and “antisemitism”…..it may not be long before anyone who gives a presentation such as Ms.Weir’s,( anywhere in our country), will be greeted with handcuffs and prison time, once their presentation is done.

    In fact,it may not be long before “Acknowledging the Nakba” in the USA , is the corresponding ” criminal equivalent” of “Denying the Holocaust” in post WWII Germany.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Seraphim says:
    @Erebus

    How (Nietzsche) came to be dubbed an ‘antisemite’ beggars belief.
     
    Well, it may beggar your belief, but not mine (or, one assumes, others).

    Nietzsche is "anti-Christian" in exactly the same way he is "anti-Semitic". Both ends (and middle) of the Judeo-Christian spectrum misunderstand him in the same way. They think he's speaking to them, while he was speaking to fellow Hyperboreans from a vantage point that transcended both. That vantage point has long been lost to us, which is perhaps why Heidegger called him "the last great metaphysician of the West".

    Reading Nietzsche one is well advised to keep Wittgenstein's Ladder Metaphor in mind. The metaphor can be distilled to "He who finally understands me understands that I've been talking nonsense. He must throw away the ladder, so to speak, having climbed it".

    Once there, one sees as clearly as he did that the West, having killed the Judeo-Christian God(s), had better find a new Narrative quick or succumb to decadence, and eventually extinction. The Judaic end of the spectrum took due note, and promptly weaponized decadence to gain power over the other. The Western Christians offered no coherent response, and are now sliding towards extinction. Only the Orthodox, namely the Russians, successfully revived their God and are fighting a disciplined rear-guard action that has a decent chance of success, which may explain some of the denigration being heaped on them.

    That’s a bit of a contrived explanation. Like all Heidegger’s foggy shallow profundities.
    The Orthodox did not have to ‘revive their God’, because they never killed him (we know who believed they killed him, that end of the spectrum). They did not throw away the ‘Ladder of Divine Ascent’ of Saint John of the Ladder (Climacus), which many Russian saints continued to climb to these days to meet the Living God. They have nothing to do with the fanciful ‘Hyperboreans’.
    Nietzsche was not the last metaphysician, he was no metaphysician at all. He was a Nihilist and a madman at that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus
    Hmmm... having read your response I'm getting the same embarrassed feeling I imagine I'd get walking in on somebody performing an auto-erotic act.
    So, I apologize for the interruption, and hope you weren't thinking of me (or my posts). Carry on.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Erebus says:
    @Seraphim
    That's a bit of a contrived explanation. Like all Heidegger's foggy shallow profundities.
    The Orthodox did not have to 'revive their God', because they never killed him (we know who believed they killed him, that end of the spectrum). They did not throw away the 'Ladder of Divine Ascent' of Saint John of the Ladder (Climacus), which many Russian saints continued to climb to these days to meet the Living God. They have nothing to do with the fanciful 'Hyperboreans'.
    Nietzsche was not the last metaphysician, he was no metaphysician at all. He was a Nihilist and a madman at that.

    Hmmm… having read your response I’m getting the same embarrassed feeling I imagine I’d get walking in on somebody performing an auto-erotic act.
    So, I apologize for the interruption, and hope you weren’t thinking of me (or my posts). Carry on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    Are you passing by a mirror?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Seraphim says:
    @Erebus
    Hmmm... having read your response I'm getting the same embarrassed feeling I imagine I'd get walking in on somebody performing an auto-erotic act.
    So, I apologize for the interruption, and hope you weren't thinking of me (or my posts). Carry on.

    Are you passing by a mirror?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. iffen says:
    @Incitatus
    Please specify exactly how “Anti-Semites brought this upon themselves” iffen. Detailed history please.

    After all, we’re talking about curtailment of constitutional free speech rights, as unpleasant as they might be at times. Precedent?

    Love to know.

    Please specify exactly how “Anti-Semites brought this upon themselves” iffen. Detailed history please.

    After all, we’re talking about curtailment of constitutional free speech rights

    My comment was not meant in support of efforts in the US to enact restrictions on free speech through the administrative bureaucracy. I am thankful for the 2nd amendment. God Bless James Madison! The Europeans are on their own, although I understand that WWII was fought there and the fascists took over several countries, so perhaps that is a mitigating circumstance for Europeans. Even though I think liberal democracy is failing and free speech will disappear, I will cling to it and support it until Armageddon, at which time, no rules will apply.

    I am short on facts and details at the moment and will have to rely upon opinion and assertion. I am fully aware that this sets me apart from some of the better commenters here, but it puts me firmly within the overwhelming majority.

    Anti-Semitism has changed and will change over time. The medieval variety was quite different from the late 19th century and early 20th century variety. About the only thing that they had in common was the target. The same applies today. Although, when your planet Germania inhabitants are weaving their web of delusions, omissions, lies, half-truths, obfuscations, red herrings and selective use of historical facts, they don’t throw that first strand into the wind to chance, but rather project it at AH with a force and accuracy that would intimidate Lithobates catesbeianus. That said, the anti-Semitism of 2017 is not the anti-Semitism of 1927. One defining premise of today’s is Holocaust denial, which of course did not exist in 1927, but rather was a product of 1927’s variety.

    Much of the criticism of Israel derives from anti-Semitism. The criticism is unique to Israel and most of the critics don’t even fake trying to use the same criteria when evaluating Israel as when evaluating other countries. If you think that Israel does not have a right to exist because it was founded by and for Jews; that is anti-Semitic, unless you apply the same criteria to all other countries, and I haven’t seen anyone doing that.

    I am not saying that criticizing Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians makes one an anti-Semite. I’m saying that if you only get hand-wringey about the Palestinians, you stand a good chance of being one. One can make a complaint about 2nd class citizenship for Palestinians, but what about the hundreds of other examples of 2nd class citizenship (or worse) for many hundreds of different peoples around the world. Sam seems to be reliable and he has first-hand knowledge of the conditions in Israel. From what he has relayed, I think that if I had to be a 2nd class citizen, I would give Israel serious consideration.

    Criticism of Israel is the tip of the iceberg of anti-Semitism. One just needs to make sure you are an ice cube when you do your criticizing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Hi Iffen,
    As I started reading this post, I said to myself "this is precisely what I think". The same thought kept crossing my mind at every step. I consider this post a truly valuable contribution. I know that you, like Incitatus, could not hold in any higher a regard, the right to free speech than you already do, making it an almost impossible task, as to how a treacherously dangerous idea can be effectively gainsaid without trampling on the 2nd Amendment. On balance, I'd err heavily in favour of free speech. But the conundrum, more aptly, the lurking danger, remains.

    Anyone with any desire to gather the facts can do so relatively easily. But that is not the introspective objective of the crowd which wishes a resurrection, or should one say the re-awakening, of a dormant virus which has inflicted untold trauma on the world. Europeans know this better than anyone, the basic reason why their leadership takes a position American politicians would be hard pressed to assume.

    A basic start on the subject is available here: http://www.myjewishlearning.com/category/study/jewish-history/anti-semitism-bigotry/

    Anyway, I shan't write a great deal more for fear of inviting the indiscriminate spraying of excrement, particularly from the lesser reptiles of Germania. For those elements, a public tongue lashing will not do the needful; thus more robust methods are called for.

    The living conditions of Israeli Arabs today, are no different than those enjoyed by Israeli Jews in various income brackets. Which, when one thinks about it, is a no-nonsense indicator of the nation's ability to live quite harmoniously with Arabs. Life for Palestinians is difficult when viewed through the lens of first world standards to be sure, but it isn't the vestibule nor the nine circles of hell it is painted to be in this piece. I should greatly prefer Palestinians run their own lives, in their own state; the IDF out of WB; commerce and culture exchanged freely over suicide bombs and airstrikes. I have a far deeper friendship, experience, and connection with Israeli Arabs than I care to list, certainly much more I suspect, than any of the nitwits who fancy themselves modern Robins. They do no kindness to ordinary Arabs, but only lend succour to a leadership whose chief motive is to grow their bank accounts in Paris.

    To conclude, what Israel cannot afford to do is allow the emergence of a state which in its very charter writes as its central objective the annihilation of the Jewish state. Viewed from the longer arc of history, the notion is eminently realistic even as the Jewish state holds much greater power today. Existence, thou art ephemeral; and looking after her longer survival requires vigilance. Call that Jewish paranoia if you must, but I'd rather be paranoid than six feet under.

    , @annamaria
    Is it "crude antisemitism" to notice that certain congresspeople have a dual, US-Israel citizenship?
    "Why You Should Definitely Keep Talking About Seth Rich:"
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-assassination-of-seth-rich-the-dnc-emails-and-the-russia-probe/5591852
    , @Incitatus
    Hi Iffen and Sam. Sorry for the delay.

    ‘Hate crime’ and anti-discrimination statutes address laudable concerns. But elaborating law to highlight narrow malice seems unnecessary if existing law is scrupulously enforced. Is a murderer more guilty if racially motivated? Isn’t the important thing apprehension, trial and conviction for the physical crime?

    Where such concern strays into proscribing free speech, count me out. Why?
    • Criminalizing speech is a bureaucratic nightmare, a passport to thought crime and all the rest;
    • Where law is neither universal nor simple, enforcement is apt arbitrary and capricious - police are, after all, human;
    • A cumulative babel of special laws signals cultural decay. Tacitus had it right: “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”

    Don’t agree with Europeans. No sympathy for Ursula Haverbeck. Defiant, incendiary radicalism isn’t new in Germany. Standing in 20C ruins licenses them the right to determine and apply their own laws.

    Do such laws merely produce martyrs and drive belief underground to metastasize here? Is it better to expose all belief to rigorous public scrutiny and debate?

    “...the anti-Semitism of 2017 is not the anti-Semitism of 1927. One defining premise of today’s is Holocaust denial...”

    Is it really so different? Isn’t Holocaust denial another version of blood liable, Christ killer, Versailles traitor, ‘Protocols of the Elders...’ and so on? Granted, Israel’s existence adds a new dimension, but the target (Jews) remains the same.

    It’s not how anti-Semitism has changed, but how to deal with it. In an age that expands every day with new media and modes. Drive it underground, or expose it to full ridicule? I’d bet on the latter.

    Israel versus Palestinian is a favorite meme for some who simply hate all Jews and condemn them as a sinister conspiracy. ‘Christ killer’ becomes ‘Palestinian killer.’ They eagerly reshuffle human history as an indictment. Palestinians usually appear as the latest victim of the conspiracy, minus suggestions of how to improve their lot. QED get rid of evil Israel and all will be well.

    Make no mistake. Israeli extremists merit equal scrutiny. Bennett’s “Palestinian question” mimics the Nazi “Judenfrage.” Shorthand (wink, wink) dehumanization. Justice Minister Shaked’s Palestinian ‘snakes’? The abysmal indictment/prosecution/conviction rate of crimes against non-Jews? All is discussed inside Israel, little makes it to the US. Why?

    “I am not saying that criticizing Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians makes one an anti-Semite...”

    Don’t laws contemplated seem tailor made for such abuse? Would people like Max Blumenthal be jailed?

    “The criticism is unique to Israel...”

    Remember the 2002-03 smear campaign against France intended to extort a UNSC vote for war?Andy Rooney on 60 Minutes, “Old Europe”, condemnatory editorials and op-eds, screeds like ‘Our Oldest Enemy,’ “Axis of Weasels”, “Cheese-eating Surrender Monkeys”, ‘freedom fries’, boycotts, Bill O’Reilly’s bumper stickers, dumping wine in the streets, accusations of deep corruption in the Oil-for-Food program, accusations of cowardice and giving EU passports to Saddam?

    Imagine Israel subject of such a campaign and boycott. “Unique criticism”? Bullshit!

    First closing. Last time in KSA. New Saudi sponsor (nice enough fellow) met me at Riyadh airport with a copy of the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion...” as a thoughtful landing gift. Ever read it? No more foul, outright boring screed exists. Two pages are enough to signal cretinous onslaught, immediate need for prompt disengagement and a shower. Never read the rest of it. Henry Ford’s a genius, but in this respect pure moron. Reminded me of discovering an Oxonian friend (no offense Sam) seriously equated the Irish with monkeys. Such bias is as disfiguring as the most repelling corporeal defect.

    Bear in mind - Israel’s new best friend is KSA (world-class beheader).

    Final closing. You may not like this. Chabad Chevra, Hartford CT. Wealthy donor buys a manor house in a posh residential neighborhood adjoining the University of Hartford. Baptists and RCs - previous owners - used it exclusively as a retreat (residence). Chabad operates an active house of worship and student center, boh prohibited by zoning code. Neighbors (disrupted by 24-hr lights and increased Saturday activity) object. The case rises to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Sworn facts emerge in lengthy testimony (none acrimonious). The HZBA unanimously (5-0) rules Chabad’s activity illegal. Three of five HZBA commissioners are Jewish attorneys.

    Justice? Didn’t end the case. Chabad’s attorney immediately appealed to a tame Fairfield judge, who obligingly overturned Hartford resident ZBA’s ruling on the basis - you guessed it -anti-Semitism!

    https://crownheights.info/chabad-news/41087/judge-slaps-city-for-anti-semitism-agianst-chabad/

    Ruling “...the city of Hartford cannot use its zoning rules to prevent a sect of Orthodox Jews from using a former church as their place of worship.” Reality. It was NEVER a “church” or “place of worship” (Baptist and RCs had separate churches). Firmly established by HZBA testimony.

    Result? Neighbors exit the area, selling their houses at a loss.

    Anti-Semitism? Pretend I’m a neighbor (I’m not) forced to sell my house at a loss to escape unzoned evangelical activity while labeled an anti-Semite. How should I feel? How should anti-Semitic HZBA commissioners feel? Thoughts?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. iffen says:
    @Incitatus
    Please specify exactly how “Anti-Semites brought this upon themselves” iffen. Detailed history please.

    After all, we’re talking about curtailment of constitutional free speech rights, as unpleasant as they might be at times. Precedent?

    Love to know.

    My comments are spam now, I.

    I can’t get my reply to you.

    Moral victory for me.

    Feels good man!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Z-man says:
    @Joe Franklin
    The Jewish relationship to gentiles is a form of symbiosis:

    Symbiosis (from Greek συμβίωσις "living together", from σύν "together" and βίωσις "living")[2] is any type of a close and long-term biological interaction between two different species, be it mutualistic, commensalistic, or parasitic. In 1879, Heinrich Anton de Bary defined it as "the living together of unlike organisms."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis


    Jewish leaders advertise their symbiotic relationship with gentiles as being commensalistic or mutualistic, but in reality the relationship is parasitic.

    Jewish leaders advertise their symbiotic relationship with gentiles as being commensalistic or mutualistic, but in reality the relationship is parasitic.

    Bares repeating.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Z-man says:
    @jilles dykstra
    All these details just confuse what happened.
    Zionism began when colonialism still was seen as civilising the world.

    Herzl never asked the Palestinian people anything, he visited the Russian minister Von Plehve, he visited the Ottoman sultan.

    Zionists never realised that when they by force realised their colonial objectives, more than colonial, because they ethnically cleansed Palestine, the world had changed.
    Colonialism was out.

    And zionists, victims of their own propaganda, never realised that Palestinians did exist, were a people, still are a people.
    I suppose they thought that the great and cruel population exchanges in SE Europe, including present Turkey, from 1912 to 1925, could be repeated.

    The great zionist mistake of 1948 was not to exterminate the Palestinians, at the time it still was possible, there were less than a million Palestinians, jews still had the sympathy of the world, video cameras and satellite connections did not exist.

    The Palestinian population explosion was made by zionism, they marry at fifteen, just married men with children are allowed to work in Israel, just families get UN food aid.
    So now there are four of five million Palestinians, who politically are more and more important, at the same time Israel is condemned by nearly the whole world.

    Part of the Deep State resistance to Trump is fear that Israel loses its preferred situation as a fixed aircraft carrier of the USA in the ME.
    If, IF, Trump's visit to NATO again seems to confirm it, USA has normal relation with Russia, Isrrael loses its strategical value.

    Part of the Deep State resistance to Trump is fear that Israel loses its preferred situation as a fixed aircraft carrier of the USA in the ME.

    Funny thing the USA has never really used the Zionist State as an ‘aircraft carrier’ in fact it’s gone out of it’s way to avoid using it, as not to offend it’s Arab friends.
    But you’re right on, on the conclusions you make.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Agent76 says:

    Apr 25, 2017 How the BDS Movement Plans to Destroy Israel

    The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement says it’s fighting for Palestinian rights, but it’s really just trying to destroy Israel. Jonathan Sacks, author and former Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, explains how.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    Are you freaking kidding me???
    You have sometimes posted some interesting vids but this one is pure zionist sh*t.
    Shame on you!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    To criminal Zionist Jews: Allison Weir is NOT Norwegian, she is an American activist and writer who focuses on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. She is the founder and executive director of the nonprofit organization If Americans Knew (IAK) and president of the Council for the National Interest (CNI). She is known for critical views toward Israel.

    To understand her valuable work, please watch her talk on “The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel ” by watching the YouTube.

    Gilad Atzmon, an anti Zionist musician, in support of Ms. Weir writes:

    {Since I immersed myself in solidarity matters two decades ago, I have been witness to the relentless chasing, harassing and slandering of every Jew who crossed the 100 IQ barrier. First it was Israel Shamir, then Paul Eisen, and then Norman Finkelstein who dared speak the truth about the Jewish Left and BDS operating as a secret society (cult). Consistent with their Jewish heritage, ‘progressive’ Jews like to employ a ‘Sabbos Goy’, a gentile who is willing to surrender to their whims. The liberal Jews at JVP have used Ali Abunimah as their favourite ‘partner’. He has apparently been happy to provide his Palestinian voice to issue the Palestinian stamp. Although rabbinical Jews employ the Herem solely against Jews, liberal Jews, fuelled by peculiar sense of righteousness, extended the Herem to include some ‘Goyim’. For years they have attempted to excommunicate me (an ex-Jew). They chased Free Gaza Founder Greta Berlin. Currently their target is Alison Weir and, in a surprising move, the American people whom JVP has outrageously dubbed a racist collective.}

    http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2015/6/18/jvp-alison-weir-and-the-hatred-of-the-white

    Ms. Weir has been attacked by the criminal Zionists to silent her, but they have failed. Thus these criminal group are using American criminal presidency more and more to silent the WORLD. For this purpose they stage false flag operation throughout the planet to demonize Muslims and Christians alike to pursue their evil plan of ‘greater Israel’ killing millions of people in the process and erecting ‘world government’ with the help of their stooges in US, Canada, Britain, France and elsewhere.

    To do this, now the criminal Zionist and their stooges in different western capitals are seeking TOTAL control of the internet to prevent people like Weir informing the world about the crimes of Zionism and imperialism. At the summit in Cecily the criminal PM of Britain said:

    {May, in Italy for her first G7 meeting since becoming prime minister last year, was set to urge the world’s major industrialized nations to encourage technology firms to stop militants moving “from the battlefield to the internet”.}

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    The actor Ed Asner is presently under attack because he belongs to JVP. He was beloved when he was just fighting for various Jewish/liberal anti White causes.
    But then he joined JVP and is ostracized .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Alden says:
    @RobinG
    That is a different Alison Weir. (There are photos of both online.)

    Really?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Erebus says:

    Hmm, not at all inventive. I like that in an adversary….

    Not to put too fine a point on it…
    As I suspected, you’re a fraud. A mutt, barking at noises in the forest. This ain’t Kansas Tutu. Your bluff’s been called.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus
    I can only assume that it is because I'm on mobile phone internet that my comment #90 above was not directed to Seraphim.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Che Guava says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Of the supposed 1.5 million murdered Armenians never more than 15.000 names were specified.
    I hope I here express myself clearly.

    You express yourself clearly. It is also a lie, as you would well know.

    Since your surname isn’t Dutch and you say such nonsense, I think commentors of good heart would do well to ignore you, not as in block comments, but to rubbish your sly any stupid comments any time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Erebus says:
    @Erebus
    Hmm, not at all inventive. I like that in an adversary....

    Not to put too fine a point on it...
    As I suspected, you're a fraud. A mutt, barking at noises in the forest. This ain't Kansas Tutu. Your bluff's been called.

    I can only assume that it is because I’m on mobile phone internet that my comment #90 above was not directed to Seraphim.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    It was probably a new allusion at a Nietzschean practice which made Wagner suggest that the early manifestation of his 'altered mode of thought' and incipient blindness were due to masturbation and 'unnatural debauchery with indication of pederasty'.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. What Zionists and their bought shills really want is a worldwide ban on free speech concerning the impossible ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’. Much of Europe already has such anti free speech laws.

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:

    http://codoh.com

    Not convincing. Overall figure for Hitler is, most likely, 15.5 M & out of it 5.5 M Jews.

    http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm

    Read More
    • Troll: SolontoCroesus
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  96. @Erebus

    How (Nietzsche) came to be dubbed an ‘antisemite’ beggars belief.
     
    Well, it may beggar your belief, but not mine (or, one assumes, others).

    Nietzsche is "anti-Christian" in exactly the same way he is "anti-Semitic". Both ends (and middle) of the Judeo-Christian spectrum misunderstand him in the same way. They think he's speaking to them, while he was speaking to fellow Hyperboreans from a vantage point that transcended both. That vantage point has long been lost to us, which is perhaps why Heidegger called him "the last great metaphysician of the West".

    Reading Nietzsche one is well advised to keep Wittgenstein's Ladder Metaphor in mind. The metaphor can be distilled to "He who finally understands me understands that I've been talking nonsense. He must throw away the ladder, so to speak, having climbed it".

    Once there, one sees as clearly as he did that the West, having killed the Judeo-Christian God(s), had better find a new Narrative quick or succumb to decadence, and eventually extinction. The Judaic end of the spectrum took due note, and promptly weaponized decadence to gain power over the other. The Western Christians offered no coherent response, and are now sliding towards extinction. Only the Orthodox, namely the Russians, successfully revived their God and are fighting a disciplined rear-guard action that has a decent chance of success, which may explain some of the denigration being heaped on them.

    Once there, one sees as clearly as he did that the West, having killed the Judeo-Christian God(s), had better find a new Narrative quick or succumb to decadence, and eventually extinction. The Judaic end of the spectrum took due note, and promptly weaponized decadence to gain power over the other. The Western Christians offered no coherent response, and are now sliding towards extinction. Only the Orthodox, namely the Russians, successfully revived their God and are fighting a disciplined rear-guard action that has a decent chance of success, which may explain some of the denigration being heaped on them.

    “Judeo-Christian” is a contradiction in terms.
    It gained traction post-WWII, when Jews began to dominate US institutions.

    Trump’s speech in Saudi Arabia that called for unity among the “Abrahamic” traditions was/is insidious: it normalizes the notion that the concept of god originated with Jews, that is, Jews own god; Jews speak for god, Jews are the chosen people of god; Jews are the moral leaders of all mankind, chosen by god to lead all people ‘kicking and screaming’ to live ethically.

    This notion, of Abraham as the origin of “god”, is deeply antithetical to the foundations of the United States: the Declaration of Independence broadened the concept of god, grounding the notion in “the Creator” and in “nature’s god” rather than in the particularist definitions and dogmas of a specific sect or group or set of myths.

    The rights of free men and women everywhere do not find their defense in the tenets of the god of Abraham or of his chosen people, but in the very stuff of existence:

    http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

    When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Z-man

    “Judeo-Christian” is a contradiction in terms.
    It gained traction post-WWII, when Jews began to dominate US institutions.

     

    Yes, like I've said in many posts before, the term was probably 'coined' by some Jew-ish CCNY 'academics' in the thirties or forties.
    Judeo-Christian and Christian Zionists, oxy-'MORONS'.
    , @Sherman
    Hey Chuck-

    I had no idea you were such a theologian.

    Sherm
    , @Seraphim
    The 'Abrahamic tradition' was a Jewish invention to cajole the Mahomedans and induce them into an anti-Christian alliance. Contemporary sources (the Armenian historians Sebeos and Ghevond, both living in the 7th-8th centuries) relate the same story:
    [Sebeos]:
    “God promised that country to Abraham and to his son after him, for eternity. And what had been promised was fulfilled during that time when God loved Israel. Now, however, you are the sons of Abraham, and God shall fulfill the promise made to Abraham and his son on you. Only love the God of Abraham, and go and take the country which God gave to your father Abraham. No one can successfully resist you in war, since God is with you."
    [Gevond]:
    The Jews were their supporters and leaders, having gone to the camp at Madiam and told them: "God promised Abraham that He would deliver up the inhabitants of the world in service [to him]; and we are his heirs and sons of the patriarch. Because of our wickedness, God became disgusted with us and lifted the scepter of kingship from us, subjecting us to the servitude of slavery. But you, too, are children of Abraham and sons of the patriarch. Arise with us and save us from service to the emperor of the Byzantines, and together we shall hold our realm." [The Arabs] were encouraged further hearing this, and went against Judaea.

    Christians are not physical descendants of Abraham, but of his faith:
    'God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham'
    'If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham'
    'Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad'.
    , @Erebus

    “Judeo-Christian” is a contradiction in terms.
     
    I used "God(s)" in anticipation of your point, so I can't disagree, but I think calling it a "contradiction in terms" overshoots the mark. That there is a radical re-definition of "god" going from the OT to the NT, even a discontinuity, doesn't change the fact that Christians have looked to both as integral parts of their religion's foundational document for almost 2 millennia.
    In fact, ~2/3 of that document consists of pre-Christian, Jewish tribal lore. Why is it there if it's a "contradiction in terms" with the "Christian" section? I submit that it continues to be there because it was and remains foundational. If it is contradictory, then a contradiction lies at the heart of Christianity. Maybe Christians like it that way, and in any case it changes nothing.

    As for Trump's speech... though I'm not sure why you address this to me, and in any case I have no way to view the link, I understand that specifying any particular deity "is deeply antithetical to the foundations" of the United States.
    Of course, "deeply antithetical" things have been happening to those foundations since they were laid. "In God We Trust" appeared on American coinage in the mid 1800s, and was declared the national motto of the USA in the 50s. As oddly jarring as it is to see it on money (that, and the one-eyed pyramid :-)), one wonders what God were the Congress/Mint thinking of if not the biblical God that presents himself from the Creation onwards?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Junior says:
    @Alden
    In a way you're right. But as a practical matter, the country was given to the Jews in 1922 by the British forcing Jewish immigration and the quasi governmental Jewish Agency allowed autonomous control of all Jews including the indegenous Mizrahi Jews whether they wanted rule by Russian immigrants or not.

    Certainly that's what both Israelis and Palestinians think about the founding of the Jewish state.

    Certainly that’s what both Israelis and Palestinians think about the founding of the Jewish state.

    Rothschild says the same in this interview with him a few months ago in which he openly discusses that his family created Israel. I’ve posted the video below.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    It's true the Rothschilds, Montifiires and other mega rich European Jews created Israel. One version in many of the pro Zionist books goes like this.
    There was always a very religious Jewish community in Palestine. They supported themselves in the normal ways, everything but farming.

    But starting about 1850 a lot of extremely religious Jews went to Palestine and didn't work at all, just studied Talmud and prayed. After 20 years or so the Rothschilds got tired of supporting these lay abouts. What to do?? Remember the self sufficient monasteries of Europe. We'll rename them communal farms or kibbutzes.. We'll encourage atheism abd secularism. We'll invent new Jews, not the pale skinny weak Yeshiva boys and stay at home women; but strong, muscular farmers, soldiers and construction workers.

    If we Rothschilds and Montifiores invest a few million in Zionism now, the Yeshiva boys will go out and earn their own livings And we won't have to support them forever.

    A lot of Europeans thought the Rothschilds were trying to establish their own country from which to carry out their scams.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Veritatis says:
    @Erebus

    How (Nietzsche) came to be dubbed an ‘antisemite’ beggars belief.
     
    Well, it may beggar your belief, but not mine (or, one assumes, others).

    Nietzsche is "anti-Christian" in exactly the same way he is "anti-Semitic". Both ends (and middle) of the Judeo-Christian spectrum misunderstand him in the same way. They think he's speaking to them, while he was speaking to fellow Hyperboreans from a vantage point that transcended both. That vantage point has long been lost to us, which is perhaps why Heidegger called him "the last great metaphysician of the West".

    Reading Nietzsche one is well advised to keep Wittgenstein's Ladder Metaphor in mind. The metaphor can be distilled to "He who finally understands me understands that I've been talking nonsense. He must throw away the ladder, so to speak, having climbed it".

    Once there, one sees as clearly as he did that the West, having killed the Judeo-Christian God(s), had better find a new Narrative quick or succumb to decadence, and eventually extinction. The Judaic end of the spectrum took due note, and promptly weaponized decadence to gain power over the other. The Western Christians offered no coherent response, and are now sliding towards extinction. Only the Orthodox, namely the Russians, successfully revived their God and are fighting a disciplined rear-guard action that has a decent chance of success, which may explain some of the denigration being heaped on them.

    You give Nietzsche too much credit. His unsystematic writings had the charm of novelty, especially since coupled with a categorical and irreverent tone. He has been interpreted in different ways, but coherent he was certainly not. However, today nihilism and skepticism are more comfortable positions for many than sustaining the tradition of virtues (classic or Christian). At the individual level, this is nothing new, the difference is that today it is precisely the opinion leaders that promote nihilism and skepticism.

    Those leaders also promote anti-Christianity, and with this idea in mind, Walter Kaufmann, a german émigré after WWII could come to Princenton to translate (indeed soften) and popularize Nietzsche in the cultural bulldozer which is the US academia. Kaufmann in fact rescued Nietzsche from the dustbin of ideas. And the “fruits” of nietzschean thought are rather sad: Derrida, Deleuze, Foucault et al, and need plenty of propping by the establishment to be read (if that really occurs).

    The idea of “Western Christians” offering no ‘coherent defense’ I find unclear. The Catholic Church, for example, is based on the teachings of Christ, on the whole of the Bible, on a 2000 year old tradition of systematic thinkers and on the Catechism. A way of understanding Creation, and man, as coherent as they come. Whoever chooses to live as Christian in a community, meaning the Church, is being coherent. But being a Christian is voluntary, as we are endowed with free will. The number of practicing Christians has gone down, true. But perhaps a smaller Church is a truer Church, and certainly not the same as “on the road to extinction”. Being ‘salt of the earth’ is distinct from being earth itself.

    Nietzsche is long dead, but God is not. What we shall soon find out is whether Europe can not be Christian, and continue to be called Europe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus

    You give Nietzsche too much credit.
     
    Obviously I don't think so, and I wonder why you think so.

    His unsystematic writings had the charm of novelty... coherent he was certainly not.
     
    I assume you're talking about his use of aphorisms. Aphoristic writing has a long and illustrious history, going back to ancient Greek, Chinese, and Hindu writings, so I couldn't call it "novel". In any case, Nietzsche didn't adopt the style until almost half-way through his writing career. That his prose is considered amongst the best of the Western philosophical tradition and sets a benchmark in German style, has been established. I'm left wondering what he has to do to be "coherent" in your view.

    By "no coherent defence" I simply meant that Western Christianity offered no comprehensive or effective resistance to the civilizational trend that swept it from being the physical and metaphysical matrix permeating all of European life at the time of the Renaissance, to becoming a subject of ridicule, and finally not even of ridicule. In medieval Europe, every aspect of life, and every event transpired within the matrix of Christian metaphysics, dogma and morality. There was a God in everyone's heaven, and God's law in every public and private event and act.
    By the time of Nietzsche, that was no longer so. Note Solonto's comments (@96) about the American Constitution. 100 yrs before Nietzsche, the authors saw fit to include a deliberately non-Christian definition of God. To be sure, it was a cutting edge political document, but had they lived 200 years earlier they quite literally couldn't have imagined including such a definition. The Christian God that permeated every crevice of the body politic from the laws governing street markets to the King's prerogatives a scant 2 centuries before was shut out of the legal structure underpinning the new nation. "We the People" took his place. Of course, there were the expected backlashes, but 100 yrs later, almost every European nation had undergone a similar transformation, and God was dead. He had become spiritual and no longer governed the life of people, or of nations. That is what is meant by "God is Dead".

    That a few pockets still hold to vestiges of the Christian matrix, is neither surprising, nor decisive. Your god may still be alive, but he's politically and culturally an anachronism, and for countless more he may as well have never lived at all. The West, as a whole is now thoroughly post-Christian. Unfortunately, we have no better answer to the question Nietzsche asked, "What's next?" than he did. In fact, we don't even ask it. The nihilism now permeates all the crevices that were the domain of the Christian God a few centuries ago.

    That's why I am puzzled when I keep hearing about Nietzsche's "nihilism". My reading suggests exactly the opposite. Nietzsche railed, never "incoherently", and often brilliantly, against the nihilism which he saw was the inevitable consequence of the death of God. We were his murderers, and nihilism would be our punishment.
    He despaired that Western civilization had no defence, and that the "great men" of the time seemed oblivious to what was coming. As it turns out, he was right that nihilism would overrun the West and we have yet to see any signs of a remedy.
    How that makes him a nihilist escapes me. He was terrified by it.

    , @Seraphim
    One must notice that the 'God is dead. God remains dead' of the new god of 'atheism' Nietzsche is the Christ. His denunciation of Christianity, which became more furious due certainly to his mental condition (frontal lobe dementia is characterized by socially inappropriate behavior, poor judgement, lack of inhibition, abrupt mood changes) was the usual standard regurgitation of the Jewish and Neo-Platonic arguments in their denunciation of Christians to the Roman authorities, which have been the banner of all heretical sects which worked to bring about the lovely world in which we live. Schleiermacher's, David Strauss', Bruno Bauer's, Feuerbach's 'criticism' of the Gospels were all the rage in the German University. Their mantra was 'Jesus is dead and remains dead'. No Resurrection.
    Perhaps Nietzsche invented that formula to mock the well known classical story of the 'Death of the Great Pan', the god or demon of 'nature', turning it on its head.
    According to Plutarch, during the reign of Tiberius, the news of Pan’s death was announced from the skies to a sailor named Thamus on his way to Italy by way of the island of Paxi. A divine voice hailed him across the salt water, “Thamus, are you there? When you reach Palodes, take care to proclaim that the great god Pan is dead.” Thamus obeyed the voice and spread the news around Italy. Eusebius of Caesarea states that the Emperor Tiberius asked for a personal interview with the sailor Thamus to discern the meaning of this oracle (Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, 5) which was that 'Paganism' was dead. Eusebius notes that Jesus Christ rid the world of most the devils during His ministry and at His death. Since the “gods of the nations are demons” (Ps 95:5 -'For all the gods of the heathen are devils: but the Lord made the heavens'), it would seem that the demon representing Pan was banished from the earth. In his madness Nietzsche, fancying himself the 'Antichrist', called him back. The Neo-Pagan movement seeks to overcome the Christian era and the reign of Christ the King and return the place of Pan.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Z-man says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Once there, one sees as clearly as he did that the West, having killed the Judeo-Christian God(s), had better find a new Narrative quick or succumb to decadence, and eventually extinction. The Judaic end of the spectrum took due note, and promptly weaponized decadence to gain power over the other. The Western Christians offered no coherent response, and are now sliding towards extinction. Only the Orthodox, namely the Russians, successfully revived their God and are fighting a disciplined rear-guard action that has a decent chance of success, which may explain some of the denigration being heaped on them.
     
    "Judeo-Christian" is a contradiction in terms.
    It gained traction post-WWII, when Jews began to dominate US institutions.

    Trump's speech in Saudi Arabia that called for unity among the "Abrahamic" traditions was/is insidious: it normalizes the notion that the concept of god originated with Jews, that is, Jews own god; Jews speak for god, Jews are the chosen people of god; Jews are the moral leaders of all mankind, chosen by god to lead all people 'kicking and screaming' to live ethically.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV2COCsedCw

    This notion, of Abraham as the origin of "god", is deeply antithetical to the foundations of the United States: the Declaration of Independence broadened the concept of god, grounding the notion in "the Creator" and in "nature's god" rather than in the particularist definitions and dogmas of a specific sect or group or set of myths.

    The rights of free men and women everywhere do not find their defense in the tenets of the god of Abraham or of his chosen people, but in the very stuff of existence:


    http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/


    When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
     

    “Judeo-Christian” is a contradiction in terms.
    It gained traction post-WWII, when Jews began to dominate US institutions.

    Yes, like I’ve said in many posts before, the term was probably ‘coined’ by some Jew-ish CCNY ‘academics’ in the thirties or forties.
    Judeo-Christian and Christian Zionists, oxy-’MORONS’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Yes. Islam has more in common with Christianity than Judaism does.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Sam Shama says:
    @iffen
    Please specify exactly how “Anti-Semites brought this upon themselves” iffen. Detailed history please.

    After all, we’re talking about curtailment of constitutional free speech rights

    My comment was not meant in support of efforts in the US to enact restrictions on free speech through the administrative bureaucracy. I am thankful for the 2nd amendment. God Bless James Madison! The Europeans are on their own, although I understand that WWII was fought there and the fascists took over several countries, so perhaps that is a mitigating circumstance for Europeans. Even though I think liberal democracy is failing and free speech will disappear, I will cling to it and support it until Armageddon, at which time, no rules will apply.

    I am short on facts and details at the moment and will have to rely upon opinion and assertion. I am fully aware that this sets me apart from some of the better commenters here, but it puts me firmly within the overwhelming majority.

    Anti-Semitism has changed and will change over time. The medieval variety was quite different from the late 19th century and early 20th century variety. About the only thing that they had in common was the target. The same applies today. Although, when your planet Germania inhabitants are weaving their web of delusions, omissions, lies, half-truths, obfuscations, red herrings and selective use of historical facts, they don’t throw that first strand into the wind to chance, but rather project it at AH with a force and accuracy that would intimidate Lithobates catesbeianus. That said, the anti-Semitism of 2017 is not the anti-Semitism of 1927. One defining premise of today’s is Holocaust denial, which of course did not exist in 1927, but rather was a product of 1927’s variety.

    Much of the criticism of Israel derives from anti-Semitism. The criticism is unique to Israel and most of the critics don’t even fake trying to use the same criteria when evaluating Israel as when evaluating other countries. If you think that Israel does not have a right to exist because it was founded by and for Jews; that is anti-Semitic, unless you apply the same criteria to all other countries, and I haven’t seen anyone doing that.

    I am not saying that criticizing Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians makes one an anti-Semite. I’m saying that if you only get hand-wringey about the Palestinians, you stand a good chance of being one. One can make a complaint about 2nd class citizenship for Palestinians, but what about the hundreds of other examples of 2nd class citizenship (or worse) for many hundreds of different peoples around the world. Sam seems to be reliable and he has first-hand knowledge of the conditions in Israel. From what he has relayed, I think that if I had to be a 2nd class citizen, I would give Israel serious consideration.

    Criticism of Israel is the tip of the iceberg of anti-Semitism. One just needs to make sure you are an ice cube when you do your criticizing.

    Hi Iffen,
    As I started reading this post, I said to myself “this is precisely what I think”. The same thought kept crossing my mind at every step. I consider this post a truly valuable contribution. I know that you, like Incitatus, could not hold in any higher a regard, the right to free speech than you already do, making it an almost impossible task, as to how a treacherously dangerous idea can be effectively gainsaid without trampling on the 2nd Amendment. On balance, I’d err heavily in favour of free speech. But the conundrum, more aptly, the lurking danger, remains.

    Anyone with any desire to gather the facts can do so relatively easily. But that is not the introspective objective of the crowd which wishes a resurrection, or should one say the re-awakening, of a dormant virus which has inflicted untold trauma on the world. Europeans know this better than anyone, the basic reason why their leadership takes a position American politicians would be hard pressed to assume.

    A basic start on the subject is available here: http://www.myjewishlearning.com/category/study/jewish-history/anti-semitism-bigotry/

    Anyway, I shan’t write a great deal more for fear of inviting the indiscriminate spraying of excrement, particularly from the lesser reptiles of Germania. For those elements, a public tongue lashing will not do the needful; thus more robust methods are called for.

    The living conditions of Israeli Arabs today, are no different than those enjoyed by Israeli Jews in various income brackets. Which, when one thinks about it, is a no-nonsense indicator of the nation’s ability to live quite harmoniously with Arabs. Life for Palestinians is difficult when viewed through the lens of first world standards to be sure, but it isn’t the vestibule nor the nine circles of hell it is painted to be in this piece. I should greatly prefer Palestinians run their own lives, in their own state; the IDF out of WB; commerce and culture exchanged freely over suicide bombs and airstrikes. I have a far deeper friendship, experience, and connection with Israeli Arabs than I care to list, certainly much more I suspect, than any of the nitwits who fancy themselves modern Robins. They do no kindness to ordinary Arabs, but only lend succour to a leadership whose chief motive is to grow their bank accounts in Paris.

    To conclude, what Israel cannot afford to do is allow the emergence of a state which in its very charter writes as its central objective the annihilation of the Jewish state. Viewed from the longer arc of history, the notion is eminently realistic even as the Jewish state holds much greater power today. Existence, thou art ephemeral; and looking after her longer survival requires vigilance. Call that Jewish paranoia if you must, but I’d rather be paranoid than six feet under.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Hi Sam,

    I said I was trying to get out of this rabbit hole and I was sincere and I will succeed. This is no ordinary rabbit hole. It has vortex powers and that will require a bit more struggle to break free.

    It is fascinating to me to see how transparent these people are; how oblivious that they are to the idea that some people can read what they write and understand what they mean. I can't seem to force myself to look away.

    I went back to the beginning of this article and started a 2nd reading, for I can be a careless reader if I think I already know what has been written.

    I only made it to the 4th paragraph:

    Where most people would consider “antisemitism” to mean bigotry against Jewish people (and rightly consider it abhorrent),

    I can't even begin. Who wants to make sure that you know that they think that bigotry against Jewish people is abhorrent? Who can't use the word Jews?

    , @iffen
    a public tongue lashing will not do the needful; thus more robust methods are called for.

    At twelve noon, market Saturday, in the public's square, 29 lashes well laid on and branding with a swastika on the back of the right hand. :)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. iffen says:
    @Sam Shama
    Hi Iffen,
    As I started reading this post, I said to myself "this is precisely what I think". The same thought kept crossing my mind at every step. I consider this post a truly valuable contribution. I know that you, like Incitatus, could not hold in any higher a regard, the right to free speech than you already do, making it an almost impossible task, as to how a treacherously dangerous idea can be effectively gainsaid without trampling on the 2nd Amendment. On balance, I'd err heavily in favour of free speech. But the conundrum, more aptly, the lurking danger, remains.

    Anyone with any desire to gather the facts can do so relatively easily. But that is not the introspective objective of the crowd which wishes a resurrection, or should one say the re-awakening, of a dormant virus which has inflicted untold trauma on the world. Europeans know this better than anyone, the basic reason why their leadership takes a position American politicians would be hard pressed to assume.

    A basic start on the subject is available here: http://www.myjewishlearning.com/category/study/jewish-history/anti-semitism-bigotry/

    Anyway, I shan't write a great deal more for fear of inviting the indiscriminate spraying of excrement, particularly from the lesser reptiles of Germania. For those elements, a public tongue lashing will not do the needful; thus more robust methods are called for.

    The living conditions of Israeli Arabs today, are no different than those enjoyed by Israeli Jews in various income brackets. Which, when one thinks about it, is a no-nonsense indicator of the nation's ability to live quite harmoniously with Arabs. Life for Palestinians is difficult when viewed through the lens of first world standards to be sure, but it isn't the vestibule nor the nine circles of hell it is painted to be in this piece. I should greatly prefer Palestinians run their own lives, in their own state; the IDF out of WB; commerce and culture exchanged freely over suicide bombs and airstrikes. I have a far deeper friendship, experience, and connection with Israeli Arabs than I care to list, certainly much more I suspect, than any of the nitwits who fancy themselves modern Robins. They do no kindness to ordinary Arabs, but only lend succour to a leadership whose chief motive is to grow their bank accounts in Paris.

    To conclude, what Israel cannot afford to do is allow the emergence of a state which in its very charter writes as its central objective the annihilation of the Jewish state. Viewed from the longer arc of history, the notion is eminently realistic even as the Jewish state holds much greater power today. Existence, thou art ephemeral; and looking after her longer survival requires vigilance. Call that Jewish paranoia if you must, but I'd rather be paranoid than six feet under.

    Hi Sam,

    I said I was trying to get out of this rabbit hole and I was sincere and I will succeed. This is no ordinary rabbit hole. It has vortex powers and that will require a bit more struggle to break free.

    It is fascinating to me to see how transparent these people are; how oblivious that they are to the idea that some people can read what they write and understand what they mean. I can’t seem to force myself to look away.

    I went back to the beginning of this article and started a 2nd reading, for I can be a careless reader if I think I already know what has been written.

    I only made it to the 4th paragraph:

    Where most people would consider “antisemitism” to mean bigotry against Jewish people (and rightly consider it abhorrent),

    I can’t even begin. Who wants to make sure that you know that they think that bigotry against Jewish people is abhorrent? Who can’t use the word Jews?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. iffen says:
    @Sam Shama
    Hi Iffen,
    As I started reading this post, I said to myself "this is precisely what I think". The same thought kept crossing my mind at every step. I consider this post a truly valuable contribution. I know that you, like Incitatus, could not hold in any higher a regard, the right to free speech than you already do, making it an almost impossible task, as to how a treacherously dangerous idea can be effectively gainsaid without trampling on the 2nd Amendment. On balance, I'd err heavily in favour of free speech. But the conundrum, more aptly, the lurking danger, remains.

    Anyone with any desire to gather the facts can do so relatively easily. But that is not the introspective objective of the crowd which wishes a resurrection, or should one say the re-awakening, of a dormant virus which has inflicted untold trauma on the world. Europeans know this better than anyone, the basic reason why their leadership takes a position American politicians would be hard pressed to assume.

    A basic start on the subject is available here: http://www.myjewishlearning.com/category/study/jewish-history/anti-semitism-bigotry/

    Anyway, I shan't write a great deal more for fear of inviting the indiscriminate spraying of excrement, particularly from the lesser reptiles of Germania. For those elements, a public tongue lashing will not do the needful; thus more robust methods are called for.

    The living conditions of Israeli Arabs today, are no different than those enjoyed by Israeli Jews in various income brackets. Which, when one thinks about it, is a no-nonsense indicator of the nation's ability to live quite harmoniously with Arabs. Life for Palestinians is difficult when viewed through the lens of first world standards to be sure, but it isn't the vestibule nor the nine circles of hell it is painted to be in this piece. I should greatly prefer Palestinians run their own lives, in their own state; the IDF out of WB; commerce and culture exchanged freely over suicide bombs and airstrikes. I have a far deeper friendship, experience, and connection with Israeli Arabs than I care to list, certainly much more I suspect, than any of the nitwits who fancy themselves modern Robins. They do no kindness to ordinary Arabs, but only lend succour to a leadership whose chief motive is to grow their bank accounts in Paris.

    To conclude, what Israel cannot afford to do is allow the emergence of a state which in its very charter writes as its central objective the annihilation of the Jewish state. Viewed from the longer arc of history, the notion is eminently realistic even as the Jewish state holds much greater power today. Existence, thou art ephemeral; and looking after her longer survival requires vigilance. Call that Jewish paranoia if you must, but I'd rather be paranoid than six feet under.

    a public tongue lashing will not do the needful; thus more robust methods are called for.

    At twelve noon, market Saturday, in the public’s square, 29 lashes well laid on and branding with a swastika on the back of the right hand. :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. L.K says:
    @Agent76
    Apr 25, 2017 How the BDS Movement Plans to Destroy Israel

    The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement says it's fighting for Palestinian rights, but it's really just trying to destroy Israel. Jonathan Sacks, author and former Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, explains how.

    https://youtu.be/UYCVvY4f4Qg

    Are you freaking kidding me???
    You have sometimes posted some interesting vids but this one is pure zionist sh*t.
    Shame on you!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Sherman says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Once there, one sees as clearly as he did that the West, having killed the Judeo-Christian God(s), had better find a new Narrative quick or succumb to decadence, and eventually extinction. The Judaic end of the spectrum took due note, and promptly weaponized decadence to gain power over the other. The Western Christians offered no coherent response, and are now sliding towards extinction. Only the Orthodox, namely the Russians, successfully revived their God and are fighting a disciplined rear-guard action that has a decent chance of success, which may explain some of the denigration being heaped on them.
     
    "Judeo-Christian" is a contradiction in terms.
    It gained traction post-WWII, when Jews began to dominate US institutions.

    Trump's speech in Saudi Arabia that called for unity among the "Abrahamic" traditions was/is insidious: it normalizes the notion that the concept of god originated with Jews, that is, Jews own god; Jews speak for god, Jews are the chosen people of god; Jews are the moral leaders of all mankind, chosen by god to lead all people 'kicking and screaming' to live ethically.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV2COCsedCw

    This notion, of Abraham as the origin of "god", is deeply antithetical to the foundations of the United States: the Declaration of Independence broadened the concept of god, grounding the notion in "the Creator" and in "nature's god" rather than in the particularist definitions and dogmas of a specific sect or group or set of myths.

    The rights of free men and women everywhere do not find their defense in the tenets of the god of Abraham or of his chosen people, but in the very stuff of existence:


    http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/


    When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
     

    Hey Chuck-

    I had no idea you were such a theologian.

    Sherm

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Alden says:
    @anonymous
    To criminal Zionist Jews: Allison Weir is NOT Norwegian, she is an American activist and writer who focuses on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. She is the founder and executive director of the nonprofit organization If Americans Knew (IAK) and president of the Council for the National Interest (CNI). She is known for critical views toward Israel.

    To understand her valuable work, please watch her talk on "The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel " by watching the YouTube.

    Gilad Atzmon, an anti Zionist musician, in support of Ms. Weir writes:

    {Since I immersed myself in solidarity matters two decades ago, I have been witness to the relentless chasing, harassing and slandering of every Jew who crossed the 100 IQ barrier. First it was Israel Shamir, then Paul Eisen, and then Norman Finkelstein who dared speak the truth about the Jewish Left and BDS operating as a secret society (cult). Consistent with their Jewish heritage, ‘progressive’ Jews like to employ a ‘Sabbos Goy’, a gentile who is willing to surrender to their whims. The liberal Jews at JVP have used Ali Abunimah as their favourite ‘partner’. He has apparently been happy to provide his Palestinian voice to issue the Palestinian stamp. Although rabbinical Jews employ the Herem solely against Jews, liberal Jews, fuelled by peculiar sense of righteousness, extended the Herem to include some ‘Goyim’. For years they have attempted to excommunicate me (an ex-Jew). They chased Free Gaza Founder Greta Berlin. Currently their target is Alison Weir and, in a surprising move, the American people whom JVP has outrageously dubbed a racist collective.}

    http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2015/6/18/jvp-alison-weir-and-the-hatred-of-the-white


    Ms. Weir has been attacked by the criminal Zionists to silent her, but they have failed. Thus these criminal group are using American criminal presidency more and more to silent the WORLD. For this purpose they stage false flag operation throughout the planet to demonize Muslims and Christians alike to pursue their evil plan of 'greater Israel' killing millions of people in the process and erecting 'world government' with the help of their stooges in US, Canada, Britain, France and elsewhere.

    To do this, now the criminal Zionist and their stooges in different western capitals are seeking TOTAL control of the internet to prevent people like Weir informing the world about the crimes of Zionism and imperialism. At the summit in Cecily the criminal PM of Britain said:

    {May, in Italy for her first G7 meeting since becoming prime minister last year, was set to urge the world's major industrialized nations to encourage technology firms to stop militants moving "from the battlefield to the internet".}



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-UwcVP_k2Y

    The actor Ed Asner is presently under attack because he belongs to JVP. He was beloved when he was just fighting for various Jewish/liberal anti White causes.
    But then he joined JVP and is ostracized .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. L.K says:
    @jilles dykstra
    All these details just confuse what happened.
    Zionism began when colonialism still was seen as civilising the world.

    Herzl never asked the Palestinian people anything, he visited the Russian minister Von Plehve, he visited the Ottoman sultan.

    Zionists never realised that when they by force realised their colonial objectives, more than colonial, because they ethnically cleansed Palestine, the world had changed.
    Colonialism was out.

    And zionists, victims of their own propaganda, never realised that Palestinians did exist, were a people, still are a people.
    I suppose they thought that the great and cruel population exchanges in SE Europe, including present Turkey, from 1912 to 1925, could be repeated.

    The great zionist mistake of 1948 was not to exterminate the Palestinians, at the time it still was possible, there were less than a million Palestinians, jews still had the sympathy of the world, video cameras and satellite connections did not exist.

    The Palestinian population explosion was made by zionism, they marry at fifteen, just married men with children are allowed to work in Israel, just families get UN food aid.
    So now there are four of five million Palestinians, who politically are more and more important, at the same time Israel is condemned by nearly the whole world.

    Part of the Deep State resistance to Trump is fear that Israel loses its preferred situation as a fixed aircraft carrier of the USA in the ME.
    If, IF, Trump's visit to NATO again seems to confirm it, USA has normal relation with Russia, Isrrael loses its strategical value.

    Some comments;

    J.D: ‘I suppose they thought that the great and cruel population exchanges in SE Europe, including present Turkey, from 1912 to 1925, could be repeated.’

    I suppose. Besides, the brutal ethnic cleansing of some 14 million Germans from their ancestral homelands in Central and Eastern Europe had been going on since the end of WW2 and continued until 1950. None of that changes anything re the illegality of it all.

    J.D: ‘The great zionist mistake of 1948 was not to exterminate the Palestinians’

    I think the zionists did the best they could, their efforts at expelling as many Palestinians as possible are very well documented by now.
    It must me said that at the time of the creation of the illegal zionist entity, the Palestinians were still the absolute majority, at nearly 70%.
    It’s possible that the facts you mention may have helped increase the indigenous population over time, but I think it was mostly due to their birth rates & improvements in medicine since then and this all over the world. Of course, in Europe, Japan, etc, population declined/stagnated due to ever lower birth rates.

    J.D: “Part of the Deep State resistance to Trump is fear that Israel loses its preferred situation as a fixed aircraft carrier of the USA in the ME.
    If, IF, Trump’s visit to NATO again seems to confirm it, USA has normal relation with Russia, Isrrael loses its strategical value.”

    The Deep State clearly wants Trumps head, they may feel he is unpredictable, though, to be sure, he has been doing all he promised NOT to do in his campaign… what was that in Zaudi Barbaria, eh?
    Re NATO, I think my conclusion, unfortunately, is the opposite of yours. The notion of NATO joining the fighting on ‘isis’ is merely an excuse to try to carve up Syria. This will put ZUSA/NATO on collision course with Syria and its allies, Russia and Iran.
    It must also be said that Israel has ZERO strategic value to the US, it is actually a liability.
    As far as fixed air carriers go, ZUSA has plenty of bases in the various M.E client regimes, no real need for Israel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. turtle says:

    Zionism is a bankrupt 19th century political idea which belongs in the dustbin of history, along with its political cohort, communism. Both are based on spurious reasoning.

    Zionism, of course, got its start with the miscarriage of justice in the infamous case of Captain Alfred Dreyfus of the French army. The spurious reasoning is as follows:

    A (Major Premise) : Capt. Dreyfus got the shaft.
    Undeniably true, as subsequent events would confirm.
    B (Minor Premise) : Capt. Dreyfus got the shaft specifically and exclusively because he was Jewish.
    Debatable, but let’s assume its truth for the sake of argument.
    C (Conclusion) : No member of the Jewish tribe can ever get a fair shake in a Gentile court of law.
    Sorry, kids, that is called “generalizing from a specific” and will earn you a failing mark .

    Ironically, the Dreyfus case, which “inspired” (if that is the right word) Zionism, itself disproves its validity. For what happened in the long run? In the long run, Capt. Dreyfus was vindicated, justice was served, and, in fact, a Jewish man did get justice in a Gentile system of laws, thus disproving (erroneous) conclusion C.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  108. Alden says:
    @Junior

    Certainly that’s what both Israelis and Palestinians think about the founding of the Jewish state.
     
    Rothschild says the same in this interview with him a few months ago in which he openly discusses that his family created Israel. I've posted the video below.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj5eypBex-U

    It’s true the Rothschilds, Montifiires and other mega rich European Jews created Israel. One version in many of the pro Zionist books goes like this.
    There was always a very religious Jewish community in Palestine. They supported themselves in the normal ways, everything but farming.

    But starting about 1850 a lot of extremely religious Jews went to Palestine and didn’t work at all, just studied Talmud and prayed. After 20 years or so the Rothschilds got tired of supporting these lay abouts. What to do?? Remember the self sufficient monasteries of Europe. We’ll rename them communal farms or kibbutzes.. We’ll encourage atheism abd secularism. We’ll invent new Jews, not the pale skinny weak Yeshiva boys and stay at home women; but strong, muscular farmers, soldiers and construction workers.

    If we Rothschilds and Montifiores invest a few million in Zionism now, the Yeshiva boys will go out and earn their own livings And we won’t have to support them forever.

    A lot of Europeans thought the Rothschilds were trying to establish their own country from which to carry out their scams.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. L.K says:
    @Mark Green
    Ms. Weir has done a lot of tremendous work but she's fallen into a trap. Anti-Semitism is not 'abhorrent'. Ridiculous. 'Anti-Semitism' is a sometimes-necessary cultural defense-mechanism. It is therefore a misnamed virtue.

    Unfortunately, Ms Weir has learned to conflate well-earned distrust, disdain and disgust for Jewish wrongdoing with indiscriminate violence directed towards Jewish women and babies.

    This weaponized fallacy ('anti-Semitism') is used to silence criticism, stifle resistance, and gut Free Speech. Has Weir really fallen for it--or is she just paying homage to Jewish power?

    It's also possible that Ms. Weir has attended one-too-many Jewish-lead workshops on 'eradicating racism' or 'How to Achieve Mideast Peace' (without upsetting Israel). Maybe she needs a vacation.

    In any case, Weir expends too much energy trying to prove to her tormentors that she 'doesn't hate Jews', even though their actions have produced harm, dislocation, ruin and suffering; deplorable things all.

    Fact: Jews are not underdogs. Jews are not victims. Jews are not outsiders.

    Fact: Jews are powerful. Jews are aggressive. Jews dominate our political and cultural world. They are the new insiders. And they're not stepping down.

    The German National Socialists had a brief rein in one section of Europe. But they paid the ultimate price. For all their infamy, the NSDP footprint was small and short-lived. And their war crimes were committed as Allied bombs were falling on German cities and killing German women and German babies.

    Today's Jews on the other hand remain intrusive, global and often lethal. Yet they are not under attack. They function as a top predator with a global niche.

    But don't say anything mean about them! It against the law and it shows racial bias!

    Indeed, if they get their way, this tribe of downtrodden geniuses will soon be above reproach--even in conversation. That's chutzpah. So Allison Weir deserves a lot of credit for detailing their diabolical plans to control speech and thought worldwide.

    Worse still, these clever internationalists have demonstrated that they have the savvy to maneuver NATO and Washington into doing Israel's political dirty work. Quite clever. Quite evil.

    This may explain why there will be no apologies for the destruction of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon or Palestine. Or America's woeful decline into unsought multi-culturalism and needless militarism. G-d's Chosen People must always be protected.

    As for 'anti-Semitism', even the lexicon is a fraud. 'Anti-Semitism' starts with a lie since its core animus concerns Jews, not Semites. Why the rhetorical sleight-of-hand? Jews don't want to invoke the J-word in this context as it might bring Jewish beliefs and Jewish malfeasance down to earth and into the conversation where they belong.

    Conceptual 'anti-Semitism' is therefore designed to keep the discussion of Jewish wrongdoing off the table. And it works. At the same time, this Holocaust-drenched term injects loaded and manipulative imagery into the brain of every listener. Its mission is to suggest that the accused ('anti-Semite') suffers either from a psychological disorder or just plain bad character. A little red light goes off in the brain: it's genocide!

    And wouldn't you know it, the all-kosher paradigm of 'anti-Semitism' was cooked up in part by none other than Sigmund Freud and the infamous Frankfurt School. Oy vey.

    But anti-Semitism is merely antipathy towards Jews. Nothing more. And sometimes a little antipathy is a very good thing. Indeed, sometimes 'anti-Semitism' is richly-deserved and sorely needed. Perhaps its emergence will save humanity from WWIII.

    With the hopeful emergence of the next strain of 'virulent anti-Semitism', it's just possible that Israel's next war of aggression in the Middle East will be thwarted by 'anti-Semites' demanding justice, non-aggression, and the rule of law.

    Excellent post, Mark!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mark Green
    Thank you, L.K.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. mcohen says:

    Solonto says

    “Trump’s speech in Saudi Arabia that called for unity among the “Abrahamic” traditions”

    The evolution of the “abrahamic traditions” calls for unity.from that unity a new path will be forged añd the birth of a 4 th abrahamic relegion will come about……that process is underway.it will contain elements of the 3 companions as a base but more will be added as it evolves.
    All 3 relegions have a lot to offer to a new fourth relegion.

    Who will wear the cape;who will carry the burden of leadership;who will have the vision.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  111. mcohen says:
    @Mark Green
    Ms. Weir has done a lot of tremendous work but she's fallen into a trap. Anti-Semitism is not 'abhorrent'. Ridiculous. 'Anti-Semitism' is a sometimes-necessary cultural defense-mechanism. It is therefore a misnamed virtue.

    Unfortunately, Ms Weir has learned to conflate well-earned distrust, disdain and disgust for Jewish wrongdoing with indiscriminate violence directed towards Jewish women and babies.

    This weaponized fallacy ('anti-Semitism') is used to silence criticism, stifle resistance, and gut Free Speech. Has Weir really fallen for it--or is she just paying homage to Jewish power?

    It's also possible that Ms. Weir has attended one-too-many Jewish-lead workshops on 'eradicating racism' or 'How to Achieve Mideast Peace' (without upsetting Israel). Maybe she needs a vacation.

    In any case, Weir expends too much energy trying to prove to her tormentors that she 'doesn't hate Jews', even though their actions have produced harm, dislocation, ruin and suffering; deplorable things all.

    Fact: Jews are not underdogs. Jews are not victims. Jews are not outsiders.

    Fact: Jews are powerful. Jews are aggressive. Jews dominate our political and cultural world. They are the new insiders. And they're not stepping down.

    The German National Socialists had a brief rein in one section of Europe. But they paid the ultimate price. For all their infamy, the NSDP footprint was small and short-lived. And their war crimes were committed as Allied bombs were falling on German cities and killing German women and German babies.

    Today's Jews on the other hand remain intrusive, global and often lethal. Yet they are not under attack. They function as a top predator with a global niche.

    But don't say anything mean about them! It against the law and it shows racial bias!

    Indeed, if they get their way, this tribe of downtrodden geniuses will soon be above reproach--even in conversation. That's chutzpah. So Allison Weir deserves a lot of credit for detailing their diabolical plans to control speech and thought worldwide.

    Worse still, these clever internationalists have demonstrated that they have the savvy to maneuver NATO and Washington into doing Israel's political dirty work. Quite clever. Quite evil.

    This may explain why there will be no apologies for the destruction of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon or Palestine. Or America's woeful decline into unsought multi-culturalism and needless militarism. G-d's Chosen People must always be protected.

    As for 'anti-Semitism', even the lexicon is a fraud. 'Anti-Semitism' starts with a lie since its core animus concerns Jews, not Semites. Why the rhetorical sleight-of-hand? Jews don't want to invoke the J-word in this context as it might bring Jewish beliefs and Jewish malfeasance down to earth and into the conversation where they belong.

    Conceptual 'anti-Semitism' is therefore designed to keep the discussion of Jewish wrongdoing off the table. And it works. At the same time, this Holocaust-drenched term injects loaded and manipulative imagery into the brain of every listener. Its mission is to suggest that the accused ('anti-Semite') suffers either from a psychological disorder or just plain bad character. A little red light goes off in the brain: it's genocide!

    And wouldn't you know it, the all-kosher paradigm of 'anti-Semitism' was cooked up in part by none other than Sigmund Freud and the infamous Frankfurt School. Oy vey.

    But anti-Semitism is merely antipathy towards Jews. Nothing more. And sometimes a little antipathy is a very good thing. Indeed, sometimes 'anti-Semitism' is richly-deserved and sorely needed. Perhaps its emergence will save humanity from WWIII.

    With the hopeful emergence of the next strain of 'virulent anti-Semitism', it's just possible that Israel's next war of aggression in the Middle East will be thwarted by 'anti-Semites' demanding justice, non-aggression, and the rule of law.

    Mark green

    Alison weir got into trouble associating with bullshit much like you have posted.
    The green hurry curry gives you away.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @Z-man

    “Judeo-Christian” is a contradiction in terms.
    It gained traction post-WWII, when Jews began to dominate US institutions.

     

    Yes, like I've said in many posts before, the term was probably 'coined' by some Jew-ish CCNY 'academics' in the thirties or forties.
    Judeo-Christian and Christian Zionists, oxy-'MORONS'.

    Yes. Islam has more in common with Christianity than Judaism does.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @L.K
    Excellent post, Mark!

    Thank you, L.K.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. annamaria says:
    @iffen
    Please specify exactly how “Anti-Semites brought this upon themselves” iffen. Detailed history please.

    After all, we’re talking about curtailment of constitutional free speech rights

    My comment was not meant in support of efforts in the US to enact restrictions on free speech through the administrative bureaucracy. I am thankful for the 2nd amendment. God Bless James Madison! The Europeans are on their own, although I understand that WWII was fought there and the fascists took over several countries, so perhaps that is a mitigating circumstance for Europeans. Even though I think liberal democracy is failing and free speech will disappear, I will cling to it and support it until Armageddon, at which time, no rules will apply.

    I am short on facts and details at the moment and will have to rely upon opinion and assertion. I am fully aware that this sets me apart from some of the better commenters here, but it puts me firmly within the overwhelming majority.

    Anti-Semitism has changed and will change over time. The medieval variety was quite different from the late 19th century and early 20th century variety. About the only thing that they had in common was the target. The same applies today. Although, when your planet Germania inhabitants are weaving their web of delusions, omissions, lies, half-truths, obfuscations, red herrings and selective use of historical facts, they don’t throw that first strand into the wind to chance, but rather project it at AH with a force and accuracy that would intimidate Lithobates catesbeianus. That said, the anti-Semitism of 2017 is not the anti-Semitism of 1927. One defining premise of today’s is Holocaust denial, which of course did not exist in 1927, but rather was a product of 1927’s variety.

    Much of the criticism of Israel derives from anti-Semitism. The criticism is unique to Israel and most of the critics don’t even fake trying to use the same criteria when evaluating Israel as when evaluating other countries. If you think that Israel does not have a right to exist because it was founded by and for Jews; that is anti-Semitic, unless you apply the same criteria to all other countries, and I haven’t seen anyone doing that.

    I am not saying that criticizing Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians makes one an anti-Semite. I’m saying that if you only get hand-wringey about the Palestinians, you stand a good chance of being one. One can make a complaint about 2nd class citizenship for Palestinians, but what about the hundreds of other examples of 2nd class citizenship (or worse) for many hundreds of different peoples around the world. Sam seems to be reliable and he has first-hand knowledge of the conditions in Israel. From what he has relayed, I think that if I had to be a 2nd class citizen, I would give Israel serious consideration.

    Criticism of Israel is the tip of the iceberg of anti-Semitism. One just needs to make sure you are an ice cube when you do your criticizing.

    Is it “crude antisemitism” to notice that certain congresspeople have a dual, US-Israel citizenship?
    “Why You Should Definitely Keep Talking About Seth Rich:”

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-assassination-of-seth-rich-the-dnc-emails-and-the-russia-probe/5591852

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Do you want me to distinguish between "crude anti-Semitism" and "sophisticated anti-Semitism"?

    Give me a break.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. iffen says:
    @annamaria
    Is it "crude antisemitism" to notice that certain congresspeople have a dual, US-Israel citizenship?
    "Why You Should Definitely Keep Talking About Seth Rich:"
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-assassination-of-seth-rich-the-dnc-emails-and-the-russia-probe/5591852

    Do you want me to distinguish between “crude anti-Semitism” and “sophisticated anti-Semitism”?

    Give me a break.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. Seraphim says:
    @Erebus
    I can only assume that it is because I'm on mobile phone internet that my comment #90 above was not directed to Seraphim.

    It was probably a new allusion at a Nietzschean practice which made Wagner suggest that the early manifestation of his ‘altered mode of thought’ and incipient blindness were due to masturbation and ‘unnatural debauchery with indication of pederasty’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. Seraphim says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Once there, one sees as clearly as he did that the West, having killed the Judeo-Christian God(s), had better find a new Narrative quick or succumb to decadence, and eventually extinction. The Judaic end of the spectrum took due note, and promptly weaponized decadence to gain power over the other. The Western Christians offered no coherent response, and are now sliding towards extinction. Only the Orthodox, namely the Russians, successfully revived their God and are fighting a disciplined rear-guard action that has a decent chance of success, which may explain some of the denigration being heaped on them.
     
    "Judeo-Christian" is a contradiction in terms.
    It gained traction post-WWII, when Jews began to dominate US institutions.

    Trump's speech in Saudi Arabia that called for unity among the "Abrahamic" traditions was/is insidious: it normalizes the notion that the concept of god originated with Jews, that is, Jews own god; Jews speak for god, Jews are the chosen people of god; Jews are the moral leaders of all mankind, chosen by god to lead all people 'kicking and screaming' to live ethically.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV2COCsedCw

    This notion, of Abraham as the origin of "god", is deeply antithetical to the foundations of the United States: the Declaration of Independence broadened the concept of god, grounding the notion in "the Creator" and in "nature's god" rather than in the particularist definitions and dogmas of a specific sect or group or set of myths.

    The rights of free men and women everywhere do not find their defense in the tenets of the god of Abraham or of his chosen people, but in the very stuff of existence:


    http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/


    When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
     

    The ‘Abrahamic tradition’ was a Jewish invention to cajole the Mahomedans and induce them into an anti-Christian alliance. Contemporary sources (the Armenian historians Sebeos and Ghevond, both living in the 7th-8th centuries) relate the same story:
    [Sebeos]:
    “God promised that country to Abraham and to his son after him, for eternity. And what had been promised was fulfilled during that time when God loved Israel. Now, however, you are the sons of Abraham, and God shall fulfill the promise made to Abraham and his son on you. Only love the God of Abraham, and go and take the country which God gave to your father Abraham. No one can successfully resist you in war, since God is with you.”
    [Gevond]:
    The Jews were their supporters and leaders, having gone to the camp at Madiam and told them: “God promised Abraham that He would deliver up the inhabitants of the world in service [to him]; and we are his heirs and sons of the patriarch. Because of our wickedness, God became disgusted with us and lifted the scepter of kingship from us, subjecting us to the servitude of slavery. But you, too, are children of Abraham and sons of the patriarch. Arise with us and save us from service to the emperor of the Byzantines, and together we shall hold our realm.” [The Arabs] were encouraged further hearing this, and went against Judaea.

    Christians are not physical descendants of Abraham, but of his faith:
    ‘God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham’
    ‘If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham’
    ‘Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. Erebus says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Once there, one sees as clearly as he did that the West, having killed the Judeo-Christian God(s), had better find a new Narrative quick or succumb to decadence, and eventually extinction. The Judaic end of the spectrum took due note, and promptly weaponized decadence to gain power over the other. The Western Christians offered no coherent response, and are now sliding towards extinction. Only the Orthodox, namely the Russians, successfully revived their God and are fighting a disciplined rear-guard action that has a decent chance of success, which may explain some of the denigration being heaped on them.
     
    "Judeo-Christian" is a contradiction in terms.
    It gained traction post-WWII, when Jews began to dominate US institutions.

    Trump's speech in Saudi Arabia that called for unity among the "Abrahamic" traditions was/is insidious: it normalizes the notion that the concept of god originated with Jews, that is, Jews own god; Jews speak for god, Jews are the chosen people of god; Jews are the moral leaders of all mankind, chosen by god to lead all people 'kicking and screaming' to live ethically.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV2COCsedCw

    This notion, of Abraham as the origin of "god", is deeply antithetical to the foundations of the United States: the Declaration of Independence broadened the concept of god, grounding the notion in "the Creator" and in "nature's god" rather than in the particularist definitions and dogmas of a specific sect or group or set of myths.

    The rights of free men and women everywhere do not find their defense in the tenets of the god of Abraham or of his chosen people, but in the very stuff of existence:


    http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/


    When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
     

    “Judeo-Christian” is a contradiction in terms.

    I used “God(s)” in anticipation of your point, so I can’t disagree, but I think calling it a “contradiction in terms” overshoots the mark. That there is a radical re-definition of “god” going from the OT to the NT, even a discontinuity, doesn’t change the fact that Christians have looked to both as integral parts of their religion’s foundational document for almost 2 millennia.
    In fact, ~2/3 of that document consists of pre-Christian, Jewish tribal lore. Why is it there if it’s a “contradiction in terms” with the “Christian” section? I submit that it continues to be there because it was and remains foundational. If it is contradictory, then a contradiction lies at the heart of Christianity. Maybe Christians like it that way, and in any case it changes nothing.

    As for Trump’s speech… though I’m not sure why you address this to me, and in any case I have no way to view the link, I understand that specifying any particular deity “is deeply antithetical to the foundations” of the United States.
    Of course, “deeply antithetical” things have been happening to those foundations since they were laid. “In God We Trust” appeared on American coinage in the mid 1800s, and was declared the national motto of the USA in the 50s. As oddly jarring as it is to see it on money (that, and the one-eyed pyramid :-)), one wonders what God were the Congress/Mint thinking of if not the biblical God that presents himself from the Creation onwards?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Erebus says:
    @Veritatis
    You give Nietzsche too much credit. His unsystematic writings had the charm of novelty, especially since coupled with a categorical and irreverent tone. He has been interpreted in different ways, but coherent he was certainly not. However, today nihilism and skepticism are more comfortable positions for many than sustaining the tradition of virtues (classic or Christian). At the individual level, this is nothing new, the difference is that today it is precisely the opinion leaders that promote nihilism and skepticism.

    Those leaders also promote anti-Christianity, and with this idea in mind, Walter Kaufmann, a german émigré after WWII could come to Princenton to translate (indeed soften) and popularize Nietzsche in the cultural bulldozer which is the US academia. Kaufmann in fact rescued Nietzsche from the dustbin of ideas. And the "fruits" of nietzschean thought are rather sad: Derrida, Deleuze, Foucault et al, and need plenty of propping by the establishment to be read (if that really occurs).

    The idea of "Western Christians" offering no 'coherent defense' I find unclear. The Catholic Church, for example, is based on the teachings of Christ, on the whole of the Bible, on a 2000 year old tradition of systematic thinkers and on the Catechism. A way of understanding Creation, and man, as coherent as they come. Whoever chooses to live as Christian in a community, meaning the Church, is being coherent. But being a Christian is voluntary, as we are endowed with free will. The number of practicing Christians has gone down, true. But perhaps a smaller Church is a truer Church, and certainly not the same as "on the road to extinction". Being 'salt of the earth' is distinct from being earth itself.

    Nietzsche is long dead, but God is not. What we shall soon find out is whether Europe can not be Christian, and continue to be called Europe.

    You give Nietzsche too much credit.

    Obviously I don’t think so, and I wonder why you think so.

    His unsystematic writings had the charm of novelty… coherent he was certainly not.

    I assume you’re talking about his use of aphorisms. Aphoristic writing has a long and illustrious history, going back to ancient Greek, Chinese, and Hindu writings, so I couldn’t call it “novel”. In any case, Nietzsche didn’t adopt the style until almost half-way through his writing career. That his prose is considered amongst the best of the Western philosophical tradition and sets a benchmark in German style, has been established. I’m left wondering what he has to do to be “coherent” in your view.

    By “no coherent defence” I simply meant that Western Christianity offered no comprehensive or effective resistance to the civilizational trend that swept it from being the physical and metaphysical matrix permeating all of European life at the time of the Renaissance, to becoming a subject of ridicule, and finally not even of ridicule. In medieval Europe, every aspect of life, and every event transpired within the matrix of Christian metaphysics, dogma and morality. There was a God in everyone’s heaven, and God’s law in every public and private event and act.
    By the time of Nietzsche, that was no longer so. Note Solonto’s comments (@96) about the American Constitution. 100 yrs before Nietzsche, the authors saw fit to include a deliberately non-Christian definition of God. To be sure, it was a cutting edge political document, but had they lived 200 years earlier they quite literally couldn’t have imagined including such a definition. The Christian God that permeated every crevice of the body politic from the laws governing street markets to the King’s prerogatives a scant 2 centuries before was shut out of the legal structure underpinning the new nation. “We the People” took his place. Of course, there were the expected backlashes, but 100 yrs later, almost every European nation had undergone a similar transformation, and God was dead. He had become spiritual and no longer governed the life of people, or of nations. That is what is meant by “God is Dead”.

    That a few pockets still hold to vestiges of the Christian matrix, is neither surprising, nor decisive. Your god may still be alive, but he’s politically and culturally an anachronism, and for countless more he may as well have never lived at all. The West, as a whole is now thoroughly post-Christian. Unfortunately, we have no better answer to the question Nietzsche asked, “What’s next?” than he did. In fact, we don’t even ask it. The nihilism now permeates all the crevices that were the domain of the Christian God a few centuries ago.

    That’s why I am puzzled when I keep hearing about Nietzsche’s “nihilism”. My reading suggests exactly the opposite. Nietzsche railed, never “incoherently”, and often brilliantly, against the nihilism which he saw was the inevitable consequence of the death of God. We were his murderers, and nihilism would be our punishment.
    He despaired that Western civilization had no defence, and that the “great men” of the time seemed oblivious to what was coming. As it turns out, he was right that nihilism would overrun the West and we have yet to see any signs of a remedy.
    How that makes him a nihilist escapes me. He was terrified by it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Veritatis
    Let's see if this is a fair summary of your ideas:
    1) Nietzsche was a deep/wise thinker.
    2) N. writes beautifully.
    3) N. is not a nihilist.
    4) The numbers of practicing Christians has decreased and thus their impact on the general culture has markedly decreased.

    1) Where you see depth and insight, is mostly a talent for critique. He did "rail" (as you say) against the coherent Christian worldview: an explanation of the world, of man, of how he should live and the purpose/meaning of his life. He did not offer a similarly comprehensive one: no explanation of the world or of man's purpose. He even 'railed' against Socrates "know thyself".

                "Thus it happened that.. my vtal instinct turned against ethics and founded a radical counter-doctrine, slanted esthetically, to oppose the Christian libel on life. But it still wanted a name. Being a philologist, that is to say a man of words, I christened it rather arbitrarily, --for who can tell the name of the AntiChrist?-- with the name of a Greek god, Dyonisus." -Birth of Tragedy

    Notice that he opposed a concept (Christian ethics) with an image (Dionysus), and, Nietzsche being Nietzsche, injected a congratulatory self-reference

    2) He does write well, and his egocentric, commanding, irreverent tone is seductive to many. Look at all the "snarky" style that today inundates the Internet and mass media and you will see little, less cultivated Nietzsches. But the point would be what he writes about, since one can drink poison from a finely crafted gold cup.

    3) He is absolutely a nihilist. Having dispensed with God, and built a "morality" around a hypothetical Superman that has the right to break the 'shackles' of pity for the weak, and move 'beyond good and evil', he was left with only the Will to Power. "Just will' says good old Nietzsche. What or why, it doesn't matter. And yet in Eternal Return he discovers -scientifically-- that all gods die, even his Overman.

                      "Apart from the ascetic ideal, man, the human animal, had no meaning so far, his existence on earth contained no goal. 'Why man at all' was a question without an answer."
                     "And, to repeat in conclusion what I said in the beginning, man would rather will nothingness than not will." (Both from Genealogy of Morals, emphasis in the original.)

    4) Yes, the number of practicing Christians has decreased, and markedly so in Europe. It seems Europe is losing/has lost God, and the will to live. Is there a relation? I don't think that is true yet of the US and certainly not in Latin America, which I include in 'the West' what with the Monroe Doctrine and all. But as I already said, perhaps a smaller church is a truer church. And so we may speak of creative minorities to live life meaningfully, in community, and create in practice better answers to the old question "how then shall we live?".

    Two final comments. First, look to who is still backing (after the Nazi fiasco) Nietzsche. Who teaches, publishes and cites Nietzsche? Birds of a feather fly together. It is the skeptical, nihilistic, antiChristian opinion leaders, who care very little for the man in the street (those weaklings!) and who do not mind dissolving the fabric of society if that is helpful to their economic interest. (Will to power!) Second, why not look at his life? Before taking a thinker as guide, why not see how his ideas played out in the thinker's life? Admittedly ad hominem, but useful. Nietzsche was incapable of sustaining a job, any relationships, died childless and raving mad. Oh, and just before being confined, he wrote letters crying for help and signed them 'Dionysus' and 'the Crucified One'. Nothing to aspire to, it would seem.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Sam Shama says:
    @Erebus

    How (Nietzsche) came to be dubbed an ‘antisemite’ beggars belief.
     
    Well, it may beggar your belief, but not mine (or, one assumes, others).

    Nietzsche is "anti-Christian" in exactly the same way he is "anti-Semitic". Both ends (and middle) of the Judeo-Christian spectrum misunderstand him in the same way. They think he's speaking to them, while he was speaking to fellow Hyperboreans from a vantage point that transcended both. That vantage point has long been lost to us, which is perhaps why Heidegger called him "the last great metaphysician of the West".

    Reading Nietzsche one is well advised to keep Wittgenstein's Ladder Metaphor in mind. The metaphor can be distilled to "He who finally understands me understands that I've been talking nonsense. He must throw away the ladder, so to speak, having climbed it".

    Once there, one sees as clearly as he did that the West, having killed the Judeo-Christian God(s), had better find a new Narrative quick or succumb to decadence, and eventually extinction. The Judaic end of the spectrum took due note, and promptly weaponized decadence to gain power over the other. The Western Christians offered no coherent response, and are now sliding towards extinction. Only the Orthodox, namely the Russians, successfully revived their God and are fighting a disciplined rear-guard action that has a decent chance of success, which may explain some of the denigration being heaped on them.

    A fascinating discussion and I enjoyed every word you wrote on this thread. Nietzsche in my book was all that you summed him up for; the last metaphysician, brilliant stylist and, as I like to think, a contrarian for its own sake, or rather, simply the deliberate “madman” who curated proposals he then elbowed to get a reaction from those he considered weak-kneed or dull. He was more; equally anti-Christian and anti-Semitic; certainly a happy-misogynist (set of such things being narrow) which prompted a sharp reprimand from Russell.

    So I feel I am on firm ground to declare both love and hate for him. Well, hate goes too far I suppose, annoyed, being more appropriate for his antisemitism. And naturally not non-plussed to see my Christian brethren upbraid the man for his anti-Christianity. Yet both sides would be unsound at a slightly deeper level. As you correctly establish, Nietzsche predicted Nihilism and lamented its coming.

    A small matter. I wonder if you’d care to elaborate on the notion that the Judaic end of the spectrum took due note and “promptly weaponized decadence” to suit its ends :-))

    Cheers

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    took due note and “promptly weaponized decadence” to suit its ends :-))

    It seems to me that this would be one of those high risk weapons, similar to poison gas. If conditions are not just right, direction of the wind, you could destroy your own.
    , @Seraphim
    @deliberate “madman”

    Nietzsche's madness was not deliberate, but sadly real. He suffered from a brain disease (tragically misdiagnosed in his time as induced by syphilis), most likely induced by a tumor (meningioma) behind his right eye, which might have been congenital, and which affects the frontal lobe (fronto-temporal dementia).

    , @Erebus
    Thanks for your gracious words.

    ... the last metaphysician, brilliant stylist and, as I like to think, a contrarian for its own sake, or rather, simply the deliberate “madman” who curated proposals he then elbowed to get a reaction...
     
    I'm not sure he was the last metaphysician, but was quite probably the last great one, though I'm even less sure he'd agree. He failed, ultimately, to open the eyes of the people who could make a difference. At any rate, he was the only kind of metaphysician permitted in a recently post-Kantian, post-Hegelian world. Namely, a visionary/poet/seer/high priest/prophet whose vision could penetrate the darkness that was already closing. That darkness has come to define our time and will continue until the arrival of a more powerful visionary, or perhaps just another, more timely Nietzsche.

    IMHO, his greatest stylistic accomplishment was to harness the style of a work to the truth he was seeking. He wasn't looking to out-hegel Hegel, or even to out-goethe Goethe. He wanted a new metaphysics altogether that would grandly "cut to the chase", without getting bogged down in the minutiae professional philosophers were so fond of. So, he attacked from many fronts, and employed a the style that best suited the fronts individually. Nobody could claim that his attacks were always successful, but even his failures were eye-openers due in no small part to his ability to phrase them provocatively, even shockingly, yet in a way that illuminated some hidden, but crucial aspect that had escaped all other critiques.

    He saw, from his vantage point a half century into the techno-industrial age, that rising flood waters were already lapping at the doorstep of Western civilization, and would soon permeate all of it. Western civilization let the waters rise willy-nilly in its pursuit of the delights of decadence, and now wonders from whence came the resulting swamp now that the thrill is gone. Perhaps that's why Trump's "Drain the swamp!" resonates, but there's little real energy available for the job absent a compelling vision of what a (suddenly) "dry" civilization would look like. In that respect, it is not impossible that Christianity will, mutatis mutandis rise again, however I see the obvious, much more sinister trend of a value-less absolutism rising.

    Others have seen this too, and reacted positively. Russia is re-building its ancient "Russian World", devastated by the Bolsheviks, in the context of a modern state. China is re-building its historical "Chinese World", devastated by Mao et al, with the New Silk Roads project. Both have made their respective historical civilizations the foundation of a modern, forward-looking national vision. They aren't the old Russia, or the old China, and they're very different, but they're theirs and their people see it as a future worth pursuing. Looking south, S. America and Africa show embryonic signs of post-industrial awakenings, but the West has no working vision but the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan. If it isn't the ne plus ultra of Nihilism writ with a capital N, I have no idea what is.
    That is what drove Nietzsche, and not just Nietzsche, mad. His burning insights couldn't be un-seen, and so prevented his lapsing into ignorance for a cure. Welded as they were to fragile health, and physiologically induced mental instabilities, they put him over that edge that less sighted men could avoid. Yes, he saw his mission to provoke, even shock, his readers out of their sleep-walk-to-doom, but he didn't need to feign madness to gain notoriety.

    PS: As for "weaponizing decadence", I suggest you resist temptation no longer, but prepare plenty of towels, and read the abhorrent, yet boring Protocols. As I have to conserve water, I will await your verdict. If you deem only one or two showers necessary, I will too. Then we can talk.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @jilles dykstra
    All these details just confuse what happened.
    Zionism began when colonialism still was seen as civilising the world.

    Herzl never asked the Palestinian people anything, he visited the Russian minister Von Plehve, he visited the Ottoman sultan.

    Zionists never realised that when they by force realised their colonial objectives, more than colonial, because they ethnically cleansed Palestine, the world had changed.
    Colonialism was out.

    And zionists, victims of their own propaganda, never realised that Palestinians did exist, were a people, still are a people.
    I suppose they thought that the great and cruel population exchanges in SE Europe, including present Turkey, from 1912 to 1925, could be repeated.

    The great zionist mistake of 1948 was not to exterminate the Palestinians, at the time it still was possible, there were less than a million Palestinians, jews still had the sympathy of the world, video cameras and satellite connections did not exist.

    The Palestinian population explosion was made by zionism, they marry at fifteen, just married men with children are allowed to work in Israel, just families get UN food aid.
    So now there are four of five million Palestinians, who politically are more and more important, at the same time Israel is condemned by nearly the whole world.

    Part of the Deep State resistance to Trump is fear that Israel loses its preferred situation as a fixed aircraft carrier of the USA in the ME.
    If, IF, Trump's visit to NATO again seems to confirm it, USA has normal relation with Russia, Isrrael loses its strategical value.

    From JD: “And zionists, victims of their own propaganda, never realised that Palestinians did exist, were a people, still are a people.”

    Not correct. Although that’s what apologists for the Zionist enterprise claim today, it was not always so. Parts of Jabotinsky’s “Iron Wall” speech are well known, but not this:

    ” …this does not mean that there cannot be any agreement with the Palestine Arabs. What is impossible is a voluntary agreement. As long as the Arabs feel that there is the least hope of getting rid of us, they will refuse to give up this hope in return for either kind words or for bread and butter, because they are not a rabble, but a living people. “

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. Sam Shama says:
    @Mark Green
    Ms. Weir has done a lot of tremendous work but she's fallen into a trap. Anti-Semitism is not 'abhorrent'. Ridiculous. 'Anti-Semitism' is a sometimes-necessary cultural defense-mechanism. It is therefore a misnamed virtue.

    Unfortunately, Ms Weir has learned to conflate well-earned distrust, disdain and disgust for Jewish wrongdoing with indiscriminate violence directed towards Jewish women and babies.

    This weaponized fallacy ('anti-Semitism') is used to silence criticism, stifle resistance, and gut Free Speech. Has Weir really fallen for it--or is she just paying homage to Jewish power?

    It's also possible that Ms. Weir has attended one-too-many Jewish-lead workshops on 'eradicating racism' or 'How to Achieve Mideast Peace' (without upsetting Israel). Maybe she needs a vacation.

    In any case, Weir expends too much energy trying to prove to her tormentors that she 'doesn't hate Jews', even though their actions have produced harm, dislocation, ruin and suffering; deplorable things all.

    Fact: Jews are not underdogs. Jews are not victims. Jews are not outsiders.

    Fact: Jews are powerful. Jews are aggressive. Jews dominate our political and cultural world. They are the new insiders. And they're not stepping down.

    The German National Socialists had a brief rein in one section of Europe. But they paid the ultimate price. For all their infamy, the NSDP footprint was small and short-lived. And their war crimes were committed as Allied bombs were falling on German cities and killing German women and German babies.

    Today's Jews on the other hand remain intrusive, global and often lethal. Yet they are not under attack. They function as a top predator with a global niche.

    But don't say anything mean about them! It against the law and it shows racial bias!

    Indeed, if they get their way, this tribe of downtrodden geniuses will soon be above reproach--even in conversation. That's chutzpah. So Allison Weir deserves a lot of credit for detailing their diabolical plans to control speech and thought worldwide.

    Worse still, these clever internationalists have demonstrated that they have the savvy to maneuver NATO and Washington into doing Israel's political dirty work. Quite clever. Quite evil.

    This may explain why there will be no apologies for the destruction of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon or Palestine. Or America's woeful decline into unsought multi-culturalism and needless militarism. G-d's Chosen People must always be protected.

    As for 'anti-Semitism', even the lexicon is a fraud. 'Anti-Semitism' starts with a lie since its core animus concerns Jews, not Semites. Why the rhetorical sleight-of-hand? Jews don't want to invoke the J-word in this context as it might bring Jewish beliefs and Jewish malfeasance down to earth and into the conversation where they belong.

    Conceptual 'anti-Semitism' is therefore designed to keep the discussion of Jewish wrongdoing off the table. And it works. At the same time, this Holocaust-drenched term injects loaded and manipulative imagery into the brain of every listener. Its mission is to suggest that the accused ('anti-Semite') suffers either from a psychological disorder or just plain bad character. A little red light goes off in the brain: it's genocide!

    And wouldn't you know it, the all-kosher paradigm of 'anti-Semitism' was cooked up in part by none other than Sigmund Freud and the infamous Frankfurt School. Oy vey.

    But anti-Semitism is merely antipathy towards Jews. Nothing more. And sometimes a little antipathy is a very good thing. Indeed, sometimes 'anti-Semitism' is richly-deserved and sorely needed. Perhaps its emergence will save humanity from WWIII.

    With the hopeful emergence of the next strain of 'virulent anti-Semitism', it's just possible that Israel's next war of aggression in the Middle East will be thwarted by 'anti-Semites' demanding justice, non-aggression, and the rule of law.

    For me, this post does not deserve a lengthy reply, only hearty laughter, followed by relief. Laughter, to behold its struggle to dress a plainly commonplace bigotry into something deeper; and relief, to witness the unmasking of small men who constantly remind us that anti-Zionism is distinct from Jew hatred.

    Naturally felicitated by the usual cretins and reptiles, it requires no other argument for summary dismissal, other than to note in passing the pseudo-concern to guard humanity.

    Guarding your own fundaments against possible ‘green hurry curry’ as mcohen funnily puts it, is more like it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Who don't you show a modicum of intellectual honesty in your vituperative and petty attacks against anybody who dears to criticize the zionist project? Of course it is your choice to stay shoulder to shoulder with such "giants" as Avigdor Lieberman and Sharansky, but if you try to attempt at "unmasking of small men" who dare to make a distinction between anti-Zionism and "Jew hatred," you would face people like Arendt and Einstein ("the usual cretins and reptiles,"according to you?), who were the true intellectual and moral giants, the glory of humanity.
    The project has been transforming - take a notice.
    http://www.rense.com/general59/ein.htm
    http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/how-hannah-arendt-was-labeled-an-enemy-of-israel-email-article-to-a-friend
    "Guarding your own fundaments" could bring paradoxical results when the fundamentals have a flaw.
    , @Art

    Laughter, to behold its struggle to dress a plainly commonplace bigotry into something deeper; and relief, to witness the unmasking of small men who constantly remind us that anti-Zionism is distinct from Jew hatred.
     
    As philosophical Christians, we "hate the sin" not the sinner. You Jews have sinned. What you have done to the Palestinians and the whole ME is a great sin. What you have done to the America and to the Western democracies is a great sin. All you disinformation comments cannot hide the truth of your wrong doing. It is said "that what goes around comes around."

    True philosophical Christians are interested in tomorrow, not yesterday - we will not seek "an eye for an eye" as your backwards culture does.

    Your problem is that there are few real philosophical Christians. Good luck!

    Peace --- Art

    p.s. It is the Little Jews who do the suffering - the Big Jews will be long gone with the gold.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. Miro23 says:

    It seems imperative for Americans who wish for justice and peace in the Middle East, and who oppose Orwellian distortions of language and law, to speak out against this campaign – while we can.

    Speaking out is the difficult part.

    The whole multi-billion $ lobbying effort is focused on Washington and the machinery of American government. The public is nowhere in sight, and just get to hear of the new laws as they appear.

    The United States was founded on the principle that power was held at the local level (at a maximum the State) and that decisions researched and voted locally, would combine with the same process across the nation to decide policy. A minimal Federal government in Washington would only enact State policies.

    In this “town hall” model of true Democracy, the public can for example debate the value of legislation equating opposition to Israel with Anti-Semitism, and decide to enact it or not. And more to the point they could have discussed on voted on the local cost/benefit of ME wars if they had been given the chance.

    In the few countries that run effective local Democracy, it’s interesting that citizens are often legally required to participate (in recognition of human nature), and a good deal of time and resources are dedicated to the process. As a one time Lord Mayor of Geneva (Switzerland) once said, “each Commune has as much power as it can usefully exploit.”, and he also noted that Participatory Democracy was often frustrating and costly, but that citizen involvement made it more than worthwhile.

    The US could usefully return power to the States where the Founders and the Constitution intended it to be, together with 80%+ of taxation and spending (very important). It’s futile to ask Americans to “speak out” if they don’t have a framework in which to do it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  124. iffen says:
    @Sam Shama
    A fascinating discussion and I enjoyed every word you wrote on this thread. Nietzsche in my book was all that you summed him up for; the last metaphysician, brilliant stylist and, as I like to think, a contrarian for its own sake, or rather, simply the deliberate "madman" who curated proposals he then elbowed to get a reaction from those he considered weak-kneed or dull. He was more; equally anti-Christian and anti-Semitic; certainly a happy-misogynist (set of such things being narrow) which prompted a sharp reprimand from Russell.

    So I feel I am on firm ground to declare both love and hate for him. Well, hate goes too far I suppose, annoyed, being more appropriate for his antisemitism. And naturally not non-plussed to see my Christian brethren upbraid the man for his anti-Christianity. Yet both sides would be unsound at a slightly deeper level. As you correctly establish, Nietzsche predicted Nihilism and lamented its coming.

    A small matter. I wonder if you'd care to elaborate on the notion that the Judaic end of the spectrum took due note and "promptly weaponized decadence" to suit its ends :-))

    Cheers

    took due note and “promptly weaponized decadence” to suit its ends :-))

    It seems to me that this would be one of those high risk weapons, similar to poison gas. If conditions are not just right, direction of the wind, you could destroy your own.

    Read More
    • Agree: Sam Shama
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. Incitatus says:
    @iffen
    Please specify exactly how “Anti-Semites brought this upon themselves” iffen. Detailed history please.

    After all, we’re talking about curtailment of constitutional free speech rights

    My comment was not meant in support of efforts in the US to enact restrictions on free speech through the administrative bureaucracy. I am thankful for the 2nd amendment. God Bless James Madison! The Europeans are on their own, although I understand that WWII was fought there and the fascists took over several countries, so perhaps that is a mitigating circumstance for Europeans. Even though I think liberal democracy is failing and free speech will disappear, I will cling to it and support it until Armageddon, at which time, no rules will apply.

    I am short on facts and details at the moment and will have to rely upon opinion and assertion. I am fully aware that this sets me apart from some of the better commenters here, but it puts me firmly within the overwhelming majority.

    Anti-Semitism has changed and will change over time. The medieval variety was quite different from the late 19th century and early 20th century variety. About the only thing that they had in common was the target. The same applies today. Although, when your planet Germania inhabitants are weaving their web of delusions, omissions, lies, half-truths, obfuscations, red herrings and selective use of historical facts, they don’t throw that first strand into the wind to chance, but rather project it at AH with a force and accuracy that would intimidate Lithobates catesbeianus. That said, the anti-Semitism of 2017 is not the anti-Semitism of 1927. One defining premise of today’s is Holocaust denial, which of course did not exist in 1927, but rather was a product of 1927’s variety.

    Much of the criticism of Israel derives from anti-Semitism. The criticism is unique to Israel and most of the critics don’t even fake trying to use the same criteria when evaluating Israel as when evaluating other countries. If you think that Israel does not have a right to exist because it was founded by and for Jews; that is anti-Semitic, unless you apply the same criteria to all other countries, and I haven’t seen anyone doing that.

    I am not saying that criticizing Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians makes one an anti-Semite. I’m saying that if you only get hand-wringey about the Palestinians, you stand a good chance of being one. One can make a complaint about 2nd class citizenship for Palestinians, but what about the hundreds of other examples of 2nd class citizenship (or worse) for many hundreds of different peoples around the world. Sam seems to be reliable and he has first-hand knowledge of the conditions in Israel. From what he has relayed, I think that if I had to be a 2nd class citizen, I would give Israel serious consideration.

    Criticism of Israel is the tip of the iceberg of anti-Semitism. One just needs to make sure you are an ice cube when you do your criticizing.

    Hi Iffen and Sam. Sorry for the delay.

    ‘Hate crime’ and anti-discrimination statutes address laudable concerns. But elaborating law to highlight narrow malice seems unnecessary if existing law is scrupulously enforced. Is a murderer more guilty if racially motivated? Isn’t the important thing apprehension, trial and conviction for the physical crime?

    Where such concern strays into proscribing free speech, count me out. Why?
    • Criminalizing speech is a bureaucratic nightmare, a passport to thought crime and all the rest;
    • Where law is neither universal nor simple, enforcement is apt arbitrary and capricious – police are, after all, human;
    • A cumulative babel of special laws signals cultural decay. Tacitus had it right: “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”

    Don’t agree with Europeans. No sympathy for Ursula Haverbeck. Defiant, incendiary radicalism isn’t new in Germany. Standing in 20C ruins licenses them the right to determine and apply their own laws.

    Do such laws merely produce martyrs and drive belief underground to metastasize here? Is it better to expose all belief to rigorous public scrutiny and debate?

    “…the anti-Semitism of 2017 is not the anti-Semitism of 1927. One defining premise of today’s is Holocaust denial…”

    Is it really so different? Isn’t Holocaust denial another version of blood liable, Christ killer, Versailles traitor, ‘Protocols of the Elders…’ and so on? Granted, Israel’s existence adds a new dimension, but the target (Jews) remains the same.

    It’s not how anti-Semitism has changed, but how to deal with it. In an age that expands every day with new media and modes. Drive it underground, or expose it to full ridicule? I’d bet on the latter.

    Israel versus Palestinian is a favorite meme for some who simply hate all Jews and condemn them as a sinister conspiracy. ‘Christ killer’ becomes ‘Palestinian killer.’ They eagerly reshuffle human history as an indictment. Palestinians usually appear as the latest victim of the conspiracy, minus suggestions of how to improve their lot. QED get rid of evil Israel and all will be well.

    Make no mistake. Israeli extremists merit equal scrutiny. Bennett’s “Palestinian question” mimics the Nazi “Judenfrage.” Shorthand (wink, wink) dehumanization. Justice Minister Shaked’s Palestinian ‘snakes’? The abysmal indictment/prosecution/conviction rate of crimes against non-Jews? All is discussed inside Israel, little makes it to the US. Why?

    “I am not saying that criticizing Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians makes one an anti-Semite…”

    Don’t laws contemplated seem tailor made for such abuse? Would people like Max Blumenthal be jailed?

    “The criticism is unique to Israel…”

    Remember the 2002-03 smear campaign against France intended to extort a UNSC vote for war?Andy Rooney on 60 Minutes, “Old Europe”, condemnatory editorials and op-eds, screeds like ‘Our Oldest Enemy,’ “Axis of Weasels”, “Cheese-eating Surrender Monkeys”, ‘freedom fries’, boycotts, Bill O’Reilly’s bumper stickers, dumping wine in the streets, accusations of deep corruption in the Oil-for-Food program, accusations of cowardice and giving EU passports to Saddam?

    Imagine Israel subject of such a campaign and boycott. “Unique criticism”? Bullshit!

    First closing. Last time in KSA. New Saudi sponsor (nice enough fellow) met me at Riyadh airport with a copy of the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion…” as a thoughtful landing gift. Ever read it? No more foul, outright boring screed exists. Two pages are enough to signal cretinous onslaught, immediate need for prompt disengagement and a shower. Never read the rest of it. Henry Ford’s a genius, but in this respect pure moron. Reminded me of discovering an Oxonian friend (no offense Sam) seriously equated the Irish with monkeys. Such bias is as disfiguring as the most repelling corporeal defect.

    Bear in mind – Israel’s new best friend is KSA (world-class beheader).

    Final closing. You may not like this. Chabad Chevra, Hartford CT. Wealthy donor buys a manor house in a posh residential neighborhood adjoining the University of Hartford. Baptists and RCs – previous owners – used it exclusively as a retreat (residence). Chabad operates an active house of worship and student center, boh prohibited by zoning code. Neighbors (disrupted by 24-hr lights and increased Saturday activity) object. The case rises to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Sworn facts emerge in lengthy testimony (none acrimonious). The HZBA unanimously (5-0) rules Chabad’s activity illegal. Three of five HZBA commissioners are Jewish attorneys.

    Justice? Didn’t end the case. Chabad’s attorney immediately appealed to a tame Fairfield judge, who obligingly overturned Hartford resident ZBA’s ruling on the basis – you guessed it -anti-Semitism!

    https://crownheights.info/chabad-news/41087/judge-slaps-city-for-anti-semitism-agianst-chabad/

    Ruling “…the city of Hartford cannot use its zoning rules to prevent a sect of Orthodox Jews from using a former church as their place of worship.” Reality. It was NEVER a “church” or “place of worship” (Baptist and RCs had separate churches). Firmly established by HZBA testimony.

    Result? Neighbors exit the area, selling their houses at a loss.

    Anti-Semitism? Pretend I’m a neighbor (I’m not) forced to sell my house at a loss to escape unzoned evangelical activity while labeled an anti-Semite. How should I feel? How should anti-Semitic HZBA commissioners feel? Thoughts?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    World Jewry declared war on Germany in 1933...yes, 1933. with Jewish books such as "Germany Must Perish", what were the non-Jewish Germans supposed to do?
    , @anarchyst
    The "Protocols" ARE a blueprint for world domination. It is curious that this supposed "forgery" has so much "staying power", even in today's climate of political correctness...
    Read it for yourselves. Don't rely on others to censor it for you...you will not like what you find.
    Henry Ford KNEW and exposed the TRUTH.
    , @Sam Shama
    Hi Incitatus,
    I'll be back with a response presently (one hopes a meaningful one).
    , @Sam Shama
    Hi Incitatus,

    I was about to propose, subject to your patience, of course, a set of conditions appropriate for the topic at hand; which when I wrote initially, I thought rather convincing, only to realise upon a second read merely clever, even commonplace, though not rising to the charge of glib. None of it was a defense of laws intended to retrench free speech, however.

    So permit me to dispense with any surfeit of dancing around the motion. I think it an unqualified error, indeed the thin end of the wedge, to craft such laws as would limit the expression of ideas, good and bad, which in any case reside in the domain of our thoughts making them immune to intervention. They shall be written, spoken, or shouted; sublime, practical, or abhorrent. It matters not in which form they find an audience; nor if that audience: intended, just in passing, or accidental, finds the material execrable.

    For speech inharmonious to one's values or beliefs can be simply avoided (may I suggest earplugs or a holiday away from the internet) and if unavoidable, accepted as the eminently worthy purchase which founds a cornerstone of our free society. It is the cornerstone if removed, presents to the public a slippery slope from which I fear we may never succeed the climb back to civilisation.

    Better still, offensive speech is best dealt with through exposure to full ridicule, as you write. I’d bet on it as well.

    There are those who remind me of rights and limits. They tell me your right to throw a fist toward my face is limited; that it is required to stop at a distance comfortably distant. To them, I say speech is not the fist, while earplugs and averting the screen are personal remedies never unavailable. Those are your safe spaces, look no further, ask for no more.

    On the question of Israel and the Palestinians, I confess I am torn. I grew up fervently clinging to the belief that the State shall absorb the returning children of Abraham. But that was an idea rather fragile, speak of it, and it vanishes. The populations grow more radical each passing day, and one is faced with a reality, which if ignored leads either to widespread suffering or complete devastation. On the edges of this gathering storm, one treats the complex problem through the only means visible: a scheme of financial compensation for the dispossessed. And a state for the Pals. Land swaps and relocations. Who knows? Easier said than done.

    Speaking of Israeli politicians, couldn't agree more. For a time I thought Bennet was innovative and something of a visionary when he established a wide-ranging economic plan for several Palestinian model communities in the WB. Then he paused, and from what I hear he claims BDS the culprit. I admit I am not in possession of the full facts. Shaked, I might have called a termagant if she weren't one of those women whose blood can run both hot and icy-cold. Mostly, it is the latter condition which defines her disposition, which is to say she is entirely bereft of emotions normal h.sapiens is rumoured to possess.

    Protocols of Zion, I have not read and going by your account, the urge to shower after reading it tempts me indeed; for I can take as many showers as needed (I like showers) if it indeed contains the blueprint for world domination. I've felt that calling from my salad days at the old alma mater :-)). Speaking of which, not a bit surprised you were treated to that odd little surprise on account of the views of your friend. Even (or, especially?) the halls of All Souls, let alone others not automatically fellows, are prowled by the occasional beast.

    On the Chabad Chevra story. Once again I am not a bit surprised. I detest these in-flocking penguins. Always turning numerous when one is spotted, rarely pleasant and mostly dumb in a cunning sort of way. They never see beyond their ample proboscises. I passionately believe in restricting them to certain neighbourhoods. I could tell you where I live - an area about 30% Jewish - we have successfully thwarted at least two potential invasions. In short, I have no love lost for these creatures and it doesn't take me much to come to loggerheads with them. I can never forget that day when a female cousin and I, walking through a particular neighbourhood in Jerusalem were greeted with a hail of pebbles and stones. Our crime? We were wearing summer-appropriate clothes!

    In closing, I wonder and certainly hope I've been clear. A small query. Am I wrong to have sensed that in the case of Germany, given their history you are -minimally perhaps - ambivalent about their hate speech laws?

    Best
    , @Art
    It’s not how anti-Semitism has changed, but how to deal with it. In an age that expands every day with new media and modes.

    How to deal with it? The answer is get real – Sam in his response to you got real. Sam got real about free speech, Palestinians, and some very coercive Jew politicians.

    The lie that all is well, and on the up and up with Israel cannot be sustained. It is so obvious that Israel is not the victim, but the aggressor – and that this is not 1940 and Jews are no longer the victim.

    Peace --- Art

    p.s. If the Jews were smart, they would drop the Six Million Lie – let it die a natural death. That lie can only be enforced by obvious coercion (as in Europe). Every day now, more websites are going against the coercive deep state – it is the thing to do to get attention. Jews lies cannot escape the sunlight.

    p.s. Jews should get Kushner out of the White House. Kushner flies the Israel flag. If Trump goes down, it will be with Kushner. Seventy million people voted for Trump – they will see the Jew connection. The Jew controlled media are already treating him with kid gloves. But the Democrats smell Trump blood, and will push and push, dragging Kushner into it all.
    , @iffen
    Well worth the wait as usual!

    Remember the 2002-03 smear campaign against France intended to extort a UNSC vote for war?

    Imagine Israel subject of such a campaign and boycott.

    Disparate influence of Jews in media; are you going for the financial influence next?

    In a manner, anti-Semitism is what anti-Semites say and do.

    Blood libel is no “hook” for today’s populace; same for the Protocols.

    But those poor put-upon Palestinians; let me rend my clothing.

    “Unique criticism”? Bullshit!

    Where were these weepy hand wringers when Egypt ran Gaza as “an open air prison”?

    The Ottomans, fellow co-religionists, ran the area for hundreds of years. Why no independent Palestine?

    In 1947-1948, they were being given a “state” just like the Jews and the Lebanese, but their Arab “brothers” turned it down on their behalf. If you let other people make your bed for you, "Shut up and try to get some sleep"!

    Which peoples have moved into non-populated areas and set up shop; maybe the Australian Aborigines, the first wave of Siberians in the New World?

    If history is anything it is a record of group conflict over resources. Let’s not single out Israel as an exception when they are, in fact, the rule.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @Moi
    I guess you're okay with a European people grabbing land from Palestinians. Interesting (and that's putting it mildly).

    I guess you’re okay with a European people grabbing land from Palestinians. Interesting (and that’s putting it mildly).

    How is that worse than an Arabian people grabbing land from Philistines, and numerous other tribes and civilizations?

    Israel is the size of New Jersey. Araby is the size of Canada. Jews are responsible for 0.5% of Semitic land thievery.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    The Arabs don't rely on the US to run interference them, nor do they engage in appalling guilt-mongering when confronted with any and all criticism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. Miro23 says:
    @TK
    Jews always forget basic Newton laws:
    "For every action there is an equal or opposite reaction".
    In a long run you can not silence people, it will backfire.

    Jews always forget basic Newton laws:
    “For every action there is an equal or opposite reaction”.
    In a long run you cannot silence people, it will backfire.

    That’s generally true, but in some cases the genocide and destruction can be so intense as to be irreversible. For example after the third Punic War, the Romans systematically burnt and demolished Carthage, selling what was left of the population into slavery ( the few remaining people were dispersed throughout the Empire and lost their identity).

    There’s a certain resonance here.

    Jews were also defeated and dispersed throughout the Empire (and its successor states), although in their case, they held onto their identity for millennia through tradition, religion, inter-marriage laws, constant prayer for the refounding of Israel and an adaptive survival strategy in their host societies.

    A problem was their lack of numbers, which coupled with their refusal to inter-marry and integrate giving the inevitable result of ghettoization (living apart).

    The survival strategy was to undertake activities distained by traditional aristocratic elites, most notably commerce and money lending, developing financial power and converting it into political power (political protection), with for example, the Clintons being the latest in an endless historical line of corrupt political collaborators.

    That’s not to say that absolute power didn’t/doesn’t have an attraction.

    The Bolshevik Jews succeeded in their 1917 Coup against Russian society, and cognizant of their numerical weakness (Jews about 1% of Russian society and activists even less) aggressively liquidated the educated Russian middle class in Pol Pot style, viewing them as their only realistic opposition. Béla Kun (Kohn) did the same (Hungary in 1919) with his successful but short lived all Jewish Coup (Hungarian Soviet Republic) launching his “Red Terror” horror show against educated ethnic Hungarians.

    And the same formula was applied to Germany, with Liebknecht & Luxemburg’s Strike & Spartacist Uprising (Berlin 1919) “Dictatorship of the Proletariat”, and Levine’s Bavarian Soviet Republic (Munich 1919) “Workers and Soldiers Council”, however, in this case, with both Coups ending in bloody failure in the face of armed German ethnic nationalism (ferocious street gun battles with the Freikorps).

    US Jews today hold key US power centers, such as the media and finance, and can dictate policy to Congress, although they have the usual historic problem of only being 2% of the population, very much proven by their inability to get their client (Clinton) elected as US President, despite their best efforts, and despite an unprecedented media barrage.

    All this points to a fundamental incompatibility between ethnic Jewish group power and Democracy, and there has to be the temptation to resolve the conflict through a Coup, with a good deal of evidence showing that 9/11 was a first attempt, probably with more to follow.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. Seraphim says:
    @Sam Shama
    A fascinating discussion and I enjoyed every word you wrote on this thread. Nietzsche in my book was all that you summed him up for; the last metaphysician, brilliant stylist and, as I like to think, a contrarian for its own sake, or rather, simply the deliberate "madman" who curated proposals he then elbowed to get a reaction from those he considered weak-kneed or dull. He was more; equally anti-Christian and anti-Semitic; certainly a happy-misogynist (set of such things being narrow) which prompted a sharp reprimand from Russell.

    So I feel I am on firm ground to declare both love and hate for him. Well, hate goes too far I suppose, annoyed, being more appropriate for his antisemitism. And naturally not non-plussed to see my Christian brethren upbraid the man for his anti-Christianity. Yet both sides would be unsound at a slightly deeper level. As you correctly establish, Nietzsche predicted Nihilism and lamented its coming.

    A small matter. I wonder if you'd care to elaborate on the notion that the Judaic end of the spectrum took due note and "promptly weaponized decadence" to suit its ends :-))

    Cheers

    @deliberate “madman”

    Nietzsche’s madness was not deliberate, but sadly real. He suffered from a brain disease (tragically misdiagnosed in his time as induced by syphilis), most likely induced by a tumor (meningioma) behind his right eye, which might have been congenital, and which affects the frontal lobe (fronto-temporal dementia).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Yes, he did suffer from those (some misdiagnosed) conditions. But you speak only of physical manifestations very visible, not of that which he contemplated incessantly, "When in spite of that fearful pressure of 'morality of custom' under which all the communities of mankind have lived" wrote Friedrich, "....it was madness which prepared the way for the new idea, which broke the spell of a venerated usage and superstition. ....[] Do you understand why it had to be madness which did this? "

    Daybreak is lesser the known of his works, certainly much less than Ecce Homo & the Antichrist, and in it, he wrote extensively about a place for deliberate madness in the cerebral affairs of man:


    "Let us go a step further: all superior men who were irresistibly drawn to throw off the yoke of any kind of morality and to frame new laws had, if they were not actually mad, no alternative but to make themselves or pretend to be mad - and this indeed applies to innovators in every domain and not only in the domain of priestly and political dogma: - even the innovator of poetical metre had to establish his credentials by madness."
     
    Read Daybreak (there are others of course, in which the idea is more sprinkled). A bit long but beautiful. Races through with surprising speed. It did for me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @Reg Cæsar

    I guess you’re okay with a European people grabbing land from Palestinians. Interesting (and that’s putting it mildly).
     
    How is that worse than an Arabian people grabbing land from Philistines, and numerous other tribes and civilizations?

    Israel is the size of New Jersey. Araby is the size of Canada. Jews are responsible for 0.5% of Semitic land thievery.

    The Arabs don’t rely on the US to run interference them, nor do they engage in appalling guilt-mongering when confronted with any and all criticism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    The Arabs don’t rely on the US to run interference them
     
    The Saudis sure do.

    nor do they engage in appalling guilt-mongering when confronted with any and all criticism.
     
    I wouldn't know. I'm immune to guilt-mongering.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. Seraphim says:
    @Veritatis
    You give Nietzsche too much credit. His unsystematic writings had the charm of novelty, especially since coupled with a categorical and irreverent tone. He has been interpreted in different ways, but coherent he was certainly not. However, today nihilism and skepticism are more comfortable positions for many than sustaining the tradition of virtues (classic or Christian). At the individual level, this is nothing new, the difference is that today it is precisely the opinion leaders that promote nihilism and skepticism.

    Those leaders also promote anti-Christianity, and with this idea in mind, Walter Kaufmann, a german émigré after WWII could come to Princenton to translate (indeed soften) and popularize Nietzsche in the cultural bulldozer which is the US academia. Kaufmann in fact rescued Nietzsche from the dustbin of ideas. And the "fruits" of nietzschean thought are rather sad: Derrida, Deleuze, Foucault et al, and need plenty of propping by the establishment to be read (if that really occurs).

    The idea of "Western Christians" offering no 'coherent defense' I find unclear. The Catholic Church, for example, is based on the teachings of Christ, on the whole of the Bible, on a 2000 year old tradition of systematic thinkers and on the Catechism. A way of understanding Creation, and man, as coherent as they come. Whoever chooses to live as Christian in a community, meaning the Church, is being coherent. But being a Christian is voluntary, as we are endowed with free will. The number of practicing Christians has gone down, true. But perhaps a smaller Church is a truer Church, and certainly not the same as "on the road to extinction". Being 'salt of the earth' is distinct from being earth itself.

    Nietzsche is long dead, but God is not. What we shall soon find out is whether Europe can not be Christian, and continue to be called Europe.

    One must notice that the ‘God is dead. God remains dead’ of the new god of ‘atheism’ Nietzsche is the Christ. His denunciation of Christianity, which became more furious due certainly to his mental condition (frontal lobe dementia is characterized by socially inappropriate behavior, poor judgement, lack of inhibition, abrupt mood changes) was the usual standard regurgitation of the Jewish and Neo-Platonic arguments in their denunciation of Christians to the Roman authorities, which have been the banner of all heretical sects which worked to bring about the lovely world in which we live. Schleiermacher’s, David Strauss’, Bruno Bauer’s, Feuerbach’s ‘criticism’ of the Gospels were all the rage in the German University. Their mantra was ‘Jesus is dead and remains dead’. No Resurrection.
    Perhaps Nietzsche invented that formula to mock the well known classical story of the ‘Death of the Great Pan’, the god or demon of ‘nature’, turning it on its head.
    According to Plutarch, during the reign of Tiberius, the news of Pan’s death was announced from the skies to a sailor named Thamus on his way to Italy by way of the island of Paxi. A divine voice hailed him across the salt water, “Thamus, are you there? When you reach Palodes, take care to proclaim that the great god Pan is dead.” Thamus obeyed the voice and spread the news around Italy. Eusebius of Caesarea states that the Emperor Tiberius asked for a personal interview with the sailor Thamus to discern the meaning of this oracle (Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, 5) which was that ‘Paganism’ was dead. Eusebius notes that Jesus Christ rid the world of most the devils during His ministry and at His death. Since the “gods of the nations are demons” (Ps 95:5 -’For all the gods of the heathen are devils: but the Lord made the heavens’), it would seem that the demon representing Pan was banished from the earth. In his madness Nietzsche, fancying himself the ‘Antichrist’, called him back. The Neo-Pagan movement seeks to overcome the Christian era and the reign of Christ the King and return the place of Pan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Veritatis
    When you say Neo-pagan, are you referring to Nietzsche (that torn apart Dyonisus) or something more recent? What do you think of Huysmans?

    What I have perceived more around me is skepticism with, for example, a recent revival of the relatively-easy-to-read Montaigne to give that family of ideas the stamp of 'ancient' credibility. Nietzsche is much more difficult to stomach within working social groups. Reality has a way of asserting itself. Women in particular will shy away from his hatred of the 'weak', and many responsible men balk at his utter selfishness. The madness/Nazi philosopher are not a plus either.

    Interesting, the Tiberius story. Off to Mass, have a nice Sunday.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. Durruti says:
    @Agent76
    The Republic has been gone for sometime now and this will give you an actual glimpse in this single link.

    May 6, 2016 How Much Liberty Do Americans Have Left?

    This post explains the liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights – the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution – and provides a scorecard on the extent of the loss of each right.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-much-liberty-do-americans-have-left/5524450

    Nice compilation/reminder of the Constitution, – 10 amendments Bill of Rts, and the Declaration.

    As a Hist Prof, have used the above in all my classes, regardless of specific nature of History, undergrad or grad level course.

    Most of my students had not read any of America’s founding documents or its Constitution. Almost none could discuss them. So much for their secondary education.

    Our collective has circulated this and other fliers as best we can.

    The actual flier is justified & a bit more presentable.

    For THE RESTORATION OF THE REPUBLIC

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal… governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles…”

    The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson.

    We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.

    The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy destroyed the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963, when they assassinated the last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and overthrew his government. All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.

    A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam, conducted by the murderers of Kennedy, left 2 million dead in a wake of napalm and burning villages.

    In 1965, the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.

    In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala.

    In the 1970s, the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America’s middle class, by encouraging the export of industry and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation’s Oligarchs cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.

    The impoverishment of America’s middle class has undermined the nation’s financial stability. Without a productive foundation, the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion. This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations. Concurrently, the top 1% of the nation’s population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as their savings cannot stay even with the inflation rate.

    The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures, and is or has recently conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much on military weapons of terror as the rest of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget is spent on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.

    The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the Founders of the United States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as with previous administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever is chosen in November 2016, operates a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely tortured. The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act, enacted by both Democratic and Republican factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.

    The nation’s media is controlled, and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population; the people are intimidated and treated with contempt.

    The United States is No longer Sovereign

    The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress, is bought, utterly owned and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts, to name only a few of the best known.

    The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government, with its controlling International Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations, including ours.

    For Love of Country

    The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts owed to that unconstitutional regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with a clean slate.

    As American Founder, Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:

    “I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living’:”

    “Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it’s course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. Generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation.”

    Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful government which will ensure President Franklin Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms, freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom from want “which…means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants…” and freedom from fear “which…means a world-wide reduction of armaments…”

    Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people. We will establish a government, hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage of the previous totalitarian governments.

    For the Democratic Republic!
    Sons and Daughters of Liberty
    florent.defeu@yahoo.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. Sam Shama says:
    @Seraphim
    @deliberate “madman”

    Nietzsche's madness was not deliberate, but sadly real. He suffered from a brain disease (tragically misdiagnosed in his time as induced by syphilis), most likely induced by a tumor (meningioma) behind his right eye, which might have been congenital, and which affects the frontal lobe (fronto-temporal dementia).

    Yes, he did suffer from those (some misdiagnosed) conditions. But you speak only of physical manifestations very visible, not of that which he contemplated incessantly, “When in spite of that fearful pressure of ‘morality of custom’ under which all the communities of mankind have lived” wrote Friedrich, “….it was madness which prepared the way for the new idea, which broke the spell of a venerated usage and superstition. ….[] Do you understand why it had to be madness which did this?

    Daybreak is lesser the known of his works, certainly much less than Ecce Homo & the Antichrist, and in it, he wrote extensively about a place for deliberate madness in the cerebral affairs of man:

    “Let us go a step further: all superior men who were irresistibly drawn to throw off the yoke of any kind of morality and to frame new laws had, if they were not actually mad, no alternative but to make themselves or pretend to be mad – and this indeed applies to innovators in every domain and not only in the domain of priestly and political dogma: – even the innovator of poetical metre had to establish his credentials by madness.”

    Read Daybreak (there are others of course, in which the idea is more sprinkled). A bit long but beautiful. Races through with surprising speed. It did for me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    Nietzsche was contrasting the 'psychological madness' of the 'fanatics, possessed, religious epileptics - reference to Jesus, St. Paul, Pascal -, eccentrics' , which came from a deficiency of vital powers in sick people, with the 'philosophical madness' which came from an overabundance of vital powers, love, enthusiasm, characteristic to superior people like himself 'stronger, more superhuman, more terrible, wiser'. Actually, delusions of grandeur characteristic of bipolar disorder, of which Nietzsche was affected too.
    Of course the madness of Zarathustra-Nietzsche had little to do with the divine gift of 'mania' of the Greeks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. anarchyst says:
    @Incitatus
    Hi Iffen and Sam. Sorry for the delay.

    ‘Hate crime’ and anti-discrimination statutes address laudable concerns. But elaborating law to highlight narrow malice seems unnecessary if existing law is scrupulously enforced. Is a murderer more guilty if racially motivated? Isn’t the important thing apprehension, trial and conviction for the physical crime?

    Where such concern strays into proscribing free speech, count me out. Why?
    • Criminalizing speech is a bureaucratic nightmare, a passport to thought crime and all the rest;
    • Where law is neither universal nor simple, enforcement is apt arbitrary and capricious - police are, after all, human;
    • A cumulative babel of special laws signals cultural decay. Tacitus had it right: “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”

    Don’t agree with Europeans. No sympathy for Ursula Haverbeck. Defiant, incendiary radicalism isn’t new in Germany. Standing in 20C ruins licenses them the right to determine and apply their own laws.

    Do such laws merely produce martyrs and drive belief underground to metastasize here? Is it better to expose all belief to rigorous public scrutiny and debate?

    “...the anti-Semitism of 2017 is not the anti-Semitism of 1927. One defining premise of today’s is Holocaust denial...”

    Is it really so different? Isn’t Holocaust denial another version of blood liable, Christ killer, Versailles traitor, ‘Protocols of the Elders...’ and so on? Granted, Israel’s existence adds a new dimension, but the target (Jews) remains the same.

    It’s not how anti-Semitism has changed, but how to deal with it. In an age that expands every day with new media and modes. Drive it underground, or expose it to full ridicule? I’d bet on the latter.

    Israel versus Palestinian is a favorite meme for some who simply hate all Jews and condemn them as a sinister conspiracy. ‘Christ killer’ becomes ‘Palestinian killer.’ They eagerly reshuffle human history as an indictment. Palestinians usually appear as the latest victim of the conspiracy, minus suggestions of how to improve their lot. QED get rid of evil Israel and all will be well.

    Make no mistake. Israeli extremists merit equal scrutiny. Bennett’s “Palestinian question” mimics the Nazi “Judenfrage.” Shorthand (wink, wink) dehumanization. Justice Minister Shaked’s Palestinian ‘snakes’? The abysmal indictment/prosecution/conviction rate of crimes against non-Jews? All is discussed inside Israel, little makes it to the US. Why?

    “I am not saying that criticizing Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians makes one an anti-Semite...”

    Don’t laws contemplated seem tailor made for such abuse? Would people like Max Blumenthal be jailed?

    “The criticism is unique to Israel...”

    Remember the 2002-03 smear campaign against France intended to extort a UNSC vote for war?Andy Rooney on 60 Minutes, “Old Europe”, condemnatory editorials and op-eds, screeds like ‘Our Oldest Enemy,’ “Axis of Weasels”, “Cheese-eating Surrender Monkeys”, ‘freedom fries’, boycotts, Bill O’Reilly’s bumper stickers, dumping wine in the streets, accusations of deep corruption in the Oil-for-Food program, accusations of cowardice and giving EU passports to Saddam?

    Imagine Israel subject of such a campaign and boycott. “Unique criticism”? Bullshit!

    First closing. Last time in KSA. New Saudi sponsor (nice enough fellow) met me at Riyadh airport with a copy of the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion...” as a thoughtful landing gift. Ever read it? No more foul, outright boring screed exists. Two pages are enough to signal cretinous onslaught, immediate need for prompt disengagement and a shower. Never read the rest of it. Henry Ford’s a genius, but in this respect pure moron. Reminded me of discovering an Oxonian friend (no offense Sam) seriously equated the Irish with monkeys. Such bias is as disfiguring as the most repelling corporeal defect.

    Bear in mind - Israel’s new best friend is KSA (world-class beheader).

    Final closing. You may not like this. Chabad Chevra, Hartford CT. Wealthy donor buys a manor house in a posh residential neighborhood adjoining the University of Hartford. Baptists and RCs - previous owners - used it exclusively as a retreat (residence). Chabad operates an active house of worship and student center, boh prohibited by zoning code. Neighbors (disrupted by 24-hr lights and increased Saturday activity) object. The case rises to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Sworn facts emerge in lengthy testimony (none acrimonious). The HZBA unanimously (5-0) rules Chabad’s activity illegal. Three of five HZBA commissioners are Jewish attorneys.

    Justice? Didn’t end the case. Chabad’s attorney immediately appealed to a tame Fairfield judge, who obligingly overturned Hartford resident ZBA’s ruling on the basis - you guessed it -anti-Semitism!

    https://crownheights.info/chabad-news/41087/judge-slaps-city-for-anti-semitism-agianst-chabad/

    Ruling “...the city of Hartford cannot use its zoning rules to prevent a sect of Orthodox Jews from using a former church as their place of worship.” Reality. It was NEVER a “church” or “place of worship” (Baptist and RCs had separate churches). Firmly established by HZBA testimony.

    Result? Neighbors exit the area, selling their houses at a loss.

    Anti-Semitism? Pretend I’m a neighbor (I’m not) forced to sell my house at a loss to escape unzoned evangelical activity while labeled an anti-Semite. How should I feel? How should anti-Semitic HZBA commissioners feel? Thoughts?

    World Jewry declared war on Germany in 1933…yes, 1933. with Jewish books such as “Germany Must Perish”, what were the non-Jewish Germans supposed to do?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus
    “World Jewry declared war on Germany in 1933...”

    Know what Adolf declared as early as 1920? Jews - subhuman traitors - were responsible for WW1 defeat, for Versailles, and all German ills. Nitwit Ludendorff loved it, as did the Wagners, cranks like Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and many, many others. So much easier than acknowledging failure, don’t ya know?

    What would you do, anarchyst, demonized for a decade for other peoples’ mistakes? Roll over and play dead?

    The ‘war’ you refer to meant nothing to the German economy, which the NSDAP reorganized as an internal ponzi scheme dedicated to rearmament in ‘33.

    Ah, those lovable Nazis scamps! Boycott in '33? It gave them another opportunity to blame Jews. Suffer from indigestion? It’s the Jews! Acne? It’s the Jews! Bad weather? It’s the Jews!

    A very popular mantra in ‘20s-30s Deutschland. Saves introspection on starting WW1, killing millions, starving hundreds of thousands of one’s own people due to incompetence, etc.

    Don’t think twice. It was all the Jews. BTW have acne or indigestion? Well, you know who to blame.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. anarchyst says:
    @Incitatus
    Hi Iffen and Sam. Sorry for the delay.

    ‘Hate crime’ and anti-discrimination statutes address laudable concerns. But elaborating law to highlight narrow malice seems unnecessary if existing law is scrupulously enforced. Is a murderer more guilty if racially motivated? Isn’t the important thing apprehension, trial and conviction for the physical crime?

    Where such concern strays into proscribing free speech, count me out. Why?
    • Criminalizing speech is a bureaucratic nightmare, a passport to thought crime and all the rest;
    • Where law is neither universal nor simple, enforcement is apt arbitrary and capricious - police are, after all, human;
    • A cumulative babel of special laws signals cultural decay. Tacitus had it right: “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”

    Don’t agree with Europeans. No sympathy for Ursula Haverbeck. Defiant, incendiary radicalism isn’t new in Germany. Standing in 20C ruins licenses them the right to determine and apply their own laws.

    Do such laws merely produce martyrs and drive belief underground to metastasize here? Is it better to expose all belief to rigorous public scrutiny and debate?

    “...the anti-Semitism of 2017 is not the anti-Semitism of 1927. One defining premise of today’s is Holocaust denial...”

    Is it really so different? Isn’t Holocaust denial another version of blood liable, Christ killer, Versailles traitor, ‘Protocols of the Elders...’ and so on? Granted, Israel’s existence adds a new dimension, but the target (Jews) remains the same.

    It’s not how anti-Semitism has changed, but how to deal with it. In an age that expands every day with new media and modes. Drive it underground, or expose it to full ridicule? I’d bet on the latter.

    Israel versus Palestinian is a favorite meme for some who simply hate all Jews and condemn them as a sinister conspiracy. ‘Christ killer’ becomes ‘Palestinian killer.’ They eagerly reshuffle human history as an indictment. Palestinians usually appear as the latest victim of the conspiracy, minus suggestions of how to improve their lot. QED get rid of evil Israel and all will be well.

    Make no mistake. Israeli extremists merit equal scrutiny. Bennett’s “Palestinian question” mimics the Nazi “Judenfrage.” Shorthand (wink, wink) dehumanization. Justice Minister Shaked’s Palestinian ‘snakes’? The abysmal indictment/prosecution/conviction rate of crimes against non-Jews? All is discussed inside Israel, little makes it to the US. Why?

    “I am not saying that criticizing Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians makes one an anti-Semite...”

    Don’t laws contemplated seem tailor made for such abuse? Would people like Max Blumenthal be jailed?

    “The criticism is unique to Israel...”

    Remember the 2002-03 smear campaign against France intended to extort a UNSC vote for war?Andy Rooney on 60 Minutes, “Old Europe”, condemnatory editorials and op-eds, screeds like ‘Our Oldest Enemy,’ “Axis of Weasels”, “Cheese-eating Surrender Monkeys”, ‘freedom fries’, boycotts, Bill O’Reilly’s bumper stickers, dumping wine in the streets, accusations of deep corruption in the Oil-for-Food program, accusations of cowardice and giving EU passports to Saddam?

    Imagine Israel subject of such a campaign and boycott. “Unique criticism”? Bullshit!

    First closing. Last time in KSA. New Saudi sponsor (nice enough fellow) met me at Riyadh airport with a copy of the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion...” as a thoughtful landing gift. Ever read it? No more foul, outright boring screed exists. Two pages are enough to signal cretinous onslaught, immediate need for prompt disengagement and a shower. Never read the rest of it. Henry Ford’s a genius, but in this respect pure moron. Reminded me of discovering an Oxonian friend (no offense Sam) seriously equated the Irish with monkeys. Such bias is as disfiguring as the most repelling corporeal defect.

    Bear in mind - Israel’s new best friend is KSA (world-class beheader).

    Final closing. You may not like this. Chabad Chevra, Hartford CT. Wealthy donor buys a manor house in a posh residential neighborhood adjoining the University of Hartford. Baptists and RCs - previous owners - used it exclusively as a retreat (residence). Chabad operates an active house of worship and student center, boh prohibited by zoning code. Neighbors (disrupted by 24-hr lights and increased Saturday activity) object. The case rises to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Sworn facts emerge in lengthy testimony (none acrimonious). The HZBA unanimously (5-0) rules Chabad’s activity illegal. Three of five HZBA commissioners are Jewish attorneys.

    Justice? Didn’t end the case. Chabad’s attorney immediately appealed to a tame Fairfield judge, who obligingly overturned Hartford resident ZBA’s ruling on the basis - you guessed it -anti-Semitism!

    https://crownheights.info/chabad-news/41087/judge-slaps-city-for-anti-semitism-agianst-chabad/

    Ruling “...the city of Hartford cannot use its zoning rules to prevent a sect of Orthodox Jews from using a former church as their place of worship.” Reality. It was NEVER a “church” or “place of worship” (Baptist and RCs had separate churches). Firmly established by HZBA testimony.

    Result? Neighbors exit the area, selling their houses at a loss.

    Anti-Semitism? Pretend I’m a neighbor (I’m not) forced to sell my house at a loss to escape unzoned evangelical activity while labeled an anti-Semite. How should I feel? How should anti-Semitic HZBA commissioners feel? Thoughts?

    The “Protocols” ARE a blueprint for world domination. It is curious that this supposed “forgery” has so much “staying power”, even in today’s climate of political correctness…
    Read it for yourselves. Don’t rely on others to censor it for you…you will not like what you find.
    Henry Ford KNEW and exposed the TRUTH.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus
    “The “Protocols” ARE a blueprint for world domination.”

    The ‘Protocols’, from what little I could read without gaging, is an outragious screed attractive only to those with irrational hate and those seeking an easy explanation for their own failure.

    “It is curious that this supposed “forgery” has so much “staying power””

    Not at all. Screeds absolving individual failure have universal and timeless currency. Amazing it’s not Amazon Number 1!

    “Read it for yourselves. [sic]”

    Indeed I did, for the few pages I could stomach.

    “Henry Ford KNEW and exposed the TRUTH.”

    Ford was a brilliant man. I admire him. No question. But we all have our blind spots. ‘Protocols’ was his Edsel.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. Sam Shama says:
    @Incitatus
    Hi Iffen and Sam. Sorry for the delay.

    ‘Hate crime’ and anti-discrimination statutes address laudable concerns. But elaborating law to highlight narrow malice seems unnecessary if existing law is scrupulously enforced. Is a murderer more guilty if racially motivated? Isn’t the important thing apprehension, trial and conviction for the physical crime?

    Where such concern strays into proscribing free speech, count me out. Why?
    • Criminalizing speech is a bureaucratic nightmare, a passport to thought crime and all the rest;
    • Where law is neither universal nor simple, enforcement is apt arbitrary and capricious - police are, after all, human;
    • A cumulative babel of special laws signals cultural decay. Tacitus had it right: “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”

    Don’t agree with Europeans. No sympathy for Ursula Haverbeck. Defiant, incendiary radicalism isn’t new in Germany. Standing in 20C ruins licenses them the right to determine and apply their own laws.

    Do such laws merely produce martyrs and drive belief underground to metastasize here? Is it better to expose all belief to rigorous public scrutiny and debate?

    “...the anti-Semitism of 2017 is not the anti-Semitism of 1927. One defining premise of today’s is Holocaust denial...”

    Is it really so different? Isn’t Holocaust denial another version of blood liable, Christ killer, Versailles traitor, ‘Protocols of the Elders...’ and so on? Granted, Israel’s existence adds a new dimension, but the target (Jews) remains the same.

    It’s not how anti-Semitism has changed, but how to deal with it. In an age that expands every day with new media and modes. Drive it underground, or expose it to full ridicule? I’d bet on the latter.

    Israel versus Palestinian is a favorite meme for some who simply hate all Jews and condemn them as a sinister conspiracy. ‘Christ killer’ becomes ‘Palestinian killer.’ They eagerly reshuffle human history as an indictment. Palestinians usually appear as the latest victim of the conspiracy, minus suggestions of how to improve their lot. QED get rid of evil Israel and all will be well.

    Make no mistake. Israeli extremists merit equal scrutiny. Bennett’s “Palestinian question” mimics the Nazi “Judenfrage.” Shorthand (wink, wink) dehumanization. Justice Minister Shaked’s Palestinian ‘snakes’? The abysmal indictment/prosecution/conviction rate of crimes against non-Jews? All is discussed inside Israel, little makes it to the US. Why?

    “I am not saying that criticizing Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians makes one an anti-Semite...”

    Don’t laws contemplated seem tailor made for such abuse? Would people like Max Blumenthal be jailed?

    “The criticism is unique to Israel...”

    Remember the 2002-03 smear campaign against France intended to extort a UNSC vote for war?Andy Rooney on 60 Minutes, “Old Europe”, condemnatory editorials and op-eds, screeds like ‘Our Oldest Enemy,’ “Axis of Weasels”, “Cheese-eating Surrender Monkeys”, ‘freedom fries’, boycotts, Bill O’Reilly’s bumper stickers, dumping wine in the streets, accusations of deep corruption in the Oil-for-Food program, accusations of cowardice and giving EU passports to Saddam?

    Imagine Israel subject of such a campaign and boycott. “Unique criticism”? Bullshit!

    First closing. Last time in KSA. New Saudi sponsor (nice enough fellow) met me at Riyadh airport with a copy of the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion...” as a thoughtful landing gift. Ever read it? No more foul, outright boring screed exists. Two pages are enough to signal cretinous onslaught, immediate need for prompt disengagement and a shower. Never read the rest of it. Henry Ford’s a genius, but in this respect pure moron. Reminded me of discovering an Oxonian friend (no offense Sam) seriously equated the Irish with monkeys. Such bias is as disfiguring as the most repelling corporeal defect.

    Bear in mind - Israel’s new best friend is KSA (world-class beheader).

    Final closing. You may not like this. Chabad Chevra, Hartford CT. Wealthy donor buys a manor house in a posh residential neighborhood adjoining the University of Hartford. Baptists and RCs - previous owners - used it exclusively as a retreat (residence). Chabad operates an active house of worship and student center, boh prohibited by zoning code. Neighbors (disrupted by 24-hr lights and increased Saturday activity) object. The case rises to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Sworn facts emerge in lengthy testimony (none acrimonious). The HZBA unanimously (5-0) rules Chabad’s activity illegal. Three of five HZBA commissioners are Jewish attorneys.

    Justice? Didn’t end the case. Chabad’s attorney immediately appealed to a tame Fairfield judge, who obligingly overturned Hartford resident ZBA’s ruling on the basis - you guessed it -anti-Semitism!

    https://crownheights.info/chabad-news/41087/judge-slaps-city-for-anti-semitism-agianst-chabad/

    Ruling “...the city of Hartford cannot use its zoning rules to prevent a sect of Orthodox Jews from using a former church as their place of worship.” Reality. It was NEVER a “church” or “place of worship” (Baptist and RCs had separate churches). Firmly established by HZBA testimony.

    Result? Neighbors exit the area, selling their houses at a loss.

    Anti-Semitism? Pretend I’m a neighbor (I’m not) forced to sell my house at a loss to escape unzoned evangelical activity while labeled an anti-Semite. How should I feel? How should anti-Semitic HZBA commissioners feel? Thoughts?

    Hi Incitatus,
    I’ll be back with a response presently (one hopes a meaningful one).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. Veritatis says:
    @Erebus

    You give Nietzsche too much credit.
     
    Obviously I don't think so, and I wonder why you think so.

    His unsystematic writings had the charm of novelty... coherent he was certainly not.
     
    I assume you're talking about his use of aphorisms. Aphoristic writing has a long and illustrious history, going back to ancient Greek, Chinese, and Hindu writings, so I couldn't call it "novel". In any case, Nietzsche didn't adopt the style until almost half-way through his writing career. That his prose is considered amongst the best of the Western philosophical tradition and sets a benchmark in German style, has been established. I'm left wondering what he has to do to be "coherent" in your view.

    By "no coherent defence" I simply meant that Western Christianity offered no comprehensive or effective resistance to the civilizational trend that swept it from being the physical and metaphysical matrix permeating all of European life at the time of the Renaissance, to becoming a subject of ridicule, and finally not even of ridicule. In medieval Europe, every aspect of life, and every event transpired within the matrix of Christian metaphysics, dogma and morality. There was a God in everyone's heaven, and God's law in every public and private event and act.
    By the time of Nietzsche, that was no longer so. Note Solonto's comments (@96) about the American Constitution. 100 yrs before Nietzsche, the authors saw fit to include a deliberately non-Christian definition of God. To be sure, it was a cutting edge political document, but had they lived 200 years earlier they quite literally couldn't have imagined including such a definition. The Christian God that permeated every crevice of the body politic from the laws governing street markets to the King's prerogatives a scant 2 centuries before was shut out of the legal structure underpinning the new nation. "We the People" took his place. Of course, there were the expected backlashes, but 100 yrs later, almost every European nation had undergone a similar transformation, and God was dead. He had become spiritual and no longer governed the life of people, or of nations. That is what is meant by "God is Dead".

    That a few pockets still hold to vestiges of the Christian matrix, is neither surprising, nor decisive. Your god may still be alive, but he's politically and culturally an anachronism, and for countless more he may as well have never lived at all. The West, as a whole is now thoroughly post-Christian. Unfortunately, we have no better answer to the question Nietzsche asked, "What's next?" than he did. In fact, we don't even ask it. The nihilism now permeates all the crevices that were the domain of the Christian God a few centuries ago.

    That's why I am puzzled when I keep hearing about Nietzsche's "nihilism". My reading suggests exactly the opposite. Nietzsche railed, never "incoherently", and often brilliantly, against the nihilism which he saw was the inevitable consequence of the death of God. We were his murderers, and nihilism would be our punishment.
    He despaired that Western civilization had no defence, and that the "great men" of the time seemed oblivious to what was coming. As it turns out, he was right that nihilism would overrun the West and we have yet to see any signs of a remedy.
    How that makes him a nihilist escapes me. He was terrified by it.

    Let’s see if this is a fair summary of your ideas:
    1) Nietzsche was a deep/wise thinker.
    2) N. writes beautifully.
    3) N. is not a nihilist.
    4) The numbers of practicing Christians has decreased and thus their impact on the general culture has markedly decreased.

    1) Where you see depth and insight, is mostly a talent for critique. He did “rail” (as you say) against the coherent Christian worldview: an explanation of the world, of man, of how he should live and the purpose/meaning of his life. He did not offer a similarly comprehensive one: no explanation of the world or of man’s purpose. He even ‘railed’ against Socrates “know thyself”.

                “Thus it happened that.. my vtal instinct turned against ethics and founded a radical counter-doctrine, slanted esthetically, to oppose the Christian libel on life. But it still wanted a name. Being a philologist, that is to say a man of words, I christened it rather arbitrarily, –for who can tell the name of the AntiChrist?– with the name of a Greek god, Dyonisus.” -Birth of Tragedy

    Notice that he opposed a concept (Christian ethics) with an image (Dionysus), and, Nietzsche being Nietzsche, injected a congratulatory self-reference

    2) He does write well, and his egocentric, commanding, irreverent tone is seductive to many. Look at all the “snarky” style that today inundates the Internet and mass media and you will see little, less cultivated Nietzsches. But the point would be what he writes about, since one can drink poison from a finely crafted gold cup.

    3) He is absolutely a nihilist. Having dispensed with God, and built a “morality” around a hypothetical Superman that has the right to break the ‘shackles’ of pity for the weak, and move ‘beyond good and evil’, he was left with only the Will to Power. “Just will’ says good old Nietzsche. What or why, it doesn’t matter. And yet in Eternal Return he discovers -scientifically– that all gods die, even his Overman.

                      “Apart from the ascetic ideal, man, the human animal, had no meaning so far, his existence on earth contained no goal. ‘Why man at all’ was a question without an answer.”
                     “And, to repeat in conclusion what I said in the beginning, man would rather will nothingness than not will.” (Both from Genealogy of Morals, emphasis in the original.)

    4) Yes, the number of practicing Christians has decreased, and markedly so in Europe. It seems Europe is losing/has lost God, and the will to live. Is there a relation? I don’t think that is true yet of the US and certainly not in Latin America, which I include in ‘the West’ what with the Monroe Doctrine and all. But as I already said, perhaps a smaller church is a truer church. And so we may speak of creative minorities to live life meaningfully, in community, and create in practice better answers to the old question “how then shall we live?”.

    Two final comments. First, look to who is still backing (after the Nazi fiasco) Nietzsche. Who teaches, publishes and cites Nietzsche? Birds of a feather fly together. It is the skeptical, nihilistic, antiChristian opinion leaders, who care very little for the man in the street (those weaklings!) and who do not mind dissolving the fabric of society if that is helpful to their economic interest. (Will to power!) Second, why not look at his life? Before taking a thinker as guide, why not see how his ideas played out in the thinker’s life? Admittedly ad hominem, but useful. Nietzsche was incapable of sustaining a job, any relationships, died childless and raving mad. Oh, and just before being confined, he wrote letters crying for help and signed them ‘Dionysus’ and ‘the Crucified One’. Nothing to aspire to, it would seem.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    One has to debunk also the myth of Nietzsche's influence upon Nazism.
    To save my time I'll just give you a short summary of the problem:

    "Hitler Myths"
    @https://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler-myths.htm
    "Nowhere in Mein Kampf does Hitler even mention Nietzsche, or Nietzchean terms such as superman (uberman), or super race. Of course Hitler did think the Aryan's represented a superior race to the Jews, but never in Nietzchean terms.
    Perhaps the most notorious misrepresentation of connecting Hitler and Nietzsche came from a photo-op of Hitler visiting the Nietzsche archive. Many have incorrectly believed that Hitler visited the archive on his own volition. Not so. The photo-op idea came from Nietzsche's sister, Elisabeth Förster, a wealthy Nazi supporter, who established the Nietzsche Archive in 1933, It was she who invited Hitler (after much persuasion) to visit the archive for publicity purposes. Hitler visited the archive to appease Nietzsche's anti-Semite sister. The event appeared in the German newspapers and William Shirer (The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich) briefly mentioned the event as if Hitler often visited the archive because he admired Nietzsche. Shirer probably got his information from the German propaganda article rather than from the facts of the event. (Note, scholars have criticized Shirer for his lack of scholarship and poor source material.) Elisabeth Förster also misrepresented Nietzsche by making her brother look like an anti-Semite and a proto-Nazi (Nietzsche's philosophy had little resemblance to the National Socialist German Workers' Party).
    The pre-Nazi Thule society began in the early 1900s. Rudolf von Serbottendorff became the driving force of this order which practiced occultism and an admiration of Nietzsche. Many members of the Thule society later became Nazis and did influence Nazi literature. However, Hitler never showed any interest in the Thule cult or in its pagan practices.
    Anyone who uses such material to justify a Hitler-Nietzsche link simply lacks historical depth (laziness of research) and has no understanding of Hitler.
    Let's face it; Hitler showed no philosophical sophistication. If any philosopher had an influence on him, it probably came from Schopenhuer (which he does briefly mention in Mein Kampf). Hans Frank, Hitler's personal lawyer, recalled that Hitler carried a copy of Schopenhauer's World as Will and Representation with him throughout World War I, but Hitler never revealed any appreciation of Friedrich Nietzsche or his philosophy".

    Most of the cult and industry of Nietzsche was due to her sister Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche, a deranged person in her own right and a real antisemite along with her husband. She peddled the aura of sacred madness to deflect from the 'accusation' of syphilis and heavily edited her brother's writings to fit her own ideas.
    According to Christian Niemeyer*, author of "Nietzsche verstehen. Eine Gebrauchsanweisung":
    "Förster-Nietzsche did everything she could – such as telling stories about Nietzsche, writing false letters in the name of her brother, and so on – to make it seem that Nietzsche had been a right-wing thinker like herself. It was she who created the most destructive myth of all: Nietzsche as the godfather of fascism." *@http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/7018535/Criminal-manipulation-of-Nietzsche-by-sister-to-make-him-look-anti-Semitic.html
    , @Erebus

    Let’s see if this is a fair summary of your ideas:
     
    Nope.
    Yes, all 4 points are true, but they are a small subset of what I was talking about (much less Nietzsche!), and peripheral, even immaterial, to the main point I was making. In other words, you raised 4 straw men and proceeded to demolish them. Good on ya.

    As you seem to like argument by quotation, here's one for ya. It is from Cambridge University Press' promotional blurb for their edition of Daybreak (which I hadn't read and so looked it up as Sam Sharma had recommended it so emphatically).

    It has become increasingly clear that his writings are among the deepest and most prescient sources we have for acquiring a philosophical understanding of the roots of 20th-century culture.
     
    How much does the clarity have to increase before the likes of you and Seraphim see it?
    It happens that the quote sums up my main point in a sentence. We are where we are because the trends Nietzsche saw developing in Western civilization continued unchecked. We got here as a civilization because small minds laughed at the warnings that he and then Spengler, Huxley, Orwell and others after him voiced. Extraordinarily early insights into large scale trends often come conjoined to unusual personalities. The short-sighted attacked him then, and their successors attack him now even as his prescience sits like an ocean in front of them. Indeed, even as they swim through it.

    Does a fish know it's wet? Do you?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. […] mechanism of this crackdown is the redefinition of “antisemitism”[1] to include criticism of Israel, and the insertion of this definition into the bodies of law of […]

    Read More
  138. geokat62 says:

    A bit OT, but I just finished reading a very interesting article, with the provocative title The End of AIPAC’s Israel Monopoly, published by Table Magazine.

    It conducts a postmortem analysis of The Lobby’s recent defeat regarding the Iran nuclear deal:

    So, how did the fierce beast of The Israel Lobby become a paper tiger? Was AIPAC’s power overhyped by friend and foe alike? And what does the massive and very public embarrassment of the organization’s Iran deal defeat mean for the future of pro-Israel activism in the United States?

    The answers lie far outside normal political considerations, in the microeconomic discipline of Industrial Organization.

    Drawing on the lessons to be gleaned from IO, the authors arrive at the same policy prescription their counterparts arrived at for Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party.

    The pro-Israel Lobby in Britain, BICOM, is in a tizzy after Corbyn made the following remarks:

    In his first speech since the terror attack that killed 22 people in Manchester, opposition leader Corbyn said that his party would change Britain’s foreign policy if it takes power after June 8’s general elections by abandoning the “war on terror.”

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/corbyn-under-fire-for-implying-uk-wars-are-inviting-terrorism/

    Ever since Corbyn has won the leadership of the Labour Party, the pro-Israel Lobby in Britain has been making great strides in trying to undermine his leadership. Which brings us back to the Tablet article. Here’s what the authors recommend AIPAC should do to become more effective – i.e., in enhancing the security of the villa in the jungle:

    AIPAC can best serve the pro-Israel cause by redeploying its formidable assets to help pro-Israel, national-security-conscious Democrats defeat the anti-Israel progressives ascendant in their party—certainly the most effective way to ensure continued bipartisan support for Israel.

    http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/207251/the-end-of-aipacs-israel-monopoly

    And just like the Labour Party under Corbyn, too many Democrats are starting to question the wisdom of the phony GWOT. They are finding it more difficult to sell to its constituents after the overwhelming evidence that terrorism has spiked significantly upwards after launching the bogus GWOT. People are beginning to realize that they are not any safer, but less safe. Some are even starting to suspect that the bogus GWOT was designed to make residents of the villa in the jungle more safe, while making Americans and Europeans less safe:

    “If your goal is regime change, you must be much more careful with your language because of the potential backlash. You do not want Americans to believe that the war on Iraq is being waged to protect Israel rather than to protect America.” – The Israel Project

    Bottom line: the Israel-firsters in both countries are pushing to remove the progressive elements from both parties to ensure they remain PEPs – Progressive on all issues, Except for Palestine.

    What’s not there to love about lobbying?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  139. Veritatis says:
    @Seraphim
    One must notice that the 'God is dead. God remains dead' of the new god of 'atheism' Nietzsche is the Christ. His denunciation of Christianity, which became more furious due certainly to his mental condition (frontal lobe dementia is characterized by socially inappropriate behavior, poor judgement, lack of inhibition, abrupt mood changes) was the usual standard regurgitation of the Jewish and Neo-Platonic arguments in their denunciation of Christians to the Roman authorities, which have been the banner of all heretical sects which worked to bring about the lovely world in which we live. Schleiermacher's, David Strauss', Bruno Bauer's, Feuerbach's 'criticism' of the Gospels were all the rage in the German University. Their mantra was 'Jesus is dead and remains dead'. No Resurrection.
    Perhaps Nietzsche invented that formula to mock the well known classical story of the 'Death of the Great Pan', the god or demon of 'nature', turning it on its head.
    According to Plutarch, during the reign of Tiberius, the news of Pan’s death was announced from the skies to a sailor named Thamus on his way to Italy by way of the island of Paxi. A divine voice hailed him across the salt water, “Thamus, are you there? When you reach Palodes, take care to proclaim that the great god Pan is dead.” Thamus obeyed the voice and spread the news around Italy. Eusebius of Caesarea states that the Emperor Tiberius asked for a personal interview with the sailor Thamus to discern the meaning of this oracle (Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, 5) which was that 'Paganism' was dead. Eusebius notes that Jesus Christ rid the world of most the devils during His ministry and at His death. Since the “gods of the nations are demons” (Ps 95:5 -'For all the gods of the heathen are devils: but the Lord made the heavens'), it would seem that the demon representing Pan was banished from the earth. In his madness Nietzsche, fancying himself the 'Antichrist', called him back. The Neo-Pagan movement seeks to overcome the Christian era and the reign of Christ the King and return the place of Pan.

    When you say Neo-pagan, are you referring to Nietzsche (that torn apart Dyonisus) or something more recent? What do you think of Huysmans?

    What I have perceived more around me is skepticism with, for example, a recent revival of the relatively-easy-to-read Montaigne to give that family of ideas the stamp of ‘ancient’ credibility. Nietzsche is much more difficult to stomach within working social groups. Reality has a way of asserting itself. Women in particular will shy away from his hatred of the ‘weak’, and many responsible men balk at his utter selfishness. The madness/Nazi philosopher are not a plus either.

    Interesting, the Tiberius story. Off to Mass, have a nice Sunday.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. annamaria says:
    @Sam Shama
    For me, this post does not deserve a lengthy reply, only hearty laughter, followed by relief. Laughter, to behold its struggle to dress a plainly commonplace bigotry into something deeper; and relief, to witness the unmasking of small men who constantly remind us that anti-Zionism is distinct from Jew hatred.

    Naturally felicitated by the usual cretins and reptiles, it requires no other argument for summary dismissal, other than to note in passing the pseudo-concern to guard humanity.

    Guarding your own fundaments against possible 'green hurry curry' as mcohen funnily puts it, is more like it.

    Who don’t you show a modicum of intellectual honesty in your vituperative and petty attacks against anybody who dears to criticize the zionist project? Of course it is your choice to stay shoulder to shoulder with such “giants” as Avigdor Lieberman and Sharansky, but if you try to attempt at “unmasking of small men” who dare to make a distinction between anti-Zionism and “Jew hatred,” you would face people like Arendt and Einstein (“the usual cretins and reptiles,”according to you?), who were the true intellectual and moral giants, the glory of humanity.
    The project has been transforming – take a notice.

    http://www.rense.com/general59/ein.htm

    http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/how-hannah-arendt-was-labeled-an-enemy-of-israel-email-article-to-a-friend

    “Guarding your own fundaments” could bring paradoxical results when the fundamentals have a flaw.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Dear lady, may I suggest you avail yourself of help easily obtained in the form of a grammar editor? I say this not in any malice but merely in the spirit of an occasional interlocutor unfailingly subjected to the vagaries of your unique prose. The grammar editor may not be sufficient, and while I do not insist on a study of philology, it is a start.

    You write: 'dears to criticize your zionist project' which I understand may have been meant to be read as 'dares.....', yet I remain in suspense, given past examples of curious thoughts. One such curiosity clings in the shape of your ultimate sentence, where the paradox isn't clear to me as it seems you've managed to switch the intended target.

    Be that as it may, and before you work yourself up into yet another instance of fine hormonal lather, consider this little gem which appears in the comment you so zealously defend:

    But anti-Semitism is merely antipathy towards Jews. Nothing more. And sometimes a little antipathy is a very good thing. Indeed, sometimes ‘anti-Semitism’ is richly-deserved and sorely needed.

    I will leave you to ponder its implications, with or without the benefit of your distinctive filter. Either way, it should be interesting.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. Art says:
    @Sam Shama
    For me, this post does not deserve a lengthy reply, only hearty laughter, followed by relief. Laughter, to behold its struggle to dress a plainly commonplace bigotry into something deeper; and relief, to witness the unmasking of small men who constantly remind us that anti-Zionism is distinct from Jew hatred.

    Naturally felicitated by the usual cretins and reptiles, it requires no other argument for summary dismissal, other than to note in passing the pseudo-concern to guard humanity.

    Guarding your own fundaments against possible 'green hurry curry' as mcohen funnily puts it, is more like it.

    Laughter, to behold its struggle to dress a plainly commonplace bigotry into something deeper; and relief, to witness the unmasking of small men who constantly remind us that anti-Zionism is distinct from Jew hatred.

    As philosophical Christians, we “hate the sin” not the sinner. You Jews have sinned. What you have done to the Palestinians and the whole ME is a great sin. What you have done to the America and to the Western democracies is a great sin. All you disinformation comments cannot hide the truth of your wrong doing. It is said “that what goes around comes around.”

    True philosophical Christians are interested in tomorrow, not yesterday – we will not seek “an eye for an eye” as your backwards culture does.

    Your problem is that there are few real philosophical Christians. Good luck!

    Peace — Art

    p.s. It is the Little Jews who do the suffering – the Big Jews will be long gone with the gold.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus
    Art!

    What a delight! Sure you (“Peace-Art’) wouldn’t prefer ‘Mahatma’ as a screen name? Think about it. What advantages await!

    OK, you’re almost there posting “Peace” after your “Little Jew...Big Jew” routine. All know thereby what a principled “philosophical Christian” you are. Those that haven’t read the New Testament, in any case.

    “As philosophical Christians, we “hate the sin” not the sinner. You Jews have sinned.”

    Art, have you sinned (philosophically or otherwise)? Hate to ask. Really none of my business. But now’s the time for candor. Remember your best projection of arriving at the pearly gates? Is it only Jews that have sinned? Be honest. Remember, St-Peter’s listening.

    In any case I rejoice in your durable propensity to scourge everyone but yourself as a classic passive aggressive. So few things, after all, can withstand the test of pure disfunction.

    Always a pleasure Mahatma! Don’t be a stranger!
    , @iffen
    As philosophical Christians

    Good one, Arts.

    Philosophical Christians, as opposed to what? Actual Christians?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. Incitatus says:
    @anarchyst
    World Jewry declared war on Germany in 1933...yes, 1933. with Jewish books such as "Germany Must Perish", what were the non-Jewish Germans supposed to do?

    “World Jewry declared war on Germany in 1933…”

    Know what Adolf declared as early as 1920? Jews – subhuman traitors – were responsible for WW1 defeat, for Versailles, and all German ills. Nitwit Ludendorff loved it, as did the Wagners, cranks like Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and many, many others. So much easier than acknowledging failure, don’t ya know?

    What would you do, anarchyst, demonized for a decade for other peoples’ mistakes? Roll over and play dead?

    The ‘war’ you refer to meant nothing to the German economy, which the NSDAP reorganized as an internal ponzi scheme dedicated to rearmament in ‘33.

    Ah, those lovable Nazis scamps! Boycott in ’33? It gave them another opportunity to blame Jews. Suffer from indigestion? It’s the Jews! Acne? It’s the Jews! Bad weather? It’s the Jews!

    A very popular mantra in ‘20s-30s Deutschland. Saves introspection on starting WW1, killing millions, starving hundreds of thousands of one’s own people due to incompetence, etc.

    Don’t think twice. It was all the Jews. BTW have acne or indigestion? Well, you know who to blame.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    You act as if conflict between Jews and Europeans was unheard of before a German political party decided to exploit an issue in 1920.
    , @Art
    Know what Adolf declared as early as 1920?

    Hey Stinky,

    Jesus said "judge a tree by the fruit it bares."

    Here is your fruit – stinky scatological comments.

    Stinky Incitatus --- #189

    Frankly, you seem progressively unfit for little more than vomiting irrelevant verbal excrement, spreading it exclusively on yourself.

    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/palestinians-to-the-woodshed/#respondiffen
     
    What grade in Jew school are you in - 9th or tenth? I see you got an “A” in mendaciousness. Are you still lying about not being a Jew.

    The only people who pretend to know or care about Hitler in 1920, are Jews.

    Peace --- Art

    p.s. You Jews are pretenders – your Talmud is filled with scatological garbage.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. Incitatus says:
    @anarchyst
    The "Protocols" ARE a blueprint for world domination. It is curious that this supposed "forgery" has so much "staying power", even in today's climate of political correctness...
    Read it for yourselves. Don't rely on others to censor it for you...you will not like what you find.
    Henry Ford KNEW and exposed the TRUTH.

    “The “Protocols” ARE a blueprint for world domination.”

    The ‘Protocols’, from what little I could read without gaging, is an outragious screed attractive only to those with irrational hate and those seeking an easy explanation for their own failure.

    “It is curious that this supposed “forgery” has so much “staying power””

    Not at all. Screeds absolving individual failure have universal and timeless currency. Amazing it’s not Amazon Number 1!

    “Read it for yourselves. [sic]”

    Indeed I did, for the few pages I could stomach.

    “Henry Ford KNEW and exposed the TRUTH.”

    Ford was a brilliant man. I admire him. No question. But we all have our blind spots. ‘Protocols’ was his Edsel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Regardless of their pedigree, the Protocols are an accurate depiction of organized Jewry's objectives and methods. Hence the tendency to regard them as authentic.

    Historical hostility to Jews can be explained as a normal reaction by non-Jews to collective Jewish behavior, not "irrational Jew hatred" as you always claim.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @Incitatus
    “World Jewry declared war on Germany in 1933...”

    Know what Adolf declared as early as 1920? Jews - subhuman traitors - were responsible for WW1 defeat, for Versailles, and all German ills. Nitwit Ludendorff loved it, as did the Wagners, cranks like Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and many, many others. So much easier than acknowledging failure, don’t ya know?

    What would you do, anarchyst, demonized for a decade for other peoples’ mistakes? Roll over and play dead?

    The ‘war’ you refer to meant nothing to the German economy, which the NSDAP reorganized as an internal ponzi scheme dedicated to rearmament in ‘33.

    Ah, those lovable Nazis scamps! Boycott in '33? It gave them another opportunity to blame Jews. Suffer from indigestion? It’s the Jews! Acne? It’s the Jews! Bad weather? It’s the Jews!

    A very popular mantra in ‘20s-30s Deutschland. Saves introspection on starting WW1, killing millions, starving hundreds of thousands of one’s own people due to incompetence, etc.

    Don’t think twice. It was all the Jews. BTW have acne or indigestion? Well, you know who to blame.

    You act as if conflict between Jews and Europeans was unheard of before a German political party decided to exploit an issue in 1920.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus
    “You act as if conflict between Jews and Europeans was unheard of before a German political party decided to exploit an issue in 1920.”

    How so? What have I written leads you to that conclusion? Please be specific.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. Art says:
    @Incitatus
    “World Jewry declared war on Germany in 1933...”

    Know what Adolf declared as early as 1920? Jews - subhuman traitors - were responsible for WW1 defeat, for Versailles, and all German ills. Nitwit Ludendorff loved it, as did the Wagners, cranks like Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and many, many others. So much easier than acknowledging failure, don’t ya know?

    What would you do, anarchyst, demonized for a decade for other peoples’ mistakes? Roll over and play dead?

    The ‘war’ you refer to meant nothing to the German economy, which the NSDAP reorganized as an internal ponzi scheme dedicated to rearmament in ‘33.

    Ah, those lovable Nazis scamps! Boycott in '33? It gave them another opportunity to blame Jews. Suffer from indigestion? It’s the Jews! Acne? It’s the Jews! Bad weather? It’s the Jews!

    A very popular mantra in ‘20s-30s Deutschland. Saves introspection on starting WW1, killing millions, starving hundreds of thousands of one’s own people due to incompetence, etc.

    Don’t think twice. It was all the Jews. BTW have acne or indigestion? Well, you know who to blame.

    Know what Adolf declared as early as 1920?

    Hey Stinky,

    Jesus said “judge a tree by the fruit it bares.”

    Here is your fruit – stinky scatological comments.

    Stinky Incitatus — #189

    Frankly, you seem progressively unfit for little more than vomiting irrelevant verbal excrement, spreading it exclusively on yourself.

    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/palestinians-to-the-woodshed/#respondiffen

    What grade in Jew school are you in – 9th or tenth? I see you got an “A” in mendaciousness. Are you still lying about not being a Jew.

    The only people who pretend to know or care about Hitler in 1920, are Jews.

    Peace — Art

    p.s. You Jews are pretenders – your Talmud is filled with scatological garbage.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. Incitatus says:
    @Art

    Laughter, to behold its struggle to dress a plainly commonplace bigotry into something deeper; and relief, to witness the unmasking of small men who constantly remind us that anti-Zionism is distinct from Jew hatred.
     
    As philosophical Christians, we "hate the sin" not the sinner. You Jews have sinned. What you have done to the Palestinians and the whole ME is a great sin. What you have done to the America and to the Western democracies is a great sin. All you disinformation comments cannot hide the truth of your wrong doing. It is said "that what goes around comes around."

    True philosophical Christians are interested in tomorrow, not yesterday - we will not seek "an eye for an eye" as your backwards culture does.

    Your problem is that there are few real philosophical Christians. Good luck!

    Peace --- Art

    p.s. It is the Little Jews who do the suffering - the Big Jews will be long gone with the gold.

    Art!

    What a delight! Sure you (“Peace-Art’) wouldn’t prefer ‘Mahatma’ as a screen name? Think about it. What advantages await!

    OK, you’re almost there posting “Peace” after your “Little Jew…Big Jew” routine. All know thereby what a principled “philosophical Christian” you are. Those that haven’t read the New Testament, in any case.

    “As philosophical Christians, we “hate the sin” not the sinner. You Jews have sinned.”

    Art, have you sinned (philosophically or otherwise)? Hate to ask. Really none of my business. But now’s the time for candor. Remember your best projection of arriving at the pearly gates? Is it only Jews that have sinned? Be honest. Remember, St-Peter’s listening.

    In any case I rejoice in your durable propensity to scourge everyone but yourself as a classic passive aggressive. So few things, after all, can withstand the test of pure disfunction.

    Always a pleasure Mahatma! Don’t be a stranger!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    Is it only Jews that have sinned?

    Oh my - Stinky the Jew is so proud - he is not on the bottom - he is not the most evil of all time.

    Why are the Jews so forthright about being second from the bottom? (It is the only truthful thing that they say.)

    Peace --- Art

    Here is Stinky at his finest!

    Stinky Incitatus --- #189

    Frankly, you seem progressively unfit for little more than vomiting irrelevant verbal excrement, spreading it exclusively on yourself.

    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/palestinians-to-the-woodshed/#respondiffen

     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Incitatus says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty
    You act as if conflict between Jews and Europeans was unheard of before a German political party decided to exploit an issue in 1920.

    “You act as if conflict between Jews and Europeans was unheard of before a German political party decided to exploit an issue in 1920.”

    How so? What have I written leads you to that conclusion? Please be specific.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. iffen says:
    @Art

    Laughter, to behold its struggle to dress a plainly commonplace bigotry into something deeper; and relief, to witness the unmasking of small men who constantly remind us that anti-Zionism is distinct from Jew hatred.
     
    As philosophical Christians, we "hate the sin" not the sinner. You Jews have sinned. What you have done to the Palestinians and the whole ME is a great sin. What you have done to the America and to the Western democracies is a great sin. All you disinformation comments cannot hide the truth of your wrong doing. It is said "that what goes around comes around."

    True philosophical Christians are interested in tomorrow, not yesterday - we will not seek "an eye for an eye" as your backwards culture does.

    Your problem is that there are few real philosophical Christians. Good luck!

    Peace --- Art

    p.s. It is the Little Jews who do the suffering - the Big Jews will be long gone with the gold.

    As philosophical Christians

    Good one, Arts.

    Philosophical Christians, as opposed to what? Actual Christians?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    Philosophical Christians, as opposed to what? Actual Christians?

    Each of us has a philosophy for living. When “A” and “B” happen, our personal philosophy leads and guides us to do “C”. Most of us get most of our personal philosophy for living, from our culture. As we mature our philosophical mindset becomes more our own.

    Every religion has an associated philosophy that tells us how to live – it tells us how to act in social settings. One part of a religion tells us how to interact with god – the other part tells us how to act with each other.

    After two thousand years of religious teaching it is fair to say the most Europeans act like cultural philosophical Christians. It is also fair to say that most Europeans are not religious Christians. That they are philosophical Christians – that follow its idealistic social interactive precepts – but do not go to church.

    One can be a religious Christian – a religious and a philosophical Christian – or a philosophical Christian.

    All love Jesus.

    Peace --- Art

    p.s. We must not throw the baby out with the bath water.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Art says:
    @Incitatus
    Art!

    What a delight! Sure you (“Peace-Art’) wouldn’t prefer ‘Mahatma’ as a screen name? Think about it. What advantages await!

    OK, you’re almost there posting “Peace” after your “Little Jew...Big Jew” routine. All know thereby what a principled “philosophical Christian” you are. Those that haven’t read the New Testament, in any case.

    “As philosophical Christians, we “hate the sin” not the sinner. You Jews have sinned.”

    Art, have you sinned (philosophically or otherwise)? Hate to ask. Really none of my business. But now’s the time for candor. Remember your best projection of arriving at the pearly gates? Is it only Jews that have sinned? Be honest. Remember, St-Peter’s listening.

    In any case I rejoice in your durable propensity to scourge everyone but yourself as a classic passive aggressive. So few things, after all, can withstand the test of pure disfunction.

    Always a pleasure Mahatma! Don’t be a stranger!

    Is it only Jews that have sinned?

    Oh my – Stinky the Jew is so proud – he is not on the bottom – he is not the most evil of all time.

    Why are the Jews so forthright about being second from the bottom? (It is the only truthful thing that they say.)

    Peace — Art

    Here is Stinky at his finest!

    Stinky Incitatus — #189

    Frankly, you seem progressively unfit for little more than vomiting irrelevant verbal excrement, spreading it exclusively on yourself.

    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/palestinians-to-the-woodshed/#respondiffen

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @Beefcake the Mighty
    The Arabs don't rely on the US to run interference them, nor do they engage in appalling guilt-mongering when confronted with any and all criticism.

    The Arabs don’t rely on the US to run interference them

    The Saudis sure do.

    nor do they engage in appalling guilt-mongering when confronted with any and all criticism.

    I wouldn’t know. I’m immune to guilt-mongering.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Sam Shama says:
    @Incitatus
    Hi Iffen and Sam. Sorry for the delay.

    ‘Hate crime’ and anti-discrimination statutes address laudable concerns. But elaborating law to highlight narrow malice seems unnecessary if existing law is scrupulously enforced. Is a murderer more guilty if racially motivated? Isn’t the important thing apprehension, trial and conviction for the physical crime?

    Where such concern strays into proscribing free speech, count me out. Why?
    • Criminalizing speech is a bureaucratic nightmare, a passport to thought crime and all the rest;
    • Where law is neither universal nor simple, enforcement is apt arbitrary and capricious - police are, after all, human;
    • A cumulative babel of special laws signals cultural decay. Tacitus had it right: “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”

    Don’t agree with Europeans. No sympathy for Ursula Haverbeck. Defiant, incendiary radicalism isn’t new in Germany. Standing in 20C ruins licenses them the right to determine and apply their own laws.

    Do such laws merely produce martyrs and drive belief underground to metastasize here? Is it better to expose all belief to rigorous public scrutiny and debate?

    “...the anti-Semitism of 2017 is not the anti-Semitism of 1927. One defining premise of today’s is Holocaust denial...”

    Is it really so different? Isn’t Holocaust denial another version of blood liable, Christ killer, Versailles traitor, ‘Protocols of the Elders...’ and so on? Granted, Israel’s existence adds a new dimension, but the target (Jews) remains the same.

    It’s not how anti-Semitism has changed, but how to deal with it. In an age that expands every day with new media and modes. Drive it underground, or expose it to full ridicule? I’d bet on the latter.

    Israel versus Palestinian is a favorite meme for some who simply hate all Jews and condemn them as a sinister conspiracy. ‘Christ killer’ becomes ‘Palestinian killer.’ They eagerly reshuffle human history as an indictment. Palestinians usually appear as the latest victim of the conspiracy, minus suggestions of how to improve their lot. QED get rid of evil Israel and all will be well.

    Make no mistake. Israeli extremists merit equal scrutiny. Bennett’s “Palestinian question” mimics the Nazi “Judenfrage.” Shorthand (wink, wink) dehumanization. Justice Minister Shaked’s Palestinian ‘snakes’? The abysmal indictment/prosecution/conviction rate of crimes against non-Jews? All is discussed inside Israel, little makes it to the US. Why?

    “I am not saying that criticizing Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians makes one an anti-Semite...”

    Don’t laws contemplated seem tailor made for such abuse? Would people like Max Blumenthal be jailed?

    “The criticism is unique to Israel...”

    Remember the 2002-03 smear campaign against France intended to extort a UNSC vote for war?Andy Rooney on 60 Minutes, “Old Europe”, condemnatory editorials and op-eds, screeds like ‘Our Oldest Enemy,’ “Axis of Weasels”, “Cheese-eating Surrender Monkeys”, ‘freedom fries’, boycotts, Bill O’Reilly’s bumper stickers, dumping wine in the streets, accusations of deep corruption in the Oil-for-Food program, accusations of cowardice and giving EU passports to Saddam?

    Imagine Israel subject of such a campaign and boycott. “Unique criticism”? Bullshit!

    First closing. Last time in KSA. New Saudi sponsor (nice enough fellow) met me at Riyadh airport with a copy of the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion...” as a thoughtful landing gift. Ever read it? No more foul, outright boring screed exists. Two pages are enough to signal cretinous onslaught, immediate need for prompt disengagement and a shower. Never read the rest of it. Henry Ford’s a genius, but in this respect pure moron. Reminded me of discovering an Oxonian friend (no offense Sam) seriously equated the Irish with monkeys. Such bias is as disfiguring as the most repelling corporeal defect.

    Bear in mind - Israel’s new best friend is KSA (world-class beheader).

    Final closing. You may not like this. Chabad Chevra, Hartford CT. Wealthy donor buys a manor house in a posh residential neighborhood adjoining the University of Hartford. Baptists and RCs - previous owners - used it exclusively as a retreat (residence). Chabad operates an active house of worship and student center, boh prohibited by zoning code. Neighbors (disrupted by 24-hr lights and increased Saturday activity) object. The case rises to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Sworn facts emerge in lengthy testimony (none acrimonious). The HZBA unanimously (5-0) rules Chabad’s activity illegal. Three of five HZBA commissioners are Jewish attorneys.

    Justice? Didn’t end the case. Chabad’s attorney immediately appealed to a tame Fairfield judge, who obligingly overturned Hartford resident ZBA’s ruling on the basis - you guessed it -anti-Semitism!

    https://crownheights.info/chabad-news/41087/judge-slaps-city-for-anti-semitism-agianst-chabad/

    Ruling “...the city of Hartford cannot use its zoning rules to prevent a sect of Orthodox Jews from using a former church as their place of worship.” Reality. It was NEVER a “church” or “place of worship” (Baptist and RCs had separate churches). Firmly established by HZBA testimony.

    Result? Neighbors exit the area, selling their houses at a loss.

    Anti-Semitism? Pretend I’m a neighbor (I’m not) forced to sell my house at a loss to escape unzoned evangelical activity while labeled an anti-Semite. How should I feel? How should anti-Semitic HZBA commissioners feel? Thoughts?

    Hi Incitatus,

    I was about to propose, subject to your patience, of course, a set of conditions appropriate for the topic at hand; which when I wrote initially, I thought rather convincing, only to realise upon a second read merely clever, even commonplace, though not rising to the charge of glib. None of it was a defense of laws intended to retrench free speech, however.

    So permit me to dispense with any surfeit of dancing around the motion. I think it an unqualified error, indeed the thin end of the wedge, to craft such laws as would limit the expression of ideas, good and bad, which in any case reside in the domain of our thoughts making them immune to intervention. They shall be written, spoken, or shouted; sublime, practical, or abhorrent. It matters not in which form they find an audience; nor if that audience: intended, just in passing, or accidental, finds the material execrable.

    For speech inharmonious to one’s values or beliefs can be simply avoided (may I suggest earplugs or a holiday away from the internet) and if unavoidable, accepted as the eminently worthy purchase which founds a cornerstone of our free society. It is the cornerstone if removed, presents to the public a slippery slope from which I fear we may never succeed the climb back to civilisation.

    Better still, offensive speech is best dealt with through exposure to full ridicule, as you write. I’d bet on it as well.

    There are those who remind me of rights and limits. They tell me your right to throw a fist toward my face is limited; that it is required to stop at a distance comfortably distant. To them, I say speech is not the fist, while earplugs and averting the screen are personal remedies never unavailable. Those are your safe spaces, look no further, ask for no more.

    On the question of Israel and the Palestinians, I confess I am torn. I grew up fervently clinging to the belief that the State shall absorb the returning children of Abraham. But that was an idea rather fragile, speak of it, and it vanishes. The populations grow more radical each passing day, and one is faced with a reality, which if ignored leads either to widespread suffering or complete devastation. On the edges of this gathering storm, one treats the complex problem through the only means visible: a scheme of financial compensation for the dispossessed. And a state for the Pals. Land swaps and relocations. Who knows? Easier said than done.

    Speaking of Israeli politicians, couldn’t agree more. For a time I thought Bennet was innovative and something of a visionary when he established a wide-ranging economic plan for several Palestinian model communities in the WB. Then he paused, and from what I hear he claims BDS the culprit. I admit I am not in possession of the full facts. Shaked, I might have called a termagant if she weren’t one of those women whose blood can run both hot and icy-cold. Mostly, it is the latter condition which defines her disposition, which is to say she is entirely bereft of emotions normal h.sapiens is rumoured to possess.

    Protocols of Zion, I have not read and going by your account, the urge to shower after reading it tempts me indeed; for I can take as many showers as needed (I like showers) if it indeed contains the blueprint for world domination. I’ve felt that calling from my salad days at the old alma mater :-)). Speaking of which, not a bit surprised you were treated to that odd little surprise on account of the views of your friend. Even (or, especially?) the halls of All Souls, let alone others not automatically fellows, are prowled by the occasional beast.

    On the Chabad Chevra story. Once again I am not a bit surprised. I detest these in-flocking penguins. Always turning numerous when one is spotted, rarely pleasant and mostly dumb in a cunning sort of way. They never see beyond their ample proboscises. I passionately believe in restricting them to certain neighbourhoods. I could tell you where I live – an area about 30% Jewish – we have successfully thwarted at least two potential invasions. In short, I have no love lost for these creatures and it doesn’t take me much to come to loggerheads with them. I can never forget that day when a female cousin and I, walking through a particular neighbourhood in Jerusalem were greeted with a hail of pebbles and stones. Our crime? We were wearing summer-appropriate clothes!

    In closing, I wonder and certainly hope I’ve been clear. A small query. Am I wrong to have sensed that in the case of Germany, given their history you are -minimally perhaps – ambivalent about their hate speech laws?

    Best

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    their ample proboscises

    Anti-Semite!
    , @Incitatus
    Great post Sam,

    “I think it an unqualified error, indeed the thin end of the wedge, to craft such laws as would limit the expression of ideas, good and bad...”

    I agree. Free speech - like overturning rocks - invites unpleasant discovery. Don’t like it, but that’s the price of early warning. Better to know about cancer than to let it spread undetected and unchallenged.

    “For speech inharmonious to one’s values or beliefs can be simply avoided (may I suggest earplugs or a holiday away from the internet)...”

    Well said. Speech would be radically different if authors responded face-to-face. The web aids fantasy and abets bland existence by offering easy, anonymous avenues to vent acrimony. When does self-delusion cross the line, take out a weapon or strap on a bomb, and attack others? The question of our age.

    “Speaking of Israeli politicians...”

    Israeli media, to it’s great credit, presents full spectrum analysis. It’s missing in the US. Don’t know why. Dissent can be a healthy balance. I suppose in this case it could easily be used by those who seek new avenues to scourge a favorite demon. Bennet and Shaked? With their rhetoric, they’re firmly in the media spotlight. Aryeh Deri, on the other hand, seems unique.

    Consolation? US seems much more corrupt in the unspoken nexus between media, politicians, and corporations. Most would no doubt put Israel to shame.

    “Israel and the Palestinians...populations grow more radical each passing day, and one is faced with a reality, which if ignored leads either to widespread suffering or complete devastation. On the edges of this gathering storm, one treats the complex problem through the only means visible: a scheme of financial compensation for the dispossessed. And a state for the Pals. Land swaps and relocations. Who knows? Easier said than done.”

    I’m equally unsure. There’s no easy answer, no magic agenda. Neutral pragmatist that can tote up proposals and make counteroffers until the both sides agree? No candidate comes to mind, sad to say. Wish it did (for both sides).

    “Protocols of Zion...”

    You’re a better man than me, Sam. Probably wise to read it, since it still seems ever popular with a tiny number of readers. Hope you have the fortitude to get through the whole thing. I couldn’t. Like crude pornography, the ‘plot’ was pretty clear by page two (as was the need for disengaged cleansing).

    “Chabad Chevra story...”

    My intent was to only highlight the danger of phony anti-Semitism labels. I attended the initial hearing and know principles. Chabad Chevra wasn’t at all acrimonious or unpleasant. Almost seemed they knew their zoning case was bogus. Testimony was groundwork to subsequent lawsuits filed to overcome adverse judgment. They had an excellent lawyer (doing exactly what he should do). After all, zoning is a routine target for all manner of special interests.

    The Fairfield judge’s reversal on the grounds of 'anti-Semitism' was surprising. No HZBA commissioner was aware of any legal activity. None were called to give testimony. It was announced as a done deal months later, tainting them as bigots and hate-mongers. The judge could have cited of civil rights, religious practice, etc? Instead? ”Anti-Semitism.” Nothing I witnessed was derogatory in any respect. That's what was surprising.

    Anti-Semitism is a genuine problem. The judge trivialized it when she manufactured radioactive nonsense to vacate a civil decision without citing any offending testimony or higher principle. That’s the warning.

    I take heart at your frustration with Chabad. Be of good cheer. Patience with the ‘Knights of Columbus’ is only compensated by viewing ridiculous costumes they willingly embrace. That said, I’m sure many are worthy of faith. No less with Chabad Chevra. We are all blind men trying to find our way.

    “...in the case of Germany, given their history you are -minimally perhaps – ambivalent about their hate speech laws?"

    I realized after publishing I wasn’t concise. Here’s what I think. If Ursula Haverbec was American, I’d resist her arrest, conviction, and imprisonment. But she’s German, with a long history of hawking incendiary ideology knowing the penalties. In her case I trust Germans to determine proper judgment. As far as I’m concerned, they did.

    Best
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Seraphim says:
    @Veritatis
    Let's see if this is a fair summary of your ideas:
    1) Nietzsche was a deep/wise thinker.
    2) N. writes beautifully.
    3) N. is not a nihilist.
    4) The numbers of practicing Christians has decreased and thus their impact on the general culture has markedly decreased.

    1) Where you see depth and insight, is mostly a talent for critique. He did "rail" (as you say) against the coherent Christian worldview: an explanation of the world, of man, of how he should live and the purpose/meaning of his life. He did not offer a similarly comprehensive one: no explanation of the world or of man's purpose. He even 'railed' against Socrates "know thyself".

                "Thus it happened that.. my vtal instinct turned against ethics and founded a radical counter-doctrine, slanted esthetically, to oppose the Christian libel on life. But it still wanted a name. Being a philologist, that is to say a man of words, I christened it rather arbitrarily, --for who can tell the name of the AntiChrist?-- with the name of a Greek god, Dyonisus." -Birth of Tragedy

    Notice that he opposed a concept (Christian ethics) with an image (Dionysus), and, Nietzsche being Nietzsche, injected a congratulatory self-reference

    2) He does write well, and his egocentric, commanding, irreverent tone is seductive to many. Look at all the "snarky" style that today inundates the Internet and mass media and you will see little, less cultivated Nietzsches. But the point would be what he writes about, since one can drink poison from a finely crafted gold cup.

    3) He is absolutely a nihilist. Having dispensed with God, and built a "morality" around a hypothetical Superman that has the right to break the 'shackles' of pity for the weak, and move 'beyond good and evil', he was left with only the Will to Power. "Just will' says good old Nietzsche. What or why, it doesn't matter. And yet in Eternal Return he discovers -scientifically-- that all gods die, even his Overman.

                      "Apart from the ascetic ideal, man, the human animal, had no meaning so far, his existence on earth contained no goal. 'Why man at all' was a question without an answer."
                     "And, to repeat in conclusion what I said in the beginning, man would rather will nothingness than not will." (Both from Genealogy of Morals, emphasis in the original.)

    4) Yes, the number of practicing Christians has decreased, and markedly so in Europe. It seems Europe is losing/has lost God, and the will to live. Is there a relation? I don't think that is true yet of the US and certainly not in Latin America, which I include in 'the West' what with the Monroe Doctrine and all. But as I already said, perhaps a smaller church is a truer church. And so we may speak of creative minorities to live life meaningfully, in community, and create in practice better answers to the old question "how then shall we live?".

    Two final comments. First, look to who is still backing (after the Nazi fiasco) Nietzsche. Who teaches, publishes and cites Nietzsche? Birds of a feather fly together. It is the skeptical, nihilistic, antiChristian opinion leaders, who care very little for the man in the street (those weaklings!) and who do not mind dissolving the fabric of society if that is helpful to their economic interest. (Will to power!) Second, why not look at his life? Before taking a thinker as guide, why not see how his ideas played out in the thinker's life? Admittedly ad hominem, but useful. Nietzsche was incapable of sustaining a job, any relationships, died childless and raving mad. Oh, and just before being confined, he wrote letters crying for help and signed them 'Dionysus' and 'the Crucified One'. Nothing to aspire to, it would seem.

    One has to debunk also the myth of Nietzsche’s influence upon Nazism.
    To save my time I’ll just give you a short summary of the problem:

    “Hitler Myths”
    @https://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler-myths.htm
    “Nowhere in Mein Kampf does Hitler even mention Nietzsche, or Nietzchean terms such as superman (uberman), or super race. Of course Hitler did think the Aryan’s represented a superior race to the Jews, but never in Nietzchean terms.
    Perhaps the most notorious misrepresentation of connecting Hitler and Nietzsche came from a photo-op of Hitler visiting the Nietzsche archive. Many have incorrectly believed that Hitler visited the archive on his own volition. Not so. The photo-op idea came from Nietzsche’s sister, Elisabeth Förster, a wealthy Nazi supporter, who established the Nietzsche Archive in 1933, It was she who invited Hitler (after much persuasion) to visit the archive for publicity purposes. Hitler visited the archive to appease Nietzsche’s anti-Semite sister. The event appeared in the German newspapers and William Shirer (The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich) briefly mentioned the event as if Hitler often visited the archive because he admired Nietzsche. Shirer probably got his information from the German propaganda article rather than from the facts of the event. (Note, scholars have criticized Shirer for his lack of scholarship and poor source material.) Elisabeth Förster also misrepresented Nietzsche by making her brother look like an anti-Semite and a proto-Nazi (Nietzsche’s philosophy had little resemblance to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party).
    The pre-Nazi Thule society began in the early 1900s. Rudolf von Serbottendorff became the driving force of this order which practiced occultism and an admiration of Nietzsche. Many members of the Thule society later became Nazis and did influence Nazi literature. However, Hitler never showed any interest in the Thule cult or in its pagan practices.
    Anyone who uses such material to justify a Hitler-Nietzsche link simply lacks historical depth (laziness of research) and has no understanding of Hitler.
    Let’s face it; Hitler showed no philosophical sophistication. If any philosopher had an influence on him, it probably came from Schopenhuer (which he does briefly mention in Mein Kampf). Hans Frank, Hitler’s personal lawyer, recalled that Hitler carried a copy of Schopenhauer’s World as Will and Representation with him throughout World War I, but Hitler never revealed any appreciation of Friedrich Nietzsche or his philosophy”.

    Most of the cult and industry of Nietzsche was due to her sister Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche, a deranged person in her own right and a real antisemite along with her husband. She peddled the aura of sacred madness to deflect from the ‘accusation’ of syphilis and heavily edited her brother’s writings to fit her own ideas.
    According to Christian Niemeyer*, author of “Nietzsche verstehen. Eine Gebrauchsanweisung”:
    “Förster-Nietzsche did everything she could – such as telling stories about Nietzsche, writing false letters in the name of her brother, and so on – to make it seem that Nietzsche had been a right-wing thinker like herself. It was she who created the most destructive myth of all: Nietzsche as the godfather of fascism.” *@http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/7018535/Criminal-manipulation-of-Nietzsche-by-sister-to-make-him-look-anti-Semitic.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. Art says:
    @iffen
    As philosophical Christians

    Good one, Arts.

    Philosophical Christians, as opposed to what? Actual Christians?

    Philosophical Christians, as opposed to what? Actual Christians?

    Each of us has a philosophy for living. When “A” and “B” happen, our personal philosophy leads and guides us to do “C”. Most of us get most of our personal philosophy for living, from our culture. As we mature our philosophical mindset becomes more our own.

    Every religion has an associated philosophy that tells us how to live – it tells us how to act in social settings. One part of a religion tells us how to interact with god – the other part tells us how to act with each other.

    After two thousand years of religious teaching it is fair to say the most Europeans act like cultural philosophical Christians. It is also fair to say that most Europeans are not religious Christians. That they are philosophical Christians – that follow its idealistic social interactive precepts – but do not go to church.

    One can be a religious Christian – a religious and a philosophical Christian – or a philosophical Christian.

    All love Jesus.

    Peace — Art

    p.s. We must not throw the baby out with the bath water.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Cultural Christian, philosophical Christian. Atheist Christian?

    How about once removed Christians, Arts?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. Sam Shama says:
    @annamaria
    Who don't you show a modicum of intellectual honesty in your vituperative and petty attacks against anybody who dears to criticize the zionist project? Of course it is your choice to stay shoulder to shoulder with such "giants" as Avigdor Lieberman and Sharansky, but if you try to attempt at "unmasking of small men" who dare to make a distinction between anti-Zionism and "Jew hatred," you would face people like Arendt and Einstein ("the usual cretins and reptiles,"according to you?), who were the true intellectual and moral giants, the glory of humanity.
    The project has been transforming - take a notice.
    http://www.rense.com/general59/ein.htm
    http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/how-hannah-arendt-was-labeled-an-enemy-of-israel-email-article-to-a-friend
    "Guarding your own fundaments" could bring paradoxical results when the fundamentals have a flaw.

    Dear lady, may I suggest you avail yourself of help easily obtained in the form of a grammar editor? I say this not in any malice but merely in the spirit of an occasional interlocutor unfailingly subjected to the vagaries of your unique prose. The grammar editor may not be sufficient, and while I do not insist on a study of philology, it is a start.

    You write: ‘dears to criticize your zionist project’ which I understand may have been meant to be read as ‘dares…..’, yet I remain in suspense, given past examples of curious thoughts. One such curiosity clings in the shape of your ultimate sentence, where the paradox isn’t clear to me as it seems you’ve managed to switch the intended target.

    Be that as it may, and before you work yourself up into yet another instance of fine hormonal lather, consider this little gem which appears in the comment you so zealously defend:

    But anti-Semitism is merely antipathy towards Jews. Nothing more. And sometimes a little antipathy is a very good thing. Indeed, sometimes ‘anti-Semitism’ is richly-deserved and sorely needed.

    I will leave you to ponder its implications, with or without the benefit of your distinctive filter. Either way, it should be interesting.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Yes, that was a typo. And you, Sir, have shown yourself, in several of your posts, a bad-mannered commenter, notwithstanding your supposedly sublime verbal flourishes. I will leave you to ponder the obvious implications of the weakness of your character, which are shining through the pettiness of your behavior. Let me suggest that you have already heard this kind of words from others, including females.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. Seraphim says:
    @Sam Shama
    Yes, he did suffer from those (some misdiagnosed) conditions. But you speak only of physical manifestations very visible, not of that which he contemplated incessantly, "When in spite of that fearful pressure of 'morality of custom' under which all the communities of mankind have lived" wrote Friedrich, "....it was madness which prepared the way for the new idea, which broke the spell of a venerated usage and superstition. ....[] Do you understand why it had to be madness which did this? "

    Daybreak is lesser the known of his works, certainly much less than Ecce Homo & the Antichrist, and in it, he wrote extensively about a place for deliberate madness in the cerebral affairs of man:


    "Let us go a step further: all superior men who were irresistibly drawn to throw off the yoke of any kind of morality and to frame new laws had, if they were not actually mad, no alternative but to make themselves or pretend to be mad - and this indeed applies to innovators in every domain and not only in the domain of priestly and political dogma: - even the innovator of poetical metre had to establish his credentials by madness."
     
    Read Daybreak (there are others of course, in which the idea is more sprinkled). A bit long but beautiful. Races through with surprising speed. It did for me.

    Nietzsche was contrasting the ‘psychological madness’ of the ‘fanatics, possessed, religious epileptics – reference to Jesus, St. Paul, Pascal -, eccentrics’ , which came from a deficiency of vital powers in sick people, with the ‘philosophical madness’ which came from an overabundance of vital powers, love, enthusiasm, characteristic to superior people like himself ‘stronger, more superhuman, more terrible, wiser’. Actually, delusions of grandeur characteristic of bipolar disorder, of which Nietzsche was affected too.
    Of course the madness of Zarathustra-Nietzsche had little to do with the divine gift of ‘mania’ of the Greeks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Which is in substance quite clearly different from being merely mentally incapacitated, therefore inconsequential (or destructive?) It is also, therefore, from your side of the debate, a concession of his scintillating insights, of the breathtakingly original ideas consequent to madness, real or contrived, not to mention the delightful prose. He is saying we view the world with eyes wide shut and it takes a madman in his time to break the reverie.

    Of course one may disagree with him, vehemently even, but to say he was merely a confused madman would be to miss the towering genius. That would be a pity.

    As I said before, do read Daybreak. "Madness" gets the full attention in it. I do not declare full comprehension of all things he wrote, or what on earth he implied in some of his more obscure soliloquies until I have read them thrice, which at this moment I cannot claim, only the speed-reading I usually apply to philosophical works.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. Art says:
    @Incitatus
    Hi Iffen and Sam. Sorry for the delay.

    ‘Hate crime’ and anti-discrimination statutes address laudable concerns. But elaborating law to highlight narrow malice seems unnecessary if existing law is scrupulously enforced. Is a murderer more guilty if racially motivated? Isn’t the important thing apprehension, trial and conviction for the physical crime?

    Where such concern strays into proscribing free speech, count me out. Why?
    • Criminalizing speech is a bureaucratic nightmare, a passport to thought crime and all the rest;
    • Where law is neither universal nor simple, enforcement is apt arbitrary and capricious - police are, after all, human;
    • A cumulative babel of special laws signals cultural decay. Tacitus had it right: “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”

    Don’t agree with Europeans. No sympathy for Ursula Haverbeck. Defiant, incendiary radicalism isn’t new in Germany. Standing in 20C ruins licenses them the right to determine and apply their own laws.

    Do such laws merely produce martyrs and drive belief underground to metastasize here? Is it better to expose all belief to rigorous public scrutiny and debate?

    “...the anti-Semitism of 2017 is not the anti-Semitism of 1927. One defining premise of today’s is Holocaust denial...”

    Is it really so different? Isn’t Holocaust denial another version of blood liable, Christ killer, Versailles traitor, ‘Protocols of the Elders...’ and so on? Granted, Israel’s existence adds a new dimension, but the target (Jews) remains the same.

    It’s not how anti-Semitism has changed, but how to deal with it. In an age that expands every day with new media and modes. Drive it underground, or expose it to full ridicule? I’d bet on the latter.

    Israel versus Palestinian is a favorite meme for some who simply hate all Jews and condemn them as a sinister conspiracy. ‘Christ killer’ becomes ‘Palestinian killer.’ They eagerly reshuffle human history as an indictment. Palestinians usually appear as the latest victim of the conspiracy, minus suggestions of how to improve their lot. QED get rid of evil Israel and all will be well.

    Make no mistake. Israeli extremists merit equal scrutiny. Bennett’s “Palestinian question” mimics the Nazi “Judenfrage.” Shorthand (wink, wink) dehumanization. Justice Minister Shaked’s Palestinian ‘snakes’? The abysmal indictment/prosecution/conviction rate of crimes against non-Jews? All is discussed inside Israel, little makes it to the US. Why?

    “I am not saying that criticizing Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians makes one an anti-Semite...”

    Don’t laws contemplated seem tailor made for such abuse? Would people like Max Blumenthal be jailed?

    “The criticism is unique to Israel...”

    Remember the 2002-03 smear campaign against France intended to extort a UNSC vote for war?Andy Rooney on 60 Minutes, “Old Europe”, condemnatory editorials and op-eds, screeds like ‘Our Oldest Enemy,’ “Axis of Weasels”, “Cheese-eating Surrender Monkeys”, ‘freedom fries’, boycotts, Bill O’Reilly’s bumper stickers, dumping wine in the streets, accusations of deep corruption in the Oil-for-Food program, accusations of cowardice and giving EU passports to Saddam?

    Imagine Israel subject of such a campaign and boycott. “Unique criticism”? Bullshit!

    First closing. Last time in KSA. New Saudi sponsor (nice enough fellow) met me at Riyadh airport with a copy of the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion...” as a thoughtful landing gift. Ever read it? No more foul, outright boring screed exists. Two pages are enough to signal cretinous onslaught, immediate need for prompt disengagement and a shower. Never read the rest of it. Henry Ford’s a genius, but in this respect pure moron. Reminded me of discovering an Oxonian friend (no offense Sam) seriously equated the Irish with monkeys. Such bias is as disfiguring as the most repelling corporeal defect.

    Bear in mind - Israel’s new best friend is KSA (world-class beheader).

    Final closing. You may not like this. Chabad Chevra, Hartford CT. Wealthy donor buys a manor house in a posh residential neighborhood adjoining the University of Hartford. Baptists and RCs - previous owners - used it exclusively as a retreat (residence). Chabad operates an active house of worship and student center, boh prohibited by zoning code. Neighbors (disrupted by 24-hr lights and increased Saturday activity) object. The case rises to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Sworn facts emerge in lengthy testimony (none acrimonious). The HZBA unanimously (5-0) rules Chabad’s activity illegal. Three of five HZBA commissioners are Jewish attorneys.

    Justice? Didn’t end the case. Chabad’s attorney immediately appealed to a tame Fairfield judge, who obligingly overturned Hartford resident ZBA’s ruling on the basis - you guessed it -anti-Semitism!

    https://crownheights.info/chabad-news/41087/judge-slaps-city-for-anti-semitism-agianst-chabad/

    Ruling “...the city of Hartford cannot use its zoning rules to prevent a sect of Orthodox Jews from using a former church as their place of worship.” Reality. It was NEVER a “church” or “place of worship” (Baptist and RCs had separate churches). Firmly established by HZBA testimony.

    Result? Neighbors exit the area, selling their houses at a loss.

    Anti-Semitism? Pretend I’m a neighbor (I’m not) forced to sell my house at a loss to escape unzoned evangelical activity while labeled an anti-Semite. How should I feel? How should anti-Semitic HZBA commissioners feel? Thoughts?

    It’s not how anti-Semitism has changed, but how to deal with it. In an age that expands every day with new media and modes.

    How to deal with it? The answer is get real – Sam in his response to you got real. Sam got real about free speech, Palestinians, and some very coercive Jew politicians.

    The lie that all is well, and on the up and up with Israel cannot be sustained. It is so obvious that Israel is not the victim, but the aggressor – and that this is not 1940 and Jews are no longer the victim.

    Peace — Art

    p.s. If the Jews were smart, they would drop the Six Million Lie – let it die a natural death. That lie can only be enforced by obvious coercion (as in Europe). Every day now, more websites are going against the coercive deep state – it is the thing to do to get attention. Jews lies cannot escape the sunlight.

    p.s. Jews should get Kushner out of the White House. Kushner flies the Israel flag. If Trump goes down, it will be with Kushner. Seventy million people voted for Trump – they will see the Jew connection. The Jew controlled media are already treating him with kid gloves. But the Democrats smell Trump blood, and will push and push, dragging Kushner into it all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RobinG
    So Art, is Trump going down? I hope not, but I've come round to the idea that filing impeachment papers as a "shot across the bow" would be useful.

    Francis Boyle, who has filed against other Presidents including Bush senior, makes the point that the Clinton(s), Bush I and II, Obama, Podesta, Mueller, Comey, Dem. Party - not just Trump - are guilty. Very important interview. Lots of history, and Boyle keeps the host in line.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5k1cQ_vLj3I&feature=youtu.be
    Talk Nation Radio: Francis Boyle on How to Impeach Trump

    Francis Boyle is a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. Professor Boyle has served as counsel to Bosnia and Herzegovina and to the Provisional Government of the Palestinian Authority. He has been a strong advocate over the years for the proper use of the power of impeachment.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. annamaria says:
    @Sam Shama
    Dear lady, may I suggest you avail yourself of help easily obtained in the form of a grammar editor? I say this not in any malice but merely in the spirit of an occasional interlocutor unfailingly subjected to the vagaries of your unique prose. The grammar editor may not be sufficient, and while I do not insist on a study of philology, it is a start.

    You write: 'dears to criticize your zionist project' which I understand may have been meant to be read as 'dares.....', yet I remain in suspense, given past examples of curious thoughts. One such curiosity clings in the shape of your ultimate sentence, where the paradox isn't clear to me as it seems you've managed to switch the intended target.

    Be that as it may, and before you work yourself up into yet another instance of fine hormonal lather, consider this little gem which appears in the comment you so zealously defend:

    But anti-Semitism is merely antipathy towards Jews. Nothing more. And sometimes a little antipathy is a very good thing. Indeed, sometimes ‘anti-Semitism’ is richly-deserved and sorely needed.

    I will leave you to ponder its implications, with or without the benefit of your distinctive filter. Either way, it should be interesting.

    Yes, that was a typo. And you, Sir, have shown yourself, in several of your posts, a bad-mannered commenter, notwithstanding your supposedly sublime verbal flourishes. I will leave you to ponder the obvious implications of the weakness of your character, which are shining through the pettiness of your behavior. Let me suggest that you have already heard this kind of words from others, including females.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Let's bury the hatchet, shall we? I do nevertheless wish to get a fuller understanding, your very own exposition as it were, of two small matters I've been meaning to ask for your clarification:

    1. When you say, as you have on numerous occasions, "low IQ middle easterners flooding the West", or words to that effect, do you imply you've set aside empathy and the spirit of social justice selectively to sound an alarm which blares with a certainty matched by none save zealots? No need to paste links on IQ, I am more than familiar with the concept and the literature. It's crystal clear in my memory that you once considered IQ's contribution marginal, or was that a fraudulent claim? Or is it that you wish nothing better than "low IQ Muslims" be consigned as a problem exclusively for Israel to solve? Don't be shy. Write your heart out as only the new suffragette can be expected to.

    2. Write a paragraph or two about the little gem of a sentence you avoided comment on. I reprint it here.

    This one, written by your fellow-in-crusade:

    But anti-Semitism is merely antipathy towards Jews. Nothing more. And sometimes a little antipathy is a very good thing. Indeed, sometimes ‘anti-Semitism’ is richly-deserved and sorely needed.

    Remember, your own words, not links.

    Best of luck
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. iffen says:
    @Art
    Philosophical Christians, as opposed to what? Actual Christians?

    Each of us has a philosophy for living. When “A” and “B” happen, our personal philosophy leads and guides us to do “C”. Most of us get most of our personal philosophy for living, from our culture. As we mature our philosophical mindset becomes more our own.

    Every religion has an associated philosophy that tells us how to live – it tells us how to act in social settings. One part of a religion tells us how to interact with god – the other part tells us how to act with each other.

    After two thousand years of religious teaching it is fair to say the most Europeans act like cultural philosophical Christians. It is also fair to say that most Europeans are not religious Christians. That they are philosophical Christians – that follow its idealistic social interactive precepts – but do not go to church.

    One can be a religious Christian – a religious and a philosophical Christian – or a philosophical Christian.

    All love Jesus.

    Peace --- Art

    p.s. We must not throw the baby out with the bath water.

    Cultural Christian, philosophical Christian. Atheist Christian?

    How about once removed Christians, Arts?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    Cultural Christian, philosophical Christian. Atheist Christian?

    How about once removed Christians, Arts?

    Christianity is more than the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection. It is also the words said by Jesus in the three years before his murder that have changed humanity. For sure, Jesus thought of himself as a religious figure. For sure people have thought of him as a religious figure. But he also set forth a new way of thinking – a new mindset about human interaction - he gave us a new philosophy for living. The legacy of that philosophy is Western culture.

    The fundamentals of that philosophy are a set of ideals – live with hope – treat life as sacred – love you neighbor – seek the truth – forgive the past – extend grace to everyone.

    Acted on all together - that set of ideals is the engine of progress that we call Western culture.

    Whether one thinks of Jesus as the son of god – or not --- every human being alive, should love Jesus for bringing forth those ideals. What freedom and prosperity we enjoy today flows from his words.

    Peace --- Art

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. iffen says:
    @Sam Shama
    Hi Incitatus,

    I was about to propose, subject to your patience, of course, a set of conditions appropriate for the topic at hand; which when I wrote initially, I thought rather convincing, only to realise upon a second read merely clever, even commonplace, though not rising to the charge of glib. None of it was a defense of laws intended to retrench free speech, however.

    So permit me to dispense with any surfeit of dancing around the motion. I think it an unqualified error, indeed the thin end of the wedge, to craft such laws as would limit the expression of ideas, good and bad, which in any case reside in the domain of our thoughts making them immune to intervention. They shall be written, spoken, or shouted; sublime, practical, or abhorrent. It matters not in which form they find an audience; nor if that audience: intended, just in passing, or accidental, finds the material execrable.

    For speech inharmonious to one's values or beliefs can be simply avoided (may I suggest earplugs or a holiday away from the internet) and if unavoidable, accepted as the eminently worthy purchase which founds a cornerstone of our free society. It is the cornerstone if removed, presents to the public a slippery slope from which I fear we may never succeed the climb back to civilisation.

    Better still, offensive speech is best dealt with through exposure to full ridicule, as you write. I’d bet on it as well.

    There are those who remind me of rights and limits. They tell me your right to throw a fist toward my face is limited; that it is required to stop at a distance comfortably distant. To them, I say speech is not the fist, while earplugs and averting the screen are personal remedies never unavailable. Those are your safe spaces, look no further, ask for no more.

    On the question of Israel and the Palestinians, I confess I am torn. I grew up fervently clinging to the belief that the State shall absorb the returning children of Abraham. But that was an idea rather fragile, speak of it, and it vanishes. The populations grow more radical each passing day, and one is faced with a reality, which if ignored leads either to widespread suffering or complete devastation. On the edges of this gathering storm, one treats the complex problem through the only means visible: a scheme of financial compensation for the dispossessed. And a state for the Pals. Land swaps and relocations. Who knows? Easier said than done.

    Speaking of Israeli politicians, couldn't agree more. For a time I thought Bennet was innovative and something of a visionary when he established a wide-ranging economic plan for several Palestinian model communities in the WB. Then he paused, and from what I hear he claims BDS the culprit. I admit I am not in possession of the full facts. Shaked, I might have called a termagant if she weren't one of those women whose blood can run both hot and icy-cold. Mostly, it is the latter condition which defines her disposition, which is to say she is entirely bereft of emotions normal h.sapiens is rumoured to possess.

    Protocols of Zion, I have not read and going by your account, the urge to shower after reading it tempts me indeed; for I can take as many showers as needed (I like showers) if it indeed contains the blueprint for world domination. I've felt that calling from my salad days at the old alma mater :-)). Speaking of which, not a bit surprised you were treated to that odd little surprise on account of the views of your friend. Even (or, especially?) the halls of All Souls, let alone others not automatically fellows, are prowled by the occasional beast.

    On the Chabad Chevra story. Once again I am not a bit surprised. I detest these in-flocking penguins. Always turning numerous when one is spotted, rarely pleasant and mostly dumb in a cunning sort of way. They never see beyond their ample proboscises. I passionately believe in restricting them to certain neighbourhoods. I could tell you where I live - an area about 30% Jewish - we have successfully thwarted at least two potential invasions. In short, I have no love lost for these creatures and it doesn't take me much to come to loggerheads with them. I can never forget that day when a female cousin and I, walking through a particular neighbourhood in Jerusalem were greeted with a hail of pebbles and stones. Our crime? We were wearing summer-appropriate clothes!

    In closing, I wonder and certainly hope I've been clear. A small query. Am I wrong to have sensed that in the case of Germany, given their history you are -minimally perhaps - ambivalent about their hate speech laws?

    Best

    their ample proboscises

    Anti-Semite!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    LOL. You got me!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. iffen says:
    @Incitatus
    Hi Iffen and Sam. Sorry for the delay.

    ‘Hate crime’ and anti-discrimination statutes address laudable concerns. But elaborating law to highlight narrow malice seems unnecessary if existing law is scrupulously enforced. Is a murderer more guilty if racially motivated? Isn’t the important thing apprehension, trial and conviction for the physical crime?

    Where such concern strays into proscribing free speech, count me out. Why?
    • Criminalizing speech is a bureaucratic nightmare, a passport to thought crime and all the rest;
    • Where law is neither universal nor simple, enforcement is apt arbitrary and capricious - police are, after all, human;
    • A cumulative babel of special laws signals cultural decay. Tacitus had it right: “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”

    Don’t agree with Europeans. No sympathy for Ursula Haverbeck. Defiant, incendiary radicalism isn’t new in Germany. Standing in 20C ruins licenses them the right to determine and apply their own laws.

    Do such laws merely produce martyrs and drive belief underground to metastasize here? Is it better to expose all belief to rigorous public scrutiny and debate?

    “...the anti-Semitism of 2017 is not the anti-Semitism of 1927. One defining premise of today’s is Holocaust denial...”

    Is it really so different? Isn’t Holocaust denial another version of blood liable, Christ killer, Versailles traitor, ‘Protocols of the Elders...’ and so on? Granted, Israel’s existence adds a new dimension, but the target (Jews) remains the same.

    It’s not how anti-Semitism has changed, but how to deal with it. In an age that expands every day with new media and modes. Drive it underground, or expose it to full ridicule? I’d bet on the latter.

    Israel versus Palestinian is a favorite meme for some who simply hate all Jews and condemn them as a sinister conspiracy. ‘Christ killer’ becomes ‘Palestinian killer.’ They eagerly reshuffle human history as an indictment. Palestinians usually appear as the latest victim of the conspiracy, minus suggestions of how to improve their lot. QED get rid of evil Israel and all will be well.

    Make no mistake. Israeli extremists merit equal scrutiny. Bennett’s “Palestinian question” mimics the Nazi “Judenfrage.” Shorthand (wink, wink) dehumanization. Justice Minister Shaked’s Palestinian ‘snakes’? The abysmal indictment/prosecution/conviction rate of crimes against non-Jews? All is discussed inside Israel, little makes it to the US. Why?

    “I am not saying that criticizing Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians makes one an anti-Semite...”

    Don’t laws contemplated seem tailor made for such abuse? Would people like Max Blumenthal be jailed?

    “The criticism is unique to Israel...”

    Remember the 2002-03 smear campaign against France intended to extort a UNSC vote for war?Andy Rooney on 60 Minutes, “Old Europe”, condemnatory editorials and op-eds, screeds like ‘Our Oldest Enemy,’ “Axis of Weasels”, “Cheese-eating Surrender Monkeys”, ‘freedom fries’, boycotts, Bill O’Reilly’s bumper stickers, dumping wine in the streets, accusations of deep corruption in the Oil-for-Food program, accusations of cowardice and giving EU passports to Saddam?

    Imagine Israel subject of such a campaign and boycott. “Unique criticism”? Bullshit!

    First closing. Last time in KSA. New Saudi sponsor (nice enough fellow) met me at Riyadh airport with a copy of the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion...” as a thoughtful landing gift. Ever read it? No more foul, outright boring screed exists. Two pages are enough to signal cretinous onslaught, immediate need for prompt disengagement and a shower. Never read the rest of it. Henry Ford’s a genius, but in this respect pure moron. Reminded me of discovering an Oxonian friend (no offense Sam) seriously equated the Irish with monkeys. Such bias is as disfiguring as the most repelling corporeal defect.

    Bear in mind - Israel’s new best friend is KSA (world-class beheader).

    Final closing. You may not like this. Chabad Chevra, Hartford CT. Wealthy donor buys a manor house in a posh residential neighborhood adjoining the University of Hartford. Baptists and RCs - previous owners - used it exclusively as a retreat (residence). Chabad operates an active house of worship and student center, boh prohibited by zoning code. Neighbors (disrupted by 24-hr lights and increased Saturday activity) object. The case rises to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Sworn facts emerge in lengthy testimony (none acrimonious). The HZBA unanimously (5-0) rules Chabad’s activity illegal. Three of five HZBA commissioners are Jewish attorneys.

    Justice? Didn’t end the case. Chabad’s attorney immediately appealed to a tame Fairfield judge, who obligingly overturned Hartford resident ZBA’s ruling on the basis - you guessed it -anti-Semitism!

    https://crownheights.info/chabad-news/41087/judge-slaps-city-for-anti-semitism-agianst-chabad/

    Ruling “...the city of Hartford cannot use its zoning rules to prevent a sect of Orthodox Jews from using a former church as their place of worship.” Reality. It was NEVER a “church” or “place of worship” (Baptist and RCs had separate churches). Firmly established by HZBA testimony.

    Result? Neighbors exit the area, selling their houses at a loss.

    Anti-Semitism? Pretend I’m a neighbor (I’m not) forced to sell my house at a loss to escape unzoned evangelical activity while labeled an anti-Semite. How should I feel? How should anti-Semitic HZBA commissioners feel? Thoughts?

    Well worth the wait as usual!

    Remember the 2002-03 smear campaign against France intended to extort a UNSC vote for war?

    Imagine Israel subject of such a campaign and boycott.

    Disparate influence of Jews in media; are you going for the financial influence next?

    In a manner, anti-Semitism is what anti-Semites say and do.

    Blood libel is no “hook” for today’s populace; same for the Protocols.

    But those poor put-upon Palestinians; let me rend my clothing.

    “Unique criticism”? Bullshit!

    Where were these weepy hand wringers when Egypt ran Gaza as “an open air prison”?

    The Ottomans, fellow co-religionists, ran the area for hundreds of years. Why no independent Palestine?

    In 1947-1948, they were being given a “state” just like the Jews and the Lebanese, but their Arab “brothers” turned it down on their behalf. If you let other people make your bed for you, “Shut up and try to get some sleep”!

    Which peoples have moved into non-populated areas and set up shop; maybe the Australian Aborigines, the first wave of Siberians in the New World?

    If history is anything it is a record of group conflict over resources. Let’s not single out Israel as an exception when they are, in fact, the rule.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus
    Iffen

    “Disparate influence of Jews in media; are you going for the financial influence next?

    You rebuke me for an accusation never made, subjects never mentioned. Am I missing something (possible)?

    The ‘02-03 France campaign was mentioned to contest Israel as sole victim of prejudice (your assertion: “The criticism is unique to Israel...”). Never accused Israel of authorship. Defensive?

    Slurs of France were orchestrated by Americans, including many in Congress (“freedom-fries”). Names like Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Rummy come to mind. Coordinated by Andy Card and the special White House Iraq group (Karl Rove, etc: formed September ‘02). They had a problem. Chirac wouldn’t agree to endorse a war Bush decided to launch months prior (inspections or no inspections). Answer? Discredit and marginalize France (and Germany).

    Media leaders? Fox News, owned by an Australian-American WASP. Prime time salesman? Hannity and O’Reilly (the latter with his very own ‘Boycott France’ bumper stickers). Neither Jewish. Moonie Bill Gertz, Washington Times ‘security’ expert asserted Saddam was larking about Europe on a EU passport supplied by France. And so on.

    “...weepy hand wringers... poor put-upon Palestinians; let me rend my clothing...The Ottomans...no independent Palestine...given a “state”...moved into non-populated areas and set up shop...”

    Where are you going with all of that? Do you actually know any Palestinians? True, they’re routinely used to demonize Israel. By those who know none. You counter with disdain (hatred?). What’s next? Will it solve anything?

    “Blood libel is no “hook” for today’s populace; same for the Protocols.”

    Not sure what you mean. My point was Holocaust denial and the Israel versus Palestinian meme are merely new excuses for hatred that’s been going on for millennia.

    “Let’s not single out Israel as an exception when they are, in fact, the rule.”

    Not sure what that means either. Where did I “single out Israel as an exception” (or anything else for that matter). “The rule”? Are you saying Israel is the only victim of unjust press and prejudice? Irrational bias against Blacks, Muslims, Irish, French, Sikhs, -you name it - doesn’t exist? Or only anti-Israel bigotry counts?

    Give me a hint iffen.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @Incitatus
    “The “Protocols” ARE a blueprint for world domination.”

    The ‘Protocols’, from what little I could read without gaging, is an outragious screed attractive only to those with irrational hate and those seeking an easy explanation for their own failure.

    “It is curious that this supposed “forgery” has so much “staying power””

    Not at all. Screeds absolving individual failure have universal and timeless currency. Amazing it’s not Amazon Number 1!

    “Read it for yourselves. [sic]”

    Indeed I did, for the few pages I could stomach.

    “Henry Ford KNEW and exposed the TRUTH.”

    Ford was a brilliant man. I admire him. No question. But we all have our blind spots. ‘Protocols’ was his Edsel.

    Regardless of their pedigree, the Protocols are an accurate depiction of organized Jewry’s objectives and methods. Hence the tendency to regard them as authentic.

    Historical hostility to Jews can be explained as a normal reaction by non-Jews to collective Jewish behavior, not “irrational Jew hatred” as you always claim.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. Sam Shama says:
    @Seraphim
    Nietzsche was contrasting the 'psychological madness' of the 'fanatics, possessed, religious epileptics - reference to Jesus, St. Paul, Pascal -, eccentrics' , which came from a deficiency of vital powers in sick people, with the 'philosophical madness' which came from an overabundance of vital powers, love, enthusiasm, characteristic to superior people like himself 'stronger, more superhuman, more terrible, wiser'. Actually, delusions of grandeur characteristic of bipolar disorder, of which Nietzsche was affected too.
    Of course the madness of Zarathustra-Nietzsche had little to do with the divine gift of 'mania' of the Greeks.

    Which is in substance quite clearly different from being merely mentally incapacitated, therefore inconsequential (or destructive?) It is also, therefore, from your side of the debate, a concession of his scintillating insights, of the breathtakingly original ideas consequent to madness, real or contrived, not to mention the delightful prose. He is saying we view the world with eyes wide shut and it takes a madman in his time to break the reverie.

    Of course one may disagree with him, vehemently even, but to say he was merely a confused madman would be to miss the towering genius. That would be a pity.

    As I said before, do read Daybreak. “Madness” gets the full attention in it. I do not declare full comprehension of all things he wrote, or what on earth he implied in some of his more obscure soliloquies until I have read them thrice, which at this moment I cannot claim, only the speed-reading I usually apply to philosophical works.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    The trouble with the 'scintillating insights' of Nietzsche in respect to Christianity is that they were in no way 'breathtakingly original ideas', but the regurgitation of the anti-Christian arguments of David Strauss whose 'Das Leben Jesu' ("the most pestilential book ever vomited out of the jaws of hell"), he read at the time when he was preparing to become a minister and made him to 'lose his faith' and abandon theological studies.
    And I am reluctant to equate incomprehensible obscurities remaining obscure even after a third reading (an elegant way to describe his confused blathering), with 'scintillating insights'. He was possessed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. Sam Shama says:
    @annamaria
    Yes, that was a typo. And you, Sir, have shown yourself, in several of your posts, a bad-mannered commenter, notwithstanding your supposedly sublime verbal flourishes. I will leave you to ponder the obvious implications of the weakness of your character, which are shining through the pettiness of your behavior. Let me suggest that you have already heard this kind of words from others, including females.

    Let’s bury the hatchet, shall we? I do nevertheless wish to get a fuller understanding, your very own exposition as it were, of two small matters I’ve been meaning to ask for your clarification:

    1. When you say, as you have on numerous occasions, “low IQ middle easterners flooding the West”, or words to that effect, do you imply you’ve set aside empathy and the spirit of social justice selectively to sound an alarm which blares with a certainty matched by none save zealots? No need to paste links on IQ, I am more than familiar with the concept and the literature. It’s crystal clear in my memory that you once considered IQ’s contribution marginal, or was that a fraudulent claim? Or is it that you wish nothing better than “low IQ Muslims” be consigned as a problem exclusively for Israel to solve? Don’t be shy. Write your heart out as only the new suffragette can be expected to.

    2. Write a paragraph or two about the little gem of a sentence you avoided comment on. I reprint it here.

    This one, written by your fellow-in-crusade:

    But anti-Semitism is merely antipathy towards Jews. Nothing more. And sometimes a little antipathy is a very good thing. Indeed, sometimes ‘anti-Semitism’ is richly-deserved and sorely needed.

    Remember, your own words, not links.

    Best of luck

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art

    But anti-Semitism is merely antipathy towards Jews. Nothing more. And sometimes a little antipathy is a very good thing. Indeed, sometimes ‘anti-Semitism’ is richly-deserved and sorely needed.
     
    Antipathy --- a deep-seated feeling of dislike and aversion that may lead to hate.


    The current antipathy for the Jew tribe is not a new thing. 109 times in human history Jews have been expelled from cities or states. (pre-Christ also.)


    It seems that it is natural to dislike Jews. All those peoples in different places and different times cannot be wrong.


    It appears that Jews go into prosperous societies and in a parasitic manner, take them over – killing the host culture. For this they become hated and are expelled.


    What the Jews have done to America and the Western democracies is a sin against humanity – end of story.

    It appears that over thousands of years, that the Jews refuse to learn and change – they cling to their parasitic destructive ways. How sad.


    Worldwide, the natural human antipathy for them grows.


    Peace --- Art
    , @annamaria
    1. Don't twist my words. The mentioning of low IQ in my posts was alway linked to sub-Saharan Africans.
    2. I am not interested in the suggested topic. In my book, there are good people and bad people, whatever their ethnicity, gender, cultural background and so forth. The point 1.) is an unfortunate fact of life, which does not exclude the presence of ether good heart or decency in those living in Africa.
    3. Frankly, I find it ... unhealthy that you are trying to communicate with me in a supposedly normal way, while such way does not exist anymore because of the certain traits of your character.
    Healthy cognitive functioning is supported by heathy emotional reasoning. This is not your case.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. Sam Shama says:
    @iffen
    their ample proboscises

    Anti-Semite!

    LOL. You got me!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Art says:
    @Sam Shama
    Let's bury the hatchet, shall we? I do nevertheless wish to get a fuller understanding, your very own exposition as it were, of two small matters I've been meaning to ask for your clarification:

    1. When you say, as you have on numerous occasions, "low IQ middle easterners flooding the West", or words to that effect, do you imply you've set aside empathy and the spirit of social justice selectively to sound an alarm which blares with a certainty matched by none save zealots? No need to paste links on IQ, I am more than familiar with the concept and the literature. It's crystal clear in my memory that you once considered IQ's contribution marginal, or was that a fraudulent claim? Or is it that you wish nothing better than "low IQ Muslims" be consigned as a problem exclusively for Israel to solve? Don't be shy. Write your heart out as only the new suffragette can be expected to.

    2. Write a paragraph or two about the little gem of a sentence you avoided comment on. I reprint it here.

    This one, written by your fellow-in-crusade:

    But anti-Semitism is merely antipathy towards Jews. Nothing more. And sometimes a little antipathy is a very good thing. Indeed, sometimes ‘anti-Semitism’ is richly-deserved and sorely needed.

    Remember, your own words, not links.

    Best of luck

    But anti-Semitism is merely antipathy towards Jews. Nothing more. And sometimes a little antipathy is a very good thing. Indeed, sometimes ‘anti-Semitism’ is richly-deserved and sorely needed.

    Antipathy — a deep-seated feeling of dislike and aversion that may lead to hate.

    The current antipathy for the Jew tribe is not a new thing. 109 times in human history Jews have been expelled from cities or states. (pre-Christ also.)

    It seems that it is natural to dislike Jews. All those peoples in different places and different times cannot be wrong.

    It appears that Jews go into prosperous societies and in a parasitic manner, take them over – killing the host culture. For this they become hated and are expelled.

    What the Jews have done to America and the Western democracies is a sin against humanity – end of story.

    It appears that over thousands of years, that the Jews refuse to learn and change – they cling to their parasitic destructive ways. How sad.

    Worldwide, the natural human antipathy for them grows.

    Peace — Art

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. Art says:
    @iffen
    Cultural Christian, philosophical Christian. Atheist Christian?

    How about once removed Christians, Arts?

    Cultural Christian, philosophical Christian. Atheist Christian?

    How about once removed Christians, Arts?

    Christianity is more than the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection. It is also the words said by Jesus in the three years before his murder that have changed humanity. For sure, Jesus thought of himself as a religious figure. For sure people have thought of him as a religious figure. But he also set forth a new way of thinking – a new mindset about human interaction – he gave us a new philosophy for living. The legacy of that philosophy is Western culture.

    The fundamentals of that philosophy are a set of ideals – live with hope – treat life as sacred – love you neighbor – seek the truth – forgive the past – extend grace to everyone.

    Acted on all together – that set of ideals is the engine of progress that we call Western culture.

    Whether one thinks of Jesus as the son of god – or not — every human being alive, should love Jesus for bringing forth those ideals. What freedom and prosperity we enjoy today flows from his words.

    Peace — Art

    Read More
    • Replies: @alexander
    Hi Art,

    Let us not forget...

    Jesus also said he was the TRUTH, ....and the WAY.

    By implication it meant( and "means" ) that all those who LIE, DECEIVE, and DEFRAUD should be cast "aside".....because they are duplicitous and EVIL.

    No ?

    Certainly , in the eyes of Jesus, every "single" individual responsible for "lying" us into the catastrophic IRAQ WAR, would be, without a DOUBT, recognized ,as a total ABOMINATION.... to God , humanity, and all of human decency....

    the very definition of "human evil".

    Had our country , and its representatives, ever retained a mere "ounce" of moral integrity , these "defrauders" would all be in federal prison today, and all their assets would have seized ....long ago.

    Wouldn't you agree ?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Seraphim says:
    @Sam Shama
    Which is in substance quite clearly different from being merely mentally incapacitated, therefore inconsequential (or destructive?) It is also, therefore, from your side of the debate, a concession of his scintillating insights, of the breathtakingly original ideas consequent to madness, real or contrived, not to mention the delightful prose. He is saying we view the world with eyes wide shut and it takes a madman in his time to break the reverie.

    Of course one may disagree with him, vehemently even, but to say he was merely a confused madman would be to miss the towering genius. That would be a pity.

    As I said before, do read Daybreak. "Madness" gets the full attention in it. I do not declare full comprehension of all things he wrote, or what on earth he implied in some of his more obscure soliloquies until I have read them thrice, which at this moment I cannot claim, only the speed-reading I usually apply to philosophical works.

    The trouble with the ‘scintillating insights’ of Nietzsche in respect to Christianity is that they were in no way ‘breathtakingly original ideas’, but the regurgitation of the anti-Christian arguments of David Strauss whose ‘Das Leben Jesu’ (“the most pestilential book ever vomited out of the jaws of hell”), he read at the time when he was preparing to become a minister and made him to ‘lose his faith’ and abandon theological studies.
    And I am reluctant to equate incomprehensible obscurities remaining obscure even after a third reading (an elegant way to describe his confused blathering), with ‘scintillating insights’. He was possessed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    That is not what I said at all. I haven't read all of it thrice. But Daybreak I have. Ecce Homo as well. Antichrist no. It appears implicit in your claims that you are in possession of Truth. So be it. :-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Incitatus says:
    @Sam Shama
    Hi Incitatus,

    I was about to propose, subject to your patience, of course, a set of conditions appropriate for the topic at hand; which when I wrote initially, I thought rather convincing, only to realise upon a second read merely clever, even commonplace, though not rising to the charge of glib. None of it was a defense of laws intended to retrench free speech, however.

    So permit me to dispense with any surfeit of dancing around the motion. I think it an unqualified error, indeed the thin end of the wedge, to craft such laws as would limit the expression of ideas, good and bad, which in any case reside in the domain of our thoughts making them immune to intervention. They shall be written, spoken, or shouted; sublime, practical, or abhorrent. It matters not in which form they find an audience; nor if that audience: intended, just in passing, or accidental, finds the material execrable.

    For speech inharmonious to one's values or beliefs can be simply avoided (may I suggest earplugs or a holiday away from the internet) and if unavoidable, accepted as the eminently worthy purchase which founds a cornerstone of our free society. It is the cornerstone if removed, presents to the public a slippery slope from which I fear we may never succeed the climb back to civilisation.

    Better still, offensive speech is best dealt with through exposure to full ridicule, as you write. I’d bet on it as well.

    There are those who remind me of rights and limits. They tell me your right to throw a fist toward my face is limited; that it is required to stop at a distance comfortably distant. To them, I say speech is not the fist, while earplugs and averting the screen are personal remedies never unavailable. Those are your safe spaces, look no further, ask for no more.

    On the question of Israel and the Palestinians, I confess I am torn. I grew up fervently clinging to the belief that the State shall absorb the returning children of Abraham. But that was an idea rather fragile, speak of it, and it vanishes. The populations grow more radical each passing day, and one is faced with a reality, which if ignored leads either to widespread suffering or complete devastation. On the edges of this gathering storm, one treats the complex problem through the only means visible: a scheme of financial compensation for the dispossessed. And a state for the Pals. Land swaps and relocations. Who knows? Easier said than done.

    Speaking of Israeli politicians, couldn't agree more. For a time I thought Bennet was innovative and something of a visionary when he established a wide-ranging economic plan for several Palestinian model communities in the WB. Then he paused, and from what I hear he claims BDS the culprit. I admit I am not in possession of the full facts. Shaked, I might have called a termagant if she weren't one of those women whose blood can run both hot and icy-cold. Mostly, it is the latter condition which defines her disposition, which is to say she is entirely bereft of emotions normal h.sapiens is rumoured to possess.

    Protocols of Zion, I have not read and going by your account, the urge to shower after reading it tempts me indeed; for I can take as many showers as needed (I like showers) if it indeed contains the blueprint for world domination. I've felt that calling from my salad days at the old alma mater :-)). Speaking of which, not a bit surprised you were treated to that odd little surprise on account of the views of your friend. Even (or, especially?) the halls of All Souls, let alone others not automatically fellows, are prowled by the occasional beast.

    On the Chabad Chevra story. Once again I am not a bit surprised. I detest these in-flocking penguins. Always turning numerous when one is spotted, rarely pleasant and mostly dumb in a cunning sort of way. They never see beyond their ample proboscises. I passionately believe in restricting them to certain neighbourhoods. I could tell you where I live - an area about 30% Jewish - we have successfully thwarted at least two potential invasions. In short, I have no love lost for these creatures and it doesn't take me much to come to loggerheads with them. I can never forget that day when a female cousin and I, walking through a particular neighbourhood in Jerusalem were greeted with a hail of pebbles and stones. Our crime? We were wearing summer-appropriate clothes!

    In closing, I wonder and certainly hope I've been clear. A small query. Am I wrong to have sensed that in the case of Germany, given their history you are -minimally perhaps - ambivalent about their hate speech laws?

    Best

    Great post Sam,

    “I think it an unqualified error, indeed the thin end of the wedge, to craft such laws as would limit the expression of ideas, good and bad…”

    I agree. Free speech – like overturning rocks – invites unpleasant discovery. Don’t like it, but that’s the price of early warning. Better to know about cancer than to let it spread undetected and unchallenged.

    “For speech inharmonious to one’s values or beliefs can be simply avoided (may I suggest earplugs or a holiday away from the internet)…”

    Well said. Speech would be radically different if authors responded face-to-face. The web aids fantasy and abets bland existence by offering easy, anonymous avenues to vent acrimony. When does self-delusion cross the line, take out a weapon or strap on a bomb, and attack others? The question of our age.

    “Speaking of Israeli politicians…”

    Israeli media, to it’s great credit, presents full spectrum analysis. It’s missing in the US. Don’t know why. Dissent can be a healthy balance. I suppose in this case it could easily be used by those who seek new avenues to scourge a favorite demon. Bennet and Shaked? With their rhetoric, they’re firmly in the media spotlight. Aryeh Deri, on the other hand, seems unique.

    Consolation? US seems much more corrupt in the unspoken nexus between media, politicians, and corporations. Most would no doubt put Israel to shame.

    “Israel and the Palestinians…populations grow more radical each passing day, and one is faced with a reality, which if ignored leads either to widespread suffering or complete devastation. On the edges of this gathering storm, one treats the complex problem through the only means visible: a scheme of financial compensation for the dispossessed. And a state for the Pals. Land swaps and relocations. Who knows? Easier said than done.”

    I’m equally unsure. There’s no easy answer, no magic agenda. Neutral pragmatist that can tote up proposals and make counteroffers until the both sides agree? No candidate comes to mind, sad to say. Wish it did (for both sides).

    “Protocols of Zion…”

    You’re a better man than me, Sam. Probably wise to read it, since it still seems ever popular with a tiny number of readers. Hope you have the fortitude to get through the whole thing. I couldn’t. Like crude pornography, the ‘plot’ was pretty clear by page two (as was the need for disengaged cleansing).

    “Chabad Chevra story…”

    My intent was to only highlight the danger of phony anti-Semitism labels. I attended the initial hearing and know principles. Chabad Chevra wasn’t at all acrimonious or unpleasant. Almost seemed they knew their zoning case was bogus. Testimony was groundwork to subsequent lawsuits filed to overcome adverse judgment. They had an excellent lawyer (doing exactly what he should do). After all, zoning is a routine target for all manner of special interests.

    The Fairfield judge’s reversal on the grounds of ‘anti-Semitism’ was surprising. No HZBA commissioner was aware of any legal activity. None were called to give testimony. It was announced as a done deal months later, tainting them as bigots and hate-mongers. The judge could have cited of civil rights, religious practice, etc? Instead? ”Anti-Semitism.” Nothing I witnessed was derogatory in any respect. That’s what was surprising.

    Anti-Semitism is a genuine problem. The judge trivialized it when she manufactured radioactive nonsense to vacate a civil decision without citing any offending testimony or higher principle. That’s the warning.

    I take heart at your frustration with Chabad. Be of good cheer. Patience with the ‘Knights of Columbus’ is only compensated by viewing ridiculous costumes they willingly embrace. That said, I’m sure many are worthy of faith. No less with Chabad Chevra. We are all blind men trying to find our way.

    “…in the case of Germany, given their history you are -minimally perhaps – ambivalent about their hate speech laws?”

    I realized after publishing I wasn’t concise. Here’s what I think. If Ursula Haverbec was American, I’d resist her arrest, conviction, and imprisonment. But she’s German, with a long history of hawking incendiary ideology knowing the penalties. In her case I trust Germans to determine proper judgment. As far as I’m concerned, they did.

    Best

    Read More
    • Disagree: anarchyst
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Hi Incitatus,
    I thank you for the kind words of assent, and, as has been the custom, you've added balance to some of my less than subtle ventings. :-))

    Cheers
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter